Stephen,

Interesting discussion you've started here. I, too, wonder at the many divides within Adventism, especially at how we all manage to hang together as well as we do. 

Recently my 11-12th grade Bible class and I considered Romans 14, and it came to mind while thinking about your article's questions. Could Romans 14 be a solution, if we as a body were to study and implement it thoroughly? This chapter seems to make several key points relative to this discussion:

• Rom 14:1-4, "Sides" will inevitably exist, taken around many disputable matters; don't attempt to get everyone on the same page when it comes to the debatable issues
• Rom 14:17 and 15:13 speak to what is debatable/disputable and what is not
• Rom 14:22 tells those of us who love to sidetrack the important discussions with the disputable matters to keep our mouths shut, keep our beliefs to ourselves, at least those beliefs that seem designed to create wasteful debates and judgmentalism and derail the truly important, larger work.

Anyway, thanks for the great topic,

Jim

~^*'\.Force.Is.Incompatible.With.Love./'*^~

Very perceptive.  I think you've really put your finger on something.  Like you, I consider myself to be theologically conservative and politically liberal.  Many of my close friends feel the same way, but we do seem to be the minority among white Adventists in North America.

I question whether theologically liberal Adventists (or theologically liberal Christians of any stripe, for that matter), can truly unite around the Great Commission.  My vague impression seems to be that their attitude is "my view is fine for me; your view is fine for you; let's leave each other alone."  There doesn't seem to be a compelling need to introduce people to Christ or unique Adventist understandings of truth.

Any theologically liberal folks out there who can confirm or refute this impression?

I agree that focus on mission can aliviate the tendency to petty theological fights. On the other hand, doesn't theology determine mission? Aren't the current battles in Adventism between 'liberals' and 'conservatives' just as much about mission (ie. social issues v. eternal issues) as it is about theology? In other words, if we are to focus on mission, which understanding of the church's mission is correct?

David Hamstra

From the article:

--

This is, of course, what occurs in the competitive corporate business community as well as in the competitive world of team athletics

--

Both of those things are run from the top down. Organization wise they have little to do with a denomination. Actually I think there is a seqment of Adventism that wants to be run from the top down so that they can just be told what to believe. But the reality is that such things don't work in the world of religion, they either lead to cults or abuse. Because religion even more than in politics needs the constant stimulation of different ideas and consideration of doing things in different ways. The problem comes when people just like in politics don't know how to discuss ideas but instead resort to emotional appeals and the avoidance of dealing with actual facts.

Steve has put it just right--squarely in the middle, the unavoidable core. Exactly what very few even want to spend time thinking about. Ron hit it again--many, maybe most, political as well as church organizations would rather be led by the top down. Alway subject o the loudest voice somewhere near the top--always igniting further divisions until many in the group don't leave, they just stay culturally connected but not mentally involved.

The one metanarrative that unites Adventists when they think about what makes their movement distinctive is the Great Controversy Theme. When was the last time you saw or heard that central essence of Adventist theology anywhere? Anywhere?  When I speak to Black churches, the pastors want me to spell it out, paint the big picture, etc. Not often from the White pastors unless I simply show up with something that unfolds some part of the Big Picture. When we ask the question: What does God want to accomplish with His Plan of Salvation?--what kind of answer do we get. All over the place, mostly tired conventional , disconnected derivatives from Babylonian sources. Am I getting off the wagon? Cheers, Herb

Your conclusion, Stephen, is very compelling. The implication that we are far too passionate about our politics, and not nearly passionate enough about our faith is so true. But for many Adventists, being passionate about Christ's mission means that the Church should fight for social, economic, and racial justice through political means. Many intellectuals in the Church felt that fighting against Proposition 8 was advancing the Great Commission.  Despite a historical tendency toward political conservatism among middle class White Adventists, they have seldom conflated their conservative politics with the Great Commission, and certainly they have not urged the Church to join forces with the so-called religious right. 

I would not necessarily agree with the criteria you implicitly use for theological liberals and theological conservatives. Is it theologically conservative to view coercive, big government solutions as advancing the Kingdom of God?  Is it theologically conservative to believe that life circumstances should, as a matter of policy, exempt people from being held accountable for their actions, or that Americans should be legally insulated from the consequences of their poor choices? The Biblical emphasis on freedom, personal responsibility, and original sin makes it difficult for me to see anyone, who buys into the social Darwinism on which progressive politics rests, as a theological conservative. Mercy, forgiveness, and charity are certainly strong moral imperatives in Scripture. But they are not trump cards to negate justice - to be freely handed out, as fundamental rights, to those at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. 

The problem with separating the Great Commission from politics, science, or other spheres of life and learning is that the Great Commission is predicated on a Biblical view of who we are and who God is. Darwinism and deconstructionism, which permeate politics, culture and higher education, make claims about human nature and the nature of ultimate reality which we ignore at our peril.  Politically conservative Christians are alarmed by the increasing faith that Americans want to vest in political leaders and political solutions that trade freedom and choice for the illusion of equality and security. Didn't Christ attempt to free hearts and minds from dependency upon religious and political leaders for personal well-being? Isn't such freedom an integral part of advancing the Great Commission?

I do not hanker for the utopia of accord that you envision, Stephen. I take a dim view of human nature. History tells me that when lots of people become unified in belief and purpose, tyranny and oppression ensue.  Our founders liked circular firing squads. They called it limited government and separation of powers. I yearn not for consensus, but for us to experience a clearer vision of who Christ is, and a deeper hunger for Him, by following where He leads. It is not the same path for everyone, and there are many deceivers along the way. But I welcome honest dialogue and different perspectives among those who claim His name; and I trust that, even in our differences, God's Spirit is teaching and drawing us closer to the Kingdom, not necessarily closer to the same path. 

I second what Kendra Perry wrote.  The idea of uniting behind the mission of the Adventist Church presupposes that our church has something worth selling, something that is better than what other people and denominations have.  The theologically liberal mind is extremely uncomfortable with the idea that anyone's religion is better than anyone else's. 

The core idea of liberalism, both political and theological, is that everyone else's value system is probably preferable to your own, and, just in case, you'd better act like it is.  This is why liberalism has such a difficult time standing up to existential threats like, in the past, communism, and perhaps in the present/near future, Islam.  In order to summon up the resolve to defeat those threats, you have to have the ability to think, and, God forbid, even to say, "our system of democratic capitalism is better than communism [or Islam], which is evil."  Conservatives like Ronald Reagan could say that.  Liberals can't even think that. 

A strong commitment to evangelism presupposes theological conservatism, because it presupposes the idea that Christianity--and in our case, Seventh-day Adventist Protestant Christianity--is better than atheism, agnosticism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Catholicism, Methodism, Islam, etc., and so much better that people's eternal destiny depends upon adopting our product and rejecting those others.  That kind of attitude is absoutely hateful to the liberal mind.  The arc of theological liberalism ends in an attitude of embarrassment and apology for one's own beliefs, and the elevation of somebody, anybody, else's beliefs over one's own wretched superstitions.  Or, I should say, it nears the end at that point.  The end of the arc is the abandonment of any firmly held beliefs. 

Maybe it's because I'm a politically conservative pastor (to the right of Atilla the Hun probably) in a politically liberal area (Appalachia in West Virginia) but I have quickly learned that you dare not (nor should you) bring your politics to the pulpit.  The reality is, that we as a church do not unite around whether we are Democrat or Republican or whether or not we support the Health Care Bill (as obvious as it may seem to me).  Politics aside, we are Seventh-day Adventists.  We unite around this one idea that Jesus is Coming Soon and we need to help others be ready.  The minute I use the pulpit to take political sides, I've just cut the number of people I can reach with the message of the soon coming of Jesus in half (or in my case, more than half).  The fact that we are a diverse group speaks to the fact that, by and large, we've stayed on message. 

Pastor Stewart Pepper                                                                                                               www.lewisburgchurch.org

In reply to Nathan:

The discipline to which I have attempted to adhere in this blog space has constrained my general tendency to be perfectly candid as to my political ideology.

What I will say, for now, is that to my thinking, theological conservatism really has more to do with relative orthodox adherence to a given religious or denominational creed or dogma. Political conservatism, on the other hand, has more to do with maintaining the established political, social, and economic order. (See my blog "Speaking of Politics, Part 1, and tell me if you disagree with my description of American political conservatism and/or liberalism.)

The two--theological conservatism and political conservatism (or their liberal corollaries)--do not have to necessarily co-exist within the world view of an individual member of a given society.

Let's say that you are citizen of a country that does not allow for certain basic human rights such as freedom of religion, and whose state religion is not Christian; and further, has neither a democracy or republican form of government, but perhaps is a monarchy. 

To advocate for radical changes in the political realm of that society, perhaps the abolition of the monarchical system, would actually make you a radical revolutionary in that society, politically. To simultaneously advocate for an even stricter adherence to the doctrinal tenets of the state religion, would however make you a theological conservative in that society. (One thinks of Iran in the late 1970's, for example.)

Conversely, to advocate for the maintenance of the established existing monarchical order in this hypothetical nation, would quality you as a political conservative. To simultaneously advocate for radical changes in the religious realm of that society, to perhaps be tolerant and even inclusive of certain Christian tenets and to seek to incorporate some of these into the theology of the prevailing state religion, would make one theologically liberal in that society. In other words, you can easily be (considered) a theological liberal and political conservative; or a theological conservative and a political liberal, simultaneously.

As to Social Darwinism, it appears that we have widely differing views of what is meant by this terminology. I think of Social Darwinism as referring to a laissez-faire, survival-of-the-fittest approach to social policy, leaning toward or leading to oligarchy; and really, nothing more than that at all. I am not clear as to what you mean by use of that term because by my definitional understanding, political progressivism is diametrically opposed to Social Darwinism, whereas you assert that progressive politics actually "rests" on it.

Your question about what Christ came to do implies some sort of societal or political dimension to His message and agenda that I do not see (at all). Love for God and for your fellow man ("as yourself"), and faith and reliance on God and the sacrifice and righteousness of Christ for your salvation has nothing whatsoever to do with what you either view or do not view as the appropriate role of the government in civil affairs; except in cases where allegiance or obedience to God is challenged by that government.

Your view of what "our founders" wanted is perhaps somewhat telling. What comes to mind upon hearing "our founders" may be central to what we are talking about. Theologically some of us mean Christ and the apostles. Still others mean the Whites, et al. You apparently mean the signers of the founding documents of the United States and therefore think of that term first in a political context. Still others, elsewhere in the world will mean, who knows...?

I know that even our nation's founders, to whom you refer, were of varying ideological stripes politically and argued vociferously about the words, phrases, and meanings of our Constitution, hence the immediate founding of multiple political parties. That said, your view of the Constitutional separation of powers may be correct. But that's another topic, for another time.

Suffice it to say that our theological founders, particularly Christ, neither wanted or intended a circular firing squad among His followers. That much is undeniable. 

Thank you, Stephen, for your thoughtful response. I think of conservatism more in philosophical terms than particular political or theological constructs. If conservatives and progressives are primarily defined by whether they want to maintain or overturn the status quo, then today's progressive is tomorrow's conservative, and vice versa, depending on who's in power, and the categories become meaningless. I think whether one is progressive or conservative has much more to do with their view of human nature. Conservatives have what Thomas Sowell, in Conflict of Visions, calls a constrained view of human nature, whereas progressives have an unconstrained view. Conservatives see human nature as basically evil; they place high value on personal freedom and personal responsibility; and they take a dim view of the notion that some are equipped by education, training or moral sentiments to rule over others. Many of the characteristics you identify as conservative are simply populist. Progressives, on the other hand, are skeptical of the reality of human freedom; they see human nature as a tabula rasa, to be molded and shaped by enlightened, benevolent educators, social scientists, and political elites for the common good.

My use of the term social Darwinism was, I concede, misleading. I meant it not as a liberal ideal, but as an extension of the Darwinian notion that human nature is the product of evolutionary forces. Progressives have pejoratively described belief in laissez faire as social Darwinism and sought to identify conservatives with social Darwinism. But in reality they (progressives) are the Darwinists, because their belief that human engineering can shape the evolutionary environment, and transform humans into peace loving, docile citizens of the state who will gladly work for the greater good, is based upon a commitment to Darwinian principles. 

I don't know how you could interpret what I said as implying that Christ had a political agenda. Quite the contrary, Christ sought to expose the freedom, hope and security offered by political and religious authorities as illusory. It is disingenuous for you to feign confusion over what I meant by "founders", when the context I provided - limited government and separation of powers - made the reference obvious. Your circular firing squad, of course, poses a false choice. Christians of different beliefs and callings can and do work together and respect each other, while still retaining the identity of their own unique calling.

Your implicit faith in the ability of humans to, on a large scale, put aside differences and self-interest to build a spiritual tower of Babel identifies you as progressive. As one who takes a cynical view of human nature, I think your religious utopia is unrealistic and dangerous in this world. Therefore I think distribution of religious authority among denominations and churches is just as important and healthy as distribution of political power in the polis.

BTW, I'd like to hear you explain how you propose to transcend political and theological differences with church members who believe that social and political activism is at the heart of the Great Commission.  

In reply to David: 

Perhaps you are seconding what Kendra Perry wrote in her blog, as opposed to what she wrote in commenting on my blog (above). You may want to re-read, or read, her comment to this particular blog. (It's probably safe to say that we both agree with her blog, "The Heart of Adventism.")

Your assertion that "the core of liberalism, both political and theological, is that everyone else's value system is preferable to you own, and, just in case, you'd better act like it is..." etc., is at variance with historical reality. Franklin Roosevelt was a political liberal who didn't seem to have "such a difficult time standing up to existential threats" like Hitler's Nazism or Mussolini's Fascism. Subsequent political liberals like Truman and Johnson waged war in Southeast Asia against the existential threats they perceived from aggressive Communism on the Korean peninsula and in Viet Nam respectively. 

The problem with ideological political enthusiasm when juxtaposed with religious doctrine is that political ideology is based on subjective social philosophy and (our?) religious doctrine is based on something quite different.

Stephen, you're right that, in the increasingly distant past, liberal potitical leaders were able to muster up the gumption to resist, but in the past 40 years, pacifism has taken control of the American Left.  Show me a post-1968 liberal Democrat comparable to Harry Truman. 

Politics aside, the main point of Kendra's post and mine was that theological liberalism is incompatible with evangelism.  I can see that you are not a theological liberal--no liberal could ever have written, "political ideology is based on subjective social philosophy and our religious doctrine is based on something quite different.'  So I don't really expect you to speak to this point. 

Nathan,

I am sincerely puzzled by what a conservative or a progressive/liberal is philosophically outside of either a political/economic or a theological construct. Since when have these terms meant anything (from a world view perspective) in juxtaposition to each other, outside of these constructs?

In a political context, I have previously heard conservatives accuse liberals of "not trusting the (American) people" to do the right thing, or of imposing things (regulations, taxes, laws, limits) that restrict freedoms and liberties, or of seeking to establish a "nanny state" (precisely) because they do not believe that the people, when left to themselves, know what's best, or will do what's best, for themselves or their families. Haven't we all heard of liberals being accused of social engineering through the tax code and other policy initiatives? This has always previously been (allegedly?) because liberals do not trust human nature; that instead of a blank slate, they see the dark pages of human history as the reason not to give their fellow man the benefit of the doubt in terms of their interactions with other men. So I seriously question your (or Sowell's) view of who has the constrained view of human nature, and who has an unrestrained view.

Again, your assertion that "Christ sought to expose the freedom, hope and security offered by political and religious authorities as illusory," to me implies that there was a socio-political message, or rationale of sorts, in His ministry or mission that (has essentially evolved and) now manifests itself as political conservatism. This, of course, is the conservative corollary to what liberals have historically done to Christ's mission and message in seeking to promote "The Social Gospel."

I didn't (intend to) "feign confusion" as to who you meant by the "our founders" reference. I just don't know why, in reply to a blog concerning the over (or misplaced) emphases on political and/or theological divisions within our denomination, a reference to our nation's founders had any specific relevance except to point out a (particular) political emphasis; which, in essence, points to the very challenge/issue we are addressing as a concern.

The reason why the circular firing squad is a real problem is that, just as in real firing squads, everyone involved in the "shooting" to which we refer is a sharpshooter. The people who for whom these ideological and theological differences matter most are (perhaps?) the thought leaders and intellectual elite within our denomination. Yes, we work together despite our differences, as you point out. The question is how much more effective would our efforts be if, like what happens in the for-profit corporate world, or in the area of professional team sports, our primary focus was on the real mission assigned to us rather than the ideological differences that distract us.

For what it's worth, I doubt that anyone's view of human nature could be much dimmer than my own. I just realize that with a united focus on an agenda anything is possible (Genesis 11:6), and that these ideological and theological differences are clear impediments to such focus (perhaps the equivalent of language differences, then). As to whether I think such a united focus is likely or even possible is, of course, another story and perhaps besides the point. 

Finally, anyone from either the left or the right, who thinks that "social or political activism is at the heart of the Great Commission" should simply try reading what the Great Commission is (Matthew 28:19,20), just one time. 

There's not space to discuss the fundamental differences between progressives and conservatives. Suffice it to say that if progressives believed in original sin, they would not want to concentrate power in the hands of the few, who by nature are just as evil as, and with power become far more dangerous than, those over whom they would rule. Progressives do not believe in original sin. They believe that evil institutions and values have corrupted human nature, and that self-anointed, enlightened elites should be invested with authority to mold social, educational, economic and political institutions to evolve human beings that will contentedly serve the greater good. 

I realize that the founders of our nation were not all theological conservatives, but it seems to me that their political views were very much informed by a particular Biblical view of human nature as fallen, but still endowed with freedom and dignity by the Creator, a view that certainly would be considered conservative by today's standards. They didn't have much faith in human nature, but they understood that the alternatives to freedom, liberty, and dispersed power were worse than the imperfect system of checks, balances, trade-offs and compromises which they were creating. 

Stephen, isn't it tautalogical for you to assert that ideological and theological differences are impediments to "united focus on an agenda"? Duh! And how can people be committed to an agenda without strongly held beliefs? So your idea is to get everyone to share the same beliefs so we can be united in mission?  Think about that. That endeavor has a pretty scary history. Can you say Torquemada? Can you say Stalin? Much safer - and more realistic - to start a unicorn farm.

Nathan, 

I apologize for not being more clear. I don't know where or when I said or implied that "[my] idea is to get everyone to share the same beliefs so we can be united in mission." That was not my idea at all. In fact I said in the blog that I have, for all practical purposes, given up the idea that everyone will always agree with me. Allow me to put it this way, my idea is that we share the same mission; and that we focus our attention and energies on that shared mission, instead of on our ideological differences.

Your stereotyping of what a "progressive" thinks of original sin and your assertion that "they believe that...self-anointed, enlightened elites should be invested with authority to mold social, educational, economic and political institutions to evolve human beings that will contentedly serve the greater good" sounds eerily Beckian. Please, please, say it ain't so. 

Again, we have nothing to gain from broad brushing those of another ideological persuasion, be it political or theological. Again, it is inaccurate to view the nation's "founders" as politically or theologically monolithic; as to some extent, you apparently concede. "The Creator" is not referenced in the U.S. Constitution, thank God. 

I will concede that, perhaps naively, I haven taken for granted that all Adventists believe that Jesus literally meant what He literally said as recorded in Matthew 28:19,20. This should be our united focus, no matter what our temporal ideological leanings may be. Political ideology (especially) is not sacrosanct and should not be conflated with theological doctrine. What any of this has to do with Stalin or a unicorn farm is beyond my pay grade.

Now I'm confused, Stephen. You asked me to tell you if I disagreed with your definition of conservatives or liberals. I told you I did; I told you why; and now you chide me for stereotyping ideological groups. You're tough to please. Telling me that my description of progressives sounds like Glenn Beck's description of them is roughly on a par with trying to discredit vegetarianism because Hitler was a vegetarian. 

My question, which you have not responded to, is: How do you propose to divorce mission from ideology?Didn't Jesus have an underlying belief system or ideology?  Mission, by definition, has ideological content and direction. Only those who share ideology are likely to have shared mission. Yet your blog argues that we should put aside that which produces mission (ideology) so that we can focus on shared mission. This just makes no sense. I have argued that the people you want to focus on shared mission have deep ideological differences which translate into missional differences. I used the example of progressives, who see social and political activism at the heart of mission. Conservatives might see preserving the sanctity of human life - especially the unborn - as being the mission God has given them. To put aside the differences is to negate mission. Are you suggesting that we find the lowest common denominator, call that mission, and focus on it? How would that look?  I truly don't understand your point. 

Nathan: Again, I apologize for not being clear and for confusing you. It was apparently me who was really confused however, since I never realized that you were actually answering my question about whether you agreed or disagreed with my earlier blog's definitions of political conservatives and liberals. Your use of original sin (as the basis of the difference) truly threw me off. Since I had only asked you about my definitions of political conservatives and liberals, I never connected your "original sin" response directly to that particular question. Thanks for the clarification. (I really enjoyed, am relieved by, the vegetarian analogy as well.)

The major point however (at least my major point) and my answer to your ideology/mission question is that our theological mission is not a subjective matter; nor is it subject to, nor subordinate to, nor an outgrowth of ideology. Our mission is, and always has been, the Great Commission. It should be the focus of our energy, attention, intellect, and effort. Political ideologies (especially) are temporal, distractive, and divisive. Political activism from either the left or right, and no matter how well-intentioned the cause, is not the mission. Theological differences can never be so wide as to supersede or put in doubt the identity of the ultimate mission as provided in Matthew 28:19,20; and should not, in any case, be conflated with political differences. 

If Matthew 28:19,20 is not the mission, or the undeniable common denominator if you prefer, what is the point of any of this? In fact, failure to focus on this (as the) mission, has created a vacuum which ideology is threatening to fill; if it hasn't already done so.

Let me try one more time, Stephen. The Great Commission is not self-defining. It is, in many respects, an abstract principle which invites, if not necessitates, interpretation. What does it mean to make disciples of all nations; what does it mean to teach people to observe all that Christ commanded? The religious right would wholeheartedly endorse the importance of focusing on the Great Commission, as would the religious left. So how would you respond: "Obviously they are not taking The Great Commission seriously, because if they were, their differences would dissolve in single-minded focus on something that transcends their differences?" This solipsistic argument sounds great until it dawns on you that the certain something is The Truth. Any time you disagree with someone else's priority or focus, will you conclude that, since you obviously know what The Great Commission means, they must not have The Truth? I would venture to say that if you do not find yourself in robust disagreement with others who claim to be focused, like you, on The Great Commission, you haven't made it real.

When The Great Commission becomes incarnate, it leads Paul to go one direction and Barnabas to go another. This should not be cause for spiritual hand wringing. It should make us humbly acknowledge that the Word made flesh in our lives does not negate the authenticity of the Word made very different flesh in the lives of others. The paradox of The Great Commission is that it is both a common denominator and a divider, even for Christ-focused Christians.

 Nathan,

It appears we are making progress. At least we have apparently solved the confusion issue.

I will try it once more myself. Ideological differences are inevitable. It is however a matter of both emphasis and of degree; as well as a willingness to subjugate theological and political differences to, yes, a common denominator.

I say it is a matter of emphasis simply because we have apparently placed an inordinate emphasis on things that only matter to just a few of us, but are of practically no consequence to the rest of us, and much less to those who need to know who Jesus is. Unfortunately, this "few of us" are the most influential among us. 

The Truth, as you put it, has been obscured by misplaced emphases on minor internal and/or ideological concerns; and to the degree that theological ideology, which has some relevance, has been conflated with political ideology, which has none. The only Truth that matters is who Jesus is and what is He to you and me. Everything else is a distraction.  

Remember, the blog had reference to Adventists (and Adventism) in the United States. We have wider ideological differences among some demographic segments of our denomination than others, but also between demographic segments of our denomination. This is the real divide for "us." The real solution is a focus on what unites us (if anything, I suppose you would say) as Adventists in America; which, if nothing else, should certainly be what we can and should do in order to facilitate the commands to go, teach, baptize, and teach (again). Matt. 28:19,20 (KJV)

The latter part of Matthew 12:30 is germane to my thesis, "...he that gathereth not with me, scattereth abroad."

Stephen and Nathan: You men are doing a good job of sorting out what is meant by the "gospel," which of course is what God's plan for our salvation is all about. The only biblical definition for the gospel is found in Romans 1:16: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes [have faith], . . For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, 'The just shall live by faith.'" For me, I can begin to talk about the gospel only when I first begin with what Jesus has said and done--objectively and subjectively. All other discord, division, etc, IMO, begins with how much of what Jesus has said is really permeating my thinking and behaving. Does this make sense?  Cheers, Herb

Richard L. Noel, DMD

Ken, It is amazing how we can be led into such a circular way of reasoning.  First we try to compare ourselves among ourselves. Paul said this "is not wise".  Secondly, Titus 2:11,12 tells us that the Grace of God leads us to repentance and then teaches us to live a Godly life.  This leaves no room for categorizing each other.  We are repeatedly cautioned by Paul not to judge any man because he belongs to God.

Steve,

As a brother of almost now too many years to mention, I am delighted beyond words at this common exercise we share, to ruminate and cogitate, and then back it up, and cogitate and ruminate on matters that not only ask what, but how, why, what if, and then just as importantly, what do you think?

I have read with more than a passing interest your article here on "...The Real Divide..." You pose several thought provoking and even telling questions about this great historical Movement called Adventism. My first, but not so profound reaction after I was done reading was "WOW!" Since this is my first time commenting, and not certain if space is limited, I will keep my reply brief.

I wholeheartedly agree with you on the general political and theological bent of Blacks versus our White counterparts. No doubt the differences in our racial and cultural/historical narratives is the "culprit." My interest here though is not so much our tendencies toward our politics, but more toward the seeming overarching question you raise on whether there is room for different theological camps in light of the Gospel Commission, and more specifically, Advenstist eschatology? While it does become sometimes not so clear which is more important from the Adventist pulpit, my sense and bias is that the great Gospel Commission trumps Adventist eschatology every time.

That being my premise, for me then the question becomes, will the aims of the Church be better achieved if we tended toward a more conservative or a more liberal theology? I submit, that we have never and will never have to choose, and that we can still anticipate the kingdom of God being enlarged a thousand fold. Despite learning daily from the Master, and receiving the gift of the Spirit of God, the disciples of Jesus could not escape a reality of their heritage, they were nonetheless descendants from Jewish peasantry, men with a conservative and limited background, with narrow theological and educational experiences. Was there a work for them to do? Indeed there was, and we know of the work they accomplished. And then there was Paul. Let's be clear, he had come from the conservative formal training of the Pharisees. Yet, his exposure to and tolerance for the broader hellenistic Greek culture, made him able to move very comfortably among the liberal relativists, that characterized the crowds he ministered to in Asia Minor. His acumen and temperament were vitally important to the growth of the early Church.  

So I say, not only is there room among brethren for liberal and conservatives. I submit, that God requires it, because there are populations of men and women who will need to hear the Word out of their own exclusive liberal and conservative theological bias, forced upon them by their own heritage and cultural narratives. Our God in His wisdom loves us enough, that He knows we would not otherwise allow ourselves to be taught, except by a bird of our own feather.