The Spectrum Blog

Kenneth Newport Explains the Flames of Waco

By David R. Larson

Photo by Bronwen Larson

The Branch Davidians themselves intentionally lit the fires that burned Mount Carmel to the ground near Waco, Texas, taking with them the lives of David Koresh, their leader, plus more than seventy others, contended Kenneth G. C. Newport in Loma Linda, California on Wednesday evening, November 14.  What’s more, he contended, they did this because they believed that this is what Scripture wanted them to do.

“Did the biblical text inspire this act of apocalyptic self-destruction?” he asked.  “I think it did, or at least I think that there was a direct relationship between the texts, what the Branch Davidians thought those texts meant, and what happened on April 19, 1993.”

Newport described himself as an academic administrator at Hope Liverpool University College in England and a priest in the Church of England who used to be a Seventh-day Adventist teacher in the religion departments of Newbold College, not far from London, and the denomination’s college in Hong Kong.  Before assuming his present position he earned a doctorate in New Testament at Oxford University and taught at several other universities in the United Kingdom.

This event at the Loma Linda University Campus Hill Church was the first in what will be an annual series of lectures on “Adventism and the World.”  Initiated and organized by Julius Nam, a church historian at LLU, these lectures are sponsored by the University’s School of Religion.

Newport supported his claim that the Branch Davidians ignited the fires by reviewing some of the forensic evidence.  This includes video tapes, audio recordings by “bugs” that had been implanted in the compound, much physical evidence, such as 39 fuel containers that had been purposefully punctured near the spots where it is believed that each of three fires began, the reports of those who investigated Mount Carmel after the flames had burned themselves out, and the testimony of the survivors and officers who were actually there.  His conclusion, stated in the typical understatement of an English scholar:  “One might find it difficult not to conclude that the fire was started by the Davidians themselves.”

He advanced his assertion that the Branch Davidians did this for theological reasons by reviewing their developing views about the religious significance of fire.  Victor Houteff, the founder of the offshoot from Seventh-day Adventism that after several decades and many twists and turns eventuated in the Branch Davidians, held that in an end-time battle over Jerusalem God’s true people “would be protected by God as ‘a wall of fire.’”  Lois Roden, fourth in succession after Houteff’s wife Florence and her husband Ben, taught that before the establishment of God’s kingdom “the remnant would be baptized by fire.”  This baptism, she explained, “will be literal and ‘by immersion.’”

Vernon Howell, known to the world as David Koresh, was a sexual partner of Lois Roden when she was three times his age.  He succeeded her following her death and an intense struggle with her son George, who would later die in an insane asylum.   He also made his contribution to the developing “theology of fire.”  In his “sermons,” some of which were recorded, he spoke of a short term of severe testing before the arrival of “the 200 million strong avenging army to drive the wicked from the world.”  The followers should expect death but “in that second or two before death there will be a moment of absolute, pure faith and it is this that will guarantee a glorious resurrection.” 

Steven Schneider, Koresh’s lieutenant, who in the flames would shoot him in the head from the side and back before stuffing a gun into his own mouth and pulling the trigger, went even further.  Those who would be resurrected will be “as eschatological warriors riding upon horseback—in fact they would come back as the avenging army of God spoken of in Revelation 9:  15-18.”  “You always wanted to be a charcoal briquette” Schneider comments to a colleague in one of the recordings.

In my response to Newport’s presentation, I indicated that his evidence convinces me that the Branch Davidians ignited the flames and that they did so for theological reasons.  I expressed doubt as to whether their beliefs are enough to account for what went wrong, however.  I reported my view that Waco’s horrors were caused by a convergence of very serious theological, psychological and ethical pathologies on both sides of the conflict, the Branch Davidians, on the one hand, and the representatives of the government, on the other.  I indicated my doubt “that by itself their reading of these [Biblical] texts would have caused the Branch Davidians to lite the fires.” 

If only theological considerations mattered, and if Adventist and Branch Davidian beliefs differed primarily in degree, if in effect we can picture David Koresh and Ellen White holding hands, why is it that so few SDAs (less than .00001%) were attracted to the Branch Davidians? I wondered.

I think this issue deserves emphasis.  If we have 10 million brown dogs with normal temperaments and 100 brown dogs with dangerously vicious ones, I doubt that we will try to figure out why their dispositions differ by pointing out that they are all brown.  In effect this is what Newport tries to accomplish.  But it is notoriously difficult to explain why things are different by pointing out how much they are the same.  Furthermore, in the case under consideration the two groups of dogs aren’t even the same color!

In the question and answer time, the audience asked if any Branch Davidians still exist (Yes); whether pathologies actually contributed to what went wrong (Me: Yes; Newport: It’s difficult to know.); whether the beliefs of Adventists and Branch Davidians and Adventists differed in degree or kind (Newport degree; Me: Kind, as evidenced by their diametrically opposed stances on the use of guns and other military weapons in civilian life); and whether the conclusions of Newport and me differed that much (Newport:  Silence;  Me:  That depends upon whether Newport thinks that the beliefs of the Branch Davidians are sufficient to account for what went wrong.).

Questions also surfaced about why Newport left Adventism for the Church of England (“I could no longer teach what I didn’t believe.”); whether Ellen White functions for SDAs like Koresh did for the Branch Davidians (Newport:  Yes;  Me:  No); and whether Adventism as a whole suffers from the pathologies that beset both the Branch Davidians and the government’s representatives (Newport: Silence;  Me:  In every denomination, even the Church of England, there are scary and sick people but this is not true of any community of faith as a whole.).

In addition to being the world’s foremost scholar on Waco, Newport is an accomplished specialist in the life and teachings of Charles Wesley who was born 300 years ago.  Therefore, just before the end of the evening’s event, in gratitude to Kenneth Newport, memory of Charles Wesley and praise to God, the congregation stood and sang one of Wesley’s most cherished hymns:

Love divine, all loves excelling,
Joy of heaven to earth come down;
Fix in us thy humble dwelling;
All thy faithful mercies crown!
Jesus, Thou art all compassion,
Pure unbounded love Thou art;
Visit us with Thy salvation;
Enter every trembling heart!

Julius Nam prayed the Benediction and wished us all the very best.         

Paulsen visits Cuba

From Adventist News Network:

A recently retired pastor, Alvarez was given a hero's welcome for his contribution to a Seventh-day Adventist congregation, which on Sunday, November 4, officially dedicated a new church. Once a political advisor to the leaders of the Cuban revolution, Alvarez returned to celebrate a victory of God in a town at the foothills of Sierra Maestra Mountains in Southeastern Cuba.

[snip]

Speaking at the opening session of the IAD meeting, Paulsen recognized the church's "strong focus on mission." He also emphasized the church's need to "build strong communities and meet the world from a position of strength."

 He continued the theme of Adventist involvement in society when addressing a representation of the state and local government on Sunday. "We don't carry a political agenda. As a church, we are aware that while we are a spiritual community, we are committed to building society," he said.
 
Referring to "positive engagement in society," Paulsen added that Adventists "want to make a contribution to communities, and to make communities more secure."

I'm an Adventist because

By Alexander Carpenter

Why are you an Adventist?

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?   

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. 

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.)

On Growing Up Adventist in the Caribbean

By Matthew Hunte, our man in St. Lucia.

From what I hear, the Caribbean islands are pretty well known for their sun, sand and friendly locals; I’ll get around to checking out that scene one of these days. To be quite honest, I’ve lived what some would call a rather sheltered life, though as I’ve grown older, I realized that due to my quite introverted nature–-thank you Jonathan Rauch!–-I would have spent most of my time reading and writing anyway. However it occurred to me that I, with a penchant for over-analyzing, had never turned the lens inward on my own religious community/beliefs.

I should not pretend that the Adventist experience in the Caribbean is monolithic and that I’m in any position to provide an exhaustive account; I can only speak from my position as a middle class fourth-generation Adventist who grew up in a house containing too many books and who also has a possibly unhealthy fascination with Prince and those violent eighties cartoons. I also should add that while Transformers (2007) was underwhelming, I can’t honestly say I was disappointed since my expectations were low as they should be for any Michael Bay film. Sigh…

Outside of a general appreciation for androgynous, star-crossed musical geniuses, my other views aren’t absolute. However, I could honestly say that for the most part, I have thought through whatever position I hold at a given time exposing it to great scrutiny, which perhaps explains why my views are constantly in flux, that and the fact that I’m only in my early twenties. I could tell you at a given point what my political/economic/sports views were and explain why; not so with religion. I never got around to examining my own religious community–-and/or personal beliefs–-with the scrutiny I used on the other aspects of my life. Anyhow, shall we dance? (Figuratively speaking of course…) 

The dominant culture within Caribbean Adventism, as I’ve experienced it, is a proud conservatism. Indeed, the greatest compliment that could be paid is that you are steadfast and grounded in the Word. In case you’re wondering, this means strict Biblical Literalism, along with Biblical Inerrancy. In a sense, the use of these terms within the Caribbean context to describe these viewpoints is unnecessary because it presupposes that other viable positions may exist. Fundamentalism is essentially unchallenged, not only in the sense that dissenting views are quickly suppressed, but in that few people think that there is any other way.

There really isn’t much of a discernible intellectual culture within Adventist circles, outside of the pastors sprinkling some Greek into their sermons. However, this could possibly be explained as a reflection of wider Caribbean culture. This is partially due to having a poor and for the most part uneducated population, in addition to the insularity which results from coming from such small places; none of this is unique to Adventism. Thus, one could assume that attending college would be a way for me to be exposed to a whole different side of the church culture.

However, during my time at what was then Caribbean Union College, now University of the Southern Caribbean, I came to seriously question the whole notion of an Adventist higher education. Throughout much of my time at CUC, I felt that much greater emphasis was being placed on getting me to worship services than getting me to think. Of course I was hardly a model student to begin with; home schooling must have wrecked my chances for success within a formal education system. At one particularly cringe inducing evening when there were so many other things happening in the world, we were having a public debate on whether or not women should be allowed to wear pants to class. Often I felt that the school was in its own sort of ivory tower, completely divorced from contemporary world.

To be fair, my rather un-illustrious tenure at CUC coincided with a particularly unstable period; I went through five different presidents during my four years and only once did I have the same president opening the school year and making the address at graduation. Nevertheless, there was a significant intellectual vacuum which seemed deeply embedded within the culture of the institution. Perhaps this was because part of the school’s culture which explicitly saw itself as preparation for service; the few of us who studied the liberal arts, often less than fifteen majoring in English or History at any time out of a population which was then around nine hundred, were either pariahs or simply invisible. (By the way Clifford Goldstein’s autobiography provided me with great solace while early in my collegiate career, I was trying to justify my existence as a student of literature. I figured he didn’t turn out too bad so there was still hope…) Nevertheless, though in many ways the school fit the profile of any other cash strapped liberal arts college, this sure wasn’t a Christian Bennington.

But this is not necessarily to state that CUC was a failure; what I’ve grown to suspect is that my goals and that of the institution were in dissonance. This was a school which was indifferent to intellectual development, not one which merely failed to live up to its pretensions.  To be sure, the majority of the student population was apathetic. However the plebes at the bottom could hardly bear the major responsibility in creating an environment conducive to intellectual discourse. During my erstwhile tenure as editor of the school newspaper, I was explicitly informed not to contact the most successful editor in the publication's history since he was said to not have had the institutions best interest at heart. This stems from the paper having run a story dealing with the Folkenberg affair, which lead to an editorial committee being established and the paper being censored until it wilted.

I often used to quip that if anyone in the theology department made any significant discovery, they would by definition be placing their continued employment in doubt. There were relatively few public lectures, book readings or anything of that. I am still not sure whether or not this was simply due to there being no firm leadership during my attendance, whether it is something unique to the institution I attended or if this is endemic within Adventist higher education. (There has been a major spike in enrollment at USC recently with the student population now twenty-six thousand. There has also been the establishment of a scholarly journal and greater engagement with the society with the hosting of a crime symposium for example. Too late for me but still…)

From where I stand, there is little room for dissent within the Adventist community; my growing interest in Bishop Spong wouldn’t gain me any favors among the few who know who he is. (I remember hearing some guy in college complaining about that heretic Richard Rice.) I wouldn’t venture to state that mine is the authentic Caribbean Adventist experience though I suspect that any difference in experience is rooted mainly in my reaction to it. In the mean time, I’m torn between my commitment to intellectual pursuit and a deeper connection to a community which I can’t shake despite my fiercely individualistic nature. So I’m not quite sure where I stand, except that I’m stuck out here on an island.

A hope for Adventist rebels and worriers

By Alexander Carpenter

It looks like the discussion over Adventist sectiness vs. denominationalism prompted by Gary Land's review of Seeking the Sanctuary is already going down the same old track between the worriers and the rebels. The worriers rightly fret that loss of distinctiveness makes Adventism meaningless, while the rebels hang around the self-aware contingent edge smugly smiling at exclusionary ideas like remnant or unique. They hurl "sect" and the worriers only wish it were more true.

In fact, the worriers see everyone who leaves as not having enough faith or moral fortitude or devotional discipline or doctrinal insight to see the light while the rebels wander down to the cave (or pop into a forum or blog) trying to prove that this is all shadows, the real light is outside. Of course this is a classic oversimplified binary (do you smell another dialectical synthesis coming?), but frankly we've got to get beyond this tired trope of the intellectually smug vs. the doctrinally secure.

In fact, there are rebellious worriers (like Cliff Goldstein) who remember the emptiness of pure contingency and tint their arguments for uniqueness with smugness and there are clearly worrywart rebels (some in the Spectrum community) who spend a lot of their valuable time caring about a denomination that they don't  much care for.

Mad good Adventist props if you already know this, but it's been the week of prayer with the Review featuring the usual top down slew of "encouraging" articles on hope.

Well, I've got a hope that includes more than a multi-roomed mansion in heaven. I hope for a better Adventist conversation.

We need to stop arguing over the importance of doctrines and start importing them into our globalized 21st century world. This goes beyond deconstruction or apologetics and gets at movement-building and the creation of meaning. A belief is not true or untrue according to this or that list of texts or historical significance, it is true to humans when it has meaning and to have meaning it must apply to life. Why does this sort of reapplication make me hopeful? Because no institution or person controls all the contexts of human life -- although everyone tries.

Let me offer an example: the Adventist ideal of conscientious objection. Traditionally this has applied to war. And as people like Ron Osborn and Doug Morgan have pointed out, this attempt to balance the responsibilities for safety and peace has waxed and waned through Adventist history around the world. But in a globalized world perhaps we can expand on the notion of conscientious objection. What is it rooted in? The individual conscience. So, here have a denomination telling it's laity to follow their conscience. That's actually pretty radical stuff, especially given the history of tens of thousands of splits in Christendom over matters of conscience.

But Glacial View destroyed the conscience-driven hope of many worriers and rebels. I'm glad that Bull and Lockhart devote time to Glacier View and the self-supporting movement because I think that both help us to find common ground for the future. That's what lies behind the sad legacy of Glacier View. The powerful (and people we paid and trust) used their institutional clout to control conscience, especially in the one place (a college) where ideas should be sorted out. And that also parallels what lies behind the interesting rise of the self-supporting movement during the same time. Rebels worried (and joined a forum chapter and took up drinking wine) and worriers rebelled (and joined a home church playing Countdown videos and took up drinking wheat grass). What drove both was the the growing sense of a more muscular GENERAL CONFERENCE that threated individual creative theological expression. 

Of course most Adventists didn't really care. They paid their tithe, sent their children to Adventist schools, used the word "balance" toward the end of Sabbath School lesson discussions each week, and reflected with the Review.  The conscientious objectors were both on the outside.

But let's face it, if you visit the Spectrum Blog and are still a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church you probably shuttle between worry and rebellion. I sure do. I worry about us losing our sectiness and our whatever intellectual honesty. The Advent movement should not become another centrally controlled denomination nor should be devolve into a meaningless mishmash of charismatic pastors or national churches. Comparing Seeking a Sanctuary and "Words of Hope," I think that the biggest thing missing from our paid leaders is a vision for the future of Adventism. They want to assure of salvation and cheer us up rather than engage in the tough work for exciting our ethical imagination.

What's always made Adventism interesting it's part mainline, part evangelical, slightly fundamentalist, part historic peace, a little Catholic, and in part a religion of the American 19th century and now a bit emergent.  I would hope that as we pick leaders for the future, we find men and women with a vision for what it means to be an Adventist in the 21st century.

But it's not just them. It's the laypeople too. And I for one find mission in the dream of an Adventism translating its values into just action for humanity. A faith that addresses the environmental, economic, ethnic, sexual, gender, religious liberty realities gets us beyond worrying and rebelling over sectiness and moving forward as a movement.

This will take a lot of trust in humanity and even more faith in God. Perhaps too much. But I do have this hope. And I'm sticking around to do my part.

Review of Seeking a Sanctuary: Seventh-day Adventism and the American Dream

By Alexander Carpenter

As many of you know the annual Adventist Forum conference is this weekend in Santa Rosa, California. This year's featured guests are Malcolm Bull and Keith Lockhart, the authors of the best history of Adventism, Seeking a Sanctuary: Seventh-day Adventism and the American Dream, which was recently expanded and republished.

Thanks to Daneen Akers we have a review of it by the Adventist historian of ideas, Gary Land, the man who introduced me to Jacques Ellul.
__________________

Review of Seeking a Sanctuary: Seventh-day Adventism and the American Dream, 2nd Edition by Malcolm Bull and Keith Lockhart,
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2007
498 pp., paper $29.95.

By Gary Land

When published in 1989, the first edition of Seeking a Sanctuary established itself as the best available study of American Seventh-day Adventism.  Now updated and enlarged, the volume remains the foremost work on this denomination.  Combining historical, sociological, and cultural studies methodologies, Malcolm Bull and Keith Lockhart, respectively a teacher at Oxford University and a London-based journalist, offer a readable and penetrating analysis that is indispensable to both scholars and general readers wanting to understand Adventism.  For Adventists themselves, it offers a sympathetic outsider's perspective that increases self-awareness.

The authors argue two intertwined theses.  First, as indicated by their title and subtitle, they believe that Adventism provides an alternative means of achieving the American dream of spiritual fulfillment and material progress.  Second, they dispute the interpretation put forward by scholars both within and outside the denomination that Adventism is in the process of transforming from a sect into a denomination; in contrast, they believe that it remains a sect. 

In presenting these arguments, the authors divide their book into three parts.  The first, "Adventist Theology," addresses authority, identity, eschatology, and the sanctuary doctrine.  Although they do not use the term, the authors see several dialectics at work in Adventist theology:  the Bible as the source of Adventist belief over against Ellen White as the final interpreter of the Bible, the hope for versus the delay in Christ's second coming, identity tied to specific beliefs in contrast with identity expressed through loyalty to denominational structure, and the Arian tendencies embedded in the Sanctuary Doctrine in conflict with the church's twentieth century Trinitarianism. 

Viewing these issues historically, Seeking a Sanctuary incorporates them into an almost Hegelian pattern:  the thesis of Adventist radicalism produced the antithesis of fundamentalism out of which came the synthesis of evangelicalism.  Interestingly, however, and in keeping with the argument that Adventism is not progressing to denominational status, as this synthesis became the new thesis, the antithesis that it produced was a return to fundamentalism rather than a step to a higher stage of development.

Part 2 examines "The Adventist Experience and the American Dream."  Here again we see some dialectics at work, beginning with the concept that in opposition to a flawed Republic, Adventism has developed an "alternative social system" (114).  Although the church originated in America, most of its growth is now taking place in other parts of the world; in its homeland the church is disproportionately female, old, black, and immigrant.   As health and family life (i.e. sexuality) lost their eschatological meaning and became ends in themselves, they became optional behaviors.  The church's orientation toward time as embodied in the Sabbath and the eschaton placed it in opposition to American society but also produced internal schisms and shapes artistic expression.  Contrasting Adventism with Mormonism, another indigenous American religion, the authors state, "In Adventism the American dream is reinterpreted, in Mormonism, Christianity is reinterpreted.  Adventists have become un-American in an effort to become more truly Christian.  Mormons have become un-Christian in order to become more American" (254).

In Part 3, the authors examine the "Adventist Subculture," including gender, race, ministry, medicine, education, and the self-supporting movement.  This portion of the book might be understood as a subset of Part 2, exploring in more detail important elements of this "alternative social system."  Again, a number of dialectics (I hope that I am not pushing this concept too far, but it is something that struck me when reading my notes before writing this review.)  Adventism, according to Bull and Lockhart, is a women's movement that goes against traditional male values; as a result men find entering into the church bureaucracy the only acceptable way to express their masculinity. 

Although Adventism represents the ethnic variety of American culture to a degree not found in other churches, it still practices segregation, most fully illustrated by regional conferences.  Ministers, who personify the Adventist response to the American nation, are often misunderstood and underappreciated by the laity and receive inadequate support, especially during personal crises, from their conferences.  The Adventist health system constitutes an alternative administrative and economic structurȩ for doctors and hospital administrators are the only church employees with the financial resources to successfully challenge clerical control.  Adventist education did not develop a distinctive philosophy until a couple of decades after the founding of Battle Creek College; today that philosophy may inform long-term goals as expressed in mission statements but has little influence on short-term operations, which are very similar to those of other schools. 

The ultimate dialectic, however, is that the most distinctive or pure expression of Adventist values appears in the self-supporting movement that exists outside the control of the institutional church.  But even this movement, the authors write, "which represents the ideal of egalitarian cooperation, has been promoted by the power of individual capital concentration, while mainstream Adventism, which espouses a set of values a little closer to the American ethos, is founded on centrally managed schemes of funding" (346). 

The authors' arguments are grounded in prodigious research, documented in nearly a hundred pages of notes.  Sources include nearly every imaginable type of work published by the denomination and independent publishers related to Adventism as well as those published by commercial and academic presses.  The bibliographical essay that closes the book helpfully sorts out and comments on the most helpful of these sources.

Compared to the first edition, there are some significant changes in the second.  In addition to updated statistical information and accounts of recent events such as the Branch Davidian tragedy and General Conference votes on the ordination of women, the authors have added a chapter on "The Ethics of Schism."   They have also revised their original chapter titles "Women" and "Blacks" to "Gender" and "Race," the latter change opening space for discussion of Hispanics and Asians as well as Blacks.  The visual appeal of the new edition is enhanced by the inclusion of several illustrations   There does not seem to be any major revision of the book's arguments, however.

Any book of this scope is bound to raise questions. Because the authors' discussion of the "revolving door" is primarily sociological, it does not address the role that theological disagreement has played since the 1980s in departures from the church.  Is there a connection between the grace orientation of those former Adventists for whom the magazine Proclamation! is published and rising social status?  Or is the issue truly theological?  Also, what is meant by the church?  Is it the official bureaucratic structure or the membership?  Although Bull and Lockhart are sensitive to this distinction, I have often wondered how many lay members really understand or deem important the inner workings of the sanctuary doctrine or the details of eschatology that appear in Adventist publications.

Finally, while I appreciate the reasons why the authors challenge the sect-to-denomination interpretation of Adventism, I am not fully convinced.  The very Adventist theologians, for example, who represent a return to fundamentalism appear to be aligned with the Evangelical Theological Society.  There is also evidence that Adventist scholars, in biblical studies as well as other fields, are increasingly writing for non-denominational publishers.  None of this belies Seeking a Sanctuary's thesis, but it does suggest that Adventism's trajectory may be moving in several directions at once.  These questions are minor at best and in no way lessen Bull and Lockhart's monumental achievement.  Hopefully, the appearance of this new edition will draw the attention of a new generation of readers and push scholars to more fully incorporate its interpretations into their studies of Seventh-day Adventism.   

…………………
Dr. Gary Land writes from Andrews University in Berrien Springs, MI where he is a professor of history and the chair of the Department of History and Political Science. His is the author of the Historical Dictionary of the Seventh-day Adventists and the editor of Growing up with Baseball: How We Loved and Played the Game. He is currently working on a biography of Uriah Smith.

Ready or not. . .yet perfect

By Pastor Jim Coffin

Seventh-day Adventists believe strongly in the soon return of Jesus. So strongly, in fact, that our denomination’s founders put the second-advent doctrine into the very name of our denomination. That’s why we call ourselves "Adventists."

But, as a whole, Seventh-day Adventists—especially the young—don’t look forward with eager anticipation to the second advent. And I would suggest that a major reason is that we don’t feel "ready."

Adventists talk a lot about "being ready" and "getting ready" for the coming of Jesus. But what does readiness entail?

Does it mean being perfect? Not if I understand my Bible correctly. We read in 1 John 1:8 (NIV): "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us."

Those are strong words—"deceive ourselves"…"the truth is not in us." And the text says nothing about any future point when those words won’t apply. It doesn’t say, "But before Jesus comes there’s going to be a group of people who will have it together so totally that they’ll be able to say they’re without sin."

Just in case the foregoing words aren’t strong enough, however, God, through the writer John, repeats and rephrases the statement a couple of verses later (1 John 1:10 NIV): "If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives."

Some might argue that John is here talking about claiming to have never, ever, ever sinned—but that it wouldn’t be inappropriate to claim that we haven’t sinned in, let’s say, the past twenty-four hours or the past two years. That would be acceptable. The problem comes only if we claim to have been perfect from square one.

Read the whole article over at the main Spectrum site.

We-writing the Adventist novel

By Alexander Carpenter

This Boston Globe review for the new Denis Johnson novel, Tree of Smoke, caught my eye because it contained the following paragraph.

The title of "Tree of Smoke" is from Scripture, and refers in part here to the vast map of information and possibility the Colonel keeps about the war - a cache of delusional theory that Skip has been indexing for his uncle for years. The dramatic tension of the novel belongs to this folie à deux. The Colonel is trying to run a double agent named Trung, a VC who has become disillusioned with the Marxist-Leninist strictures of the North Vietnamese; having proved himself complicit by staying silent during an off-the-books assassination, Skip spends half his time languishing at a hidden villa, waiting for further instruction. Given his virginal assumptions about God and country, it's fitting that Skip falls into a wartime liaison with Kathy Jones, a Seventh-day Adventist nurse whose husband's remains have just been found - theirs is the perfect mix of lust and despair, framing the tropical circle of hell to which they've both become accustomed.

A lusting and despairing Adventist life -- when's the last time that appeared in Adventist print?  But there's no doubt that it's a part of our story.

I'm intrigued when non-Adventist novelists -- others include Paul Theroux and David James Duncan -- create an Adventist character.  And it prompts the question: Who gets to determine who we are?  Doctrine writers, the General Conference in quinquennial session, academy principals, Sabbath School teachers, parents, the compilers of Messages to Young People, Adventist Review columnists, Adventist bloggers? 

Perhaps we need to expand our idea about Adventist witnessing. For, while there's power in the blood, there's also power in the blog.  As media continues to give wider voices to the demos, those institutions that encourage diverse definitions along with a shared sense of meaning will create a satisfying sense of community character (see this chapter on "Constructing Collective Identities" in Democratizing Global Media).

All too often the church leadership treats the church as a holding tank, keeping the saints preserved until the end. But that squanders our collective talents.  By officially telling women and homosexuals, and sometimes ethnic minorities that they are genetic second class citizens, the church writes fiction, dissembling about the reality of the human character.  Instead of a member-making mentality, the church should shift money and talent to the sanctification process, and turn short conversion testimonies into long, richly charactered Adventist novels.

Sabbath Listening: The People's Messiah

by Johnny A. Ramirez

Performed at Avondale College in Australia.

ADRA on Facebook

By Alexander Carpenter

If you have a Facebook account, check out who is joining the Adventist Development and Relief Agency cause group. And, of course, consider joining too.

Props to Norwegian Adventist Britt Celine, who started it all.

A Case for Indie Adventism

By Jared Wright, M.Div. student at La Sierra University.

Driving along I-5 between Mt. Shasta and the Oregon border on my way to visit the in-laws last week, I passed a large barn with a message to passers by: “State of Jefferson.”  I had heard talk of making two states out of California, and the writing on the roof piqued my interest.

In 1941, Gilbert Gable, the mayor of Port Orford, Oregon and some like-minded Northwesterners announced the formation of the State of Jefferson [http://www.jeffersonstate.com/] (part Northern California, part Southern Oregon), declaring that they would be seceding from California and Oregon every Thursday.  Yreka, California, would serve as the new state’s capitol.  Historians who have written about the Jefferson secession agree that the independence movement was part whimsy, part real.

Gable and citizens living near the California-Oregon border were fed up with state governments that dictated policy from afar, imposed taxes, and generally called the shots, while remaining grossly inattentive to the needs of the citizens.  Of particular concern was a lack of paved roads along the border region into the wilderness where timber and rich mineral deposits provided unlimited opportunity for economic development.  Repeated calls for aid from Sacramento met empty pledges of help that never arrived.

The secession movement found sympathy from residents of Curry, Josephine, Jackson, and Klamath counties in Oregon as well as Del Norte, Siskiyou, and Modoc counties in Northern California.  California residents of Lassen and Shasta counties added to the movement’s momentum, but Jefferson State met an untimely end.  Less than a week after the establishment of the State of Jefferson, Japanese bombers attacked Pearl Harbor putting an abrupt halt to the Jefferson “uprising.”

The spirit of Jefferson State lived on, however, and in the 1970s, talks of secession again rose among those who opposed majority rule - most being those living in Portland, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. 

Today, the stalwarts who sell T-shirts and bumper stickers sporting the Jefferson State logo (two X’s that stand for being double crossed) will tell you that Jefferson is primarily a State of Mind, albeit one with a lingering core of supporters.

I find myself sympathizing with the Jefferson people, because I have experienced being part of a system that calls the shots from a distance, yet fails to provide help where it is vital for growth and development.  I have seen vast resources – not timber and minerals, but rather female and minority leadership, inclusiveness, and intellectual honesty – overlooked and untapped because of persistent majority rule.

I have also witnessed the formation of a new State in Adventism: it’s already here, though it remains by-and-large a State of Mind.  The need for Indie Adventism, as I’ve dubbed it, is not the need to create something new (no new sects or denominations), it is the need to affirm and solidify what already exists.

This new State of Adventism thinks independently.  To a large degree it acts independently as well.  Indie Adventism has already begun drafting a constitution of sorts, which includes the imperative of ordaining women as well as men to the ministry.  Indie Adventism affirms the progressive nature of our understanding of truth, sees our fundamental beliefs as malleable, and believes that beliefs must stand up to intellectual scrutiny and criticism.  Indie Adventism acknowledges the centrality of community and sees inclusiveness as an integral part of community.  Furthermore, Indie Adventism tends to reject assent to a specific set of tenets as a test of membership.

The list of ways that Indie Adventism thinks and acts independently of the World Church could go on and on.  But to get to my central point, there are three reasons that I believe there is justification for an officially independent fellowship of Seventh-day Adventist Christians:

1.  As mentioned above, the “Majority Rules” attitude of the Power Structure in Adventism pandering to the broader constituency, as in the case of Jefferson State, hinders regional growth and development. 

2.  There is a need for the existing group of independents to be able to act with authority and integrity, which cannot happen when it acts in opposition to the group to which it has voiced its allegiance.  In other words, such defiant acts as moving forward with the ordination of women (as the most obvious example) against the expressed will of the World Church diminish the integrity of the group.

3.  There is currently an unhealthy battle of wills in which the (not fully) independent minority impose and project their will on the World Church majority and vice-versa.  This projecting of wills upon the other side is not only unhealthy - it is also counter-productive.

Elaine Nelson unwittingly provided a pithy, anecdotal synopsis of what Indie Adventism looks like in a conversation that ensued from a recent Spectrum Blog post:

“I attend [services] and have held office in the Adventist church which I attend. Everyone who has asked me to take a position has been fully informed that I am not a member. It was dismissed with "that makes no difference," if one is willing to work within the church that is all that counts… If one wishes to worship there, that is all that is required. My tithe goes directly to the local church to use as they choose... as long as the church operates smoothly, contributes to the [local] conference and always meets its budget, and grows in membership there is no reason for the administration to raise a voice against it.”

It’s time that we acknowledge and affirm what we have; it’s time for Indie Adventism (part whimsy, part real) to come out of the closet.

p.s. Jonathan Pichot recently made an excellent case for the formation of an Indie Adventist University.

Call for gender justice response

By Alexander Carpenter

Adventist Gender Justice blogger, Trisha Famisaran has been working with a graduate student at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who is doing a study on how members of our church community create empowering space for women. (Tangential to this, I recommend Ben MacArthur's letter regarding Seeking a Sanctuary in the current issue of the journal.)   

Trisha writes:

Courtney Crenshaw posted a survey on Adventist Gender Justice several months ago and received great feedback. Courtney has several more questions for our community to answer. The questions and her contact information are available on Adventist Gender Justice.

 

Courtney is interested in getting responses from active bloggers, but she is also interested in the broader perception of gender equality and spaces of empowerment in the wider church. It would be especially helpful if you might consider linking over to Courtney's post from your own sites so that she gets as much response as possible. So please spread the word!

 

I think it's exciting that a non-Adventist from the University of California, Santa Cruz, has chosen to focus on women's empowerment in our church community. Courtney's work will be useful to us and I will try to get a hold of her research when it's complete.

Click here to answer her five questions.

Our man in Spain

By Ruben Sánchez in Barcelona

It was Thursday, the 26th of July, around 9pm when a few twenty-something-year-old church members gathered at a friend's house in Barcelona for some spiritual time. Before grabbing our Bibles, I opened my notebook and took out my pen as I explained that I had been asked to blog about Adventism in Spain. There I was, ready to write down their thoughts.

"We are kind of afraid of showing who we are as Adventists", said Marta Muñoz, a 26-year-old award-winning film maker.

"I think there is a lot of escaqueo (skive off work)" interrupted a 25-year-old Ph.D student, Sara Llorca. "Everyone, starting with the pastors down to the laymen, shows a lack of involvement, we tend to think that someone else will do it".

Ms. Llorca's opinion is shared by many in Spain. However, official data may show the opposite. According to figures appearing recently in the Spanish Adventist Review, in the last five years church has grown by 906 members each year, (now there are 13.200 total in Spain). The numbers report that tithe collection has recently doubled, from € 4.855.839 in 2001 to € 8.239.338 in 2006.

Considering these upbeat numbers, is Ms. Llorca's impression wrong?

In an email I got some days later, Isaac Llopis, a 26-year-old, who is close to finish his Ph.D in physics, pointed out that, "our church administrators try to make us happy by giving us general statistics which show the church's growth in the past five years, but this change is due to immigration. We would cry if we had the statistics for the native Spanish members".

Our conversation at friend's house went on. "Truly, the cultural diversity that immigration has brought is the greatest challenge our church faces", explained Pablo López, a 28-year-old IT assistant. Immigration is a church issue because it is a country's issue. Spain has experienced little immigration for the last 500 years, and now suddenly we have to learn how to deal with it.

Offering a suggestion, Mr. López added the church's bureaucracy should be reduced.

Something that seems harder to do is what Ms. Muñoz, expressed: "women can not be ordained as pastors, and that makes me angry." Judith de la Fuente, a 19-year-old nursing assistant did not go that far, but still sees the need for change. "Let us update our liturgy", she exclaimed with a big smile. Adding that in Spain, we still worship with hymns composed centuries ago.

Ms. de la Fuente also said she likes Spanish church activities, something that arose controversy among the group because the big majority of youth activities organized by the Spanish Union are just sporty. Only one is mainly spiritual. Youth evangelism rallies have been non-existent until three years ago when ASI started to support a long evangelism campaign per year. Ms. de la Fuente was in the last one and she loved it.

Another thing made possible by the laity's initiative and hard work is AEGUAE, an Adventist university students and graduates association which has been around for 30 years. Rarely supported with funds from the Spanish Union, AEGUAE has been the only way in Spain to get the most advanced Adventist thought and intellectual reflection.

Finishing the conversation, we all agreed in one thing the film maker Muñoz said: "We need a more transparent church". After this experience, it may be good for us to create a blog, post short clips of people explaining how they imagine the church and let people comment on them. What do YOU think?

Creation: on the Cliff

By Andy Hanson, a semi-retired Professor of Education at California State University, Chico.  He is also editor of the Grace Connection, a magazine and website. He writes: "When I saw the Non Sequitur cartoon in the Sunday paper a couple of weeks ago, I thought immediately of Cliff [Goldstein]. The shoe just seemed to fit." Click on the image and it will open to readable size.

This 'Adventist Home'

By Alexander Carpenter

Recently, This American Life played a tape recorded by a family in Berrien Springs, MI for their son who was -- at the time -- a medical student at Loma Linda University. Years later, the tape was found in a Chicago thrift store.   

This is amazing documentary evidence of an Adventist family -- mother, father and daughter -- struggling for money, spiritual meaning, and emotional connection. I found the mix of religious quest, marriage issues and plodding self-discovery the wife fascinating. Among this raw confusion of human discomfort, desire, and dubious humor, this provokes questions about how we read our spiritual state through our biological relationships.

Like Sharon's visual representation in the post below, this auditory map marks a very personal -- and "presently true" for them -- landscape of Adventism. Also, there is a reference to a "Carl" Hamel, if anyone knows more on that story, please share. 

Accidental Documentaries: Act One. Berrien Springs, Michigan, Circa 1967.

A Midwestern family records a "letter on tape" to their son, who is in medical school in California. Three decades later, the recording somehow ends up in a thrift store. The tape gives a complicated portrait of what goes on among the family members. Mother wishes that Father were more religious. Daughter is miffed because Dad won't help her solve her financial problems. Dad tells corny jokes, talks enthusiastically about machines and extrusions and drills used for the family business run from the basement—a business everyone else in the family resents. And after the old tape ends, Ira interviews the son they were sending these to, Arthur Davis, who's now a doctor in California. (26 minutes)

Listen here.

Scroll down a bit and click on the third button underneath the photo, titled "Full Episode."

Now there's a great idea for our good pastors

By Alexander Carpenter

Now there's a conference president who cares about the good things in life, such as his pastors.

Adventist News Network's Elizabeth Lechleitner writes:

At least one conference in the Seventh-day Adventist Church's North American region has concluded that frazzled pastors don't make for successful ministry. That conference, spanning the U.S. states of Iowa and Missouri, is encouraging pastors to trim their sometimes 80-hour workweeks to a saner 45 to 55 hours.

[snip]

The region is inviting pastors to reprioritize their lives and recast their roles within the church. "The day of working an 80-hour week must come to an end. The church does not own us," [Dean] Coridan [president of the Iowa-Missouri conference] tells ministers during workshop sessions, which he has led in the region for 18 months.

 [snip]

Eddie Cabrera, who pastors three churches in the Iowa-Missouri region and has reined in his workweek for two years, will vouch for the value of 'No.' "I tell my church members, 'Don't call me on Sunday to ask how many Sabbath school quarterlies you should order,' Cabrera says. "If it's an emergency, yes, I'll be there, but otherwise Sunday is family day."

I appreciate the investment that Adventist pastors make in our church and the sacrifices they make for their beliefs and for the difficult task of mobilizing real live folks to care about the important things in life. Thanks pastors for all you do to better human life -- and props to those of you who take the time to blog. Sharing your convictions online is a part of the Christians witness, in my biased opinion. And all pastors get a special dispensation to say whatever the hell they want as fast as they want to type it on the Spectrum Blog. Now get some sleep.

"How Others See Us: An interesting Adventist reference in 'The New Yorker'"

By Jiggs Gallagher

In my reading life, magazines come and go.  But The New Yorker has been a weekly companion for more than 30 years.  Some weeks I'm too distracted to read anything but the illustrated drawings (never call them "cartoons").  But in the April 2, 2007, edition I read a long piece by Jane Kramer:  "The Pope and Islam--Is there anything that Benedict XVI would like to discuss?"

The piece jumps off from the Pope's (perhaps) ill-considered reference in a speech at the University of Regensberg in Germany, where he once taught theology.  In the speech, he quotes a 14th-century Byzantine emperor's remarks on Islam:  "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."  The comment led to an uproar throughout the Muslim world, and the pope apologized later, albeit obliquely.

The New Yorker piece goes on to analyze the Joseph Ratzinger's position on Islam, and on the non-Roman Catholic religious world in general.  It's an interested, textured analysis.

Right in the middle, the author quotes James Puglisi, a Franciscan friar at the Vatican who heads the Center for Christian Unity.  Puglisi is talking about inter-religious dialog, and the difficulties pertaining to it, especially when one side is (or is perceived to be) fundamentalist.  Then the zinger:

(Puglisi) told me, "You need competence on both sides.  And it's not just Islam.  I was in 'official conversation' with some Seventh-day Adventists.  I said to them, 'We need to write our common history.' But how do you do that, when they don't even accept the critical interpretation of our common texts?"

I'm wondering if any Spectrum Blog readers were in the "official conversation" with Puglisi and what they remember of it?

Sabbat Heureux: Hallelujah

By Alexander Carpenter

This is one of my favorite songs. In light of our multifaceted discussion which at times intersected with Sabbath (thanks Johnny), it's good to sit back and receive that cap of creation that reminds us of our shared creaturehood. That good ol' sanctuary in time with God. Sabbath hallelujahs to you -- good readers and commenters. First Leonard Cohen, then Jeff Buckley, then Rufus Wainwright.

I heard there was a secret chord that David played and it pleased the Lord but you don't really care for music, do you?
It goes like this, the fourth, the fifth, the minor fall, the major lift, the baffled king composing Hallelujah

Your faith was strong but you needed proof, you saw her bathing on the roof, her beauty in the moonlight overthrew you
She tied you to a kitchen chair, she broke your throne, she cut your hair, and from your lips she drew the Hallelujah

Maybe I have been here before, I know this room; I have walked this floor, I used to live alone before I knew you
I've seen your flag on the marble arch, love is not a victory march, it's a cold and its a broken Hallelujah

There was a time you let me know whats really going on below, but now you never show it to me, do you? (and)
Remember when I moved in you; the holy dark was moving too, and every breath we drew was Hallelujah

Roy Adams on Keeping the Sabbath

by Johnny A. Ramirez

My fear is that if we take this vital element for granted, the time will come when our Sabbath observance is no different from the way the majority of our fellow Christians keep Sunday.

Read the rest of this article by Associate Editor Roy Adams- Adventist Review : Keeping the Sabbath

The Adventist blogosphere has been posting lately on the demise of the Sabbath with Julius Nam and Ryan Bell both discussing A Day Apart by Christopher D. Ringwald. Certainly Adventists, Sabbath keepers that we are, have not been anywhere near the forefront of Sabbath discussions within Christianity. It's a shame because that is one of our most distinguishing attributes and it is a hot topic now.

In his article Roy Adams is concerned about the pendulum.  He sees Adventist Sabbath observance declining in ways much like Ringwald sees Sunday observance declining.  Woops, my bias is showing- Sunday keepers claim the Sabbath also so perhaps I should say , Saturday Sabbath keepers and Sunday Sabbath Keepers. 

Obviously I do think there is great significance to Saturday over Sunday but the discussion of Sabbath can take place with one group meaning Sunday and the other Saturday. One thing I did note is that discussions on the Sabbath which center on when one should shower, cook or travel seem trite to me. 

I much rather prefer conversations on the Sabbath of jubilee, Sabbath economics and Sabbath healing for both nature and humanity.  That does however suggest that my own experience with the Sabbath is that personal rules were plenty but corporate responsibility was lacking. So perhaps while Roy Adams is afraid of being branded a legalist I could be said to fear being branded a liberal. 

I will say that I had always thought it curious that not working on Sabbath didn't apply to my dad because that is when he drove furthest and preached longest or my mother who always seemed to have to spend more time in the kitchen then than any other day.

I appreciated this article in the Review and would like to say that I agree- the Sabbath deserves our attention and we need to do a better job of keeping it.  Roy, you are not a legalist and your questions are appropriate- I only ask for a complete reading of what Sabbath means to a bible people- a Sabbath that extends beyond wading but not swimming, warming but not baking.

How Christianity is Perceived

By Alexander Carpenter

David Kinnaman, president of The Barna Group, shared the results of new research that investigated how young non-Christians perceive Christianity.

Non-Christians aged 16-29 years old were asked,  What is your current perception of Christianity?

91% said antihomosexual
87% said judgmental
85% said hypocritical
78% said old-fashioned
75% said too involved in politics
72% said out of touch with reality
70% said insensitive to others

As a young Adventist I'm troubled by these statistics, in part because they reflect how many of my young and older friends actually feel. Anyone who claims to care about evangelism and church growth must face these daunting numbers as well.

I blame idiot liberals (h/t Rep. Obey) and dull conservatives for this. Of course this doesn't apply to all on the right or the left, but the forward-thinkers who "drop out" because they don't like the theology or the behavior of their fellow believers bare some of the blame for the worse problem of allowing the dullard bigots to define what it means to follow Christ. For far too long Christianity has been abused by folks who put personal economics, fear of change, and informational laziness above the standards of the fruit of the spirit (Gal 5).

I've recently been reading Charles Marsh's The Beloved Community: How Faith Shapes Social Justice, from the Civil Rights Movement to Today (2006) and he makes the point that the bible was the biggest justification used for slavery. From Leviticus to Paul --  there's no doubt that a literal reading allows one to make a biblical case for owning humans. The current New York Review of Books (sub. required) has a great article noting the prevalence of white slaves, noting that for almost everyone except those radical Quakers, owning and at times physically abusing humans did not contradict Christian virtue. Interestingly Leviticus and Paul are also the two main resources for Christian attacks on homosexuality.

Of course the drive for cultural comfort lies behind this use of cheap (hermeneutical) labor. A couple of months ago I toured the NY Historical Society's installation on slavery and the city (their virtual tour is excellent too). Incredibly, thirty-eight cents of every cotton dollar went to NYC business. "Coincidentally," many of NYC's elected leaders actually tried to side with the South at the beginning of the Civil War. Of course the bible was used to justify slavery, but economics and fear of cultural change formed the hermeneutic.

I wonder what forms the Christian hermeneutic on homosexuality? In the statics below it appears that age, i.e., cultural comfort -- even for non-Christians -- plays a role in how alternative a consenting Christian love seems.

Among Non-Christians Aged 16-29

• 3% have a favorable view of evangelicals
• 33% have a favorable view of homosexuals

Among Non-Christian Baby Boomers (born between ‘46 & ‘64)

• 25% have a favorable view of evangelicals
• 13% have a favorable view of homosexuals

Among Non-Christian Elders (born before ‘46)

• 27% have a favorable view of evangelicals
• 11% have a favorable view of homosexuals

There are several conclusions to draw from this comparison. One is that negative attitudes toward homosexuality can correspond beyond biblical reasoning to mere generational taste. Another is that Adventists who care about the unchurched should stay away from being classified with the traditional evangelical homosexual agenda.

Take a look at the first set of stats: how many of those characteristics -- judgmental, hypocritical, antihomosexual, old fashioned -- would apply to Jesus? Certainly the socio-religious context has changed in huge ways in the last two thousands years, but it should be pretty clear in a swift read through Mark and the first century effect that Jesus changed how people interpreted the religious ethos.

From salvation for all, from peacemaking and a preference for the poor, Jesus shifted the paradigm to the paradox of a kin-dom both there and now.  It seems to me that this hermeneutical realignment lies behind Jesus' words to the rich young ruler. The point is not that everyone has to be impoverished (see Nicodemus), but that our cultural comfort and preferential option for our purse cannot come between us and following Christ. When 91% of the next generation identifies Christians with a "homosexual agenda," something seems unbalanced with our Christian witness.

Adventist Preaching

By Alexander Carpenter

Criticizing the sermon, like sitting around the table and eating Sabbath lunch, is an essential aspect of our faith community life. But what do pastors think? How self-aware should we all be of the strengths and weaknesses, the past and future of the sermon. In a quixotic effort to turn critique to deconstruction,  I invited two pastors over at the Just Pastors blog to reflect on their craft and role as Adventist preachers.
_________________

A pastor since 1984, Marty Thurber is the senior pastor of the Fargo and Valley City Adventist Churches in North Dakota.

Preaching<>And so it begins

I came across this recent (1933) article in Time on the future of preaching.  The author, Navy Chaplain and pastor, Dr. Clausen suggested that television would elevate a group of preachers, about “half a dozen” of them, and they would “serve the whole world.” The rest of us paid preachers would “become executives, helping their parishioners to understand and live by the televised messages.”

I wonder if Dr. Clausen had the gift of prophecy.  Not a week goes by without someone asking me about Joel Osteen or Rick Warren, Robert Schuller, Doug Batchelor or some other well known Cave Man.  (I hope I don’t offend any cavemen with that remark). I’m aware that each week, my listeners are quietly comparing me to something they have heard or seen among these elevated super speakers.  That’s cool.  That’s the world we’re in.  Preach Up.

Clausen was right, half right anyhow.  Things have changed. And we’re crazy if we think they won’t continue to change.  Yet, preachers are still here, for better or for worse, and people still fill pews, for better or for worse.  Sometimes the whole thing amazes me, people coming to hear me speak about a God they can’t see and using a Book that’s still full of mystery.  What do they seek anyhow?

People need Good News, God News.  Don’t they?  The Bible has the best news in the universe.  God doesn’t like prodigals, He loves them. He never stops thinking about me.  I may forget Him, He can’t get me, little old me, out of His head.  That’s addictingly powerful.  That’s Happy Hour, Fine Wine at it’s best.

Thank God for preachers who are willing to lay their lives on the line for that Word.  I have no doubt that there is a bright future for that kind of preaching.

Only preachers who love those they preach to will fulfill God’s calling.  Anything less than love is abuse.  It is terribly easy to waste time and abuse the preacher/listener relationship.  It is terribly important that preachers get it right, not that they become great speakers or entertaining, but that they tell the Story, past, present and future with great clarity and consistency.  A preacher stood on a hillside in Galilee a while back.  When He was done speaking, they all marveled at what He said.  He loved them, they knew it, He told them fantastic truths, they kept coming back.  That kind of preaching isn’t going away.

Allow me to close this post(sermon) with a quote from Calvin Millers book Preaching.

The best preachers are heard before they preach, not during their sermon nor because of it.  Did St. Francis really say, “Preach the Gospel.  If necessary use words”?  Who can say?  Cliches, when they live long enough, become adages.  Still, as old saws go this is a good one.  Far more important than what is said is who said it. “Fire!” spoken even by a blackguard and charlatan will clear a theater.  It is the shortest of speeches that may be uttered by a villain and liar and still be heeded by those who, given a choice would prefer to be saved by a person of good character.  But generally speaking, preachers who preach the word will only be heeded if their manner of life convinces their hearers that they believe there really is a fire, and that they hold the extinguisher.

Does preaching have a future?  Yes.  What does the future of preaching look like?  I’m not sure.  It will involve listeners, participants, preachers, thinking, love, God and His Word, it will be Cross/Christ centered and driven by the Spirit.  It will fill us with hope as we journey from Creation to Calvary to His Coming again.  It’s counsel will call us to obedience and joy in that calling.  The bells ring at church not for us to go and join a discussion club about the Bible, but to be transformed by the very Word of God as the sermon rings in new life.
_________________

Pastor David Hamstra ministers at the Grande Prairie and Fairview Adventist Churches in Alberta, Canada. Although he is an American, he enjoys the benefits universal health care and the rising (.94USD) Canadian dollar.

Adventist Preaching

There’s at least two reasons why I don’t feel qualified to comment on the future of Adventist preaching. For one, I don’t like listening to sermons that much; I’d rather listen to a lecture from the ATS Podcast than watch an Adventist Preaching DVD. And for another, I’ve only been an Adventist preacher for three years and haven’t even got my M.Div. yet.

But I suppose it’s the last point that qualifies me to hold forth on the future of Adventist preaching, because, whether I like it or not, I am the future of Adventist preaching. Actually, I’m a part of the future of Adventist preaching, along with my peers, the other young pastors and elders preaching in Adventist congregations. So what I’d like to do is make a few observations (and generalizations) about the future of Adventist preaching in North America based on what I see myself and other pre-seminary, preachers doing in the “sacred desk.”

First, I believe the future of Adventist preaching will be Biblical. Personally, I feel that I have no authority to say anything from the pulpit, because no one really cares what a wet-behind-the-ears preacher thinks about a particular topic. So what I do is help people hear what the Bible says about a particular topic and what that means in their life today.

I’ve noticed that I and other young preachers tend to spend more time in our sermons explaining the cultural/historical context of scripture and using that understanding to make an application to today. We like to explore the full implications of passages rather than stringing together texts to support pre-determined conclusions. Our illustrations tend to be used to explain contextual ideas rather than the sometimes apocryphal, tear-jerker stories our elders use to explain theological concepts.

Perhaps this is due to our proximity to theological education and our obsession with exegesis will fade away with time. This is true to a degree; exegetical training and Haddon Robinson’s landmark text, Biblical Preaching, are major influences on how I deliver sermons. But I hope that the cynics are wrong and I never substitute the Word of God for philosophy, psychology, or sentimentality.

Second, I believe the future of the Adventist sermon will involve dialogue. Monologue has always seemed sort of un-Adventist to me, given our Bible as creed, anti-magisterial heritage. I think Adventists are at their best theologically in Sabbath School class and can’t but hope that a bit of that democratic attitude to truth will rub off on the Adventist sermon.

Currently I see young Adventist preachers using notes (or nothing but a Bible) as opposed to manuscripts so they have flexibility to engage the audience with simple questions, to which they expect a verbal answer, and in rhetorical dialogue. Some, including myself, have gone farther and experimented with extended questions and dialogues during and after the monologue.

Finally, I believe the future of the Adventist sermon will be confessional. The older generation of preachers relies on extraordinary tales to drive the appeal home; the new generation uses self-disclosure. Self-disclosure is risky and has it’s own dangerous pitfalls, but the result, if done properly, is an understanding that the preacher is not pushing something that he hasn’t tried him or herself.

I grew up in a world where I had to endure an intense amount of marketing aimed at my demographic, and I don’t want to see myself as another pitchman, because a pitchman is phony. I can only be “real” in the “sacred desk” if I’m willing to be as honest about my faults as the Bible is about the faults of Abraham, David, Peter. Some church members don’t want to know that their pastor has struggles, but the majority are glad to know that the Word of God is living and active and able to save.

I hope the future of Adventist preaching I’ve envisioned is bright to you. In some ways this vision is descriptive, but it’s also strongly shaped by the kind of Adventist preaching I would like to deliver and hear. So you may read this as both observation and manifesto.

In closing, I’d like to thank the gracious people in my churches who found a blessing in more sub-par sermons than I’d like to admit so that I could develop into the preacher I am today.

In your comments below, feel free to share what you think is essential to the Sabbath homily, link to a favorite sermon (with the ease of online publishing, sermon sharing is moving from books to tapes and now to iPods), or offer your own prognostication for the future of the sermon. Do we need it at all? And why don't we have more traditional liturgies?

Badventists a boon?

By Alexander Carpenter

Spectrum magazine editor Bonnie Dwyer sent this over with a comment about the parallel between Lockhart and Bull's sociological reasons for Adventist success and what NYTimes columnist David Brooks notes about The Catholic Boom in the last fifty years. In addition to the situational irony, the similarity proves stark and elucidates that phenomena some call Badventism.

Brooks writes:

In fact, if you really wanted to supercharge the nation, you’d fill it with college students who constantly attend church, but who are skeptical of everything they hear there. For there are at least two things we know about flourishing in a modern society.

First, college students who attend religious services regularly do better than those that don’t. As Margarita Mooney, a Princeton sociologist, has demonstrated in her research, they work harder and are more engaged with campus life. Second, students who come from denominations that encourage dissent are more successful, on average, than students from denominations that don’t.

This embodies the social gospel annex to the quasi-religious creed: Always try to be the least believing member of one of the more observant sects. Participate in organized religion, but be a friendly dissident inside. Ensconce yourself in traditional moral practice, but champion piecemeal modernization. Submit to the wisdom of the ages, but with one eye open.

The problem is nobody is ever going to write a book sketching out the full quasi-religious recipe for life. The message “God is Great” appeals to billions. Hitchens rides the best-seller list with “God is Not Great.” Nobody wants to read a book called “God is Right Most of the Time.”

I once heard LLU psychology professor (and blogger) Johnny Ramírez-Johnson define an Adventist as someone who calls him or herself an Adventist and pays tithe. While at Andrews I had a caring professor lower his voice and say to me and a group of students that whatever we end up believing, we should never stop going to church. Thus, to professor Ramírez-Johnson's definition I would add that an Adventist attends church regularly on Sabbath.

The point Brooks makes about mixing healthy Catholic doubt with commitment to community seems to apply to the story of Adventist success as well. What Brooks calls the quasi religious, in our context I would call Badventism, the phenomena of thousands of persons who identify with Adventist culture - and even mission - while harboring serious doubts about this or that belief. They are pastors, doctors, mothers, professors, students, homosexuals, and administrators. They often read Spectrum. Most are graduates of our school system - too well-read to buy it all, too committed to Adventism to fit in anywhere else. They are the least believing members of a very observant sect which means that they take it all pretty seriously.

Is paying tithe to the denomination, attending church on Sabbath, and calling oneself an Adventist enough to define a person as a Seventh-day Adventist? 

And the winners are. . .

By Alexander Carpenter

Here are the winners of the Spectrum Blog 3000th comment celebratory essay contest. These replies are in answer to the question: If an Adventist were running for the US presidency what would you expect his or her top three principle-informed policy priorities to be?

The first three will receive a free one-year subscription to Spectrum: The Journal of the Association of Adventist Forums.

Jonathan Pichot (age: 19)
1.  The center-piece of this candidate's platform, influenced by the Adventist emphasis on education, would be a comprehensive plan to reform the American school system.  Adventist teachers, dedicated to the church's mission, often sacrifice better positions in order to teach.  The reform would attempt to inspire that sort of devotion (a la Teach for America).

2.  Whether or not universal health-care is feasible or appropriate, this candidate, influenced by the history of Adventist health-care and its increased national attention, would pursue a significant public health campaign emphasizing Adventist beliefs: exercise, day of rest, moderation, etc.

3.  Understanding that the recent social tensions in America stem largely from religion, this candidate would emphasize freedom of religion and conscience for all Americas, continuing the significant work Adventists have already done in this regard.

Jared Wright (age: 26)
1. Making health care affordable, universal, and effective. Adventists have always emphasized holistic health.  An Adventist might include healthful lifestyle initiatives in the health care package.

2. Ending the Iraq War and working toward peace. Adventist teachings strongly emphasize God’s love.  Non-violent peace building is perhaps the clearest expression of God’s love that human beings can practice.   An Adventist would oppose war.

3. Combating Climate Change.  Because climate change primarily affects the poorest of the poor, policies combating climate change would be a priority for any presidential candidate who takes seriously Scripture’s injunction to do unto the least of these.

Kirsten Nixon (age:19)
In order to be true to the Adventist roots of religious liberty, an Adventist President would acknowledge their representation of all people, and therefore emphasize the separation of church and state.   

Secondly, an Adventist President, conscious of the importance of  education in Adventist history, and an advocate of smaller government, should repeal/alter the "No Child Left Behind" Act and  give more authority over schools to state governments. 

Finally, such a president would advocate better health of Americans (obviously attached to the Health Message).  This could be done by subsidies, or educational programs encouraging better eating habits and exercise.

__________________

These two are included for honorable mention:

Bill Cork
Universal Health Care, with incentives for preventative medicine and healthful practices.

A Peace-Making Foreign Policy, with emphasis on de-escalation of rhetoric, negotiated settlement of differences, building bridges between cultures, developing of grassroots economic initiatives aimed at building self-sufficiency of villages.

First Amendment Restoration, including applying Sherbert Test to governments at all levels, elimination of voucher programs in education, and respecting individual choice in union membership.

Kent Kingston
1) Poverty reduction - Readjust budgets so that the world's poor (including the American poor) have enough to eat, clean water, safe housing, access to education and healthcare and the means to earn a living.

2) Arms reduction - Cease subsidies to arms manufacturers.  To prohibit arms sales to groups and governments who use them irresponsibly.  To sign the anti-landmines treaty.  To reduce America's nuclear arsenal.  To negotiate with other countries to do the same.

3) Human rights - Put pressure on governments who continue to abuse their citizens (not just the ones that have oil either).  Close Guantanamo.

Update: The Adventist Review has a list of priorities  by James Standish. H/t to Bill Cork for the link.

Human rights good for spirituality?

By Alexander Carpenter

In light of our recent discussions of Adventist spirituality, I thought that this quote in a recent Adventist News Network article adds a judicious point. During a visit to Manila, Philippines, GC Communications Director Ray Dabrowski writes a profile about so-to-retire Philippines Judge Crispin B. Bravo. It concludes with two quotes:

For Bravo. . .his departure from the trial court will not mark a break with the legal profession. He plans to "offer legal services to human rights victims suspected as enemy of the state without strong evidence."
 
Judge Bravo also plans to be more involved with the plight of the poor. "The church is not [fully] spiritual if it is not helping poor people," he said.

This gives me hope. Even blessed hope. Sure, lots of Adventists help the poor and care about human rights. It's just good to see people talking about these forms of loving one another as essential to Adventist spirituality. And Judge Bravo has only been an Adventist for eight years. Bravo indeed. . .and in word.

Friday Randomness

By Alexander Carpenter

Check out these great posts.

Julia Ward Howe's Mother's Day Proclamation Adventist Women 4 Peace

Black and Adventist and Environment and Sabbath. Sherman

Adventists and international relations. Jonathan

The Radicals of Adventism Anonymous

Mitt throws Sharp Jab Johnny Sr.

Speyer and religious liberty Bill

A Theology of Ecology Jared

Immigration and JFK Glenn

10 Commandments Monte

Ethical Realism Johnny

Grace Marcel

And what's on your mind these days? What are you doing this weekend?

Our 3000th comment

By Alexander Carpenter

We just got our 3000th comment on the Spectrum Blog. Thanks Glenn! He wrote:

I agree with Dr. Tom about the role of the sermon in our churches. It seems to either be given very short shrift or preceded by so many preliminary announcements, offerings, songs, stories, etc that by the time the sermon time rolls around, I'm looking at the clock.

And thanks to everyone who has been participating by reading and/or commenting. I can tell we have lots of lurkers. Come on in, the water's great. The blog launched on June 8 so we are coming up on our first anniversary! We have big plans for improving the blog. In the comment section below, please feel free to drop a not-so-subtle hint about what changes you'd like to see for the Spectrum Blog. Format, color, content, Alexander to go, let us know. . .
____________

In addition, as a reward to our community, Spectrum is offering a free one year subscriptions to three persons who come up with the best answer to the following question.

If an Adventist were running for the US presidency what would you expect his or her top three principle-informed policy priorities to be?

The non-partisan judging criteria is: how strongly the three policy points draw from Adventist belief, practice, and our larger church culture.

Email your ideas to: alexander[at]spectrummagazine[dot]org

Rules: Less than 100 words. You can transfer your win to someone else. One subscription is reserved for anyone under 30, if you are under 30, please state your age. Tom and Elaine, no pseudonyms. The submissions are due by Tuesday, May 15.

PUC vcast tackles alcohol consumption on campus

by Johnny A. Ramírez

part 1

 

part 2

Drinking on campus is a big issue in all schools.  The video mentions a seminar on drinking given to incoming students at secular colleges. What do you think?

I BELIEVE - PBS - Seventh-day Adventist

By Alexander Carpenter

                 

Join host Dennis Wholey for a look at the beliefs and practices of Seventh-day Adventists through a conversation with Elder Roscoe Howard and a tour of the Sligo Seventh-day Adventist Church in Takoma Park, MD.

I particularly appreciate Roscoe's final thoughts that Adventism means hope. Before the eschaton comes, we have a responsibly to make human existence better. I believe that too.

Talking with Greg and Shasta Nelson

Re-inventing the Adventist Wheel hosts an in-depth interview with Greg and Shasta Nelson. They talk about the affair, the divorce and the road to confession and healing, as well as Second Wind, Adventism and their connection to the church.

"Greg & Shasta Nelson are currently leading a nontraditional spiritual community in San Francisco called Second Wind designed to reach postmodern urban dwellers who are skeptical of religious institutions but seeking spiritual experience. They both continue using their gifts of speaking, teaching, writing and music as ways to connect meaningfully with people."

Since Marcel and Julius went to the trouble to conduct the interview, please do all your good commenting on the Re-inventing the Adventist Wheel site.  There is also our prior post- A pastoral affair on film.

Sabbath Meditations

By Julie Smith

Rest can be defined as both a noun and a verb.  Interesting.  You can think of getting a good rest, in which case you are describing a state of inactivity or repose.  You can actively place your rest on something like hope and trust.  The word Sabbath means, “to rest”.  It is a day of resting.  Rest can be active or inactive--a state of being--or an act of placing your trust in something or upon someone.  Sabbath can be a religious holiday or a tradition.  Or it can be a day to enter a state of rest, a state of trusting, and a day of relationship.

The idea of Sabbath came from the Genesis account of creation where God “rested” from His work of creating and decided to create a day of rest.  It sounds like God actively rested on the day He made for completing His creation.  Sabbath is both a noun and a verb.  A day for entering into repose, a completion of the week, a ceasing of activity, and a day for seeking relationship and for putting your trust in God.

I’m glad God decided to create a rest.  If the Creator had not created a day for ceasing in my week, I would go on until I fell over from exhaustion because I don’t seem to have the sense to stop.  I would of course stop now and then, but probably not every week for 24 hours.

The idea of a weekly Sabbath really seems like a luxury when there is so much to do.  The Sabbath to me is evidence that we live in an abundant universe.  God evidently felt that there was so much time, that one day a week to rest was just right and that we would still have plenty of time to get everything else done. 

If you don’t really believe this, however, it doesn’t do much good to try and squeeze some rest out of a day when you spend the whole time worrying about all that you have to do.  If you can’t truly enter into the idea of rest, you might as well go ahead and work on your “to do” list because you’re not going to get any resting done anyway.

God didn’t create Sabbath as some legal requirement for our salvation.  Sabbath was created for our restoration and enjoyment.  If we find no enjoyment in resting, then we probably have some other issues that we need to work on first before we can enjoy the idea of not being busy.  Some things that come to mind for me is the belief that I’m not good enough.  If I don’t think I deserve some time off because I’m too busy trying to please God, then I will have a hard time resting.

If I view life through the lens of scarcity, then I will have a hard time affording a whole day for re-creating.  If I don’t see myself as worth that time, I will probably turn the day into something that is filled with requirements and restrictions and supports my idea of scarcity.  If I don’t view my salvation as complete then I will try and observe the day out of some arbitrary effort to please a God that I view as rigid and cold and relentless in His fastidiousness to detail.

The Sabbath that is a blessing to me is the one that I enter into just as I enter into my relationship with God.  I enter the Sabbath as a state of repose.  I enter it by placing my trust in God as the Creator of All, the Restorer of All, and the Hope of All.  What I do or don’t do on the Sabbath is not as important as what is in my heart.  Joy, peace, hope, and love are the perfect ingredients for having a good day of rest.  Mix these with generous portions of the Spirit pour them all out and share them with everyone in your life and you will have a beautiful Sabbath rest.  Shabbat Shalom!

Our seminarian on the seminary attack

And by now you may have heard about the seminarian at Andrews University who attacked evangelism professor Russell Burrill.

As WNDU notes, 28-year-old Romana Baciu beat an Andrews University seminary professor, and later attacked a police officer. Monday, seminarian Baciu reportedly locked the door of Professor Russell Burrill's office and began beating him, all the while yelling "repent."

For some perspective here's Pastor Trevan Osborn, recent Andrews University Seminary graduate and evangelism corespondent for the Spectrum Blog.

By Trevan Osborn

On the same day the Virginia Tech shootings occurred, a bizarre event took place in the Seminary at Andrews University. A Seminary student locked himself in an office with Russell Burrill, Director of the North American Division Evangelism Institute, and choked and beat him in an apparent murder attempt. Luckily, other office staff eventually came to the rescue and the student has been arrested and charged with attempted murder. Dr. Burrill had minor injuries although he is obviously quite shaken by the whole experience. For more details see one report from the South Bend Tribune and a rumor-heavy blog post.

I hesitate to analyze this situation, particularly considering how little good has resulted from the news networks and their punditry regarding the Virginia Tech shootings. However, since I just finished my 2 ½ years this last December, I do feel like I can provide some perspective.

Dr. Burrill is a hard-nose, straight forward guy but he is also very fair and willing to dialogue. He gets along really well with the students and is probably one of the most liked Seminary professors around. Reports indicate that the student was on cocaine which had a part in this and it probably could have been any professor who was attacked. Honestly, my initial reaction was a big, "HUH?" followed by a few chuckles. Before you think I'm a total jerk for laughing at the situation, let me explain why.

The initial "Huh," was quickly replaced by a whole assortment of reasons why it's not unbelievable. In fact, it almost makes sense which is why I had to chuckle. Seminarians have a less than stellar reputation at Andrews, which is justified. Seminarians have developed a reputation with the local police as notorious wife-beaters with frequent domestic violence spats in the married student housing on campus. The single Seminarians are notorious for preying on the undergrad girls and sleeping around with naïve victims. Don't get me wrong, the vast majority of Seminarians are good people, but there simply are way too many stories to not view it as a serious crisis.

The stress is real. A full class load for MDiv students is 6-7 classes a Semester which is a heavy burden to bear. Many students, including the one who attacked Burrill, are from overseas which means English is their second or even third language. The weather is severe in the Winter with the few days (actually hours) of sunlight causing mass pandemonium because we are so happy just to experience the bright of day.

The greatest stressor is one all ministers face of not being able to authentically reveal who we are to others. We are afraid of admitting our doubts. Afraid of admitting that we struggle with the same sins we preach against every week. Afraid of not living up to the exceedingly high expectations the church members place on us. Unfortunately, the Seminary has not been able to create a safe environment where we are able to work through the issues we all face.

Am I justifying what Baciu  did? No. Do I understand some of the stressors that caused it? Yes.

Trevan Osborn pastors the Patterson Avenue and Far West End Seventh-day Adventist Churches in Richmond,Virgina.

Adventist All-Star Trading Cards

By Alexander Carpenter

All right, all right. I know that awesome Julius Nam posted this video over at Progressive Adventism and so I didn't want to duplicate content, but people keep sending it to me and it is pretty funny. . .because being an Adventist does ROCK with wham! Thus, here you go. . .ladies and gentleman from the Florida Hospital Church. . .Adventist All-Star Trading Cards.

It's Friday: What are your random thoughts?

By Alexander Carpenter

Word to the wise: don't get caught collecting wood tomorrow. . . Numbers 15: 32-36

How was your week?  Any special Sabbath plans? Anyone still not done with their taxes? What's on your mind?

Dispatch from the future of Adventism

By Chelle Webster

"I am 23-years old.  I have been an Adventist my whole life; in fact, the daughter of an Adventist theologian, and so have grown up with inspirational discussions about God, theodicy, Adventism, and church.  I was a Philosophy and Religion major, and spent my time in college thinking about our place in the world, our understandings of the world, and what it meant to be Adventist.  In college, I believed that my friends and I were a transformational force to be reckoned with; just wait, world, until we graduate! 

It's been almost three years since graduation, and I am currently working as a public high school teacher, teaching freshmen and sophomores to stop answering their phones in class, to avoid using the electric sharpener in the middle of my daily instructions, and to tone down their cross-the-classroom conversations while I am teaching. I rarely discuss Adventist theology in my daily life – the public school system is not exactly conducive to the discussion of faith – and find myself feeling more and more disconnected from the sense of excitement, possibility, and transformation that infused my childhood.

What happened? In my case, entering the "real world" of a job outside Adventism meant I became disconnected to what used to be a major source of inspiration; discussions of what it means to be Adventist, and how to authentically live out our faith. Now, I am an Adventist young professional in a for-all-intents-and-purposes secular world. I can continue my faith by personal devotions, but find it hard to be inspired without a community.  I can go to church once a week, but at church merely hear a sermon repeat the same theme of salvation by grace – although this time with illustration #42 – and afterwards meet with friends I have known since college or before to talk about our weeks or jobs or where to eat lunch.  Things have become mundane, and I have lost the sense that God is moving quickly in this world, and that I am a part of that movement. 

What can be done?  For those of you reading this, perhaps the Spectrum blog has become that "Adventist community" for you where you can once again discuss your faith, and in that discussion learn more about who you are, what you believe, and how to be Adventist in your daily life. Perhaps the peace and justice issues discussed here are easily translated into the praxis of your life.

But perhaps in the Spectrum cyberspace there are some of you that late at night (or in the middle of the day) think that something is lacking in your life.  That we should never lose the sense of transformational possibility, that our daily lives should still feel intimately connected to what we believe to be most important in life. Those of you out there:  what are you doing to keep that sense of movement, that sense of hope, that sense of possibility? 

I started this blog post in order to let you know of something (imperfect, definitely) that I am working on as my partial answer to that question; unfortunately, now that I've reached the end of this entry, I cannot add it.  I've typed myself into a situation where any endorsement now would be too commercial, too much a product of Southern Cal.  So instead I'll leave you to post your answers, and leave mine for the next blog. How do you keep your sense of Adventism alive?"

Looking for God

by Johnny A. Ramirez

Over at kgrp, a blog by a La Sierra University honors alum, you can journey with Kimi Puen as she asks the following-

so… there’s so many thoughts that i’ve been writing down and that have been on my mind lately, but i think it all boils down to this:

what type of relationship am I -supposed- to have with God?

i’ve been working on my definition of everything else, such as:

• what role does attending church play in my relationship with God? (is it really that important to sit in a room for an hour to have my relationship with God grow?)

Read the post in its entirety- Looking for God. 

Read more of her posts on her religious walk.

There are a good number of our sons and daughters, bright and intelligent graduates of our Seventh-day Adventist colleges and universities, who question their faith, their walk with God and their relationship to our denomination.  Our families and church have invested care, time and money into their rearing and education.  If Adventism is unique in providing its members with a full-service society, then how well are we doing at equipping our children for life outside of the bubble? Many feel that we could do better in meeting the spiritual/ religious needs of current students and recent graduates as they encounter a world different than the one they grew up in.

I'm of the mind that what is needed isn't an answer to be delivered but rather for many of our recent graduates their faith is in process- I am glad that Kimi is sharing with us via her blog and I invite you to join with me in listening to her, and our other young people who open themselves up via their blogs, as she asks these questions. 

Happy Sabbath!

It's Friday! Your random thoughts needed

How was your week?

What are your Sabbath plans?

What are you reading these days?

If an Adventist was arrested, along with several hundred other Christians during a pro-peace march, would you think more or less of that person?

Unity beyond pork

By Alexander Carpenter

Over at the main Spectrum site Zane Yi writes:

Growing up attending Adventist churches, being educated mostly in Adventist schools, and even doing ministry for the Adventist Church, I had experienced most of my close interactions with, well, other Adventists. Working with and becoming friends with other Christians was something I appreciated in theory but found unnatural actually to put into practice.

[snip]

Reflections on this experience also have me wondering and dreaming. As Adventists, instead of focusing on the issues that differentiate and divide us from other believers, is it possible to emphasize what unites us, what we hold in common, and from this to unite in fellowship and practical ministry and action in our world?

What do you think are the great unifiers of Adventism? What holds us together? Beliefs? Duties? Cultures?  Both within our denominational community and Christendom, what do you see as the future unifiers of our faith community?

Dealing with Dirty Laundry

By Alexander Carpenter

In late January the Spectrum Blog hosted a contest in celebration for our 1000th comment (we're over 1700 so another contest is comin' up). Several people wrote in about what they'd change about Adventism. You can read their responses here.

One essay, by JeriAnne Berry, expressed frustration at the church's treatment of sexual abuse.  I asked her raise our awareness in constructive ways by writing further on the subject. She approaches the issue from the angle of truth which -- in light of the recent discussions about truth, evolution, and biblical literalism -- adds a layer that we might consider.

Jared Wright and David Larson both astutely pointed out that while truth sets us free from error, it doesn't automatically save us eternally. Yup, I believe that's faith's department. Therefore where does truth matter? JeriAnne's concern -- in the context of her experience -- reveals that truth also means believing in more than the bible and perhaps finding the truth in those we've hurt.
_______________________

By JeriAnne Berry

Dirty laundry is something with which we all are familiar. Every organization -- and every person --  has some. For some time now I have struggled with the double standard apparent in the Adventist church in relation to sexual abuse by its leaders and members and the help offered or not offered to the victims.

When I attempted to air some very hurtful things that had happened to me this double standard became too much for me to fight and I removed myself from the church so that I could continue to grow spiritually.  What I want to write about here deals with that.

The SDA church has truth.  Truth comes in many different forms.  Some truths are lovely and easy to accept, some are not so lovely and some are just plain unacceptable even though they are still truth!  These unacceptable truths might be called the church’s dirty laundry.  The truth of child sexual abuse is in that basket.

I know that no one likes this subject.  Congregations shrink from its discussion.  And those who have been most affected, the victims, find that the consequences of their attempts to bring the issues into light and hopefully into justice result in blame and denial.  Light and Justice is an expectation that just seems to be impossible in the Adventist church at this point.  Some victims have even been told that though their report of abuse was believed, if the church helped them they would have to help all the other victims of that perpetrator and that would not be acceptable.  It is this attitude that causes all sorts of problems for victims and makes it difficult for them to remain loyal to the church.

In preparing for this article I did some research into what <em>is</em> being done.  The formation of the Sexual Ethics Committee in 1992 was certainly a good step in the right direction, but as I looked at the web site that lists its policies and procedures I found that they have not yet defined clearly what it is they are dealing with.   Defining Child Sexual Abuse as “the Sexual Abuse or exploitation of a Child by any person” is NOT a workable definition. It is too broad.  I believe this illustrates the reluctance of the responsible church leaders and some local congregations to really look at what sexual abuse consists of in clear specific terms. This can mask an unwillingness to accept abuse as a relevant issue in their midst.

And yet I and many others exist who can tell in specific terms exactly how it was and how it has blackened whole lives and relationships with both God and the Church.  It doesn’t matter what Truths the church may have a firm grasp on, if they are unable to deal with this Truth and implement effective ways to deal with it than nothing else is important.  I am sure Satan would have it that way!

There are those within the SDA church who care deeply about this issue and have put their concern into action. The following links are to some of these groups.

http://www.advocateweb.org/cease/washrecommend.htm

http://www.thehopeofsurvivors.com/

These groups are doing a wonderful thing to help those who have already been abused and to raise the cry that change is needed. But until Adventist leaders and some congregations put in place the needed changes to protect their children and to insure that there is a process in place to give impartial assistance to those who have complaints of abuse, the abuses will continue. Justice will NOT be done.  And victims will continue to feel that all the doctrines they have been taught are now compromised by their bigger and more powerful spiritual truth; God’s name has been associated with the abuse that has destroyed their heart! It is this illogic that causes victims to lose faith in the God their church professes to serve.

It is common in any organization where there is a hierarchy of power that, when allegations of wrongdoing are made, those in the highest powers will:

1. Deny

2. Minimize

3. Blame the accuser. 

Often victims of abuse in the Adventist church have met this same tactic if not in a formal way then by the individuals who want to protect those in power.  Adventist victims often report finding these same tactics when they finally gather the courage to report what has happened. A truth-loving church should want to know the honest account of any of their hurting members as they seek to lead them to healing.

There are ways to develop this kind of response in the church. Ken Sande, President of Peacemaker Ministries, states:

“Sexual abuse in the church does not have to end in broken lives, agonizing lawsuits, and divided congregations. When people follow God's ways and words, these terrible incidents can result in healing, justice, and healthier churches.

When victims of abuse first come forward, I have found that most of them are seeking four reasonable responses.

First: they are looking for understanding, compassion, and emotional support.

Second: they want the church to admit that the abuse occurred and to acknowledge that it was wrong.

Third, they want people to take steps to protect others from similar harm. And

Fourth, they expect compensation for the expense of needed counseling.”

Peacemaker Ministries presents a Biblical way to effectively deal with conflicts of all kinds and a way to build a community that has at its core accountability principles and policies.  Scripture blesses the work of a peacemaker.  Peacemakers are as concerned with justice as they are with conflict resolution and good appearances. A Peacemaker demands accountability as well as forgiveness. A Peacemaker understands that forgiveness is not just a loophole allowing the abuse to continue. For those of us who must deal with the dirtiest of religion’s laundry these principles are crucial to our continuing to be a part of the community of the church. 

If God is not big enough to deal with this He isn’t to be trusted at all.  Most of us who are surviving sexual abuse know HE IS big enough to save.  What is needed now is a demonstration that Adventist leaders and the local churches believe this truth and can act accordingly.

Absolute, or present truth?

By Tim Dunston

Type the words "present truth" into your browser.  Hit the search button. What do you find? Nothing particularly stimulating.  I certainly didn't find what I expected. It took me nearly half an hour of searching to find real quotes about present truth. Instead, the first things that pop up are discussions that are anything but present: pages full of semantics, proof-texting, 19th-century prostletyzing. It's a sad reality that the greatest doctrinal defense against fundamentalism is a phrase fundamentalists use more than anyone.

Crack open a copy of Adventist Fundamental Beliefs, you won't even see a mention of  Present Truth in the body of the text. It's been pushed as far into oblivion as it can be, only a token reference to the fact that our fundamental beliefs are not really set in stone, or muttered ex cathedra, but instead decided upon by the larger church. In other words, what we believe, officially, came originally through dialogue. But that seems to be conveniently forgotten, at least by mainstream Adventism.

Our Adventist pioneers were terrified by the very notion of a written creed. They knew that a movement could only keep functioning with the dynamism of a movement if it stayed present. They founded a movement on that notion, built a church on its very foundation. A foundation that was adaptable, its structure evolvable, like DNA, always ready to express genes to flourish in the current environment.

Yet, in spite of our efforts we are left wasted, both sides, liberal and conservative, having forgotten the beauty of truth that is present.

Present truth is not the newest key sent from heaven to crack the biblical code. Rather, in the words of our resident prophet "present truth is present truth, and not future truth, and that...Word as a lamp shines brightly where we stand, and not so plainly on the path in the distance."

We would do well to remember those words. They are an admission of our humanity, and at the same time, God's divinity. It's madness to assume that finite human beings have ever had the whole story regarding God and this world. We will always be learning, always discovering that some things we thought we knew, we didn't. When we interact with something larger than self, we will always be learning, our views and opinions changing. That's what it means to be human. We're anything but static, in fact, we are some of the most dynamic creatures on this earth.

And when we admit our humanity, we can begin to learn to be present to each other, and in that presence, reveal the most beautiful truth of church. That, in spite of our differences, our quarrels, our hidden agendas--we worship a God who is present for us, and in that presence, we learn what it is to love.

Within the context of relationship, our fundamentals take on a very different shape. No longer are they seen as a means of keeping out, of increasing distance; instead, what we are really about, the reason we all keep coming back, keep giving, keep believing, is to be closer to one another and closer to God. If our fundamentals don't accomplish that for us--don't help us accomplish that, it may be time to see what truth we find here and now, to see what binds you and me together, and us to God. What does the lamp of truth illuminate for you today?

Tim Dunston recently graduated from Walla Walla College where he sang with the Messengers.

Jim Coffin talks about Adventist offspring

By Alexander Carpenter

Over on the Spectrum website, Florida pastor James Coffin responds to Luke Ford and discusses what happens to the children of conservative and progressive Adventists.

Coffin notes:

"You need to believe that your religion is the chosen one [if you’re going to be willing] to stay and make sacrifices to keep the religion going. The assimilators in Loma Linda and their children will be gone. It’s the Africans and Third World Adventists and the fundamentalists who will take over."                   

Those are the words of Luke Ford, son of defrocked Adventist theologian Desmond Ford, in a recent interview that was posted on the blog progressiveadventism.com. Luke Ford left the Seventh-day Adventist Church several years ago, ultimately embracing Judaism. But his comments definitely touched a nerve among current Adventist blog readers.

Read it here.

After you digest the article, share a well-considered thought below.

Why young Adventists leave

Go over and read the issues raised by Trevan and Johnny about this very solvable problem.

Prez Paulsen brings up women's ordination

By Alexander Carpenter

General Conference president recently spoke at the Palm Spring church and the Press-Enterprise covered his call for the church to move forward on women's ordination. But Paulsen also worries about rebellion. Well, the blogosphere is lighting up on the topic.

Kicking it off, ProgressiveAdventism's Julius writes:

"If represented accurately, this article contains one of more direct statements (if not the most direct) given in support of women’s ordination by Elder Paulsen that I have seen. And I’d like to register my support and appreciation to him for taking a clearer stand and exercising prophetic leadership on this issue. Elder Paulsen talked about 'rebellion' in the future tense, but in many ways this “rebellion” has long been coming."

Claremont graduate student and Adventist Gender Justice blogger, Trisha writes:

I’m VERY pleased that Pastor Paulsen brought up the issue. But, as I expressed in my previous post titled 'The World Church and Women,' I do not think that it is practical or necessary for the church to maintain a unified “official” perspective in this decision. There is way too much post-structuralism and cultural subjectivity in my blood to believe that theology and praxis are understood the same way trans-regionally. We SHOULD proceed in the spirit of ecumenism and unity, recognizing that this was Jesus Christ’s prayer to the Father. I recognize that there is difficulty in judging the points where it is acceptable for the church to diverge AND still maintain unity.

The ordination of women is beginning to sound less like an issue of theology to me, and more like a question of how men and women have related to each other in an exchange of power. Scripture may demonstrate some examples of how men and women have related to each other and give principles of equality (or not). But recognizing whether it is legitimate to ordain women is also recognizing how women are fundamentally understood and historically defined by men. There is a reason why my “nature” has been in question and whether I possess enough reason, emotional balance, and so on, to enter public space. Is the church sure that theology can fully answer these questions?

Some bloggers are continuing the call for a go-slow approach, but I disagree:

Frankly, it takes some thoughtful reading of history and scripture to understand the message of increasing spiritual meaning rooted in access to God for all. Too often smatterings of “biblical” texts and lazy accommodationism masks the fact that we always, already read first through our culture. And culture is comfort.

Historically, it’s interesting to see the similarities between the accommodationist arguments for a slow approach to desegregate the American South: “wait until everyone understands, be tolerant of their culture, it’s biblical, I know blacks who prefer it.”

Treating women as equal before God is not even a question of biblical authority — the Seminary published Women In Ministry last decade. What’s holding us back to realizing the kin-dom of God is not the need for more light. What we’ve got now is a few well-placed but poorly read administrators beholden to poorly read financiers who like the “I-don’t-read-anything-except-the-bible-and-Ellen mantra of the Pipim-right. And then they wonder about church growth — yeah, who wouldn’t want to come to a church where women are second-class citizens in a country where a women now heads Congress.

Maybe a few more leaders are waking up. Check out this from Jere Patzer this month: “Likewise, doesn’t it make sense that God is hurt when we are less than accepting of His children, no matter their nationality, ethnicity, religion, color, gender, age, or other differences? It has been rightly said that we cannot honestly pray the Lord’s Prayer, ‘Our Father who art in heaven…’ unless we are willing to treat all people as brothers and sisters.”

If they write this, they need to be held accountable to what that really means today.

The backbone of elected leaders is the voice of the people — if we push them by our example and support them against the wacky-right, we can change this injustice.

Here’s a few ideas of what an inclusive strategy for change might entail.

1. We have a SS lesson quarterly on the topic, with the best Adventist minds discussing all aspects.
2. We host a series on Hope that brings together both sides.
3. Each union prez speaks in support on the topic at workers meetings and at his colleges.

The fact of the matter is that most people just need to hear good reasons from Adventists that they respect to understand that treating women unequally is a cultural, not a biblical reality.

Anyone (sorry Johnny) who says that he or she wants women’s ordination but argues for “at their own pace” should also put forward some ideas on how to actually get to the goal of equality in Christ. What’s the difference between own pace and daily institutional discrimination?

Because now, for over a decade, too many of our leaders have been sitting around telling us to wait awhile before we really can love one another as Christ did. In a month that reminds us that conference presidents can commit ethnic genocide and call for God’s children to be hanged (not jailed), let’s not ignore the fact that God’s people perish from not just lack of vision, but moral action too.

Thinking about Adventism

By Alexander Carpenter

Over at ProgressiveAdventism.com Professor Julius Nam hosts an interesting series of interlogues (with Professor Ron Lawson) on the socially-driven changes to our community and (with PUC Theater Director Mei Ann Teo) on the upcoming play on Ellen White.

From the latter:

Why a play on Ellen White?  What inspired you to do this project?

The inspiration for this project came about 5 years ago when I was still a student at PUC. I happened to attend Choir Room Sabbath School when Paul McGraw gave a presentation on the Shakers. He found this pattern. The first generation, who is still alive with the founder or leader, considers the person an enlightened leader. The second generation, after the leader dies, lifts that person up onto a pedestal, and makes that person perfect, inerrant, unique. The third generation tears the pedestal down. The fourth generation is left with nothing. He then asked the group—could this apply to us? There was a visceral reaction in the room. Being more or less a member of the fourth generation, I understood that there was a wound, but didn’t understand if it had a scab, or if it was festering, or how large it was. But I knew that there was much that was unresolved.

What is theater if it is not to address the difficult questions? Not to answer, but to seek for answers. Theater brings a community together and provides a common experience that is shared—an experience that is heightened by the convergence of time, space, and an audience made up of people that you might not find in the same room otherwise. I wanted to extend that idea to the stage, to bring together the perspectives of Ellen G. White that would not be found openly voiced together. These are voices that may be heard from the pulpit, in magazines like Spectrum, or in the privacy and intimacy of one’s home. These are voices that may have been heard many a time before, or never at all. In the play, they all exist together—juxtaposed in a brief space and time, as a microcosm of our community.

I'm going.

1000th comment contest results!

By Alexander Carpenter

Impressive! I'd like to thank everyone who wrote in for the Spectrum Blog 1000th Comment Celebration Contest. Unlike much of the rhetoric of inclusion - hitting a thousand really could not have happened without you. Well, at least those who have commented. The comments continue to compound, with over an hundred since we hit 1000 less than a week ago.

Each submission was very good - thus, while I picked the three below to receive a free one-year subscription to the journal, we may publish some of the others so that you can see how thoughtful and visionary the Spectrum community continues to be. . .

Each essay was in response to this question: What would I change about the church?

__________________

I remember my early Sabbaths as a new believer, the anticipation of them, the wonder of them, the expectation, surrounded by newfound family, beautiful melodies filling the air.  My friends seemed to know all the songs and verses by heart.  The messages drew me still higher. The whole experience seemed to approximate heaven.  Our corporate expectations were high. 

Church-wide things are more subdued now; our expectations are not so lofty.  What have we lost?  Was our expectation just an illusion?  In my new experience with Jesus was my thankfulness just spilling over and coloring all of my church experience?  I think not.   

We knew we were special (not superior).  We knew we were blessed in an extraordinary measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over.  We recognized God’s mercy as a catalyst, substitution a means and not only an end.  Our vision needs to clear; our blessings still remain but are largely unrecognized and I fear unappreciated.  Extol them from the heart and the anticipation, wonder, and expectation will return.

Kenneth M. Ray Jr.
Kalispell, MT
__________________

I would change the way the church handles negative information about itself.  Many like myself have deep and painful issues surrounding the church.  Protection of the organization takes precedence over the safety and spiritual well-being of those in the pews. 

As a victim of childhood sexual abuse in the church, I have experienced this first hand.  When one follows the guidelines the church has provided for such grievances, the abuse continues mentally and spiritually and increases the victim’s shame and isolation.  Most of us must leave the church to find an environment that is free of these institutional toxins to healing.

The church could provide much healing and help to those who have experienced abuse by providing an outside, objective organization to deal with the allegations.  They could do much more to prevent the abuses that continue to happen by being honest about the need, by refusing to transfer those who are known to abuse to new positions, and by demanding that thorough background checks are done on ALL those in leadership.

They could take their spiritual responsibilities to heal the heart and mind as seriously as they do their commitment to physical healing.

JeriAnne Berry
Knoxville, TN
__________________

I would defuse the culture of its spirit of fear. 

Somehow "the fear of the Lord," which can be a good thing, has moved far beyond the beginning of wisdom to embrace an unhealthy fear of church authority, a fear of embarrassment by misbehaving Adventists in the public media, fear for careers if one's true beliefs on various subjects were widely known, fear of what other members would think about this or that minor infraction. 

Then there are the "biggies"--fear of the "time of trial," the apocalypse, the judgment.  Way, way too much fear.  Time for all them to go under the bed, back in the closet, maybe into the lake of fire.

Jiggs Gallagher
Cathedral City, CA

Read this essay: Adventists at the Frontiers

By Alexander Carpenter

I heard Professor Lamin Sanneh deliver this short visionary essay during the Association of Adventist Forums Conference in 2005. Then, it shoved my mind into gear. Last Sabbath I attended the New York Forum and Ron Lawson read it at the end of the discussion. Again I caught that vision.

The point for me lies in the hope that the formal Adventist community has a prophetic role to play in this world. We are a young church - gestated in America - but now most active in the 2/3rds world, where the largest social changes in human history are beginning to emerge. If you have questions, subscribe to the Economist.

I think the time has come for thoughtful Adventist leaders and laity to turn our relatively small size and movement orientation to inspire a collective moral voice. We spend way too much time saving ourselves each Sabbath. Between cookie-cutter evangelism and mealy-mouth, self-help sermons, we've got so much faith that it often doesn't work.  And whatever happened to Adventist works? We got mixed up thinking that works were for ourselves. No, works save others - from poverty, poor air, disease, human trafficking, fear. Click this link and then read Lamin Sanneh's vision below and ask: is this the margin or just marginal?

Here's why I care. 

I’ve been asked to respond to what I’ve heard and what I’ve learned since I arrived at this conference. I’ve learned a great deal. Yesterday was quite a feast. It was like a banquet, we had a veritable cornucopia of riches. There is time now only to nibble at some of the crumbs that I have been able to take away with me.

I’ve never met Seventh-day Adventists before; this was my first exposure. But I was struck by several things from yesterday and today. Seventh-day Adventists—at least this particular group—comes to the tradition with many, many caveats and many disclaimers that struck me.

On the one hand, you can say there is evidence of self-criticism going on within the community itself. You don’t take yourself for granted, and you don’t take your teachings for granted. But when I listened to the lectures and the emphasis on salvation, hope, mission, and Sabbath, and tried to process the caveats and disclaimers that I heard. I’m constrained to think that one could reposition Seventh-day Adventism not in a spectrum, like the title of your journal, but on what I would like to call the frontier.

This is what I mean. There are three ways to look at the history of religion and the history of Christianity.  Those three ways we can group under one rubric: the idea of marginality. I heard a lot about how Seventh-day Adventists really are marginal, a small group within the broad spectrum of Christianity. I gather that you do not claim to represent the spectrum of Christianity. That’s why I mention the frontier. Because you don’t represent the spectrum, in a sense, your mission is very much on the margin. That means that you bring to the idea of marginality a theological component.

In American culture, we are busy about integrating people who have been marginalized, whose rights have been denied and who have discriminated against. We are bringing them into the mainstream. In that sense, we are busy in America mainstreaming people. That kind of marginality is what I call imposed marginality. The displaced, the oppressed person, the woman whose voice has been silenced, those who have been excluded, have been excluded against their will, a kind of imposed marginality.

From the point of view of religion they don’t have much agency. Nobody listens to them; their voices do not count. Nobody sees them because of the color of their skin. Nobody reflects on what they say because they are not capable of abstract thought. They are not organized; they are not rich. They are marginalized in a sociological-economic sense. In an economic sense, they are denied the rights available to the majority. That kind of economic marginality, of economic depravation, is something that we all want to overcome.

There is a second kind of marginality that you might call functional marginality. It is the marginality that comes from the fact that you and I are mobile. We move, take jobs in different cultures, in different cities. I have students that come to me in New England from different parts of America. For many of them, it is a cultural shock to be in New England.

This kind of marginality is functional. It is a result of choices we make to go to school, to get a job, to get married. We move and find ourselves a minority in that community where we happen to be. But that is different from the first kind of marginality. This is the marginality to equip oneself, to get married, to get a job to find a new center in life. It is not depravation.

But there is a third kind of marginality, which is the marginality of those who have reflected on mainstream values and find the status quo unacceptable. So they make a decision, a kind of moral decision. To explain this moral decision let me use the metaphor of the academy. I have my professional degree, my publications, I am offered tenure, I have a chair, but when I reflect on the condition of the world, I’m not sure that is what I want to give my life to. So I opt out, I check out. And this checking out is a form of moral scrutiny that I want to bring the world to.

Martin Luther King is a good example of this. There are many, many others—Gandhi, Mother Theresa, people like that—who could do very well in the world as it is, but who decide no, no, no, we have a different calling, a different vocation. This kind of marginality is by choice. It is not against your will, and it is not accidental; it is not a function of the geography of mobility.

I suggest to you that this kind of marginality—moral marginality, ecological marginality, whatever—is absolutely crucial to the religious life. What it represents is a challenge to the status quo, a challenge to people settling for the way we do things. This form of marginality challenges the system.  It is not a ghetto marginality, which says I will eschew the world, the world is evil, I will not be contaminated. That kind of marginality is permanent, and it makes you a historical fossil, irrelevant to the mainstream and to the culture.

The moral marginality that I am talking about is the marginality that is willing to take everything and challenge it—the mainstream and status quo values—in order to transform it. This is the marginality that takes religious vocation and sets it on the path of pilgrimage, for here we have no abiding place. It is a marginality that looks forward to the consummation of truth and right. I have a suspicion that Seventh-day Adventists belong to this critical edge, critical margin.

The idea that I get from some of the remarks is that somehow you should become a bourgeois organization in the business of mainstreaming everybody else to partake of the good things of this life. I think that would be a fatal betrayal of your own heritage, insights, and the peculiar role that you can play in the history of the world. There is no time more auspicious to talk about the Sabbath—as we heard from Herold Weiss—as obedience to the law or the fulfillment, looking forward to the kingdom.

It seems to me that you have been peculiarly placed at this juncture in the history of Christianity to study the dynamics of other movements.  You are particularly placed to take a leadership role in the consummation of Christianity from the hinterlands, from the frontier.

Since 1989, Lamin Sanneh has been D. Willis James Professor of Missions and World Christianity at Yale University.