Interesting - I find myself in sync with much about the Quakers, too.

I can identify with your points of pride, although I must admit that recent actions by several religious liberty leaders in regard to gay marriage do not make me proud to be an Adventist.

Perhaps I could add that I am proud of those who, while seeing flaws in the church, do not leave but continue to urge us toward our better selves in a positive way.

I too took the "belief.net" assessment some time ago, and discovered my affinity with Quakers - although I am not sure how well I would accept the times of silence.
Like many protestants, belief.net defines Adventists as literalists, conservatives and legalists. All three are probably wrong for most of us....
I am happy to name my affiliation with Adventism, partly because I don't fit the traditional image, and by making the claim to "owning" it, I am doing my part to break and reconstruct it.
Who am I proudest of? Like Carrol, I must affirm those abused by the Church who stay involved, in the hope that their contributin will lead to change.
Like Ron, I appreciate the wholisitic world view, and the value placed on each person.
After all, Jesus loved every one of us, and died for even the least worthy of us. And, yes, I am proud that my church is not elitist... Rather it is, at its best, both inclusive and accepting. Or so I have always found it.

Ron, you appear to be suffering somewhat, from cognitive dissonance :-) First, you state all the negative reasons for dissociating with SDAs; then you add a list of positives. Do the positives outweigh the negatives?

An SDA theologian once answered this question:
"What do you know about Adventists"? There are so many ideas about Adventists, both right and wrong; and there are so many varieties of SDAs, that to identify with one may not at all be your picture of the way you understand Adventism.

However, for some of us who can no longer believe in many of the major Fundamental Beliefs, to say we are still SDAs would be hypocritical. For those who do not find that to be a problem, even though they may disavow most of the FBs, then that is the choice they make.

For me, my integrity is the most precious trait I never want to modify: it's who I am, and what I firmly believe and act upon--in short, without integrity, I would become cowardice personified, and unworthy of my surname. So, to look at myself and know I can honestly make a statement, I cannot do otherwise than answering that question with:

"I am a cultural Adventist by birth, that is all I have known for most of my life, and it is always a part of me. However, while I would not, and could not disown my parents, nevertheless, I must make my own choices that are far different than the ones they made before me. We are all responsible for our own lives, and to be true to them we should live by our values, and not what others have set for us."

We honor those stalwarts such as Martin Luther, John Wesley, and many others who stood firm for what they believed. Also, all the SDA pioneers did the same, leaving behind their former religious convictions. Yet, today, we appear so disappointed with individuals who, just like them, disagree and leave behind their former religion to step away. The Canrights, Ballengers, Fords, and others are the Luthers and Wesleys of our day, and yet they became outcasts and defrocked--like Luther. Quite a paradoxical pattern within the SDA church to honor such early dissidents as the early Protesant Reformers, and yet castigate such people within their own denomination!

Thanks for your comments Elaine. Just to clarify, I did not make any attempt to "state all the negative reasons for dissociating with SDAs". My purpose was to highlight some of the reasons why even persons who struggle with some aspects of Adventism might continue to claim it as their own. Regarding Luther and other Protestant reformers who you cited models of persons who "stood firm for what they believed", I actually have far less trouble with Ellen White. Luther, after all, was a rather vicious anti-Semite. Calvin meanwhile condoned and (in the case of Anabaptist Michael Servetus) actively participated in the execution by fire of Geneva "heretics". One would be hard pressed to find words or actions that rise to this level of hatred and violence in even the worst of Adventist anti-Catholic polemics. I'm proud of that too.

Ron, yes, we have progressed (!) and no longer burn people at the stake. However, we have no trouble identifying the heretics among us. Is it really less harmful to be labeled a heretic in a religious community than shunning? Those are the more modern methods of dealing with dissidents today and are still widely practiced, with evident approval, as they are enacted by the church leaders. Is that something of which you can be proud: we no longer burn people at the stake, but now are much "kinder" and only excommunicate, defrock, and remove them from any former position? Questioning "the Brethren" is, and will be followed by the common form of censure and has replaced physical burning and torture. To that extent, we are much kinder today? A questioner risks professional suicide.

Ron

Enjoyed your artical.
I also affirm your list. While one could get more specific, your 7 cover the bases for me. A positive artical where we are asked what about our faith are we proud of is a rare thing here. I loved the chance to read it and hear other positive comments and tones.

I was especially interested in your picture or logo which I believe reads, Adventist till I die, Keep the faith.
An interesting concept when juxtaposed with the "many flavors" of Adventism often espoused.
If your artical continued along the lines of your logo what would it say when confronted with the often heard philosophy of "Adventist till I die, keep anything but the faith"?

Thanks, Ron--I very much identify with your "unease" with your religious heritage as well as several of your points of pride. I continually struggle with how to answer questions about my religious beliefs. You should see how many versions my Facebook page has had to the "Religious Views" section! At the moment it reflects my more mystical aspirations and is also quite opaque--"Into the Mystery." The belief.net quiz always tells me I'm Episcopal or Unitarian--Adventism doesn't even make the list, although I do think they have one very literal brand of Adventism represented in those quizzes.

When I ask myself if I would ever convert to Adventism, my answer is clearly "no." At least not the Adventism that is usually presented by those who are trying to convert folks. But, like you, it's a cultural and familial heritage that I can't quite leave behind, even though I disagree. I don't think someone is risking their integrity to claim Adventism even while disagreeing with several (or most) of the "Fundamental" beliefs. I like WD's point above: "I am happy to name my affiliation with Adventism, partly because I don't fit the traditional image, and by making the claim to "owning" it, I am doing my part to break and reconstruct it." I'd like to think that by remaining affiliated with the church, even with my particular brand of Adventism, it's part of moving the church forward.

I'm also proud that the Adventist church tolerates dissidents fairly well--at least as long as they aren't religion teachers. The type of ostracism that both Elaine and Ron Numbers experienced and/or have witnessed, just hasn't ever been my experience in Adventism. Possibly that's in a large part thanks to the work of people like Ron and my geographical location, but I am quite comfortable questioning and laying out my doubts--I've even been offered a job within the church structure with my doubts and concerns (and support of things like gay rights within the church) fully known by my potential employers.

Daneen, how true that like real estate, it's location, location, location, where one finds such disparate SDA practices, even beliefs. Listening to some middle American reports, there is a vast difference, not only between east and west coasts, but also interior of the U.S.

Does that occur in other denominations? Would there be such a disparity between Baptist congregations in different locations? MethodistS? Presbyterians? Just wondering.

Hi Elaine. I think the beliefs of other denominations do vary by location. At least that's the picture my friends from seminary in Claremont presented to me in class as we unpacked various topics and related them back to our own faith traditions. I attended a United Methodist seminary where just about every Christian and non-Christian faith tradition is currently represented. But I also sense that there's a variety of positions churches officially take regarding differences of opinion among members. Some churches seem to desire homogeneity more than others. The UCC and Unitarians appear pretty flexible.

Actually, the environment at seminary gave me a lot of breathing room, relating to my Adventist identity and upbringing. I'm more comfortable self-identifying and discussing my Adventist heritage and my place within the church when I'm in a very diverse setting. But I've felt claustrophobic in certain Adventist circles before. I think the difference is whether I'm defining my religious identity on my own terms by balancing it with other important aspects of my broader identity, or whether well-intentioned friends from my faith tradition are "helping" me self-identify.

Michael, when I think of "keeping the faith" I remember that our pioneers' faith was so strong their home churches cast them out. That is the kind of deeply-searching faith I want to keep.

Hi Elaine. You write: "Is that something of which you can be proud: we no longer burn people at the stake, but now are much 'kinder' and only excommunicate, defrock, and remove them from any former position?" "Excommunication" and "defrocking" are clearly not the correct terms in the Adventist context, although removal of ministerial credentials does sometimes happen, usually for reasons of sexual misconduct, not doctrinal belief. So do I think that removing someone from their position as a paid employee of the church is kinder than burning them at the stake (which Adventists have obviously never done)? Well, yes, I do. And I'm actually often glad when "church discipline" occurs--for example, when David Koresh was denied fellowship for his aberrant beliefs or when Bob Folkenberg was more or less compelled to step down as president of the church for his personal financial dealings.

I realize that many people have been hurt by the church in different ways, but in my experiences living in Adventist communities on both the East and West coasts as well as in Europe, Africa, and Asia, I can't recall meeting ANY lay persons who were denied fellowship or hatefully "shunned" by their Adventist communities for holding any number of divergent beliefs. The situation is obviously more perilous for church employees such as educators and pastors who are directly supported by church tithe dollars and so are expected to represent its official doctrines. But even here I suspect that the experiences of Numbers, Ford, and others of their generation are not the best reference points for earlier, present, or (I hope) future Adventism. In any case, my invitation was for people who have made a decision to remain part of the Adventist community to express things they are proud of in the Adventist tradition. Perhaps the negative criticisms can be saved, if they really need repeating, for another thread.

Michael--I'm curious to know more about "the often heard philosophy of "Adventist till I die, keep anything but the faith" I've never heard that, and I'm not sure that I know what it means.

I know one of the reasons why I engage on this site and elsewhere, sometimes with what might seem a critical eye towards the church, is because I care so much about the church. The opposite of love isn't hate or even criticism, it's apathy, and I think that one of the best attributes about the thousands of folks who have commented on this site in the past few months is that they are definitely anything but apathetic!

I can't help but be a bit arrested at being "proud to be an Adventist". Thankful, lucky, doomed, blessed or damned, but the pride thing just seems ominous.

Yes, certainly, there are regional differences in all the denominations, political parties, civic clubs, professional associations and so forth.

I would rather be fired from my job than burnt at the stake. I'm greatful for this opportunity to make that clear!

Maybe we need to stop thinking that to be told that the denomination no longer needs one's services is among the very worst things that can happen. Only those who can find no other way of earning a living should think that.

It is hypocritical to feign belief in something in order to remain in a community of faith. But it can be a matter of integrity openly to affirm what one can, dissent where one must and strive for positive change. Actually, that's what every member of every denomination should do.

It is interesting to hear some declare that people like me must either accept this or that doctrinal tradition or innovation or agree that we are dishonest cowards.

These are constant declarations from the far left and far right in our denomination, as they are in all others. They are like the hum one cannot fully escape while traveling in an airplane. One just learns to live with it.

It is even more interesting to hear this sort of thing from those who style themselves as progressive when in fact their theologies were real steps forward several centuries ago but are no longer entirely so.

There is nothing unique about SDAism in these regards. To take just three examples, it is not always easy to be a progressive Roman Catholic and it is not alway a picnic to be a forward looking Missouri Synod Lutheran! And being a liberal Southern Baptist is not exactly like experiencing room service in a five star hotel!

Diana Eck, who leads the Pluralism Project at Harvard Divinity School, often quotes someone else who said that those who know only one religion actually don't know any. I sometimes wonder if this applies to us.

It seems that "pride" in this conversation means the opposite of "not ashamed" rather than "arrogant." Do we have a precise English word for this? I don't know.

Thanks for a great discussion!

Dave

Dave,
Great comment. We forget the prophecies of Martin Luther and the importance many of his followers placed on that gift.

Thanks for this post Ron!

I will concede that "pride" can have meanings from conceit and vanity to self-respect and self-esteem. I always think of a conference president that on his yearly rounds to out lieing churches would start his speech with "I'm proud to be an SDA in Minnesota". After that would follow a list of conquest or endevours. It always sounded more like vanity.

"Michael, when I think of "keeping the faith" I remember that our pioneers' faith was so strong their home churches cast them out. That is the kind of deeply-searching faith I want to keep."

Posted by: Carrol Grady | 12 August 2008 at 11:16

Agreed. However upon study you will find their "Faith" differences consisted of religious issues like the importance of the Sabbath and the state of the dead and not contemporary social issues.

"Michael--I'm curious to know more about "the often heard philosophy of "Adventist till I die, keep anything but the faith" I've never heard that, and I'm not sure that I know what it means.

I know one of the reasons why I engage on this site and elsewhere, sometimes with what might seem a critical eye towards the church, is because I care so much about the church...."

Posted by: Daneen Akers | 12 August 2008 at 5:00

Have you never met anyone who considered themselves SDA and yet was at odds with everything in the church? Sometimes to the extent that they dont even believe in the bible or heaven or God nessisarily?
They also believe that their views are correct and if the church would only see things there way everything would be better.

I have met quite a few people over the years who fit varying degrees of this concept. My question was to ask the author to continue his line of reasoning with reguards to this element.

I am interested in how far one can go as a "flavor" of Adventism before the flavors are at direct odds with each other.

I'm not sure how someone who doesnt believe the bible, questions God exists and thinks prayer is a waste of time can help the rest of us Adventist flavors out.

Hey Michael...

I wonder how much the phenomenon of being a "Cultural Adventist," only (this seems like what you are describing), is paralleled in other denominations. As a former RC, I remember the experience of calling myself such, but believing in very little to none of what the church taught.

However, RC doesn't seem to carry nearly the same sub-cultural ties and identification that Adventism and Adventists do, despite books like "I Survived Growing Up Catholic." One can be Catholic in name only, but cultural Catholicism is not something that is a familiar concept...unlike the term "Cultural Adventist" I've often heard bandied about.

In a small sense, we seem to parellel Judaism...Adventism for many who have deep and long-standing familial roots in the church often seems like an ethnic badge. And many Adventists from this background seem comfortable to identify themselves in this manner..."I'm a fifth-generation Adventist," or, "I was born into the church and my grandfather was a GC VP," even if they do not identify with the belief structure of the church.

Personally, as one who came into this from way outside, I have a difficult time understanding this mindset. I would never have come into Adventism if it wasn't for a life-changing experience with Jesus. Adventism's cultural trappings don't mean anything to me apart from this. Nor do they matter to me in comparison to a real connection with Christ.

I don't mean this as criticism. I guess I'm just observing from an entirely different starting point. But I am thankful and do acknowledge, that it is through Adventism and Adventist friends, that I got my start and have continued my walk with Christ.

And this perspective has profoundly shaped my life.

Thanks...

Frank

I think I told this story before: But it applies here.
Betty and I were visiting her sister in Portland, Orgeon who had just married a widowed retired Union Conference Officer.
He knew that I had been an active member of the SDA Church but had left following the SMC debacle. Following dinner, he said he was going into his study to prepare a sermon for the coming Sabbath. He was asked to fill in for a Pastor on summer leave. He said: "Tom my title is going to be "Why I Love the Seventh-day Adventist Church, What do you think?" I replied: "It is a great title, but I can think of a better one!" He asked: "What would that be?" I responded: "Why in the World Does Jesus Love Me?" Denominationalism is the curse of Christianity. The very idea of choosing up sides on the basis of which of God's children God loves the most is
the Omega of egotism. It started with Cain and Abel and remained active even between James and John. I heard third hand that a local member of the SDA church boasted of being a fifth generation Adventist and thus was a sure bet to be among the 144,000. I am glad Jesus Loves me, I hope I can respond in kind in my community living and in my witness to any and all who cry out: "What must I do to be saved?" Tom

Michael, I'm still not sure what you're saying, so please excuse my apparent dullness. I said that I stay involved in this site and engaged in Adventism even though I have some concerns and critical thoughts (as I know others do), it's not because I don't care about the church, it's because I care so much. I read your response, "I'm not sure how someone who doesnt believe the bible, questions God exists and thinks prayer is a waste of time can help the rest of us Adventist flavors out" to be a rather sweeping generalization of people like me.

It almost seems like you're saying that Adventists who question and/or disagree (disagree with what is a good question--you? the 28? the generally accepted ideas of their local congregations which we've all agreed can be very different) quite quickly become non-believers in God, the Bible, and prayer. I'm sure you'll agree that's a rather bold and broad assertion! Maybe you can clarify what you do mean?

Thanks, Dave, for reminding us that every person struggles with their religious identity. I can imagine growing up Southern Baptist and having the same questions about how my adult faith fits within the church I was raised in (and still love).

Why is it so important to be linked to Jewish roots? My roots go much farther back to the Garden of Eden. Contemporay Christianity, including Adventism, contradicts the most fundamental teachings that launched the Christian movement so I don't identify myself theologically as a Christian. The NT teaches that Jesus is the Savior of ALL men but I just read a flyer published by the NAD which says that Jesus only made salvation possible for all men. This means that instead of being the Savior, as I prefer to believe, Jesus is now only the Broker of salvation. Why should I be proud of such a tradition?

How many believers of all denominations ask themselves such questions:

Why should I, or anyone, believe in a god?

Why should anyone rely on any one ancient book: The Bible, Koran, etc., for all the answers to life’s questions?

Why should the Bible be the exclusive source for one’s source for history, religion, and
Principles?

How does believing in a god benefit one?

Why eliminate all other sources of history, philosophy, or science and give any book (Bible or Koran) the last and most important value?

How is it possible to derive any consistent, coherent idea of the god portrayed in the Bible? How does one choose which, if any to believe?

These should be the first questions one asks, shouldn't they? Before adopting any religion, whether one of the many Christian ones, or non-Christian, how does one answer these questions when posed by a seeker? They are the basic, honest questions that need answers.

Daneen,

I am so sorry you identified yourself with the class of Adventists I described in my experiences.
I personally do not consider you anywhere near that class.
I may be entirely to bold but you seem to me to be an earnestly searching christian trying to find your way in this crazy polically correct post modern world.

For the purposes of my example, lets consider the "flavor" of Adventist I described to be exactally as I discribed.
Quoting myself here.
"I'm not sure how someone who doesnt believe the bible, questions God exists and thinks prayer is a waste of time can help the rest of us Adventist flavors out."
Unless you see yourself as believing the above please do not think of yourself in this group.
Also try and understand that this group is technically not even christian let alone Adventist.
Now back to the question. How far apart can the SDA flavors be and still benefit the other flavors?

Frank,
I really ejoyed your comments. It is my experience that those who come into the church as adults have none of the handmedown cultural religion backgrounds that proves to be to much of a burden for some.

Thanks.

This will be my final posting on this thread. I just want to say that I'm disappointed that once again a conversation here on the Spectrum blog has devolved into tired recriminations, pontificating on unrelated matters, and reiterations of positions we've all heard before--as usual dominated by the same four or five voices. It's one of the reasons I rarely check in on Spectrum these days.

Hey Ron--don't give up on us yet! That's a pretty harsh comment coming from the author of the post. Not all of us check in continually, so please wait for the "non-regulars" to get a chance to read, think, and comment.

I like your reasons a lot. I remember sitting and talking with a book club I was a member of several years ago, and we all ended up talking about this topic--what did we really cherish about our religious heritage? One thing that we all hit upon was how good our church has been in the past in defending the right of others to worship the way they believe. Didn't the Adventist church help a Native American group retain the right to smoke peyote as a religious practice? That's just really great.

I also am proud that, quirky as it sometimes seemed to me growing up, Adventist health principles and the concept of a weekly rest has been affirmed with the National Geographic longevity studies. It's funny that just as many of us are starting to shed those cultural vestiges (e.g. vegetarianism), it gets affirmed in a very major way.

Ron

I am glad I was raised as an Seventh-day Adventist Christian.
I am glad I found so many friends within that community of believers. I am glad I had a significant part in the growth of the Seventh-day Adventist church. I am glad that I was able to see beyond denominationalism to Christ alone.

The tensions and actions at SMC were primarily over the concept of Righteousness by Faith and not the Investigative Judgment. That struck at the heart of the Gospel and made compromise impossible to one invested in a leadership role in the conference and in the local church. I could not in good faith sit on the back row and be quiet over such a central issue of the Gospel.

I am happy for my history and gladly accept the redemptive work of my Lord Jesus Christ.

I stand with my Great Uncle Samuel Zwemer who as a Professor at Princton wrote--The Glory of the Open Tomb. A theme that forms the basis of the Christian faith, sectarianism aside.
Why not continue a discussion on the ties that bind us together in celebration of the finished work of Jesus Christ?

Rather than engaging in a debate over "My belief system is better than your belief system? At last count there are 24 of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in which I concur. That is almost as good as Ivory Soap! Tom

Tom,

You said above..."He said: "Tom my title is going to be "Why I Love the Seventh-day Adventist Church, What do you think?" I replied: "It is a great title, but I can think of a better one!" He asked: "What would that be?" I responded: "Why in the World Does Jesus Love Me?"

Well said...as well as your last post in this strand.

Tom,as dentists you and I learned that unless we understood what we did wrong we would continue to have the same bad results.

I believe I hear Ron Osburn above saying lets "just move on"...which means to you and I that we can continue to expect the same poor results since "the problem" it seems has not been diagnosed.

regards,

pat

PS.Spectrum blog...is there a reason access to the strand "framing the religious liberty debate" is denied to me?

Thanks Pat.

I have difficulty also in accessing Spectrum on Line It takes from three to five or six tries. This time 4. Tom

I guess I just don't take a hint.

[Note: It is not you. That posting has been un-published at least temporarily to be sure the quotes used are fully accurate. It actually got posted prematurely, for which I am to blame - Rich Hannon]

I wasn't going to join the discussion on "Framing..." but here's what I got when I tried:

Access denied
You are not authorized to access this page.

I can't even find that article anymore... What happened? Am I blind or something?

[you're not blind (that I know of). See above, -rh]

Pat

Good to see you back!

Tom

24/28? That's impressive!

Dave

Ron, I was going to add that I just listened to a really good Speaking of Faith program on the spirituality of parenting with Rabbi Sandy Sasso. (http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/spiritualityofparenting/...)

One of the points she emphasized seemed especially salient for people who have had some negative experiences in their own faith tradition and are struggling with how to raise their kids. She said something that made me think a lot of your post: We need to realize that we too define a religious tradition--we aren't just descendants of a tradition, we are ancestors too.

I love that idea, and I think threads like this one help us explore how we are the ancestors in our own faith tradition--what stories are we retelling? What do we emphasize? How do we model the faith?

My Basic Beliefs
Tom Zwemer

I believe: :

There is a community of faith held together by a common love of Christ and in a common hope of His soon return that crosses denominational boundaries. Acts 1 and 2.

Those communities come together to study His life, His dying, His resurrection, and the consequences for their lives. They come together to celebrate salvation in Jesus Christ alone. I Cor. 15: 1-22

They have accepted the Bible as the best revelation of Christ’s life and its meaning to them.. However, They will accept any helps from godly men and women who are students of the Bible. They believe their insight and experience can improve our understanding of the Bible in its witness to Christ. However, if any person’s doctrine is contrary to the Bible they will stand with the Bible alone. 2 Tim. 3: 16, 17 2 Peter 1: 19-21

They believe that coming together in study and celebration will increase their faith, strengthen their love and hope, and will improve their ability to tell the story of Jesus Christ to others. 2 Tim 2: 15

They believe that they are part of an open community and are not willing to exclude anyone from fellowship. They believe the community of faith is for the sick as well as the whole. Eph. 2:19-22

They believe that they have the opportunity and responsibility to grow. They believe that no expression of their faith, hope, and love is final or non-negotiable. 1 Cor. 13:12

They believe that Jesus Christ is God in the fullest and highest sense. John 1: 1,2
Hebrews 1: 1-4

They believe that God is three persons, yet one in purpose, character, and power. Heb. 1: 1-4 John 16: 13,14 Heb. 10: 15

They believe that Jesus Christ set aside His prerogatives as God and became man in the full extent of humanity, sin excepted. Phil. 2: 5-11

They believe that the ultimate expression of God’s personality, character, and purpose ever revealed to man, was made in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. [Jesus Christ is the ultimate Prophet.] Hebrews 1: 1-4

They believe that Jesus Christ became the ultimate and only necessary advocate [mediator] between God and man. [Jesus Christ is the ultimate Priest.] Heb. 4: 14-16

They believe that Jesus Christ conquered sin and death and thus holds within His power the keys to heaven and hell and has dominion over the earth and the spiritual realm. [Jesus Christ is the ultimate King] Rev. 1: 5 Rev. 1: 17-18

They believe that God has exalted Christ to the highest place and has given Him the name that is above every name. Phil. 2: 5-11

They believe that after Christ provided purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. For this reason, They believe that Jesus Christ is the mediator of the New Covenant. Heb. 10: 12

They believe that Jesus Christ is in the presence of God as our High Priest and King and therefore, He is now, and has been since His ascension, in the most reverent and Holy place in the universe. There can be no place more Holy than the place where God is. Heb. 10

They believe that Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people, and that He will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for Him. Heb. 8-10

They believe that while Christ is away He has sent the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth. They believe that all truth, particularly in this context, saving truth, is embodied in Jesus Christ. John 16: 13,14

They believe that if one confesses with their mouth Jesus is Lord and believe in their heart that God raised Him from the dead they will be saved. Rom. 10:9

They believe that no man can say Christ is Lord or believe in his heart that God raised Jesus from the dead except by the Holy Spirit. 1 Cor. 12: 3

They believe that as a consequence of these beliefs that they are their brother’s brother. They believe that as a consequence of having been purchased with such a great price, they honor the One who bought us back from Hell and Death by their celebration of His act, by the etiquette and ethics with which they deal with their neighbor and by their stewardship of their vitality and talents which He has so richly bestowed upon them. Eph. 1-5

They believe that true worship is in Spirit and in Truth and thus is not limited by time or space. John 4: 23,24

They believe that Jesus Christ is the object of true worship and to Him alone every knee should bow in reverential awe. Rev. 19: 10

They believe that such worship will result in dynamic fellowship and service to their brothers and sisters of contrary opinion as well as those of like faith. Eph. 1-5

They believe that one who loves his fellow man has fulfilled the law. Such a love will neither keep score nor try to even or settle a score. Rom. 13: 9-14

They believe in that freedom from condemnation compels them not to judge our brother in food and drink or in days and seasons. Rom. 14: 1-23

They believe that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the judgment hour message.
Belief or trust in Jesus Christ as Savior brings a declaration of freedom from condemnation. [Such a believer is declared just.] On the other hand, rejection of the finished work of Jesus Christ brings condemnation and death. Hebrews 9-10

They believe that those who come into Gospel fellowship by the guidance of the Spirit and continue there in, will have an opportunity for growth and service afforded no other community. Acts 17: 11, 12

They believe that those who have such a faith, hope, and love will neither cling together nor hide from the world but will go and teach all nations, kindred, and tongues and people, the Good News about God in Jesus Christ. Matt. 28: 19,20

P.S. I am happy to be a part of such a world wide fellowship.
I rejoice with them that the finished work of Jesus Christ was both necessary and sufficient for their salvation, mine, and all who come to accept Jesus Christ by faith alone. What a joy divine! Tom

A friend was just over talking to me about an online conversation she'd been having about the Adventist church and its position on birth control and abortion. This conversation reminded me that I'm actually very proud of the Adventist church's position on abortion. While we do not encourage abortions and think they should be very rare, we allow for the final decision to be the woman's decision. This position respects the life of both the unborn child and the mother whose body is carrying that life. In a quick search, I saw that a website that promotes religious tolerance actually singles out the Adventist church for its unique stance on this issue within conservative denominations: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist1.htm

Ron wrote- "This will be my final posting on this thread. I just want to say that I'm disappointed that once again a conversation here on the Spectrum blog has devolved into *tired recriminations*, *pontificating* on unrelated matters, and *reiterations* of positions we've all heard before--as usual *dominated* by the same four or five voices. It's one of the reasons I rarely check in on Spectrum these days."

I supplied the emphases. I agree with his evaluation. Why would a person no longer an SDA time and again be the first or second to denigrate the Remnant Church? Why not found your own church? If so much is allegedly wrong with the church why stay with it?

Dear "Your Friend",

You sound like CG (who doesn't understand why evolutionists would hang around the church)! :-)

It interests me that the author of this post left in a huff because 4 or 5 people that you think should leave haven't yet. Must be that the shaking time hasn't yet come to the Remnant (or at least to the Spectrum blog)!

1. Being proud of anything might be a condition of being puffed up, not quite what the Good Book seems to be about. Why not think in terms of "how" and "why" "I" have been "blessed" by the Seventh-day Adventist movement, chain of dialogue, discussion, and social/spiritual activism? If not, be honest, but seek healing.

2. Personlly, I Jim Becraft, have been blessed by generations of people who have been blessed by the Advent movement--even when church sometimes gets boring. I'm a 5th generation Seventh-day Adventist. I could be thrown out of "church" but my heritage is one of protest for excellence in human relations and between humans. Nitpicking over religion, within or without the church is a waste of time. Testimony to love and what one learns is not. Was Carl Marx right? Are not "religions" the the narcotics people seem to need. Seventh-day Advent ---ISM should scorned but Seventh-day Advent discussion not. But why should not the results that discussion bring as long as they lead to a better sense of the Divine gifts not be honored, respected. The "systems" and "isms" are mostly useful as discussion starters. But isn't it how we respond to God's love and how it flows out that counts most?

3. Personally, I feel most blessed by the discussion in which I have enjoyed my life within many Seventh-day Advent congregations. Religions and churches are messy "shops" of life in which people discuss and try to come to "meaning". From that sense, they, including my own heritage--need to be honored and respected to varying degrees. Paul said that we see through the darkness, but then we shall see face to face. Is not a "religion" simply a lens through which se try to gain a glimpse of God's character? The Remnant may be found where the discussion is taking place...even in Mecca. Surely in Mecca and Jerusalem and Loma Linda, etc.

If so, and I think it is so, for me the SDA movement is a fine lens--with aberrations and utility. In my own life I increasingly see the though of this church lens. I see a need to enlarge the Church's view as it seeks to create increasing dialogue re Peace with the entire world. Therefore, for me my Seventh-day Advent movement can be summed up with my approach--and I say this not with "pride" but that it's simply where my walk has taken and is taking me. In Medieval Spain Judaism, Christianity, and Islam often coexisted in Peace. We can help the world in similar ways resolve conflict...not by creating Ism but by nurturing Love.

4. I'm blessed because the Advent Movement has led me to a big view of God: "I am a Jew. I am a Christian. I am a Muslim. And I am none of them. I am a Seventh-day Adventist and sometimes I "wonder"...but if I see the Advent Movement only as a "religion" and not as a forum in which discussios is paramount about coming to "understand the character of God---Peacefully-- I have really missed the point of the movement to seek understanding and to help make God's character known in the world.

I am blessed as a "Jew" because I believe that Torah, the Law is an highly content-laden view of what it means to live the character of God. The Sabbath of our forebears is that "palace in time" in which forum activities wonderfully take place. Every Sabbath should be a day of meditation, study, festival,a nd food. In the heart of Jesus is Torah, and he lived it in relationship with L'Éternel and Shabbos is all about that. I am also blessed as a "Christian" because I believe in the message of Jesus as the expression of Torah and how to live it in relationship with the Father. I will not get caught up in a fight over the nature of the Trinity. It is a waste of time. But what I believe in is that Jesus has priority in our lives...not as Icon, but along with the Spirit, how we experience with the One with content of behavior..helpign the widows, etc.. Now, I'm also a "Muslim". In the West this is not understood. Islam tells opens us to God's character in several key ways: 1) Its belief in the the struggle, the great controversy. 2) Its assertion of the importance of submission and 3) Its call to good works-- as do the three primary monotheistic religions. The three on a grand level are greatly guilty of "denominationalism".

Frankly, I think we should remember that labels are just that. "Religions" are messy constructs in which the entire spectrum of human behavior and growth takes place. Some drop out. When this is done, however, how can one be assured that a vapid "spirituality" is not the result. Systematic study, discussion and prayer be important. It's the "sage" way.

5. Finally, I am blessed to be a Seventh-day Adventist because of our commitment to discover and to testify to the Love of God in very practical ways: 1) Our commitment to the Healing message of the Book. 2) Our historic commitment to non-violence 3) Our historic commitment to discussion and yet, most often, demonstrated love to humanity. As several in this blog, I also find commonalities with Friends (on non-violence, down with slavery, etc.) My great-great-grandfather came home from the US Civil War and Andersonville Prison after having fought with Grant and Sherman. He found that his father had become a Seventh-day Adventist...think non-violence after what the young man had been through...abolition....etc. My great-grandfather for a time was put out of the ministry because a "conference" president thought the end was too close for a young man to insist on getting married, as my grandfather did.

As a "truth-seeker" and a child of Abraham we've still got a long way to go from "Ur" to the "Promised Land", but "were already there when we accept the priority of God, submit, study, and participate in the discussion--and stretch the envelope on occasion.

The present, the future, and the past are mostly mysteries, so let's simply accept the Creator and be blessed. Forget all the Pride about "Religion".

Accept that we're all hypocrites, fallen creatures and simply need to seek relationshiop with God's our fellow man, believers, and would be believers. Let's simply love and not get caught up in the nastiness that befuddles and befogs human behavior.

Written on the fly. Enjoy Spectrum. Enjoy the Forum...So let's blog on in the fog seeking the Light. Daniel and Zoroaster might understand this and a few Sufis too.

Good Luck

Jim Becraft

I am awake and reading this thread at 0510 EDT because of deep concerns regarding recent actions by the administration of my local conference. What an embarrassment! But reading each of the posts to this thread has reawakened my courage, for every one of you personally has met unkindness at the hands of some in church administration, yet emerged knowing that God loves you. The list in Hebrews 11 is made up of decidedly imperfect people who dared to believe God. So do each of you.

Thank you, Carol June Hooker.
I am "proud" (and use that word in its loosest sense) to be Adventist because the broadchurch I belong to accepts people like you and me, and finds a place for us.
Oh, I understand that is not a universal truth, but in its generality it is mostly true, and mostly the church does its best. But I will continue to persue the few in administration that do not really understand pluralism and demand a personal mandate to abuse the weak or the different among us. We are all evangelists for the causes we hold most dear.

Carrol,

I read your comments posted on August 2008 at 9:48. I wonder whether you have considered the impact the legalization of homosexual marriage would have on our religious liberty. Have you read the arguments cited by NARLA on this issue? A specific example would be the inability of treating equally students at an Adventist school. If one student were dismissed for an overt sexual misconduct, another homosexual student could not be dismissed for the same offense because he now would belong to a special protected class.

On another thread I cited specific cases where in Canada, Great Britain, and even the U.S. individuals have been imposed heavy financial fines for either citing Scripture, for refusing to rent to homosexuals, and one publishers is right now being sued for millions of dollars for printing the Bible. Is this what you want for Adventists and Evangelicals in the future?

Elaine,

I read your comments posted on 12 August 2008 at 9:20, and I agree with you that honesty and integrity are one of the most important character traits God values in his children. Nevertheless, these qualities do not represent an insurance against error. Look at Martin Luther, he was an honest man, I believe, yet he was convinced that it was fair for Jews to suffer the consequences of their ancestors rejection of Jesus Christ.

This paved the way for the Jewish genocide. Consider also the case of Saul of Tarsus. He honestly believed that he was doing God's work when he persecuted and killed the followers of Jesus. He was wrong. His honesty and integrity did not protect him from believing a lie.

Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com

Yes, sometimes and all-too-often the organized--and unorganized--church and related institutions--do some nasty, thoughtless things.

And, the (we?) sometimes does so in the "name of God."

How can we demand accountability as stewards but also except that honest mistakes are made and that different people on the Walk are on a different part of the path in their lives?

Can institutions as well as people be "redeemed"? Can institutions be "redeeming"? Are they just places where that can happen?

God seems to be pretty flexible...He accepts each one of us. Come as you are? I stand at the door and knock...Learn to KNOW me (Gnosis) ? If this is our picture of God's character, why can't the church be more flexible with people who don't quite fit the dominant culture...my gay uncle, our lesbian friends and colleagues?

I guess it's because we're all humans and part of institutions, flexible beings, but also with a lot of rigidity. We are primates with spines, not invertebrates, and we've all got our opinions, so help me, and I' "right". I'm "righteous." Sometimes my spine makes me prickly...what an odd thought! And, institutions have operating procedures. Damn the torpedos and full speed ahead.

The Sabbath calls us back to Grace to show us that while primates with spines, without the Creator, we're not to be like the Hebrew Worthies: Shadrach, Me-Shack and To-Bed-Me-Go (as my Daddy taught me). And he also said, "Let's go to church."

Enjoy your Sabbath and I'd better get socks on and head off to Sabbath School. Spend the day laughing, loving, and learning. Exercise your "religious liberty". Go to church--or not.

Jim Becraft
Tillymook, Orygun, Les Etats-Unis, Planet Earth

I get the sense from many of these comments that “Adventists” are weirder than the average humans. But the critiques that Spectrum responders make of Adventism are usually unwitting critiques of general human characteristic and patterns, which beg no special Adventist embarrassment. Adventists are human beings, and Adventism is a corporate gathering of human beings. We are not uniquely strange. We are distinctly human. And whenever humans get together in an organized group and try to do religion—or politics or education or a golf club for that matter—both our weaknesses and our strengths are amplified.

There is no reason I can think of to be either proud or embarrassed of Adventism, as if I were somehow in a position of pure perception. It is what it is, and what it is, is a generational group of people with a particular rooting in a particular segment of human history (as was the case with the Protestant Reformers as well, and is the case with all other denominations). There is a darkness that continually seeks to envelope all our souls with fear and prejudice. The whole idea of being embarrassed to identify with Adventism, or with humanity of any strain, assumes that “I” am somehow above those who think or believe or act like “they” do. The truth is, I do think and believe and act in similar patterns within my little individual world, as do those other humans I perceive myself distinct from. In actual fact, we’re all navigating through the same tendencies to be narrow, judgmental, insecure, threatened, reactionary and just plain stupid, while hopefully in the process of becoming more enlightened and embracing.

Perhaps the grandest human delusion is that I am here and you are over there. And maybe the greatest enlightenment is that I am right here where you are, negating all distinction and prejudice and judgment.

This seems to be another interesting discussion. Thanks Ron for giving the input, even though things might not have been going in the direction that you had intended it to.
I have been reading some rather long threads on Spectrum the last few months and have seen that people have been really thinking around here.
Tom, I liked the way you put your beliefs and having read them carefully it seems that, as far as I can tell, a lot of thought, time and energy has been invested in elaborating them. I couldn't say that I agree with all of them, but then I couldn't necessarily say the same for the 28 SDA Fundamental Beliefs, though I might want to state that at belief.net (to my surprise) I scored 100% Adventist with Eastern Orthodox and RC coming in second and conservative Quaker coming in fourth... ;)
I am glad that I am an SDA, because in spite of some administrators and apologetic/self-proclaimed 'heresy-buster' theologians I feel that there is still quite a crowd out there who somehow believes in the concept of 'Present Truth' in the sense that George Knight explains it in the first chapter of his 'A Search for Identity'. They might not be conscious of it and may not be able to put it into words, but I've seen many a church meeting being led by the Holy Spirit without the brethren being able to answer the 'whys' or 'hows'. They were simply led by the Holy Spirit and period.
Of course we can't mix being open to changes with a 'going-with-the-flow' mentality and the difference between the latter and 'present truth' only diligent study of the Word under the guidance of the Holy Spirit will reveal... in due time.
Let us not forget that hardly any of us would accept most of our pioneers as SDAs nowadays, since some of them had initially had quite strange and awkward ideas concerning prophecy, life-style, faith, etc.
God help us to continue persevering and making this community a more spiritually mature place.

Tom,

I have a comment regarding your posting dated on 15 August 2008 at 8:13. I read the list of "Basic Beliefs" you posted there, and I have no trouble accepting them, with the exception of one: The sixth one. My reason is very simple.

The theory of a triune God, like Sunday worship, has a pagan origin. It is not biblical. Saint Paul stated very clearly that God's rulership is based on a hierarchical system where God the Father is the supreme authority in the universe, and even the Son will be subject to his authority.

KDH,

The reason you posted on 15 August 2008 at 11:42 for being proud to be an Adventist I do not share. You stated the following: "I'm actually very proud of the Adventist church's position on abortion." You further did elaborate this by adding: "This position respects the life of both the unborn child and the mother whose body is carrying that life."

Since when killing an unborn innocent baby is evidence that we respect the life of the unborn? Would you like the same type of respect shown for your born children, or your parents, or your wife, or yourself. This reminds me of what we Adventists elsewhere describe as "Therapeutic Abortion?

I wonder whether those Adventists who defend said therapeutic abortion would consider receiving this kind of therapy for themselves! Abortion can never be a therapy, not for the woman who becomes an accomplice in the death of her own flesh and blood, and much less for the baby who is torn to pieces or else poisoned inside the sacred chamber provided by the Creator for their safety, nourishment and growth.

How can we twist what the Bible forbids: the shedding of inocent blood, and justify what is forbidden by the Sixth Commandment? The Bible also condemns the punishing of children for the sins of their parents. The rapist sins, and we let him go free and live, and instead we punish the innocent unborn child for the sin of the one who fathered the baby. The female engages in adultery or fornication, and we punish the innocent baby. What kind of justice is this?

Are you aware that our SDA pioneers did condemn the practice of abortion in the strongest possible terms and labelled it as plain murder? This includes Kellogg, Andrews, and even the Whites. In the event this topic is of interest to you, then I suggest you read my doctoral dissertation online. Here is the Internet link to it: http://www.sdaforum.com/page13.html .

Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com

Why does Nic S. characterize all women who choose abortions as rape victims or adultresses?

Most thinking and compassionate persons deplore the death of the innocent, but not to have the abortion option available for the mother and father who cannot support the children they have, who may know that their child will suffer from a debilitating disease, who have been informed that their child has no brain, who understand that the mother's chance of survival at birth is little or none, etc., etc., is cruel and unconscionable.

Personally, I advocate the adoption option in some instances (including, perhaps, the instance of rape, or when the mother is still a child, herself), and I do agree that abortion should be rare, but it is sometimes the only moral choice.

I have never - nor has anyone dear to me - experienced the emotional pain involved in adoption or abortion So... any comment I make would be outweighed by theirs.
But: I am happy to accept the current Adventist view, and understanding of scripture, that allows a child to be adopted, and also allows early termination.
I can only begin to understand the distress that both men and women go through in either situation.
And: I hope that church members - their family, and the "body" of Christ - support them through either decision, and beyond. I hope that "Why?" is never the issue. That would make me "Proud" to be an Adventist, because that is my understanding of Jesus and grace.

The trouble with Nic's argument, as far as the Bible is concerned, is that the Bible doesn't place the unborn on the same level as the born. In Exodus 21:22 there is a fine for killing someone’s unborn child, but the death penalty is only called for if the mother is killed. So while an unborn child is given value it is not considered to be a human being.

Your Friend,

I read your comments dated on 15 August 2008 at 6:15, and I am surprised that someone who identifies himself as "Your Friend" would post an unfriendly invitation to those who do not share the beliefs voted by the majority to leave the Adventist church. I wonder whether you realize the implication of what you are suggesting.

Theoretically, the fundamental beliefs of any democratic organization are based on the will of the majority, and the majority is defined as those who are included in the 51 percent of the group. In actual practice, it is usually the minority the one who decides what a group should believe. I will give you specific examples to illustrate this towards the end of this posting.

Based on what you suggested, whenever 51 percent of a particular church chooses certain beliefs, the 49 percent who are in the minority should leave the organization and start their own church. I this really what you want to happen to the Adventist church? Besides, do you really want the majority to determine what is truth? Should the minority ignore what the Bible teaches in order to please the majority?

When I joined the Adventist church, over half a century ago, we did not have the 28 Fundamental Beliefs. Should I and all the others who were baptized before the adoption of our current set of beliefs start a new organization if we are not entirely convinced about some of the beliefs adopted by the church a couple of decades ago?

Who is the one who departed from the fundamental beliefs originally espoused by the Adventist pioneers: the majority or the minority? Our original pioneers did not believe in the Trinity, and they taught that abortion is a violation of the Sixth Commandment.

The Adventist church decided to make an 180 turn from these fundamental beliefs of the pioneers. Is is fair for those who deviated from the teachings of the pioneers to tell the minority to leave the church, when in fact the majority are the ones who departed from the original teachings of the church?

I had the pleasure of investigating our Adventist belief regarding abortion, and my doctoral dissertation dealt with the this topic. I discovered some things that would probably surprise and alarm you if I were to post them here. I am a second generation Seventh-day Adventist, and I owe a great deal to my church. I was spiritually nurtured by the red books. I drank my spiritual milk from the writings of Ellen White. I am thankful that my parents became Adventists almost century ago.

Should this fact force me to keep silent when I see that my church has deviated from "Thus saith the Lord"? A few years ago, a survey showed that five of our own hospitals were offering elective abortions to their clients. Elective abortions means that the unborn babies are killed for convenience, which is plain murder according to our SDA pioneers. Should I keep silent about this modern holocaust?

If this topic is of interest to you, you can read my doctoral dissertation online. The Internet link is: http://www.sdaforum.com/page13.html .

Here is what I promissed to explain regarding how some beliefs or policies are created, implemented, and voted by the minority instead of reflecting the will of the majority.

My investigation dealing with the Seventh-day Adventist attitude towards abortion revealed that two thirds of those who had expressed their opinion in Adventist publications prior to the adoption of the Adventist "Guidelines on Abortion" were in the pro-life camp, while only one third favoured a pro-choice position on abortion.

This was in sharp contrast with the opinion of writers and individuals in leadership position in the church organization. Guess whose opinion did the church adopt as the guidelines on abortion came to light. The one third minority's opinion of the elite in whose hands the church had deposited the decision power prevailed, and the opinion of the majority was rejected. If you have any doubts, read my doctoral dissertation. The Internet link is posted above.

Given these undeniable facts, do you really think that it would be fair to ask those who happen to disagree with some of the current policies or beliefs of the church to leave and create their own church?

Ruth,

Thanks for your comments posted on 16 August 2008 at 3:01. I would like, though, to call your attention to the fact that the expression "all women" is not mine but entirely yours. I have no problem if you quote me verbatim, but altering what I said so profoundly is unfair, I believe. If your read what I stated within its proper context, you will discover that I was not talking about "all women," but rather two extreme cases to illustrate my point.

Your argument that abortion should be available to parents who have no means to support another child is unacceptable to me. What you are saying is that, if one additional mouth to feed will make the parents' life harder, then the solution is to kill the youngest member of the family.

In the case of an anencephallic baby, there is no need to kill it. It will die soon due to its abnormality. We do not kill people who are about to die. We make their lives as painless as possible. I had a niece who was born with spina bifida. My sister did not kill her daughter. She was loved and cared for until she died a month after birth.

Finally, in the event the evidence is strong enough to conclude that there is no way the pregnant woman and her baby can survive, no one I know would criticize if doctors try to save one human life instead of loosing two. This is common sense, and it represents a pro-life position. Pro-life means that we try to save as many lives as we can.

I hope this helps!

Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com

Nic

I believe the concept of a triune God is among the 28 Funamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. It was a late comer to be sure. One God in three presonalities or roles--is difficult to persons linked to a limited number of dimensions. Jesus spoke of His Father and said He and His Father were One and then He also said when I am gone I will send the Comforter to your to guide you into all things. I Accept the Trinity but cannot fully understanding this side of Heaven. I am willing to wait. I am also willing to accept one who has a different view of Godship. Thanks for reading and responding. Tom

Thank you carol Grady for continuing to bear the banner. I don't think it matters one iota that I am at least 7th generation SDA on both sides of my family. My great grandfather was in Australia and New Zealand at the same time EGW was shipped off to Australia and it makes for great family stories. No one ever knew that his stepson was gay, that his grandson was gay and his great grandaughters lesbian. As a parent and friend of gays and lesbians I have an unresolving knot in my gut that remains because we have yet in our adventist culture found a means to welcome and integrate these humans into our community. We have as adventists always supported civil rights for gays, but now we oppose them a civil right of legal partnership.

Just recently I attended several lectures of Alan R at Lake Tahoe Campmeeting and my question to him on Mark 12:24.25 went unanswered, that of marriage and giving in marriage not being a part of heaven, as we will be like angels. So we will keep Sabbath in Heaven,the first institution, but there will be no marriage? So is marriage a civil institution or a divine instution? Does that mean we won't have "pairing", no, pairing was there before Eve to teach Adam that he was incomplete. I have even wondered about why 7 clea animals were allowed in the Ark, one was without a mate. Maybe they were intended as food for the journey or maybe there was animal polygamy. Oh well, that is another subject.

Anyway, I guess we could place a sign on the door-"gays welcome, please don't hold hands or diplay public affection, you will not be asked to hold an office, tell a children's story or give special music, but you really are welcome".

Am I proud to be an Adventist? yes, if I am speaking to a straight human, but not if I am witnessing to a gay. I can't invite them to church, we don't have the sign up yet. The only sign we are carring right now is "No to gay marriage". Because we don't want to hire you and if you are "protected" that will present a legal dilemma. Let's don't complicate things.

Tom,

Thanks for responding. I agree with you that the dogma of a triune God is one of the fundamental beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist church. Our SDA pioneers were Arrians, and it was Ellen White the one who placed us in the Trinity camp.

Nevertheless, remember that she also was instrumental in cementing the unbiblical doctrine of the Investigative Judgment which asserted that Jesus waited 1844 years before being able to sit on the right hand of God and present to him his blood as a propitiation for our sins.

Ellen White was God's instrument in the building of the Adventist denomination, and we owe to her a great deal for her committment and sacrifice for the growth of our church. This doesn't mean that she was infallible. As far as the doctrine of the Trinity is concerned, she ignored much evidence in favor of a hierarchical type of divine government.

Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that the Holy Spirit is the third member of the Godhead, or that it is equal to God the Father in power and authority. Supreme authority is vested in God the Father. This is clearly taught by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15: 28. Even Jesus said "My Father is greater than I am."

Saint Peter says that biblical prophecy was the result of the work of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, when you check the source of the revelation granted both Daniel and John the Revelator, you discover that the Angel Gabriel was God's intrument in the process of revelation instead of the Holy Spirit. Of course, God's angels are Spirits, and they are Holy. In the Old and New Testaments we find many instances where the Spirit of the Lord is later identified with the Angel of the Lord.

In the first chapter of the last book of the Bible we find that the revelatory chain included God the Father, Jesus Christ, God's angel, and John. The Holy Spirit is not even mentioned as one of the agents. The same is true about the experience of Daniel the prophet. In Daniel 10:21, it is stated by the angel Gabriel that no one played a role in this except Michael--who we believe was Jesus.

There is much more I could say about this, but I do not want to test your patience. If this topic is of interest to you, please read what I have written about this this issue some years ago. Here is the Internet link to it: http://sdaforum.com/page70.html .

Sandy

Thanks for the comments you posted on 16 August 2008 at 10:32. It is true that in heaven there will be no more marriage. Nevertheless, do not forget that when the Lord decided to create beings in God's "image," he did not create Adam and Steve, but rather Adam and Eve. One pair made up of a male and a female. Humans have always been trying to improve on God's pattern for family life.

Anytime they attempt this, instead of coming up with the image of God, it results in the opposite: the image of the beast. The "beast," of course, being a symbol for Satan's counterfit for what the Lord created for our happyness. This was made very clear to us by Nick Miller, a professor at Andrews university, who was on a visit to Loma Linda University Church this morning.

Both Miller, as well as some of the Sabbath School members, presented evidence of how our religious liberty will be affected if society is allowed for homosexuals to acquire a special legal status in our community. There have been recently three cases where Christians have been imposed heavy fines amounting to thousand of dollars in Canada, Great Britain, and the U.S. for defending the biblical view of homosexuality.

In addition, right now a major publisher is being sued for millions of dollars in damages for printing the Bible on the basis of the special status being granted to homosexuals. Is this what you want for our church? It seems to me that you are granting our enemies the tools which will take away from us our religious freedom.

Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com

Nic wrote: "Theoretically, the fundamental beliefs of any democratic organization are based on the will of the majority, and the majority is defined as those who are included in the 51 percent of the group. In actual practice, it is usually the minority the one who decides what a group should believe. I will give you specific examples to illustrate this towards the end of this posting."

With all due respect I find your reasoning askew in this area. Have a nice Wednesday! :-)

Nic wrote: "Both Miller, as well as some of the Sabbath School members, presented evidence of how our religious liberty will be affected if society is allowed for homosexuals to acquire a special legal status in our community. There have been recently three cases where Christians have been imposed heavy fines amounting to thousand of dollars in Canada, Great Britain, and the U.S. for defending the biblical view of homosexuality."

Very true, Nic. We need only a sociological basis to defend a man and woman as marriage partners; we do not need to appeal to Scripture although Scripture is quite definitive on the matter for those of us who do accept Scripture as the Word of God. Some attempt to construe Scripture as saying something other than what is clear about homosexual practices but they are barking up the wrong tree.

When will I "leave"? When the church tells me it no longer wants my treasure -- my time, talents, temple, and tithe -- I will dig it out of the field and go.

Thanks, Ron, for this very interesting admission and list. You do have a lot to be proud of from your Adventism. The conversation is also quite engaging. I think the biggest problem with ´confessing´ one´s religious orientation in a world that knows so little about it is that most folks don´t take the time to engage the question as well as you have here! Maybe you can hand out the URL to this article next time someone asks you about your beliefs...

Audrey

I think Ron's difficulty with his post was primarily with his use of the word "proud". It came too close to exhibiting a triumphalistic ego-centric expression of his status. I am very pleased that the Jesus loved the world enough to die for it, even me.

Certainly, the Seventh-day Adventist Church in many communities is a very endearing community of Christians.
A community which I would be comfortable to worship--proud is a very poor choice of words--it is so often associated with a "fall". Tom

Sandy:
I agree with you that our church's carefully-qualified "welcome" of homosexuals is not a welcome at all, but is more like a "don't ask-don't tell" approach. If Adventists members were aware of how many of their musicians, pastors, and other church leaders were actually homosexual, it would be enlightening!

Nic:
You said, "Humans have always been trying to improve on God's pattern for family life." That isn't really the purpose of homosexuals wanting to marry. They aren't suggesting that this would be an improvement over heterosexual marriage. They are only saying that, for them, heterosexual marriage won't work (would you want your daughter to marry a gay man who is not attracted to her?), and they want to be able to express their love and commitment in the same way heterosexuals do. Remember, we have to live in this world we have inherited, which is very different from that created in the beginning.

You also suggest that gay rights will affect our religious liberty: "There have been recently three cases where Christians have been imposed heavy fines amounting to thousand of dollars in Canada, Great Britain, and the U.S. for defending the biblical view of homosexuality." Do Christians have the right to verbally attack a particular group of people? Here is an excerpt from an essay by a Presbyterian minister in Austin, TX. To read the entire essay go to http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0714-22.htm

"I know that critics of homosexuality do not consider themselves to be hateful. They would say they "love the sinner but hate the sin." If the shoe were on the other foot, however, and someone were attacking their families, trying to take their children away, and constantly working to pass legislation to deprive them of basic civil rights, at some point they would understand that "homophobia" is too mild a word for such harassment. "Hatred" is the only proper term.

"I was raised in Dallas, Texas and had classmates who were in the Klan. I remember that they did not consider themselves to be attacking other people. They perceived themselves to be defenders of Christian America. Their "religion" consisted of an unrelenting attack on people who were black, Jewish, or homosexual. If anyone challenged these views, these Klan members considered themselves under attack and believed that their right to free exercise of religion was being threatened. In other words, they felt that harassing other people was a protected expression of their own religious faith."

As I understand the concept of religious liberty, it does not extend to the place where we are hurting someone else with our "liberty." If Christians would more act like followers of Christ in their relationships to others, they wouldn't be in danger of losing their religious liberty.

Why do some Christians find it so easy to oppose homosexuality, but overlook divorce? Is it because homosexuality is something they don't have to deal with?

Your Friend:
You say, "We need only a sociological basis to defend a man and woman as marriage partners." Just what is this so-called "sociological basis?"

A major doctrine of Adventism is the sacredness of the seventh day. Below, an illustration of what happens when realism and idealism collide:

SDA missionary returning for the summer from the Pacific Islands somewhere regaled us "juniors" at camp meeting years ago with his "mission story" and inadvertantly illustrated the problem of keeping the sabbath from sundown to sundown on a round earth.

He was a pastor, assigned two churches which happened to be on opposites of the international date line. The local conference approved his method of pastoring the two churches this way.

On the first island, he would use fridays to clean the church, prepare his sermons, hold friday vespers services. The following morning, Saturday, he would lead the elders in SS and church, followed by a pot luck afternoon.

Late that afternoon, he would get into his boat,
and head for the other island, crossing the British Admiralty's immagin ary date line, set 180 degrees opposite the then center of the astronomical universe in Greenwich, England.

AFter crossing the "dateline", it would become friday afternoon, and he could turn on the radio, and pick up Armed Forces Radio and TV broadcasting college football games back home...

Arriving at the 2nd church friday afternoon, he would clean the church, do some secular paperwork, and then after sundown, hold friday evening vespers service. The next day would be sabbath, with S School, Church, the pot luck, afer which he would head back to the first island.

Upon crossing the international date line, since it suddenly became sunday, he would again turn AFRTS and listen to the pro football games on his way back to his home base.

He was supposed to do this 3 weeks each month.

The 4th week was his vacation time. So he would get the elders on island 1 to prepare for the vespers, and SS and potluck, and he would leave the island for the other one on friday afternoons.
Crossing the date line, it suddenly became thursday and he could contract normal business at island 2 for that and the next day.

But he would leave island two late on friday evening, cross the date line on his way back to home base, and arrive there saturday night, again, able to contract secular business.

Who ever concocted the rule of keeping one day per week on a round earth did NOT understand the round earth.

Elaine

You've made my point better than I could!

The time of the Sabbath is not determined by the international date line but by when the Jews in the region celebrate it. Once we figure that out we will know when we should celebrate it too.

Thanks for your help!

Dave

Another view on Adventism:

it would be so terrific if our churches would make helping others it's first priority rather than the preservation of the church.

It's our agenda that is out of whack. Look at our evangelistic programs. I don't know of a single one that doesn't try to convert the attendees to our religion. Our MAIN objective is to convert everyone else to our 'truth'. It shows up in our sabbath school studies, our preaching, our planning. Isn't it the objective of the North Division to ask each church to put on two evangelistic series or more in 2009? Seems like I've read that somewhere.

As I see it, the ultimate goal of the SDA church is to baptize Sabbath keepers. Period!!

What's that all about? To help people in their daily lives? No!! Instead it's to add more members to our church whicn has THE ONLY TRUTH.

Some would say that bringing people into our church would help them in their daily lives.......NOT!! There are absolutely no guarantees of that. Most of the time they are baptized and forgotten unless they assert themselves.

I have no problem with those on this forum who have their own site where they discuss doctrine etc. as long as they don't announce that any one who doesn't accept their way of thinking is condemned to the second death.

Carol Tavris, PhD, a social psychologist, says:
Ever notice that people who claim to have the 'truth', report that God always agrees with them?

Ron,

Thanks for an excellent, redemptive post. With you, I'm saddened that we strayed so far afield from the original thread. In addition to your seven, one of the reasons I'm pleased to be an Adventist is the existence of honest, intelligent Adventists such as you.

I'll quote from my book Swimming Against the Current (Pacific Press) (p. 123) for my further response to your request:

"Anyway, somehow these former Adventists missed the freedom, missed the assurance, missed the joy. It's true that Adventists are partly to blame. Humbly walking with God, we ought to be free, secure, and joyful. Too often we are not. Too often we have distorted the picture of God into an image unrecognizable. Too often we have been distant, dark, unimaginative, and controlling. Too often we have turned away good-hearted believers. God have mercy on us, and on them.

"I guess I could feel the same about Christians in general, who are often arrogant, narrow, militaristic, hypocritical, and self-serving. Forget it, I could conclude. This Christianity stuff is too weird and restricting. Millions, of course, do just that.

"Instead, I cherish my assurance in Christ. His grace alone saves me. I find freedom and challenge and rest and hope in my life as an Adventist. I also find frustrations, but I find those everywhere. As an Adventist, I live by grace, in peace, for love, with joy. Joylessly serving God is like peeling a grape--so little return for so much effort."

So, for me:

8. As an Adventist, I live by grace, in peace, for love, with joy.

"We ought to be free, secure, and joyful."

But surely, you recognize that has too little been the impression given. For that reason, it should be realized that the church has failed and left the bodies behind them.

When can we expect that will no longer be the message given?

Thanks for your comment Chris--I appreciate the choice to live "by grace, in peace, for love, with joy."

Elaine--
I know that there is a corporate body of "the church" our there that has often failed and has done all sorts of things that have "left the bodies behind," yet, I wonder, at what point does the church become us? If we say that we are the church, then won't we start in our circles of influence to spread the freedom, security, and joy that Chris talks about?

I mentioned it earlier, but in listening to a Speaking of Faith podcast on the spirituality of parenting with Rabbi Sandy Sasso, I really resonated with her idea that, when raising our children, we need to remember that we aren't just the descendants of our faith, we are the ancestors too. That's a very powerful paradigm shift for me, and one that I sense in the spirit of Ron's post.

Your Friend,

I read your comment dated on 17 August 2008 at 6:27 in which you state that my reasoning is flawed. Unfortunately, you fail to point where I went wrong. Please, elaborate, so that readers may decide whose reasoning is in fact defective!

Your Friend,

I read also your comments posted on 17 August 2008 at 6:33. You argued that:

*********
"We need only a sociological basis to defend a man and woman as marriage partners; we do not need to appeal to Scripture although Scripture is quite definitive on the matter for those of us who do accept Scripture as the Word of God."

*********
I disagree with you. We need both sociological reasons for rejecting homosexual marriage and Scriptural reasons as well. The reason is this: Most of the readers of this forum are Christians, and only a small percentage of them are non-Christians. Therefore, if you limit yourself to including only non-religions reasons for rejecting same-sex marriage, you are going to miss on the great majority who assign a special value to reasons based on Scripture.

Nevertheless, in order to comply with your request, let me state my non-religions reasons for opposing gay marriage. The most important factor in marriage are children. Focussing on sexual fulfillment is ego-centric and does not produce a lasting and solid basis for happyness. This is why I want to share with you a comprehensive study that was made in order to discover how children fare when they are raised by same-sex married couples. Here are the results:

*********
Experts Worldwide Find Gay Adoption Harmful for Children

MADRID, Spain (LifeSiteNews.com) – In light of a pending vote in the Spanish Senate on same-sex marriage HazteOir, together with the Spanish Forum for the Family and the Institute for Family Policy, has published and distributed an in-depth report on the effects that being raised by same-sex parents has on a child. The report, entitled “Report on Infantile Development in Same-Sex Couples” and available only in Spanish at this time, gathers and compares information from a vast number of studies carried out on the issue.

HazteOir, concerned by the apparent unquestioning acceptance in Spain of homosexual adoption, hopes that the wide array of information provided in the report and its extensive bibliography will prove to the Senate that homosexual parentage is harmful for children.

The president of HazteOir stated, in light of the findings of the report: “In no way can a couple of persons of the same sex be judged suitable for adopting a child. Considering the findings of this vast bibliography we are obliged to protect the minor and say that same-sex couples must not be allowed to adopt children.”

The report contests that the majority of the studies carried out which have concluded in favour of same-sex parenthood betray an egregious lack of scientific rigour. Most of the studies show a strong bias to one side.

To prove this the report analyzes the nature of the individuals who have been responsible for the various studies carried out thus far, demonstrating that the vast majority are either homosexuals themselves, or active in the gay-rights movement. Into this category fall all six of the six most prominent psychologists of the American Psychological Association, which, unsurprisingly is one of the organizations most strongly and vocally in favour of homosexual adoption.

In compiling and comparing the available data from these studies, as well as more objective studies, the team of first-class psychologists and sociologists which penned the HazteOir report have noted prominent and disturbing trends.

Among children raised by same-sex couples, the report notes a significant increase in low self-esteem, stress, confusion regarding sexual identity, an increase in mental illness, drug use, promiscuity, STD’s, and homosexual behaviour, amongst others. Furthermore, the report shows that statistics have brought to light the fact that same-sex relationships betray a much higher instance of separation and break-up than heterosexual relationships, increasing the likelihood that the child will experience familial instability.

The Spanish Association of Pediatrics firmly backs up the findings of the report, stating that a “family nucleus with two fathers or two mothers is clearly dangerous for the child”.

View the Spanish-language report at: http://www.fides.org/spa/approfondire/2005/spagna_noesigual... .

View the “Agenzio Fides” coverage at: http://www.fides.org/eng/news/2005/0505/25_4993.html

*********

Notice that six of the studies analyzed were done by psychologists who are memeber of the American Psychological Associeation. Notice also the disturbing results of said studies. I hope this answers your question.

KM,

That is an interesting suggestion you have made in your 17 August 2008 at 9:17 posting. I wonder whether those who want some Adventists to leave the church would be willing to refund them all the investment they have made in terms of tithes, offerings, and free time. My guess is that there would be a few who would jump at such a proposition.

Carrol,

I am responding to your comments dated on 17 August 2008 at 2:27. My answer is: I agree with you that the main objective of homosexuals is not the raising of children, but granting them the right to marry includes the right to adopt children and raise them. This is where the problem comes in. Society is concerned about the welfare of children, because they represent the future of our country and our way of life. Therefore, we cannot set this issue aside.

You state that gay couples "want to be able to express their love and commitment in the same way heterosexuals do." My answer is: Physically they can't. Our human bodies were not designed for this. Pshychologically and emotionally, they probably can.

You ask the following question: "Do Christians have the right to verbally attack a particular group of people?" My answer is "NO." They deserve the same love every human being is entitled to. We have all come short of the glory of God. Homosexuality is not the worst shortcoming of humankind.

I believe that heterosexual adultery, fornication, and easy divorce are sins of more tragic consequences than homosexuality. Nobody ever got pregnant as a result of gay sexual union, while those heterosexuals who take sex lightly do cause unwanted pregnancies which results in the destruction of innocent lives.

Your argument about depriving homosexuals of their civil rights has nothing to do with the opposition to the legalization of same-sex marriage. Homosexuals are free to enter into a legal agreement with their partners. There is no law in the U.S. I know which would deprive them of said legal right. There is no need for a marriage licenss for this. Let's keep marriage what it has been for thousands of years!

You further stated the following: "If Christians would more act like followers of Christ in their relationships to others, they wouldn't be in danger of losing their religious liberty."

I think that you are wrong on this. Right now, as I stated before, there is a publisher who is being sued for millions of dollars because he had the audacity to publish the Bible. If this were taking place in China or Iran, I would understand, but it is taking place here. It is too close for comfort!

By the way, I wouldn't probably be saying all these things if it weren't for the fact that I was raised an Adventist. I owe a great deal to the Adventist church, and to the red books which are being set aside by many of us.

I am humbly proud and grateful for the community which made me what I am. I am making this statement aware that I am walking a fine line. It is so easy to emulate the attitude of the publican who prayed: "Lord I thank you for not being like this publican!" I hope I haven't crossed this fine line.

Elaine,

Thanks for the amusing dateline story. That was superb. Nevertheless, I think I know who "concocted" the idea of keeping one day of the week sacred. Can you guess his holy name? Should we try to convince him that the earth is not flat?

Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com

Nic: I hope this comes across in the spirit of friendship in which I offer it, but your comments are getting to be rather tiresome mainly because they are so long and because you constantly repeat the same things. It looks like you run your own site, so maybe you can use it more to republish the things you're obviously very passionate about instead of making Spectrum your personal billboard for your pet topics? I'm afraid that I usually just skip your comments now because you seem to feel obligated to talk about the same two topics over and over--with the same information--in very long posts. You'd do yourself and the positions you support a favor by varying your responses to stay on topic with the topic the author has actually posted on and keeping things short! (Of course, we'd all do best to keep that in mind.)

Great Story Elaine

My nephew while a medical student at LLU was in a Bible class in which the teacher posed the following question: "What if you were on a South Pacific Island and had lost all track of time. How would you know which day to keep?" My nephew raised his hand and answered: " I'd walk over to the Catholic Mission and find out which day they kept and I would keep the day before." He is now Professor of Medicine at LLU.

In the army I crossed the International day line twice Once I had two Sabbaths and the next I missed Sabbath all together.

I had no work assignment so I was on my own. I kept to my evening and morning private worships as was my daily agenda plus nothing. Tom (No radios) A lot of poker.

Nic...

Steven has expressed something that I have also been feeling for quite some time. Whether I agree or disagree with your positions is immaterial. The sheer number and length of your posts, almost invariably on the same topics, now causes me to skip over them, too.

I appreciate your passion on the topics you continue to post on, but I wonder how we keep getting back to these same subjects on threads that are supposed to have nothing to do with them. I know that you are not the only one to ever get off point...so do I. And, I know that you are not fully responcible. It takes two to tango. But maybe you would be better served by directing such discussion to a more appropriate venue?

Thanks...

Frank

Nic, *I* at least still read your posts... and appreciate them for their entertainment value, plus the window into a mess of ideas and way of thinking that is truly alien to my everyday existence. I agree with the "haters" (lol, millennial slang) that your posts are sometimes repetitive, but occasionally there is a new gem of a phrase that I just can't pass up. I'm *almost* past the point of ever debating back, because I'm getting the impression you don't listen, but I AM still reading! ;) (oh, but after the 3rd time through your info about that study you love, I've started skipping that section of your posts... a link would be sufficient)

Back to the posted title: Proud to be an Adventist because---

That recalls a story: Years back, H.M.S. Richards et al were Sabbath dinner guests in our home. During dinner he told the following story: Early in his career he was a traveling evangelist. One summer he was a feature speaker at a wheat belt camp meeting. Following one of his presentations a middle aged farmer approached him and said, after greetings, "You know pastor, I haven't sinned in 15 years." To which Elder Richards replied: "You must be very proud!" The farmer replied: "Oh yes indeed, yes indeed!"

I recall with great joy my growing up years with Dr. Heppenstall, R.R. Bietz, Caryle B. Haynes, H.M.S. Richards and in mid life with Graham Maxwell, Walter Rea before the White Lie, and now while full of years my friendship with Dr. Don Yost.

I am blessed that Christianity has been a guiding principle in my life and that Seventh-day Adventist Christians h