Disgusting.

Well at least he was plugging 'Desire of Ages' . . . and all the while Adolf looking from his picture on his day of birth.
Tony Zirkle should have thought this one out a bit more. It is one thing to speak at an organizational event; it is another thing when that event is sponsored by a subversive, hate mongering, extremist group.
Evangelizing your faith is admirable, but having the clarity and decision-making skills to recognize that speaking at certain events when those events are sponsored by extremist groups there has to be conditions.
Conditions:
1. No Hitler photo behind me.
2. No Nazi symbols.
3. No Nazi dress.
4. No hate speech while speaker is present.

What is the intrinsic difference between a master race and a "final generation"? Tom

Here's the really weird thing (okay, several weird things):

1. I know Tony Zirkle. I went to seminary with his wife. He was taking classes as the same time as you can see by his vitae.

2. We attended church with he and his wife in South Bend, Indiana for two years while we were students at Andrews. For quite a number of months we went to he Zirkle's home weekly for our small group.

3. His wife is a Jew. She's an Adventist now, but ethnically she's Jewish and converted to Adventism. I wonder how she feels about her husband speaking to those haters?

Tony was always way more conservative than the rest of us, but I had no idea.... I really feel sorry for his wife. I also feel deeply saddened by the wrong conclusions that people will reach about Adventism due to his "witness."

Being part of a master race is based on factors beyond a person's control, and therefore fundamentally not fair since it's not based to a persons character, decisions, and what they do. Being part of a "final (saved) generation" is all about the choices one makes to right one's self with God and his principles. Participation in that "final (saved) generation" is by choice and open to everyone, so it is fair. Hopefully I understood what you meant by "final generation".

Wow--you're right. Words almost fail me. It's more than a lapse in judgement to talk in front of a Hitler poster to a room full of "men" with their swastika armbands on.

I read through his website--it has a very simplistic and even patriarchal tone. It's beyond embarrassing to think he's out there "witnessing." The Republican party has denounced him--we need our leadership and his local church to seriously address this.

In a weird way, this reminds me of the paper I read concerning the complicity of the Adventist church with the Nazi government in Germany, before and during WWII. Some of their involvement was connected to Hitler's vision of national health reform for Germany. The church administration felt that this could be a bridge between the church and the party. The church administration was then seemingly sucked into the vortex. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees!

Another one of those myth busting moments for me...

Thanks...

Frank

BTW,

The paper was largely focused on the church administration in Germany. I don't remember how much connection was made to the GC.

Frank

What does Andrews University have to say about all of this? Has he been asked to explain his actions and views? There is no room for compromise on this issue.

I can't help but believe that if this Tony was preaching and witnessing about the real Kingdom of God, as Jesus taught, he would not be invited to speak at a Nazi rally. The invitation itself is pretty incriminating.

You know guys...it's funny how we preach so much about Jesus eating with the tax collectors and sinners, etc. but then are quick to condemn this man for assembling with and speaking to neo-Nazi's and offering them The Desire of Ages. If he went to a brothel full of prostitutes and pimps and offered Desire of Ages to them he would be hailed as loving, non-judgmental person seeking to share the gospel with all. But if he goes and speaks to Nazi's he's condemned. I can't help but think that this has something to do with the following fact: Racism is a sin condemned by our society (i.e. unpopular sin) and sexual immorality is a sin celebrated by our society (i.e. popular sin). Could all our talk of rubbing elbows with the sinners be more about conformity to the world than really trying to save sinners? Wonder if Jesus would have come and spoke to them if invited...or were they too undesirable for him? He might need some more socially acceptable sinners...

This is over-the-top sad, and it tarnishes the face of Adventism.

How does Matthew 18 figure in to a scenario like this? Surely no one is so "liberal" as to think this should go unremarked in Tony's local congregation. But it's important to remember, too, that Matthew 18 puts church discipline directly in the context of forgiveness.

In this case, working all that out would be a complicated dance. But the dance floor beckons. Tony (I do not know him) is a brother.

Perhaps the most "obscene" aspect is that it is not an "individual" visiting trying to communicate a better understanding of Christ. It is a "politician" speaking to them who is seeking their vote.

I personally would prefer not to have the backing of certain political causes/groups such as this one.

Frank, your observation is good concerning Nazi Germany and the SDA church as well as other churches and the "German Church" who were drawn to Hitler's social agenda of change and prosperity.

Mixing political,social,religious,economic agendas will always be a clear and "present" danger that risk alliances that risks undermining the true mission of the "church."

pat

Good point, B. Jones. Maybe the Nazi group had invited Tony to speak on loving those that are the outcasts or the despised. Maybe he was to speak on how God's love and forgiveness extends to all regardless of class, gender or ethnicity.

"Christian" folks across the country seemed quick enough to denounce Jeremiah Wright for supposedly racist remarks (they weren't), and yet we are called to compassion for white people who espouse racist propaganda, by both content and context of their words?

Your points are worth considering, B., for about five seconds, and then the distinctions between socializing with racists (the perpetrators of violence) and socializing with prostitutes (the victims of violent social systems) becomes clear. About two seconds after that, the hypocrisy of seeking to understand where people are coming from only when they are white people and never when they are people of color becomes evident.

Sorry, but the inability to call a swastika a swastika seems to be the heart of what blocks Christ's good news from reaching the ears that need it most.

B. Jones, I wondered how long it would take for someone to raise your comparison. But I wonder if there are more ethical principles involved than "both are unpopular?"

You'll, of course, recall that Jesus didn't have a public scroll full of prostitution or tax collector-related rantings. There is a difference between being there to hand out The Desire of Ages, and being a counter-cultural witness. Remember that salt and light actually change the experience.

If Zirkle had said, "best book," because it shows a Christ that relieves us of our race-rooted fears I'd buy it, but he tickled their ears with a classic of right-wing paranoia, "white, female, slavery and Jewish-owned pornography." To miss the distinction of message drops an argument for Christian/political tolerance back into reactionary relativism.

I have yet to see a statement by the Indiana conference or this gentlemans home church and wonder if they're aware of this gentleman. The Indiana Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.

For reference, page 190 of the church manual says-

...no individual member or group of members should start a movement or form an organisation or seek to encourage a following for the attainment of any objective or for the teaching of any doctrine or message not in harmony with the fundamental religious objectives and teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Such a course would result in the fostering of a factional and divisive spirit, in the fragmenting of the effort and witness of the church, and thus in hindering it in the discharge of its obligations to its Head and to the world.

Frankly I believe that Tony Zirkles actions are offensive and anti-ethical to what we stand for as a denomination and that he can wreck serious damage on both the unity of our church and its mission.

UPDATE:

I just got off the phone with the AU Public Relations office. Tony received his B.A. in '95 and is a few credits short of his M.Div. He has not taken classes at the seminary for several years. They will send over a statement from Andrews University President Niels-Erik Andreason in a bit, so stay tuned.

I believe to make a fair judgment as to whether Zirkle is pandering or actually trying to spread the Gospel one would have to listen to his entire talk. Has anyone done that?

From what I see there is widespread pandering in the media and even in the church. Because Wright is Black it's OK for him to be explosive and demeaning in his opinion of our great country. On the other hand no law enforcement officer better stop a minority and ask to search his vehicle without expecting rather widespread condemnation. If he stops two minorities he is guilty of profiling.

Nazism is despicable, about that there is no question. Is it legitimate to try and give them the gospel in their own venue? OTOH, if Zirkle is pandering pox on him.

Your Friend, reading your comment it appears that "pandering" and lack of patriotism is a worse error than white supremacy.

And look at that, you pine for racial profiling.

Let's be clear here. If someone raises the "but he might have been witnessing" argument the onus is on you to prove that your standards for witnessing go higher than waving a book.

This sort of sentiment exposes a fundamental problem with "get saved" witnessing. There is much more to the Christian walk than feeling better about ones past. We need to pay attention to our relationship with God AND fellow humanity.

UPDATE:

I just got off the phone with the Indiana Conference office. The president's admin. asst. had just been forwarded our story "35 seconds ago" and was reading this thread. She estimates a statement coming from the president tomorrow.

A Seventh-day Adventist lawyer and Republican candidate who advocates racism and Naziism? Something's very wrong with this picture, as it is totally incompatible with Christ-ianity. I'm not sure where his home church is, but as an SDA pastor who votes Republican, I know what I would do. I would try to counsel with him, but if he were to persist in holding these views, I would call a church business meeting and drop him from membership. This is a clear instance when church discipline is necessary

Nice work, people! You make the community organizers among us proud!

Well back in the day, Cliff Goldstein DID say that Nazism was a snugger fit with Christianity than evolution though this guy may have gotten a bit carried away and missed the point. I get the strange feeling that maybe Mr. Zirkle felt he would be better off fraternizing with these goodly gentlemen instead of the science faculty at Indiana University! (Which is why you probably want to take a nuanced approach to what you read.) But more seriously...Well if Obama really wants to find some bitter smalltown folk clinging to their guns and religion...

Has Tony actually read Desire of Ages? Somebody please help me understand how it is possible to read Desire of Ages, furthermore take seminary classes, and still believe in extreme right-wing politics. What keeps a person from connecting the dots?

Thanks Audrey for pointing out that it takes only about five seconds to see "the distinctions between socializing with racists (the perpetrators of violence) and socializing with prostitutes (the victims of violent social systems) becomes clear."

He clearly was pandering for votes and, as Dick pointed out, the fact that this white supremacist, anti-semitic group even thought he'd be a good fit to invite to speak at their "celebration of Hitler's birthday" is very telling. I'll be very curious to hear what Andrews and his conference have to say.

Monte,

Neo-Nazism could also be considered a form of "liberal facism" depending on how one develops one's political continuum and terminology and the degree of government involvment in society.

UPDATE:

STATEMENT FROM ANDREWS UNIVERSITY

"Tony Zirkle has not been a student of Andrews University since the fall of 2003. He does hold a BA in Religion and Economics (he was a double major) from Andrews University. He did not complete his MDiv."

Statement from Andrews University President Niels-Erik Andreasen

“While we value each alumnus of Andrews University, their views are not always our views, nor do their views always reflect the beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. That is the case with Tony Zirkle."

Monte
You exclaim: "Has Tony actually read Desire of Ages? Somebody please help me understand how it is possible to read Desire of Ages, furthermore take seminary classes, and still believe in extreme right-wing politics. What keeps a person from connecting the dots?"

Exactly. I've been wondering for years how come segregation was virtually the franchise of Southern protestant churches. How is it possible that baptist ministers in the South could volunteer as chaplains for the KKK?

The closest I've come to an answer is that the New Testament does not specify any consequences for bad behavior, unless it be sexual in nature (Paul to the Corinthians). I would be surprised if anybody has been excommunicated for beating up and abusing their spouse or their children, because it is not on the list of punishable offenses. Racist offenses, likewise, are certainly discouraged (as is beating up your wife) in the New Testament, but no consequences are drawn up for those who offend. Human nature being what it is, admonitions are mom telling you to do something whereas consequences is dad getting out the belt.

The Adventist church, in reacting to bad behavior on the part of members, seems to have been guided more by fear of bad publicity than by a principle.

Aage Rendalen

A story way out of the past. Joe McCarthey was a graduate of Marquette University Law School. I was a junior instructor in the School of Dentistry. Joe decided to run for the U.S. Senate. During his campaign, the Communist Party of South Milwaukee endorsed his candidacy. One of MaCarthey's aides told Joe. Joe asked, "Does they vote count". Of course, the aide reply yes. Then Joe said: "Let them alone!" As we all know Joe won in a strong democratic state. Later Joe slammed General Marshall and the Marshall plan. Candidate Eisenhower shared the platform in Milwaukee with Joe while running for President. Marshall had "made" Eisenhower. But not a peep out of Eisenhower. Neither was there a peep out of the President of Marquette who was also a platform guest.

I a newly minted instructor pounding the floor of the dental clinic trying my best to prevent mal-practice by some neonate--couldn't keep my big mouth shut. I guess the thing that saved me was taking a leave to get an advanced degree at Northwestern. When I returned. The Senate has censored the Senator and he was toast. Then, everyone said, Tom we agreed with you all the time.

I think the President of Andrews did a beautiful cat walk on this one.

Tom

Well, since it was Hitler's birthday, I trust that Zirkle was served a vegetarian meal!

Seriously, this is embarrassing! But I do think that "sin pays its wage" and he'll reap the political consequences of his behavior without a rush to judgment on our parts. He may not be racist (I haven't seen anything besides the above videos); without talking to him or reading his writings, it isn't clear. Possibly he is guilty of "nothing more" than terribly poor judgment (amazing with all his degrees that he didn't pick up more wisdom) and pandering for votes (common to many politicians). As for the witnessing, it seems in the class of anti-papacy billboards.

So long as society continues to degrade, with the Left working hard to promote what many perceive as an anti-Christian, anti-family agenda, it isn't surprising that this man, or David Duke, or several other characters of their ilk, could achieve a degree of success in politics. As another commenter said, however, the responsibility lies as much with the profiteers on the Right. There is a need for a family-focused consensus that takes our society in a better direction, but I don't see it coming from either Right or Left.

Bob
Your reasoning seems to run a few 'whereas's' short of a valid conclusion.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that because people on the left, such as myself, would like to see gays and lesbians enjoy the same rights you and I have, it is not surprising that a conservative Republican should go pander to a group of Nazis celebrating Hitler's birthday.

Sounds like nonsense but maybe I'm missing something

Aage Rendalen

Keith Olberman tonight vacated the runner up spot on his 'Worst Person in the World' feature to make room for Tony Zirkle. He made no reference to his religious affiliation, which is only right, since it does not explain his course of action.

I myself used the term "master race" in a posting in connection with M.L. Andreasen's "last generation" fantasy, but that was a bit facetious on my part. Tom, since you brought this up higher up in the thread, let me say that I don't see how perfectionism could possibly lead to fascism. The reason why German Adventists voted overwhelmingly for Hitler's party, had more to do with Pauline advice to be subservient to the authorities (and Luther's two regimes doctrine) than perfectionism--a doctrine that has never been popular with European Adventists, marinated as they are in Protestant thinking.

What could lead to fascism is social darwinism, the favorite ideology of talk radio. (I find it fascinating that people who are on the barricades to fight darwinism in biology, often are the very ones who advocate it as political philosophy.)

Aage Rendalen

This guy popped up on my radar a couple months ago when I saw this: http://www.stereohyped.com/one-political-candidates-bright-idea-20080304...
which linked to a (now archived) article at the South Bend Tribune (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/southbendtribune/access/1448782851.html?dids...)

At the time I thought he was a crackpot - maybe doing it for publicity. I had no idea he was tied to our church. What a shame. In the sense that he is shameful.

I'm just disgusted.
jen*

Oh, Aage. Great point about social darwinism. That's something I just don't get. I'm not an evolutionist - but then I'm also not one for social darwinism either. It is surprising how many right-wing-minded people are pulled into the rhetoric, considering their usual arguments are tied to the Bible. Because the social aspect is more diametrically opposed to the teachings of Jesus, but it [oddly] allows for the maintaining of the status quo (in that those in power, remain in power, or increase in power, while Others are 'naturally selected' out).

jen*

The issue I have here is not to defend this man's actions or views (whatever they may be) but his right to have them (and to run for political office and be a part of whatever church he wants). I'm concerned that this country is increasingly becoming a police state, with the media instead of the cops being the enforcers of acceptable dogma. I find this mentality disturbing. Just on this blog you have a pastor who says he would use church discipline on this guy (under what charge Biblically?) and a phone drive being promoted to call the conference (and what are they supposed to do?) It's too bad that many on this blog seem to think that poor taste is a reason to impose church discipline. Friends...I may not agree with you, but I will defend your right to think differently than me and everybody else. I'm a pastor, and the only way I'll discipline you in my church is for open, rebellious, unrepented of sin...not for wrong opinions. That sets a very dangerous precedent, and considering our end time insights we as SDA's should know that.

Ah, B. Jones, a pastor who labels racism as merely "poor taste." But hey, he's against "open" sin. Whew! Or perhaps there's private over public relativism in action.

Now, I'm personally opposed to any kind of "phone in," regarding church membership. In fact, I'm hopeful that under the right kind of pastoral/community care, our brother Tony could change.

As my girlfriend pointed out, Tony's economic policies favor the middle class against the Bush tax cuts for billionaires. Do you realize that the top 50 hedge fund mangers made 29 billion in 2007 for themselves, often at the expense of low and middle-income homeowners?

What is the real issue here? In this, B. Jones gets close. Yes, some in the media, to sell advertising, provides the folk the often unconscious thrill of the distant denigration of others. This, while most humans suffer through the real exploitative horror of economic racism and a market morality of me-first.

The strategy of a political campaign is to get your name known. Spelled right and your picture in the paper. How many column inches has this guy gotten out of one little old talk? Maybe that was Zirkle's ploy? Nothing less makes sense. Aren't we glad he is not still in the Navy? Or the seminary? Tom

On the other hand, he said, maybe it could also save the costs of the crime rate — and reduce claims of racial profiling. Granted, he said, it could take a century for the move to really fall in place.

So how would you divvy up Hispanics?

You can pretty much lump them in with whites, he says.

What about black Latinos whose black roots go back several generations in Latin America? And what about the ever-growing number of mixed races?

“You’d have to let people declare what culture they want to be living in,” Zirkle said.
h/t Jen for the link

Zirkle is explaining how his vision of segregation would play out.

I agree, as a pastor, I wouldn't want people phoning in to express their opinion about whether one of my members should be disciplined, but the association could be devastating to the church. I would immediately issue a statement that his views are totally out of line with those of the church. We did the same thing with the Waco disaster. Distance ourselves for damage control. This is not nearly as destructive as Waco (yet?) but public opinion is not easily regained after something crazy like this.

I think Alexander is making a good point in the last comment. We have totally privatized and domesticated views about what sin is and what lostness is and what is valued as "salvation." How can it be a sin to look at pornography (admitly very damaging to a person psyche and more so to the person who is on display as an object rather than a person), but racism and misogyny is just a matter of personal opinion? We need to be converted!

Re: police state. He has a right to say whatever he wants. But I also have a right to be disgusted and take steps to fend off any negative associations people might draw about me and my congregation.

Disfellowshiping is serious business. While membership is a world-wide fellowship: dismissal is for cause as determined against denominational standards but by the local affiliate. (Those who should know the situation the best.) I certainly would disassociate myself from Zirkle's world view as the short clip revealed. But the Southern Colifornia Conference is about to spend a million dollars to hopefully gather in about 1000 souls. Why not spend a little time and money on Zirkle? Let us at least make an effort to understand him. His overt behavior certainly was questionable. A mistake or a calculated decision--we ought to know before anyone takes action, beyond expression of strong disagreement. Tom

Let me preach to the choir for a minute.

The Adventist church in the past has had no compunction about expelling people for ideological offenses, provided they have been offenses against the creed and not against common decency.

Nobody. to my knowledge, has ever been expelled for being racists and antisemites (I've met both types in the church). But decent, moral people, like Desmond Ford, have often been forced out or attempted forced out, for merely having questioned denominational orthodoxy (--and that in areas where the church obviously was wrong).

Question: Is the investigative judgment more crucial to the church than compliance with commonly held ethical standards? Is it more important to be right than to be moral?

So do you gents think he should be disciplined by the church? How about his political views officially denounced?
Here's another angle at my view...Our church is in the salvation business, not the political business. That's why we don't endorse candidates, take official stances on political issues, etc. The trouble I have here is that many of you here are crossing that line and wanting official denouncement and discipline for views that are political. It is important to clarify just what this guy has done. He spoke to nazi's about the evils of porn and suggested that social ills in the black community might justify a re-segregation of the US. While I do not agree with these sentiments, what he has done and said does not fall under a biblical definition of sin that requires church discipline. We have 28 fundamentals...any views you have above and beyond that is your business. We have a moral code of behavior derived from Scripture...anything you do above and beyond that is your business. I'm amazed that you guys want to use the SDA church to punish and denounce people for their political views. So...what do you think the church should do (local and conference)?

One consideration for the local church of his to consider.
He has "indirectly involved" the SDA church in this video by broadcasting the book...regardless of his intentions.

At minimum, as a politician, he must be advised to keep his "public" political and religious views separate unless specifically stating they do not necessarily represent the church to which he belongs.

Otherwise, he indirectly effects us all as members in the publics mind. Aside from discipline (when necessary) for the ultimate purpose of reclaiming the disciplined person, I suggest that another consideration is to appear to be an upholder of purity in society for public perception.

pat

The idea that views about re-segregation are merely political and has nothing to do with salvation or theology, betrays a false dichotomy between the sacred and the secular. To say that it is not sin reaveals the same thinking.

Paul publicly confronted Peter, telling him that he was not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, when he helped lead Jewish walk out on the Gentile believers in Antioch. It was an action that was undermining the reality of the gospel that there is neither Jew nor Greek...but all are one in Christ Jesus. IOW, Peter's actions were sinful.

To say that this only matters in the sphere of church life, but not in the public policy that a high profile chuch member is advocating, is again a false division between the sacred and the secular. Zirkle is publicly advocating a racial policy to a group of hate-mongers that misrepresents God, the gospel, and the church he claims to represent. He, at least, needs to be confronted like Peter was.

Hopefully, he will respond as Peter responded.

Thanks...

Frank

Here's my point that many here seem to be missing. The question I'm raising is, "Does Tony have the right to speak to whoever he wants to and to discuss unpopular political views and still be an SDA?" The feel I'm getting on this blog is, "NO!" (at least not one that goes unpunished). I believe the answer is, "Yes!" I seem to be more concerned about freedom and you guys more about orthodoxy (political orthodoxy I might add).

B. Jones--I'm completely shocked that you would consider blatant racism and anti-semitic policies to be merely "unpopular political views"!. You say above: "It is important to clarify just what this guy has done. He spoke to nazi's about the evils of porn and suggested that social ills in the black community might justify a re-segregation of the US."

Wow--just racial supremacy and racial segregation...somehow those aren't actually sins to you?

This seems to reveal the danger of Biblical literalism--if a sin isn't mentioned by name in the Bible, then it's someone's personal right to pursue it wholeheartedly. By your definition, slave-owning would be perfectly permissible since the culture in which the Bible was written felt that was normal and necessary. This approach pigeonholes the Bible and allows for irresponsible applications to modern day issues like racism, sexism, and other social ills that weren't addressed in Biblical times. This is why David Larson's discussion of the importance of looking at the trajectory of the Bible, especially when it comes to how we treat people, seems so crucial.

SO what do you think should happen to him Daneen?

Since I don't know him personally, and since I have only seen what is undoubtedly part of the story, I wouldn't venture to say. I do think his local church and conference needs to address his actions and publicly stated views both with him and the public (and possibly not in that order). I'm glad that membership is held at the local level; that keeps local responsibility center. What will be disappointing is if his pastor says, "Well, just be careful with those unpopular political views being taped in front of giant posters of Hitler and swastikas," instead of taking the time to talk about how the Bible and Jesus' example speak directly against those views (and I'd say, sins). Repentance and discipleship is needed on Zirle's part at a minimum; dismissal should be considered by his church.

B. Jones,
I did write to the conference saying "Certainly this situation calls for careful consideration. I ask that you and Zirkle's home church consider, and respond to, the recent activities of Tony Zirkle. You can read more about his activities at [link to this post]"

I agree that if they aren't aware of the situation, and apparently within an hour of my email being sent they were looking at our website, that they should be. It is one thing to suggest that a response is necessary and another to interlope into the business of a church and its member. Ryan Bell is spot on in his suggestions.

I don't envy the pastor of Tony Zirkles home church! This is definitely not going to be an easy situation for them. They have my prayers, as does Tony himself.

Reasonable response to my question Dan. Allow me to play devil's advocate here. Suppose you're his local pastor and you go to him and express concerns and he says says, "I went and talked with the Nazis because I'll speak to anyone who invites me. I offered them Desire of Ages cause they need to learn the love of Jesus. About my segregation statement, I feel that we live in a sinful world and racial division is one of the tragic effects of that. I don't like it but I do recognize it and simply suggested that racial separation would solve some of the ills in our society." Now I'm just throwing words in his mouth but I'm just curious what would the response (from a disciplinary point of view). Does that statement (that I put in his mouth) justify church discipline?

PS - let me make clear that I'm not expressing my views (on the racism issue) but am seeking to take the debate to a higher level of freedom, orthodoxy, and church/state relations in our church.

PPS - I'd really like to hear someone answer the question, "what should be done to him. Should he face church discipline?"

This idea that the our faith says nothing about our politics (small "p") is something I hardly know how to relate to anymore. Politics is about the social structures of our lives and communities. It's not about partisan politics. Anyway, it's been a dozen years or so since I've been able to maintain that dualism in my mind.

As a potential policy maker, he would need to be confronted about his stance on segregation. As I said above, Paul confronted Peter on the very same issue. In fact, much of the NT addresses the problem of religio-racism. Just because Tony Zirkle's activity is in the so called public sphere, and not within the ecclesiastical, doesn't change the gravity of the situation.

In fact, his case is more pressing than someone who simply holds a private view. We are all free to hold private views on a number of issues. But Tony Zirkle has gone widely public. He is publicly advocating segregation. If elected to Congress, he would have authority and power to try and enact such legislation. It doesn't matter what the reason, it is incongrous with the gospel. And it is a public misrepresentation of God, the gospel and the church. It is also a blatant and public misuse of gospel freedom...as Paul wrote in Galatians, "...do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh..." Paul is speaking in the context of religio-racial division, IOW you've been set free to love, but not to put up walls of bigotry again. This is far beyond an articulation of unpopular political views...it strikes at the very heart of the gospel itself.

What should be done? Loving confrontation and discussion, with an aim towards repentance. What the outcome would be, would then be up to him.

Thanks...

Frank

B. Jones,

I don't think that you've read Bob's earlier comment, because he already addressed your PPS. He wrote:

I'm not sure where his home church is, but as an SDA pastor who votes Republican, I know what I would do. I would try to counsel with him, but if he were to persist in holding these views, I would call a church business meeting and drop him from membership. This is a clear instance when church discipline is necessary

Furthermore Mr. Jones, it appears to my faulty eyes that you're mischaracterizing several people's position. Most folks on this post, including - Bob, Ryan, Johnny - all with pastoral experience, are communicating a fair-minded tough love approach while you seem to be dancing around the central issue. Go read your first comment and reactions.

Rather than clucking our tongues and throwing up our hands in some sort of mainstream, not-my-problem relativism, Adventists here have not been afraid to call out a sin against humanity and advocate for community redemption.

Going and talking to anyone is fine. Tickling, not confronting the ears of overt Hitler-celebrating racists, moves the question from freedom to discuss, into freedom to support. As some in my twenties, I can't believe that I would have to explain that social views predicated on racial separation inherently create their own deeper social ills. Mr. Zirkle is not providing solutions, he is sowing deeper problems and any pastor worth his or her salt should know that social problems are sins against Christian community. Do you have no historical awareness of the consequences of baiting the American right-wing with tales of Jews and "white women?" He is advocating the reduction of freedom and isolation of others based on skin color and ethnicity.

It appears that you've not done much research into Mr. Zirkle's actual views (especially since you just tossed words into his mouth, instead of actually quoting the thousands of available on his site). If you want to take this debate "higher," I suggest actual research. Playing devil's advocate is fine, but let's not use his methodology.

You write:

black community might justify a re-segregation of the US. While I do not agree with these sentiments, what he has done and said does not fall under a biblical definition of sin that requires church discipline.

You realize that this Bible-silent-on-segregation argument is straight outta the KKK arguments surrounding the Civil War. Sowing the seeds of institutional segregation is a sin completely at odds with the God of love revealed in the Bible. If this is not clear to every Adventist, oh, dear God. . .

It is telling that you separate morality from Adventist beliefs. I know that you probably don't mean it like that, but notice how you root morality in the Bible and beliefs in the 28. Something tells me that we have a problem in Adventist identity when our fundamental beliefs are not clearly connected to our social actions.
__

Interesting point, Pat. I agree. : ) Mr. Zirkle's recontextualization of The Desire of Ages certainly raises some significant questions about how we understand our Adventist witness. It's interesting to see some folks justifying Mr. Zirkle's advocacy for racist ideas by saying that his waving The Desire of Ages for a couple of seconds is witnessing. We'd be a lot better off as a witness of who that book is about if our pubic presence elicited thoughts like "that sort of peacemaking and compassion for all is what I've been desiring for ages."

You're still not getting it Alex. This is my last try. Morality and politics are of course related. Take the issue of abortion (very political and strong moral dimensions to it). Our church officially respects the sanctity of life (the moral issue) but backs away from specific prescriptions of how that should be carried out in the political arena (i.e. we have no official stance on abortion). The point I am making is this: the SDA church takes stands on moral issues but not political issues (which of course have moral dimensions to them). We share the moral truth, and INDIVIDUALS must take the moral truth and drawn THEIR OWN prescriptions on how those moral truths are applied politically. Thus, we speak to morality, but avoid getting entangled in political issues as a denomination. We are good at doing this on the right (i.e. we don't join with Falwell and Robertson) but the lefties in our ranks don't seem to understand this point.
And as for research Alex...I've read his statements and visited his website. It is a bit arrogant and condescending to imply that since I don't agree with you I don't know my facts (and I'm using the devil's methodologies). The cherry on top is your facts (KKK was founded after the Civil War my friend). Being arrogant, and condescending is bad enough, but mix in wrong thinking and incorrect "facts" and it's more than any man can take! I gotta run cause I'm too busy to keep kicking this around. Hope you moral giants get the church cleaned up quickly and everybody in step. Peace out! - B.J.

By the way, for the record I do not believe that racial segregation is the answer to America's racial problems and I find Nazism repugnant. I was simply trying to get an intelligent discussion going concerning how the institution should deal with "colorful" members and how issues related to morality and politics should intersect in this faith community. I'm withdrawing because I didn't find many people who were willing to address argument without insult (i.e. "Mr. Jones you're uniformed and use the devil's tactics"). Maybe I'll pop back into this blog and try again sometime (this was the first time). The best to all. - B

I'm with Alex on this one. 1. Be sure of your facts.
2. Engage in dialogue and counseling if necessary.
3. Use due process in any action if warranted.

Before I was born, my mother and father lived In Mishawaka, Ind. a twin city of South Bend. Dad was a building contractor. His mother lived in Holland, Mich. She was in her final illness. Mother and Dad would drive to Holland every Friday Afternoon, spend Sabbath with his mother and return home late Sunday. This occurred every week throughout a long summer. In the fall, a delegation from the South Bend Seventh-day Adventist church appeared, unanounced. They were invited in. After greetings and a short prayer, the leader of the delegation came right to the point. "John and Ruth Zwemer, since neither of you have attended the South Bend Seventh-day Adventist Church for over 13 weeks, the Committee of Elders has voted to remove your names from the books. Do you have anything to say in your defense before we hold a Church business meeting? My dad replied, you are the ordained ones, use your own good judgment. Thanks you for coming, Good Night. May that never happen to any in this generation. Tom P.S. Mother and Dad were accepted into the Emmanuel Missionary College Church on Profession of Faith and Dad bought a week-end farm 4 miles out of Berrien.

B.Jones,

I did not choose to insult you. I agree with you on keeping politics and religion separate in terms of the church taking political sides as we would always be arguing different political nuances.

I too disagree with racism and segregation as a biblical mandate.

The problem again as I see it is that a "public political" figure implicated the church indirectly by the book "Desire of Ages" which he showed in his presentation. This potentially brings reproach on the church due to his visible public position.

If he holds weird/unbiblical positions and keeps them to himself and does not bring disorder to the local church by any direct action then my suggestion is that he be advised to keep his positions private publically as regards to religion unless a disclaimer is used to himself/SDA in his political pursuits.

I would ask in fairness to some on this site if they would be in favor of homosexual or heterosexual sexual impurity discipline "with the same fervor" they are seeking this mans discipline if it were a public figure. They are "all in the sin" category, I would suggest.

There is something to be said for discretion...not that it forgives or overlooks the sin but rather in the way it affects the church body publically as a whole...on this Zirkle failed miserably and is almost asking for some form of council/confrontation from his local church it would seem.

I am sure my previous two paragraphs can be twisted by some but join us again Pastor Jones. You comments were not without some foundation in how traditionally moral issues and political pronouncements have been to some degree avoided except in the most extreme cases. Zirkle does not represent the church on this issue however and should perhaps remain quiet about his religious roots.

pat

The devil thing was just a play on words. Sorry that you feel so attacked B. Jones. : )

I noticed that you didn't address Republican Pastor Bob's comment.

Actual quotes are always preferable in getting another person's views correct. For example:

I wrote:

the KKK arguments surrounding the Civil War.

You replied:

The cherry on top is your facts (KKK was founded after the Civil War my friend). Being arrogant, and condescending is bad enough, but mix in wrong thinking and incorrect "facts" and it's more than any man can take!

I didn't say they existed before. I said "arguments surrounding."

As you know, the KKK arose after the war over an certain interpretation of the events that transpired before and after, i.e., surrounding the Civil War. See The Clansman.

I could be more clear. But you just made an interpretative error by not quoting me.

Finally, you write:

Thus, we speak to morality, but avoid getting entangled in political issues as a denomination. We are good at doing this on the right (i.e. we don't join with Falwell and Robertson) but the lefties in our ranks don't seem to understand this point.

Hmm...really? On Feb. 12, the church's lobbyist, James Standish, testified before Congress on a certain piece of legislation, the Workplace Religious Freedom Act. Is that not political? What about the North American Religious Liberty Association inviting Adventists to spend a day meeting with their legislators in Washington DC. I bet that they are just handing out Steps to Christ. . . : )

Oh, I guess not. http://religiousliberty.info

it is the sixth annual Liberty Weekend. NARLA members from across the nation will come to Washington to get the latest updates from frontline religious liberty experts, meet their Members of Congress, attend our annual banquet with a keynote address by an American Leader (2006 address was Senator John McCain, 2007 address was by Senator John Kerry), take a tour of the White House, and enjoy one of the most inspiring, spiritually uplifting Sabbaths you will ever experience.

Darn, lefties and righties, gettin' entangled in the public square to protect our freedom to worship. And they then have the gall to worship together, after being political together.
To what is this church coming? If only we could get back to those good old days when E. G. White and A.T. Jones, oh wait. . .: )

We are political animals, as Aristotle said. And whether we are aware of it or not, our actions are a public square witness. We cannot say that what we think or say or attend is not a reflection of our morality. We don't champion Robertson because he's political, rather we do so because the moral worldview that fuels many of his positions doesn't fit ours. We can't just go around negotiating issues by saying, we righties will be quiet on abortion if you lefties don't vote for the environment. Instead, as Christians and as citizens, we must parse out the facts and ideology, our scripture and our moral applications, and take stands and learn from each other.

An Adventist is not right or wrong for merely advocating, rather we are each responsible for the reasons for and results of our public square witness.

Pat,

Good point about the DOA plug at the Nazi rally. Also, I feel bad about painting all with the same brush. Not all were slinging around a little insult. Only with our dear host did I get that vibe, but praise the Lord, now I'm already over it! (said with a grin). But I do gotta back off cause this blog is takin' too much of my time!

BJ

Has anyone else noticed that one of the links from Zirkle's website goes to an anti-Semitic article on Al-Jazeera magazine? It makes sense, but I guess I hadn't quite figured out that anti-Semitism could be the thing to unite militant fundamentalist Muslims and militant conservative Christians - thus the front-page story of the Al-J website on the US Democratic primary campaign: "Hillary Clinton announced her readiness to reduce 70 million innocent Iranian lives to ashes so that she could imagine her picture in the White House."

Strange bedfellows. But not in the Biblical sense, of course. Homophobia might be the only other thing that could bring those two camps together.

I should clarify that the article Zirkle links to is at aljazeera.com, not aljazeera.net. The .net one seems to offer less bias than the .com site.

Give this Zirkle fellow enough rope---and he will do himself in without others' help. Let him twist slowly in the wind. No audience equals no impact!

Elaine,
Yet silence is a form of complicity. Beyond his membership in our church, he brings forth one of our founders in his talk to this group. To not respond to these events is to suggest indifference or, worse, tacit support of Zirkles segregation agenda, neo-nazi assocations etc.

Our church does have a moral witness to offer to this world. Zirkle's vision is not it. We need to say so and we need to say why.

Thanks!

B. Jones-
You are right on target and I don't see anything you have written that I disagree with. I wish I were as articulate in expressing an opinion that most on this list don't seem to comprehend.

To twist what you advocate is most unfortunate. Don't go away, B. Jones!!

Pat, I don't want to take change the topic of this thread, as it's clearly an important one (I agree with Johnny that silence is a form of complicity, and I believe he's quoting our church president on that one); however, you said something I wanted to address: "I would ask in fairness to some on this site if they would be in favor of homosexual or heterosexual sexual impurity discipline 'with the same fervor' they are seeking this mans discipline if it were a public figure. They are "all in the sin" category, I would suggest."

It's really dangerous to use a broad stroke like this and put things ''all in the sin category." Assuming that you're not talking about sexual violence (homosexual or heterosexual), there just isn't any way to lump this together (no matter your view on homosexuality) with racism and anti-semitism which strives to limit the freedoms and basic humanity of entire groups of people. Notions of racial supremacy and racial segregation cause holocausts, something the group Zirkle chose to speak to (and wave Desire of Ages at) celebrates.

Daneen,

I am not ranking...just calling all sin. All fall short of true humanity and God's will and show our desire for autonomy from Him...also a sin. All are to be challenged as outside of God's will. None to be accepted by present cultural norms. That's my view.

But the good news is,"that if we confess and acknowledge our sin he is faithful to forgive our sin and cleanse us from all unrighteousness."...no matter the "ranking."

pat

Does anyone out there personally know Zirkle? I can't imagine that he hasn't been informed of this Spectrum blog by now. I'd like to invite him to contact Alexander Carpenter and give his own statement. I should think he could, at the very least, do this...I mean, the guy’s not afraid to stand in front of a group of neo-nazis...

Gaylene,
I know there are a lot of comments on this thread.
Scroll up and you'll read from Ryan Bell who does know Zirkle.

One would expect Tony Zirkle to make a statement on his website at the very least...
http://www.tonyzirkle.com/campaign/home

He hasn't though. It would however be very interesting to see what he has to say!

Just saw this take on Zirkle linked from Megan McCardle's blog on theatlantic.com.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/04/stupid_is_as_stupid_does.php

DISFELLOWSHIP? MAYBE! CENSURE? CERTAINLY!

Perhaps I missed it above, but if so maybe it is worth repeating. This is that the SDA Church Manuel provides for censuring a person the congregation does not want to disfellowship.

In this way the congregation can publicly register its disapproval, perhaps even with a news release, without banishing anybody.

I hope the Conference President encourages the congregation to take this step, the sooner the better.

In the end it is the congregation's right to decide questions of membership. Although this policy may not seem right in this case, on balance it usually is.

Dave

Johnny, I went to the Zirkle campaign website address you listed in your last posting and read it clear through. I almost wished I hadn't. Maybe we really don't want him making any statements on his website since it could possibly further link him to the SDA church. This guy's got more problems than just speaking in front of neo-nazis!!!

You really have to read the website of this person to see what is wrong - it is not that he innocently stumbled into this meeting - his site is a virtual pant load of bad ideas.

I wonder if he had these ideas while at AU or if he hid them? How many made it through the net and hold these ideas but are not dumb enough to articulate them?

How evanescent is the freedom of association when a person is convicted by the bluster and expostulations of a few!

Nary a word about the heinous acts, not just words, but acts in the name of the state of Texas. Children ripped from their mothers with no words from this group. Paternalistic child welfare advocates are having a field day and children's lives are being torn asunder. Where are our values?

One other thing - he seems very obsessed with porn and prostitution - mentions it in almost every sentence. The kind of thing that makes you go "hmmmm"

One final thought - if SNL wanted to do a parody of this guy's campaign, they would have nowhere to go.

"Your Friend" -- clearly you haven't read the current column by Dave Larson on the Texas ranch situation or you wouldn't blithely and accusingly say that "Children [are] ripped from their mothers with no words from this group." It's currently featured on the home page or you can find it here: http://spectrummagazine.org/articles/column/2008/04/21/polygamy_patriarc...

Pat--I know we differ on whether or not loving, committed same-sex relationships are sinful, but no matter our difference on that, can't you see that there's a really, really big difference between two adults being in a consensual relationship and a politician trying to campaign on a platform of anti-Semitism and racism? The latter is actively trying to get a whole class of people[s] treated as sub-human so their rights and freedoms can be challenged (usually for the monetary gain of someone else). Talk about acting against God!

Thanks for that link, Heather (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/04/stupid_is_as_stupid_does.php). I can't resist pasting some of it here:

Oh, well, stupid is as stupid does, but particularly hilarious is Zirkle's rationale:

"I'll speak before any group that invites me," Zirkle said Monday. "I've spoken on an African-American radio station in Atlanta."

That's right. He's equating Nazis to African-Americans. What I want to know, though, is how a neo-Nazi group managed to meet in Chicago, of all places. Where are Jake and Elwood when you need them?

Even worse is what Zirkle said when asked what he thought of the group to which he had given a speech:

When asked if he was a Nazi or sympathized with Nazis or white supremacists, Zirkle replied he didn't know enough about the group to either favor it or oppose it.

"Didn't know enough to either favor or oppose it?" My jaw dropped when I read that. These guys are Nazis after all. Believe it or not, it gets even worse:

This is just a great opportunity for me to witness," he said, referring to his message and his Christian belief.

He also told WIMS radio in Michigan City that he didn't believe the event he attended included people necessarily of the Nazi mindset, pointing out the name isn't Nazi, but Nationalist Socialist Workers Party.

Apparently Zirkle doesn't know the derivation of the word "Nazi."...

P.S. Thanks to the article above adding an update, I just saw that Zirkle has posted a comment on his website: http://www.tonyzirkle.com/CAMPAIGN/ It's clear why he was invited by Neo-Nazis to a party for Hitler--he's beyond even being a clear sympathizer. Apparently he needs a lesson on valid sources too...or he's just too biased to known that sites with names like "Jew Watcher" and "Aljazeera" and "The Real Jew News" aren't really know for unbiased views.

Here's a quote dated yesterday from his website:

April 25, 2008

I've been getting a flood of e-mails and phone calls, some of which include death threats, about my attempt to raise awareness of how the great porn dragon inspires Jews into pornography and prostitution and then, like the snake he is, turns the public against the Jews. Some have questioned whether there is any link to Jews and porn-prostitution. I guess I'll have to start showing the evidence:

[Go to his website for the list http://www.tonyzirkle.com/CAMPAIGN/ --Personally, I don't want to give them links from this site.

Unfortunately, those Web sites are just a small fraction of evidence you can find on a Google search of combinations of "Jews" "pornography" "sex slavery" "Israel" and "prostitution." Let's save our Jewish brothers and sisters from this tyrant king porn dragon before we get to another world-wide pogrom.

So, apparently, like many other oppressive movements before his "save our Jewish brothers ands sisters form this tyrant king porn dragon before we get to another world-wide pogram" is a hateful, oppressive message wrapped in a patriarchal cloak of "let's help them." Notice that he's using Revelations-seminar type language too--it's the "porn dragon," not just porn that needs slaying.

The only conclusion one can derive from the quote Daneen posted in her comment above is...

Holocaust. Zirkle sees a pogrom on the horizon. Sounds like what Hitler said.

/just thought I'd boil it down
//hat tip to Heather Isaacs Royce for the link

So Zirkle's lack of condemnation for Nazism, and attempt to win political support from them is reprehensible, yes? Worthy of public condemnation, expulsion from the so-called "body of christ" on earth? Some seem not too sure. In the name of ideological freedom some on this blog are willing to expose their moral and spiritual home to someone so far outside any sort of christianity it's baffling. I thought palling around with Nazis and talking about how Jews were the merchants of corrupting influences upon white culture was pretty much indefensible.

It's really strange how anxious some people can be to make sure there is no ideologically or morally based suppression of Nazi sympathy, all in the misguided attempt to support freedom. What happens when people don't work to suppress a hatefully ideology that calls for social domination based on race? It usually happens. Honestly, why then so anxious to go to bat for someone who obviously supports oppressive ideologies? The only times I've been around Nazis is when I've been protesting things they are doing (white pride marches) and when they are protesting things I'm doing (opposing the war in Iraq, demonstrating for immigrant rights). Was Zirkle there to oppose them? They're still pretty big fans of his so I think it's safe to assume that he wasn't there to chastise them with whips. http://12.107.40.66/lsn/news.asp?articleID=10703

I went to Andrews for a year, had one professor who thought homosexuality inherently anti-social and thus justified legislation opposing gay rights - no overt racists, though I never went to seminary.

P.S. on the issue of the hilariously nicknamed "porn dragon" me thinks the man doth protest too much, did he really get such well-developed hand muscles from holding up The Desire of Ages?

Craog:

To be an advocate for "due process" in no wise implies that one is advocating support for the accused.
In all the years I spent as the Senior Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Officer for the Medical College of Georgia, I never had one finding reversed by either the Board of Regent or the Federal Courts. The fellow that followed me after my retirement had three reversals in his first year.

Tony's overt behavior is reprehensible on its face. None-the-less, those that welcomed him into fellowship should be the ones to decide his current standing in the Church, not us. Even then, unless it meet the criteria of a criminal offense we should leave the final judgment with the Lord.

Some of the finest people I know are Seventh-day Adventists.
Some of the most disgusting people I know are/were Seventh-day Adventists. Open sin, the Church has a process for cleansing. Secret sin, is for the Lord alone. Tom

I knew there was a reason that I didn't blog about this when I saw the post about Zirkle's idea for re-segregation. I went to his website, and scrolled down to his...manifesto? declaration of beliefs? wev. This is what I found:

"The answer is to solve the issues that voters care about - Health Care, Jobs, Immigration, Iraq, Internet Porn, and Anti-Semitism. My conspiracy theory for the 2008 primary is that porn, the most effective wmd, makes the world war go round and is the central justice obstructor that is inhibiting solutions to the above issues. In my view, the best way to cut taxes is to address the social issues that tax us 1/2 to death and that inspire our enemies who don't want their daughters treated worse than Michael Vick's dogs. If I have to hear one more young single mother in my family law practice tell me that she gets treated worse than a dog, I'm going to consider running a campaign that is not intentionally devised to lose so that I can enjoy my summer." (emphasis mine) http://www.tonyzirkle.com/CAMPAIGN/

I'm not sure what his goals are with this campaign - if he's serious or not - but this buried paragraph gave me pause then, and still does now. His entire campaign seems bizarre and idiotic. Is it real?

jen*

Check the pattern. Naval Academy, Seminary, Neo-Nazi

The guy is a control freak--he longs for a cookie cutter life style in which he is the cookie cutter. Now, if he will only join the Trappist monks that will be the last we hear from him. Tom

I'm touched by Tony's desire to save me and my ilk from the porn dragon.

Did someone say earlier that he's married to a Jew?

Should be an interesting relationship . . .

I noticed in one of the video clips he has to tear off pages of his Penthouse Magazine to shred it. I wonder if he checked to see if the centerfold shredded better if it was unfolded?

As far as the great opportunity to witness, I am sure he did witness about his views and beliefs.

The issue for me is not an SDA church member who is the total fringe of American political thought (and very public about it). The beef I have is with those who want to leverage the church to impose political orthodoxy by censure, disfellowship, etc. You can cry "it's immoral to think this way" all day long but I see that as a slippery slope that needs to be treaded carefully. After all, abortion is a political and moral issue. If an SDA candidate supported partial birth abortions could the church board disfellowship him? What if a candidate opposed affirmative action and had strong right wing views on immigration, could she be disfellowshipped? I could keep going with examples but my point is made. I'm not saying that Tony's local church should not address this, but they should do so very carefully. There must not be a political litmus test to be an SDA. I realize there is a line here, I'm just saying this issue calls for more caution than many here seem to realize.

Lets look at the bright side.
He could have decided to go into the ministry instead of politics.
The bad thing is,
It would have taken longer to find out he was suffering from whackydoodleness. (its a medical term I'm sure)

I too read the link that Heather posted. The best word I can use to describe it is... creepy. This goes far beyond his freedom to air his off center political views. He is running for a postion of power and influence while publicly representing the church...and in a not so veiled way, ADVOCATING GENOCIDE!!!!!!!!!

How can anyone not get the point?!!!!

Thanks...

Frank

Yes, Cliff--someone did say that his wife is Jewish (she's converted to Adventism). She's the one who I feel for the most, as I can only imagine what type of control he exerts in their home.

B Jones. Coddle fascists if you want them in your church, as has been mentioned already, it wouldn't be the first time for SDAs. Point taken, there is a line. I thought is was pretty much taken for granted that neo-Nazi sympathies meant that it had been crossed.

Look, I never heard of a single SDA in Germany or Austria being disfellowshipped, or even disciplined, for being a Nazi (I have an SDA friend who told me his SDA parents were committed Nazis), so we think Zirkle going to get in trouble with the church over this?

Get real! There's more a chance of him getting kicked out for eating pickled pig's feet than than for being a Nazi sympathizer.

Cliff,

If what you are saying is true, then it is a sad, sad commentary on the church to which we belong...the one that calls itself the "remnant." Eating what is considered a "banned food" is more of a spiritual problem and cause for discipline than sympathizing or affiliating oneself with a political party that in the past has commited genocide, and, given the right conditions, would likely do so in the future?!!! Who needs to get real??!!!!!!!

Is the concept of straining out gnats and swallowing camels alien to this neck of the woods??

Frank

Cliff
At least we agree on something of substance! Offenses against orthodoxy are clearly judged more severely than offenses against human decency, and I'm glad to see you take such a clear stand.

"Words matter!" Obama responded when Hillary went after his elegent rhetoric. And they do, because they inspire action. Unfortunately, many people approach morality as a system of taboos. If movies are banned, we don't go. If TV is not, we watch. If nazi sympathies are not under interdict, they are permissible, and you end up with pigs' feet weighing more than Adolf Hitler.

To be a moral human being means that you are guided by values and not by casuistry. In the SDA church, the reliance on EGW's writings to provide moral guidance has short-circuited many Adventists ability to follow their moral gut feeling. They can look up what God says about eating pig's feet but there is no entry under 'nazi', so what do you do?

You do what the Adventist church is doing right now. You twiddle your thumbs and hope it blows over. The nazis weren't that bad, were they?

Aage Rendalen

Follow their "moral gut feeling"? Sorry, Aagee, I find that a scary thought for any group of people. Some of these Nazis Zirkle was, ahem, "ministering" to were probably doing just that.

Following one's own "moral gut feelings"? Haven't we learned by now how poorly that works?

Cliff
I argued:"To be a moral human being means that you are guided by values". Following your gut feeling was used in that context.

There is no answer for every moral quandry we face. If we have internalized our values, we shall have to trust our "gut feelings" and make choices accordingly. I was arguing against the idea that "if it isn't forbidden, it's permitted."

Just thought I'd add that Tony Zirkle and his speech at Hitler's b-day party was featured on NPR's news quiz/comedy show "Wait, Wait Don't Tell Me." The host had to keep repeating that he wasn't making up any of the details....the giant poster of Hitler, the swastikas, the crusade against porn, the platform to bring back the guillotine, and the "I didn't know enough about them to know if I endorse their positions" attitude on Zirkle's part when he got caught. It got plenty of laughs of the "wow-can-you-believe-someone-would-actually-do-this" type that they normally reserve for really stupid criminals. I was just thankful his religious affiliation wasn't mentioned (their research team must not have looked up the book Zirkle was handing out....).

"A Seventh-day Adventist lawyer and Republican candidate who advocates racism and Naziism?" A question from a reader. I have seen with my own eyes photos of SDAs in the time of war in 1918. You would not believe in what activities Adventists at that time engaged in, and with whom they associated themselves. Nevertheless I do not judge these people nor Mr. Zirkle, the judgement seat is reserved for the Lawgiver.

Whether you went to school, seminary or church with someone, does not mean you know him/her. My sugesstion, pray for him(Mr. Zirkle and others like him), make intercession and give thanks that your prayers have been heard.

Lurk
So why don't you tell us what these unspeakable acts were. I know that in Europe the so-called Reformist Movement arose after WWI in response to the German Union having gone along with the war effort. But no participation in atrocities was alleged by the Reformists, as far as I can remember. Are you sure you're not getting WWI and WWII mixed up?

An atrocity is not always one to the extent of "gasing or participating therein" someone. This is why I mentioned and "with whom" they associate themselves with. The riff in the SDA German/European(still with all vigour existing) came out of 1918. This "separation" was/is caused by that which I would term "ethical and moral" atrocities, which speak against the inspired word and our beliefs. I can safely say that human memory is "passed on" and being an SDA in Germany, I know from what I speak(I am not puzzled or confused).

I have asked this question many times, even to reformists, that was so long ago, why still remain seperated? Many don't even know why they call themselves reformists. And trust me, there is an active evangelisiation of SDAs taking place right now. Not on the scope of TV or Radio, but in the most effective manner, 1 to 1 contact.

You somehow want to imply with your question and comments, that by me not naming any of the acts which I saw(in pictures) my claims are not worth taking seriously. So be it. The SDA grapvine or Potluck channel(many know from what I speak) will not get that information from me.

***I now resign myself to lurking once more***

Lurker
I ran into similar groups at the Vienna General Conference session in 1975, when I was still a member. I'm not trying either to defend or to attack the SDA church on the issue of WWI. As a German you obviously do not confuse WWI and WWII (Ich wusste nicht dass du deutsch war), but you can't expect people to react to information that you're not willing to divulge. You were the one to bring up horrible acts committed by German Adventists. As long as nobody here knows what your talking about, all we can do is to shrug our shoulders--and suspect that you're part of the Reformists who have not been able to let history deal with the long-dead Adventist decision makers of 1918.

I think the best course of action is to refer Zirkle's positions and his behavior to his congregation and conference, and let them decide it. Isn't that the reason that congregations are allowed to vote on membership in the first place?

Politically, LEAVE THE MAN ALONE. The religious freedom that our church backs is inextricably tied into the freedom of speech that lets men like the Zirkle promote the guillotine, resegregation, and rail against "Zionist pornographers."

It pains me to say this, and it kills me to know that some readers might see this as a promotion of the views that Zirkle is espousing. But let Zirkle's congregation and party handle him now...and let Zirkle's God, and our God handle him later.

My cell phone has always been posted on my Web site. It is 317 658-0107. I am the expert on my position, and not one of you has called me to learn what that position is. I am particularly disappointed with Cliff Goldstein's posting a "rumor" about my parents on this site. If there's ever been a single shred of Nazi affiliation with my senior citizen parents, it would be wild news to me. What does our church say about gossip? And for you, Ryan Bell, I would have thought that at least you would have called me.

Hi Tony,

Thanks for joining the conversation.

I emailed two of the email addresses that include your name on your website and didn't receive a reply. But I will be calling tomorrow to set up an interview.

Shoot me an email if you have a preferred time.

alexander[at]spectrummagazine[dot]o r g

Tony--

Read the post again. I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about someone else, a German, who told me that his parents were committed Nazis under Hitler--and loyal SDAs.

Nothing was said about your parents, of whom I know nothing about.

Cliff (in Germany right now!)

Alexander:

I was in court today in Indianapolis and Bloomington, so if you called, I'm sorry I missed you. I'll be checking my voice mails later tonight. I only got 2 or 3 hrs of sleep last night because of work so I had to take a nap this evening.

I just recently found this blog by checking to see if I had made wikipedia.org yet. This link is the #1 link there when you search for "Tony Zirkle." Because the public now has notice of this blog, I'd like to request permission to share with you some of my research.

I read and responded to every e-mail and would have thought I would have noticed one from Spectrum magazine. I even responded to every Jewish death threat and even the one who wished for me to get AIDS from one of my divorce clients and die. If you still have those e-mails, can you forward them to me at lawfirm@tonyzirkle.com (I check that multiple times a day when I'm not in court) so that I can investigate with my Web developer? I did put a note on my home page that said there were problems with the e-mail box on the right. I was running a 12 county Congressional campaign and 3 law offices by myself, so I was a tad busy. Perhaps I overlooked them by mistake.

I tried to keep up with some of the blogs and mis-information, but the GPD's (Great Porn Dragon) flooding assault on my exposing of his favorite lair (porn-prostitution) made it impossible for one person to respond to everything.

Very truly yours,
Tony Zirkle

Mr. Goldstein:

You wrote:

"Look, I never heard of a single SDA in Germany or Austria being disfellowshipped, or even disciplined, for being a Nazi (I have an SDA friend who told me his SDA parents were committed Nazis), so we think Zirkle going to get in trouble with the church over this?

Get real! There's more a chance of him getting kicked out for eating pickled pig's feet than than for being a Nazi sympathizer."

When you said "his parents" you didn't clarify if that was referring to mine or your friend's. The sentence could be read either way. Anyway, thanks for clarifying your statement. Pehaps I read it wrong for a reason to get your attention. I may not be your intellectual equal, but I'd be honored to engage you in a debate sometime on the issues I have tried to raise in my campaign. I can defend my position with respect the the danger to SDAs that I see from Jews in Porn space. http://www.jewishquarterly.org/article.asp?articleid=38

I believe it was Andrews Revelation Professor Douglas Waterhouse who once made an offhand comment in class that Jews will also be caught up in the mark of the beast since they keep Sabbath. There's a strong and vast history of anti-Semitism in both Catholicism and Islam, so anti-semitism is a logical platform to unite the two. Pakistan has keep Sunday since the 1970s as opposed to Friday which is still observed throughout much of the Islamic world.

Porn gives anti-Semites a logical and rational platform to attack Jews. In their slanderous work, "The Eternal Jew," the Nazis leveled many criminal statistics against that community, but, interestingly, they culminated their argument with the undocumented claim that Jews careteled "97% of all international prostitution."

I've proposed a type of "affirmative action" for Jews which would involve removing all profit-potential from porn-prostitution by making the video or photo marketing (commercial sex) of any sex act fall under the definition of prostitution. Right now, most lawyers (the only class who gets to decide on the level of neo-Baal porn worship our society tolerates) are misguided and truly believe that charging $20 for a sex act on the street corner gets you arrested for prostitution, but if you get paid $20,000 for a weekend bukkaki with scores on video tape, you are a "star" worthy of absolute protection by the very first of all Amendments to our Constitution. I've racked my brain for over 12 years to understand my law school Holllywood porn defense attorney professor's position, and I just don't see that the video tape is making a distinction without a difference.

Respectfully yours,
Tony Zirkle

WWJD: What would Jesus do?

Can someone expose for me the non sequitor in this argument?

1. One of Jesus' very first and last acts of his 3 1/2 year public ministry was to "cleanse the temple."
2. What is the temple now? "But when Jesus said “this temple,” he meant his own body." John 2:21; "Don’t you realize that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, who lives in you and was given to you by God? You do not belong to yourself," 1 Cor. 6:19
3. What is the greatest sin/crime against the body temple? "Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body."; "Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body."
4. "Fornication" in English derives from the Greek word "porn."

If this argument is sound, then shouldn't we be a bit hesitant to absolutely and completely rule-out any possible literal application to the 2nd Angel's message in Rev. 14:8

"And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication."

"U.S. Freedom means Porn/Prostitution for Iraq"
http://archives.themadina.com//year2003/1071496299.html
Who promotes porn throughout the globe more than the beast from the sea?
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/09/30/baghdad.blogger/index.html
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C93F2AF9-348F-4100-8193-C176A2DDE...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/980065/posts
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2005/09/136269_comment.php (be ware the graphic war pictures)

Respectfully submitted,
Tony Zirkle

I just received this e-mail today. It's typical of what I've been getting since I've decided to do all I can to expose the GPD.

"Legal Advice

Like I'd take any from a horrible, evil and twister spawn of Satan such as you Tony. Seriously, white power? Do the world a favour a die quietly in a corner. Thanks a bunch you evil hate monger.
Love,
Rob."

On t