.jpg)
.jpg)
|
Home
Opinion
Z - Archived Bloggers & Columnists
Morgan-Cole, Trudy
2012
|
(Please note that by “conservatives” here I’m addressing those who are more conservative than I am in the religious sense, not the political sense. I could write a whole other letter to the political conservatives I know, but this is not that letter).
A couple of controversies during the last few months – some personal and some public -- have led me to reflect on the divide between those who get labelled as “conservatives” and those who get labelled as “liberals”. Some people disdain labels altogether and I respect that, but within the context of the Adventist church I have no problem being labelled a “liberal Adventist” as I think that best describes my views.
Here’s something I do have a problem with, hence this open letter every fellow Christian whose views on some issues may be more conservative than mine:
It’s OK that your views differ from mine. It makes me crazy sometimes, but deep down I do believe we need a diversity of viewpoints as we collectively grope our way towards Truth. We need disagreement and lively debate.
What I’m not fine with is the assumption — very common in Adventist circles, and I think within Christianity generally — that liberals are liberal because we care less about following God and believing the Bible. We do not choose our viewpoints and practices because they’re an easier path, because we want to please ourselves or the world around us. There’s often an assumption that we lack your tough-minded commitment to obeying God no matter the cost. That being liberal equates to being “lukewarm,” and that the truly committed are always the truly conservative.
Here’s what I want you to understand. I am a “liberal,” by your terms, because I am every bit as passionate about following Jesus as you are — I have just drawn some different conclusions about what it means to follow Him.
If you are having trouble accepting this, I’ll start with what seems to me like a trivial example.
Let’s say it’s a Sabbath afternoon in summer – as, indeed, it was when I first had the idea to write this column. Church is over, Sabbath lunch is over, and by happy coincidence we are both sitting beside a beautiful clear sparkling lake with our families. You tell your children not to jump in the water because “we don’t go swimming on Sabbath.” Or, if you’re in a position of authority, you might just close down the waterfront at church camp for Sabbath afternoon. I, meanwhile, will do what I do every Sabbath in summer at our cabin: jump into the water along with the kids and spend the Sabbath hours splashing, paddling and floating. (Needless to say, I wouldn’t do this at church camp when you’ve closed down the waterfront; I’m not talking about defying authority or being confrontational. I’m talking about what I do in the privacy of my own cabin, or on a public beach).
Now, it’s perfectly OK with me that we have these diverse practices. You are free to do what you believe is right; I have no problem with that.
It does bother me when you imply that I spend my Sabbath afternoon in the water because I am less concerned about Sabbath keeping, as if the Sabbath is less special or holy or precious to me than it is to you.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. I go swimming on Sabbath (when weather and location permit) because I love the Sabbath and the Lord of the Sabbath, and I genuinely believe that there is no better way to praise Him than to be out enjoying His Creation.
It’s a small issue and one that I don’t want to get hung up on – I know most Adventists could wrangle for days about what is and isn’t appropriate to do during Sabbath hours. The point I’m making is not about the activity itself, but about the gap between my actual motives, and your assumption about what my motives are.
The same principles apply when we get to what might be the weightier matters of the law. I take stands you disagree with on controversial issues — I believe we should ordain people to the ministry equally without regard to gender; I believe same-sex marriage ought to be legal and that gay people have the same civil rights that straight people do. You might think — in fact, I’ve heard some of you say — that I hold these views because I don’t respect the Bible, or don’t take what it says seriously, or that I’d rather follow my own wisdom or the wisdom of “the world” than follow the Bible.
In fact, I hold these views because I believe in the Bible. I certainly interpret it different than you do, but I take the Bible very seriously. I’ve adopted those beliefs not because they’re popular or easy but because, after careful and prayerful Bible study, I believe they more truly reflect the spirit of the Bible and of the way Jesus treated people in the Gospels. You can disagree with how I read Scripture and we can debate it, but please don’t do me the disservice of thinking I don’t care about what the Bible says or about shaping my life according to its principles.
I could think of more examples. So could you. But the central point is the same in each one: whatever our differences, I am not lacking in love for God, passion for my faith, or the desire to follow His path.
I’m not arguing about which of us is “a better Christian” or “a better Adventist.” That’s up to God to decide, if He’s interested in those kind of measuring sticks (which I doubt).
I often fail as a Christian. I don’t always live out the love that I believe is central to our faith. I lose my temper; I snap at my kids. I don’t read my Bible or pray as much as I think I should. I may not live my faith as fully and as effectively as you do.
But I don’t care about it less, just because my faith is different from yours.
I disagree with you on so many points. I think the way you read the Bible is short-sighted and often inconsistent. I think you observe the letter of the law at the cost of its spirit. I could debate with you for hours about some of these controversial issues on which we disagree.
But I always recognize that your conservatism, your beliefs and your practices, come from a place of great faith. Whatever our differences, I know that you really care about our mutual faith, that you are dedicated to God and His Word, and that you do not make faith-related decisions lightly.
All I ask is that you do the same for me.
Log In to Post a Comment. Log In | Register
I am seeing some double standards you don't want conservatives to make assumptions about you yet you make assumptions about them. "the way they read the bible is short- sighted and often inconsistent." I think you need to pull the log out of your eye. While we are at it let me also address some assumptions liberals have. Usually they think they are better than conservatives, think they are more enlightened, think they are more loving, logical etc. I may disagree with you but I am consistent within my belief system and my hermeneutical structure. I have often posted here and I am yet to be shown where I am illogical or inconsistent. I believe your post comes of as ranting. the inconsistent, illogical conservative is a liberal strawman. I was told liberals were loving, caring etc but I have met a lot here who are mean and condenscending. I personally think what many call love is nothing but emotional sentimentalism or plasmodic empathy. I think we must not get comfy with interpretation models that are diametrically opposed to one another and simply agree to disagree. we both cannot be right. If holy can mean everything and anything then it loses its meaning.
As liberals and conservatives we might sit on different sides of the tent. But I think the important point, and what I take from Trudy's great article, is that we are all still in the tent. That is quite different from those who are sitting outside the tent and chucking stones at us all, or trying to burn that tent down!
There was certainly a lot of accusations flying around, and Paul probably crossed or came close to crossing the line several times in questioning the sincerity of some of the other believing groups. But I think to be honest all these early Jesus Movemement believers were sincere, even as the beliefs and practices that eventually became Christianity were still in flux.
I don't believe Trudy is suggesting all the negative stereotypes about conservatives is true. I think she is just asking for understanding that not all of the stereotypes against liberals are true either. In particular, liberals do believe in God, Jesus and the Bible just as passionately as conservatives.
Perhaps the typical pandering to ex-Adventists here on AToday and elsewhere gives the wrong impression about how important God, Jesus and the Bible is to us liberals - I don't know.
"What I’m not fine with is the assumption — very common in Adventist circles, and I think within Christianity generally — that liberals are liberal because we care less about following God and believing the Bible."
Perhaps if liberals were as passionate about defending a belief in God, Jesus and the Bible as they are about WO or homosexual equality (which in my mind are non-core issues compared with the core issues of belief in God, Jesus and the Bible), then many of these negative stereotypes of liberals wouldn't exist in the mind of conservatives.
Whether you include me in the "ex" I don't know, but personally, even though Stephen and I disagree on most things, I do respect that he generally reasons things through, and more often than not responds in a way that suggests he has thought about what has been said.
If you want the aboslute truth - I have seldom, (if ever) responded directly to your posts because....Well, I am guilty of judging the way you write and the positions you take and coming up with the view that discussion with you would be pointless. It is not much better with Jean, though I have dialogued with him occasionally.
Could I suggest that just because no one has pointed out your errors does not mean they do not exist. Just as I cannot take the inability of some to point out my error, does not mean such do not exist. It is easy for us to forget this and fall into arrogance.
I believe this letter would have been better addressed to all adventists as it is not only conservatives as this makes it more confrontational than helpful. I believe many articles on Atoday serve to (maybe unwittingly) to cement people in factions. If you look at most articles posted here on Atoday they are confrontational and do not even faccilitate meaningful dialogue. I mean If you call call our president a pope from the get go I become defensive Because I believe he is a breath of fresh air!
Atoday is predominately liberal and this can be seen by many of the titles. The few conservatives that post here always employ soft, understanding, non confrontational tones in their writing. Which is actually an irony because liberals were supposed to be the nice people.
Article headings with Pope Wilson will not faccilitate dialogue but only arguing and bickering. Imagine if I had topics like
Mixed Mutitude - Modern day Liberals???
or
PUC, CUC - golden calf experience?
How would you feel if this was the point od departure for a meaningful discussion?
Isn't that the purpose of this forum?
Tapiwa,
I thought long and hard before including that sentence in my column, and I'll try to explain my reasons for including it.
Another accusation liberals face is that of being wishy-washy in our approach to truth, of saying, "Oh, it doesn't really matter what you believe, all paths lead to God, let's just love one another and not worry about doctrinal debates." A caricature, but I know there are some conservatives who think of liberals that way (and probably some liberals who genuinely are that way).
I included that sentence to make the point that I actually DO think the issues liberals and conservatives disagree over are real and important. There are significant differences in how we read and interpret the Bible, and I don't want to gloss over those differences or pretend they don't exist. I do think that the hermeneutic and the set of preconceptions that many conservative Adventists bring to the Bible is problematic, and obviously they think the same of my approach to the Bible. These are real differences and I think it's OK to say that -- in fact, it's vital.
BUT, I think that "meaningful dialogue," as opposed to bickering, can only come from a place of mutual respect. Though it's difficult to achieve, I think we need to be able to trust that we are each approaching the question from an honest desire to follow God -- which is the plea for understanding I was making in this column.
When seeking to disagree respectfully, I believe it's of utmost importance to attack the issue, not the individual, and I think adhominem attacks are the death of Christian fellowship. I believe that there's a world of difference between saying "Your approach to the Bible is shortsighted and inconsistent," and saying, "YOU are shortsighted and inconsistent," or worse yet, "You are narrow-minded, bigoted, and a control freak" (which I sometimes want to say to certain conservatives in my life, but I am praying for God to give me more grace in that area).
Likewise, I have no problem with someone taking issue with my interpretation of Scripture and explaining to me why they disagree. I do have a problem with people assuming I believe the way I do because I 1) haven't read what Scripture says, 2) am too dumb to understand it correctly, or 3) just don't care what Scripture says. All of those, I believe, are ad-hominem attacks and do nothing to further the cause of Christian unity OR to promote meaningful debate.
I'm well aware that the way I interpret Scripture COULD be completely wrong (an admission, by the way, that I've rarely heard from conservatives, most of whom seem to have a level of certainty I can't even imagine) and I'm always open to learning more. I think we are all muddling our way towards truths that are not fully knowable and understandable by human beings, and that during the muddle the best we can do is hold our discussions with respect and continue to worship and serve together in love -- goals which I think are harder to achieve when we launch ad hominem attacks at each other and attribute false motives to those who disagree with us.
That said, of course I think my views are closer to "truth" than yours are -- I wouldn't hold those beliefs if I didn't think they were more correct. But again, I'm well prepared to get to heaven and find out I was wrong about almost everything. I don't think that will keep me out -- but if I was a jerk to other Christians (and to non-Christians) in the process of trying to prove I was right, then THAT might be a barrier.
I believe we should all hold our beliefs humbly, pursue truth passionately, and love one another at all times. These are my ideals: I often fall short of achieving them.
the next post was adressing Trudy she is finding it it difficault to say that liberals are just as guilty of misrepresantion and positing negative stereotypes about conservatives.
Sorry, it took me awhile to reply -- this week is back to school here and a very busy one for me.
Yes, I absolutely agree that liberals are also capable of misunderstanding and misrepresenting conservatives too. I was writing from my own perspective about what I've experienced but it definitely cuts both ways and we could all learn more about love, charity and believing the best of each other.
I still maintain that what I said about not liking the way conservatives read the Bible is NOT an example of that kind of misrepresentation though, because it is addressing a genuine difference of opinion not attacking a person's motives or character. But yes, liberals do do that to conservatives too; sadly, I've sometimes done it myself.
Honestly, if you can agree with Stephen's statement above -- that there are honest, passionate, God-fearing people on both sides of these liberal/conservative debates -- then that's all I hoped for from this column.
Reminds me of the days as a kid when I used to chuck little round pine nuts up the canvas of the big tent at camp and catch them as they came down. The one's that went over the tent and hit the occassional passing saint were the ones that got us in trouble!
As Christians, we spend a lot of time reading about the Pharisees, and debating their parallels to Christians today. One could almost call AToday an 'anti-Pharisee' website - looking at its content and clear leanings. But what about the Sadducees, those educated-priestly-aristocrats that had become cultural-members who didn't really believe in core spiritual beliefs such as the Resurrection? Jesus also used some pretty strong language against the Sadducees in Matt 22:29 and Matt 16:6.
We need to avoid both conservative and liberal extremes as Jesus did. However, we also need to recognise that ultimately the Jesus Movement comprised people from all the main philosophical groups of the day, including both Pharisees and Sadducees.
You are employing misrepresantation I did not label liberals as mean and condescending, I said that some liberals on this site were mean and condenscending. Big difference! I believe we should think in terms of wrong and right. if not then how should we think. I would prefer to do something because I believe it is God sanctioned, than to do my own thing and force God to sanction it. therein lies the difference. If you do not think in terms of right and wrong then can you please define for me the paradigm in which you think?
Our Lord intended us to be together in the same church so that we could learn from each other and balance each others' perspectives. "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, that you have love one for another."
When people with differing viewpoints approach each other with the a priori assumption that those holding the "other" viewpoint love the Lord less or are less committed, no meaningful dialogue can take place. And I believe that was Trudy's point.
It would be well for us to remember that the conservatives in Christ's day were known as Pharisees, and they crucified the Lord of glory, aided by the "liberal" Sadducees who ruled the temple. Neither the Pharisees nor the Sadducees were "bad people," but they were both so self-focused that they did not recognize the Lord of glory. And it could happen to us, too.
I pray that we may all be so committed to Christ that we can treat each other as Christ would.
Inge Anderson
http://ssnet.org/
Where in the NT (which should be the guide for Christians) could they ever have arrived at such prohibitions? It is if religion is boring, morose, and should be observed quietly in prayer. This is attractive to young people? Have you asked them?
It is because the church has used the OT for its morals and guides and precise, detailed and inscripted laws and transported them into Christianity. Christianity was NEVER intended to be simply another Jewish sect, but an entirely new and different movement; not defined by ethnicity, sex, or servitude status. How far the church has strayed from its smple beginnings when the simplest of instructions were given for them: no eating food offerered to idols, no blood, and no fornication.
Now look at the 28 FBS and compare them to see how unrecognizable a first century Christian would find the SDA church today.
I do agree with your comments about the absence of prohibitions in the NT or OT for that matter. That really is what the Pharisees did in applying the 'oral law' to things not found in the Torah.
Whether Christianity was intended to be a Jewish sect or something completely different is probably debateable - if was after all very much the central question for the NT Church per Acts 15. There appeared to be at least 4 or more 'factions' re that issue: ultra-conservatives such as James' Judaizing group; Peter and John's 'mixed' 'middle' group; Paul's Gentile-orientated group; and then the proto-Gnostic group (later best represented by Marcion) that embraced antimonianism. If you asked that question to any of these groups (and individuals in those groups) in NT times, I am sure you would get a whole range of responses.
I would argue the early SDA Church was very much the same, with a dynamic sense that all theological issues were still on the table, best expressed in the strong anti-creedalism of many of our pioneers. I would argue the Reformation Church was very much the same.
The question is whether with the growing number of FBs we are very much in danger of developing a rigid 'orthodoxy' just like all the Churches before us. Have the 28 FBs become the de facto SDA 'creed'?
If I was the all-powerful leader of the SDA Church, I would advocate a return to half a dozen simpler statements of belief, which still captured the core Adventist theological message with its distinctiveness, but making it clear that non-core issues (such as 1844 or Ellen White) are hardly so 'fundamental' to be labelled a 'fundamental belief'. In that sense, I agree with you re the approach of the Church in Acts 15 issuing a few simple statements, not a whole catachism of theological minutae.
I would say the NT church had a good idea what it believed, it just took them some time to work out the implications and make that into a system of beliefs. They knew Jesus was God, but how that fit with their belief in one God took time to work out. Paul could say in Galatians that they all believed salvation was by grace, but it took time to work out what that meant in practice. In fact, we are still working on that :)
Having lived in Southern California as a young adult and married most of this time, I rediscoverd an Adventist faith that made sense. It was there I took theology. I think Sabbathkeeping should be a personal choice with some guidelines for the new member. One finds more depth in a religion and keeps Sabbath in a more spiritual way when they are not following a set of rules (even superstitions) made up by someone else. I think then they are more likely to live by the Spirit. That is my opinion.
I have a question though. I appreciate your emphasis on individuality and finding one's own path. But how important do you think subculture is to the self-perception and cohesiveness of a community of faith? Does a vibrant faith community require that, at least on some level, a member must choose to submit his or her own notions of acceptable and unacceptable to the community of faith, without having to believe that community subcultural standards are salvation issues?
I think this is a big issue that conservatives have with liberals - a cowboy, let-me-define-my-own sprirituality mindset, that is inimical to community formation. I'm not suggesting that "liberal" Christians can't form strongly bonded communities. I'm just wondering about the libertarian liberal that you seem to be describing - the "I'll-do-it-my-way" Christians. How does that work in practice, and how effectively does it transmit community values and religious commitments transgenerationally?
The crisis within Christianity is almost entirely a failure of transmitting values and beliefs from one generation to the next. Which is, IMO, almost entirely a matter of 1) misunderstanding those values and beliefs; and 2) underestimating the need to translate those values and beliefs for each generation. The matter of misunderstanding is illustrated here every day by most of us when we treat peripheral issues as being of great importance, and really important issues get lost in the melée. I can guarantee that if we sat down with everyone here who believes in God and the mission of the SDA church that we would agree on most of the important issues. But we disagree on details and what are really minor issues, and the way we do so convinces the next generation - and sometimes even this generation - that we have nothing of importance to say, so they ignore us. If we all focused on transmitting the important things, maybe there would be more of us to discuss the details.
Tapiwa, speaking so boldly for 'many conservatives' -as if this your personal projection of constructed consensus lends creedence to your license presuming to then speak for 'progressive people' (your intentional use of the L word is baiting here imho) who "want to go back to Egypt kind of thing and use worldly systems to incorporate them (what, garlic and onions?)into christianity"-then following with such a question re; "should adventism be anything and everything" is really quite off-putting-but strangely apropos. It seems you recognize that the mindset and demeanor you represent is exactly what the author is adressing-but her mesage seems entirely lost upon you in that you do exactly what she gently warns against.
Frankly, those who cannot speak for themselves, perhaps out of indecision, rigidity, or some other fear, will use these communication techniques, instead of honestly speaking and sharing only their own story, hope, strength, questions, and experience. One of the first things I employ in group facilitations is a little levity by asking "is this 'we' statement that of the mouse in your pocket and you or something else?"-and then encouraging each participant to speak only in the first-person. Personal "I" statements are far more honest, rather than purporting to speak for anyone else or a group-especially when its about someone else or another group. The gross generalizations of such stereotypical 'we' statements are absolutely antithetical to true communication.
Remarkable in a healthy group how the group then polices itself, and calls out whenever any member (even the facilitator- or perhaps especially because of his role) violates this simple rule-and how true dialogue, respect, learning transpires rapidly.
We all redefine spiritual concepts from our own perspectives. That started with Adam and Eve, so we are doing nothing new. I have some very conservative relatives - some are still followers of the early Brinsmead teachings - and they do worry about even the conservatives in the SDA church 'going back to Egypt' by adopting views they consider 'foreign' to Adventism. One accused the Standish brothers of being 'too progressive'. I don't know anyone else has ever labelled them 'progressive'.
Part of the solution to this problem is realising that we all 'see through a glass darkly' and our right to follow what we believe God is teaching us is equally the right of those who disagree with us. We are all - radical, liberal, progressive, middle-of-the-road, conservative, ultra-conservative, or fundamentalist SDAs - constantly falling short of what God wants us to know and do. We need to find a way to stand for, and express, our understanding of truth while allowing others to do the same.
Stephen Foster says below that 'tolerance' is the principle concern. I have a certain dislike of 'tolerance' as it puts one person in the position of being right and 'tolerating' someone else being wrong. I believe what the NT calls for is 'acceptance' - to accept that someone else is a fellow-believer, doing their best to follow God, and that God, not me, is responsible for teaching them what they need to know and do. It is good to read John 17, and then follow that immediately with John 21:15-22.
Believe it or not, prior to my introduction to this site three years ago, I thought I was a moderate-liberal.
To be honest, based on your column and your examples, I wonder how much more conservative I am than you are. (In fact, you may be more conservative.)
Undoubtedly many conservatives and liberals are intolerant. Perhaps tolerance is really the principle concern.
The Sabbath is apparently not at issue for you from the standpoint of sacredness. In other words, you acknowledge the Sabbath. I assume that you acknowledge it as a memorial of God’s Creative activities, etc.
I also assume that you, like me, believe that while gay marriage can—or conceivably should be—a civil right, that it should never be (Seventh-day Adventist) church-sanctioned (by confusing civil rights with ecclesiastical privilege).
Your beliefs are derived after “careful and prayerful Bible study;” which clearly means that you believe God to exist, and answers prayer—and the Bible to be authoritative.
As we (or more precisely I) have discovered from this site particularly, there are Adventists who do not believe any of this. From my perspective, tolerance for such views is acceptable. Compromise with them isn’t.
On the other hand, your views of (“proper”) Sabbath observance and that of not being willing to legislate essentially religious beliefs, are examples of perspectives that can easily be perceived as derivative of prayerful study.
To use a political analogy, what does 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' in political terms mean? In Australia and Europe, even most of our 'right-wing' and 'conservative' politicians would probably be considered quite 'liberal' and 'left-wing' by US standards.
For example, Obamacare, which has been labelled 'socialist', seems to have a number of similarities to health care reform introduced in Australia by our 'right-wing' and 'conservative' Prime Minister John Howard. When he introduced the individual mandate, that if you earnt a certain salary you would be penalised if you didn't have private insurance, that was introduced under the guise of 'conservative' notions of self-reliance and personal responsibility.
One should never be consistently liberal - it really confuses the conservatives who think they have everyone pigeonholed (not all conservatives do this) when you can agree with them on some position they think is held solely by right wing conservatives. For me, that is final generation perfection. I don't believe in final generation theology, but do believe the final generation will be perfect. I just define perfection a little differently (and more correctly :) ) than most FGT supporters. I vote either Australian Democrats (way to the left of the US bunch) or for the Greens, and I am an anthropologist, so I consider my political identity as a liberal fairly safe. I did once vote for the Liberals, but that was back in the days when they were. I will vote for Mickey Mouse before I would vote for the current neo-conservative bunch masquerading as Liberals.
obvious you were supporting the very conservative viewpoints of SDA'S, which is your right. i was unaware of your being African until you mentioned you were, and that liberals thought you must be uneducated & ignorant because of your heritage. And you have mentioned the same more than once,
similarly. This perhaps indicates you may be a bit sensitive about your being African. i certaintly have
no bias toward any race on Earth. i believe God loves us all equally. i had back surgery by a 6'7" black
Nigerian, by selection.. If i had a doubt he may be ignorant or less than totally qualified, i would have
made a different choice. A suggestion Sir, i consider you highly qualified and able to make an excellent presentation of your intelligence & views. It isn't necessary for you to consider your race here to support your views. i don't.
indicates, Sir, you may be a little sensitive & believe all SDA liberals
Tapiwa, this can be a foundational brick for increasing better communication between your comment responders, and the authors/editors of the articles themselves. This is not a brickbat. No one can ajudge your motives-however it must be observed that many invite this more than just a little bit, in that they do very often portend to know others motivations, interpretations, (broadly painting swaths of your assumptions of motives, intents, and means of groups-towit specifically "liberals", ie as you have done recently), but also Ellen (and as you claimed to know Donna's interpretation was in err, in that other thread), as well whatever scripture writer a particular pet proof text is being examined.
Presenting with a mind to study and follow the truth of the text-or the author of an article, or another respondents comments instead of arrogantly and boldly stating and then simply restating vociferously your view (that all others who do not agree are wrong) could possibly benefit each of us here tremendously.
Even your statement to Earl above, that the "elitism" you say that reeks on this site is absolutely an uncalled personal statement-how about if you really believed this-why are you even here?Even better, why are you not then bringing a sweet aroma pleasing to God? I see no one suggesting that you-or the ideology that you espouse is responsible for inference your group or its sometimes baiting comments are responsible for spreading a foul stench.
Your suggesting that a lot of people are "pathetically psycoanalyzing" you is a bit paranoid imho.
I mean, it is nice that you identify your dreeams with Martin Luther King-and you share a nice thought of his-but what are you doing within your community to enhance race relations (claiming that others are racist against you is you analyzing them-and not helpful in community building, and quite pathetic).
If I might be so bold to suggest to you, and our other readers, that personalizing the responses less, not taking personally an authors viewpoint and deriding them or their belief or opinion-and not responding with what appear as constructed personal wounds would helpful. We ALL judge from a very stilted medium out here on the web, and hence will inevitably caricaturize, sterotype, and label (or 'pathetically analyse' as you put it) others. I do it no less than any other person-despite my daily prayer and devotional life as well daily accountability group disclosure. I pray I continue to give more grace, take less offense, walk humbly and with contrite heart-as i pray to model, and encourage this from my community too. That community includes you, irrespective of culture, geography, education, nationality, race, ideology, sexual orientation, worship practise, or any other divisivism (which we fundamental christians are FAR TOO practised at.)
I desire to do what Jesus did-draw bigger circles, and use boundaries of grace.
I showed the statements that I felt were elitist and borderline racist and you did not respond. I disagreed with the context in which Donna supplied the quotation and I asked you to clarify and Give your view on that and you did not respond. All you have done is misrepresent me, judge me and appointed yourself my correcter.
Are you saying that I should just keep quiet when someone says that I have a inherent natural fear of women beacauseof where I come from or that because I am naturally inclined to polygamy because of where I come from must I be silent? Timo it seems to you are against me speaking out on what I believe is wrong. Okay Timo you are right and I am wrong. The irony of all of this is that you are exhibiting the traits of what Trudy is cautioning conservatives froom doing.
You said "Even better, why are you not then bringing a sweet aroma pleasing to God?" Are implying that I am not? please answer this one it is very important.
Be careful that you become like the modern Pharisee " I thank you Lord that I am loving and tolerant. I thank you Lord that I am not fundamental and conservative. I thank you Lord that I am not rigid and judgemental like this Tapiwa who does not bring a sweet aroma to you."
Lets now discuss issues on their merit and chill on the character evaluations.
P.s. For the record I never called anyone racist or elitst I was merely saying that some of the statements were. I simply asked Donna to defign her understanding of the word conservative as used by Ellen G White. I believed the context in which she used the quotation was disingenuos. But If she feels I was mean then I sincerly sorry but I was addressing her argument not her.
Oh vay, Tap. Brick, as a foundation for communication, not brickbat. But swing it as you will.
BTW, you did not 'address' Donna, more than try tell us you knew what she really meant. Just like you knew what Ellens real meaning was. If it is needful for you to raise your opining (which you are free to totally do) to such a level, go right ahead.
You are still not answering my question . No matter, (sigh) it is testament to that you are unable to answer. Maybe the reason I have a bat is that you keep throwing cricketballs at me. If you have ever been hit by one you will realise that they are very painful.LOL
You want communication maybe you can start by answering my questions.
There you go again...
"testament to that you are unable to answer...."
Tap, you have it wackbards. Onus is on you and your prescience re knowing Ellen's "real" definition, and how you are so certain of Donna's.
Indefensible is your stance I've lobbed cricketballs at you-and to suggest such in a thread where you claim I'm unable to answer utterly laughable. Produce for me one example where I've presumptiously insulted you as evinced by your ability to answer.
Perhaps the global posturing as victim gets tiresome. I'd hope you give it up and stick to the merits of the conversation instead. But I'm just an idealist...I can still hope.
COMMENT DELETED
Personalizing replies and insults unacceptable on AToday.
You've earned a free vacation, Mr All4Him.
Or longer, according your wish.
(edited)
Trudy wrote....
"I believe we should ordain people to the ministry equally without regard to gender; I believe same-sex marriage ought to be legal and that gay people have the same civil rights that straight people do. You might think — in fact, I’ve heard some of you say — that I hold these views because I don’t respect the Bible, or don’t take what it says seriously, or that I’d rather follow my own wisdom or the wisdom of “the world” than follow the Bible. In fact, I hold these views because I believe in the Bible. I certainly interpret it different than you do, but I take the Bible very seriously. I’ve adopted those beliefs not because they’re popular or easy but because, after careful and prayerful Bible study...."
Why do you think there are so many denominations? Have you heard of the Unitarian Church? If you are not going to follow the examples of the Word and ordain "without regard to gender" (as they and others do) that is your choice... Adventist are more conservitive that Unitarians you have a choice..... As for me and my house we will serve the Lord.
Censorship should of course be a last resort. Importantly, moderation should also be done in a consistent, transparent and obvious manner. I have now seen quite a few conservatives warned and effectively kicked off this website for a number of reasons that have not been entirely obvious to me. I have never seen the same moderating zeal applied the other way. Is there a reason for this?
Again, I am no conservative myself. And again, yes I have raised these issues off line but never received a response.
Moderating is not a topic of discussion of this thread nor will be dissembled on the boards.
Moderators decisions are final; private emails by offender will be answered regarding proper net ettiquette, content, and demeanor. The censure is based on an edited element which has been removed and most (if any) readers did not see offensive component. What is reposted is completely acceptable.
Moderating team welcomes suggestions from other readers, but unfortunately there seems to be a glitch in these being forwarded. I will discuss this with the web editors and hopefully rectify the problem. I do appreciate your input, and will privately email you shortly, Stephen.
Emails to moderating team presently need to be addressed
"attn moderator", atoday@atoday.org
She was also 'conservative' in the sense that she also struck down many 'innovative' doctrines, such as Pantheism, and pushed the Church towards a more 'orthodox' Trinitarian view of God.
I think one will find Ellen White was both liberal at times and conservative at times.
This looking to the past, on the one hand, and seeking for ideas in the current situation are both needed within the church, if we are to have balance—and it's best if we practice a bit of gentle kindness and winsome persuasiveness in the process. Some seem to believe that the two sides are intransigent enemies and that the church is only large enough for one viewpoint at a time. I fail to see any evidence in real life that conservatism and liberalism are meant to part ways in the church. In some cases the prudent course is the old-fashioned way; in other cases, we need to find a replacement for the wheel (as it were), reinvent it. A council of various points of view will tend to discover the best pathways, and those pathways may vary by place and time.
“Likewise, I have no problem with someone taking issue with my interpretation of Scripture and explaining to me why they disagree. I do have a problem with people assuming I believe the way I do because I 1) haven't read what Scripture says, 2) am too dumb to understand it correctly, or 3) just don't care what Scripture says. All of those, I believe, are ad-hominem attacks and do nothing to further the cause of Christian unity OR to promote meaningful debate.”
Those three assumptions could come from liberals to the left of you. Do not give all the credits to the conservatives.
You have 'liberal' Adventists in Australia swimming but would never dream of going to a restaurant, whilst you have 'liberals' in America not dreaming of swimming but going to a restaurant for an official Church-relate Sabbath luncheon. You have 'conservative' hosts at a Fiji youth congress for the SPD come down hard on Australian girls wearing short skirts, but those same 'conservative' hosts feeding all the Adventist youth meat and having no vegetarian option!
It is all relative.
Baptists? Catholics? It is the cultic types that have made behavior an important part of their religion: Mormons, JWs, some Penecostals and Nazarenes, and Adventists.
Why? Doesn't it originate with Judaism where minute details were subject to scrutiny? Didn't Jesus have much to say about this emphasis on works? Have we not yet come out of that mindset that made eating out on Sabbath or swimming on that holy day a meaure of religiosity?
----------
Yes, some things are relative – perhaps – but to a certain extent. Take the short dresses vs serving meat for example: I’m pretty sure the guys at the Fiji youth congress wouldn’t have served pork, duck or crayfish. If so, then they were at least abiding by the basic standards of our health message. Question is: Were the girls from Oz meeting at least a basic standard of what represents reasonable modest dressing?
When secular cultural norms are incorporated in an individual’s belief system and come into conflict with a conservative church model then one cannot just hold the church ransom for not giving in to the whims and fancies of those individuals who interpret the bible differently. They should put forward their ‘new light’ via the proper church structures and let the world church decide at a GC in Session on whether it should be accepted or not. Attacking from the outside of church structures is going to be futile to say the least. Numerous people have taken advantage of this and tried to shed the ‘new light’ from some high positions in our church. Their light shedding however was found to be inconsistent with the light already imparted to the church thereby deviating from our sound fundamental teachings and how God has led us in our past history. Liberals within the church will have to learn to deal with it: Conservatives do.
Personally, I wouldn't want to be part a a church that conflicted with my convictions, beliefs or interpretations: but that's just me. Whilst it may be of good repute for both liberals and conservatives to respect and accept their differences on separate sides of the tent, it is inevitable that they will eventually part ways from what I can see.
I think you will find most liberals do beleive in the need for basic and fundamental principles on which we all agree - they just see the need for less of them than many conservatives do.
What are these (slightly older) secular cultural norms are conservatives guilty of?
Whilst your bold assertion that "There is no 'Christian culture'. Never has been, and on this earth probably never will be." is questionable; most conservatives would prefer to refer to this in terms of Christian Lifestyle, Behaviour and Beliefs. This, there has always been - The Bible being the basis thereof. The difference between the two groups is that religious Liberals (a sub-culture?) are more gullible in adopting and supporting secular norms which conflict with scripture and the fundamental teachings accepted by the Church they belong to. One can quite easily see the consequences of the actions of religious liberals in the West which are heavily influenced and indoctrinated by secularism to the extent that finding Seventh-day Adventists who openly trample on the Holy Sabbath is not uncommon yet they fully know that Jesus was a Sabbath keeper himself who even taught the Jews its proper observance when they distorted it. The conservative Adventists in the West will have to say how 'bout no sooner or later as the standards are not only lowered but ridiculed and attacked by those within the church who have adopted an alternative christian culture.
Conservative Christians often have a problem separating Biblical standards from cultural practices. Support for KJV, insistence on wearing suits and ties or dresses to church, opposition to movies per se, opposition to literature, the form a church building must take, the equation of the 1940s-1950s western family with the biblical family, are all examples. There are many more, some specific to various areas. You may even find many conservatives are as secular as liberals, just in different ways.
Another example that always comes to mind is the claim of 'Family values'. Christ was arguably raddically anti-family, claiming that His disciples were His mother and His brothers. His 'Christian lifestyle' seemed very different from the modern, middle-class, consumeristic lifestyle advocated by most conservative Christians today.
God and Guns and War
Or how about the obsession with guns - how is that part of the 'Christian' culture? What about the strong support for the military and military action?
Capitalism
Ot what about modern capitalism - that seems very unChristian if you read the Gospel, or how the apostles first lived in Acts 2?
Music
Where do conservative Christians get their standards about 3 hymns and a prayer being the only 'Christian' form of liturgy? The Bible talks about all manner of different stringed instruments, percussion, trumpets and even dancing!
Dress
Where do conservative Christians get the idea of adopting what is effectively 19th-Century English dress codes as 'Christian'? My reading of James 2 suggests we should be very careful in judging someone's dress. Whilst I agree with notions of 'modesty', modesty doesn't mean a suit and a tie - it could mean a toga. Moreover, in the NT world if a woman went with uncovered head (i.e. like Muslims) that was considered immodest.
Food
I have always wondered where the recipe for glutton steaks is in the Bible?
Baptism
I even came across one the other day that made me laugh. Someone tried to argue that you should get baptised in a Church baptismal font and that outside in a river is not appropriate. Obviously, the person had not heard of John the Baptist who baptised in the river Jordan. Moreover, my own studies suggests than early Christians (drawing from Jewish tradition) saw moving water such as a river or stream as 'living water', which was much preferred for baptisms in NT times over lakes, ponds or fonts that were seen as stagnant 'dead water.'
All those "commandment breaking" religious liberals, even Adventists who "trample" on the sabbath are simply refusing to abide by the Jewish "proper observance" as did Jesus.
If those "liberals in the West" weren't so heavily influenced and indoctrinated by secularism they would be better behavioral examples for their church. After all, it's behavior that counts and it can be so easily seen: eating out on sabbath, even having swimming parties, going biking or hiking--all desecrating the day that was given for the Jews and they know how it should be observed--because the wrote the book and in that book, even Jesus was a sabbath breaker!
We should get back in our cocoons with the big institutional churches with other Adventists and look to them to see how the commandments should be kept.
As for "alternate" Christian culture, it presumes there is a correct one in order for there to be "alternate" one. Where can the correct one be found?
For example, in Jesus discussion about washing hands re ritual purity, it should be remembered that the Pharisee faction (who later became our modern Rabbis of modern Judaism) extended rituals only required in the Torah for priests dealing with holy food to everyday situations. It should be remembered that the Sadducees (and their modern equivalents the Karaite Jews) likewise kept the Torah but rejected what was essentially extra-biblical oral traditions.
I guess the point I make is I do believe in the Sabbath and I don't believe I am a Sabbath-breaker if I swim, hike or bike-ride on the Sabbath. In fact, I think many conservatives are the 'commandment breakers' when they impose additional burdens that no longer make the Sabbath a delight. If you sit on Sabbath afternoon looking at the clock waiting ernestly to go for a swim on a very hot summer's day, I suggest such an attitude is much more of a commandment breaker than the person swimming.
There are at least three branches of Judaism today: Orthodox, Conservative, and Reformed and all have different practices.
The Judaism of Jesus' day had made the Law their almost complete god--which is why Paul wrote that no longer was the Law to be the Christian's guide, but that it had been replaced. Nor were the Judaistic practices to be observed by Gentile Christians. If the Jews and some Gentiles wished to do so, he clearly explained that it was optional: "let everyone be convinced in his own mind" and no one should "judge another on whether the observed the annual feast, the new moon celebrations or the sabbath day.
It is the common SDA position that this does not mean sabbath. How they can ignore and explain that "it really doesn't mean the weekly sabbath but the annual celebrations. This ignores the sequence of celebrations that occur annual, monthly and weekly--as was the sabbath.
In Galatians, those are given in reverse order: "How is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things. to which you desire to be enslaved all over again. You observe days and months and seasons and years. I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain."
If of one chooses to observe the sabbath, he is also free to determine in which way he will observe it. If he chooses not to observe sabbath, he is also free to do so and if his actions on that day, or on any day or good and noble, that is all that is asked--if he chooses to heed the message to Christians.
I am not talking about Judaism today being Orthodox, Conservative and Reformed. These three groups are still all successors of Rabbinical Judaism who descended from the Pharisee faction of NT Judaism.
NT Judaism had many factions, including the Pharisees (successors modern Rabbinical Judaism), Sadducees (successors modern Karaite Jews), Zealots (one could argue militarist secular Israelis are their modern successors), Essenes (successors Mandaeism) and Hellenist Jews (one could argue Christianity itself is the successor).
Thus, it is not correct to talk about the ‘Judaism of Jesus’ day’ – there was no such thing as ‘Judaism’. For this reason, many scholars refer to even use the word ‘Jew’ or ‘Judaism’ when they refer to the NT period. Instead they tend to use terms like ‘Judean’ or ‘Israelite’.
For similar reasons, they often refrain from using the term ‘Christian’ but rather ‘Jesus Followers’. Christianity as we know it today didn’t exist either. Rather, it was full of factions in a flexible, fluid, evolving theology. There were Jame’s conservative Judaizes, Peter and John’s moderates, Paul’s liberals, and eventually Marcion’s proto-Gnostics.
Therefore, I think it incorrect to say the ‘Judaism of Jesus day’ had made the Law their almost complete god. Certainly that is true of the Pharisaic faction – if that is what you mean, who followed the Oral Law. But it certainly was not true of liberal Hellenistic Jews in the Diaspora, nor is it probably true of the Sadducees, who were in many ways extremely liberal (to the point of being worldly).
I am not keen to get on the old roundabout whether the law ‘no longer was to be the Christian’s guide, but was replaced’ – because you know my view that is incorrect, as all the scriptures and historic creeds of Christianity attest.
My point is, it is arguably important to be a little more specific when one talks about ‘the Judaism of Jesus’ day’, because there was no single, cookie view of Judaism in Jesus’ day. Christianity itself was a form of Judaism in the NT world.
In Galatians, those are given in reverse order: "How is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things. to which you desire to be enslaved all over again. You observe days and months and seasons and years. I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain."
We have also been on that round about several times. The BRI of the GC has several detailed scholarly articles refuting your arguments, which can be found at the following links:
http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/Sabbathdaycolossians.htm
http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/Biblequestions/Lunar%20Sabbath.htm
http://adventistcultmisconceptions.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/31-what-about-bible-texts-saying_11.html
Disagree Elaine – as most here do. Back again to your pet topic. As Lutheran theologian Dougals Moo admits in ‘Five views on Law and Gospel’ (1996):
“Yet worshipping on the first day of the week is not what the fourth commandment requires: It explicitly requires cessation of work on the seventh day.” (p88) (his emphasis).
As Evangelical-Dispensationalist theologian Wayne G. Strickland also observed in ‘Five views on Law and Gospel’ (1996):
“Likewise, there is no biblical evidence for Sabbatarianism that argues that the Sabbath rest has been transferred from the seventh day to Sunday. In the New Testament era, worship on Sunday was never described or understood as a Christian Sabbath.
Additional complications are caused by Sabbatarians who argue that Christ brought an end to the “existing Sabbath ceremonial” in Matthew 12:8. Thus the Sabbath principle should be enforced by moving it to Sunday or without prescribing a particular day.
There is in fact no Sabbath transfer or shift taught in Scripture. This constitutes a hermeneutical shift inasmuch as the meaning of the other nine commandments are not modified or qualified in this way in the New Testament. If the Decalogue is perpetually binding, including in the church age, how is it that this commandment can be eradicated or altered?” (p81-82) (emphasis added)
http://adventistcultmisconceptions.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/30-cant-christians-just-keep-any-day-as_11.html
In many ways Elaine, your comments are just as fundamentalist on this issue as the ultra-conservatives. For the majority of Adventists, the point we are trying to draw out is that one can keep the seventh-day Sabbath 100%, but how it is kept is very much a question of attitude and cultural context. Both you and the ultra-conservatives tend to make something like swimming an either-or question – it isn’t. I can swim on Sabbath and it is 100% complaint with Sabbath-keeping.
I think that point is perhaps getting lost in your attempt to undermine the underlying institution of the seventh-day Sabbath itself.