It must be difficult to get everybody back on their tiptoes, awaiting the outpouring of the "latter rain". Since the call is for "restoration" more than "reformation," we should wonder what was so great about the Adventist past that we're called to go back there? If the past had worked as it should have, we wouldn't be here still waiting, would we? (According to SDA eschatology).

It seems that North American conservative Adventism is extremely parochial, which, is historically understandable , but would, also understandably, be problematic for an educated European population. While Luther was German, his influence was universal, without a strictly German biblical significance; while Adventism grew out of a strictly American cultural phenomenon, placing the US square in the middle of the Bible's closing events - falling of the "stars"; the dark day; the US government union with Catholicism; persecution of the "remnant'. Should the entire world be looking at events in North America to determine how and when God deals with a world population? It seems this is an extremely narrow view of God and His actions within a world community. No wonder the word cult keep cropping up.

The pick and choose method of Bible study that supports SDA theology has also impacted it's view of itself. We ignore the fact that the "remnant" come out of a "Laodicean" church. If the SDA church was in "Laodicea" in its past, why call it to go back there? If anything, there should be a call for renewal and re-definition. What's needed is a fresh way of reading and defining the Bible message to the world and to ourselves, since the old one didn't do its job, apparently. The problem is not that we have drifted away from something good and useful, but rather, that we have become stagnate and uninterested, using the same old cliches, and attempting to get the world interested in answers to question no one is now asking.

The call for revival and reformation, as well as the Laodicean label imply that the "remnant" church is messed up. Doesn't this trend discourage mission orientation? Who would want to invite others to a messed up church?

The SDA Sabbath School focus will be on Galatians for the last 3 months of this year.
It will help if some of the denominational powers that be get a clue from....
Galatians 1:6 "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:"

Why would Paul's audience be going to another ..false..gospel? Because, in their mind, they found BETTER news than the "good news"

Why is that the case? Because criminals like gospels which allow them to stay the way they already are. Change is stressful. People who go on diets and try to change lifelong habits know this.

Is anyone keeping count of how many gospels are heard in just the SDA denomination alone?

What does liberal and conservative SDA mean?

Is a liberal SDA a person who trashes EG White, embraces any favorite gospel, wants gay and women pastors, thinks that God took longer than 6 days to make things on Earth, eats anything that can be chewed with teeth, and can chug a pint of Jack Daniels?

Is a conservative SDA a person who condemns everything a liberal SDA thinks and does?

Dr. Trader,

Thank you for this thought-provoking report and analysis.

This past year, I had a couple friends from Germany as house guests and they tried to explain the "liberal"/"conservative" divide in Adventism there. Your explanation of the regional/cultural differences that influence the kind of Adventism that is promulgated is very helpful. It makes me wonder how much this happens in other parts of the world, and how much of Adventism in its "original" form was a product of such factors.

On a side note, here, in the States, as far as I can tell, we do not have much experience/success dialoging with those from the Pietist or Lutheran traditions, so we have much to learn from Germany.

Kevin Paulson-->> The Testimonies to the Church are gossip tales. Why were they made public?

Pastor Paulson

I appreciate your reply.
I wanted to put a guard on your USA analogy.

The SDA church is a narrower experience. Also consider this and validate or modify if you so choose.

http://www.jacksequeira.org/issues01.htm

In Jack's opinion , there are 5 gospels in SDA , one is kosher according to his perspective. Using simple math , which probably isn't valid but is significant...a person has an 80% chance of hearing the wrong gospel.

Next we must consider the nature of Christ issue where some/many will hear or learn the false Jesus.
Also there is the internal discord due to factional infighting.
In the SS class 2 days ago 1/3 of the SS time was off topic arguments between 4 people.

Then we have the diversions of paranoid eschatological sensationalism which so many SDA are affected by..get sidetracked on.

Bottom line, the SDA offers an experience which results in members becoming fanatic, insubordinant , gainsayers , shut out of heaven, 2fold a child of HELL as the pastors. (Rom 10:2&21...Matt 23:13-15)

My experience: I don't invite non SDA to SDA churches. I explain bible to them where I think they are in error. I am embarrassed to invite non-denoms or others to an SDA church..unless the church is holding a competent, health seminar.

Is anyone getting the hint that millions of dollars in tithe go to support pastors and admin peope who proclaim false gospels, false Jesus, neglect bible in pulpits and SS classes....so that thousand can turn out to be fanatic , insubordinant, gainsaying , Jessu rejecting Jew clones?

Want to challenge??

To any challenger...post YOUR defintion or concept of the gospel or nature of Christ and you will see the gainsaying.

Dear Jim R:

I remain intimately familiar with the gospel controversies of modern and postmodern Adventism. I have written in-depth analyses of the teachings of Jack Sequeira and many others. I don't consider these issues confusing except as people make them that way. Those who daily immerse themselves in the Bible and the writings of Ellen White, without seeking to harmonize those writings with the vagaries of human opinion, human scholarship, or human experience, emerge from these discussions quite convinced as to the Biblical accuracy of classic Adventist salvation theology.

I believe the best and most Biblically faithful representations of the gospel found in contemporary Adventism are contained in the writings of such as M.L. Andreasen, Herbert Douglass, Dennis Priebe, and others of similar conviction. These are those who hold that sin is a choice rather than an inborn condition, that Jesus took a fallen human nature in His incarnation, with all its tendencies and desires, that salvation is accomplished by both justifying and sanctifying righteousness, and that the latter will indeed by perfect through divine strength this side of heaven.

The fact that those who hold the opposite perspective on the above issues are generally those seeking a reduced role for the writings of Ellen White in Adventist theological discussions, offers considerable evidence that such advocates know in their heart of hearts that Ellen White's theology gravitates clearly in the direction of classic Adventism, as distinct from its various evangelical alternatives.

I welcome such a conversation. I believe Scripture is as clear as Ellen White in upholding the classic Adventist view of each of the above issues.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

Continuing with the issue related to lay evenagelism/outreach inertia (at rest)

Yesterday, a long time SDA head elder friend from another church asked me to listen to his pastor's recent online sermon. This pastor is no rookie dummy and has a PHD. I am carefully listening, taking notes, as he logically buiids his case to develops what the gospel is and then says, "that's the gospel". He then goes on a couple minutes later and then uses very different words and says again.."that's the gospel". He does this at least 2 more times in just a few minutes. So we have no seminary taught pew warmers who are supposed to learn and or share the gospel which is 4 different things?

Practically speaking... is any devoted, outreach oreineted SDA supposed to have a command of a dozen spins on the gospel?

Gospel -
God is love
The truth about God
God is not like SATAN makes him out to be
Death, burial ,rsurrectiuon of JESUS
God's grace
Power of God
Solution to death problem
Good news
John 3:16...
Selling Jesus

And several definitions from SOP..
Law unfolded...etc

add what I missed

Kevin

Thank you for clearly defining the fundamental theological error of Adventism.

It totally rejects Paul. Most directly in Paul's thesis in Romans 5: 19 "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."

Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit---He was without original sin. Mankind came from the loins of Adam. Sin is rebellion against God. Sins are manifestations of that rebellion. We come forth in rebellion. Christ did not.

Christ declared that He and His Father were one. There was no tension, no rebellion between Him and His Father.

The concept of Christ as the model man is totally demolished by Edward Heppenstall in his book
The God Who is Man.

Is it not strange that when M. L. Andreseason attempted to correct what he saw as errors in the Book Answers to Questions on Doctrine in his Letters to the Churches--that the Church removed his
retirement benefits and Orange County had to tell "Truth" to power!

Strange also that Herbie Douglass to this day declares he was totally unaware of M.L. Andresean's views when he wrote his booklet Why Jesus Waits.

I suggest that you read Edwin Zackrison's book In the Loins of Adam A Historical Study of Original Sin in Adventist Theology.

I suggest 227

Zackrison offers two critcal quotations.

J. N. Andrews 1869 "He had no sinful disposition within him"---"He was subjected to the utmost power of temptation but he knew no sin."

Ellen G. White 1869 " He is a brother in our infirmaties, but not in possessing like passions. As the sinless One, his nature recoiled from evil."

Tom Z.

It is good to get an informed and reflective report on what is happening in Adventism outside of the USA.

I traveled to Germany in the last decade to present a paper at a conference and met with theologians such as Rolf Poelher, social scientists, and many students from all over Europe. I was impressed by the diligence of the Germans, the vitality of the Italians, the community-mindedness of the Spaniards, the friendliness of the English (the conference had few eastern Europeans). The fact that the GC president was European and embracing of diversity was a fact of quiet pride that encouraged the students who wondered aloud about the possibilities of secular engagement by believers.

Although I am not, I was perceived as an American and had to explain that I did not work for the church, but taught at a private university in America. Most importantly, I experienced first hand how European Adventists had created a community among themselves where the differences in culture were more or less taken for granted. Historical experience has taught them how to maintain positive and diplomatic relations with others who may not share the same worldview. No one got bent out of shape, for instance, when a German speaker went on and on, long past the scheduled ending of a meeting, insisting that he had to read every word of his paper, or an Italian speaker handed out pocket knives to audience members as gifts.

European Adventism is as variegated as in the USA and Canada, with even larger differences of language, nationality and culture. I hope we hear more reports about what is happening there and how European voices are contributing to the wide spectrum of faith and practice today.

I'm encouraged by Dr. Trader's analysis that he sees growth in the trajectory of Pres. Ted Wilson's sermons in Germany. Bless the brethren who've helped him express "more grace & theological depth."

But, nevertheless, the big question remains why Wilson--w/ years of denominational administration in various parts of the world--is on such a basic learning curve to be "contextually reflective." This is wisdom required to be a church's top leader, not a side lesson to be gained through trials & mistakes in that role.

Here's the consequent damage.
Trader says, "For Adventist churches in Germany this means—and I write this as a church historian—that we are acquainted with a Lutheran type of Adventism, with the religiosity of conventicles, with pietistic Adventism as well as with so-called crypto-catholic Adventists. Additionally however one new element has been added to this, namely to use the terms Lutheran Adventism or pietistic Adventism in a somewhat judgmental demeanor. Sometimes the terms “liberal” or “conservative” are used, sometimes the label fundamentalist. Representatives of all these can be found in almost any church and for a long time they managed to coexist peacefully. That has changed lately. ... The differences were known, but the different groups respected each other. Up until recently.

Dear "Just Wondering":

How much do you really know about Manhattan, and the way people think who live there? I lived there for seven full years, right in the heart of what might arguably be one of the most secular neighborhoods in the world. And I can assure you that it is popular evangelical theology that leaves these people cold and unresponsive. This easy salvation that presumably gets people to heaven despite their earthly character development is precisely what these folks have against mainstream Christianity. And the great irony is that the same Christians who trumpet this effortless way to heaven are the ones trying to get civil government to criminalize the very behaviors they can't seem to overcome, even with God's help.

What you dismiss as "salvation by works" is the Bible's own teaching of Spirit-empowered transformation and obedience as the conditions of salvation (see Matt. 19:16-17; Luke 10:25-28; Rom. 2:6-10; 8:13; Heb. 5:9). It is the superficial, hypocritical deeds of the unconverted heart which can save no one (Rom. 2:17-23), not the work of regeneration and sanctification which Scripture explicitly declares to be part of the saving process (II Thess. 2:13; Titus 3:5).

Any honest observer of this exchange between us can tell who has the most to hide. You claim, without the slightest support, that my theology has been "officially" rejected by the church. When and where did the General Conference in session ever vote to approve the positions you hold and to condemn those that I hold? Just curious.

It is clear that it is your beliefs, not mine, that are out of harmony with denominational teachings, or you wouldn't be hiding behind a pseudonym. From what you are saying, I am assuming you are a denominational worker. If so, demonstrate a little courage, come out of hiding, and take the consequences of being honest. How can you possibly be so afraid of being held accountable for your beliefs if in fact they are held by the official church?

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

Anyone think that the SDA church in America is not considered a cult by many/most non SDA "Christians"?

The other denominations are using the word "cult" more and more to villify SDA.
Just spoke with an SDA couple from S Korea where the non SDA are concerned with the amount of "sheep stealing" and have increased the spreading of the "cult" label.

I counter with similar labels like rapture cult, OSAS cult, Calvin cult, Jesus blood cult, RCC cult, tongues cult, waterless baptism cult, imputed righteousness of Christ cult, law trashing cult, 4th commandment trashing cult.

Dear Tom Z:

I am fully aware you and I are never going to convince each other. But that is not the reason I take the time to answer the falsehoods you cherish so dearly. It is because I am certain that honest-hearted individuals visit this site from time to time to witness the discussions, and to weigh the evidence. It is for their sakes that I sacrifice my time to this end.

The fundamental theological error in this discussion is yours, not mine. If you want to talk Pauline theology, I am fully agreeable to the task. In no way does Paul teach that babies are sinners at birth, in Romans 5 or elsewhere. What he teaches is that "death (eternal) passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Rom. 5:12). In other words, all are sinners because they have CHOSEN to sin. And those who choose to receive the righteousness of Christ will be rescued from the sin into which Adam has led mankind (Rom. 5:17-19). Neither sin nor righteousness is depicted in this chapter as occurring against anyone's will. It is simply that Adam has led the world into sin, and Christ has come and offered by His grace to lead us out of it.

Paul is equally clear in upholding Christ's inheritance of the same fleshly nature as the rest of mankind (Rom. 1:3; 8:3-4), and in being made like, and tempted like, the rest of the human family (Heb. 2:14-18; 4:15). Paul never depicts Jesus as taking upon Himself Adam's sinless nature. This theory in Adventism is based solely on the distortion of a few Ellen White statements, which the Ellen White consensus plainly clarifies. If one uses the Bible alone, it is inconceivable anyone could take the pre-Fall position, which is ironic considering that pre-Fall advocates are usually the ones trying to reduce Ellen White's role. Yet another acknowledgment, to be sure, as to the true clarity of Ellen White's position.

On the basis of salvation, Paul is clear that BOTH justification and sanctification--both the work of Christ for us and His work in us--are the means by which we are saved (see Rom. 3:24; Eph. 1:7; II Thess. 2:13; Titus 3:5). And he is equally clear that sinless obedience is fully possible through the power of sanctifying grace (see Rom. 6:14; 8:4,13; I Cor. 15:34; II Cor. 7:1; 10:4-5; Eph. 5:27; I Thess. 5:23).

No tension between Jesus and His Father?? (but ct. John 5:30) What was Gethsemane all about (see Luke 22:42)? And the concept of Jesus as the Model Man comes not from conservative Adventism or Herbert Douglass, but from Holy Scripture itself (see I Peter 2:21-22; I John 3:2-3,7; Rev. 3:21; 14:5).

And by the way, Heppenstall's book was titled The Man Who is God, not The God Who Is Man.

We won't argue about the way Elder Andreasen was mistreated when he objected to the errors of Questions on Doctrine. What matters is that his credentials were restored on his deathbed and the book to which he took such strong objection was permitted to go out of print.

Herb Douglass may not have referred to Andreasen when writing Why Jesus Waits, but why does it matter? Both men got their theology from the same source--the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy.

I have not read Zackrison's dissertation, though I am familiar with its thesis. Like others of his persuasion, he did not use a "full deck of cards" (so to speak) when addressing either the teachings of Scripture or Ellen White. His reference to Ellen White saying Jesus didn't have like passions as we (e.g. 2T 201-202,549) was offered without the clarification of other passages where she says He did in fact have to wrestle with such passions (see IHP 155; ST April 9, 1896). The two sets of statements come together when one realizes that one set is speaking of the higher nature, or the will, as distinct from the inherited fleshly, or lower nature.

At the bottom line, it is clear Zackrison knew his beliefs couldn't be harmonized either with Ellen White or the basic premises of classic Adventism, since he is now no longer a Seventh-day Adventist and serves as a pastor in a very liberal denomination, where even Biblical authority is given little heed.

More evidence of what Ellen White said would happen when faith in the Testimonies is lost (see 5T 672).

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

My wife and I had attended Ted Wilson's sermon at the campmeeting in Bonner's Ferry, Idaho this past summer and were chagrined to hear the statements he made regarding what he identified as serious problems with European Adventism that needed correcting. Since my wife is 4th generation SDA from Germany with a theology degree from Friedensau and close ties to the German church, she was very troubled by this apparent tarring of the European church.

Later, upon reading the text of the sermon that Mr Wilson presented at Friedensau, we noted the apparent softening of his stance. We could not tell if he had changed or if he was being duplicitous. We hoped for the former but the restorationist rhetoric led us to fear the latter. We were also concerned lest the European church not be aware of public statements Mr Wilson was making about them here in the United States. Fortunately, this article has relieved our anxieties to some extent as obviously our German brothers and sisters have recognized the differences in his statements.

There seems to be a definite shift within our denomination from unity in diversity to unity through conformity. As a musician, I can understand the problems this creates. A piece of music only becomes beautiful by each note unleashing its distinct tone. It is that distinctiveness that produces the harmonies so pleasing to the ear. A repetitive monotone repels rather than attracts. It is the antithesis of harmony.

I pray for our church. If those in leadership continue to encourage the flock to devour one another, God will no doubt step in to spare His sheep. But woe to those who encourage strife as opposed to healing.

@ Pastor Kevin Paulson—“I believe Scripture is as clear as Ellen White in upholding the classic Adventist view of each of the above issues.”

What is the classic view of Adventism that I find in the Spirit of Prophecy? I will find a faith that promotes sanctification through diet.

Paul taught the way of faith without works and Jesus taught the Sermon on the Mount. EGW taught the way to honor God and promote the gospel was through denial of appetite in right eating. EGW created a new faith for global society—food religion.

EGW said, “It is as truly a sin to violate the laws of our being as it is to break the Ten Commandments,” and “It is a sin to be sick, for all sickness is the result of transgression.”

EGW created a huge list of forbidden items which violate the laws of our being (every good SDA German should follow): Green or black tea, coffee, spices, vinegar, black pepper, hot spice foods, drinking with meals, fermented foods, eating in between means, exposing arms or legs to the cold, baking soda, too many verities served at the table, mixing fruits and Veggies, support for probation of sale of alcohol, white bread, drug medications, hot raised bread, not to use milk in bread, sweet puddings, custards, five hours between each meal, two meals better then three, nothing in between meals, don’t overeat, eat slowly letting food remain longer in your mouth, hot drinks are debilitating, use little salt, “give up bottle pickles,” “Very hot food should not be taken in the stomach,” “cake is not the best food,” sweet cakes, puddings, custards, cheese, butter eggs and meat excite animal passion (sexual desires), eating flesh will diminish intellectual activity, spiritual life is better without meat, educate away from drugs and every stimulant, men should not attend women at childbirth, and many more prohibitions that bind heavy burdens on good SDA’s

Classic EGW and the Bible:
“You should never let a morsel pass your lips between your regular meals.”

“I do not approve of eating much cold food for the reason that the vitality must be drawn from the system to warm the food…”

“Condiments and spices used in the preparation of food for the table aid in digestion in the same way that tea, coffee, and liquor are supposed to help the laboring man perform his tasks…The system is weakened. The blood is contaminated, and inflammation is the sure result.”

“The eating of pork has produced scrofula [tuberculosis of the lymph], leprosy, and cancerous humors.”

"Your children should not be allowed to eat candies, fruit, nuts, or anything in the line of food, between their meals. Two meals a day are better for them than three… Before birth [a baby], it is receiving nourishment constantly. And the changes from this to the establishment of only two meals a day, in most children, be done from the ages of one to three years, must be gradual.”

Kevin

Glad to know I'm not perfect getting Heppenstall's title backwards. I'm glad I got my theology on right side up.

Just a story Kevin to make it clear what Paul is writing.

My folks bought a gentleman's farm four miles from E.M.C. They lived in South Bend, Ind. Dad was building single dwelling housing during the roaring twenties. With the Wall Street failure in 1929--housing starts stopped! The folks moved to the Farm. Then dad was asked to build a bank building in Pound, Wsic. He leased the farm to an Adventist. The Adventist bought his own farm 1.5 miles from dad's and stole all the electric power generator, the fencing, and all the parts he could get away with.
Dad did not bring charges because the man had a large family and the family would suffer greatly.

The folks decided to move back to the farm anyway so their children could recieve a "Christian Education" at E.M.C. Normal School, and Academy.

That was the bust bowl years. Dad planted 40 bushels of potatoes and the yield was five bushels--enough to get the family through the winter. Of course, dad could not pay the taxes. So in 1936 the farm was sold for back taxes. The folks found a rental in String Town bordering the Campus---a house without running water or any inside plumbing. We lived there until I finished grade school. We then moved into a rental house with inside plumbing.

The point is: I never owned a farm, I never owed taxes, yet when dad was evicted so was I. His debt
was mine also. So Adam's loss of the Garden was my lost. His fall was mine also. So says Paul.

So says all orthodox theologians. Adventists and Latter Day Saints it seems do not. How can God bless deliberate distortion of the plain word of Scripture? Tom Z

Here is the link to the book review: https://www.uccsda.org/files/communications/2011%20BRI%20newsltr%2004201....

Just to stir the pot a little, I have found this link to research conducted by University of Edinburgh which considers that there is an inverse relationship between intelligence and belief in religion.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/religion-and-beliefs/news/article.cfm?c_id=301...

Any chance of doing some research on this site of the IQ's of some (all) of the participants, and then see how they align with the fundamentalist/liberal spectrums. There must be enough depth here to either confirm or debunk this research.

Kevin,

I never see you scold "Your Friend" or "Faithful Disciple" on their anonymity. Perhaps I've missed it?

I wish we could all feel safe to use our names, but it's just not the reality in which we live. Many organizations provide a reporting system for employees to use anonymously. Spectrum Blog is our Adventist opportunity to speak truth to power. If & when it's ever safe to do so openly, many of us will.

By the way, to what church are you assigned now post seminary?

Dear "hopeful":

I guess you've missed the fact that I have been just as disappointed at the persons you describe who refuse to sign their names in these discussions. I wish they would drop the anonymity as well. Regardless of our perspectives, I think we would all agree the level of civility would be much higher if real names were used.

Regarding my personal situation, I am still awaiting the final processing of some credits from a previous graduate degree before I can graduate from the Master of Divinity program. Just today the M-Div director's office called me for an update on that process, which is being expedited. I expect to be reassigned soon to a pastoral position.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

Dear "Professor Kent," whoever you are:

Few if any pastors hold pastoral positions while at the Seminary. It is when one has finished Seminary that one's sponsoring organization finds the candidate a position.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

Kevin Paulson-->> Your facebook profile and pictures show your faithful adherence to the health message. Continue and you will earn and early grave.

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1267831245

Thank you Frank and Elaine for helping to spread the Health message.
Maybe some who read this forum will not be as rebellious as the ones whose belly is their God and thus will save some money that usually goes to support the medical professionals.

I wonder why Kevin Paulson does not follow EGW's counsels on health, he is overweight!!!
[Barring some hormonal dysfunctions, which would probably also be considered "sinful" in his reading of the red books...]

I read the BRI review on Pohler's book, and am mightily pleased to see Pohler doing his bit for reformation and revival. Pohler has uncovered a number of truth's that the adventist church would do well to take note of. Maybe Wilson is visiting Germany to sit at Pohler's feet. Or we could wish...

Friends
Just one anecdotal true story.
When I was in LLU Med Sch in the 70's a classmate of mine whose father was a prominent member of the faculty in the LLU School of Public Health, was a renowned proponent of the "healthy lifestyle" and actually lived it personally, was seen regularly running for exercise, ate a totally vegatarian diet etc. had a massive heart attack at a very early age. He ended up with (as I recall) a 4 vessel CABG.
This event had the effect of softening some of the "very strict lifestyle rhetoric" being bandied about at the time.
It has been my experience that some of the most "dogmatic" lifestyle spokespeople know precious little about the real issues involved with that discussion....
I am not a proponent of "anything goes" in lifestyle but I am a proponent of "balance" in life and lifestyle. Also, there is no evidence Scripturally that diet has anything to do with ones salvation ultimately. It does make life qualitatively better from a balanced lifestyle approach that I support.
Thanks for this article about the German church. I found it very interesting.
All the best
Fred

No, as a participant in the LLU health study, they didn't ask questions relating to doctrinal adherence, or even whether one was still a member or not.

I might add the Brooklyn Tabernacle as an example of growth in an urban setting. Certainly their music has been a true blessing for the world of Christian music and I find it very "inspirational". When you can fill Madison Square Garden for a Christian Christmas concert that is an accomplishment. They do have a "big tent" philosophy as well. Could we learn something from their "nonSDA" approach. Our church has been using Jim Cymbala's book on prayer as an approach to be considered by our church and community. It was quite good.
Jim Roberts
The "gospel" has many different facets or nuances depending on the audiences needs and Jesus utilized various approaches to reach people "where they are". It seems you don't appreciate that approach for some reason?!? It seems to me that rather than just identifying mankind as "rebellious gainsayers..." you might give a few examples of what you would feel is the right approach to preaching the "gospel". It would help me get beyond your "cliches" and understand your point better. Just a thoughtful suggestion.
All the best
Fred

The motto of the Adventist health message: Start livin' to beat hell.

A few impressions after reading the article:

"So when Ekkehard Müller denounces German-speaking churches as being “deeply polarized”, many feel that such generalized statements are of little help and accuracy."

- Many of your own statements later in the article testify to the accuracy of Muller's that "German-speaking churches, like all Adventist churches, are 'deeply polarized'" (e.g. "They insist on a more rigid traditional form of Adventism, fighting against a more supposedly liberal brand of Adventism.")

"Don’t misunderstand me: the majority of the churches in Germany are theologically healthy, mission-oriented, living harmoniously their faith."

- Nothing could be further from the truth. This statement exemplifies the Laodicean state that our church is characterized by in the book of Revelation. We are NOT "theologically healthy, mission-oriented and living harmoniously our faith" any more than we are rich, increased in goods and have need of nothing.

"First, I noticed a dangerous version of endtime theology. He never ceased to emphasize the imminence of the Second Advent. Taking as a starting point the somewhat peculiar and overemphasized notion of the latter rain."

- It saddens me to hear someone in the Adventist church speak of the an emphasis on the soon-coming of Jesus and the latter rain as a negative.

"What will happen if next year in all the pastors’ conventions around the globe ministers are called to preach this message, but the longed-for cosmic event will not materialize? Wouldn’t that create something like a second great disappointment among Adventists?"

- Would the world and church be better served by avoiding speaking of Christ's soon coming, thus affirming our Laodicean attitude? Nay, it is our mission to spread the message of His soon coming and that His judgment is already come!

"Deeply convinced in Mannheim that Christ’s return would be imminent, in Friedensau he dared to formulate that it is of little relevance whether Christ will return in five or fifty years."

- That one can look at these two points of Ted Wilson's sermons and conclude that "perhaps his visits to the places of the reformation had deeply impressed him" and that "Ted Wilson is a learner like all of us and perhaps he should come back to Germany more often to discuss issues with our fine theologians in Friedensau" shows just how deep the schism has become between the two groups in Adventism. Ted Wilson's theology has not changed, nor does his emphasis on the imminent return of Christ in one sermon and proclamation that it is of little relevance whether Christ returns in 5 years or 50 in the next present a conflict in belief.

We DO believe in the imminent return of Christ, and we ALSO believe that we are called to live the same life whether He comes in 5 years or 50. That is why the date of His return is of little relevance to the life of the believer...unless you believe that if we know Christ isn't coming for 50 years we can then "relax" and live a more worldly life, not spending so much time thinking about the things of heaven and spreading the Gospel?

Todd - Our Sword blog

Like I posted before...Ted Wilson is turning out to be blamed as much as George Bush.

People are going to blame him even if they get gas or indigestion after taking communion.

I haven't been in New York City for any extended period since the New York World's Fair.

The SDA had a booth, the Pastor that headed that team, later became our Pastor in Augusta, Ga.
A very pleasant fellow. But he had no message. His sermons were pointless. He talked like this is a job that someone has to do--so I'll do it if it kills me. A great guy one on one as long as Bibical issues of merit were not part of the discussion. He became a conference officer.

At that time the SDA Church also owned an old off Broadway theater they used as a church and as an evangelistic center. It was a very dreary down at the heels place.

The people I met were very tired, bored, and listless---The only thing I could think of was EGW's counel:
Out of the cities, Out of the cities!

I am glad to hear that there is at least one Church with enthusiasm. Tom Z.

Kevin

I accept your invitation to discuss politics in the United States and perhaps other things in private. If you are still inclined to do so, please email me at dlarson@llu.edu. It has been a long time since we've conversed and I'd like to hear from you again.

In hamony with your explanation that you continue in these "Spectrum" discussions--even though you know that many have made up their minds and are not likely to change them--for the benefit of those who are willing to consider a wide range of views, I here make two general observations..

One of these is that your political views--whatever they now are--flow from your theological ones.
In this way your way of thinking differs from those whose theological and political convictions flourish in separate conceptual spheres. I think people should know this.

I would like others also to know that on some issues my views more closely parallel yours than they do those in our community of faith who make the Magesterial Reformers--Luther, Calvin, etc.--the lens through which they read Scripture. I read them all; however, if I had to choose it would not be any of them but Ellen White [even though I do not hold her or anyone other than God to be infallible].

I am persuaded that her emphasis on divine love is far more in harmony with the totality of Scripture than is theirs on divine sovereignty. I think that on this we also agree.

There are some things that we agree on albeit for somewhat different reasons. If we must stick with these options,** I also hold that Jesus was more like Adam after the Fall than like Adam before it. On balance you take this to be the overall witness of Scripture and the writings of EGW even though we could concede that there are some passages in both that can be read the other way.

Some readers of these texts disagree with you on this and I'm OK with you and them debating your differing interpretations forever, if you like. Yet I'm not likely to get much involved in your exegetical exchanges because the idea that Jesus descended from Adam after the Fall but was unlike Adam and us in a fundamentally different way doesn't make sense--logically or scientifically--to me. Hence we arrive by somewhat different routes to similar theological outcomes.

I think it important for people to know this so that we can all get past a simple--even simplistic--categorization of every SDA as either "conservative" or "liberal." The fabric of theology in every denomination is always much more cross-threaded than this.

I do wish that we could spending more time presenting our own views as persuasively as possible and less time criticizing the views of others. People rarely feel uncomfortable when we explain what we believe and why. But when we attack their views we almost always prompt a defensive reaction that makes fruitful dialogue difficult.

I hope soon to hear from you via email!

**This issue is often framed as to what kind of human "nature" Jesus embodied. My view is that the meaning of "nature" which both sides apparently presuppose is itself worthy of doubt.

I

Kevin...

Unlike you, I (Frank7, not Frank A.) am a life long New Yorker. You and the churches of the GNYC haven't seen results, but the Redeemer Church, with their supposed false evangelical gospel has. Why do you think that is?

On a personal level, I have not seen much of the response that you claim to have encountered. The idea that a loving God would allow Satan to wreak havoc in this world over a controversy that involves other worlds that we haven't seen, and over issues of God's character and government that ultimately are too deep for us to understand this side of eternity, also seems to offer little consolation or comfort to people when they are suffering loss and disillusionment. At least that is what I have found.

What does bring comfort, I have found, is when people see that God himself became human flesh, and endured our suffering, struggles, pain and even despair right along side of us, and for us as he went to the cross. IOW, the heart of the gospel that is portrayed in the narratives and in Paul's letters.

What I've found also brings comfort to people is when they get to know us as real fellow travelers and real friends. Friends who are there to listen, to offer non-judgemental support, and, as they're ready to hear, the experience, strength, and hope that we've found in Christ in the midst of our own personal difficulties, struggles, and questionings. This is something that a church such as Redeemer, and others as well, seem to be now doing very successfully as they reach across the city.

While I don't agree with all their doctrinal tenents, the fact is, they aren't waiting for results as you are, they're already getting them. Again, why do you think that is?

Thanks...

Frank

..."moving 30- 50 years back in time. It has no appeal to Europeans in late modernity, except for conservatives and fundamentalist..."

plus it appeals to the new immigrants.....who want to move back 1400 years....and take over

http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2011/08/afghan-convert-to-christianity-at...

Kevin and David

Amazing to find two full blown Pelagians in this thread. It brings back the 1970"s. The LL Hill Church, and the Review. In the April 20 edition of the Review, Editor Kenneth Wood in an editorial wrote these words: " Was the 1888 message, which Ellen White declared, marked the beginning of the Loud Cry, merely a revival in the Seventh-day Adventist Church of Luther's message of righteousness by faith?"

I responded in part:

1. Can you objectively consider any issue in which you state the question in prejudicial language? (Is not mere ore merely a qualitative modifier? A put down?")

2. Can you presume to label any work of God as mere or merely, particularly one which is the central focus of all Scripture?

3. Can you risk discounting so great a work of history as the Reformation which caused the deadly wound of the beast and which is so strongly endorsed by the Spirit of Prophecy?"

Finally, could not a discounted view of reformational theology cast us more in the mould of a cult than the remnant?

Do we need to be reminded that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit?

Tom Z

to Aage:

I was brought to the USA from Switzerland in 1968, can I still count as "German"? I do carry that passport too.

I found that Dr. Trader's description of the church pretty acurrately sums-up the situation in Germany and I would add German-speaking Switzerland and Austria. My swiss Grandparents both came from the Reformed Church (Swiss Protestantism; Zwingli and Calvin) My German Grandfather was a Roman Catholic from Vienna and my Grandmother was one of the Pietists from the Rhineland.

While I find my Swiss Family is more conservative than the churches I have attended in the Pacific Northwest, I also find them more moderate than many south Germans. I also think, that there as here, theology is less important than relationships. Finally, let me say that one thing that is not mentioned in the article: the impact of George W Bush. No one has done more to diminish the impact of conservative Americans on Germany than he did. Regardless of his actual politics President Wilson does resemble a conservative and is unlikely to change the minds of German liberals anymore than he can American liberals. While Germany has completely recovered culturally from the NAZI era, it is reestablishing itself and it would very difficult for some foreigner to come and tell us how settle our differences with other German speakers.

Jesus said that our relations with one another are what marks us as his disciples. It is unfortunate when leaders want to lead us in a different direction. Let's hope that the relation between our cultures continues to be mutually edifying.

Just for the record: I'm neither a Pelagian nor a Kenneth Woodian , as they and Kevin would be the first to say!

It seems to me that Wilson's understanding of "Revival and Reformation" is exactly what Traeder deifned as "restoration" of a kind of Adventism that has been lost. And what is lost seems to be what some term "Historic Adventism" (Vopa) or the Truth, understood as some static, unchangeable and essential form of a religious worldview.Today in late modernity, this kind of essential worldview is threatened and to restore it, the faithful has to look backwards, to some perceived ideal past, in the history of Adventism. It is found in one kind of theology only, and it is the only and exclusive Truth.

This kind of truth is expressed in dogmas, based on the belief that it is possible to express God's nature and will in certain rational propositions. These propositions are the Truth to which all must assent. Therefore the strong empahsis on biblical interpretations, coherent rational belief-system, and intellectual consent. This is one kind theology - the construction of the theo-logos. And in conservative Adventisms this has become the only true theology, to the exclusion of other forms of Christian theology or religious worldviews. It is the "worldviews" where the battle-field is.

I believe Adventism is strongly influenced by Enlightenment ideals of rationality as the highest human faculty. This kind of rationalism can lead to a kind of universalism implying that you ought to think, believe and reason in a particular(compulsary) manner. As such it belived to have the potential of convincing all with an open mind, with the result of arriving at the same universal conclusions. SDA evangelistic campaigns have been based on this universal notion of truth. Everybody would arrive at the same conclusion (SDA truths) if they just learned to "think" right, despite personal, cultural, social, or other differences.

This is the kind of compulsion found among some proponents of "Historic Adventism", and I suspect TW confess to the same paradigmatic basis. This kind of paradigm is unable to live, breathe and respond positively to diversity. It aslo effectively cut off any attempt of real dialogue.

The basic fault in this kind of thinking is that Universalist does not recognize their own cultural component.

Ole

Kevin said: "classic Adventism...[is] the message of a victorious final generation that will vindicate God's character" [through perfection].

This is salvation by works.

There will never be a perfect end group who have reached perfection through their efforts.

If "classic" Adventism/perfection is truly the "gospel" of the Adventist church, it is tantamount to heathen religions, all of which embrace salvation or appeasement of the gods through self "overcoming" and works.

The good news preached by Paul is that Jesus is the only Way, His blood covers our filthy works, and we are clean only through his grace. This work was finished at the cross once and for all where the victory over death and sin was won by Christ. It is our "only" hope and the wonderful message and "Good News" we have been entrusted to share to every corner of the world.

Let me explain who the author is, especially for the American readers. Lothar E. Traeder (retired pastor, teacher and school principal of Marienhoehe in Darmstadt) educated the generation of German pastors (including church leaders) who are active now and intensely took issue with Ted Wilson's initiative on fundamental #6 in Atlanta. As founder of AWA (an Adventist Scientific Study group that is built after the image of Adventist Forums although not quite the same) he is a respected retiree in certain circles of the church but not without exception because as a cheeky Berliner he likes to polarize.

Now a young generation of Adventists, not educated by Dr. Traeder, begins to redefine the shape of Adventism in Germany ("Youth in mission") boldly. As a response to the present condition of the society and church at large they are much more traditional, less academic and some of them are not only pretty much open to pietist but maybe also to fundamentalist brands of Adventism. Ted Wilson was well received during their last session. The leadership outside the mainly pietist Baden-Wuerttemberg does not always like the strong voice of this highly visible and mission-oriented mega-event organized by the Baden-Wuerttemberg conference.

To my mind Traeder is a church politician like Ted Wilson. As partisan and spokesman he is in part to rate responsible for the present situation in Germany as well. Lately he is more defending his accomplishments instead of being a renovator as he used to be in the past. His last national initiative ("Quo vadis, Adventist Church") was thwarted by Ted Wilson's global initiative "Revival and Reformation." In Germany there are quite some people who disagree with Traeder's emphasis on congregationalism and his analysis of (church) history steering away from the focus on events in the US to mark the Adventist prophetic position.

“It seems to me that Wilson's understanding of "Revival and Reformation" is exactly what Traeder defined as "restoration" of a kind of Adventism that has been lost. And what is lost seems to be what some term "Historic Adventism" (Vopa) or the Truth, understood as some static, unchangeable and essential form of a religious world view. Today in late modernity, this kind of essential worldview is threatened and to restore it, the faithful has to look backwards, to some perceived ideal past, in the history of Adventism. It is found in one kind of theology only, and it is the only and exclusive Truth.”

I understand you postmodern thinking. But what you want from official church? Their “version of Adventism” will not change as you want and T. Wilson is not the one who have such believes, for example just recently Ángel Manuel Rodríguez a Seventh-day Adventist theologian and director of the Biblical Research Institute visited Zaokski (Russia) where he spoke to 1500 pastors. http://www.adventist.org.ua/audio/anhel_rodriges_2congress_pastorov/ He stated clearly, that within church there is less than 1% of members and theologians who support other “version of Adventism”. As I see Spectrum is in that 1%..

In 1929 Australian Adventist W. W. Fletcher, who had recently renounced the SDA sanctuary doctrine and who had come to face the GC music, ran into Conradi outside the Washington Sanitarium in Washington D.C. Here are some excerpts from Fletcher's diary:

"The old gentleman [Conradi was 73] told me very emphatically that he did not believe in two Bibles. He had come out of the Roman Catholic Church, where they had another authority beside the Bible; but since leaving that church he had never accepted any such additional authority."

"Brother Conradi has a good knowledge of Latin, Greek and Hebrew, as well as of German, Danish, and English. He asked me if I knew what the original for "cleansed" in Dan. 8:14 signified literally. I said that I did, and that that was one of the reasons I had been led to my present conclusions [rejecting the Sanctuary doctrine]. Brother Conradi then enlarged on the meaning of the original and pointed out that there are several places in scripture where the sanctuary or temple are spoken of as being cleansed after a period of desolation, or of defilement by adolatrous [sic] abominations. One had to decide whether it was this kind of cleansing that was referred to in Dan. 8:14, or something similar to the day of atonement services. He gave me the impression that he leaned toward the former interpretation."

"Brother Conradi said that he had between 500 and 600 pages of manuscript ready for publication; but (with a twinkle in his eye) [said] that he might have some of the same kind of trouble that I was having."

"With regard to proposition three [in which Fletcher summarized his position on the Sanctuary], he looked at me with his piercing eyes, and asked, Have you seen that reproduction of the pamphlet, "A Word to the Little Flock," just as it was printed many years ago? [Conradi is probably talking about Edward Ballenger's reprint of the original 1847 pamphlet]? He must have asked me this question three times, looking at me closely all the time. "You have seen that? (with a slight German accent on the last word.) Then he turned his gaze away, and said reflectively, Well, I was Vice-president of the General Conference for many years, but I never knew anything about that till the last five or six years. Those things, he said, should been told us in a proper way many years ago [talking about the fact that the original had been redacted so as to remove language that showed that EGW believed in the 'shut door' dogma]."

The next day, July 24, 1930 Fletcher and Conradi met again. Of their meeting Fletcher wrote:
"He thought it was wonderful that he in Europe and I in Australia had been led in our studies to such harmonious views. He said that he also had been led to the conclustion that the sanctuary in heaven had not been divided into two apartment, and he entirely agreed with me in that."

"He said that there was a much more rigid position taken now-a-days at the General Conference headquarters on the authority of the Testimonies than used to be taken many years ago, and he thought F.M. Wilcox was the leader of it, and W.A. Spicer."

Conradi goes on to recall that he had threatened to resign as VP of the GC if it did not repudiate the idea put forth by some of the old-timers that "we can only interpret the Bible through the spirit of prophecy, and that through this gift we have a true manifestation of Vicarius Filii Dei, which had only been counterfeited by the Papacy....Brother Daniells apologised for some of the older brethren (Owen, Haskell, Butler, etc) who went to extremes in putting Sister White on a pedestal, and so the incident closed. Brother Conradi said that a number of ministers in Germany had let them know that they could not accept Sister White's theology on the sanctuary."

W.W. Fletcher, Diary, July 22 and 24, 1930; Heritage Room, AU.

>>> Vopa - Wed, 09/21/2011 - 10:24 "Ángel Manuel Rodríguez a Seventh-day Adventist theologian and director of the Biblical Research Institute visited Zaokski (Russia) where he spoke to 1500 pastors. http://www.adventist.org.ua/audio/anhel_rodriges_2congress_pastorov/ He stated clearly, that within church there is less than 1% of members and theologians who support other “version of Adventism”. As I see Spectrum is in that 1%.."
Vopa, During the nineteen sixties and early nineteen eighties, surveys that Dr. Raymond Cottrell did among the head of every Bible Department throughout North America indicated that 60% of the church's scholars found the same problems that Aage has referred to in his post about the context of Daniel 8:14 (Historic Adventism's key pillar) not matching with the traditional Adventist interpretation of the text.

So I guess Vopa, that you might be over-joyed that it is only 1% now in contrast to the 60% of former years.

By the way, Spectrum is composed of whoever surfs the internet, and makes a post. There is a good share of historic Adventism with Pastor Kevin Paulson who frequently posts here. Also there is David Read, Michael, Tim and Your Friend, and now there is you. So may be Spectrum deserves more than your 1% rating?

The 1% doesn't include all the people and scholars who have gone underground for fear of publicly touching the Adventist third rail, the IJ and the SOP. I know of some. They've seen the results in the past.

Thanks...

Frank

Mike -- "During the nineteen sixties and early nineteen eighties, surveys that Dr. Raymond Cottrell did among the head of every Bible Department throughout North America indicated that 60% of the church's scholars found the same problems that Aage has referred to in his post about the context of Daniel 8:14 (Historic Adventism's key pillar) not matching with the traditional Adventist interpretation of the text."

Mike would you refresh our minds with details on this survey? How many were surveyed? Was it a statistically validated study? One survey I recall had almost no validity since so few responded. Maybe this is not that study.

Vopa,

Maybe the organisers make sure that they only invite T Wilson to speak in venues that they know they can fill? Besides, he is the Adventist equivalent of the pope, so even those who don't support him want to know what he has to say. After all, you need to know what you do not agree with.

Hello Your Friend,
See http://www.investigativejudgment.info/ij/part7.htm.
Before answering your question, please allow me to quote something relevant to the church in Germany. Here it is: As a local example, belief in 1844 and the Investigative Judgment is not considered mandatory for baptism in Germany.(1)
Now to answer your question, here are some quotes from this link:
10b.COTTRELL POLL. Dr. Raymond Cottrell is a well known Adventist scholar who has written 2000 pages of the SDA Bible Commentary. He led out in the second ever opinion poll of Adventist Bible scholars in 1958. The poll was sent to the 27 leading SDA Bible scholars of that time. This included eight Hebrew teachers, nine heads of college Bible departments, five other experienced college Bible teachers, and four former college Bible teachers then in administrative or editorial work. Six of the above were teachers at the Theological Seminary. To the question "What linguistic or contextual reasons can you suggest for applying Daniel 8:14 to the services of the day of atonement and thus to the investigative judgment beginning in 1844?", all 27 scholars said that there is no linguistic or contextual basis for so applying it!(2) To the question "What reasons other than language and context would you suggest for applying Daniel 8:14 to the services of the day of atonement and thus to the investigative judgment beginning in 1844?" the responses are shown in Diagram #10: This is hardly the kind of solid Biblical evidence one would want to defend a doctrine claimed to be so important. The Adventist church appointed a Problems in Daniel Committee as a result of this poll which met several times a year from 1961 to 1966. It adjourned without issuing a report. The problems in Daniel remained, unresolved.(3)
END OF QUOTE:
What a big difference this is compared to the church's official line that it is less than 1%. I am sorry that I don't have the actual diagrams referred to in the above quote. May be Spectrum has published it in the past?
I would like to suggest to Pastor Angel Rodríguez that he carries out a similar survey to the ones that Cottrell did, and send the representative SDA scholars a password to an internet site so that only SDA scholars could participate and their identify could remain unknown (like you "Your Friend"). They could even do the up and down arrows to get the general opinions that the scholars in general have. Wouldn't it be interesting to put the 28 fundamental beliefs up there and see just where the scholars stand?

@Mike MacLennan,

"...send the representative SDA scholars a password to an internet site so that only SDA scholars could participate and their identify could remain unknown..."

Mike, you raise an excellent point. Theology in the SDA church has become so politicized that most scholars in church employment are not prepared to actually say what they think. The 28 FBs continue as they are because nobody is prepared to challenge the status quo, lest they lose their job. The only way to counter this, would be to have a "secret ballot" vote at any meetings where decisions are made about doctrine.

Just another voice from Germany.... Träder is a well known figure in Germany - and he indeed at times polarizes (which I rather prefer to putting our church to sleep). The facts he presents seem acurate to me, his perceptions - while being personal - well substantiated and plausible. Thus Christian, my good friend, I would suggest we both might have some kind of bias in our reading of the article. However, to introduce "poison" in this context provokes me to suggest a different imagery....
Reading this (and other blogs) as pastoral counselor at times could be amusing, if it wasn't so serious. All those petty wars going on between individuals and factions (from my experience not really theological questions)...
What impressed me about this - yes, Wilson critical - article, was its conclusion. Whether there was too much optimism, or even some irony: to call Wilson "a learner" is not poison, but building bridges for more dialogue. This is - I believe what Träder stands for, this is what Spectrum stands for and this is what I would wish Ted Wilson would stand for.

Dear Andreas, an American friend provoked me to fill in my initially private explanations to the discussion on this website because he thought it would further explain German affairs to the American reader. But I think it's not per chance that we now have the opportunity to discuss our circumstances on Spectrum's website publicly in a foreign language - that loop way hopefully will lead to more realism.

The distancing effect is definitely helpful - and maybe necessary to further clarify the cluttered issues because they have this iridescent quality. You wrote about 'bias' in our reading - and that is maybe also part of every hermeneutical endeavor - even that of Traeder's article itself. We have already formed opinions, in the best case they can be revised, but they often proves to be stiff-necked prejudice which of course defy clarification, but without which none of any learning process would come into action at all.

I didn't doubt that both - Wilson and Traeder - are still able to learn, but knowing that both of them are very determined I guess they maybe will stay antagonists because in the background there are serious and major differences concerning real theological questions (Aage did indicate where I also suppose we have to go back to). See: Even Benedikt jokingly told the German parliamentarian that a 84 year old man can still learn. So I can tell that for me too this would be the right place to overcome the "petty wars going on between individuals and factions" if everyone here does the serious effort needed to climb the next step.

My wife is calling. I need to go to bed now. Shabbat Shalom.

With deep interest I read Dr. Träder's article and found the following analysis extremely accurate:

"...Today we observe that those Adventists more inclined towards pietism (that is more in the tradition of Calvin than that of Luther) come to understand themselves as true Adventists. They insist on a more rigid traditional form of Adventism, fighting against a more supposedly liberal brand of Adventism. While there is agreement in the basic doctrines of our faith tradition, there are distinct differences when it comes to the Adventist specifics. As long as Jan Paulsen was president of the world church, conservative forces in Germany remained rather silent. Significantly, Ekkehard Müller’s book review was only published in 2011, though Pöhler’s book had been in print since 2008. The theological change of course, begun in Atlanta in 2010, has fuelled the controversy in Germany..."
In all three German churches I'm aquainted with and have been attending during the last 10 years open fighting has broken out between members because of different theological interpretations. It is sad to see how people are being classified not because of what they do, but what they think!

In the online edition of the Adventist Review, I found Ted Wilson's analysis of his trips to Germany, which I also read with interest:
http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=4706
Several passages made me feel uncomfortable, such as the one stating that "Our fundamental beliefs are not an arbitrary collection of statements to be adhered to only out of loyalty to a church; they are simply comprehensive explanations of truths found throughout Scripture. There is no part of the Bible or of our fundamental beliefs which is not important". This seems to imply that the 28 fundamental beliefs are plainly written in the Bible, without acknowledging they are in fact an interpretation of Biblical findings.

The last passage made me cringe: "It was a privilege to visit Germany and meet so many fellow believers. It is gratifying to know that there are many, many faithful church members who are longing to see Jesus come, believe that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is God’s remnant church, wish to be very much a part of the world family of Seventh-day Adventists, accept the Bible as it reads, cherish the Spirit of Prophecy, and are participating in the worldwide mission of the Advent movement proclaiming the three angels’ messages."
Now, apart from longing to see Jesus come (which I do very much), I'd rather be part of a church family who makes a difference in it's community, gives hope to the hopeless, is known for living God's love, cherishes the Bible but does not constrain people's consciences.

For those who believe that the SDA official reports are 100% accurate, better think again. They have a very legitimate reason for maintaining the status quo and avoiding any possiblity of questioning of their records. The entire goal of all institutions, and especially the church, is to preserve the status quo. Never forget that one important mandate.

Other churches have had schisms and are continuing to battle over peripheral beliefs such as women's ordination; acceptance of gays as clergy. Adventists have those but also more because the doctrines are so tightly drawn and interpretation varies from one person and one region to another. Each church may accept or disfellowship members as it wishes. It is not a local, union, or divisional authority.

For those who are fortunate to be able to meet with Adventists in a welcoming atmosphere without questioning one's personal beliefs, is the way it should be. The judgmental attitude conveyed by many Adventists is fostered by those, like Ted, who wish to have a uniformitarian system throughout the world of 13 billion Adventists. It ain't gonna happen.

I'm sorry, this string is far too long for me to read right now. I was struck by several thoughts.

First, Nazi tragedy. This article, which purports to give a reasonable overview of the history of Adventist theology in Germany, glosses right over what is to me a key story: the Conradi independence is mentioned in general but the very tragic specifics are left out on how he acquiesced to pressure from the Prussian/Bismark faction to abandon the prohibition on bearing arms, and even bearing arms on Sabbath. This led to a split in Adventism which persists to this day. Then, when the Nazis took power, the German church conferences went so far as to recommend the denunciation of Jewish Adventists and members of the 'Reform Adventist' who refused to bear arms. The world church attempted to stop these practices but were rebuffed. Surely these events have relevance today in the continued reluctance, apparently, to honor Ellen White's inspiration.

That said, I was struck by the Svrecek- Seiler account of real faith in action, strong ties to the pioneers of Adventism, life style of self denial, while maintaining a realistic and informed view of the world around them. How did "Grandfather" respond to the rise of an apocalyptic beast like power in his own, beloved country?

Hello “Your Friend”,
I see that you are not convinced by Dr. Cottrell’s claim that he communicated with “every college Bible teacher and others versed in Hebrew, who responded unanimously that there is no linguistic or contextual basis for the traditional Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8: 14. “
But Elder R. R. Figuhr believed Dr. Cottrell, so much so that he formed the “supersecret ad hoc GC Committee on Problems in the Book of Daniel.” This committee met from 1961 to 1966, and reached no consensus. (See:
http://www.andrews.edu/library/car/collection/C/Cottrell,%20Raymond%20F.pdf where Dr. Cottrell himself wrote what I have cited above.)

Now in relation to Angel Manuel Rodriguez there is something very interesting that Cottrell mentions in this same presentation of his papers in the link above. I will quote this word for word:
“024101 Box 4 Folder 16 Empty Folder.
96. “Daniel 8:14, Ellen G. White, and Sola Scriptura” (27 pp. 2000). A paper designed for and sent to Jan Paulsen and perhaps thirty others in November 2000. with the objective of identifying the problems in the traditional interpretation of Daniel 8:14 and creating an interest on the part of church leaders in finding a solution to them. Courteous replies but apparently no interest.
Paulsen gave his copy to Angel Rodriguez, director of the (3 Bible Research Institute in
mind, to evaluate and said that his reply would serve as his reply too. Probably with the
1980’s six volume Daniel and Revelation Committee report in mind Rodriguez replied that the GC had already studied and responded to all of the problems. I secured and studied the six volumes carefully only to find that they did not consider any of the problems to which my paper had called attention." Quoted from the link above.

What! The Daniel and Revelation Committee wrote up 6 volumes and did not consider ANY of the problems Dr. Cottrell’s paper had called attention to.

What the church needs is a progressive GC president like Elder Figuhr who can put the church back on track into resolving these problems that Dr. Cottrell spent much of his life in trying to resolve. Elder Ted Wilson's father took a giant leap beyond Elder Figuhr’s "supersecret ad hoc GC Committee on Problems in the Book of Daniel" in bringing together Bible scholars from around the world for the Glacier View meetings in 1980. But since according to Dr. Hammill Hammill writes: "When the small report of the Critique Committee was read to the Sanctuary Review Committee at its last session, a pall descended over the group. The Bible teachers felt they had been betrayed, that their work was just window dressing; they considered, and rightly, as it turned out, that the small committee report would be considered the definitive one. They saw it as an administration-sponsored report intended to compete with the one issued by the large committee representing the world field." (pp. 194-5.)

Your Friend, it wasn't just the scholars who “had been betrayed” at Glacier View. It was the whole SDA church. The SDA scholars were supposed to represent the SDA church as a whole and they were manipulated by the SDA church administrators.

May Elder Ted Wilson go beyond Elder Figuhr and his father in resolving this unresolved problem.

George
You argue that "[Conradi] acquiesced to pressure from the Prussian/Bismark faction to abandon the prohibition on bearing arms, and even bearing arms on Sabbath," and that the result was catastrophic. That may be so, but let me remind you that today's SDA church seems to have adopted the same policy. When I joined the SDA church in 1971, pacifism was taken for granted, and I did my civilian service instead of entering the army. That seems to be a thing of the past in the US. When pressed, the conservatives on this Forum all seem to be gung-ho militarists. (For the record, I'm no longer a pacifist. In my opinion, the minute you agree that your country needs an army, you can't argue that that's a job for other people and that you should be exempted for religious reasons.)

Let me add, that Lothar Träder has always been a very open an courageous member of the church. Without people like him, his wife, Rolf Pöhler and some others, our membership would be much (!)lower than it is today. They taught us, that theology is interesting, important, but not above christian love.

My addition number one : The hymns of Pietism are a precious sound in my ears, a golden memory in my heart. Famous Pietists biographies were the Sabbath afternoon reading for me - I gladly, even joyfully remeber. But sixty years of my life I suffered from the pains that burdened my mothers life, the "Grundsaetze" i.e the "standards" - for example she had marked every Bible text also in the last Bible of her life mentioning colorful dress - she never dared to wear one and was quite judgemental towards others. A life of probity - like found in Job 31 - you know, peple like me and my dear friends have learned to search for Biblical answers by ourselves - my father, a RC converted with the age of thirty years - gave me an everyday example, commenting his decision or action by quoting a Bible verse. That is a little (?) difference.- No, I am no Neo - Pietist, Calvinism and Neo - Calvinism for me is ."The Tyranny of Virtue" (Title of a Swiss historans book on occasion of the recent 500 year anniversary)

My addition number two : The "conservative wing" Traeder mentioned in my sight is not conservative , but reactionary. Decades ago I met the occasiion to discuss this terms correct meaning with Marxists - Yes. "conservatives" , i.e. "reactionaires" conjure a past that never existed in this way and try to install it as the only solution for todays problems.

My addition number three : My grandfather was a loyal Seventh Day Adventist up to the last day of his life. But he could not escape his social background as the son of a renowned family of organ - builders.He from 1914 to 1918 was in a trench in Flanders, had a court martial because of not following an order on Sabbath, never shot aimed at an enemy - and threatened a Marxist revolutionary when coming back home in 1918 on the platform of Colognes railroad station : "Comrade, you are armed, join the revolution" - "Scram, get lost or I shoot at a man for the first time in my life !". He was a straight Nazi - opponent : No public appraisal and clear words in church, on the pulpit and in committees or ministers meetings - as many other SDA (Those who cry the loudest not always represent the maiority) The false accusation of a private scandal caused his immediate removal from Vienna in 1936 to Milwaukee, Wisconsin and then to Jamestown, North Dakota - that saved the whole families lives in 1938,when Hiltler invaded Austria.

My addition number four : Vegetarian, nonsmoker, teetotaller, family values, anti - urbanity, no Jazz - -Not only SDA by this were trapped in Germany. (Carl Amery : Die Kapitulation oder Deutscher Katholizismus heute, Hamburg 1963) And it seems that this was not the last pitfall for Christians - Let us beware of getting judgemental, but learn from the tragedies of the past.

>>>> Kevin D. Paulson - Mon, 09/26/2011 - 06:23
Dr. Raymond Cottrell, whom I knew as a friend, may be one of the patron saints of liberal Adventism, but his methodology prevents his arguments from being taken seriously by thoughtful conservative church members.
* * * * * * * * * *
Hi Pastor Kevin,
The proper term would be "progressive Adventism" and surely conservative church members would take seriously the concept that we should take the passages of the Bible in their context - which is the philosophy the SDA Bible Commentary took in confirming most of the SDA church doctrines, as opposed to the proof text method of the Adventist pioneers.

Sorry Christian, no offence, but I still get the impression that your concern with the accuracy or beauty of expression kind of drags you away from the content. I do accept Träder's analysis because it makes sense to me, not because of power relations or anything else. And I don't think anyone in Germany is completely free from the influence of one faction or the other. Even if things might be still more complex (which is always a safe thing to say, because its kind of a truism...), his analysis matches reality quite well as far as I can see.

Kevin,

You weren't saying "God Bless" with meaning when you wished that your fellow Christians would get mad cow disease, salmonella or e.coli were you? Is that the wishes you truly have for all your Christian brethren?

The picture of you ostensibly performing a wedding ceremony would have been a good time to warn them of the dangers in their new home of eating such despicable food. Were you negligent in that respect? Do you instruct your baptismal candidates of these dangers of non-vegetarianism?

Dear Elaine:

I don't know what you mean by "ostensibly" performing a wedding ceremony. I assume you are referring to my Facebook picture. That wedding was very real indeed.

Most assuredly I instruct my baptismal candidates in the health message, including vegetarianism. Even though vegetarianism is not a test of church fellowship, we must remember that the Bible itself gives conditions for the consumption of flesh meat. Not only are clean meats only to be eaten (Lev. 11; Deut. 14), but also there is to be no fat and no blood (Gen. 9:4; Lev. 3:17). And let's not forget this rule was applied to the Gentile Christians very explicitly by the apostles, particularly with reference to the use of blood (Acts 15:20,29).

So if someone is going to follow the Bible with regard to the eating of meat, they had better prepare it like the orthodox Jews, without fat or blood. I haven't yet met any carnivorous Adventists, except for a lady in one of my churches, who actually follow that rule.

What I said on the other thread about Mad Cow Disease and the other ailments was intended to make a point. Certainly I don't wish misfortune on anyone, and I apologize if that is what came across. But what both saddens and disturbs me deeply is the extent to which former Adventists like yourself, and liberal Adventists who persist in living a lie by staying in the church, seem to find nothing whatsoever that is good or praiseworthy in their erstwhile faith. So far as they're concerned, there is nothing worthwhile at all in Seventh-day Adventism or any of its requirements. Never mind, for example, the overwhelming scientific evidence that a vegetarian diet is best, never mind the vast environmental destruction that results from the human demand for flesh meat, liberal and former Adventists seem hell-bent on damning without qualification every standard of conduct the church and its teachings have ever set before them.

Time and again I see evidence of liberal political leanings among some who post here. Certainly such persons must know the environmental damage that is caused by de-forestation, most of which occurs because of the need to raise animals to slaughter for food. So much else could be mentioned here. Sensible, educated people of the world, who know nothing of Adventism or Ellen White, recognize these realities. But no, those on this blog can't accept the value of these health standards because that horrible taskmaster, Ellen G. White, is their author. That spirit bespeaks the attitude of rebellious children, not mature, thoughtful adults.

Any objective observer to this blog would surely be tempted to ask, "Can;'t you people find anything good to say about the church you seem to despise so thoroughly? Why do you even bother to hang around its fringes griping and sniping, to say nothing of staying inside and taking more of what you consider abuse?"

I suspect I'm not the only one on these blogs, silent or vocal, who recognizes how little sense this makes.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

Dear "hopeful," whoever you are:

My opinion, my scholarship, my experience are no guide at all for anyone's belief or practice. It is the written counsel of God which alone thus matters. The problem with theological liberalism is that it sees all religious faith as humanly-contrived and subject to interpretation. This is a principal difference between the liberal and conservative approaches to the Bible. The first sees God's Word as a discussion among human beings about God. The second sees that same Word as God's transcendent, self-explanatory revelation of Himself.

I don't know you either, "hopeful," but I might have the chance if you'd step out from behind that cowardly veil otherwise called a pseudonym.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

>>>>>>Kevin D. Paulson - Mon, 09/26/2011 - 17:27 "Not only are clean meats only to be eaten (Lev. 11; Deut. 14), but also there is to be no fat and no blood (Gen. 9:4; Lev. 3:17). And let's not forget this rule was applied to the Gentile Christians very explicitly by the apostles, particularly with reference to the use of blood (Acts 15:20,29).
So if someone is going to follow the Bible with regard to the eating of meat, they had better prepare it like the orthodox Jews, without fat or blood. I haven't yet met any carnivorous Adventists, except for a lady in one of my churches, who actually follow that rule."
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Hello Pastor Kevin,
Do you sincerely believe that during the 25 years that Ellen White ate meat after her "health reform vision" that it was all Kosher? You have got to be kidding me!
For a moment there you sounded like a Jehovah's witness? Are you against blood transfusions as well?

Biblical Adventism has many varieties of interpretations -unless it is my biblical adventism. "Biblical" may have a particular view of the scriptures, yet it still is very coloured by history, cultural context, thinking styles, and other factors.

Dear Mike M:

The question of what Ellen White ate, and how faithfully she followed the counsel God gave her, no more discredits her authority than the fact that David wrote, "O how I love thy law! it is my meditation all the day" (Psalm 119:97, despite the fact that at times he failed to claim God's power to make this happen.

The lives of inspired authors are not our example. But their counsel is to be obeyed through the power of divine grace.

The immediate context of Daniel 8:14 fully upholds the classic Adventist understanding of this passage. When Daniel 7, 8, and 9 are placed alongside one another, the classic Adventist understanding is the only one that makes sense. Go read my paper, "1844: Embattled Yet Enduring," on greatcontroversy dot org. You will see answers to all the common objections to our historic view as a church. I am happy to discuss this issue with anyone.

You might be interested to know that I offered some years ago to present the classic Adventist view of Daniel 8:14 and the investigative judgment at one particular Adventist Forum chapter, which had repeatedly featured presenters who attacked and found fault with our classic view. They wouldn't invite me to come and present the other side. Their excuse? I didn't have an earned doctorate, even though I do hold an undergraduate theology degree and a Master's degree in systematic theology.

Interesting.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

Andreas, I'm not optimistic due to empirical conjectures which can be warranted. I follow Paul's exhortation "there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized" (1Cor 11:19). I found this intriguing passage highlighted in Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's "Kirche, Oekumene und Politik" (Johannes-Verlag, Einsiedeln 1987, p. 131) giving it a dogmatic eschatological twist. Although man often makes factions and thus is responsible, none is able to end the consequences through repentance and conversion only. We have to suffer the consequences until God decides to take away the historical decree (the 'must' or in greek 'dei' should be viewed in accordance to the fate King David had to go through at the end of his life). Maybe Rolf is suffering from the ultra conservatives because Conradi already had put the mentioned reservations into the German fundaments.

I witnessed the excruciating and painful Friedensau hearings in the 1990s and now got to know Friedensau Adventist University from teaching history of philosophy for batchelors in theology. I too don't think that the "hotbed" metaphor is appropriate. It insinuates a homogeneous staff and a determined agenda. In the 90s questions of Adventist identity were discussed by students in their get-togethers and now the question of the Adventist identity went main stream to the people who want Walter Veith being more visible in our church. Thus history is moving on. Rolf and Ekkehard should use their time wisely and pay heed to the chronological order because different people care a lot. And these are not silent any more.

Christian, don't get me wrong, I do like your style, its really fun to read, but what I miss, is content. I mean content that really matters. Content that goes beyond mere hints. Träder never claimed to speak for everyone who reasonably can be called a liberal. He writes as a church historian and he writes about his observations. You are right, times seem to change for our church, especially for me, who moved from Hannover to Baden-Württemberg. But Träder did mention this and the fact that he is still influential doesn't make his observations as a church historian invalid or less accurate than your claims.
When did I claim that there was no truth beyond my standpoint?? Of course there is. I just don't mention it because it looks just as much as a truism as your observation that things are more complex...or that belonging to a faction doesn't save anybody..
Please note that I invest some time to answer you, because I care. My aim is not to offend you! I don't know you but I guess you are a very fun person to spend hours and hours talking....

"In a fairly polarized situation as our church is in right now these kinds of truism are important to be mentioned explicitly."
Haven't looked at it from this side and yes, this could be right....
Will have a look at your blog later..kids need food....