Print
Memo to Elder Goldstein
Cliff,
I don't expect you to understand what I'm about to say--because I've said it to you so many times, in so many ways and in such a range of tone and intensity. But I hope that others who read this will understand.
Your life and mine have intertwined in an interesting and unusual manner. We began working at the church's world headquarters at about the same time. And both of us were quite young by church-headquarters standards. When I turned down the invitation to be editor of Liberty magazine, you received the nod. A few years later, when I turned down the call to be editor of the Adult Sabbath School Quarterly, you again received the nod. Not only did we spend considerable time in conversation during our mutual years at headquarters, but we've talked and gone out for meals together when we've met at major Adventist gatherings or when I've visited Silver Spring.
I've personally spoken with you as a friend--gently, kindly, pastorally (as have others)--about the spirit you project and the negative impact it has on your ministry and thus on the church as a whole. My church. I gently and kindly addressed the matter several years ago in print in Adventist Today. Sadly, it's water off a duck's back. As you said recently on a Spectrum thread: "The Spectrum folks not only don't get it, they don't get that they don't get it."
With all due respect, Cliff, I think it's the other way around. In the same way that the Bible could say that "Ephraim is joined to idols: let him alone" (emphasis mine), you seem to be separated from the most basic Christian grace and human civility. The tragic fact is, you're a playground bully. Figuratively, you kick shins, spit, pull hair, hit and taunt. You simply don't know how to play with others according to the WWJD rules. Not that you alone have this problem. But it's exaggerated in your case because you so totally don't get it. So I'll try to explain.
You see, when a mother looks out of her kitchen window and sees the local bully in her yard with her children, she doesn't say--just because he doesn't happen to be bullying at that moment--"Oh, everything's OK. Why, he's not bullying right now. He's really a nice boy, isn't he?" No, in her eyes, he's a bully. She's seen him in action. Over and over and over again. He gets no benefit of the doubt. She knows what he's capable of. She knows where things will inevitably end. So he gets no accolades for momentary behavior that's less offensive than usual.
The same holds for you, Cliff. You've demonstrated over and over and over again that you're a bully. And even when you're not bullying, you don't show care and love and pastoral concern. Even your kindest statements to or about those you've written off as reprobates have some kind of barb in them. You act as if you're writing to a bunch of evil idiots who've proved their spiritual inferiority just by the fact that they're engaging in conversation on the Spectrum website. You project no sense of heavy-heartedness or concern for what you perceive to be their waywardness. You project arrogance and spiritual superiority. Disgust and disdain. Utter contempt. Glee. You come across as smiting your breast and saying, like the Pharisee of old, "Thank God that I'm not like that Spectrum crowd . . ."
To you, that group may be faceless and nameless and formless. But not to me. Many are my friends and/or colleagues--just as I've considered you my friend. And just as I stood up loyally for you for years, trying to deflect what I now realize was well-deserved negative comment, I don't take it well when my friends are abused and bullied and unfairly judged. Many of the Spectrum community, like myself, have long years of loyal service and hard work for the church. Many of us are in the trenches daily. We don't have the luxury of hunkering down in our conference office, galloping forth on our white charger to stir up the crowds and receive adulation before racing back to seclusion and safety. No, some of us actually have to deal directly and almost daily with the people who are affected by the ideas we propound and the spirit we exude. There's an in-built accountability for some of us.
I know I'm not alone in getting a little tired of being lambasted for my beliefs by someone who's never had to field-test his. You might even change your mind about a four-billion-year-old earth if you had to face a conservative congregation every week. And just how does a person who claims to believe in sola scriptura deduce from the Bible that the earth itself is four billion years old? Isn't that reading into the Genesis account a little more than is actually there? And don't you find it a little strange that, granted her many statements about the earth being six thousand years old, that Ellen White never once added the caveat: "But, of course, the earth material itself is billions of years of old." When you're personally so willing to depart from the script, why are you so caustic toward those who simply depart from the script in some way different from your aberrations?
This may come as a surprise to you, Cliff, but readers of Spectrum are not monolithic. There are a large number of loyal Adventists who range from middle-of-the-road to liberal. There are also a number of highly traditional Adventists who enjoy the search--even if they don't agree with many of the proposals or conclusions. Let me illustrate the level of diversity by using just one example: coffee.
Believe it or not, there are people who participate on the Spectrum blog who don't drink coffee specifically because Ellen White says it's a sin. And not just any old sin, at that. It's one of the besetting sins that must be overcome if we're to stand when our names are brought up in the Investigative Judgment that began on October 22, 1844, and where the judging will soon pass from the dead to the living--if indeed it hasn't already happened. Of course, there also are people who drink coffee and don't believe in the divine inspiration of Ellen White. And there are people who don't drink coffee for reasons other than Ellen White. Here's the real clanger, though: There are people who guzzle coffee while vociferously claiming that they do believe in Ellen White's divine inspiration, incongruous and hypocritical as I'm sure you'd find such behavior to be. In other words, we have a whole spectrum here, as the name suggests.
There are also a considerable number of people who've been burned badly by Adventism. Some write very objectively about their negative experience. Others cry for help. Others lash out. Others express disillusionment. Some are angry. Some are bitter. Many are hurting. Many crave being heard because they felt they never had a voice. So they utilize this forum because they feel safe. They feel empowered. For them, this website plays a role that's not altogether different from the various 12-step programs.
Spectrum is a crucial element for many in finding some form of spiritual equilibrium and healing. For many--even among those who've severed formal connections with the church--there's still enough connection that they care in a variety of ways. They'd love to think that their input might help the church change just enough that others wouldn't have to go through the pain and anguish they've gone through--though they'd probably never risk returning themselves. As church leaders and pastors, we could all gain much by doing a little more listening and a lot less judging.
Tragically, you act like you don't care about this, Cliff. When people complain about your tone, you, like a pampered child, seem baffled. "What have I done? Why are you upset with me?" And when people persist, you say, "Now, hold on here! Why are you telling me that my tone is so terrible when X over here is every bit as bad or worse? Why haven't you taken him to task? Why the double standard?"
I'll tell you why, Cliff. There's an organization headquartered in Silver Spring, Maryland, that's officially called the Seventh-day Adventist Church. It's my church as well as yours. Spiritually and theologically, however, we have a different name for it. We say that we're "God's Remnant Church." We claim--and this isn't insignificant by any standard--that we have a clearer perception of divine truth than any other spiritual entity on the face of the whole earth. That's pretty heavy, just in case the import of my words is slipping past you somehow. Our fundamental beliefs argue that we're the spiritual crème de la crème.
Now within this crème-de-la-crème spiritual organization, in addition to committees, there's one man whose job (to a great degree) is to decide what spiritual topics the twenty million or so members need to focus on. What spiritual lessons are most crucial for this truth-advantaged spiritual elite to study so they can come even closer to the high ideal God has for his children? And even though other men and (occasionally) women may prepare the spiritual lessons, the church has given this one man the task of being the final arbiter as to what's spiritually beneficial and what isn't. It's left to him to adjust and tweak the wording of others until just the right message is conveyed. Truth matters.
We would assume that such a man would have been placed in this spiritually crucial position because he understands the theoretical, philosophical and theological aspects of the Adventist faith. But we'd also assume that he understands the practical, down-to-earth, everyday manifestations of the Spirit-filled life. What is it that our prophet Ellen White said? The strongest argument in favor of the gospel is a loving and lovable Christian.
However--and this comes as a major surprise to many when they first discover it--the man who fills the highest role in God's Remnant Church when it comes to determining the proper spiritual diet for members just happens to have a highly dismissive, sarcastic, derisive, uncaring, unloving, contempt-filled style of expression. Note his chosen epithets for the Spectrum crowd and/or what they say:
- "spiritual miscreants and misfits,"
- "biased claptrap,"
- "ludicrous rants,"
- "extremists,"
- "wacky left,"
- "wacko left,"
- "Spectrum Jackals,"
- "no moral integrity whatsoever."
And those labels were discovered after only the briefest of reviews of his comments.
It's indeed a jolt the first time such a spirit is encountered. But an even bigger jolt comes when, having been taken to task for his lack of Christian charity and grace, this prominent spiritual leader responds with a childish: "Why are you picking on me? What did I say that was so bad? I mean, I'm no worse than as so and so"--who more often than not may be a hurting, disillusioned, angry person who's trying to figure out how to move beyond the pain he or she experienced in the church. Yet this self-justification and projection is what we get routinely from the man whose task is to point us in the direction of the spiritual truths we all most need to incorporate into our lives right now. Present truth, we call it.
You, Cliff, are that man. You may try to deflect this indictment by saying that I'm calling you to task only because I happen to disagree with your conservatism. No, I fully support your right--yea, verily, your obligation--to tenaciously defend what you believe to be truth. And I'll do the same. But that's not what you do. Instead, you belittle those who you feel are wrong.
As I've told you before, I'd love to see an articulate champion of conservatism who clearly lays out the issues in a loving, caring, inspiring, convincing manner. No rancor. No hostility. No belittling. Just upholding truth as it's perceived. There actually are such people around. And some of them write very orthodox and traditional-Adventist articles that get posted on the Spectrum website or printed in Spectrum magazine. But that's not your medium of choice. Hit-and-run and put-downs just seem to come so much more naturally to you.
I don't know your heart, Cliff. But I do know your actions. And I do know the impact that your actions have on others--myself included. I've written for Spectrum for years, just like I've written for the Adventist Review and Ministry and other church publications. So I take your sarcasm personally. We've been friends for a long time. But you seem to show no hesitance in rubbishing something of which I'm a part.
Do I buy into everything printed in Spectrum or posted on the Spectrum website. Of course not. This is a forum for open discussion. Some things I'll embrace. Some things I'll ignore. Some things I'll hotly contest. That's how forums work. That's why they can be so enriching. That's the reward for seeking to be "thinkers and not mere reflectors of other men's thoughts," as Ellen White so beautifully admonished us.
Cliff, you recently wrote to this blog's editor, Alexander Carpenter: "Keep up the great work, Alex. This site is--by far!--the best thing that could happen to the moderate-to-conservative wing of the church. I mean it. This site has done and is doing more to expose the extreme left's vision for the church than anything else I've seen in 30 years in the church. You are opening up a lot of eyes. A lot."
You raise a point worth considering, Cliff. But I'd invite you to consider another perspective as well. If you're going to use such a broad, dismissive, disdainful and contempt-filled brush to clump us all together as the "Spectrum Jackals"--a group with many who may disagree with you, as well as many who might actually be very close to your thinking--are we to assume that in you we're catching a vision of the kind of behavior "the moderate-to-conservative wing of the church" deems appropriate? Are we to assume that this is what our church-headquarters leaders want and consider acceptable from one of their spiritual-leader colleagues? Because, through your modus operandi, "you are opening a lot of eyes. A lot." In the 35 years that I've been working for the church, I haven't seen anything quite like it. At least not done so publicly. And so openly. And with such impunity.
Why are the "mothers" of the church (i.e. the church fathers) not protecting the children? Why, out of concern for the recipients of your diatribes, out of concern for you as a person, and out of concern for the church and its ministry, mission and image, has nothing been done? Nothing that the church public can see, at least. Granted the many years of your unrelenting diatribes and rants, it certainly appears that you have the blessing of the brethren. It boggles the mind.
You responded to Magdalena concerning the Spectrum crowd: "If they met Jesus, then they wouldn't be cultural Adventists. They'd be believing ones, instead. Recht [right]?" I'd suggest that the statement needs a little more modifying still--because the real goal isn't to be just "believing Adventists." After all, the devils believe and tremble, the Bible tells us. Belief, in and of itself, does little to make the world a better place. As our General Conference president Ted N.C. Wilson said in his recent GYC sermon: We want "activists not slactivists." I'm sure that what Pastor Wilson was affirming, as the Bible so clearly attests to, is that doing is what really counts.
From the lowliest Adventist in the pew to the highest leaders in the ivory towers of God's Remnant Church, the principle is exactly the same: "By their fruits, ye shall know them."
__
James Coffin is senior pastor of the Markham Woods Church in Longwood, Florida.
Art: John McDowell, PhD, Saints for Hire (7), n.d.
User login
Recent
- WC Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- victor Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- Rescued LSU Responds to Biology Professor Lee Greer
- Defender of THE Faith Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- Roger S The Dark Fantasy World of Walter Veith
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- George Tichy Pacific Union Conference Calls Special Constituency Meeting to Authorize Equality in Ordination
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- dl LSU Responds to Biology Professor Lee Greer
- Pagophilus Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
Newsletter
Organizations
Sat, 09/08/2012
|
San Diego Adventist Forum
Sigve Tonstad, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Religion, Loma Linda
University
Current Issue
Not yet a subscriber? Subscribe today!
This has no place here. If you want to write Cliff then write him. If you want to take some elders of the church to see him, then take them but until then, your out of line.
Michael
On the other thread I wrote, "In fact, I find people who complain about tone to be whiny and annoying."
James Coffin's long and abuse screed was by far the whiniest and most annoying thing I've ever read on Spectrum. Wow!
make that long and abusive.
David - your signature says "not verified" indicating that you have not signed in as a member.
You can update your posts anytime you like if you sign in as a member.
___________________________________________
"The Truth shall make you free" John 8:32
___________________________________________
"The Truth shall make you free" John 8:32
Another interesting thing about Coffin's piece is its thinly veiled call for the "church fathers" to fire Clifford Goldstein.
It is especially interesting to me, because not three days ago, I posted regarding one full time, conference-employed minister (who shall remain nameless) hinting that his hobby of blogging for a politically liberal website (which shall also remain nameless) might cause politically conservative Adventists in his conference to reconsider how their tithe is being used.
My comment was stricken, and I received a curt note from a Spectrum editor that, "Spectrum has unpublished your most recent comment, because it violates our prohibition of personal attacks. You moved off the topic ... onto personal questions that involved the financial support of an employee of an Adventist conference and his politics. Spectrum welcomes spirited discussion of ideas, but will not facilitate readers threatening our writers."
Well, imagine my surprise to learn that that policy has changed in the space of a mere three days, and now Spectrum is publishing not only a long and vitriolic personal attack, but also a thinly veiled call by James Coffin for the GC to discipline or possibly even fire Clifford Goldstein:
Why are the "mothers" of the church (i.e. the church fathers) not protecting the children? Why, out of concern for the recipients of your diatribes, out of concern for you as a person, and out of concern for the church and its ministry, mission and image, has nothing been done? Nothing that the church public can see, at least. Granted the many years of your unrelenting diatribes and rants, it certainly appears that you have the blessing of the brethren. It boggles the mind.
What, indeed, are the groundrules around here???
I started reading this post, and I too quickly decided that it was inappropriate for me to read this personal yet public message. I'm sorry that this was posted in public; and this from an Adventist pastor? Hmmm. Pity. Regardless of what one thinks of Mr. Goldstein, it seems like this deserves an apology.
The problem is that I come away from reading this even more confused about Mr. Coffin than Mr. Goldstein. Even assuming everything Coffin said was true, the score is now even as this bodyslammed Cliff nicely, and on Friday night!
Frankly I have a problem with this kind of whiny nitpicking from all sides. Maybe Jim thinks he could have done a better job at Liberty and at the Sabbath School Quarterly than Cliff since Cliff is so obviously a jerk. If he really "turned down" these jobs, then why does he need to bring it up other than to somehow claim that he's been recognized as being soooo much greater than Cliff.
But this build-up and subsequent catharsis from Jim doesn't make me think he could have done a better job at it. In fact, I can't imagine if Liberty or the Sabbath School quarterlies published this kind of personal drivel like he plopped down on Spectrum's blog.
Not a lot of grace being displayed here. If Cliff or Jim invite me for lunch I might opt against it - never know what's going to happen.
Rumble in the Spectrum Jungle! I'm no fan of either of these guys but sheesh!
At the very least Cliff should get his own column to publish a few body blows against Jim. After all, he's kind of stuck - I mean he's got to be reading this thinking, "What the heck?" If he replies with anything other than a genuflection to the clearly superior communication skills of Jim Coffin and offer an apology for all his sins of the past, Jim will claim that he's still unrepentant and people will blast him.
If he remains silent, then people will think that Cliff is some kind of weenie who can't stand up for himself against this harranguing mess of an article.
All I can say is, for Spectrum, this column is horrifyingly embarassing. This isn't the first time Mr. Coffin has gone off on people at the GC, see http://justicedeniedjamescoffin.blogspot.com
He traffics in his own victimhood - and if he's not already seen as a victim, he will make darn sure that he paints himself as one. Maybe he'll even preach a sermon on it at his church tomorrow morning - if we're all supposed to publicly lambast individuals (I mean "labor with," to use Adventist parlance) like this, then Jim should teach all his members how to do this to everybody else that they run across.
(If Spectrum is looking for an easy way to get rid of this column, how about "accidentally" deleting it during the upcoming update on January 25?)
After posting a fairly detailed response, I decided to come back and remove it.
I have to say, that no matter where you are on what Cliff, who I have come to regard as a friend, has written and how others have responded Satan is winning here. For that I am profoundly sad.
I am off to spend the evening in prayer for all of us.
In the grip of grace.
Steve Moran
James pretty well puts it right with regard to Clifford's behavior ...
Clifford cannot help himself, it seems, though.
The editors of Spectrum can help themselves and with a little collaboration very likely could have avoided the decision to showcase this piece by James.
The publication of this piece is a rare instance of editorial failure that embarrasses me as a financial supporter of Spectrum. I believe this piece blatantly violates the guidelines for comments, specifically: "We simply request that you focus on the posted topic, and not attack anyone"
In this case, there is no topic other than the attack.
James brings so much to Spectrum. He truly deserved better editing support in this case. I'm confident he will benefit from and appreciate that support going forward.
Bill Garber
I feel strongly that the point of view which Mr. Goldstein represents deserves thoughtful, respectful articulation. I think that those who do not share that point of view often misunderstand it, and I think this is quite problematic in view of the fact that so many in the Adventist world identify themselves with Mr. Goldstein's team. (Forgive the shortcuts I am taking in my language.) I think Mr. Goldstein is eminently qualified to provide exactly the kind of constructive exposition our community needs. He is very educated and articulate. He is also very visible and holds a position of credibility within our community. He is the perfect spokesperson. And that's exactly why I think his rudeness, disrespect, contempt, and sarcasm are so incredibly destructive. (There is a beautiful message in the April 8, 2010 edition of the Adventist Review that I really wish Mr. Goldstein would read titled "Another Man's Skin".)
I for one cannot wait for the updated commenting system on the Spectrum website.
--Robert Jacobson
--Robert Jacobson
It seems like the consensus is that we've now got Jim Coffin v. Cliff Goldstein. Coffin is the "coulda woulda shoulda" guy and Cliff is the guy who got the jobs at Liberty and the Sabbath School Quarterlies. And the winner is - who cares? Cliff may not be the perfect one for either of those, but Coffin for sure wasn't - I might have thought he was before, but not after reading this.
I keep thinking up these things - so sorry for filling up this thread. But this is the best example of a permissive liberal acting like a legalistic, passive aggressive, perfectionist conservative that I've ever seen. Different viewpoint, same B.S.
A genuine question for those who have already commented (including Dr. Gerber and Pastor Moran who seem to have bowed out): Clifford Goldstein is clearly a very contentious figure in our community because of his methodology. It seems to me that it is a very live question whether or not what he says is appropriate, and also to what extent they are affecting positive or negative change within our community, and the answers to these questions seem to really matter to our community. Can we not discuss this? If not, why not? If so, how can we do it in an appropriate, respectful, and constructive way?
--Robert Jacobson
--Robert Jacobson
Thank-you, Elder Coffin, for articulating so thoughtfully concerns I've also felt. I was taken aback the first time I read Elder Goldstein's comments here. Perhaps it is his lack of pastoral experience showing in the callous disregard for the sheep which an ordained minister is called to nurture. At the very least, he comes across as simply unprofessional for a world church leader.
Some readers feel your feedback shouldn't have been published here. Since the offensive comments were made here it is relevant to address them here, I believe. I cringe when I see Elder Goldstein enter one of the threads. The conversation deteriorates immediately into a rumble (the retro word that comes to mind) with rival gangs fighting it out, while he claims puzzlement.
Jim--
Is it that hard for you to understand how even a moderate Adventist would see the Spectrum blog as nothing but an attack on the basic teachings of this church and would want to react in kind?
This will probably be my last post on here because I will probably now, thanks to your attack, be compelled by those above me to stay off of here (Besides, anything I would say in my defense would seem self-serving, anyway).
I must have struck a nerve with Alex, to have this get posted on here.
But, alas, I have given it out, so I need to take it, even when it comes from below the belt, and by a trusted friend too, no less.
It's been real . . . .
I am removing the Spectrum blog from my bookmarks.
Dear Jim,
Thanks for your boldness and bravery. It looks like you're the one getting beaten up here after your words; words which I appreciate very much. I hear your pastoral heart very strongly. I hear the frustration of one who cares deeply.
It doesn't seem fair that one holding a high position in the church should be held to a higher standard than the "ordinary" person / church member. That Cliff should be able to be as sarcastic as anyone else. Yet for Cliff that is the reality as it is for any person in high levels of a group. With the many privileges and power comes greater scrutiny.
I have experienced both Cliff and Jim in action. Cliff was charming and popular (and the equivalent of the adventist pin-up boy) with the cougar generation of the time at my campmeeting. Very articulate, charismatic and well-spoken with some great personal stories as a bonus. I dialogued with him some years ago by letter when he edited Liberty.
Jim I also consider to be a conservative adventist, although it seems like some would disagree with me. Personally I wonder how a thinking guy like Jim could be as conservative as he is! Yet I have great respect for his integrity, his willingness to wrestle "on the ground" with the issues that face the practicality of being adventist and christian in todays world in a way that has integrity and authenticity of heart, mind, soul and body.
I disagree with both Cliff and Jim on what I see as their onservative adventism and they're varying perspectives on bolstering it and being true to it. I heard the calls by very conservative people to leave the church if I couldn't agree with them and believe as they did many times. Perhaps I succumbed to the call in some ways, because in my pursuit of integrity, authenticity, wholeness, compassion, truth, relevance and other qualities that SDAism taught me and that I find in Jesus I could and can no longer fit in with the Adventist system.
Yet my whole life was brought up in the SDA church and it is my tribe and culture of origin that still has much meaning and connections and times and places where I find what is valuable and has meaning, even if there are many times, places, experiences and people that
are not for me. The church is the place where I still do much "ministry" of building up people, transforming situations, leading people in projects of love in the world. I decided to be a "missionary" to the adventists many many years ago. I still do that with the higher values that I find in Jesus and my journey with God. I keep quiet about those things that are controversial except with those who wrestle with things like I do and I work with them on their journey of being authentic honest-to-self and honest-to-God journey that doesn't fit with the Adventist way.
Spectrum has played a huge role in my life in keeping me informed, helping me think for myself instead of blindly following the party line, of pursuing truth and compassion. I know it's a mixed bag because of the spectrum of people who are here. Yet I find it amusing that so many who defend freedom of speech and religion in the world (when it protects adventism) want to, or do, deny it within the church unless it fits with their way of thinking.
Jim may be the mirror that brings to a head and into focus the games that are being played on this blog that show how we sometimes bully each other here, which includes Cliff being the biggest scapegoat even though he isn't alone in his manner. Let's not shoot him as the "messenger" and lets not make Cliff our "scapegoat" even if he needs to be called on his game.
I have appreciated Jim's letter even though it would have been tough for Jim to write and for Cliff to receive. I believe it has value.
Another thing wrong with Coffin's screed is his implicit assumption that the pastoral gift is the only important or meaningful gift in the body of Christ, and because Clifford Goldstein is not a pastor and does not have the pastoral gift, then he needs to be disciplined or reined in by his superiors at the GC.
But the pastoral gift is not the only gift; there is a much more refined division of labor in the church. There are also prophets, evangelists, and teachers. (Eph. 4:11-13) There are also gifts of service, encouragement, giving/benevolence, leadership, etc. (Rom. 12:5-8) There are also gifts of knowledge, wisdom, faith, healing, miraculous powers, prophecy, discerning among spirits, tongues and the interpretation of tongues, etc. (I Cor. 12:4-11)
Cliff Goldstein's value as a editor, writer, teacher, apologist and polemicist far outweighs his lack of the nurturing gift that James Coffin seems to value almost exclusively. The church needs pastors, but it also needs people who can think straight, discern truth from error, and communicate clearly.
My observation is that the SDA Church is suffering from its neglect (at least in recent decades) of apologetics. We need people to make hard-nosed, intellectually rigorous, argumentative defenses of our beliefs. Ultimately, people are either going to believe or not believe based upon any number of factors (and maybe the Calvinists are correct that we're all predestined one way or another), but the idea that we can safely neglect reasoned argument in defense of our faith is not biblical, and is contrary to church practice throughout the Christian era.
Happy Sabbath all,
I'm not sure that I will add anything new to the discussion, but I did feel it necessary to speak out on this particular issue. Based on my experience on this website, as both an author and as someone who leaves a comment every now and again, I must admit that I agree with every word this author has said about Mr. Goldstein. Furthermore, as previously mentioned, where else but on the blog could we have a discussion about the tone used by those who comment, particularly those that are so closely affiliated with the hierarchy of the church itself?
That being said, I must join the chorus of those who feel that this was not the proper method of broaching this discussion. It pains me some to say that because of the great respect I have for this author (from afar, I do not know him personally) and for the people who work with Spectrum, those who I have come to know over the past couple of years. I say this almost reluctantly, because of how much I agree with the point of the post in and of itself. I do think that this was a topic that needed to be discussed. It bothers me that those with whom I agree on many issues have opened themselves up to attack because of the extremely personal nature of this posting. However, the most unfortunate thing is that the subject of this post, as well as those who follow his example, will be so caught up in being upset at the mode of delivery that they will most likely refuse to take a lesson from the message and be more loving and respectful in their rhetoric on this site and others.
God Bless,
Jason Hines
David,
You say: "Another interesting thing about Coffin's piece is its thinly veiled call for the 'church fathers' to fire Clifford Goldstein." No, that's not the case. I believe firings should be almost non-existent.
Cliff has a great burden for certain Adventist doctrines. He can and should be a defender of and apologist for them--but not at the expense of other crucial spiritual values. Part of the role of leaders is to help those under their direction become all that it's possible for them to be and to do what they do as effectively as possible. So firing isn't the goal. But pastoral counsel and definite steps toward a more civil modus operandi should be.
Jim
Content correction in article: I meant to say: "but readers of Spectrum are not monolithic."
That's what I thought when I read the sentence. I will correct it. - Website Editor
Cliff has now read this and responded. Keeping it here at this point is nothing but harassment. Unless Spectrum intends to be the next "hold them accountable" blog this has now officially outlived its usefulness. Keeping it here indefinitely is certainly not a sign of grace. Aren't there any cooler heads at Spectrum that can prevail here?
Jim......
Did you run this past the Spectrum board or editors before posting it? Was there an editorial decision made to post this essay after it was written and reviewed?
Thus far, what appears absent are actual reasons from those saying that this is not the forum for Pastor Coffin to write what he has written.
In fact, it is exactly the right place.
Those who worry about this being a personal attack are inconsistent, unless they have also written in equal tones that Cliff should not be voicing his opinions of Spectrum here either. Some have, most have not.
Fact: Pastor Coffin's words are kinder than Cliff's have been. Fact: Pastor Coffin's direct address to Cliff only comes after repeated name calling about the Spectrum community by Cliff. If a prominent Adventist publicly attacks your institution, you actually do have the right to respond to that person.
Yes, despite "sky-is-falling" rhetoric among a few above, we've actually been around this block before:
To reiterate, what I do not see in a single oh-so-sensitive critic thus far is a refutation of Pastor Coffin's actual points.
Instead, those who don't like what Spectrum represents have suddenly discovered Emily Post and seek to marginalize Pastor Coffin's strong response, not on substantive grounds, but on some fuzzy sense of decorum. Gee. Golly. An open memo critical of a public intellectual, who has ever heard of such a socially-unacceptable thing! (Try Google-ing the following phrase: New York Review of Books open letter.")
Rather than thinking about content, some are already stretching to push Pastor Coffin's carefully written words into this or that extreme interpretation. Nice to see Pastor Coffin already smacking that stupidity down.
Just as with the crazy far-left folks who opposed the invasion of Iraq (along with some principled-conservatives), beating up on those who ask questions of our leaders is the status quo. It's always amazing to see who, even on one's own ideological side, will leap to defend the powerful. It's hard to doubt the "evidence" about WMDs, just like it's hard to risk being told by your church leaders that you're not a good Adventist. I guess if folks like that sort of abuse, they can rush to Cliff's defense. Sycophants always float in the status quo--and because they are intellectually lazy, they talk about style and what's proper, not what's accurate and true.
Read Pastor Coffin's whole essay again. I think that it is clear that he has a right to write publicly, and his quotes from Cliff are quite telling. He said what needed to be said and did a pretty good job of balancing kindness and firmness.
No one is making anyone visit this site. We will survive of earthquake of someone taking us off their bookmarks. Spectrum will keep doing what we've done for 40 years - create community about Adventism and tell the truth.
I am sure that Cliff will survive too.
As usual, a mix of folks respond. And I want to say that I really appreciate those who have paid close attention to what we actually say, not just what others say about us. Thanks for supporting us in the comments. And we're always happy to take your honest criticism as well.
As Pastor Coffin said, there is a spectrum here. Some are uncomfortable with aggressive posts toward others. The fact is that they are rare here and will continue to be. Some just comment here because they get to attack liberals. However, their records of sexism, poor spelling, homophobia, xenophobia, incoherent syntax, and general priggishness coats their comments so much that it's as if they're yelling into a storm. Few read or care. Most of our readers are the silent majority who visit this site relatively regularly to see what's going on. They don't always feel like fighting or believing or commenting, nor do I, but it's nice to be a part of a community where various folk can openly speak their mind if they wish.
It's hard to be humans together. Harder still to intentionally form communities that value personal relationships and eternal principles. And I think it is the hardest to know when to join with those voices crying in the wilderness, speaking truth to power, particularly when care for the personal and the principled don't always perfectly harmonize in their call for change.
Thank you Jim and thank you Alex.
Some very sound counsel to Cliff and to all of us. Spectrum is needed--it must not be destroyed from either within or without. Some of us wish its ecumenical sound was clearer and others see it as the most open defender of sectarian faith.
Tom Z
"This site is a place for thoughtful conversation and a healthy exchange of ideas and perspective; rants and tirades don't further this mission and are not appropriate. Please do not respond, not even to post a reproof or reprimand, to any comment that crosses these lines because any reply gives their authors the attention they seek"
hmm.
"However, their records of sexism, poor spelling, homophobia, xenophobia, incoherent syntax, and general priggishness coats their comments so much that it's as if they yelling into a storm."
LOL
I don't find any language in Pr. Coffin's column above to be any more egregious or outstanding than anything Elder Goldstein has posted here.
That said, even after reading Pr. Coffin's column and some of Elder Goldstein's comments, I find myself inarticulately uneasy about this whole affair.
In fact, if Pr. Coffin's account of a certain e-mail to Alex is at all accurate, I fear I may disassociate myself from Spectrum, for the forum's sake. My comments and occasional posts make some of my positions eminently clear (labor unions, DREAM Act and immigration reform...) and I'd hate to be used as ammunition to tar Spectrum as a pack of baying leftist jackals when (to be honest) I find it as diverse as the potluck chatter post-service at Azure Hills.
In any case, I do hope Elder Goldstein (and those who, regardless of their self-identification, express concern with the Adventist community and message) develop a modus vivendi here.
Sam Sukaton
Sam Sukaton
I was baptized at 16, along with my mom. When I finished public high school I turned down a NY state scholarship and chose to go to an SDA college. When I arrived there (from public high) I thought I had arrived in heaven - worships, social activities I could participate in, an atmosphere of acceptance. I was sad when my college years came to an end - it was a wonderful experience; and then I entered the real world of Adventism.
I found out that in the real world, even in Adventism, it was business as usual, with an emphasis on BUSINESS. But I managed and went on to teach in various schools, even in SS. I was impressed by Roy Branson's SS classes at AUC and Alvin Quiram's class at the Stoneham church. They made me think beyond the narrow parameters of the quarterly. When visiting other SS classes, and not knowing the teachers, it was literally painful to sit through one that covered the lesson verbatim from the quarterly. It seemed like whoever put the quarterly together must have thought it was for morons - read a question - read the answer - don't think while you're doing it. This was before Cliff, but nothing has changed.
I ended up teaching SS in every church that I called mine. I used to read the title, and I read the memory verse, and then I laid the quarterly aside, and went to the Bible. I would either base the lesson on the title or the memory verse (not usually both) and proceed from there.
When I finally was confronted by the Gospel through my own reading of the Bible; and heard Des Ford proclaiming it, I was REVIVED and my life was REFORMED. When Des Ford was booted out of the pulpit I was admittedly alienated from the church, but I knew there were many others, still in church, hoping for a miracle. I kept teaching SS. I had to be careful, whenever some real questions came up in class, I couldn't really deal with them because it had already been voiced that some questions just could not be dealt with in SS - "it wasn't the proper place for that kind of study". I had found that Spectrum was.
I found "A Today" - people were thinking and people were talking. I gingerly began to participate. Not long after the discussions were shut down. Fortunately "A Tomorrow" was started and began where "A Today" left off. But when JR suddenly died the forum lost its punch and personality. It was sometimes "over the top" but dealt with some very relevant issues that nobody else would even touch. I met Cliff there, the same "engaging personality" that he is. When his book came out I wouldn't even go anywhere near it. In fact, when in July of 2006 the SS Quarterly came out the entitled, "The Gospel, 1844, and Judgment" I stopped teaching SS and haven't attended since.
This site is the only place where "these kinds of issues" can be discussed. Unfortunately often the issues get pushed aside and personalities are attacked. It must be human nature that if you don't have a good rebuttal, attack the speaker.
Is any of this relevant - it is to me. Whatever influence any of us have on each other, respect matters. When issues get pushed aside and controversy is met with lambasting your opponent, all discussion stops.
I don't know if Jim Coffin should have written this or not, publicly, but it was gratifying to know that this guy's disrespect for people was finally pointed out to him.
I notice that this article is the next after Revival and Reformation article.....
On second thought, this is the perfect place for Jim to have written what he did - most of us here have been on the receiving end of what Cliff has dished out. Why not here? It just seems that if one is to lash out, he should be able to also "take it". I must say, though, the tone of Jim's message still has an aura of respect and concern, where as, Cliffs certainly does not.
Cliff
Even your parting line gives you away. There was absolutely nothing that Jim wrote that was below the belt. It was a kindly rebuke to a man he knew well on a issue that you had publically posted as a commission man of the Church. You were completely off base, and Jim kindly called that to your attention in the very forum you used to lambast those with contrary views. His counsel was within the bound of the format you chose yourself.
It was unfortunate that you let your passion exceed your judgment. If you speak for God's final Church, be sure God can protect it without your venum. Tom Z
I do agree that Coffin's post seemed be full of personal issues with Goldstein. I also wonder if this essay had gone through the editorial committee. I agree with Michael's comment that if Coffin has personal issues with Goldstein, he needs to negotiate those directly with Goldstein and not use this site. Perhaps both men need to spend some time alone on a mountain praying.
"I don't expect you to understand what I'm about to say--because I've said it to you so many times, in so many ways and in such a range of tone and intensity. But I hope that others who read this will understand."
If Cliff is shocked and surprised by pastor Coffin's reproof, he is even harder of hearing than I supposed. Jim has stated these very same concerns a number of times before, maybe most forcefully a couple of years ago on the AT blog, and before that, to Cliff in person.
When somebody throws bombs into the pews, electronic or wooden, I would expect pastors to be the first to react. Now, if he had lied about Goldstein, that would be another thing. Nobody has suggested that.
I totally agree with Sirje. If Clifford can dish it out, he should be able to take it. I feel it is appropriate for Clifford's disrespect for people to be plainly pointed out to him at length. Whether he chooses to learn from it? Who knows? I am sure this was a painful letter for Jim to write.
Having grown up in the "independent ministry " world this sounds oddly familiar. The only difference is bashing the church leadership for different reasons. I've lived in this world and nothing good is accomplished by this. Let God be God! Live as God calls you to live and do the most good possible. This is what we r called to do.
Jim,thanks for the article and the tone. Being referred to as a "spiritual miscreant" or at least being included by association as a "spiritual miscreant" from a Church leader should somehow be cause for concern.
According to David's comment above, Cliff's gifts (editor, writer, teacher, apologist and polemicist) out weigh the need to be pastoral. Have I understood him right? If so this has become a scary organization indeed. Also if we throw the title of prophet into the category of gifts employed by an institution we need to go back and read the story of Balaam.
Despite what some of us here may think of Cliff's tactics, I am on the fence as to whether this was the proper way to do it. Such attacks against some of the liberals in our church would be met with equal hostility and the last thing we want is to have both sides publicly vilifying the other.
Yet at the same time, Cliff has publicly attacked Spectrum so it is normal that a publication will also defend itself publicly. Jim Coffin was chosen (or individually decided on behalf of Spectrum) to do this.
Bullying cannot be tolerated and there comes a time when the bullies must be brought to task. Conservative Adventism has cornered the market on spiritual bullying when people don't see things their way. That must stop.
Many of the charges against Cliff could easily apply to others on this form like Bob Ryan and Your Friend. I would like to see some public attacks on them! :)
(Just kidding guys. Your opinions here are more than welcome! ;) )
In light of Jesus' counsel to us in Matthew 18 and all that Ellen White has written about discussion and debate, I was saddened to read this article. I have never seen anyone change their position in the Spectrum blog posts, but I have often seen people vilified. What is the point of it all?
Originally, I saw Spectrum as a place where theological position papers were presented for review by the readership. Today, in the blogosphere, it seems there is less civility and more personal group attacks when parties realize they are not swaying others with logic and resort to ever escalating and more forceful responses. Why is that necessary?
Whether one faults James Coffin's article or supports it, surely we must recognize that it is only the reflection of the attitude of hundreds of comment postings over the years and reflects a greater problem than James and Clifford combined could ever be.
To All . . . .
I have more or less bowed out, but in reading the comments I have to say that I think many are missing the core issue here. Both Jim and Cliff are big boys and I suspect they will lose very little sleep over this public debate about Cliff.
Jesus talks about turning the other cheek and I am not seeing it here from either side. Jesus talks about how his disciples will be known by their love, how are we doing here?
The primary reason the church exists is to tell others about Jesus, to paint a compelling picture of who Jesus is to those who don't know him. Specifically in Adventism we believe we have a special unique message that needs to be shared with Christians and non-Christians alike. How are we doing here? Maybe we could turn the letter and everyone comments into a little pamphlet and go door to door handing it out so that our neighbors can have an understanding of what Adventism is really like.
I wish Jim had not published this, because it would have been turning the other cheek. But those of you who are defending Cliff don't you see he his attacks are strictly personal against the leaders as Spectrum and ever single person who writes here? He does not and has not addressed issues or topics. Do you really believe that because he is on your side, it makes it ok for him to throw bombs at the opposition like that?
I sit here profoundly grateful that when the soldiers came for Jesus in the garden, he did not start throwing bombs because he could and because he was right. He went meekly and boldly to the cross so that Cliff, Jim, Aage, Bob, David, Sirje, Alexander, Wendy, Jason, Tim, Robert, hopeful, Michael and the rest of us could have salvation.
Most of us will never be asked to surrender our lives, we are just asked to love each other. Is this such a terrible thing? Is it really that hard?
In the grip of grace, and Happy Sabbath.
Steve Moran
If Spectrum is an "institution" as Alex is given to feel, and if a post of this type was to be done to defend the sacred honor of Spectrum, then perhaps Alex should have written it or another with no Pastoral background.
Coffin was a poor choice as was noted above, he is completely unfamiliar with certain biblical concepts like turning the other cheek or those concerning Matt 18.
His past history and his website dont lead to any credibility in admonishing Cliff. In fact, I doubt that his performance here is anymore laudable than any Cliff sentences that ever existed.
What is wrong with the liberal mind? At least Cliffs stuff was quips here and there. Not only did we all notice how Coffin chose to start the artical with I am better than you not once but TWICE he also wrote a diatribe twice as long as any other artical he publishes on here on substantive issues.
Even if one was to concede Cliffs quips needed attention, the Spectrum management chose the most dull obtuse and poor method of addressing it.
Michael
•"spiritual miscreants and misfits,"
•"biased claptrap,"
•"ludicrous rants,"
•"extremists,"
•"wacky left,"
•"wacko left,"
•"Spectrum Jackals,"
•"no moral integrity whatsoever."
How about:
"you generation of vipers."
"Woe unto you ... you are like whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness."
"you hypocrites! for you compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, you make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves."
"Get you behind me, satan."
Sometimes, a person may have to speak hard words. It is not for us to judge whether Cliff Goldstein speaks from love or from hate. It is for us to check his message for truth. I see a lot of truth in Cliff's messages.
Come on, enough already with the thin skins.
Jim Coffin wrote: When I turned down the invitation to be editor of Liberty magazine, you received the nod. A few years later, when I turned down the call to be editor of the Adult Sabbath School Quarterly, you again received the nod.
Was this kind of not-so-subtle strutting AND "bullying" necessary? If Jim thinks Cliff sinks to low levels of communication, then Jim has just demonstrated that he has sunk to levels just as low, if not lower, especially considering that he has abused his power as a regular writer for this forum in order to attack someone he disagrees with. Shame on you.
I suppose I would be what Cliff would class as a 'liberal' and I'm happy (proud?) to be called such.
But as a liberal a value I hold dear is tolerance. I don't find Cliff's contributions to Spectrum to be helpful but I don't think Jim's article - with it's explicit sanction from Spectrum - to be helpful either. I wish it had not been published.
I don't know either Jim or Cliff and my last hours googling around makes me think that this is a longstanding dispute.
I doubt any good will come of this.
Sadly...
I do not know the author of this article personally, but I have interacted with Goldstein a couple of times. Yes he does come over as "the rightful watchdog of the SDA faith." Like an immature school boy he hardly allows anyone to get a word into the conversation. Yet there is behind all that a chronic insecurity characteristic of those in high office in the Church who constantly try to score points to maintain their positions of power. Goldstein is very bright, so he knows and believes far more (better?) than he lets on. But Goldstein is an insecure climber up the Adventist food chain. He is not alone, they all are. The leader of the chure is the most insecure of all. It is a dog eat dog world in Adventist leadership, so I am going to cut both the author of this article and Goldstein (especially Goldstein[poor fellow]) some slack.
Ah my friends, one of these days, one of these days....
Thomson, you're not suggesting that Cliff should be able to speak with the same authority as Christ when addressing those he disagrees with?
This problem we're all experiencing here is not a one-time situation. Over on A-Tomorrow Cliff went running off yelling fowl because he wasn't treated well. So I come here to Spectrum and find he has the same complaint. There seems to be a pattern emerging.
This belly-aching on both sides isn't accomplishing anything. Those who like what Cliff stands for, like him still; and those who don't, don't. I don't think anyone has ever had a personal issue with Jim, so I'll forgive him if he overstepped.
OK, we all need to be nicer to each other - who goes first?
It is interesting how people can read the same thing and come away with such diverse views. Twice now Coffin's recounting his and Cliff's intertwined past has been taken for bragging or bullying. I took it as historic background. What can this mean?
Larsen, I took it as historic background, too.
Blessed are the peace makers.
Perhaps we should all re-read the sermon on the mount.
Tim
Tim - Clement
-------------
Tim - Clement
-------------
Jim had both the guts and bona fides to defend Spectrum's mission. It matters not whether one is "conservative" or "liberal" but that what is done in love. It is hard to find love with the vocabularly used by Cliff against any and all who disagree with his perspective of what Adventism should be. He has yet to learn how to disagree without being very disagreeable; maybe it is not in his genes and not baptized when he was?
At any rate, Truman was right: "If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen." Cliff jumps in the middle of a discussion and throws barbs and then whines: "Who, me?" so presumptiously innocent as the smirk of the Cheshire cat. Some of us have seen him on other SDA forums, coming in, throwing barbs and never has the "time" to engage in honest, open discussion. Editing the Quarterly and writing for the Review is easy: Say what you wish and there's no one to dispute with.
Sirje asked: Thomson, you're not suggesting that Cliff should be able to speak with the same authority as Christ when addressing those he disagrees with?
I am suggesting nothing of the sort. Though that could be another interesting discussion.
I am simply saying that stern words, even harsh-sounding words, do not automatically mean that the user is speaking from either a place of hate or of love. Coffin's point seems to be that Goldstein's harsh comments are unChristian. Not necessarily.
I'm more interested in the message than the messenger....you know, do as the pharisees say, not as they do? This applies to both Goldstein and Coffin.
Excellent column about SdA conflicting goals, basically since its inception.
The Jim Coffin's wanting to bring in the sheep.
The Cliff Goldstein's with a knife to cull the herd.
Alex,
The editorial board has banned one commenter with whom I am personally acquainted for far less serious personal attack .
Is it possible you are blinded here be reason of your distaste for Clifford?
The justification you brought to defend you judgment is sadly sub par compared with your usual clear thinking.
"Those who worry about this being a personal attack are inconsistent, unless they have also written in equal tones that Cliff should not be voicing his opinions of Spectrum here either. Some have, most have not."
The implication that James is exclusively focused on Clifford's 'tone' to the exclusion of Clifford's character depends on a degree of credulity that Spectrum readers rarely display.
Bill Garber
Interesting thread!!!
I would have a higher level of respect for Spectrum if I knew that the board members and article contributors were solid in the faith. Do Spectrum leaders support ALL 28 fundamental beliefs? Do Spectrum leaders agree with the Adventist Church when it comes to homosexuality and marriage? Spectrum could be a great tool in the hands of God if it were truly faithful to all that we believe to be Biblical, lifesaving truth.
www.AdventistVoice.com
I wish Jim had not published this, because it would have been turning the other cheek.
It would be--if Coffin were the only person involved.
He is not the only person involved, everyone who posts, comments, and reads here is involved, and since Goldstein never contributes substance, but only attacks people for being part of SDAism, or for not being part of SDAism, or for being "liberal," with nothing but invective and ad hominem attacks, he really acts as nothing other than a troll and bully.
The truth is that conversation on this board is already of questionable value. Most (not all) tSDAs do nothing much different from Cliff, save that they probably attack somewhat less directly, since they'd be more likely to be subject to moderation than is Cliff. Any chance at discussing, say, evolution-creation, is derailed by people who do nothing but bring in insipid ancient YEC dishonesty and attacks upon anyone who knows science, yet regular commenters at least maintain a little restraint in how they utilize ad homina.
How have Cliff's comments ever deviated from violations of "focus on the posted topic, and not attack anyone or use profanity"? No profanity, but Cliff never hits on substance ("focus on the posted topic"), rather, either individually or collectively, he instead attacks people for being who and what they are and for thinking unlike he demands they do. That, of course, is why he is attacked in turn, because as bad as his vile attacks on anybody not agreeing with him is, he simply does not discuss matters utilizing proper logic and evidence. How does one address substance when Cliff is only pejorative?
It all looks very nice to sit back and counsel one to "turn the other cheek" if one doesn't care that the various bullies and trolls (and I have never been treated worse here by anybody other than Ron Osborne, who misrepresented my position at every turn--just so you know I don't think it's just tSDAs who are at fault) are trying to derail the very mission and purpose of Spectrum's web presence.
Coffin is trying to salvage Spectrum from malicious and personal attacks, rather than to escalate them. And it's about time. If Spectrum ever wants useful conversation it's also going to have to stop the endless bad faith responses of various other commenters as well. How many fallacies does one commenter get to use against science before being reined in for merely destroying conversation? An infinity?
Glen Davidson
The issue of Cliff's attitude exhibited on Spectrum is not a new one time occurrence. It has been ongoing.
I suggest if one has been an arrogant bully in public then it is at times useful to confront or have an "intervention" in public.
This is likely the only way to reach Clifford for a "time out reflection session."
It is good that it was by one of his peers who likely has known Clifford responds in no other way.
The public "misrepresentation" and attitude Clifford has used while representing the SDA church on Spectrum needs correction and confrontation.
regards,
pat
Pat
well put. Thanks. Tom Z
Elder Goldstein's makes his objectionable remarks public, not only in the blogosphere, but also in his Review column. I've seen him here bait someone by appearing to want to engage in dialogue, then triumphally announce he's got his next column topic. Any Adventist, like myself, who isn't blessed with his degree of theological certainty is publicly dismissed in that column as a throw-away, unfit for the church. Elder Goldstein has a public pulpit that few, if any, of us have from which to respond when we're hurt by his unpastoral divisiveness.
Here we have an appropriate public correction from one spiritual leader to another, after private attempts & our responses here haven't worked. I remember something about Paul publicly confronting Peter when the nature of the Gospel was being compromised.
No one is forced to read any particular posts. Negative comments are part of the territory, so read at one's own sensitive peril (if thin skinnedness is a problem). If I don't like the way someone writes, I skip their post and move on. No need for comment. Already, there are some regular posters here that I skip reading. And I'll probably skip Coffin's posts in the future, if he keeps on this pathway. To take offense in this manner shows an unbecoming smallness.
Sanity check: This all begins with the following blunder by Andrew Hanson
------------------------
GENERAL COMMENTS
If you are caught up in the Ted Wilson inspired, “revival and reformation” prescription for the Laodicean ills of the Adventist Church, this issue is designed to increase your fervor. If you are convinced that the Latter Rain and the Second Coming are imminent, this issue will get you ready. If you are tired of the hype and fear mongering and pious posturing, give this review a miss and write out a generous check to ADRA or a local charity.
By Andrew Hanson
http://www.spectrummagazine.org/blog/2011/01/15/reviewing-adventist-worl...
===================================
Cliff then responds with this mild-milk-toast incredibly obvious comment.
--------------------------------
Keep up the great work, Alex.
This site is--by far!--the best thing that could happen to the moderate-to-conservative wing of the church. I mean it. This site has done and is doing more to expose the extreme left's vision for the church than anything else I've seen in 30 years in the church.
You are opening up a lot of eyes. A lot.
Happy Sabbath.
Posted by: Cliff Goldstein (not verified) | 15 January 2011 at 4:02
====================================
And at that point a dozen or so Spectrum posters completely "lose it".
What is up with that?
In any case I responded with a more-than-a-little-obvious post of my own.
---------------------
Cliff - we take this time out for a station break --
A simple rule of thumb here: - when a lib trashes a conservative or trashes SDA doctrine in a no-Appeal-to-the-Bible fashion - that is all in good fun, it is simply big-tenting the diversity concept.
When a conservative points out some inconvenient detail or flaw in a lib argument - well that is mean spirited and unchristian.
Let the games resume.
-------------------------------
Now of course - Coffin is making me look bad because he came up with an out-of-bounds idea that was soooo bad that he did get multiple posters on this thread saying he completely lost-it.
in Christ,
Bob
___________________________________________
"The Truth shall make you free" John 8:32
___________________________________________
"The Truth shall make you free" John 8:32
Thank you Jim Coffin for posting this to Cliff. He needs it as well as the rest of us.
The comment of Darrell C.... "Bullying cannot be tolerated and there comes a time when bullies must be brought to task. Conservative Adventism has cornered the market on spiritual bullying when people don't see things their way. This must stop."
Advise from EGW "Young men in our ranks are watching to see in what spirit the ministers come to the investigation of the Scriptures; whether they have a teachable spirit, and are humble enough to accept evidence, and receive light from the messengers whom God chooses to send....We must study the truth for ourselves. No man should be relied upon to think for us. No matter who he is, or in what position he may be placed, we are not to look upon any man as a criterion for us." TM 109,110
"The people of God have educated themselves in such a way that they have come to look to those in positions of trust as guardians of truth, and have placed men where God should be.
When perplexities have come upon them, instead of seeking God, they have gone to human sources for help, and have received only such help as man can give...The president of the Conference is not to do the thinking for all the people. He has not an immortal brain, but has capabilities and powers like any other man. When men place the president of the conference in the place of God...they are doing that which is exactly opposite to what Christ has told them to do."
RH 8.07.1894
Another comment/question to Ken Lytle..What does it mean "solid in the faith?" according to who?
and "support all 28 fundamental beliefs." according to who?
Ha! Cliff stirs up the hornet's nest again!
People, people, people. Don't you realize that he cares not a whit what sort of punitive measures are taken against him here? Do you honestly think Cliff really allows Spectrum to cause him any amount of concern in the grand scope of his life?
Coffin made it clear that the purpose of this article was to make the rest of us think, because he rightly understands that Cliff is pretty much a lost cause. Those who feel like Cliff is getting spanked and will respond appropriately by standing in the corner like a disobedient child to reflect on how 'bad' he has been are residing in the land where swine have the power of flight. He has not been and he will not, and that was never the point of this piece anyhow.
Those who are rubbed the wrong way by Goldstein need not worry anymore, because it is very likely that when his handlers get wind of this new development they will yank back his leash and smack him properly on the nose with a rolled up newspaper. His Spectrum days are pretty much over now as this will further enforce their warning to him to stay away from here. I know it's going to be a tall order for him to obey because he so does enjoy dropping in now and then to pitch his verbal Molotov Cocktails.
Say what you will about Cliff. He at least has no problem getting down in the mud with the rest of us and SOMEWHAT engaging while his colleagues apparently cannot be bothered. I give him props for that. And let's be honest fellow Spectrumites, this is about as close as we will ever get to having the ear (or eye in this case) of someone actually affiliated with the GC. Whether he agrees or not, even if he regards us as or some weird Adventist anomaly at best or heretical freaks at worst, he has at least been made aware of our concerns and knows very well what the real issues are without the politically correct, safe party line candy coating to get in the way and blur and sidestep the challenges and problems facing this church. Unless you actually believe that Teddy and the good old boys at Silver Spring curl up by the fire with a hot cup of Postum and eagerly read the latest Spectrum updates. Time for a reality check: We are a rock in the denominational shoe to them, nothing more. Cliff merely does what he does for his own amusement, much like a cat batting a mouse around until he is bored and moves on to something else. He wants to provoke a reaction and we gave it to him in spades. Cliff dances around like the matador with his red cape waving madly and the Spectrum bull charges. I guarantee you that SDA conservative online forums all over the net will be throwing up the high-fives and giggling with glee when they see how 'ole Cliff once again got those pesky Libs madder than a wounded Grizzly.
That being said, I am sure that, while he is an instigator, I don't suspect even Cliff thought his actions would spark a whole article dedicated to him. And I truly believe he is disappointed that it came from a friend. Nonetheless, he isn't going to let it stress him out much at all I suspect. Life will go on.
Honestly, I don't know what the brouhaha is about anyhow. Bullying and intimidation are not new phenomena for we non-conservatives, it's pretty much part and parcel of our existence in the church. Apparently the beef is with the fact that Cliff is a denominational employee at the high levels throwing his weight around to not-so-subtly suggest we Progressive/Liberals get lost. Really? Did all of you miss the fact that THE highest ranking person in the denomination used the highest profile GC Session bully-pulpit available calling for the same thing? Oh, Ted may not be as sarcastic and biting as Cliff and doesn't use his Rottweiler approach, but rest assured the message is the same. Cliff is not saying anything that the commander-in-chief has not already made clear in his Atlanta address.
So, why the fuss Gus? Even if those who are outraged at Cliffs online approach manage to get him to heel and behave, they still have this pesky little problem facing them in the form of a GC president who doesn't regard them as much better than Cliff does.
Jim Coffin’s letter to Cliff is a classic of Christian compassion to a friend and colleague in a stew of his own making. It is lucid, forthright, and redemptive. Pondering that exchange for considerable time, it brought to mind a book by one of my favorite authors: Dr. John R. W. Stott. A small paperback entitled: “Christ the Controversialist.” InterVarsity Press: 1974. Dr. Stott treats eight controversies that Jesus had with the religious thought leaders of His day. It is clear that Dr. Stott is no friend of dogma and a keen apologist for evangelical Christianity.
Regardless of one’s take on the Coffin/Goldstein exchange, one should make the book “Christ the Controversialist” a must read.
It will take little effort to transpose the tension of the first century to our day. It is amazing how Christ honored “Moses” (fulfilling every jot and tittle of the law and avoided the bigotry of Judaism)
This side of the Cross; partisanship is heresy compounded beyond any Pharisees, Sadducees, or Scribe of Christ’s day.
If Adventism stays the course suggested by Ted Wilson and defended by Cliff, it will be an ending that should have occurred on the morning of Oct. 23, 1844.
Tom Z
Tom Z
I have always enjoyed Goldstein's editorals in the Review. He is a deep thinker. He does make me think and question. That is good.
But, he is a hit-and-run kind of guy. Hits you with his opinion then disappears. He doesn't hang around to carry on a dialogue.
Religion isn't one giant theology lesson, it's caring enough to listen to another human being and valuing his/her opinion.
One other thing. We're troubled by Jim and Clifford's public scoldings; Ellen White used to do the same thing all the time. She could be very outspoken and sometimes hurtful.
Jim, I count you as a friend, although you time in Aus seems so long ago. You remain a caring, gentle pastor, and the years have only increased your wisdom. In addressing Cliff you also confront the "new conservatives" that seem to have ignored the emphasis of Gospel.
Cliff, I count you as a friend as well - your visits to Aus have been brief, but powerful. We have discussed the ideological divide confronting the church, and that has not dimmed our passion for truth. Jim would argue, I think, that it never should.
Ted, I have never met you... I too would call for "Go Forward", but not as a return to the aggression and mistakes of the past. We should unite in our diversity, not fight for uniformity. We are too big for that!
Spectrum bloggers, the debate is the always relevant. Big ideas helped form our church, and big ideas will continue to sustain it.
At least, this article brought the once-in-a-blue moon posters coming out of the woodwork. In the publishing business, any readers beat no readers, hands down. A controversial article gets much more attention than a conservative one.
So thanks, Cliff, for giving Spectrum an added bit of publicity. Was this your plan? For those few posters who have given up commenting here, it's safer and more placid, if placidity is what is wanted. Retreat is, for some, back into the cave.
One of the primary functions of a prophet is to reprove and correct the kings and priests in the land. We see Nathan boldly confront King David, Elijah rail in the court of King Ahab, Jesus rebuke the Pharisees, and Ellen White criticize Church leaders.
Is the Seventh-day Adventist Church presently gifted with the spiritual gift of prophecy? And if so, who are the prophets in our midst? Well, there is Ellen White. But she died in 1915. You could argue that because her words continue to live, the Church is presently gifted with the spiritual gift of prophecy. But such an argument “argues too much” in that every Christian denomination could make the same claim based on the continuing living words of the canonical prophets. And the dire conclusion we would be forced to make is (a) every Christian denomination is presently gifted with the spiritual gift of prophecy, or (b) the Seventh-day Adventist Church used to be gifted in this way but is not presently.
Rather than choose between these two dubious alternatives, we should begin to understand that the spirit of prophecy is present in the Church today. Legitimate and accurate criticism directed toward Church leaders represents an outworking and manifestation of the spiritual gift of prophecy. Such a gift may not be the same in kind and degree as the gift bestowed upon Elijah or Ellen White. But the legitimate and accurate criticisms directed toward Church leaders uttered and written since 1915 are divinely inspired. We know this is true, because we believe the words of Jesus that the Holy Spirit is instrumental in convicting us of guilt in regard to sin and guiding us into all truth.
Spectrum comprised of its journal and blog is probably the most important and influential periodical publication in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, precisely because of this prophetic function that it occasionally exercises. The various observations made by Elder Goldstein, paradoxically prophetic in their own right, are valid in posing the question: Is everything being done to prevent the Spectrum train from veering off the tracks, given the signficant weight of its calling?
If there is light in Elder Coffin’s admonishments, then Elder Goldstein can take them to heart. I hope Elder Goldstein will continue to visit this site and comment, because his observations are sobering and should not be trivialized or lightly dismissed. During this time of Revival and Reformation, everyone should remain teachable.
"Those who cannot impartially examine the evidences of a position that differs from theirs, are not fit to teach in any department of God's cause." RH 2.16.1890
"As real spiritual life declines, it has ever been the tendency to cease to advance in the knowledge of the truth. Men rest satisfied with the light already received from God's word and discoaurage any further investigation of the Scriptures. they become conservative and seek to avoid discussion.
The fact that there is no controversy or agitation among God's people should not be regarded as conclusive evidence that they are holding fast to sound doctrins. There is reason to fear that they may not be clearly deiscriminating between truth and error. When no new questions are started by investigation of the Scriptures, when no difference of opinion arises which will set men to searching the bible for themselves to make sure that they have the truth, there will be many now, as in ancient times, who will hold to tradition and worship they know not what." 5T706-707
So I doubt Cliff will read this, after all I had a hard time getting through all the comments but I am going to side with Cliff. Why? Because I like it better when people say how they feel, they don't argue the issues well so they don't really add much to a discussion but you know where they are coming from. Jim is right that Cliff is a bully who does not speak well for the aspect of grace and love in a Christian's life. But more important than that at least in the electronic world is does what someone have to say have factual value, is it well reasoned...is it a good argument. You always have those who have a particular point of view who because they feel a certain way will side with whoever else shares their view. But when people write out of emotion it shows because the reason is lacking...the argument moves to the yes he did no he did not category.
That is how Cliff has been arguing most of the time when he posts both here and on the old Atomorrow forum. It leads those who read his comments to know that his view is emotional and he usually can't or won't defend it.
Yet in this while Jim is right I am siding with Cliff, someone I have pointed out many times his reasoning problems. The reason is that Jim should have dealt with the real problem. that lack of reason and informed content that Cliff demonstrates rather then his bully I am better then you guys technique. In other words Jim has responded in kind to Cliff rather then dealing with the rational issues involved. None of us have the wonderful personality type where we never offend or whatever. So lets not on electronic forums deal with personality but let us deal with the ideas.
It would have made Jim's article so much better.
Adventist Media and Conversation Blog
Adventist Media and Conversation Blog
"This site is a place for thoughtful conversation and a healthy exchange of ideas and perspective; rants and tirades don't further this mission and are not appropriate. Please do not respond, not even to post a reproof or reprimand, to any comment that crosses these lines because any reply gives their authors the attention they seek"
hmm.
Posted by: Chris Plewright | 22 January 2011 at 5:31
Chris makes a salient point in that any quip Cliff makes can be handled as above but what derails the threads is the holier than thous who rise to any occasion to tilt at the SDA churches windmill and in doing so, change the complete course of the topic to Cliff.
If there were not so many suckers it would go largely unnoticed.
Even Alex cant seem to follow his own Spectrum advice when it concerns Cliff. So often we hear that Spectrum is a complete Spectrum of SDA thought. Where then are the conservative representatives for that end of the spectrum?
This artical proves the one sided mediation of pieces as well as post supervision.
Perhaps instead of Alex and Jim ranting at Cliff there should be some effort into putting him on staff posting his share of the articals.
This would put some validity into the pompous claims of a spectrum being represented and put Cliff into the position of having to count himself among the Spectrum staff.
I have no illusions that Alex is smart enough to see the wisdom in that suggestion, the claim of representing an entire spectrum being so much more important than the reality.
Michael
possibly the suggestion is that Cliff has adopted some of EGW's sometimes less genteel methods too closely in dealing with divergent thoughts.
this from someone with an apparent axe to grind, but if the quotes and actions are fact, it makes one wonder:
Crushing the Opposition
How Ellen White Treated Those Who Rejected Her
http://www.nonegw.org/egw56.shtml
a selection of the scathing letter to Canright:
..."I beg of you to GO entirely AWAY from those who believe the truth; for if you have chosen the world and the friends of the world, go with those of your own choice. Do not poison the minds of others and make yourself Satan's special agent to work the ruin of soul."...
Ellen White, Letter 1, 1880, published in Notebook leaflets from the Elmshaven Library, pp. 73-75.
maybe its endemic in a top down organization....
those plebeians who don't toe the official party line are to be dissed, dismissed, defrocked, or ultimately dismembered and thrown over the Cliff. So after deep consultation with a megathesaurus the spiritually-over-the-line get sarcastically admonished to:
"if you honestly reject a literal six-day creation . . . turn that honesty into integrity and go somewhere where you won't have to cloak your views under the anfractuosities [devious or tortuous argumentation] of language."..Cliff
Many will resonate with the prior suggestion that a pastor loves to tend and increase the flock, while the administrator lives to corral or cull the herd.
where there's a will and a heavy counterbalance, there's a way.
http://www.wimp.com/mastbridge/
To be honest, I didn't think that Mr. Goldstein's comments on this blog were genuine. They were unprofessional, dismissive, sarcastic, irritable, condescending and on...
But then, his comments were consistent with some of his known writing. To me, the Review article where he put himself as the gatekeeper of church membership based on the members' views on creation, was the ultimate dismissal. And I have disrespected his views and the church's leadership ever since. It was such an unnecessary personal attack.
______________________________________________________________
Carolyn Parsons
______________________________________________________________
Carolyn Parsons
Hi,
Whatever we think of Jim or Cliff we might all acknowledge the following.
1. The rejection of the call for revival and reformation by A. Hanson, that stimulated Cliff's latest comment was unecessary and unbecoming for this website.
2. I have attempted to respond to important issues that are covered on this website in a thoughful manner as I value genuine heart-felt debate of the issues. I have been engaged in the Adventist ministry, graduate study, as a professional librarian and as a university professor for the last 28 years. My comments come from deeply held convictions and from a studied understanding of Adventism.
3. My ideas are so often sneered at, and rejected in quick order.
4. My latest attempt to engender discussion of Steve Moran's questions to Ted Wilson, was hijacked and it has become one of the most sustained attacked on the credibility of Ellen White ever mounted in the history of this website. This hurts me deeply.
5. My conclusion is that the nature of the blogosphere doesn't lend itself well to disciplined discussion.
Hi,
Whatever we think of Jim or Cliff we might all acknowledge the following.
1. The rejection of the call for revival and reformation by A. Hanson, that stimulated Cliff's latest comment was unecessary and unbecoming for this website.
2. I have attempted to respond to important issues that are covered on this website in a thoughful manner as I value genuine heart-felt debate of the issues. I have been engaged in the Adventist ministry, graduate study, as a professional librarian and as a university professor for the last 28 years. My comments come from deeply held convictions and from a studied understanding of Adventism.
3. My ideas are so often sneered at, and rejected in quick order.
4. My latest attempt to engender discussion of Steve Moran's questions to Ted Wilson, was hijacked and it has become one of the most sustained attacked on the credibility of Ellen White ever mounted in the history of this website. This hurts me deeply.
5. My conclusion is that the nature of the blogosphere doesn't lend itself well to disciplined discussion.
Posted by: Peter S Marks (not verified) | 22 January 2011 at 4:39
=========================
Thougtful comments Peter - thank you for sharing. You make some very good points.
And even though Hanson's opening paragraph is totally out of line -- all Cliff did was respond that the lib posted at Spectrum is pretty much transparent to the reader and is actually disabusing a number of moderates who have held milder views of what the Lib agenda really is.
Whether the extreme libs like having that glaringly obvious fact pointed out or not, it remains an objective fact of life.
However in response to your last point - the civility of the discourse in any given discussion board is typically a factor of the rules and limits set by the board AND the volatility of the topic under discussion.
So milktoast topics usually have mild discussion parameters even in pretty much free-for-all forum limits. Hanson's gaff in his opening paragraph review of the Review was not going to qualify as a milktoast topic right at the outset.
And this particular thread was wayyyy over the top - even by comparison to Hanson's article.
I do not think you can blame this on the entire blogosphere. This did not have to happen here.
in Christ,
Bob
___________________________________________
"The Truth shall make you free" John 8:32
___________________________________________
"The Truth shall make you free" John 8:32
Peter,
True about the nature of the blogosphere.
But, I for one, and I'm sure there are others, appreciate your thoughtful comments. Your openness is refreshing, thank you, and I hope you continue to share your thoughts.
It seems to me sensible to ask whether, for Jim's reputation, this was the best way to address Cliff, but I have to agree that Cliff is a big boy who doesn't need anyone's pity. He has a bully pulpit of his own from which to address the entire church, which he does.
@Carlitas "And I have disrespected his views and the church's leadership ever since."
Realize that not all the church leadership (or its administration) appreciate or share in Cliff's views or tactics. This I know as fact.
Adventism is an artifact.
All of this dissolves when the creme-de-la-creme, remnant-of-the-remnant-of-the-remnant mindset dissolves.
Then no one has to win. No one has to eat worms.
The tempest in the teapot calms down; all the good stuff remains.
The Gospel isn't about being right.
God loves the Prodigal and the Elder Brother equally.
Drama over.
Who knew?
"Even Alex cant seem to follow his own Spectrum advice when it concerns Cliff." Michael
And that reinforces the fact that there is on Spectrum and in the political discourse in USA a double standard. Whatever is sauce for the libs is not sauce for the conservatives; there can hardly be any argument on that fact.
The attack on Cliff by an alleged minister of the gospel on a public website is indefensible. Why, Jim, didn't you go to Cliff, if you were offended, and tell him personally? If he wouldn't listen there is another venue.
This is a new low for Spectrum; one wonders whether Spectrum would have the courage to acknowledge error in this instance and move on to more enlightened discourse. Maybe some heads should roll on the Spectrum staff.
Anyone in need of a healing touch could do worse than listen to Mitch Albom talking http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddYV_Y53xvc about the background to one of his books.
Maybe the next step in this exchange is a live on-line debate between a couple of contenders. Or a cage-fight with MMA rules.
"spiritual miscreants and misfits,"
"biased claptrap,"
"ludicrous rants,"
"extremists,"
"wacky left,"
"wacko left,"
"Spectrum Jackals,"
"no moral integrity whatsoever." Quoted by Jim Coffin but posted originally by Clifford Goldstein on previous Spectrum blogs.
These words are not what we would expect a SDA leader to say in reference to another SDA institution. (Association of ADVENTIST forums/Spectrum Magazine)
Clearly Clifford Goldstein has not shown any pastoral concern in using the above words, and with his counsel to those who disagree with him to leave the church.
When personal attempts by Pastor Jim Coffin failed on numerous occasions [because I've said it to you so many times, in so many ways and in such a range of tone and intensity.] (showing us that Pastor Coffin followed Christ's counsel in Matthew 18), and when all of the above nasty words were written publicly within the Spectrum website, a public response had to be made.
Has anyone ever thought of the passage that reads: "Faithful are the wounds of a friend"? Rather than reacting negatively to Pastor Coffin's words, may be this might bring ultimate healing to Cliff, because the poor soul surely needs help in this regard!
"Where then are the conservative representatives for that end of the spectrum?"
For any careful reader of Spectrum, in a week's time there will be both conservative and liberal representation. Only a one-time reader here would not know that. Even the comments on this particular thread demonstrates that all facets are fully represented in just today's comments.
Elaine
You continue to miss the point.
Its not of those commenting, its of those published.
Who are the conservative staff members at Spectrum. There are none.
Michael
I was sitting in the Adult Sabbath School where we use the Adult Sabbath School Quarterly which Cliff edits. The lesson this week was on Relationships.
I offer you this quote most of which is from Ellen White:
These are portions of a letter that Ellen White wrote in 1908 to an evangelist:
“I have this message for you from the Lord: Be kind in speech, gentle in action. Guard yourself carefully, for you are inclined to be severe and dictatorial, and to say rash things. . . . Harsh expressions grieve the Lord; unwise words do harm. I am charged to say to you, Be gentle in your speech; watch well your words; let no harshness come into your utterances or into your gestures. . . .
“When the daily experience is one of looking unto Jesus and learning of Him, you will reveal a wholesome, harmonious character. Soften your representations, and let not condemnatory words be spoken. Learn of the great Teacher. Words of kindness and sympathy will do good as a medicine, and will heal souls that are in despair. The knowledge of the Word of God brought into the practical life will have a healing, soothing power. Harshness of speech will never bring blessing to yourself or to any other soul.”—Gospel Workers, pp. 163, 164.
Enough said . . .
In the grip of grace
Steve Moran
The large secular organization I work for requires all staff to sign an oath to uphold a code of ethic that includes treating all customers/clients and fellow employees with respect. Breach of this and other provisions exposes one to potential discipline up to and including dismissal. Now there is the potential of a policy like this of being abused, though I have never heard of this happening. The point is, this secular organization places a premium on its reputation, and it really is not a very big request to expect staff to hold to a reasonable standard of ethics.
My personal take on this whole affair is that it goes way beyond a “Clifford Goldstein discussion.” It goes to the core of what it means to be Christian; to be a Christian organization; to be Seventh-day Adventist. While Cliff’s infantile antics on this blog may seem rather shocking for a person of his professional stature, in retrospect it occurs to me that this is really nothing new, and in fact has been going on for some time in some of his Adventist Review articles. While I have formally protested several of these articles to the editor, it is clear that it has fallen on deaf ears.
The point is, the church hierarchy is squarely at faulted for nurturing a climate in which fellow employees and customers (members) seem to be routinely disrespected, denied due process, and libeled with impunity. I look forward to a day when the Church places a high value on ethics, and those principles worthy of the label “Christian.” See for follow four links for examples of underbelly of the organization.
1. http://www.advmca.org/
2. http://www.advmca.org/articles/TruthDecay.pdf
3. http://www.truthorfables.com/david_dennis.htm
4. http://www.advmca.org/articles/executivesummary.pdf
A minimal standard for all Church employees would be that they conduct themselves in a manner that speaks well of the Church. This means treating others with respect even if we disagree with them. After all this is the heart of Christianity. This is very easily done for anyone with a healthy emotional IQ. Those who lack this quality probably should find their place is some other line of work.
Very few of us have any political clout to change the Church’s political culture, except by power of the purse—it just takes enough of us to say, we will not support this method of operation any more.
Jan, why does one need "political clout" in the Body of Christ.
Does your little finger need political clout over your nose?
Well, maybe the Adventist church isn't the Body of Christ?
Maybe it's an artifact?
In which case, maybe we have more pressing things to attend to...like the unity of the spirit and the bond of peace?
Maggie I am squarely in support of "unity of the spirit and the bond of peace," but there must be a healthy climate for that to happen.
"Who are the conservative staff members at Spectrum. There are none."
The staff members are chosen for their good writing ability, just as are all staff writers for magazines and newspapers who publish those who are conservative, and those who are liberal. The only indpendent publications must, of necessity, be unaffiliated with the denomination who has its own publications, just as Pravda and other "national" newspapers. It is the independent press that is unafraid to print what the church affiliated will not. When was the last time anything about the Dennis affair, Jiggs Gallagher, and the many discretions in "Truth Decay" were in SDA official papers? Zero, zilch, nada. Only the independent press is not beholden to the authorities of either the church or a nation. In the U.S. there is a vibrant history of freedom of the press and thankfully, it is still the privilege we have living in a free nation. Or, would some rather live in some of the Middle Eastern nations where independence of press, even thoughts, are criminal activities? Read the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Posted by: Jan Long | 22 January 2011 at 8:38
Maggie I am squarely in support of "unity of the spirit and the bond of peace," but there must be a healthy climate for that to happen.
I see.
And a "healthy climate" requires "political clout" and power-over tactics to achieve, I assume?
Maybe if we develop the political clout to coerce ourselves into being minimally polite, we can thereby develop the political clout to coerce Jesus into returning?
Jesus doesn't support the First Amendment, it seems....
...or maybe you are confusing the Kingdom of God with the city of Chicago?
Elaine,
I think you meant Jonathan Gallagher, not Jiggs, who doesn't work for the church but is a layperson working at CSU San Bernardino.
the Christian way:
..."A minimal standard for all Church employees would be that they conduct themselves in a manner that speaks well of the Church. This means treating others with respect even if we disagree with them. ... this is the heart of Christianity. ... Those who lack this quality probably should find their place is some other line of work."...
the "MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY" way:
QUOTE:
What amazes me isn’t so much that people can believe in evolution ... but that those who do still want to be Seventh-day Adventists. I can respect someone who, believing in evolutionary theory, rejects the Adventist Church entirely.
I have NO RESPECT for those who think they can meld the two.
If you honestly reject a literal six-day creation ...
go somewhere (else?) where you won’t have to cloak your views under the anfractuosities of language.
I speak, I believe, for millions of Seventh-day Adventists when I declare that whatever the age of the earth itself, we will NEVER make room for anything other than a literal six-day creation for life here–
...........NEVER.
And for those who want more, YOU'LL HAVE TO
....F I G H T US...
for every extra minute–much less your millions of mythological years beyond.
END QUOTE. 2003....7th Day Darwinians
BEGINNING OF END OF CIVIL DISCOURSE?
back on the AToday and later ATomorrow blogs several of us tried to reason with Cliff at least about the extensive evidence for the long age of the earth, and how that might be aligned with a modern reinterpretation of ancient beliefs, and were rewarded with
1) that's not my specialty,
followed by
2) a disappearing act.
how does one "reason" with an intelligent, but stubborn, sarcastic all knowing interlocutor who promises to fight you, tosses verbal grenades, then disappears?
I reluctantly took his advice, and before being thrown over the Cliff, and after formalizing my voluntary dismemberment, I found plenty of new truths to discover, and it set me free to widen the search , and find that:
there really MAY have been a Garden of Eden....
http://ldolphin.org/eden/
buried under rising sea levels
http://www.theoildrum.com/uploads/12/Post_Glacial_Sea_Level_present.jpg
caused by Milankovitch cycles
http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geol445/hyperglac/time1/milankov.htm
which flooded Cosquers Cave
http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/archeosm/en/fr-cosqu1.htm
but now I worry about the Shiva Hypothesis, with God Bowling deadly asteroid strikes at us on a seemingly regular basis
http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/crater.html
thanks for setting me on my search, Cliff....
where there's a will and a heavy counterbalance, there's a way.
http://www.wimp.com/mastbridge/
Cliff is a public persona within Adventism, and he publicly expresses his views, which many find to be extremist to the extreme. It is therefore natural for someone concerned, like pastor Jim, to express his concerns publicly. The fact that Cliff has little in his defence and prefers to withdraw in shame is very telling.
Both Jim Coffin and Cliff Goldstein I count as personal friends. Jim has invited me into his home and to speak at his church (both highly enjoyable experiences), and this past fall Cliff and I shared meals and public and private discussion ("frank and candid," as the politicians say--and also good-humored) at the college where I teach.
Both are compassionate in their individual spheres. I know Cliff phoned a mutual friend of ours--who was contemplating leaving the church--nearly daily to encourage him in his walk with God. When I broke my femur recently in a bike accident, Jim sent me a funny and heartfelt e-mail.
The point? Sometimes it helps to see beneath the surface. I like and love both of these men.
Maybe one more point: Whenever we are fear-driven we become dysfunctional.
May God save us all--every one--from ourselves.
Why, Jim, didn't you go to Cliff, if you were offended, and tell him personally? If he wouldn't listen there is another venue.
***************
Because, Friend, Jim said that he already went to Cliff a number of times and it seemed to fall on deaf ears. Since Cliff continued with the same public behavior, Jim now confronted him publicly.
Paul did the same to Peter, recorded in Galatians, when Peter's public behavior as a leader threatened to tear apart the fellowship in Antioch. And, Peter BTW, was in line with the conservative element of the church at the time that was suspicious of Paul as an antinomian. Paul didn't go to anyone else. He didn't take it up privately with Peter and the leaders. He confronted Peter publicly and immediately.
Say what you will about doctrinal differences. I don't agree with many of the "liberal positions" taken here on Spectrum. What Jim was confronting is behavior. The tone with which we speak to one another about our differences often leaves much to be desired. But, when a leader of the world church comes in and often models something even worse in the name of correct doctrine, it calls for a response.
Thanks...
Frank
Jim, I think you were both gracious & spot-on in your comments to Cliff. I appreciate your contributions here.
When verbal grenades are hurled in public, a public response is the appropriate one.
Frankly, I like Cliff intellectual gifts, particularly in the area of apologetics. It what he doesn't say that I find so annoying: no real follow-up. Nasty name-calling, followed by a surprised demeanor when he gets called on it, and away he goes.
Cliff is probably just as conservative as I am liberal, but I enjoy good debate among people who, at a minimum, respect the integrity of others, that they are speaking in good faith.
All this tsk tsk that Jim offered public response to public snottiness is beyond belief. You conservatives need to get over yourselves. Afterall, you're still in the majority & are likely to remain so for the forseeable future.
But one significant thing has changed in the past 30 years: The Adventist tent has expanded, so your authoritarianism won't work outside your circle. You can no longer force people into cultic submission as was so common in the 50s & 60s. You have no power to shove it down people's throats anymore. Moreover, I don't know of any "liberal" who wants their views shoved down your throat.
David Read, for example, apparently doesn't want a female senior pastor of his church--perhaps a female in any role. That's up to him & his congregants. Even though I support the ordination of women, and for the life of me don't understand why those who oppose this get into such an uproar over the subject, I still don't want any church to be forced into submission on this topic.
I like the spectrum of thought on Spectrum, concervative to liberal & everything in between. This should be a safe place for honest intellectuals to argue for their point of view, listen respectfully to responses, and then debate some more.
I doubt very seriously that some of the hostile name-calling that occasionally flares up here on the internet would happen if people met face to face. Maybe it's the anonymous quality of the internet that encourages some to vent their spleens. If so, the return to some civility in our debates would bless everybody.
Shalom!
Jeris E. Bragan
"Let me illustrate the level of diversity by using just one example: coffee." (quoted from article above)
I'm one of those "...people who drink coffee and don't believe in the divine inspiration of Ellen White".
I used to be one of those "...people who guzzle coffee while vociferously claiming that they do believe in Ellen White's divine inspiration, incongruous and hypocritical as I'm sure you'd find such behavior to be."
That's because I didn't know Ellen White had said "...it's a sin. And not just any old sin, at that. It's one of the besetting sins that must be overcome if we're to stand when our names are brought up in the Investigative Judgment that began on October 22, 1844, and where the judging will soon pass from the dead to the living--if indeed it hasn't already happened."
I also didn't know a lot of other things that I've learned in the past couple of years - things that are now public information, thanks to the internet. And I can no longer ignore the evidence - evidence that by any objective assessment, makes Ellen White's prophetic gift about as credible as a flat earth!
Of course, just because the church was founded on a bunch of lies doesn't mean no good can come of it, however first the church must acknowledge the errors of the past, and I see no realistic possibility that this will ever occur.
There are four types of people in the church - the ignorant, the delusional, the dishonest, and those striving for change. Those in that final category seem to live a very threatened existence, as is highlighted by the howls of protest on this page, from the "Cliff supporters".
Thank you so much, James Coffin, for this post. If there was even one senior church administrator who would stand for what you've said here, I wouldn't have found it necessary to resign my church membership, which I've done very recently.
Welcome to freedom, Bob! There are social costs to leaving, but the freedom from brainwashing, conformity, trying to be and believe what you aren't, ... are all worth it. The journey out of a dysfunctional "family" is worth it - as I well know.
Unlike the "administrator controlled" publications, Spectrum has the freedom to published both the conservative and liberal points of view. It is wrong for Dr. Clifford Goldstein to accuse Spectrum of only taking the liberal side when Spectrum welcomes articles and comments from everyone.
What I personally have found offensive with Pastor Goldstein's sarcastic & cutting remarks is that he shows no pastoral concern & appears happy to drive people struggling with certain SDA beliefs, out the door & even suggesting that they should have the moral integrity to leave.
It's about time that someone explained to him just how offensive his remarks have been - so unbecoming for an Adventist leader holding a high position in the church.
I used to get really upset when people told me that if i couldn't believe everything I was supposed to, and couldn't agree to all the behavioural standards of the SDA church, then I should leave. I wanted to stay and belong.
Then I eventually woke up. Why would I want to stay in a church in which I am always going to be on the edge and judged as not good enough or right enough in belief or behavior. It wasn't that the church should find a way to fit me in that was so important, but that I stop trying to fit in with something that really was a bad fit for me.
I encourage the liberals and independent thinkers to leave. Why stay in something that is based on premises that you don't really believe? Why stay in a dysfunctional "family"/institution? I think there is a massive amount of codependence going on and that it's really a futile position to try and stay and fit in and change the nature of the church which has solid foundations in many irrational and fundamentaistic traits.
Be free! People in dysfunctional families and relationships can keep trying to get everyone to change and that takes up inordinate amounts of energy and creates a lot of stress. Best to get beyond all that and get out of what is not ultimately beneficial and create healthy lives without the need to contort one's self to fit in and without the need to continue pleading for the craziness and lack of acceptance to stop.
Time to grow up and leave "home". That's the sign of maturity and moving on to better things.
I have a question for everyone!
Why do you stay?
To those who are "the true believers" who get offended by the tenor and tone of Spectrum and the Spectrum blogs, what keeps you reading and posting and fighting against what you dislike and disagree with? Are you some kind of sadists? Do you love to fight and argue? Are you secretly attracted to what you see is iberalism on a rampage? I'm perplexed why some of you stay on and keep on biting and fighting futilely.
To those who find mainstream Adventism intellectually backward and out of touch with reality, why do you even stay when the reality is that you will not be fitting in with the church for a long time, if ever? Why keep kicking and sceaming against the system of thought, behaviour and church that you disagree with? What keeps you hanging into the church stuff for so long, and so unnecessarily? Aren't there bigger battles in the world worth fighting and better causes to champion? By staying in the system you perpetuate it longer. Why not leave it to its devices and go to the dogs quicly. By continually trying to keep modifying the church you keep it in its misery longer and encourage people who would be better off away from it to stay longer than they otherwise would, or join it when they otherwise wouldn't.
For those who have left the church, why do you keep comimg back to Spectrum to read and blog? What is it that holds you? Are you being entertained, or are you secretly hoping you can find your way back into what really doesn't fit you?
For those who have little to do with the church and have never belonged, what is your curiosity and involvement in this site about? What interests you? What hooks you in?
I'm curious to understand all your mindsets, not just your debates and discussions.
Dare you to reveal your motivations! Just curious!!
Anne,
Because the issues aren't black-and-white to me.
Because I see God in the movement, if not the institution, but yes...the institution too.
Because Adventism shaped my journey and will always deeply be part of me.
Because it is still, and will always be, my spiritual family-of-origin.
Because you can never truly leave something until you love it.
Because when you love something, it is always with you, whether you come or go.
Because my heart always leads me back to Adventism at certain turns on the spiral.
Anne, I read this forum and others of a similar nature because I am keenly disappointed in the SDA Church, but continue to hope that there are those SDAs who can think outside the box and progress in an understanding of SDA doctrine instead of progressing themselves right out the church door.
I'm looking for fresh approaches to ideas that have become old and tired from sitting in a rut for many years. I no longer expect to find this freshness in traditional SDAism because I've looked long enough and have not found it. So maybe in these more adventurous forums there might be some who think bigger, more daringly than the status quo.
I disagree with Coffin's approach of holding Goldstein up to public humiliation and rebuke. There is no need for going to such lengths. If Jim absolutely cannot stand the heat of Goldstein's comments, then a short rebuke, in time and place, at the moment when Goldstein says something impolite is all that is needed. But this long article is an abuse of power.
Besides, this is the nature of internet discussion groups. Negative, churlish commentary comes with the territory. I, as a reader, do not need anyone to protect me from such "bullying" (as some perceive it), nor do I need to be made to understand, via an article, what a terrible person someone is. I can see for myself and make my decisions for myself. What Jim Coffin has done is he has undermined his influence by sinking to the level that he has. Now my sympathies are with Goldstein where before I might have thought differently.
Come on, folks, we are all grownups here. We don't need anyone to save us from the big bad bully out there. It's as if we would have been all led astray if Jim Coffin had not stepped up to protect the sheep. I didn't need his article.
So, Anne, to answer your question: I come to these forums to learn what I can from those thinking outside the box. I prefer to ignore any derogatory comments which, in themselves, will only paint the writer in a bad light, and if I comment, I prefer to keep the conversation on topic instead of on personalities.
One more thing, Anne, I may not be physically attending church, but my mind has not left it. I value SDA truths and have no intention of throwing them out. I just wish for a more progressive understanding of them.
Anne
Some of us are simply interested in religious issues. You may be surprised to find that many people have no agenda beyond exploring the extent as well as the boundaries of human knowledge.
Proverbs 6:16
These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an ABOMINATION unto him:
Proverbs 6:17
1)A proud look,
2)a lying tongue, and
3)hands that shed innocent blood,
Proverbs 6:18
4)An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations,
5)feet that be swift in running to mischief,
Proverbs 6:19
6)A false witness that speaketh lies, and
******7)he that soweth DISCORD among brethren.
Those associated with religion can become more Christlike or they can become like how many of the Jews did.... Messiah rejecting, fanatic , insubordinate, gainsayers (ROM 10:2 & 21)
Anne
You ask why I stay and write blogs for Spectrum. Other than I was a founding member, I have many fond memories, several close friends, my reasons run much deeper. The story below may give you some insight. I really believe I am my brother's keeper.
On a summer afternoon, my brother Jack, my sister Betty and I, with several neighbor kids were playing in the large Maple near the edge of the embankment. We had a tree house, a Tarzan rope and other assembled junk. Somehow or other Jack got the rope down, made a lariat, tied one end around his waist. Then he tried to lasso a freight slowly edging back onto the main line. Nobody was paying any attention to him. On the third or fourth attempt, he caught a ragged timber of a partially demolished gondola car fill with rip rap.
Inexorably, the train began to pull him toward the wheels. His screams brought us to attention. Jack was vainly grabbing at the tall grass on the embankment trying to pull away from the turning wheels. Betty and I ran down the embankment, grabbed his arm and started up the hill. We would make a little progress only to be pulled back down. Screams of at least six kids filled the Pound air. Uncle Roy, napping in the big house, was the first adult on the scene. He couldn’t get his pocket knife open. Dad was a long block away at the Joseph Brooks and Sons Company. He knew from the sound and direction that one or more of his four kids were in deep trouble. He grabbed a bike and started up the hill. Mother came running out of the house.
We would be dragged down to the track level, get new strength and get about a third of the way back up the embankment, then down again. We were fast running of clear embankment. A sewage discharge field loomed first, then brambles and scrub brush. We were probably pulled 150 feet but it seems like miles.
Finally, the brakeman decided that the noise might have something to do with his train and he signaled the engineer to stop. At the same instant, dad arrived and Uncle Roy got his knife open.
A huge sense of relief surging against a massive adrenalin flow created a stunned silence. Then everyone began talking. No one had the nerve or strength for any corporal punishment. We made fast friends with the brakeman, engineer and fireman. That crew always gave the Zwemer backyard an extra toot.
Anne
(When I see my brother about to be caught under a speeding train heading to oblivion, I cannot stand aside. Adventism, at least the Adventism of Cliff Goldstein, which seems to be the norm--is just such a train and many are Lassoed to it, without a clue to its ultimate dangers of self delusion and vindictive self righteousness.)
I was raised in an Adventist home trained and educated in the best Adventist schools and colleges. I was active as any lay person could be. I served at the highest level of lay activities within the General Conference. I saw these men at work. I sat at the feet of some Christian giants within Adventism. I was a member of several Boards of Trustees during the aftermath of the Glacier View incident. In each case, my voice and vote were rejected, yet I was numbered among those who dealt harshly with fellow Christian brothers.
I studied and prayed long and hard. I finally decided that while the senior leaders urged me to stay and try and work reform from within. I found I could not. Yet I had and continue to hold to the Gospel as presented most clearly by Paul. I wish to share that freedom with those, I left behind.
My message and plea is simply, come-out and enjoy the freedom and assurance of salvation in Jesus Christ, Our Lord. Don't be tied to a gondola car on a railroad siding. Get a first class ticket on the main line. Tom Z
Gripping account, Tom, but I do not view the SDA church as a speeding train, heading into oblivion. Nor do I see Goldstein in that light. He is merely human, expressing his viewpoint in his own human way. I am willing to cut him the same slack I cut everyone else on this forum.
As dramatic as your analogy is, I submit that it is not an accurate representation of the sleeping SDA church.
I agree, Thomson. I suppose I have as much reason as most to warn people about going over the Adventist Cliffs of Insanity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Urhw_kPDkoo
Personally, I've always been fond of Cliff and not at all offended by his my-way-or-the-highway remarks. I took the highway, but not because of him. By the time I ran across Cliff, I sorta 'got it.'
Somehow, I think Jesus is in favor of the First Amendment.
This column could be a win for everyone. Jim got it off his chest, some got catharsis by chiming in in agreement or disagreement, some others got the satisfaction of taking the high road by declaring it inappropriate even if true, and Cliff got to look like a martyr. And best of all, it will probably help him sell more books!
Yesterday was a typically busy Sabbath for me so I had minimal time (like 10 minutes during breakfast!) to respond to any of those who'd posted comments--much as I'd have enjoyed being involved in real-time give-and-take. So I'll try to catch up a bit this morning. And thanks to all who've cared enough to comment. Whether you've taken me to task, filled in the gaps in an attempt to strengthen my arguments or addressed pertinent related topics, I truly appreciate your invovlement.
Let me begin with a general observation: As we seek to follow the example of Jesus, we must deal with the fact that Jesus' example covers a fairly wide spectrum (no pun intended). In other words, in different contexts, love seems to demand different responses.
In his Sermon on the Mount, Christ advocated turning the other cheek. And when he was being nailed to the cross by pagan soldiers, he did just that. On the other hand, he also cleansed the temple, turning over the tables of the moneychangers and making a huge public spectacle of his displeasure. (He definitely didn't project the gentle-Jesus-meek-and-mild image that I had as a child!) He also publicly denounced--in what most of us would consider immoderate, derisive language--the scribes and Pharisees. However, Ellen White says, he did it with tears in his voice. I'd suggest that he was overriding his default turn-the-other-cheek setting.
The first question each of us has to answer as we seek to follow Christ's example is this: Is turning the other cheek the only morally acceptable response for humans? Were Christ's more direct and more dramatic calls for accountability appropriate only because Christ was also divine? Or in his more dramatic approaches did he also provide an example of appropriate human behavior?
I've concluded that the whole spectrum of Christ's responses are models for appropriate human behavior. I also believe that "turn the other cheek" should be our default setting. Based on Christ's actions, I'm convinced there are times when we can legitimately--and in fact should--override that setting. Therefore, we have to wrestle with whether the override is appropriate in any given context. Making such decisions calls for personal moral judgment. Inevitably, we won't all arrive at the same conclusions. Some may fault our response as too soft; others may fault it as too severe. Good people won't necessarily agree. And that's what much of this current debate revolves around.
I've argued that Cliff's articles elsewhere and his responses on this blog and on others are sufficiently consistent that it seems we're not dealing with override. We're dealing with a default setting. A default setting that Christianity--and, more specifically, our church--declares to be inappropriate. And no matter how often, how gently, or even how pointedly--and in whatever contexts--I've pled with him for a different approach, he has ignored my concerns. I know others have done the same, with the same result. And we've explained that it's for his own good and the good of the causes he champions and the good of the church. It's not just our personal whim.
Although my concerns are philosophical and theological, they're also highly practical. Cliff's actions directly affect me as a pastor. His modus operandi starts fires that I have to deal with. For an extended period at one point, one Sabbath School class in my church had degenerated to little more than a Bash Clifford Goldstein Club--because so many of his words were so offensive. Unnecessarily. I explained all that to him. To no avail.
I believe in the counsel of Matthew 18. I believe in turning the other cheek--at least as the default setting. I believe I've honored both of those principles. The evils of Spectrum may be so great that Cliff is justified in his consistent sling-offs. The evils of all who disagree with him on a variety of issues may be of such magnitude that denunciation-as-the-norm is justified. I happen to strongly disagree. But, as I said, good people can disagree.
Jim
Loren,
I've always admired your ability with words and your insights. Well put!
Jim
On another note Pastor Coffin,
It was with great interest (the most positive of my reactions mind you) that I read all your letters in your blog from justice denied. I sent you an e-mail on that site but I don't know after two years if it is still valid.
I would be interested in a follow up if you have a valid e-mail I where I can send you a message. I teach in an Adventist school and have seen my fair share of abuses and protested accordingly (of course to no avail as you very well have experienced).
Thanks!
Posted by: Jim Coffin | 23 January 2011 at 9:23
The first question each of us has to answer as we seek to follow Christ's example is this: Is turning the other cheek the only morally acceptable response for humans?
Were Christ's more direct and more dramatic calls for accountability appropriate only because Christ was also divine?
Or in his more dramatic approaches did he also provide an example of appropriate human behavior?
You do see the irony in what you just said, right Jim? :)
Cliff cannot be compared to individual commenters here. He has been ordained by the SDA G.C. as an official spokesperson both as SS quarterly editor and frequent essayist in the Review and the author of a number of books, all financially supported by the G.C. This is why he is NOT an ordinary
"member" but has the imprimatur of the SDA church.
We can only assume that the Church is not only content with the positions he has been given, but with its approval.
All this justifies the concern of Coffin as a pastor who is zealous for his flock which he is representative for thousands of pastors. The language Cliff has used is not only repulsive but shows a disdain for his fellow members only because they do not agree with him. This is similar to the schoolyard bully who uses physical attacks, sublimated in adulthood to vicious verbal attacks.
So, now, Cliff is way out of line and all that can be concluded is that he has the blessing of the church. What it says about the church is for each individual to ascertain.
Thomson
I like the sleeping train bit. Like the virgins without oil.
However, given the life span of man, Life is a speeding train--life within classic Adventism is heading the wrong way--its sotriology is totally in step with Trent. That colors its entire world view. The "my way of the highway" is normative.
As a former SDA according to Ellen White, I am dead meat--Cliff picks that up and runs with it without fear of rebuke or admonishment.
I suggest two tasks. Read the denominational view of Canwright and then read the web-site of Cranwright's viewpoint.
Tom Z.
Cliff, you say: "Is it that hard for you to understand how even a moderate Adventist would see the Spectrum blog as nothing but an attack on the basic teachings of this church and would want to react in kind?"
I would agree that the Spectrum blog allows certain "basic teachings of this church" to be critically analyzed and even attacked (especially in posted comments).
Because I'm a somewhat strange mix (as are many of us, I'd suggest) of some highly traditional views and some rather progressive views, when my traditional views are trampled on here at the Spectrum blog, it leaves me squirming with discomfort. Similarly, when in official church publications my progressive views are ridiculed, I feel the same kind of discomfort. I'm definitely uncomfortable at times with the tone of what I read at both venues: In one it can be too negative and dismissive; in the other it can be so triumphalistic and simplistic that it sickens. I guess it's a grim reality that those in the middle of the road risk getting run over from both directions!
Where I part company with your assessment--and I find it an important delineation--is that I don't see what happens here on the Spectrum blog as "nothing but an attack on the basic teachings of this church." Instead, I also see a wide variety of positive things taking place here--things that simply aren't going to happen in any officially sponsored publication, website or blog. One of the benefits is that people for whom the church hasn't "worked" can speak their mind. And I could provide a fairly long list of other positives.
As for reacting "in kind": No. If Spectrum or other entities or individuals are behaving badly, I believe we should follow spiritually appropriate forms of response, no matter how despicable their approach may be.
Jim
Continued on subsequent post
The only reason it harmed me to be vehemently told I was going to hell was that I was isolated and I believed it.
The more we discuss these things instead of trying to shut people up, the less harm can come from mere words.
Spectrum has a right to rules of decorum, and if Cliff violates them, follow policy as is seen best, of course.
For my part, I've talked about all this for years, and it's just words to me now.
Cliff is just a crusty fellow.
No doubt he believes, like Jim, that his "dramatic approaches" also provide a Christlike "example of appropriate human behavior."
He believes y'all are sending the denomination to perdition - what do you expect him to say? Something nicer than Jesus had to say to corrupters of religion?
We're having the same old "Who's the True Christian" king-of-the-mountain battle, from which emerges no winners, ever.
Continued from earlier post to Cliff
You also say: "This will probably be my last post on here because I will probably now, thanks to your attack, be compelled by those above me to stay off of here (Besides, anything I would say in my defense would seem self-serving, anyway)."
That's a decision you'll have to make. Or the brethren may make for you. However, I'd find it unfortunate because I think your theological positions need to be clearly articulated. And you could be the one to do it. If you chose to, that is. You could be a great apologist that the brethren would be delighted to have appearing in an array of venues they might consider less-than-friendly, because they'd know you were sharing compelling, hard-to-refute arguments. I think they'd love that. Unfortunately, that's not what has been happening. So it isn't my "attack" that will cause them to rein you in. It will be because they accept--or at least fear that others will accept--the validity of what I've said about your words and actions. I repeat: It's your actions, Cliff. Not mine.
While we're on the subject of my "attack"--and maybe truly objective observers would label it exactly as you have, although I don't--I see a substantial difference between what each of us has done. Providing a comprehensive and detailed answer to questions you've repeatedly asked when taken to task--"What did I say that was so bad?"--is quite different from simply racing in to throw out epithets such as "spiritual miscreants and misfits," "biased claptrap," "ludicrous rants," "extremists," "wacky left," "wacko left," "Spectrum Jackals," "no moral integrity whatsoever," and then retreating.
If, as you say, you "must have struck a nerve with Alex, to have this get posted on here," I think I can understand why he might find such descriptions of him, his associates and their efforts as somewhat less than collegial. Perhaps even an attack. So I think it could have struck a nerve. I don't know this for a fact, but it's not too hard to imagine. I know it struck enough of a nerve with me that, of my own volition, I chose to respond.
As for saying something in your own defense: Please do. Why should it seem self-serving? You have your reasons for doing what you do. I would hope they're good reasons. So share them. Put them on display in the marketplace of ideas and let the readers--and the brethren--assess their validity. That's what forums like this are all about. To do otherwise is simply a repeat of your hit-and-run tactic.
You also say: "But, alas, I have given it out, so I need to take it, even when it comes from below the belt, and by a trusted friend too, no less."
Clearly, you and I have a different definition of "below the belt."
First, I've raised this matter with you in person, in print and through blog conversations over many years. I've already answered all the questions you've asked so repeatedly when taken to task for your modus operandi. You even emailed me to commend me for my kindness and balance when when several years ago I wrote in Adventist Today a critique of your style, following a no-holds-barred article you'd written. But nothing changed. So now I've answered your questions yet again in the very forum where you've most recently asked them, acknowledging that (for good reason) I hold out little hope of their being understood and incorporated.
Second, one of the texts that repeatedly came to mind as I wrestled with whether to write or not was: "Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses" (Proverbs 27:6)--a text that, I was glad to see, was referred to by someone else on this thread. What's the loving thing to do in the case of a friend who's hurting himself, others, the causes he holds dear and the church?
Third, while you and others may sincerely feel that my actions are inappropriate, I see a significant difference between the tone and context of my article and the epithets you used that I've just cited. And you used those epithets, spread with a broad brush, thus applying them to a number of people you claim to respect in many ways and consider to be your friends. I'm not sure just where it falls in relationship to the belt--above, on or below--to describe people you consider your friends (myself included), as having "no moral integrity whatsoever." I'll leave that for you and others to decide.
You also say: "It's been real." I wish I could agree. Unfortunately, for me it has been surreal. And so avoidable. How tragic.
Jim
Why tragic, Jim? Why is Cliff so threatening, if he isn't, at some level, striking a nerve?
It only strikes a nerve if you believe it, seems to me.
If you don't believe it, it's not tragic...just a crusty guy making crusty remarks because of his worldview.
Where is it written that someone has to defend the remarks they make on a forum? JR Layman used to rag on Cliff about that. So he hits and runs. Big deal. It's just an internet forum.
Cliff has had this big bull's eye painted on him for many years. I've always found that interesting.
Maggie,
You stated: "You do see the irony in what you just said, right Jim?"
If I'd stopped with what you quoted, yes. But I didn't. There's quite a bit more to the post.
Jim
Jim, remember Mr. Bockmann from Sunnydale? We were talking last night - I didn't mention you or Spectrum - he was talking about an insight that struck him strongly.
He said that he was thinking about how Jesus prayed that God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven, and he suddenly realized that God needs us for that to happen. Oh, that probably sounds trite, but it isn't, I don't think.
Bob was talking about how Jesus didn't rail against those who beat and crucified Him.
I added that He said that the prince of this world came and found nothing in Him. Nothing reactive, nothing defensive. He had no inner guilt to project outward, and so He was silent and accepting as a lamb.
He didn't think even His own death was tragic.
Maggie,
Just before you asked your question--"Why tragic, Jim? Why is Cliff so threatening, if he isn't, at some level, striking a nerve?"--Elaine answered it.
"Cliff cannot be compared to individual commenters here. He has been ordained by the SDA G.C. as an official spokesperson both as SS quarterly editor and frequent essayist in the Review and the author of a number of books, all financially supported by the G.C. This is why he is NOT an ordinary 'member' but has the imprimatur of the SDA church.
We can only assume that the Church is not only content with the positions he has been given, but with its approval.
"All this justifies the concern of Coffin as a pastor who is zealous for his flock which he is representative for thousands of pastors. The language Cliff has used is not only repulsive but shows a disdain for his fellow members only because they do not agree with him. This is similar to the schoolyard bully who uses physical attacks, sublimated in adulthood to vicious verbal attacks.
"So, now, Cliff is way out of line and all that can be concluded is that he has the blessing of the church. What it says about the church is for each individual to ascertain."
Posted by: Elaine Nelson (not verified) | 23 January 2011 at 10:02
You can do this, Jim. You absolutely can do this. I'll never tell you not to. I'm just talking heart-to-heart.
It has been with morbid curiousity and interest that I have followed this thread over the last couple days.
I can fully appreciate Pastor Coffin taking a strong stand in his Pastoral role in protecting those who have been continually bullied, put down, and harangued by the ongoing slapdowns by Cliff Goldstein in the Spectrum community. I appreciate Pastor Coffin recognizing, and taking action. I am surprised such a letter hasn't been written sooner.
I know many who have left Adventism as a result of the promptings and cajoling of Cliff Goldstein's pointed missives against science, and more specifically against those who have mindset and theological paradigm that allows for a more flexible view of Scripture regarding questionable things.
Knowing several people at the Conference, Union and GC levels of the Church I have seen most as loving and erenic, when it came to challenging questions and understandings, but I can no longer say that is the case.
Over the years it has become obvious that Cliff has been given the role of the enforcer, or the hired gun, when it comes to projecting the thoughts and directives of the GC in regards to what is acceptable Adventist theology and what is not.
Like many here, I continue to follow the drama that is Adventism, because of a familial history, because it makes for good reading, and because it makes for a fascinating sociological study.
It is ironic, and expected, that the story of Jesus overturning the tables of the moneychangers in the temple has been evoked in this discussion. I suspect that many in the GC, and those of the tSDA mindset, actually see Cliff in the role of Jesus as he periodically enters the Spectrum temple and overturns the tables of those who are seen to be defiling the purity of the Adventist Message.
RC says: "While Jim is right I am siding with Cliff, someone I have pointed out many times his reasoning problems. The reason is that Jim should have dealt with the real problem. that lack of reason and informed content that Cliff demonstrates rather then his bully I am better then you guys technique."
Granted that the Spectrum blog considers itself both Christian and Seventh-day Adventist, there are certain undergirding principles we would expect of it. One of those is basic civility in how our discourse is carried on. And basic civility--the Golden Rule--is something we expect of children long before we expect them to have have mastered the skills of higher reasoning and logic. Civility is foundational for most life pursuits.
Should anyone's reasoning and logic be faulty, those flaws and fallacies can be highlighted during civil debate and exchange. Realistically, though, some people may never "see the light." Some people may never grasp the concepts of logic and consistency. And the chances that they won't are heightened when we don't have a common understanding of the rules of engagement: civility.
I think you've raised an important point, RC. But it seems to me that civil debate in which poor reasoning is used (initially, at least) is, in the long run, more likely to produce positive results than uncivil debate in which the reasoning and logic are flawless. Of course, I guess truly flawless reasoning would ultimately have to admit the crucial role that civility plays. And if reasoning and logic are flawless, wouldn't we all agree one hundred percent of the time--at least if we could agree on the a priori assumptions?
Jim
To All . . .
As I have reflected on the posts following the initial article I have seen:
1. Conservative's take Jim to task.
2. Liberals express agreement with Jim but concern for approaching this issue in the public way he did.
3. Liberals and moderates take Jim to task for the article.
4. I have seen liberals fully endorse Jim's article.
There is one thing missing. Conservatives critical of Cliff's attack. (I did not go back and reread it so I may have missed one, this is rather a general impression.) This a disheartening picture of the conservative resurgence in the Church. Scripture and EGW both have much to say about harshness toward our brothers and sisters. Yet here we have champions of the conservative side of the church unapologetic about what was nothing more than an ad hominem attack. I guess Sola Scriptura and the veracity of Ellen White's writings are not as important as they claim.
I wonder, do these comments reflect the true nature of conservative Adventism?
In the grip of grace
Steve Moran
Jim, Jesus wasn't "civil" swinging a whip and calling people ugly names in the Temple, which you seemed to obliquely invoke in your own defence of your "dramatic approaches," correct me if I'm wrong.
You can't really have it both ways unless you're setting yourself in authority over Cliff regarding who gets to be dramatic when, using what words.
One can be overtly or covertly emotionally aggressive.
It all comes out in the wash.
TURN YOUR CHEEK AND BROOD OF VIPERS
I believe the turn your cheek pacifistic philosophy of Jesus had to do with reaction to personal attacks. When we see Jesus turning towards more violent behavior it was in protecting the abused as it is unconscionable to stand by the helpless and say, "Remember, God's loves you". Who can inerrantly divide his/her motives?
I have followed this thread with interest,I have not seen Pastor Coffin's remarks as harsh just an honest assessment of Mr. Goldstein's attitude & approach to writing on this forum. I appreciate Pastor Coffin's concerns. While Mr. Goldstein comes on & verbally "throws people out of the church" I have been literally ,physically thrown out all because I was asking for prayer & understanding perceived by some as some sort of threat. I did not raise my voice or do any threatening behavior but I was pushed by very large men out of the church & also a woman grabbed my upper arm & twisted it all the while yelling at me to "get out of the church" . I was actually surrounded in the lobby. Talk about surreal experience!! Why would such a spirit take hold of people? I long for a loving community of "brothers & sisters" ...can someone tell me where it is?
Is it just me or is Jim slowly becoming the bully. Cliff has backed down but Jim continues to cajole and threaten. After reading Jim's blog wi th 54 or 55 entries about his previous struggles with the GC where he comes across as a mental patient I think we should get ready for a long one-sided argument with Jim leading the charge. And the whole while he will get the attention he has craved his whole career that has eluded him.
The sad truth occurs to me that I belong to a church that ordains Cliff Goldstein--someone with few if any pastoral gifts or experience, & frequent displays of destructive poor judgment in his official role--yet will not ordain any woman in ministry.
Steve Moran: There is one thing missing. Conservatives critical of Cliff's attack. (I did not go back and reread it so I may have missed one, this is rather a general impression.) This a disheartening picture of the conservative resurgence in the Church. Scripture and EGW both have much to say about harshness toward our brothers and sisters. Yet here we have champions of the conservative side of the church unapologetic about what was nothing more than an ad hominem attack. I guess Sola Scriptura and the veracity of Ellen White's writings are not as important as they claim.
I wonder, do these comments reflect the true nature of conservative Adventism?
--------
That all depends on how you define "conservative Adventism". I have not seen many on this site whom I would define as the ideal of "conservative Adventism" that I grew up with and that I still cherish. Even the most strict legalists that I recall were kind and loving even as they sought to bring others to their point of view and habits of life.
But in recent years, there has come an increasing number of what I would call "bullies" who have adopted the name "Conservative" to describe their type of Adventism. Cliff is only one of the most visible of this type. But it doesn't take much insight into human nature to recognize that many of the "Conservatives" who post here cherish the same basic nature.
The admonition about "turning the other cheek" (that has been strongly suggested here should be followed by everyone who does not approve of Cliff's bullying tactics) was intended only for actions taken against the single person being attacked. And those who so adamantly quote Matthew 18:15 should go back to the beginning of that chapter and note v.6 what Christ said about those who "offend one of these little ones"-- that "it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."
Cliff has "offended" MANY of Christ's loyal followers... those who are so "little" in Cliff's eyes that he does not even acknowledge their existence nor admit to any responsibility toward them as befits his leadership position in the church.
Furthermore, he has admitted to not being able to control his temper... yet he at the same time gives no evidence that he is even taking responsibility for learning to control it. I am not impressed by those who point to how nice he is to his friends. That is not the measure of a man. The real measure is how he speaks of and to those who disagree with him on some point. I have seen Cliff in one of his "out of control" episodes. It was not pretty to watch. It was in a public place. There are others who read this blog... and some who contribute to it regularly who were also both witnesses and recipients of his uncontrolled wrath.
I commend Jim for his courageous stand and many confrontations with him in private dialogue, as well as for his attempted confrontation with him here in this semi-public place. I admire Jim for his taking his pastoral calling serious enough to attempt to turn Cliff from his ways. Ways that are not only harmful to those he attacks, but also to those who are repulsed by a church who would allow him to misrepresent the God whom we profess to serve, and thus is harmful to the church he professes to defend... and will ultimately result in his own destruction unless he is brought to see himself as sorely in need of a genuine conversion of heart and reformation of actions.
I have been dismayed by the negative attacks on Jim himself for what he has written. Not only because I think they are unwarranted, but for what they show about the individuals themselves... and what they say about "conservative
Adventism" as Steve noted.
Bille
I disagree with "hopeful 2011" about Cliff and women ordination.
Visit www.AdventistVoice.com for some Biblical truth about women in ministry.
Steve wrote: "There is one thing missing. Conservatives critical of Cliff's attack."
This is not the article and in which forum Elder Goldstein's comments were made.
Coffin was silent on the thread where Goldstein made his comments concerning that other article and comments with which Coffin disagreed so much. Instead of addressing Goldstein's comments in context of that article and its thread of posts, with the blessing of Spectrum, Coffin has started a new thread talking to many people who never read that original thread, and to top it off, did not link back to read the actual article and comments Cliff was addressing.
Who expects anyone to criticize Goldstein on the basis of this "memo" to him? From this article we know very little about Goldstein, less about allegations against him and more than needed about certain individuals and Spectrum.
Injustice has been done that is an affront to not only Goldstein but to the reason and justice of those reading these totally misplaced and unnecessary words, as they undermine the rights of everyone to the facts involved.
God bless,
Rich
"When Moses, on returning to the camp, confronted the rebels, his severe rebukes and the indignation he displayed in breaking the sacred tables of the law were contrasted by the people with his brother's pleasant speech and dignified demeanor, and their sympathies were with Aaron. ... they were filled with admiration of his gentleness and patience. But God seeth not as man sees. Aaron's yielding spirit and his desire to please had blinded his eyes to the enormity of the crime he was sanctioning. His course in giving his influence to sin in Israel cost the life of thousands. ... Of all the sins that God will punish, none are more grievous in His sight than those that encourage others to do evil. God would have His servants prove their loyalty by faithfully rebuking transgression, however painful the act may be. Those who are honored with a divine commission are not to be weak, pliant time-servers."
(PP 323.2, 3)
God bless,
Rich
Bille, I suggest that there is a relationship between the radicalization of the two factions.
This site is pretty much weighted to taking down traditional Adventism, IMO, and sometimes in quite strong terms in the blogs and comments.
It's only rational to factor in the amount of alarm that this agenda reflexively creates among TSDAs, it seems to me. This is not like the church we grew up in.
This is not a defense of Cliff or anyone being uncivil. It's just an invitation to recognize human nature and the consequences of one's actions.
No one should be surprised at this reaction, it seems to me.
Nothing happens in a vacuum.
Let's don't play games, is all I'm saying.
This is turning into a pile-on not unlike aTomorrow.com in its heyday.
I really invite you, Bille, to edit out the bad stories about Cliff. Would you like it if someone published your less resourceful moments on the WWW?
Can we all just have some compassion on each other here? Maybe everyone is doing the best they know how.
Dick Larson said: When we see Jesus turning towards more violent behavior it was in protecting the abused as it is unconscionable to stand by the helpless and say, "Remember, God's loves you".
Really? it's unconscionable to stand by the helpless and say, "Remember, God's loves you"? Why is that unconscionable?
At any rate, I don't feel abused by Cliff's derogatory remarks, nor do I feel helpless and in need of protection from him.
Actually, this diatribe can be insulting to the average reader -- well...insulting only if we bother to interpret negative remarks as personal insults. The implication of the article is that we need to be made to see and understand that there is a bad man in our midst. That we will be led blindly to our doom if we did not have the protection of the self-appointed saviour.
I'm not seeing a parallel in this particular instance.
Rich:
A completely disingenuous response because the what I said, holds true for that article as well.
In the grip of grace
Steve Moran
Once a pile-on starts, we start telling people they are "completely disingenuous" and things like that.
This can stop any time. Any time.
I believe in the First Amendment, but there are higher laws too.
Your choice.
I don't know Cliff personally and I only have his words to go by. As a rule, when I have only words to go by, I try to give the writer the benefit of the doubt and impute a gracious tone to the dead letters. I like to think that Cliff wrote his comments with his keyboard awash with tears.
Meanwhile, Coffin seems to be digging himself deeper and deeper into the hole.
Steve: "the what I said, holds true for that article as well."
That remains to be seen. What I said holds true for this article which we are discussing. Indeed prejudice requires requisition of facts appears disingenuous. Still, justice is blind.
God bless,
Rich
God bless,
Rich
Speaking of abominations, there is an eighth, The Clear Word Bible. If "traditional" SdAs are still pushing that wagon, they sure do need their Glenn Beck mouthpiece riding shotgun. Don't pick on Goldstein, though, he's only a shill being paid for a task. May as well pin on his badge and name him sheriff of Deadwood. Then go back down the trail, pick over the bones and find that wrong turn.
Thomson, you are right, I did not express myself well. I should have said it is unconscionable to stand by the helpless and say, remember, God's loves you without defending them.
I can fully accept that you are unneedful of anyone coming to your defense. I hadn't considered you vulnerable. I don't consider myself vulnerable either. I do know I don't consider myself to be a "spiritual miscreant" and see it particularly damaging to have a church leader flock shooting with this type of name calling.
Awash with tears?
Okay...that was imaginative....
Ah, whatever. I do partly agree with Maggie, let SDAs be SDAs and leave them be. I do have some empathy though for those who see a glimmer of hope in creating a safe loving community under the SDA tarp.
Cliff will need a new key board.
Posted by: Dick Larsen | 23 January 2011 at 1:23
I do have some empathy though for those who see a glimmer of hope in creating a safe loving community under the SDA tarp.
Nothing like the present. It can be done.
Richs comments are especially on point to Steves suggestion that conservatives evidently "should" be bashing Cliff.
It would seem that he misses one category that tells him the same information.
No one is saying Cliff is not given to emotional biting quips and zingy one liners.
There is a difference between a few adjectives here and there and a 2661 word public piece designed to personally embarrass an individual. I cut and pasted it in word to have it count the words and it covered 5 pages!
And all this on the basis of what? Those examples he gave?
Lets look at them.
"biased claptrap,"
"ludicrous rants,"
"extremists,"
"wacky left,"
"wacko left,"
"Spectrum Jackals,"
"no moral integrity whatsoever."
"spiritual miscreants and misfits,"
Thats it? Where is the personal one on one attack on anyone?
As far as "ludicrous rants" go Jims piece here sure qualifies. In Jims nutsy world "biased claptrap" is a hideous and personal attack. The very idea that biased claptrap is taken as worthy of Jims piece is insane.
I have seen liberals use fundamentalist as practically a curse word on these pages.
How pathetic is the charge when listing the "abuses" that Jim lists not only "wacky left" but also "wacko left" as if the difference was so profound as to merit a separate listing.
It smacks as a person scrambling for ammunition to support his position.
The fact that even moderate liberals denounce the piece is declaritive enough to show this piece was far beyond the pale.
Jims replies on the application of Matt 18 show he has no concept of the principals it holds.
The suggestion of Cliff "publicly" saying something was "biased claptrap" in some thread and so Jims 5 page 2661 word public attack was warranted are as reality challenged as Jim is.
The fact that moderate liberals decry this piece only serves to show which are so far gone that they support Jims piece.
Michael
"miscreant
a person who behaves badly or in a way that breaks the law.
• archaic a heretic."
Since we are not dealing with Goldstein's posts in context with the parent article and sibling posts, it is difficult to understand the usage of these words. I suggest all the people go directly to the thread in question who are offended thinking they are who is accused of behaving badly and is possibly a heretic (which could be a Pharisee) and discuss there instead of ruining the climate for the rest of us on other parts of the site.
Goldstein didn't use the names of Larson, Coffin or anyone else in his posts. Yet he is personally attacked here totally outside of context in false liberality. This article and much of this thread reminds me of an Irish saying my professor's father often used:
"Is this a private fight, or can anyone join?" It's a shame.
God bless,
Rich
God bless,
Rich
Apparently anyone can join, Rich.
Was that your intention, Jim? Were you inviting a pile-on?
Surely you weren't, but even so, you can discourage it, you know.
Sometimes the only way out is through.
Thanks to you Pastor for attempting to stop the runaway automobile that Mr. Goldstein is. Thank you Spectrum for making Adventism interesting. Thank you Spectrum for being the voice crying in the wilderness of Adventist false piety and injustice. Thank you for keeping the faith real. Thank you for standing at the door of Adventism successfully beseeching hundreds of thousands of disillusioned members not to leave. For all this the GC should write you a sizable check each quarter. May the Almighty continue to bless and prosper Spectrum.
Rich, under miscreant, you left out a vicious or depraved person; villain.
Cliff did not use proper names. That is why I used the metaphor of flock shooting. Now maybe I did feel I could have been in or near that flock and I will repeat, I do not see myself as a spiritually vicious or depraved person.
Maggie,
I here highlight our necessity to avoid ignorant judgment out of view of facts.
Unfortunately Coffin tells about .05% of the story here and didn't engage Goldstein on the actual thread where Goldstein posted. I am all for opponents taking Goldstein to task for his words as Rule of Law but not here where we can't see Goldstein's, Dwyer's or any of the other commentators' except Coffin's words in "personal address" of Goldstein. Especially since Goldstein never named Coffin.
All,
The wicked run when no one is in pursuit. If someone here is sure they are not a spiritual wolf or other type of "miscreant" return to eating your grass among the sheep. It doesn't apply to you.
If you still read your name into those statements, and believe your wool has been tarnished, go to the thread in question and spare the rest of the sheep the hijacking of their quiet enjoyment of grass and "community through conversation".
God bless,
Rich
God bless,
Rich
Oh, Rich - I've known Cliff online for many years - I've never once taken him personally.
I always stood up for him on atomorrow.com when people started piling on him. I think you may have mistaken someone else for me.
I do think it's imaginative to suggest he was shedding tears over the keyboard, though, from what I've seen from Cliff. :)
I do feel very cringy about a huge ad hominem blog on one person though, for the record, Jim. Imagine how humiliated you'd feel, you know? Isn't that enough of a reason?
I think shame is far past its use-by date as a motivator for Adventists.
We're not going to shame anyone out of or into anything, and it's emotionally wretched and has a long half-life, to mix metaphors.
Michael has a point about the "offending" words.
Miscreant...horrors! Call Homeland Security!
You guys know that Cliff likes unusual words. Come on!
"Miscreant...horrors! Call Homeland Security!"
That was funny! I think people might be confusing "miscreant" with some other word like "secrete" as in "secretion". On a Mac you can right-click on a word and get its definition near the top of the options that come up so you don't make that "call."
God bless,
Rich
God bless,
Rich
I wish it were funny, but that's another story.
Cliff, I proudly wear the badge of miscreant misfit, no hard feelings.
Maggie,
I don't think I mistook you for someone else. :) Could be wrong...
God bless,
Rich
God bless,
Rich
"I like to think that Cliff wrote his comments with his keyboard awash with tears."
Unfortunately, those tears were not conveyed too well. What came through was, like Maggie said:
"You guys know that Cliff likes unusual words."
And he likes to use them with abandon at whoever he is upset with. The attitude behind the words is not conducive to endearing him to Spectrum readers other than the masochists among us. Is he entertaining? Absolutely. And I doubt that he is not aware of the damage from his grenade throwing; it's the M.O. of many of his Review articles: "My way or the highway." That's soul-winning talk?
Quite the pity party going on for Adventism's poor little mean boy. No pity for those of us that he's hurt.
"My way or the highway." That's soul-winning talk?
no..it's miscreant winnowing talk.
maybe in the divinely Whiteous belief that there's only room for 144,000 virgin guys to stand in a perfect square on the sea of glass, 379.4733 individuals per side...
so the left(ist)-behind must be winnowed out to make room for the Whiteous trubeleevers to take their right-ful place.
I've always found that the most recent converts to anything are the most loudly vocal...
new non smokers can be very outspoken
new political converts can be really obnoxious
new converts to almost any religious belief want to share their new found faith..loudly and aggressively...in the hopes of "saving" others
Isn't Cliff a relatively "new" convert? apparently having graduated from the OT where the divine command to kill them all but save the virgins was the rule....and with his predilection for lambasting his interlocutors with the most obscure words from the thesaurus, he can come off as obnox...ah, possibly too highly motivated to share his intelligent understanding persuasively.
My mom (rip) used to remind my dad, (rip) after being too outspoken, that...
"It's not enuf to be right, you also have to be persuasive"
I for one, thank Cliff for persuading those of us with too many unanswerable questions to leave the safety of the corral....and after finding out that there's a whole world of new information outside to explore and understand, I am the better for having taken his advice.
where there's a will and a heavy counterbalance, there's a way.
http://www.wimp.com/mastbridge/
Having been involved briefly on another thread on this same subject (more or less), a couple thoughts come to mind.
The model relationship that God desires with us is "friendship" as described in John 15. Any discussion amoungst us should follow that guidance.
In Scripture when Christ/God took "action" it was when God was being "misrepresented" in a way that would damage people that God truly "loved and cared for" (all of us).
I believe Jim has made many attempts to "as a friend" give good counsel to Cliff before this article (open letter) was written. I can't read Jim's or Cliff's heart but I suspect both of them want to bring "salvation" to their various audiences but have much different "approaches" that unfortunately IMHO have probably had some "collateral damage" as evidenced by some of the above posts.
To most folks (i.e. Maggie and others) they have been "desensitized" to the various antics and are not swayed by "inappropriate" outbursts by either side and just want to move on in a more positive direction toward the ultimate goal of healing and salvation that Christ offers to a sinful/hurting world.
My prayer is that "all participants" can step back from the "rhetoric" and avoid the "dog pile" (pun intended) and learn from this thread that words can be very damaging either direction and I also hope that Cliff won't "disengage" but rather admit (by his words and actions) that he, as a "leader" can do better in this regard and move forward.
Jim has risked alot of "hard feelings" being engendered by this article but I believe he truly felt like "as a friend" he needed to speak up both for Cliff's benefit and ultimately the SDA church benefit to exhort all of us to "raise our playing field" for the longterm benefit of all.
Thanks for listening
Fred
A minimal standard for all Church employees would be that they conduct themselves in a manner that speaks well of the Church. This means treating others with respect even if we disagree with them.
Posted by: Jan Long
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Very well said, Jan! One shining example of
"treating others with respect even if we disagree with them" is the example of Dr. Herbert Douglas, right on these Spectrum blogs, and also in the conservative articles that he has written for Spectrum.
May be Dr. Herbert Douglas could be a good role model for Cliff to follow? (Learn from your elders type of thing.)
Cheers,
Mike
"Unfortunately Coffin tells about .05% of the story here and didn't engage Goldstein on the actual thread where Goldstein posted. Especially since Goldstein never named Coffin."
Rich, glad you brought up these two facts since I cannot recall that Cliff ever mentioned Jim. Does this mean that Jim is carrying the water for Alex and company? If so, maybe his Conference President needs to have a little talk with him.
Your Fiend,
You need to have a come to Jesus retreat.
The talk hasn't worked.
"Unfortunately Coffin tells about .05% of the story here and didn't engage Goldstein on the actual thread where Goldstein posted. Especially since Goldstein never named Coffin."
Rich, glad you brought up these two facts since I cannot recall that Cliff ever mentioned Jim. Does this mean that Jim is carrying the water for Alex and company? If so, maybe his Conference President needs to have a little talk with him.
Posted by: Your Friend
Both you and "Rich" have missed the point of Elder Coffin's memo. While you also like to paint Spectrum with a "liberal brush", the fact is that conservatives like Dr. Herbert Douglas post articles and blog on Spectrum, and your blogs often appear here as well.
The idea that Spectrum only gives space to the left is false. This blog is filled just as much with David Read, Michael, Your Friend, Rich as it might be with Elaine and Tom.
So I would like to ask you politely to acknowledge these facts and stop hurling labels like "The Spectrum crowd" - because Spectrum is not just composed of the group in the church that you wish to excommunicate. It's truly a Spectrum of different view points, and therefore cannot and should not be labelled as following one particular side.
What Elder Goldstein fails to publicly acknowledge is that respected colleagues of his write articles for Spectrum, and so respect for each other is something that we should be showing to each other.
I am a liberal. I agree with spectrum most of the time but this column is an embarrassment. By making this post Jim is fighting fire with fire and if he "wins" it is only because he out bullied Cliff.
I rarely post but this attack on Cliff is a lot like the crazy attack on Jared Wright on Hold them Accountable or on LSU on Educate Truth.
Come on people! We are better than this! A soft answer turns away wrath bit this thread started firestorm. Jim sounds insecure and Cliff is attacked for not fighting back. Didn't you already graduate fro grade school Jim? Grow up! You are embarrassing those of us who tend toward liberalism but don't want to be painted with this ridiculous brush. You are setting us back decades AMD will probably get a phone call from your conference tomorrow asking how you could launch this attack against a fellow church employee. May be grounds for termination. I thought you were above this but sadly I am mistaken.
Yoohooo! Paging Cliff Goldstein. Paging Cliff Goldstein. Hello? Hello?
Cliff, please DO NOT STOP POSTING to this forum. Your presence is badly needed. I look forward to hearing much much more from you. Besides, there are quite a few here who still need to be tested.
I appreciated Coffin’s blog—the more so after reading all the responses. Under-emphasized in the discussion is the atmosphere of intolerance that is growing in Adventism. The idea that if you don't agree--even as a genuine seeker of truth--you should leave the church. It is right to hold Goldstein accountable for those actions of his which contribute to this environment.
Goldstein has a large platform from which to voice his opinions. From it, he sets a tone of intolerance. You can see it reflected in ASI and fundamentalist GYC (though you've gotta laugh when you listen to Goldstein--who majored in English and loves literature--sermonizing there in 2009 [http://www.audioverse.org/sermons/recordings/1975/the-resurrection-of-jesus.html] and talking about Dostoyevsky's novel "Crime and Punishment", then quickly recovering by saying that while it is based on a murder that actually happened, this is GYC and he isn't recommending that they read the novel! LOL). You can see it in the attitudes of many posters on blogs, such as David Read and the beloved Your Friend, who frequently argue that people should leave the church or leave the Spectrum forum. I've recently started to pick up the same tone even in my local congregation. Just recently our pastor said that those who believed in evolution were infidels, and a couple weeks later said that those who didn't believe the prophecies should leave the church. In other words, if you don't see the significance of A.D. 538, or believe in a 6000 year old creation in 6 literal days, then you have no business being here.
This idea that--regardless if you have spent your life as an Adventist, or have paid tithe for decades, or desire to come and worship each Sabbath and to enjoy Christian fellowship--if you don't believe all 28 fundamental beliefs or read the Bible in a literalist way, you should leave the church, seems very unchristlike.
Jesus said, "And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck." (Mk 9:42). Goldstein, Read, Pipim and others of their tribe may read that and conclude that they should help tie the millstone on the infidels who are undermining faith--be they LLU professors or laypeople. But might it be that Goldstein et al. are themselves the ones actively chopping away at the slender threads that hold some people to the body of Christ? This, I believe, is the concern that generated the Coffin's pastoral response, and I did not read it as an attack on Goldstein but a voice of solidarity and support for those who struggle to hang on in the face of this increasingly intolerant and hostile environment.
I seek an integrated truth. That has led me to reject the YEC of my early SDA education and accept the overwhelming evidence from so many complementary lines of evidence that the earth is billions of years old and life seems to have evolved from lower life forms towards increasing complexity over hundreds of millions of years. Yes, maybe I am on EGW's slippery slope to infidelity, as increasingly I see the Bible as a human book about perceived interactions with God, not a verbally (or thought) inspired book written by God. It can indeed be challenging to remain an Adventist, and sometimes also a Christian.
The official church has little to offer to strengthen my faith or answer my questions (proffered Veith and Gentry videos notwithstanding!). Spectrum magazine (and AT under John McLarty) has over the years been the strongest voice encouraging me to persevere in the church. I have been strengthened by those who have shared their stories and studies in the magazine over the years, providing role models for pursuit of truth and living by faith amidst questions and doubt. The same people that say people like me should leave the church are also attacking Spectrum, trying to destroy part of our support infrastructure. Their mission is thus clear. It is right that pastors like Coffin should speak up.
In my doubt I am encouraged by John 6:37. "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." I hope that my church will be a place where Christ's will is fulfilled. And I hope the church will not prejudge whether I have truly come to Him or not. Why not encourage everyone to come to Adventist churches? A house of prayer for all people. After all, even the tares are to be left alone until the end.
Mike: "The idea that Spectrum only gives space to the left is false. This blog is filled just as much with David Read, Michael, Your Friend, Rich as it might be with Elaine and Tom."
It is your fantasy, Mike, that the editorial staff at Spectrum asks for and approves articles written by people like Pippim, Asscherick, Wilson, Gallimore, Bachelor and many others who would condemn the proclamation of another gospel. Spectrum has the sense to follow Jesus' words, "a house divided against itself cannot stand" in this regard at the very least. None of the people you mention are bloggers here.
The idea that Spectrum whose writers regularly defend such liberal lifestyles as homosexuality (did you miss the "spectrum" across the home page?) and regularly mock the Adventist church leaders and constituents is not liberal takes us to a new level of attempted reframing.
God bless,
Rich
God bless,
Rich
RT1, Amen!
Rich -- Amen!
___________________________________________
"The Truth shall make you free" John 8:32
___________________________________________
"The Truth shall make you free" John 8:32
I am very interested in part of RT1's post --
I've recently started to pick up the same tone even in my local congregation. Just recently our pastor said that those who believed in evolution were infidels, and a couple weeks later said that those who didn't believe the prophecies should leave the church. In other words, if you don't see the significance of A.D. 538, or believe in a 6000 year old creation in 6 literal days, then you have no business being here.
This idea that--regardless if you have spent your life as an Adventist, or have paid tithe for decades, or desire to come and worship each Sabbath and to enjoy Christian fellowship--if you don't believe all 28 fundamental beliefs or read the Bible in a literalist way, you should leave the church, seems very unchristlike
1. Imagine a visitor attending an SDA church and asking to joing BUT with the caveat that "I do not believe your doctrine, I believe in evolutionism instead. I do not believe in the unique distinctives of this church - I just want some folks to hang out with and a place to pay my tithe".
Are you SERIOUSLY saying that this is the new "lib vision" for church membership???
2. In the scenario above RT1 does not say that anyone was disfellowshipped for holding to such an "anything but Adventist" set of beliefs. He complains rather that the subject is "mentioned in public" at the pulpit by the pastor AS IF apostasy from our doctrines is not worthy of mention from the pulpit. AS IF our pastors should not be telling our church members that going down that road is totally illogical for Seventh-day Adventists and is utter nonsense.
I find RTI's logic to be illusive just then.
in Christ,
Bob
___________________________________________
"The Truth shall make you free" John 8:32
___________________________________________
"The Truth shall make you free" John 8:32
Mike: "The idea that Spectrum only gives space to the left is false. This blog is filled just as much with David Read, Michael, Your Friend, Rich as it might be with Elaine and Tom."
It is your fantasy, Mike, that the editorial staff at Spectrum asks for and approves articles written by people like Pippim, Asscherick, Wilson, Gallimore, Bachelor and many others who would condemn the proclamation of another gospel...... None of the people you mention are bloggers here.
God bless,
Rich
Posted by: Rich Constantinescu
Rich, please allow me to clarify: I wrote nothing about "Asscherick, Wilson, Gallimore, Bachelor." I specifically mentioned the facts that Elder Dr. Herbert Douglas has written articles for Spectrum and has on many occasions participated in similar blogs that you (Rich) and I (Mike) are now participating in.
Your group likes to accuse Elaine for her participation, and all I am saying is that "David Read, Michael, Your Friend, Rich" have a major participation in these posts or blogs, just as much as Elaine or Tom might have. So stop trying to wiggle out of being key players here on these posts.
No single person or group of persons can or does represent Spectrum.
lol -- this is turning into pure entertainment
"You can see it in the attitudes of many posters on blogs, such as David Read and the beloved Your Friend, who frequently argue that people should leave the church or leave the Spectrum forum."
Why not be a bit more accurate, RT1, and give one quote where I said what you accuse me of. Thanks.
We are all a bunch liberal conservative left right wingers. Leftist legalistic Pharisaical jackals, God hating wacko misfit extremists spewing biased claptrap like ludicrous rants void of all moral integrity. Come and join us please before Jesus comes (again).
Your humble and loving brother living cheerfully and freely in the truth asking none other then God's blessing on all who deserve it,
Dick Larsen
Mike MacLennan (not verified)
If you don't realize that both this blog and the magazine are primarily instruments of the libs I can only feel sorry that the "big picture" has somehow eluded you.
That is not to say that a few conservatives are not represented here but not, as a rule, in any leading article. Let's have one by Pipim or Assherick for a change.
Dick Larsen, your satire is superb!
Mike wrote: "The idea that Spectrum only gives space to the left is false. This blog is filled just as much with David Read, Michael, Your Friend, Rich as it might be with Elaine and Tom."
Rich wrote: It is your fantasy, Mike, that the editorial staff at Spectrum asks for and approves articles written by people like Pippim, Asscherick, Wilson, Gallimore, Bachelor and many others who would condemn the proclamation of another gospel. Spectrum has the sense to follow Jesus' words, "a house divided against itself cannot stand" in this regard at the very least. None of the people you mention are bloggers here.
The idea that Spectrum whose writers regularly defend such liberal lifestyles as homosexuality (did you miss the "spectrum" across the home page?) and regularly mocks the Adventist church leaders and constituents is not liberal takes us to a new level of attempted reframing.
Mike wrote: "I wrote nothing about "Asscherick, Wilson, Gallimore, Bachelor"
_____________________
Rich replies:
The absence of "articles written by people like Pippim, Asscherick, Wilson, Gallimore, Bachelor and many others who would condemn the proclamation of another gospel" is evident. Those leaders and those like them are essentially absent from the writer's column at Spectrum. The Review has been plenty more the spectrum than Spectrum if Douglas has been sole thought-leader for the conservatives that's been writing here. (http://www.spectrummagazine.org/recent)
I do not blog here. I comment. I made ONE suggestion one time to add a Logos javascript plug-in called RefTagger, which would allow a poster to post a reference to a Bible verse and then a reader could mouse over the reference and the Bible verse in entirety would appear next to the mouse. The backlash that created really illuminated me as to how little say-so I have on Spectrum. You might have thought I suggested something really evil.
According to Mike the four leaders I mentioned above as a small sample of leading conservatives in our church are not, according to Mike, so at all, nor does Mike know of any like them that would help his case that Spectrum is not liberal. Who then are the conservative leaders in the church writing for Spectrum to validate his claim that Spectrum is not liberal, especially since these ministers are constantly referred to as conservative leaders by Spectrum bloggers and posters alike?
God bless,
Rich
God bless,
Rich
That is not to say that a few conservatives are not represented here but not, as a rule, in any leading article. Let's have one by Pipim or Assherick for a change.
Posted by: Your Friend
Your Friend, I am open to your suggestions. Also what about including articles from people like Roy Gane, Richard Davidson, Angel M. Rodriguez, Mark Finley and of course Elder Ted Wilson.
Your Friend,
Before I answer your request for a quote, please confirm or deny that you in fact believe that those who disagree with one or more fundamental church beliefs should either (a) resign church offices or jobs; (b) resign church membership; or (c) stop participating in the Spectrum website either as editors, authors, or responders.
I'll then provide a few of your posts that led to my conclusion. If I am wrong, then you'll at least understand where I formed my wrong impression of your views.
Thanks,
RT1
-----------
Michael says:
Thats it? Where is the personal one on one attack on anyone?
and . . . .
The fact that even moderate liberals denounce the piece is declaritive enough to show this piece was far beyond the pale.
The fact that moderate liberals decry this piece only serves to show which are so far gone that they support Jims piece.
Two responses:
1. Cliff did attack specific people:
Alexander , Andrew, and me.
2. At least the liberals and moderates have the integrity to question one of their own, when they feel that person has done something contrary to Scripture. That is significant integrity, I do not see the conservatives giving bad behavior a pass, because the bad behavior comes from their side. I see that lacking in integrity.
Rich says: Goldstein didn't use the names of Larson, Coffin or anyone else in his posts. . . .
Please see my response to Michael. He actually did name Alex and Andrew and it was clear he was addressing me.
Rich also says:
It is your fantasy, Mike, that the editorial staff at Spectrum asks for and approves articles written by people like Pippim, Asscherick, Wilson, Gallimore, Bachelor and many others who would condemn the proclamation of another gospel. Spectrum has the sense to follow Jesus' words, "a house divided against itself cannot stand" in this regard at the very least. None of the people you mention are bloggers here.
Show my any evidence that a single one of those people submitted an article and it has been rejected because that is what you are implying. Further, they are good editors, which means they review all articles before they are published, including mine.
Once again the responses continue to demonstrate a huge double standard.
In the grip of grace.
Steve Moran
Both the article and the responses to it do a good job of illustrating why healthy dialogue is so difficult to engage in. On one end of the spectrum, inappropriate things are repeatedly said (in manner if not in content) until someone finally tries to call them on it - and then the person who does so is accused of being inappropriate. It is this kind of built in defense mechanism that seems to be why so much of talk radio survive so well, despite its absurdity at times. Curiously, those who are probably the least guilty will also be those who are most reflective and self-critical. It is a strange irony. What is perhaps the most unfortunate is that those who most need to be able to take a step back and observe what they are doing are also those who seem to be the least capable of doing so.
I wish there was a way for those who see themselves as defenders of the church to fully understand how much the vitriol drives people away who cannot find a way to reconcile a communicative style that contradicts what it claims to communicate. Sadly, it might take little more than a respectful listening to each other from a standpoint of humility rather than triumphalism. I wonder why it is so hard for us to get this? I do not wonder about many people who try to encourage this tend to get discouraged and sometimes give up, not so much because they don't care, but because they simply get tired.
I wonder if it is too much to hope that we might be able to look at the conversation itself and learn from it? I hope not.
"you, like a pampered child"
Wow. Dude. I infrequently visit Spectrum and don't really know who these people are or what this is all about, but I couldn't even finish reading this "letter" to find out because its angry and sarcastic undercurrents neutered whatever message was supposed to be carried. James, man, take it easy and next time take a nice long walk before hitting Send or whatever.
"you, like a pampered child"
Wow. Dude. I infrequently visit Spectrum and don't really know who these people are or what this is all about,.....
Posted by: Phil
Phil, the only way to really understand what is going on here would be to read at least 6 previous articles within the last several years where Pastor Clifford Goldstein has done exactly what Pastor Coffin describes.
Dick Larsen, did something quite clever: he took the labels that Pastor Goldstein used in describing the Spectrum people with whom he disagrees and Dick took these words and assumed in a moment of satire that they were true:
"We are all a bunch liberal conservative left right wingers. Leftist legalistic Pharisaical jackals, God hating wacko misfit extremists spewing biased claptrap like ludicrous rants void of all moral integrity. Come and join us please before Jesus comes (again).
Your humble and loving brother living cheerfully and freely in the truth asking none other then God's blessing on all who deserve it,
Dick Larsen" in response to Pastor Clifford Goldstein's wild accusations about the Spectrum bloggers.
The question arises: is this an appropriate way to label Seventh-day Adventists who disagree with Pastor Clifford Goldstein? While I may be able to laugh at the way Dick Larsen used Pastor Goldstein’s labels; I am not so sure that Seventh-day Adventist administrators are going to see the funny side of this, as they do have a similar pastoral concern for the flock (as Pastor Coffin has shown in his article). The fact that a SDA minister would use these despicable labels in describing members of his flock is deplorable and could cost him his employment with the church.
A principle I have found very helpful in life: Whenever I publish an article online, or send a business letter, I have my wife read it over. No matter how justified I may feel in writing it, I find that her input has spares me from many griefs. Maybe "it is not good that man should be alone."
In the ancient times when I went to college, it was understood that you needed to be married to get a call to a pastorate. Maybe that is a better idea than many students thought at the time.
By the way, in regards to several comments regarding Jesus' example. Isn't there a difference between doing something because Jesus did it and doing something because Jesus said to do it? After all, He is God, and we are not.
Clifford Goldstein is not, and has never been to my knowledge, a pastor. Just for the record.
Posted by: Alexander Carpenter | 22 January 2011 at 4:23
Nice to see Pastor Coffin already smacking that stupidity down.
Alex, did you just delete my post? If so, would you like to comment on that?
More "smacking down stupidity?" Just wondering, as the rules seem really obscure.
Thanks.
The fact that a SDA minister would use these despicable labels in describing members of his flock is deplorable and could cost him his employment with the church.
In other words, Cliff should be fired. That's what I thought Pastor Coffin was calling for as well, but he assured me ("smacking down my stupidity," as Alexander Carpenter so graciously phrased it) that, no, he wasn't calling for Cliff to be fired, only given a good talking to.
My question is, what if Cliff says to whoever undertakes to counsel him, "mind your own business. The Constitution guarantees my freedom of speech, and I intend to keep telling those miscreants at Spectrum that all they're good for is to show the larger church how far out the left wing really is."
What then? The only real incentive behind any workplace discipline is that if you continue to ignore it, you'll be fired. So Pastor Coffin certainly is calling for Cliff Goldstein to be fired if that is what it takes to force him to take a more "pastoral" tone.
It seems that stupidity must indeed be smacked down on Spectrum, but I'm confused.
I thought that rebuking speaking down to people in such derogatory language was the whole point of the blog!
And my post was deleted for bringing that up?
Huh?
If necessary, I shall wear the Smacked-Down-For-Being-Stupid badge proudly also, but I'm running out of space on my demerit badge sash! :)
I came across an appropriate Wittgenstein quote this week:
"Reason has taken a holiday"
Jim, tell me please that reason hasn't taken a holiday at Spectrum!
Were you smacking down stupidity, as Alex said?
You were just being pastoral, right?
Wait...maybe part of being pastoral is smacking down stupidity?
No wait, then that means that Cliff....
Just excuse me, everyone know i like to use unique language - no personal attack is intended. Everyone who knows me knows I am like that. My words below are just to help purify the church so that only those who have authenticity, true integrity and the capability to think honestly, clearly and wiihtout being mind slaves to a system.
It pisses me off how so many people are brainwashed into a cultic mentality without being taught to think for themselves. Charismatic gurus with with their hypnotic spells and pseudo-logic tell people how they should believe and that what they say is true and right. Their biased claptrap is dressed up as truth and triumphalistic rants that ultimately the gullible will fall for. Rather than use their intellectual capabilities to think deeply and encourage potential converts to think deeply for themselves they use milder versions of conspiracy theorists' ludicrous mental styles in their wacky rightwing non-intellectual mumbo jumbo that has less in common with Jesus than with ratbag radio shock jocks. It's intellectual nonsense, spiritual abuse and cultish crap built on a foundation of myths and hagiography. The system uses mindmanipulation, behavioural control and emotional blackmail through shame and guilt to enslave people, while making them think they are doing it willingly, in a legalistic, intellectually shallow and eccleasiastically controlling religion - promising them pie in the sky bye and bye wel after they die. While pleading humility the religious system is bolstered by spiritual egotism and judgmental arrogance under the sweetest caring guise.
It is blatant christian heresy, except to the slaves and the blind, that is perpetrated by ignoramuses and power hungry perverts who would be blinded by the light if they ever saw it. They spew forth pious platitudes and cliches endlessly and pretend and convince themselves that they have authenticity and integrity even though they sold their minds and souls to the organisation and its norms a long time ago. The underlying perversity of it all is bankrupt and immoral.
The sooner those who think openly and honestly and with compassion and understanding create something new or find better places to be, the sooner the cesspool of archaic bankrupt adventism will fester and implode into its irrelevancy and suffocate in the sickening codependency and arrogance and irrelevance.
Don't take any of this personally. I haven't mentioned any names, just like the other guy did't mention any names. It's just the way I am, just iike the other guy is wellmeaning and is the way he is with his arrogance and different type of language. I love people and I love my God and I do this from a place of defending what I believe it - I have the best of motives.
That there was a peck o' fine, lovin' stoopidity smackin', Uriah!
Wow
The United States Constitution assures free speech--but the Supreme Court has rules one cannot yell fire in a crowded theater or church for that matter. Spectrum also has the right to set the parameters of response on its own web-site.
It is not a rant or tirade junk yard. Of course, Uriah was having a good laugh--but really. The issue is serious.
An ordained minister using his "free speech perogatives" goes on a rip snorting rant. A friend of many years admonishes him in a Christian manner as publically as the rant itself.
The editor agrees with the friend.
Those of us who were the object of the rants agree with Jim--many others sided with Cliff. But the issue isn't either Jim or Cliff. The issue is: Can Spectrum be true to its mission if its bloggers cannot control their emotions.?
I think Jim and Alex did Cliff a favor. I think Cliff has great potential if he can control his keyboard.
Certainly his stint on Religious Liberty should have given him at least a hint on proper public discourse.
Cliff has a keen mind, well informed, and a heart dedicated to a cause. There are others with equally keen minds and equally, if not better informed, with a heart as dedicated as Cliff's that see and comment on issues entirely different that Cliff.
Let us see that happen on more than a random basis with civility that engenders proper consideration of the point of view. If anyone enjoys can you top this--there is cable TV.
Tom Z.
Sorry Jared - for the sake of the record, from the GC Yearbook...
Ministerial Credential:
Roy Adams, Jonas Arrais, Delbert W Baker, Matthew A Bediako, Merlin D Burt, Garrett Caldwell, Mario E Ceballos, Stephen Chavez, Lowell C Cooper, Williams S Costa Jr, Gary R Councell, Rajmund Dabrowski, A Ganoune Diop, Kwabena Donkor, Larry R Evans, William A Fagal, Howard F Faigao, Agustin Galicia, Alfredo A Garcia-Marenko, Gary D Gibbs, Clifford Goldstein,
And people get on my case when I post that SDA are fanatic, insubordiante, gainsayers (Rom 10:2 & 21)who are from a crowd of humans that are wicked , deceived, LAW trashing, GOD hating, TRUTH rejecting(Jer 17:9. Rom 8:7,2 Thess 2:10)rebellious criminals?
Maybe this happens because some think that the gospel of grace is to just polish up the rough edges of a coarse personality rather than decriminalize/rehabilitate hardened criminals.
Maybe it is because some think that the church is a hospital where the patients have a sore throat rather than terminal cancer. Will the pastors continue to recommend cough drops instead of deferring to an oncologist?
Victor,
Nobody is denying Goldstein's ordination. Having ministerial credentials, however, does not mean that one is serving as a pastor. Most church administrators have credentials, as do religion professors, etc. But they are not pastors. Jared is correct in saying that Goldstein is not a pastor.
lol -- all these heavy "take myself so seriously" responses just seem to get funnier, the heavier and more earnest they become. Okay, my vote goes to Maggie, the free spirit. Can we all be more like her, please?
RT1 (not verified)
You asserted that I have made certain statements. If you are unable or unwilling to back them up with quotes I'll let readers make a judgment as to veracity of your allegations. You have the burden of proof.
RT1 (not verified)
You asserted that I have made certain statements. If you are unable or unwilling to back them up with quotes I'll let readers make a judgment as to veracity of your allegations. You have the burden of proof.
Posted by: Your Friend
Hello RT1,
I do not envy your task! I just "googled: 'YOUR FRIEND' 'SPECTRUM MAGAZINE'" and google said that there were "Alrededor de 2,690 resultados" - approximately 2,690 results.
Now @ 10 per day (like President Obama does with his e-mails), it would take you about 9 months to give "Your Friend" your answer.
I write here TO LOUNDLY CONDEMN the Writings of attacks by Pastor James Coffin to Pastor Clifford Goldestin of Seventh-day Adventist Lesson Quartely Editor in the General Conference of SDA (Silver Springs, MD, USA)
These attacks do not represtentaive of Christ.
Pastor Clifford Goldestin has written the lesson. This sabbath he wrote the lesson on the Relationships. He has writen about anxiety and last week he spoke about stress. Why are we bringing stress to the pastor of God?
Pastor James Coffin, you wrote about revival and reformation here. And Pastor Steve Morlan wrote about the respond to the questions. Pastor Steve Morlan is praying for the spectrum and offering grace-centered theology of salavation.
THIS POST SHOULD BE DELETED FROM SPECTRUM--PASTOR COFFING STOP ATTACKS!
Patrice, have a little faith! Good can come from this, just wait! Lots of people are praying, God is creative, and therefore, so are we!
I think Jesus helped us think up the First Amendment! :) :) :)
This post was not quid pro quo but a necessary response by a shepherd protecting the flock and at the same time remimding a peer of his duty. From my understanding of Pastor Coffin's post, he was not taking Mr. Goldstein to task for writing his disagreements with what many on Spectrum believe rather he expressed concern that as a representative and defender of the SDA church, Mr. Goldstein was so scathing and scornful and condemming of others.
Goldstein's posts often say that those on Spectrum whose beliefs are, in his view, heresy are going to hell, and he seems delighted by this. Nowhere does he seem to have regret or sadness over God's children possibly going astray - he only has contempt for them. How can this be accepted behaviour for someone who represents the church at the level he does. This does not reflect the character of God who weeps over the fallen and is not willing that any should perish.
Coffin, on the other hand, admonished Goldstein by laying out the issues with hope that there can be revival and renewal. Coffin asked for Goldstein to stop being so 'hateful' but never suggested that Goldstein should give up his religious views or leave the church which is something Goldstein often suggests many on Spectrum do.
Pastor Coffin did not err in addressing Mr. Goldstein publicly because Mr. Goldstein has publicly and repeatedly used abusive language against all on Spectrum who hold certain views. Some may be immune to this but others are damaged by it and so just as Jesus intervened in the temple so Pastor Coffin intervened here with his blog.
Carole, what seems to be strikingly going on here to me is that the Testimony Tendency Template is still very much a part of our shared mindset.
This Testimony Tendency, this excruciatingly detailed public shaming of brothers and sisters set in motion by Ellen White, is one of the more extremely unhealthy psychological features of Adventism, I believe.
It is all the more violent for being concealed in righteousness.
This Testimony Tendency creates a kind of schadenfreude-type pleasure that Cliff is getting it returned in gigantic spades that is difficult for me to behold.
It's challenging to detect the dynamic because it's so deeply socially embedded, but it still plays out on a regular basis, never writ larger than right here on this blog, it seems to me.
I don't think God ever taught us to behave this way. I think this was a feature of Ellen White's psychology that just got out of hand and became an evolutionary frozen accident, a nineteenth-century meme that we have never examined sufficiently to get some perspective and distance from.
There's just way too much triumphalism displayed here to give me any feeling that something remotely healthy is going on.
I could be wrong, of course, but, well, I've done this kind of creepy righteous stuff myself, and it takes one to know one, as they say.
Maggie, your sign off line expresses how we could begin to solve this problem:
"I could, be wrong, of course."
It is a huge struggle for us in Adventism to be willing to admit we could be wrong. Somehow we have come to believe that in order to strongly hold a belief that we cannot allow for that possibility that we are wrong. I am so glad the founders of our church were less stubborn and thank you for reminding us of this important principle.
In the grip of grace, because I too, could be wrong.
Steve Moran
I'm still waiting for a conservative who is concerned about Clifford's sharp and harsh tone, condemming many of our brothers and sisters while never engaging in a real discussion.
"not so sharp, Brother" said EGW to Waggoner, but she agreed very much with the content of his claims.
I would like to read an article about this invitation, which seems to become louder: "if you don't agree, just leave..."
I don't normally respond to posts here, but this is ridiculous. This scathing attack on Goldstein far outweighs anything he has said. This is not remotely healthy and shows just how judgmental the liberal left is in the church.
I wonder how many of you have read the link above: http://justicedeniedjamescoffin.blogspot.com/
I spent an hour or so reading through it and it's more of the same lengthy biography/ I'm a victim / the church denied justice thing we're seeing here. Except it was written in 2008 about the "sad saga" Coffin went through when he had a disagreement with his brother-in-law.
It really follows the same pattern that he tries to explain about Cliff here. Coffin may just be setting up for a sequel to "Justice Denied," except it will be about Goldstein this time.
If you want to side with Coffin, at least get an idea of his pattern of behavior.
Maggie, Testimony Tendency Template? lol.
Come on, how come you can call out the pastor and his supporters as quasi-violent hiding behind righteousness; can't any objection on your part to what others have said be denounced in the same way? Should I be insulted and feel publicly shamed when you suggest that my response is based on a deep-rooted disfunction of which I am unaware? Can I cry foul?
I mean really, when you hear the actions of anyone criticized in the media for example, do you immediately believe the critic to be SDA and sufferring from TT?
I assure you, even though at home I had a traditional Adventist upbringing, the French Canadian culture and mindset in which I was immeresed had an equally great or greater influence which freed me of the constraints you rail against.
You are wrong. Es gab keine schadenfreude hier.
You can respond to me any way you choose, Carole.
I think we're all going to be very shame-faced standing before God and seeing ourselves for what we really are and the religious games we've all played.
Does that mean that God is out to shame us? No, but God shines light in the dark places, and that is pretty darned embarrassing.
It's all a hall of mirrors. I haven't escaped it.
Fortunately, as Steve says, we're in the grip of Grace.
What is happening is that there is indeed a 'culture war' going on inside the Adventist church. Many thinking people have stayed in the church with a view to changing it from within (let's call them Liberals). This of course seems a noble objective if you think the church is 'worth saving'. However, this has meant that they have had to engage in a somewhat dishonest (IMHO) campaign of claiming (probably quite honestly) that the SDA church is 'their church' and they love 'the truth' as much as anyone else, while at the same time trying to change the thinking of people in the church. This has been what Spectrum magazine has been all about - a forum for liberals to try to change the church.
Then when traditional Adventists get upset, because they can see what is going on (they're not stupid - even if they are uninformed), the liberals, who are usually smarter, fall back on their 'love for the church' and quote EGW 'We should be thinkers and not mere reflectors of other men's thoughts' (as Jim Coffin did in this article - it's interesting that the liberals will quote EGW when it suits them and then through the other side of their mouths criticize her for some of her stupidities.)
But, the traditional (conservative) Adventists know exactly what's going on here - they have 'rats in the ranks'. Sometimes, when their backs are to the wall, the liberals will make very conservative sounding statements, but when you look below the surface they are actually redefining what the words mean - very clever strategy. But they can't help being caught out, because eventually, to ease their conscience, they have to say what they really believe to certain groups they are trying to influence eg
- 'creationism is very wobbly ' or,
- ‘the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality is a cultural artefact’ etc etc
Of course it soon gets out that Doctor or Pastor ‘so and so’ has problems with certain traditional doctrines, the words for which he/she has re-interpreted so as to be able to make conservative sounding statements.
But traditional/ conservative Adventists then have a real problem - it appears to them that the liberals are taking over the Church. But their backs are to the wall. They feel that this is all dishonest and they rise up in defence of what they see as ‘true Adventism’ and on occasions because of their desperation they resort to unseemly tactics – which of course gives the liberals occasion to scold them for their ‘unchristian attitudes and behaviour’.
I struggled with this when I was a Pastor. Of course I could see the problems with traditional Adventism (the literal approach to the Bible, the problems with seeing EG White as some kind of authority, etc). I did make some attempts to educate my church members in relation to these matters. But I immediately became ‘suspect’ – of course, this was the early 1980’s. I struggled with the fact that I wanted to be an open and transparent person, but I was not able to be so as an SDA Pastor. So I resigned. My intellectual journey continued of course until over a period of 15-20 years, I had to face up to the fact that the more I read, the more I learned, I could not accept that the Bible had any relevance to me today.
When I read Jim Coffin’s article it made me feel so relieved that in my mid 30’s I realised that trying to change the church from within was not going to happen. I got out and managed to create a life for myself with many wonderful secular friends, while retaining friendships with a few inside the church and indeed inside the ministry of the SDA church.
Anyway, back to Jim Coffins letter. He, and many others, are suffering precisely because they chose to remain inside the church, because they thought it could be changed. While it has changed in many superficial ways (movie attendance, drinking coffee, wearing jewellery, lax Sabbath observance etc) it has not fundamentally changed. The recent election of Ted N. C. Wilson as GC President is probably a reaction to what was seen as a feeble attempt by Jan Paulsen to broaden the Church. It’s a ‘back to the future’ move. In fact Wilson has almost explicitly stated it that way. I heard rumors about political manoeuvrings, before the GC session in 2010, to oust Paulsen as GC President. Many of ‘our’ liberals were gutted by the Wilson ascendancy.
It’s about time the liberals realised that the Adventist church has been and is a fundamentalist church. It belongs to the fundamentalists. Liberals should get out of the way and let them have it. ** Otherwise the culture war will continue and many people will continue to be hurt and frustrated and waste their life energy on this culture war. **
I think there is a whole lot of truth in what you are saying Glenn W.
As I said on another thread, I take responsibility for my part of radicalizing my TSDA husband's religion by aggressively challenging him at every turn.
I think it is, at best, an unconscious, unhealthy game to prod a brother or sister into extreme responses by challenging their faith, education, character and intelligence and then ream them out for "losing it," or digging in and becoming intransigent.
That's just legalistic, really. Yes, they "lost it," yes they became more extreme, but did this happen in a vacuum?
No.
It reminds me of a little kid making funny noises and otherwise annoying a sibling until the sibling smacks them and then crying, "He hit me!" I think it's all taking place at that emotional level.
God who?
This may be washing now, but it won't stand the Light of Day.
I could be wrong, of course.
....I think we're all going to be very shame-faced standing before God and seeing ourselves for what we really are and the religious games we've all played....
While I consider myself to be an Adventist, I am not invested in it in a way that either promotes or justifies game playing. Here on earth I know shame and guilt but not in conjucntion with my relgious life. And when I stand before God I will be consumed by love; shame and guilt will be no more.
Alvin (not verified)
Wow, this is a bombshell. I wonder whether Jim will respond to your post.
A note to Cliff: While I may not agree with every position you have taken in your posts you have had the courage to cut thru the murky miasma of the left-leaning intellectualism and present, in a number of instances, a concise and comprehensible summary of its tendencies and errors.
Stay with us and one hopes that you continue to enlighten us. What may well be the motivation for dissing you is the obvious fact that you are not baffled by the esoteric allusions and illusions of the left.Again, stay with us!
@ Glenn Weare: If I am understanding you correctly, your personal solution was to simply throw it all away. Others may feel all is not so black and white. I would be interested in hearing what your proposed solution is for those who wish to continue to practice a Seventh-day Adventist faith but not in a fundamentalist manner.
Alvin, I did scan through that link. The whole thing is very strange, and reflects very poorly on Pastor Coffin's judgement.
From what I can gather, Pastor Coffin's wife, Leonie, is the sister of Lincoln Steed, editor of Liberty Magazine. Leonie is estranged from their father, and her brother apparently blames her for this estrangement. Pastor Coffin has naturally sided with his wife, and has gotten in the middle of a brother/sister squabble between Licoln and Leonie. Apparently Licoln wrote an offensive letter, the details of which I could not ferret out, and Coffin went to six GC leaders, including President Paulsen, seeking their intervention in the situation.
Not surprisingly, the GC elders declined to substantially involve themselves in what was essentially a family dispute between brother and sister. But Coffin views this as a dereliction of their duty and "justice denied," and chose to publish many communications relating to this dispute on the Internet.
Again, this episode seems very strange and regrettable. Pastor Coffin's lack of discretion, and willingness to go public with his complaints about the GC leaders inaction (which inaction seems to me, as a superficial observer, to be the soul of common sense), does not reflect well on his judgement.
I haven't been able to detect how, if at all, Clifford Goldstein was involved in this dispute. He is not one of the six GC officials that Pastor Coffin is complaining out. Strangely, one of Goldstein's columns on AToday had its comment thread be hijacked by a discussion of this strange incident, but Cliff himself did not comment on it:
http://www.atoday.com/content/will-real-%E2%80%9Cthinking%E2%80%9D-adven....
@Terry
I did not 'simply' throw it all away. It was a very tortuous, process of reading and thinking over a period of many years.
The problem is that "a Seventh-day Adventist faith" means a thousand things to a thousand people. And my point is that historically Seventh-day Adventism has been fundamentalist. I would regard any church that accepts 6 thousand year age of the earth, homosexuality is a sin, Jesus shed his blood to save me, as being fundamentalist and last time I checked these were still official Adventist beliefs.
Posted by: carole f | 24 January 2011 at 12:36
And when I stand before God I will be consumed by love; shame and guilt will be no more.
Yes, I am confident also that love will ultimately consume shame and guilt for all of us, and that death will be swallowed up in victory, Carole.
I am absolutely certain, however, that I have not begun to plumb the murky depths of my unconscious motivations, and that I'll have some dismaying, if temporary, shattering moments when all comes to Light.
Some of those tears which will be wiped away will be for the sorrow for unconscious distortions which deprived us and others of benefit, and which we never surrendered for healing, I imagine, but I could be wrong, of course.
Alvin or David,
Your introduction of these "family matters" of the Coffin's as related to this strand show complete lack of discernment.
While I do not always agree with everthing Jim say's I do consider him to be a fair and reasonable individual.
What you have done is not "fair."
Several times over the last few years I have pointed out what a "jerk mentality" Clifford possesses when visiting this site and disbelief that he as a church representative simply gets a pass.
Cliff's repeated actions justified Jim Coffin's response irregardless of the "passing on of gossip and family matters" that you now accuse Jim of as being the cause of his open rebuke of Cliff.
Cliff's actions in and of themself deserve open rebuke because he seems oblivious to his continuous uncalled for abrasive behavior. One can strongly disagree without being a jerk.
regards,
pat
When someone from the GC publicly attempts to destroy a pastor's career with libellous actions, threatening insinuations and many years of undermining, it is not just a family matter but one that needs strong pastoral care and intervention for all concerned and that has not been the case. I wiped off the GC as being "organisational men" who mostly had good intentions but are incompetent in many ways where they are out of their depth. Jim and Leonie cry for justice and expect it. I hurt for them and expect they won't get it. The organisation almost always, church or not, keeps barging ahead with little regard to the wounded.
David, you and others have referred to this other issue. I am wondering, puzzled by, fascinated to understand exactly what it has to do, with the point of this open letter to Cliff. Maybe I am missing something, but it appears the only reason to bring it up is to smear Jim.
As I watch each of these posts against Jim by the Conservatives (of which if you look at my theology I am one) I continue to be baffled by the double standard. It would be a lot easier to take you and Bob and Rich seriously if you applied the same standards to Cliff and to Jim. Perhaps more importantly to yourselves.
To criticize Jim's letter for tone, approach and venue is completely legitimate since he put it out here for us to read and comment on. But to then treat Cliff's attacks as if they are righteous really speaks not to where Cliff is coming from but where you are coming from. It tells us that you pick and choose when it comes to Ellen White and Scripture.
Please, Please, Please tell me, tell the community, why it is ok for harshness on your side but not on the liberal side. I just honestly don't get it.
I feel badly for Cliff in dragging him into this again. This is not about him at all, it is about the unfair double standard.
In the grip of grace.
Steve Moran.
@J Shepherd - "The organisation almost always, church or not, keeps barging ahead with little regard to the wounded." - How true!
Glenn Weare, thank you for your very thoughtful post. As a traditional Adventist who comes from the opposite side of the ideological divide, I think your description of the dynamic at Spectrum and in the larger church is honest, insightful, and dead-on accurate. It is one of the best posts I've ever read on this site.
Truly, we conservatives are not stupid. We know that the liberals are engaged in a heretofore somewhat stealthy but now increasingly open and aggressive campaign to take what has always been basically a fundamentalist church in the direction of liberalism, and we don't want to go there. But if we express our resistance in language insufficiently diplomatic, we're publicly tarred and feathered.
Pat. "Jerk mentality?"
You get to call Cliff a jerk? A contemptibly naive, fatuous, foolish, or inconsequential person?
None of this makes sense to me.
Glenn, you've put a lot of thought into your comments. You hit the mark.
I used to disagree with those who said if I didn't believe it all then get out and found it offensive.I even had a letter dialogue for a while with Clifford Goldstein over the issue. He edited Liberty magazine and championed freedom of religion and religious expression outside of the church, and for the church in society - but within the church he was adamant: believe as i do or get lost. So inconsistent.
Now I find I am in agreement over one thing with the fundamentalists. Getting out is actually a great option!
I found it quite fragile to be liberal whenever I was in an argument/discussion with conservatives because deep down the foundations of adventism were on their side. I didn't go in for many (ultimately most) of their doctrines and didn't see the bible as a rule book or god's word, so I was really on shaky ground in an organisation that was diametrically opposed at its core to where I was at.
My trying to stay was really about hanging on to the benefits I had and the belonging I had from being born, bred, baptised and branded in the church. Yet the time came when I had to move on for my own sanity, wellbeing and journey of growth as a free human.
What many of us wish in the way of openness to healthy thinking and new, valid ideas, freedom, and authenticity and integrity would mean the end of Adventism. The ultimate result from the path of those who are wanting to transform adventism intellectually, socially, culturally and ethically in our more enlightened times is the end of Adventism. Early on that path of liberation that might not be so clear, but to stay real on that path it seems to be the ultimate end.
It's interesting how I, like many others, was trying to make the church so I could fit in. Huge exhausting task. Eventually I realised that all the qualities of living I was seeking were actually already "out there" and not needing to be recreated. To try and add them to a very dysfunctional system actually helped to perpetuate the system and help to keep people in it. I was involved in a lot of great stuff in contrast to a lot of irrelevant and boring stuff that otherwise happened. The best thing would have been to let it continue being bad and driving people away and not attracting people in! But then again, it was practice for being an alive free human being on a journey of transition, and I was able to be part of that journey with many others who "got it".
You've been on quite a journey, Glenn, and your wisdom and perspective is valuable.
David and others,
As you familiarize yourself with the "justice denied" brewhaha you might come to a realization why Jim is still at the same church for so long. Double or triple the amount of time a Pastor usually stays with a congregation.
As you might surmise, there are reasons for this beyond liking the Florida climate.
It is a sad thing when there are definite strengths Jim has as a Pastor. Its just that there are also definite weaknesses like to drum up sympathy for themselves by yelling their self appointed brand of "justice" from the roof tops. Cutting of ones nose to spite their face comes to mind.
Michael
Does anyone wish their own personal and family foibles to be published and raked over the coals by others on the World Wide Web?
Does anyone wish to be called derogatory names?
Jesus:
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
Adventist friends, people of the Book, this is the law and the prophets.
Dr. Lewis do you have a comment on the Jim Coffin open letter to Cliff Goldstein? Would the following be apropos?
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim(s) may be the most oppressive. Those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
C. S. Lewis
Rasputin
Maggie,
My personal deinition of "Jerk" is: a sarcastic, mean, unforgiving and one never missing an opportunity to make a cutting remark.
Kinda like Cliff on this site. Cliff is not a naive or inconsequential person but very calculating...and that's part of the problem as to why not dismiss his behavior.
I will suggest my Protestant orthodoxy will match that of Cliff and for that matter anyone at the GC...so these feelings aren't made from a theological "lib."
regards,
pat
Truly, we conservatives are not stupid. We know that the liberals are engaged in a heretofore somewhat stealthy but now increasingly open and aggressive campaign to take what has always been basically a fundamentalist church in the direction of liberalism, and we don't want to go there. But if we express our resistance in language insufficiently diplomatic, we're publicly tarred and feathered.
Posted by: David Read (not verified) | 24 January 2011 at 1:42
=======================
reply.Pat. "Jerk mentality?"
You get to call Cliff a jerk? A contemptibly naive, fatuous, foolish, or inconsequential person?
None of this makes sense to me.
Posted by: Maggie | 24 January 2011 at 1:44
=========================
Hmm - blinders are coming off? Or are we stating what was always known to some degree about the methods being empoyed here?
Or can it be said the spectrume is just now "turning a corner"?
It seems that Spectrum posters are being somewhat consistent with past historic endeavers - so is this a change?
in Christ,
Bob
___________________________________________
"The Truth shall make you free" John 8:32
___________________________________________
"The Truth shall make you free" John 8:32
Glenn and Gabe,
Maybe what we're dealing with here is "growth". There comes a time when the kid needs to leave the family home. The cozy bed, the home-cooked meals, the free entertainment have all been nice, but the time has come to grow up and form a life of his own. That's not to say the roots don't bind - still. We were fed and cared for and all of what that gave us, we take with us. Maybe someday the old homestead will feel warm and comforting again - who knows.
Pat, would you consider it abusive if Cliff called you a jerk?
Would you call that a "mean, cutting remark?"
Please tell me how this works - the rules completely elude me.
Thanks.
David Read.
I don't understand what you have been reading regarding Coffin, but from what I've read, Coffin is fully justified in pursuing what he has.
NOBODY in an employment fashion can slander another employee in any other business and get away with it. It IS the employer's duty to handle it.
How in the world can you say it is a 'family matter'?
I work for the church. I have seen how 'familiarity breeds contempt'. I have seen things happen to church employees by other employees and even conferences that would get you sued. Somehow it all gets swept under the carpet or met with a shrugging of the shoulders.
People and conferences in the SDA church need to be held accountable for the shoddy way they treat other church members.
Give your head a shake, David.
Why are we talking about Jim Coffin's personal family and business matters on a public forum?
Sanity check:
This all begins with the following blunder by Andrew Hanson
------------------------
GENERAL COMMENTS
If you are caught up in the Ted Wilson inspired, “revival and reformation” prescription for the Laodicean ills of the Adventist Church, this issue is designed to increase your fervor. If you are convinced that the Latter Rain and the Second Coming are imminent, this issue will get you ready. If you are tired of the hype and fear mongering and pious posturing, give this review a miss and write out a generous check to ADRA or a local charity.
By Andrew Hanson
http://www.spectrummagazine.org/blog/2011/01/15/reviewing-adventist-worl...
===================================
Cliff then responds with this mild-milk-toast incredibly obvious comment.
--------------------------------
Keep up the great work, Alex.
This site is--by far!--the best thing that could happen to the moderate-to-conservative wing of the church. I mean it. This site has done and is doing more to expose the extreme left's vision for the church than anything else I've seen in 30 years in the church.
You are opening up a lot of eyes. A lot.
Happy Sabbath.
Posted by: Cliff Goldstein (not verified) | 15 January 2011 at 4:02
====================================
And at that point a dozen or so Spectrum posters completely "lose it".
What is up with that?
In any case I responded with a more-than-a-little-obvious post of my own.
---------------------
Cliff - we take this time out for a station break --
A simple rule of thumb here: - when a lib trashes a conservative or trashes SDA doctrine in a no-Appeal-to-the-Bible fashion - that is all in good fun, it is simply big-tenting the diversity concept.
When a conservative points out some inconvenient detail or flaw in a lib argument - well that is mean spirited and unchristian.
Let the games resume.
Posted by: BobRyan | 24 January 2011 at 2:18
-------------------------------
Steve Moran said --
I wish Jim had not published this, because it would have been turning the other cheek. But those of you who are defending Cliff don't you see he his attacks are strictly personal against the leaders as Spectrum and ever single person who writes here? He does not and has not addressed issues or topics. Do you really believe that because he is on your side, it makes it ok for him to throw bombs at the opposition like that?
I sit here profoundly grateful that when the soldiers came for Jesus in the garden, he did not start throwing bombs because he could and because he was right.
Posted by: Steve Moran | 22 January 2011 at 8:36
=================================
1. I would argue that Cliff did not post an ARTICLE at Spectrum - but merely participated as one of many posters commenting on a thread where Hason clearly stepped over the edge of reason in his article's opening para.
2. Cliff's comment was sans all the ad hominem you see on this thread and in the opening article.
3. The comment above seems to argue that Cliff's comment about Spectrum being easy for all church members to read - and to see where the liberal left is going -- is every bit as harsh ad hominem as all the slurs, insults and personal attacks that were piled on after Cliff's comment (culminating in this thread and this opening article).
That is extreme equivocation that defies logic.
in Christ,
Bob
___________________________________________
"The Truth shall make you free" John 8:32
___________________________________________
"The Truth shall make you free" John 8:32
Wow! Glenn and now Gabe admitting that where Spectrum wants to take the Adventist Church would cause it to cease to be the Adventist Church. This is so enormously refreshingly and relieving. I sometimes wonder if I'm losing my mind, but then when I read Glenn's and Gabe's post, I realize, no, I'm not losing my mind. I'm as right as rain.
Pat, I'm not passing on gossip. I'm commenting on something that Pastor Coffin himself chose to publish on the World Wide Web, apparently for everyone in the world to read, ponder, and comment about.
Steve, I've told you before that I wasn't that concerned about tone, and the complaint against Cliff that started this whole thing wasn't about tone, but about substance. The Spectrum crowd didn't like it when Cliff popped in and said something that can be paraphrased as, "you guys are mainly good for showing the larger church how far out the left is." It was not the tone, it was the substance of that remark that enraged the Spectrumites. They don't consider themselves far out, and they don't like Cliff saying they are.
The relevance of Pastor Coffin's feud with "the GC six", which he made public, is what it, and the fact that he chose to make it public, tells me about Pastor Coffin. He presumes to very publicly woodshed Clifford Goldstein for lapses of judgment regarding public comments, but it strikes me that perhaps Pastor's Coffin's own judgment regarding what to publish on the Internet is impaired.
Maggie,
If I acted like Cliff does visiting this site I would not consider it abusive but appreciate his honesty and reflect on why he called me that...with the meaning I shared with you.
David,
You most certainly did pass on gossip because I was unawares of this public situation at AToday and the "GC 6" till you and Alvin (I actually did not see his comment till you refered back to it with your own additional comments) made it known to me and others here who may not have previously known it. It seemed an obvious counter on your part to Jim for his criticising Cliff. Love seeks to hide not broadcast. Seems to me that Lincoln may have been one of the first "to broadcast."
regards,
pat
You're not losing your mind and I've said the same all along, David.
The TSDAs are backed against the wall in a very complex, no-win situation and are pounced on and every word parsed when they open their mouths.
That's not a justification of uncivil speech on either side, but none of this is happening in a vacuum, which people are only starting to speak of now, thank God.
I suggest that in a no-win situation, the wise thing is for no one to try to win. There is nothing worth winning in such a struggle. The spoils will be sawdust and ruin.
People have a right to their consciences and beliefs, and no amount of shaming will change that.
The responsibility for tolerance falls on those with the broadest outlook. Is that not true?
So it's alright for you to call Cliff names because you're self-evidently right, but since he's obviously wrong, he doesn't get to call other people names?
Am I getting there, Pat?
I just don't get justifying calling other people derogatory names.
That seems like the *same kind of behaviour* that you are criticizing!
I've seen Cliff scapegoated like this for many, many years, and I don't think the explanation lies on the surface, somehow....
Anyone remember Paul publicly calling out his peer Peter?
Did he call him a jerk? If Paul did something, did that make it right?
You're not gonna stand here and quote Scripture to justify calling Cliff a jerk, are you, Pat.
Tell me u r not gonna do that.
Maggie,
What part of my definition of Cliff on this site was a "false witness?"
pat
You are justifying calling Cliff a jerk. Unbelievable.
I am not justifying it. It is self evident.
Believe it.
Would it be more acceptible to use Christ's words of hypocrite?
regards,
pat
There is something going on here, and I don't understand it, but it's not on the surface.
One again, both David and Bob, pick and choose. In point of fact Cliff did address specific people: Me, Andrew and Alex. At first you claimed he did not, when I pointed out that he had, you ignored it and continue to ignore it.
David you may not be concerned about tone, but based on the EGW quote from this past Sabbath School lesson she sure seemed to think it was important. Further, there was not substance in Cliff's first or subsequent postings. It was simply you guys are terrible.
I hate going back to this because this is not about Cliff he and have chatted and we are fine. It is about the reality that when one you perceive to be your own behaves badly you are unwilling to apply what Scripture said. It is your double standard that I find baffling.
All I am looking for here is just one tiny little hint that the conservatives are willing to admit that they also can and sometimes do step over the line and when it happens they will hold their own accountable.
Perhaps, this could be added to one more reason why I see perfection theology as so destructive to the church. It is so important to seem right all of the time that even when wrong is obvious, they cannot admit it.
In the grip of grace.
Steve Moran
What is "going on" is some of us don't approve of "jerk behavior." Other than that Cliff holds no special meaning to me and I actually hold more in common theologically with him than most on Spectrum but his methods are despicable.
Posted by: Steve Moran | 24 January 2011 at 3:01
All I am looking for here is just one tiny little hint that the conservatives are willing to admit that they also can and sometimes do step over the line and when it happens they will hold their own accountable.
Why the need to polarize this way, Steve? Why do battle lines have to be drawn?
Their own? What can you, Pastor Moran, possibly mean by that?
There is one body and one Spirit – just as you were called to one hope when you were called – one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
If someone can step over a line, it's because we drew it. Where did Christ draw His line?
Perhaps its time to stop looking for excuses in the Bible, Jesus' life and Adventist history to justify our behaviour or that of others...
Perhaps its time to leave religion and religious battles behind for a time...
Perhaps its time to stop trying to change everyone else...
Perhaps its time to realise that a lot of what is going on is, like Maggie say, under the surface...
Perhaps its time to look inside rather than at liberal and conservative scapegoats and see what is being triggered in our own selves...
Much heat and fire is coming not so much from words on a computer screen that we like or don't like, but rather from having our "buttons" triggered and something deep within being threatened or feeling out of control...
Perhaps...
Maggie perhaps you are right. I am just really struggling with the superior attitude of a number of the conservatives who post here. They complain that the the liberals have low or no standards. They suggest that they are the ones who really read and trust and follow Scripture, but then when it is one of their own they turn tail on what they claim is of highest value.
I think you are right, it is not necessary to keep pounding on the obvious.
In the grip of grace
Steve Moran
I don't think you got my drift, Steve, but I do believe you're in the grip of grace. :)
As Josh just said,
Perhaps its time to look inside rather than at liberal and conservative scapegoats and see what is being triggered in our own selves...
Sirje Walkowiak wrote:
Glenn and Gabe,
Maybe what we're dealing with here is "growth". There comes a time when the kid needs to leave the family home. The cozy bed, the home-cooked meals, the free entertainment have all been nice, but the time has come to grow up and form a life of his own. That's not to say the roots don't bind - still. We were fed and cared for and all of what that gave us, we take with us. Maybe someday the old homestead will feel warm and comforting again - who knows.
----------------------
Very true Sirje!
I've often seen my religious journey as being like growing up and leaving home. My experience did have some valuable aspects, which is why I drop in to visit people, places and events from time to time. But I have no desire to move back in. I've grown up and formed a life of my own, as you put it. Some of the better humanistic values I gained in my Adventist growing up are what have led me to transcend Adventism and create a meaningful life beyond the adventist homestead fence.
And I bet Cliff is sitting back on enjoying every minute of this!
Your Friend,
You asked for quotes to back up my statement that you are among those who “argue that people should leave the church or leave the Spectrum forum.” I responded by asking you to clarify your position, since if I had misunderstood the tenor of your many posts, I was willing to be corrected. However, you have chosen not to state your position, and argue that the burden of proof is on me and if I don’t respond, the readers can be the judge as to the veracity of my allegations.
Oh well, I tried. Here goes. These statements may not make the argument in exactly the words I used above, but I think readers can judge for themselves whether or not they show acceptance of diversity on this forum and in the church, or if instead they seek to marginalize and exclude those church employees, members, and non-members who don’t share your views. As Mike has pointed out, you have posted a lot; I only had time and space to select a few. Text in brackets [] are my additions/commentary.
--------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ---------
SDA tent is huge one? Isn't there a statement about "narrow is the way?" No huge tent there.
Posted by: Your Friend | 31 May 2010 at 5:09
How long do they need? In the meantime how many souls are being taught lies? There has been sufficient time to weed out those who don't adhere to SDA doctrine.
Posted by: Your Friend | 28 May 2010 at 5:37
If Steve does not accept the church's stand on homosexual behavior should he not consider resigning his leadership positions in the SDA church? Wouldn't that be the honorable action?
Isn't it parallel in principle to Darwinian Adventists whom, Cliff rightly suggested, should properly consider their positions.
Posted by: Your Friend | 08 October 2010 at 1:09
It puzzles me why those who are no longer SDA or who are atheists frequent this blog and attempt to tell us how the SDA church should or should not operate or what it should believe….I would not think of blogging on a site which represented my former church and tell them what to believe or belittle their convictions. If I no longer accepted the Bible as represented by the SDA church I would leave in an instant.
Posted by: Your Friend | 08 April 2010 at 4:57
(quoting Amie White) “And you, Jared and Alex, would do better not to hide behind SDA culture, when you show contempt for core SDA doctrines and very much ascribe to atheistic/agnostic thinking and belief. Your fruits betray you. Speaking of honesty, get some. Pray for some. Perhaps start by leaving the comfort of your SDA sham, and try being big fish in a big world instead.”
How true, how true.
Posted by: Your Friend | 11 September 2009 at 11:03
And, Chuck, if you do not wholeheartedly accept the SDA church doctrine on this matter [6x24x6000 creation] how can you in good conscience accept a salary from the SDA church?
Posted by: Your Friend | 01 January 2011 at 11:06
Frankly, Jim, I would not enter a Catholic blog, if there is such a thing, and attempt to educate them as to the error of their ways. That's just not kosher!! [taking Father Jim to task for posting on the Spectrum blog]
Posted by: Your Friend | 25 December 2010 at 3:01
One wonders how anyone with Chuck's outlook can successfully function as an SDA educational leader. This is not an ad hominem attack at all. I have met Chuck and he is an affable fellow. However, his theology is so far left that it is surprising he can take his salary in good conscience. [another dishonorable fellow]
Posted by: Your Friend | 29 August 2010 at 5:57
Alex-
As I have previously suggested why not go forward with you own brand of religion in a newly established church?
Posted by: Your Friend | 03 July 2010 at 11:53
Your Friend, (cont'd.)
Pluralism in religion, which actually is a form of diversity, has no room in the SDA church and produces confusion and disenchantment.
Posted by: Your Friend | 17 November 2010 at 10:46
…if I did not accept Creation as shown in Scripture (although some will wrest it) I would immediately request that my name be removed from the membership rolls of the SDA church and not inject my thoughts here or on any other pseudo SDA blog. [hint to evolutionists…please disappear!]
Posted by: Your Friend | 17 June 2010 at 9:56
I have thought about it and someone mentioned a venue that I had already concluded was a viable one for those who are energetically attempting to change Adventistism.
How about the Unitarian Universalist church? It sounds like it might be a perfect fit. Any takers?
Posted by: Your Friend | 20 June 2010 at 2:40
If the writer and others are so distressed by the stands the SDA church takes on issues such as WO and the practice of homosexual relations one wonders why they don't start a church of their own??
Posted by: Your Friend | 18 June 2010 at 5:18
Really, who cares what Barth thought? And, Chuck [Scriven], isn't it time that you start earning your money by accepting SDA church doctrine? Your remarks concerning Cliff are out of order and you ought to realize that.
Posted by: Your Friend | 05 February 2010 at 11:56
In my view most of what I have seen of [Don] Schneider's writings and speeches relate to increasing the membership of the SDA church. I may have missed it but I cannot recall any emphasis on quality; I doubt that I need to explain that. [Yes, I think we understand what you mean].
Posted by: Your Friend | 16 April 2010 at 7:41
Pluralism is not a viable method to either establish unity nor to show others the Living Way. Nor is rebellion. And there are specific Bible injunctions that serve us well but many of us prefer to go our own way. I took a solemn vow as a teenager at baptism and when I no longer can honor that vow honor dictates that I ask to have my name removed as a member of the SDA church. [hint…if you disagree and don’t leave, you are dishonorable]
Posted by: Your Friend | 22 August 2009 at 1:37
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?
Posted by: Your Friend | 15 August 2008 at 9:15
Let's broaden the scope as to appropriate instruction at SDA educational institutions. I can think of a couple "professors" who are not in the scientific field who might receive their walking papers if I were emperor!! We err if we believe unacceptable instruction is limited to science.
Posted by: Your Friend | 05 June 2009 at 6:42
It seems that the essence of this discussion boils down to a dislike for the corporate church, namely the SDA church. One can only wonder why certain participants seem to delight in impugning beliefs and practices of the SDA church. Love it or leave it!
Posted by: Your Friend | 31 July 2008 at 11:25
How does honesty represent "anti-intellectualism"? When one signs on as a prof in the SDA church he should already know what its beliefs are and if his belief system is contrary to the tenets of the church he should not sign on. It's as simple as that.
Further, if, after being employed, he finds his belief system is no longer consistent with church doctrine, honesty demands he find another job. One does not have to be an Einstein to understand that nor is it "anti-intellectualism" to expect honesty in the educational system participants.
Posted by: Your Friend | 05 June 2009 at 3:01
I still continue to wonder why those of you who promote the Spectrumite views of what the church should be don't start your own churches??
Posted by: Your Friend | 14 October 2009 at 11:41
Cliff writes: "I admit that I find the liberal perspective in Adventism utterly illogical, contradictory and impossible for me to comprehend. I think to myself when I read some of this stuff, Why do these people bother with Adventism?"
That has long been my own thesis. Maybe someone can give a lucid response without muddying the water with obscure allusions.
Posted by: Your Friend | 16 June 2008 at 9:34
Very bad sir, and not supportable. I still wonder why you haunt this blog??
Posted by: Your Friend | 24 July 2009 at 12:06
Your Friend,
You'll probably blow off all the above quotes much as Goldstein has ignored Coffin's past advice. However, in case you think I am alone in interpreting your comments as suggesting that those who disagree with you should leave the church, here are a couple quotes from those who have said the same in the past and you have ignored.
Here is Nic Samojluk’s response to you on Aug. 16, 2008 at 1:12.
“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.”
Or again, here is KM's response on 31 July 2008 at 11:42...
"Love it or leave it! Fall in line with me or go away! Nice."
If you don't realize how you are coming across, I hope you'll now understand. If you do realize it, then why did you demand quotes to justify my remarks? Just state your position directly as I asked. (It's OK; we won't ask you to leave).
Posted by: Josh | 24 January 2011 at 3:17
Perhaps its time to look inside rather than at liberal and conservative scapegoats and see what is being triggered in our own selves...
Much heat and fire is coming not so much from words on a computer screen that we like or don't like, but rather from having our "buttons" triggered and something deep within being threatened or feeling out of control...
Perhaps...
James 1:
From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even from your lusts that war in your members?
David you may not be concerned about tone, but based on the EGW quote from this past Sabbath School lesson she sure seemed to think it was important.
Steve, I want to write and argue about the substantive issues that divide liberals and conservatives. I really can't imagine anything that interests me less than getting into a whining contest along the lines of, "ooh, you guys aren't abiding by Ellen White's counsel regarding your style of argumentation."
If it will make you feel better, I hereby resolve to try to take the high road and not call people jerks, stupid, miscreants, etc. I may not always succeed, but when I fail, I do not want to be beaten about the head with Ellen White by someone whose principal project in life is to get the Adventist Church to somehow incorporate Darwinism into its doctrine.
I have no words to express my impression of this article. I am really contemplating on not reading spectrum any more. Things like this turn many background readers off. For sure I am one of them. Off to read more character building literature.
Maggie,
I wonder if you have ever considered that it is possible to "lust" for a "false peace" when no peace exist?
"Peace" is not always the highest priority, but the way we approach others in our "anger" is of utmost importance.
Isa.30:10;Jer.6:14;1 Thess. 5:3
regards,
pat
David Read
Just exactly where would you put "snide" in your taxonomy--high road or low road? Webster's defines it as "unworthy of esteem, slyly disparaging, insulting!" Seems your closing line fits like a glove.
I am a creationist, yet I fall within the scope of Cliff's ire and apparently your contempt.
I strongly support and agree with Jim's advice. During my involvement with Spectrum's web-site, I have found him the most cogent of contributors. His comments are always meat in due season. With the talent and opportunity that is Cliff's, he would do well indeed to heed Jim's counsel. Cliff should consider it as did Peter when Paul gave him some strong words of advice. If one reads Peter's letters, one finds a strong influence from a Pauline view point.
Cliff is young enough and talented enough to make a strong talented leader in Christianity. Brow beating should be beneath him.
I have a minimum high regard for those who hide within the membership of Seventh-day Adventism and attempt to make doctrinal change from within. However, that is exactly the advice I was given by the President of the North American Division when I decided to resign my membership.
Tom Z
Pat, I suggest we all leave derogatory name-calling to the historical Jesus since He is, well, God, and knew how to do it right.
I think if we do that simple thing, we won't be called to task in the Judgment for lusting after false peace.
I don't think we'll need the Blood of Jesus to cover the sin of not calling each other ugly, pejorative names to express our righteous anger.
I could be wrong, of course, and you are free to characterize your brothers and sisters in any fashion you feel God is leading you.
I have a minimum high regard for those who hide within the membership of Seventh-day Adventism and attempt to make doctrinal change from within. However, that is exactly the advice I was given by the President of the North American Division when I decided to resign my membership.
Tom Z
Posted by: Tom Zwemer | 24 January 2011 at 5:41
===========================================
I am often at odds with just about everything that Tom says on this board except for two areas. His willingness to admit to the Bible position on a literal 7 day Creation week and his stand on the issue above regarding the "high road" that should be taken by those who make blatant statements that they no longer accept the doctrinal foundation unique to Adventism.
I am sure there are a number of Presbyterian or Baptist fellowship groups that would love to have them. And they would be blessed by not having to carp and whine about Adventists all the time - they could simply strongly support the group that they are in.
in Christ,
Bob
___________________________________________
"The Truth shall make you free" John 8:32
___________________________________________
"The Truth shall make you free" John 8:32
think I have to agree with Gabe and Sirje back at 3:29 above...
..."There comes a time when the kid needs to leave the family home. ... Maybe someday the old homestead will feel warm and comforting again - who knows...Sirje
----------------------
I've often seen my religious journey as being like growing up and leaving home. My experience did have some valuable aspects, which is why I drop in to visit people, places and events from time to time. But I have no desire to move back in. I've grown up and formed a life of my own"...Gabe
apparently, there comes a time to leave home...and whether or not you were mistreated there, its usually good to visit for olde tymes sake and the pot luck friendships. go out into the world and discover and understand things for yourself. everybody learns best from their own mistakes after all according to Voltaire.
he even said:
"if faut meme tuer un admiral de temps en temps pour encourager les autres"
I used to think of the Church as part of my family, but once impugned for my lack of childish faith after seeing the Grand Canyon, then thought of as a scientific black sheep because there are more bristle cone pine tree rings than Ussher can accommodate, or worse, being labeled a spiritual wolf in sheep's clothing for questioning the generosity of the "second death", or after being "asked to leave" on this very forum (ie, be thrown over the Cliff) by those mentally stuck in 16th century science and triple millennium BC concepts, it only seems fair to let the "trubeeleevers" have their way and employ their exclusive right to dis-invite me from their club....
as Groucho implied....why would I want to be a member of any cult, ah, club whose standards are so crazy as to accept me anyway!!!
but I was educated within the SDA system...18 yrs of being told what not how to think...but still managed to grow to be a teacher...to not hide light under a basket, and I hate to see myth, ignorance and superstition triumph over truth, reason, history, archeology, paleontology, biology, genetics, astronomy, oceanography, ..etc.
I had hoped to help my "family" understand that maybe there WAS an Eden
http://ldolphin.org/eden/
as well as a "flood", thanks more to Milankovitch than Gore or Noah,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
just not with a mythical wooden barge filled with methane from sloths from Central America who couldn't swim the Pacific to get there, and platy pusses from OZ who, upon their release, after Noah sacrificed several of them because the Hebrews later somehow thought they were unclean, the survivors all managed to dog paddle back to OZ, and ONLY OZ, and nowhere else, escaping all the predators on the way, with no food or fresh water. But while the dinos missed the ark and were all buried under the iridium layer 65 mya, somehow thousands of rhinos were buried more recently under Yellowstone hotspot ash 12 mya with zero evidence of any flood not two daze ride by conestoga from our college in Neb....
http://ashfall.unl.edu/
but, alas, apparently official family policy will continue to maintain that the unreasonable, unscientific, and unbelievable MUST be believed by faith against all evidence in order to remain in the family. So while history and archeology and photos of the pyramids with no flood damage on them continue to unsupport a basic fundy precept, its me who has to leave because the family patriarchs who have failed to understand and ADJUST TO the new evidence accuse me as a non beeleeever... and since they wont accept any change in their dogma, and since they have copyrighted the club's name, its me who must AUTODAFE MYSELF or DEPART.
that's why my edress is now John8Verse32 at eh? oh he!! dot com...and now I understand the meaning differently than Bob:
ye shall learn the truth, and be set free or kicked out.
they (those who want to "conserve" the old beliefs) do not want to be confused with new facts or evidence. They like what they have, and want to keep it. So as Maggie has pointed out, over and again, why should we take it away from them by offering "new interpretations" and "new evidences" which could latter rain on their parade.
As long as they don't try to kill non believers all by themselves in the hereandnow as some of the harshest of un-fun die-mentalists seem motivated to do, it may be preferable that our "family" friends are at least willing to wait ALBEIT IMPATIENTLY for their Loving God to later kill everybody but the proverbial 144,000 standing in a perfect square 379.47 per side.
maybe its time for some of us (if not the church) to split
and as far as the issues hanging by this thread?
“I've had a wonderful time, but this wasn't it”
but, like Maggie, and Groucho Marx , I could be wrong.
mof, I think we all need to reserve that right.
where there's a will and a heavy counterbalance, there's a way.
http://www.wimp.com/mastbridge/
Maggie,
If the worse derogatory name calling "of jerk behavior/mentality" that I am ever called or call someone I would consider that a plus.
I do not know your complete background but it seems you have great discomfort for any confrontation or necessity for confrontation in problem solving. I simply don't feel that people grow in that environment.
There are times when confrontation is necessary in healthy relationships when it seems apparent that someone is showing a complete disregard for what contributes to a healthy relationship.
As you have suggested, we each may have different methods that seem necessary to us.
regards,
pat
Pat said: There are times when confrontation is necessary in healthy relationships when it seems apparent that someone is showing a complete disregard for what contributes to a healthy relationship.
Okay, Pat, you asked for it. Entertainment is over.
Jim needs to be confronted about his blog, "Justice denied," written for the whole world to see, in which he protects himself by refusing to give details of accusations made by his brother-in-law, while going on at length about the refusal of GC headquarters to champion his cause. We must take his word that he has done nothing inappropriate, and that the problem lies with six GC leaders who have all refused to help him cope with the false accusations of his relative.
Meanwhile, even though he keeps back information about his own alleged "wrongdoings" (now it is all left to the fevered imagination) Jim apparently has no compunction about throwing his wife under the bus. He spreads out her dirty laundry, telling the world about her nonexistent relationship with her father. The picture he presents to the world of her is that she continued to apparently carry a grudge against her father, for she refused to attend his funeral, and he, Pastor Jim, and their sons chose to remain away from the funeral. Great Christian love and forgiveness evidenced here!
Frankly, Jim, what exactly was the purpose of exposing your wife's dirty laundry in this manner, anyway? I have no idea. But it does throw much light on your ability to write the way you did about Cliff Goldstein. I mean, if you cannot respect your wife's privacy, then certainly Cliff does not stand a chance, especially since you cannot take the heat in the kitchen. You seem unable to remain silent when accused, bristling and defending your own rights, taking action when God has said, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay." And what about the example of "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do"?
Personally, I think Jim Coffin is a discredit to the ministry and he lowers the tone of this forum. But then, as a newbie here, I may be now discovering that maybe Spectrum has been functioning at the level of Jim Coffin all along..... Sigh.
Thompson,
Jim can speak for himself and defend himself on the other issue. My complaint is that some imposed that issue on this strand/site which was in regards to Cliff's behavior.
If one chooses to confront Jim on what was written on AToday there fine. It has nothing to do with the issue of what Jim legitimately said "in confrontation" here. It is "not fair" to impose that issue here...in fact I suggest cowardice and vindictive.
It's like court cases that do not allow previous issues to be entered as evidence. This is a separate issue standing on it's own merits.
regards,
pat
@ Glenn: Sorry I did not respond sooner. I had some business in town.
In regards to the fundamentals of fundamentalism you shared: I know the church has its 28 fundamental beliefs and its interpretations thereof. However, I also have a personal faith and responsibility. I cannot accept a 6000 year old earth when Jericho is clearly much older than that. I don't believe that homosexuals are going to pay a higher price for sin than any of the rest of us. (See Romans 3:23 and 6:23). To say that homosexuality is sin is to over simplify what sin really is and what condition we all are in. If every homosexual were to no longer practice homosexuality today, they would still be sinners. They would still be under a death sentence as are we all. Simple logic tells us then that there is a far deeper issue than homosexuality that we must deal with.
On the mystery of the death of Jesus and the atonement, I plead only John 3:17.
Am I a fundamentalist, or is that a convenient way to label people, like calling them liberal or conservative or even homosexual so we can pride our selves that thank God we are not as one of them?
Thomson, earlier in this thread, I posted 4 links that will provide you with some insight about the way things work within the Church structure. A couple of the links are about high-level individuals accused by the Church of personal indiscretions. In both cases, each pled innocent, and produced substantial evidence of it as well as providing motives for the false charge. Yet neither man was able to clear his name or to receive due process (at the very least you would think a Christian organization would uphold due process particularly if they were truly guilty of the charge, but if they were innocent). One of the other links is the autobiography of a wealthy individual who donated millions to the Church, and chronicles the shabby way he was dealt with over a period of many years. None of these stories are uplifting, and frankly are quite depressing.
The point of this is that the place where you would hope all parties would be striving to do the right thing—many times doesn’t happen. Because the government has a largely hands off policy with respect to churches, means that members and employees sometimes experience a form of justice that would never be tolerated by the law outside the walls of the Church. Let me close with a question, if a Church official publicly defamed you, and Church administrators refused to rectify the situation, and having little legal recourse because it occurred in the context of the Church, what would you do?
Maggie, imagine if Pat Travis really lost it and started writing that your posts, Maggie, here on these Spectrum blogs were "ludicrous rants" and referred to you as a "Spectrum Jackall", and then said that you had "no moral integrity whatsoever", and talked about you as a "spiritual miscreant and misfit", "a biased claptrap", "extremist", "wako left", "wacky left"; wouldn't you feel a little bit bullied by Pat Travis?
This is precisely how Pastor Jim has felt. If you will objectively read Jim's article, you will see that he does not resort to words anywhere close to those despicable words used by Dr. Clifford Goldstein in referring to you and to me.
Cheers,
Mike
P.S. Pat's actual term seems kind of mild, doesn't it?
@ Stephen,
Thanks for your comments and I take your general point about labels, although they are hard to avoid.
My point was that people who do not hold to the traditional views of the Adventist should not be working by subterfuge to undermine the political power of people who hold those traditional views.
If you can be open and honest about your beliefs and promote them as the way the church should go that would be great. And IMHO the church will only retain any relevance if it does move forward with the rest of humanity in our search for a rational truth – contra David Read who seems to be stuck in the past with the rest of the current GC Administration.
Adventists are entitled of course to hold whatever views they feel compelled to believe. But when you have decided, for example, that evolution is the best explanation for the development of life on earth and you are an employee of the church, that obviously puts you in a difficult position. These people cannot be open about their views because they would lose their jobs in most cases. So what happens - they take the view that they are in an intellectually superior position and the church needs them to be able progress the light of truth as they see it. So they have to go underground. They are very careful what they say to whom. They are very careful how they word their conversations with people they do not know. This in my view breeds dishonesty and erodes intellectual integrity.
Some of you people may have had a different experience, but even as non-employees it is very difficult to be a progressive thinking person in the church, because if you are honest and up-front about your beliefs, in most areas you will be regarded as ‘suspect’. (I know this does not necessarily apply in areas such as Avondale College in Australia or Loma Linda or La Sierra in the US, because in these places the progressives are in the dominant position.)
I think you are being slightly disingenuous with your comments on homosexuality - trying to just slip it in with all the other sins. Obviously most Pastors are sinners, but are not sacked for it. Trying adding homosexuality to their list of sins and they would be out in quick time. So there is obviously a bigger issue with homosexuality …..
You asked earlier what I thought people like you should do. Not for me to say. I understand completely the desire not to do damage to one’s family and social circles by leaving the church. But if you can’t stay and be an open and honest person ……… I‘ll leave that up to you. I left and it was the best decision I ever made. Many of my family and friends are still SDA’s so I retain in interest in what is happening in the church.
And IMHO the church will only retain any relevance if it does move forward with the rest of humanity in our search for a rational truth – contra David Read who seems to be stuck in the past with the rest of the current GC Administration.
Glenn, the opposite is true. The church will have no relevance whatsoever if it becomes just another of the many liberal churches. Those churches have made conformity to the world their calling card, but they are hemorrhaging members and becoming increasingly irrelevant. There message has been reduced to politics (and political correctness at that), and people have figured out that they can stay home on Sunday morning and watch "Meet the Press" and get the same content.
I respect those of you, like you and Gabe, who having lost the faith have had the decency and good sense to move on with their lives. I don't respect those who have lost the faith yet intend to hang around and try to force the church to conform to their infidelity. They are a mortal threat to the church and I will oppose them accordingly.
(I know this does not necessarily apply in areas such as Avondale College in Australia or Loma Linda or La Sierra in the US, because in these places the progressives are in the dominant position.)
Posted by: Glenn Weare
Glenn, your insights here remind me of some of the discussion that has actually taken place right here on this blog as a matter of fact, about the idea that one of Spectrum's goals is to "change the church", "bring it down", etc. Maggie suggested that: "This site is pretty much weighted to taking down traditional Adventism."
What we should bear in mind is the fact that Spectrum is simply a voice to think and not be a "reflector of other mens thoughts." Spectrum is composed of representatives from all of the SDA colleges and universities; and so naturally controversial ideas are going to be kicked around and discussed.
So the idea of conservatives suggesting that the progressives get out of the church is ridiculous! What are they suggesting to close the SDA Colleges and Universities or do they want them to become Weimars or Wildwoods or Hartland Institutes?
Jim can speak for himself and defend himself on the other issue. My complaint is that some imposed that issue on this strand/site which was in regards to Cliff's behavior.
If one chooses to confront Jim on what was written on AToday there fine. It has nothing to do with the issue of what Jim legitimately said "in confrontation" here. It is "not fair" to impose that issue here...in fact I suggest cowardice and vindictive.
It's like court cases that do not allow previous issues to be entered as evidence. This is a separate issue standing on it's own merits.
Posted by: pat travis | 24 January 2011 at 8:02
I must disagree. Jim website is not an example of holding his "light" under a bushel.
If he didn't want the exposure it would have been gone by now since it happened years ago.
In fact putting things on the web is designed to get the biggest exposure possible. There are no passords required to see it.
It seems he would be thanking whoever posted the link for the free press.
Web is web, public is public and if your reasoning made any sense you would be insisting that Jim should have confronted Cliff on the same thread he encountered the "infraction" instead of writing an entire artical on it.
Since you refer to using court examples you should know that the veracity of a witness (let alone a self appointed prosecuter) is subject to cross examination that would tend to show light on the witnesses bias.
Michael
Mike M., just so you know, I've been called insulting things like that, and worse, for years and years on the internet by a forum moderator and others. I've had my posts regularly moved to threads with derogatory, ridiculing names made just for me, etc.
I found that it was a great impetus to find a way not to be reactive, but rather to think what my goals were regarding my place in the Body of Christ, and to try to express myself more clearly toward the end of healing the social fabric.
The "he hit me first" argument may be legally righteous, but does it take us where we need and want to go?
I'm not saying, "Tsk, tsk, bad boy, wash out your mouth with soapy water." I'm not being a moralist here. And it's not just about the words themselves, because emotional violence can come through "gentle" language.
I'm saying:
What is the social result of emotionally reactive language, whether rough or refined?
Where does it lead?
How do we want this story to turn out?
When we start parsing which derogatory names are appropriate to use on whom, and when, that is a flag that we've lost the storyline of Christ building His lively Temple, it seems to me.
This may be the inevitable result of buying into the Great Controversy story in the literal way Adventism has, I think.
Adventism has a crime-and-punishment emphasis which cannot help but divide heart from heart and create an atmosphere where it seems only right to hang each other out to flap in the breeze of public humiliation, as Ellen White did, unfortunately, I think.
I feel very sad about that. There are plenty of resources in Ellen White's writing, the Bible, the culture, and the Spirit working on our own hearts which could help set us on a tenderer path with each other, wherein God can win the Great Controversy through means we don't yet imagine.
We always have choices.
@ Glenn: Thanks for your response. I think you have hit the nail on the head. I am not a denominational employee so I can think what I want and not suffer much for it. After all, church is not life, it is only a part of it and sometimes not all that relevant to the real world. While individuals may not be nominated to church office if the opposing faction is on the nominating committee, who cares? It only affects me for a few hours on Sabbath and then even not all that much. Jesus held no church office and was actively opposed by the church leadership, but he continued to attend anyway. I'm not Jesus, but I understand what He was trying to model.
However, if I were a denominational employee and did not agree with my employer, then I might want to consider working elsewhere. I would do that whether my employer were secular or religious. I have a right to be happy in my job, and they have a right to expect loyal employees. I don't care whether the employer is Burger King or a local church conference, it is all the same.
The difficulty comes when a person is employed in an area that can only be with the denomination such as a pastor. There are few other denominations seeking SDA trained pastors. But even there, the blame is not all the denomination's. Pastors should get a degree meaningful to a secular employer so they and their families are not hostage to whatever group might wield political power in the church at the moment. This should be the case whether the person is conservative or liberal. Political biases can swing back and forth like a pendulum. If they fail to do this, they are putting themselves into a position where their integrity is hostage to the system.
@ Stephen
Couldn't agree more about Pastor's having other qualifications!
Jesus stood up against a system that prescribed how people behaved.
Jesus stood up against a system that prescribed how people whould believe.
Jesus stood up against a system that didn't give people the choice in coming up with their own values and behavioural choices.
Jesus stood up against a system that demanded perfection.
Jesus stood up against a system that didn't give people the chance to go on their own journey of spiritual understanding.
Jesus stood up against a system that sacrificed people for the sake of the organisation and its prescribed beliefs and behaviours.
Jesus stood up against a system that treated those who were different poorly.
Jesus was thrown out of his place of worship. He was not wanted in his religious organizarion.
Jesus was considered too radical.
Jesus was a threat to the mainstream conserfatives.
Jesus is a challenge to any and all religions today, even though many claim him as their own.
Jesus would be a challenge and be challenged if he walked our church as he walked Israel of old.
Sorry for mutliple posts, my internet connection froze and it didn't seem like anything was going through. Whoops!
>>> The church will have no relevance whatsoever if it becomes just another of the many liberal churches
No-one is asking for the SDA Church to do that.
There are lots of unique/unusual aspects of the SDA denomination that are worth keeping.
> The state of the dead
> The second coming
> Healthy living is a part of religion
> Making the Sabbath a special day
> Resisting the Pope and other organizations attempts to dominate Christianity
> The standard SDA position on writers being inspired, not the Books, and hence the books require interpretation and can have mistakes
> ...
The "Seventh Day Darwinians" are simply asking that the denomination drop the opposition to science based on an over-application of literalism
Other groups also want the denomination to drop the extremely dubious and poorly supported fringe doctrines/practices
- 1844 and some details of the IJ
- the specific listing of unhealthy foods that lack scientific validity
- mistreatment of women
- attacks on gays
Other changes the denomination has already made
- no longer explicitly attacks contemporary catholics
- opposition to board games, novels, and playing cards
- allows wedding rings
If some changes have been made, why can't others?
/Bevin
Jan Long asked: if a Church official publicly defamed you, and Church administrators refused to rectify the situation, and having little legal recourse because it occurred in the context of the Church, what would you do?
I am not big enough to merit being publicly defamed, so I can only imagine myself in that position and imagine what I would do. I would hope that my strength in the Lord would be such that should such a thing happen to me, I would present my evidence in my defense, but then if I got no redress, I would have to move on. Brethren should not take each other to court, and some things will never be righted on this earth. So I would just have to leave it in God's hands. He says, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay."
At a much lower level, I myself have received poor treatment from certain members of the church who were in leadership position. What have I done about it? Nothing. That's life. No need to air my grievance. I have left my hurt and my disappointment in God's hands and hold no grudges because I understand that this is what comes with the territory of sin. Sometimes others, in their weakness, will offend. Sometimes I will, in my weakness offend. I can't change others. But I can learn to become a bastion of peace in the midst of the storm.
"Jim needs to be confronted about his blog, "Justice denied," written for the whole world to see, in which he protects himself by refusing to give details of accusations made by his brother-in-law, while going on at length about the refusal of GC headquarters to champion his cause. We must take his word that he has done nothing inappropriate, and that the problem lies with six GC leaders who have all refused to help him cope with the false accusations of his relative.
Meanwhile, even though he keeps back information about his own alleged "wrongdoings" (now it is all left to the fevered imagination) Jim apparently has no compunction about throwing his wife under the bus."
It is clear that you have not read all the material or analyzed this properly, Thomsen. Whether Coffin did in fact do anything bad or not is not the point. The problem is that other church employees (of whose family problems are NONE of their business) were given slanderous accusations about Coffin.
That right there is a no-no. It is the Conferences problem to make it right. Coffin is fully justified in seeking justice in this matter regardless of whether he is wicked through and through. This is something many church folk don't seem to understand about the real word and ethics in employment. If he in fact did do something wrong, the GC would have dealt with that or thrown it back in his face. Complacency is not the method one goes about on dealing with that.
Or did Coffin fabricate all the letters from the lawyer and the chairman of Liberty?
Do you really think that Coffin did not have his wife's approval to make this public?
Wow. We are giving Pastor Coffin a lot of credit here. He goes against his wife's wishes, falsely accuses Lincoln of spreading slander when it is all true (they really aren't proper Christians as was basically alleged), he also manages to hide his own indiscretions for two years with nothing coming from the other side showing his guilt. He also manages to fabricate letters and documentation of the whole process including the responses of the GC.
Wow. You are an amazing shyster, Pastor Coffin!
Looks like you need to give your head a shake too, Thomsen.
Pat said: Jim can speak for himself and defend himself on the other issue. My complaint is that some imposed that issue on this strand/site which was in regards to Cliff's behavior.
Pat, are you going to complain against Jan Long, also? He imposed four links of outside information on this thread.
If one chooses to confront Jim on what was written on AToday there fine. It has nothing to do with the issue of what Jim legitimately said "in confrontation" here. It is "not fair" to impose that issue here...in fact I suggest cowardice and vindictive.
I submit that it is very fair to confront Jim on what he has written elsewhere. What he has written elsewhere throws light on what he has written here. It gives context to his confrontation of Cliff.
It's like court cases that do not allow previous issues to be entered as evidence. This is a separate issue standing on it's own merits.
In court, other issues are not allowed to be TRIED along with the current case. But all pertinent information is permitted in order to thoroughly try the current case. The Justice Denied blog is admissible discovery in "trying" this case.
I have wanted to comment on this exchange but the either/or thinking in the comments is so foreign to my both/and perspective that I had trouble putting my thoughts into words.
Bonnie's open letter to all helped me begin to conceptualize what I have been feeling.
I agree with the substance of Jim's comments but I would have used a different tone. Ironically, I think he was attempting to encourage a more civil conversation; but, you cannot fight fire with fire.
As a member of Spectrum's board, I suppose I qualify as one of the liberal's with an agenda that is supposedly becoming clear through this website. As such, I would like to clarify my own liberal vision for the church with an analogy that I borrowed from Ty Gibson.
The majority of church members can be conceived of as the cohesive bulk of a ship. They don't really get into the details of conservative vs. liberal. Instead, they just go about the daily business of being the church. They do however relate a bit more closely to the conservatives who serve as much needed ballast to keep the ship upright and true. The conservatives are in tension with the liberals who serve as sails and are more tenuously connected to the ship. In order to remain anchored within God's word and to catch the wind of the Holy Spirit, all elements must be present and working together.
Liberals who have left like Gabe often talk about the exhilarating freedom they feel as they cut the rigging and soar off into the stratosphere. But, I wonder if they ever regret what they have left behind. Us.
Conservatives like David who are always suggesting that we cut the liberals free talk about the need to remain fixed on our firm foundation. But, if the sea anchor that keeps the ship upright during storms becomes snagged on the sea floor, the ship will not sail and the community is at risk of being dragged down.
God help us, every one.
Elder Coffine wrote what has to be written.
Mr. Goldstein deserves the comment.
Even though I don't think Mr.G will ever get it,
it had to be written for records' sake.
"You asked for quotes to back up my statement that you are among those who “argue that people should leave the church or leave the Spectrum forum.”"RT1
"Good job" as parents today say to kids or the not so classical "you done good."
Your quotes clearly show that I never said anything resembling the above accusation. Also your bracketed material represents your own editorializing and I will not comment on them. The last quote has no context and it would be futile to comment on it.
I have said that should anyone (including me) reject the doctrines of the SDA church he should severe his official membership with the church. I have never suggested that such a person not be welcomed into church attendance. Someone I well knew left the SDA church (had his/her name removed.) After removal he/she continued fellowship with SDAS and even in appearance and general lifestyle could not be distinguished by a onlooker from a practicing SDA.
I have also indicated that if I left the church I would not haunt this blog and try to change the doctrines of the church. Nor would I act in the manner of the proverbial "Fifth Column" and attempt to change doctrine from within. This does not preclude efforts to modify practices which do not impinge on doctrine.
Finally, this blog is not about me but about the inappropriate comments by a churchman who should know better. Someone mentioned Dr Herbert Douglas -- Other than SS Lesson comments and person comments by him on certain blogs I don't recall any major article by him.
Brenton
I must say I think this is a very poor analogy. Analogies are often as good at hiding aspects of a situation as they are at explicating aspects.
Really! The conservatives are the ballast and the liberals are the sails. Sounds homiletically pleasing, but please ..... That's just amusing. The liberal agenda has nothing to do with catching the wind of the Holy Spirit. It has to do with the liberals trying to do justice to the ongoing human process of rational and scientific discovery, and trying to square that with beliefs originating in the 1st and 19th centuries.
On the other issue of people having to leave the church, if they no longer believe the beliefs - what I am arguing is that intellectual honesty is paramount for people who claim to be in some kind of remnant church with a unique message for the world. Intellectual honesty is easy for the people who don't think or have not had the opportunity to be exposed to things that would challenge their thinking ("the cohesive bulk of the church"). But it's not at all easy for church employees subject to the control of conservative administrators. They have a lot to lose - careers, status, friends, even family and of course financial security.
I know many people in this category who are very cagey when you discuss things with them because they don't want to be quoted. This is very sad - the inability to be open and honest. I have found a great degree of defensiveness and insecurity among people who are thinkers but still want to be associated with the church.
The problem with the solution proposed by Your Friend is that if you do, out of honesty, resign your membership or whatever, it is actually very difficult to remain in the fellowship because some conservative members will then view you as suspect and the experience isn't all that pleasant.
Many of us who 'cut the rigging and soar off into the stratosphere' (very clever but mischievous) have actually found ourselves much more 'grounded' with a feeling of solidarity with the broad church of our fellow human beings, but most importantly, we can be true to ourselves - a great feeling.
@Your Friend "I have said that should anyone (including me) reject the doctrines of the SDA church he should severe his official membership with the church."
That sounds a lot like (exactly) like what you are saying you didn't do. Stop the semantical dance and own up to it already.
---
1 Corinthians 13:13
"Liberals who have left like Gabe often talk about the exhilarating freedom they feel as they cut the rigging and soar off into the stratosphere. But, I wonder if they ever regret what they have left behind. Us."
- Brenton
I appreciate your thoughts Brenton.
Your boat metaphor has some insights, but it is still a metaphor to illustrate where your thinking is.
I could say that I am now a sail on some different boats, or actually I'm a kite not a sail or ... !
You wonder whether I regret leaving the "us" behind.
I can only speak for myself. I didn't walk away from everything. I became selective in my life about making the best possible choices for me with my time and acquaintances and spiritual pursuits. I have deep friendships with Adventists. Many deep and meaningful friendships beyond Adventism. I have a range of spiritual experiences that fill me profoundly and enhance my journey of the spirit. Sometimes they are in an Adventist context but not because I believe all the doctrines or share the same worldview, but because of the nature of the experiences themselves. I have found far "healthier" communities to connect with than the Adventist ones I engaged with. I love to engage with young people in expanding their hearts, souls, minds and global perspectives so I spend time with Adventist teenagers and youth on various significant projects, as well as with far more who are not of the sda faith. I love campmeeting, yet I get much and broader fulfilment in a range of events where people come together to learn, to grow, to heal, to share ... My adventist experience gave me a taste of what is possible and I extend that to the best that I can find.
I've discovered that no group has the monopoly on anything, that there are many people and groups with who I belong, that there are many places and experiences that have significance and depth. It's not a matter of either/or. It's simply a matter of seeking the best in any situation.
So no, I don't miss the Us, because the Us is much bigger than Adventism and I find great fulfilment and belong with many of the Us - which includes Adventists.
My journey is not so much about "leaving behind" as going broader, deeper and bigger into the richness of life.
I love the website ....or weblift :)
Your Friend,
You are so predictable! Neither you nor your beliefs can ever be wrong--you are grounded in Truth with a capital "T". You denied that you had said what is obvious to almost everyone else that you did in fact say. To 99% of readers, to "leave the church" does not mean walk out of a building; it means to cease to be a member. That is what I said, and that is what you say you said. Glad we are agreed on that even if you choose to continue disagreeing.
We both agree that you never said non-members shouldn't attend. (That would be a silly conclusion unless Adventists are to stop proselytizing and return to the Closed Door doctrine). But you did say that those who are members but no longer agree with all the church doctrines (presumably as stated in the 28 FBs) should (a) consider joining another denomination like Unitarian Universalists or start their own churches; (b) should no longer be employees; (c) should no longer hold church office [have you ever tried that in a small congregation where everyone including visitors who attend more than twice are drafted into service?!]; (d) risk their honor and integrity if they persist in membership, office or employment, as the only honorable thing to do would be to request one's name to be removed from membership. I think we all understood that by, "Love it or leave it" you were not referring to walking out of a church service or building but were referring to terminating one's membership in the Adventist church. And as for the Spectrum blogs, you suggest that it is "not kosher" for non-members to post things out of line with Adventism, and you can't imagine yourself hanging around this blog if you were not a member.
Your opposition to "big tent" Adventism and pluralism is typical of fundamantalists since they are confident of having The Truth so there is no sense in entertaining the views of those who are not so sure about things. I see it in many others both on the internet, in the media, and in church congregations. My mentioning you (and David Read) in my original posting was not to attack you but to use you as illustrative examples. You've served my purpose well. Thanks, and all the best!
The SAD church is an abomination. It is a self-indulgent, selfish, abusive organisation that is grounded in a time that no longer exists. There is nothing to preserve, except some dessicated, and offensive ideas that do not take into account a pluralistic society.
Pluralism being a product of free choice, and being part of orginal design, it is fatal, and arrogant to expect God to rescind on the offer made at creation.
Face facts. Imperialistic degenerate culture bullies kid no one but themselves. When they are dead and gone, the sad thing will be that they will take it all with them. (Something the SAD chruch has preached we can't do.) So take it. Take it all. And destroy any chance those of us who once loved the church have of establishing meaningful dialogue with you.
For Shame. The SAD church is the church that was once asked by God to kill a lamb, but instead offered vegetables. Thinking being a vegetarian would be enough to acquire salvation.
It's time to close down the comments on this one.