I believe now it's the time for you to study your bible very deeply. Tonight I will enclose you in my prayer in the hope that the Lord will reveal to you the true meaning of the Seventh-day Sabbath of the Bible. There are facts enough in the Bible to see that the Sabbath after creation was indeed a day of 24 hours (Hebrew yom). God let you choose whether to belief his word or not - it depends on you.

Hi

Thanks for your e-mail. Strong's Concordance has the word translated "day" in Genesis as "yowm" and defines it as "day, whether literally from sunrise to sunset or figuratively as a space of time, an age, continually", so I don't think the fact that this term was used means the seventh-day has to be understood as as an evening and morning day. Why do you think the God does not use the term "evening and morning" when defining the seventh-day?

Good luck with your Bible studies,

John

"The gospel is the power of God for spiritual freedom (salvation) for all who believe." Paul showed that all people equally need and can have Jesus in their lives. Paul's gospel is inclusive, as expressed in Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

So what, we're all one, but that says nothing about what moral behaviour is or is not acceptable. What a bunch of pathetic human logic you present in your website. You take a simple straightforward verse of scripture and attempt to wrest it from its obvious meaning in order to purport your twisted logic.

I'll quote bits of your site to demonstrate how pathetic those who abandon the truth can be.

However I could thank you for presenting this damnable folly, because it will take out of my church all the pathetic idiots who do not love the truth.

Thanks for your interesting point of view regarding what the Bible teaches about homosexuality. I don't believe you've made the case that homosexuality is immoral.

Regarding "a simple straightforward verse of scripture", a verse is typically just one or two sentences within a chapter which is itself part of a book of the Bible, which itself is part of the whole Bible. If I open any book and read one or two sentences from it I may believe them to be simple and straightforward but unless I understand the context in which they are written I may be mistaken. As an example I have just opened the Bible at random and read from Job 22:5, "Is not your wickedness great? Are not your sins endless?" now this appears to be some sort of condemnation of wickedness, and if I read on a little further it looks as if someone called Job has been very wicked and been punished by God. However as we know, this is not the story of Job, and the speaker Eliphaz, whilst representing a point of view (that if someone has something bad happen to them it must be because they have done something wrong), does not speak for the author of the book, and the purpose of the story of Job is to counter such a point of view.

However beyond the exegesis of specific texts I would point you to the spirit of what is written in Matthew chapters 5, 6 and 7. Jesus here speaks of being "meek", "merciful", "peacemakers", "the light of the world", "pure in heart". He says "love your enemies" and "judge not, that ye be not judged". You thank me because what I write might "take out of my church all the pathetic idiots". I can't help but be reminded of Matthew 22, the parable of the wedding feast. No doubt the Pharisees would have thought that the guests who attended the wedding feast were "pathetic idiots", because we know that when they prayed to God that said "I thank ye Lord that I am not as other men".

Think about these things in your heart.

John

I've just come across your dialogue with Stephen Korsman, which I find very interesting. One thing which struck me though, is that the Roman Catholics are frequently criticised by many for their belief in Papal Infallibility. Looking at your interpretation of Biblical passages the notion occurred to me "How does Jon know he's right in his views?" If you think you are certain that you are right then it rather looks to me as if you're claiming "Jon Mann infallibility" or "SDA infallibility".

Best wishes

Thanks for your e-mail. I would say that "infallibility" means, in effect, against all reason, because if you have reason on your side you don't need to be infallible. I don't want to be infallible because if I am being unreasonable then I will change my view to the reasonable view. "Interpretation" is a mixture of the subjective and objective - there are degrees between extremes. You can't prove just anything from the Bible but I am often surprised at how views one might think crazy can be given a reasonably good Biblical defense! At the end of the day however I think the orthodox Christian understanding of the Bible combined with a modern world view (i.e. science etc) is broadly correct, but within that band there is still room for discussion.

John

Many thanks for taking the time to reply to my e-mail. It is encouraging to hear someone who is clearly committed to his interpretation of the Bible. I say this because I have, for many years, been in search of some sort of "Truth". It's for this reason my study is full of books on psychology, philosophy, etc.. Among them J-P Satre on existentialism, Friedrich Nietsche, Aristotle, Plato, Kant, Swinburne, Anselm, etc....... the Book of Mormon, the Qur'an, and, of course, a number of versions of the Bible.

As far as monotheism goes I do feel that Muslim scholars have something of an advantage over Jewish and Christian Theologians. This is because the Qur'an is accessible now in exactly the same words in which it was written some 14 centuries ago. Not that they don't wrestle with how it should be interpreted, too, but to a far lesser extent than Christians.

That having been said, the most telling and prophetic of the words I have read (outside of the "Holy Books") were by Martin Luther. Just before his death he stated that one of his principle concerns was that now the Bible had been translated into the vernacular and was readily available through the printing press "any milk-maid who could read" could come to her own interpretation of the Bible and create a Denomination out of that interpretation. And, of course, this is exactly what has happened. I understand that there are over 20,000 Christian Denominations now, each convinced that it's interpretation is the correct one.

I liked your point in one of the "dialogues" that God rejoices in diversity but can't help feeling that, when he revealed the Bible to humans, the current situation wasn't what he intended.

Anyway, I shall take up no more of your time.

Take Care and God Bless you.

John

This is an interesting proposition but doesn't seem to stand much scrutiny. It can't be true that all Christian religions are as good as one another. They contradict one another in three essential points -on what they believe, on how they worship and on the authority they obey. Christ, being God, could not teach contradictions as true. The purpose of any Christian religion must be to teach the full, unaltered religion of Jesus Christ. Seeing that no two of all the Christian denominations agree exactly on doctrine, worship and authority no two can be teaching the integral, unchanged religion of Christ. It is no answer to say that each denomination stresses different aspects of that religion. The fact remains that they do contradict one another in essentials. Some churches are ruled out immediately because contradictions are to be found within themselves. Of the others, if one, say is teaching just what Christ taught, worshipping in his way and recognizing the authority he established, all the others must be wrong, for all of them disagree in at least one of these three vital matters.

The idea that because two denominations teach different doctrines they can't both be right is of course correct from a certain philosophical view of truth, in particular the representialist view. Under this conception of truth a belief "represents" a non-linguistic expression of truth, the belief being simply the words used to represent the abstract truth. However once you come to recognise that truth is bound up with language it becomes possible to recognise that someone can hold an authentic expression of truth even when the words they use to express that truth are representially opposed. Does this undermined the singleness of God? Not at all, we understand that God made man in his own image, and we can see from humanity that we all have different strengths and gifts - some are doctors, some are writers, some are athletes. No one would say that one is more true than the other - they are all authentic expressions of humanity, yet when we get to talking about God we don't realise he is so complex we can never finish describing him.

What is important however is to not try to mix and match beliefs in the confusing belief that a little of each will make the whole. I accept that different beliefs do have different levels of authentic expression of the divine will - the same way that some stories (novels) are more powerful, complex and "true" than others - this truth is in the sense of wisdom rather than dogma. Taking a bit of one story and mixing it with a bit of another does not make a story as good as the two it came from - hence similarly those beliefs that claim to be the "truth" of all religions in fact probably have very little truth of any of them. P G Wodehouse is a great comic author and Dickens is a great epic novelist, but mixing the two would not produce a novel both epic and humourous, rather in all likliehood a story neither funny nor moving.

Religion is a work of art, expressing God in a thousand different ways. This is no different to music expressing the variety of sound, rhythm, melody and tone or painting expressing all the variety of the appearances of the world. I would no more claim to have found the "one" true piece of music or one "true" painting than one true doctrine or belief - if the world of creation is beyond our ability to capture it then even more so is God. I would include in this God's Revelation of himself to us and his conception of his Revelation - this simply provides more imagery and language within which to understand God.

Students of art and music will tell you that you don't necessarily achieve mastery through learning a width of knowledge on a subject, but rather spending time learning and experiencing perhaps just one very small part of the subject to a profound depth. It is this depth that constitutes an understanding of the subject, even through you know you will never experience that depth through all aspects of the discipline, nevertheless simply having a depth within you is sufficient. So with religion it is important to have achieved the depth somewhere, to live that depth and work at it, develop it, create your spiritual home within it. Make your soul as big as the sky and God's sun with shine through it.

John

Many thanks for finding the time to reply to me. It does seem, at least to me, that you are trying to have it all ways.

Religion is a work of art, expressing God in a thousand different ways. This is no different to music expressing the variety of sound, rhythm, melody and tone or painting expressing all the variety of the appearances of the world. I would no more claim to have found the "one" true piece of music or one "true" painting than one true doctrine or belief - if the world of creation is beyond our ability to capture it then even more so is God. I would include in this God's Revelation of himself to us and his conception of his Revelation - this simply provides more imagery and language within which to understand God.

If the above is true, then Islam, Judaism, etc. are all equally valid forms of Religion. Christians claim the Bible to be the revealed Truth of God, but Muslims claim that the Qur'an is the revealed Truth (and goes further saying, "They are unbelievers who say 'God is the Third of Three.' No god is there but one God." [Surah 5; Ayah77]). If this is the case then Jesus cannot be God made Man because the other valid Religions say that He isn't.

If you would wish to claim that only Christianity is "true" then the argument you put about denominations cannot hold. On the one hand you would have to claim that there is only one "true" religion (Christianity); on the other hand, to support multi-denominational Christianity, that "Religion is a work of art, expressing God in a thousand different ways" . These two views are contradictory and, out of logic, cannot both be held to be true.

Many thanks

Thanks for your reply, I think I'm being consistent, but I find your questions helpful in allowing me to unwrap my thoughts.

Many thanks for finding the time to reply to me. It does seem, at least to me, that you are trying to have it all ways. Religion is a work of art, expressing God in a thousand different ways. [cut] If the above is true, then Islam, Judaism, etc. are all equally valid forms of Religion. Christians claim the Bible to be the revealed Truth of God, but Muslims claim that the Qur'an is the revealed Truth (and goes further saying, "They are unbelievers who say 'God is the Third of Three.' No god is there but one God." [Surah 5; Ayah77]).
If this is the case then Jesus cannot be God made Man because the other valid Religions say that He isn't.

I think the key phrase here is "equally valid" because let's go back to my original paradigm, which was what type of "truth" applies to religion and Christianity - is it the truth of art or is it the truth of representation? When we use words literally we have a representational view of truth, the words" there is a bottle on the table" is representational in that is represents a possible physical situation and the "truth" of the statement then depends on its correspondence to the actual situation. If I were to say "that novel is shallow" the statement may be true, but it is't true in a correspondence or representational sense. If I were to say "you are a tower of strength" again this may be true but not in a correspondence sense of truth. Typically when we speak of physical objects in relation to one another we are able to use a correspondence view of truth, when we speak of mental states or responses our language changes and we no longer use words that directly correspond with something "out there". Take the term "equally valid", in what circumstances might one use the phrase? Typically when we are seeking to justify something, to validate it, we might say this proof or that proof is equally valid as justification for an action. What sense then does the term "equally valid form of religion" make? Only if we have identified some goal the means of which is some religious action, yet isn' t that goal itself part of the religion? So it isn't clear what such a term might mean in this context.

To view religion in terms of art doesn't mean all art is at the same level. My son might draw a picture and in some sense it is art, however it isn't in the same class as Dali. I might write a poem but it isn't as good as Shakespeare, but what do I mean by "good"? Not morally good. Could I use the term "it isn't as true as Shakespeare"? Yes, because the quality of a Shakespeare play or sonnet is its ability to be true to human experience. The better a poem, the more true it is. If Wordsworth wrote about experiences that had no resonance with our own world, how could we rate him as a poet? The same is the case with religious truth, it is "true" in the sense that it captures an essential aspect of the subjectivity of the universe.

This means that just as art has different levels of truth, whether in music, literature, painting or sculpture so we may speak of religion having different levels of truth. We certainly can't conclude that because religion is related to art that every religion is equally valid, any more than every work of art is equally valid. What is important is that we can't identify the truth of a work of art through scientific means, we can't "measure" its truth, rather we have to feel and experience its truth. I can't prove to you that Shakespeare is a better writer than me in the same way that I can prove the bottle is or is not on the table, however I can justify the statement and I can give reasons for it. What we need to recognise is that the statements are fundamentally different and the truth claims and so the justification for each claim quite different.

I believe I can argue on good grounds that Christianity essentially is more true than Islam. However I would admit that an individual Muslim may have more truth than an individual Christian. Similarly as a religious belief system Islam has more truth than the modern quasi- and pseduo-religions of nationalism, communism, fascism, liberalism and capitalism. The comparison is similar to artistic comparison. I find First World War poetry (Wilfred Owen, Siegfried Sassoon etc) very moving, yet I would not rate it as better than the poetry of T.S.Eliot. They both have different truths, they both open up different worlds. I believe Eliot's world to be more complex and engaging than the WW1 poets, but I wouldn't on those grounds never read Owen and always read Eliot. I certainly wouldn't say Owen and Eliot are "equally valid", I don't see what such a phrase means in this context.

If you would wish to claim that only Christianity is "true" then the argument you put about denominations cannot hold. On the one hand you would have to claim that there is only one "true" religion (Christianity); on the other hand, to support multi-denominational Christianity, that "Religion is a work of art, expressing God in a thousand different ways" . These two views are contradictory and, out of logic, cannot both be held to be true.

Again, I would suggest putting this argument in the context of art. Take the renaissance painters such as Bronzino, Botticelli, Michan, Durer, Titian etc. We could take these as Christian denominations - they are all different parts (individual painters) of a whole (the renaissance world of painting), it doesn't follow that the contradict each other (although there are differences between them and contradictions in the sense of how they go about painting and what they understand painting to mean). Indeed this pattern is true of almost any part of human activity. We characterise "modernism" to cover a wide variety of activities and ideas, certainly contradictory, yet as a whole representing a very specific way of life and world view. Another example - suppose I were to say I was a socialist, there have been hundreds or thousands of socialists each with their own views and ideas, from Marx and Engels to Trotsky and Lenin to the Labour Party and Tony Blair. It would still make sense to say there is such a thing as "socialism" even though each thinker contradicts every other thinker. you might say "there must be one that is true and all the rest are wrong", but this isn't the case with socialists, painters or writers. Each human activity has its own form of truth and as humans we engage with them all and make a judgement about them. When we see a film the film opens up to us a way of life, a truth about the world. There is a truth in film, there are truths in individual films. Yet it could be argued that different films contradict each other. Some films may open up the depressing side of the world, other films may open up the inspiring side. Both reveal truths, it is up to us to understand the truths of each.

Similarly it makes sense to say there is one true religion in the sense of it being more foundational than other religions - it is the truth that the truths of other religions extend and develop. That doesn't mean Christianity expresses every truth about God better than any other religion. Christianity hasn't the monopoly on the truth about God, any more than great art has the only truth about the human condition.

Truth in religion is not based on correspondence, it is the truth of complexity, of variety, of difference - all the truths that make up the richness of life.

John

The emphasis on mystical current prophets leaves an open invitng door to the ultimate mystical current prophet himself,satan. Whether it be "doe",or jim jones,or rev. moon,or vernon howell,satan can convolute and become just what those who take their eye off of God and his word need and want,a charismatic leader,who will march them to hell. The late davidian prohet,vernon,was a psychotic who attracted weak minded followers with gibberish wrapped up in the guise of "present truth",and this "prophet" and his followers went down in a most non Christian fashion,with all their guns blazing.

In the final analysis then,Christianity is not about some mystical oracle who speaks for God,or reading his will in the entrails of dead animals,or being loathsome and contrary so you will be despised by the world.

Christianity is about faith in Jesus Christ as revealed in the Bible,and having that faith work in the world. Those that require "prophets' to lead them and tell them what to believe are on the wrong road,following their enemy disguised as their friend.LE

It seems to me that you prove too much. Surely your arguments apply as much to Seventh-day Adventism as to Branch Davidians?

To go through your points:

you assume that true Christians must be led at all times by a sinful human who has the alleged "spirit of prophecy"

Two points here I don't agree with:
1. The "at all times" is incorrect, however SDAs believe that the remnant church in the end times will have the Spirit of Prophecy, and Ellen White was a sinful human. Anyone else with the Spirit of Prophecy in the church will also be a sinful human.
2. There is no asumption that the church will be "led" by a prophet or messenger, simply that the message will be given to the church.

You continue to make similar points that Christianity is not about having a special message or truth, but having faith in Jesus. However this assumes that doctrine beyond soteriology is irrelevant. This is certainly not the belief of Seventh-day Adventists nor most orthodox Christians.

You conclude "In the final analysis then,Christianity is not about some mystical oracle". The implication here is that the prophecies of the Bible are irrelevant, again this raises the question why they are there and why prophecies were so important in the first coming of Christ - are they not likely to be equally important in the second coming? Again this is not an SDA position which believes prophecies are important for Christians to understand.

So I repeat my original point: why did the activities which so characterised the early Seventh-day Adventist church stop at the death of Ellen White? Why were there no new interpretations of the prophecies of the Bible? Why were there no more prophets and messengers from God? Why did the discovery of present truth stop?

John

I hope this letter finds you in good health and happiness.

Today I discovered the New Perspectives on SDA website and have been reading it all night! Your articles are some of the most amazing juxtapositions of critical and spiritual thought in the SDA tradition I have ever read. And all I can say is Bravo! It's about time.

Your writings brought some questions to mind:

What is the Progressive Adventist view on seeking social justice in this world? One of your quotes copyright 1983 blew me away: "Yet while this attention to religion is clearly an important part of the Old Testament, for the prophets a different sort of righteousness is described. In the prophets God does not want religious deeds, such as holy days and sacrifices, but moral deeds, feeding the poor, defending the oppressed (e.g. Amos 2:6-7,6; Mal 1:10-11, 3:5; Hos 9; Is 1 etc.)" Have you or any other Progressive SDA's written articles expounding this idea?

Seeking justice for oppressed people seems a cornerston of Jesus' teachings. How the Adventist church could have ignored it for so long was so confusing to me that I left the church as a teenager and have since been attending Quaker and Unitarian services sporadically.

I am a 25 year old fourth-generation Adventist who would like to return to the church of my family, but have had such awful experiences with 'traditional' SDA's who seem to be filled with anxiety and hate, that a return to the Church has been unthinkable. Recently I became so perplexed by my history and relationship with the Church I began seeking answers on the web. Your website (New Perspectives on SDA) has helped me immensly, and I thank you for your wonderful, informative writings.

Many questions still remain and many new questions have developed like, Why aren't SDA's more open and tolerant? Why are they not concerned with seeking justice for oppressed peoples? Why do no fundamentalist churches seem to value the teaching of 'mindfulness', being present in the moment without dwelling on the past or worrying about the future which both Christ and the Budda formulated?

At any rate I appreciate your help in my spiritual journey and thank you for opening my eyes to Progressive Seveth-Day Adventism.

Sincerely,

...

PS If you have time and are interested, I would very much like to hear your ideas on the following issues that have gnawed at my mind for years...

1. Does the Church seriously believe the word 'wine' in the Bible refers to Grape Juice as I was taught in Sabbath Schoool? I believe that not drinking, or at the very least Moderation, should be included in the Adventist Health message, but why does the Church need to misrepresent scripture to support this message?

2. The argument I have heard from Pastors regarding literal interpretation of the Seven-Day Creation goes like this: If you aquiesce to the Creation story being in any way nonliteral then the Fourth Commandment becomes nonliteral and our entire tenet of Seventh-Day worship falls apart. I for one have no trouble accepting that we should keep the Seventh-Day Sabbath (and the other 9 Commandments) to commemorate Creation and our faith in and love of God while simultaneously rejecting the Fundamentalist interpretaion of a Seven Day Creation. Am I the only one?

3. Will the Church ever come to its senses and ordain Women?

I am a former SDA, my parents are still members but almost all the people of my own age left the church because it didn't have anything to say to them. Those who were sincere Christians found the theology was wrong (having read Verdict, Evangelica etc), those who hadn't had much experience of God found the rules too restrictive and puritanical.

Regarding feeding the poor, helping the oppressed etc I suppose the church would point to its missionary programs, but there is little development of it to other areas (as is generally the case - the interpretations of doctrine formed in the early years of the church are still the those current today). I did once read an amazing article about a revolutionary leader of Uganda being a Seventh-day Adventist but I think this is pretty a-typical!

The best source of progressive Seventh-day Adventism is Spectrum - have you read it? I will send you details in an accompanying post. However I am not aware of any specific articles about redistributative justice.

I think returning to Seventh-day Adventism for you would be very much dependant on what the local church is like. Clearly there are some Adventists who are open minded and tolerant, however I fear that many have gradually left the church. For example I found many Adventists like this supported the evangelical Adventism popular in the early 80s, but when Dr Desmond Ford was thrown out of the church many others felt it was not the place for them either (see links to Dr Desmond Ford, Robert Brinsmead, Verdict etc on my web site).

I have never come across an Adventist who was at all interested in eastern ideas (I myself am very interested, I subscribe to Dharma Life and fairly regularly read books on Buddhism. I see Buddhism to Hinduism as Christianity is to Judaism).

>
> 1. Does the Church seriously believe the word 'wine' in the Bible refers to
> Grape Juice as I was taught in Sabbath Schoool? I believe that not drinking,
> or at the very least Moderation, should be included in the Adventist Health
> message, but why does the Church need to misrepresent scripture to support
> this message?

Ellen White says in Desire of Ages that this was not alcoholic wine, hence the SDA view, however the logic of the story dictates that the "good" wine must have been alcoholic to hide the fact that the later wine was of poor quality.

>
> 2. The argument I have heard from Pastors regarding literal interpretation of
> the Seven-Day Creation goes like this: If you aquiesce to the Creation story
> being in any way nonliteral then the Fourth Commandment becomes nonliteral
> and our entire tenet of Seventh-Day worship falls apart. I for one have no
> trouble accepting that we should keep the Seventh-Day Sabbath (and the other
> 9 Commandments) to commemorate Creation and our faith in and love of God
> while simultaneously rejecting the Fundamentalist interpretaion of a Seven
> Day Creation. Am I the only one?

No! Well, probably not. I have a book by a Seventh-day Adventist Edward Vick called "Quest" in which he raises lots of questions about science and faith, and obviously infers that evolution is compatible with Christianity. Edward Vick wrote some amazing theology books published by Southern Publishing (an SDA publishing house) such as "Jesus the Man" and "God Talk", in their "Anvil" contemporary theology series. However he has now left the church, I assume because he didn't find much of a response to his questioning, open attitude to faith.

>
* > 3. Will the Church ever come to its senses and ordain Women?

There are a number of articles on this at the Spectrum web site. It depends on the balance of liberal to conservative in the SDA organisation, generally the conservatives have the upper hand.

Thanks for your mail, it was good to hear about your experiences.

John

First,let me say that the age of "true Prophets" has long since closed. The Apostles were the last of these prophets,as their message regarding Christ and salvation is complete,perfect and in no need of additions or deletions.

Was Ellen White a "prophet"? She never used the term to describe herself,most often describing herself as a messenger. Christianity has had many such messengers,Luther,Knox,Wycliffe,Tyndale and so on. None of these people,including Mrs. White were "prophets" in the since that the Apostles were,inerrant and the perfect authority for what they wrote and said.

Before I left the SDA church I did a tremendous amount of study re EG White over two years,and found her to be a very flawed vessel to wear the mantle of "prophet". The Church has selectively exalted her to be something she was not.

As to the SDA church being the remnant,SDA theology is very clear in that the "remnant church" is made up of true believers AFTER all those who will come out of fallen Babylon do so. Unless you believe this has already happened,the remnant church does not exist yet. We can speculate about what these saints might believe,and it is pretty obvious what those things will be,but the true Church today is the body of Christ to be found most likely in every denomination.

As to your concern about messengers today,I would suggest that there may be many,as many are truly led by the spirit. Because they do not force themselves to the forefront claiming that they,and only they have been appointed to speak for God,in no way diminishes their message.

As you have discovered,I am no longer an SDA,although I spent many years in the Church,as an Elder,adult SS teacher,etc. I left because I discovered I was a Protestant in the truest sense,"Sola Scriptura" is the only truth. Catholics have a long line of Popes who propose to speak for God,Adventists to this point have one,in both cases however,the Churches have attempted to add to the clear teachings and prophesies of the Bible,an error and not Protestant by any measurement. When Adventism decided to take a wise leader and thinker,and make her an inerrant prophet,they abandoned sola scriptura.LE

So far I am not clear from your response what reason you would give.

John

I have had no "official" response to the site. It would be nice to see the church do something bold and imaginative to break out of the cul-de-sac they are in, but up to now there has been little evidence of such a breakthrough.

John

I am quite curious about who you are. Will you please introduce yourself to me or tell me where I can read about you on your website? Specifically, what is your past religious affiliation and are you still of that persuasion today?

I have been reading from your site for about a week. The information is quite interesting from many perspectives. I'm quite sure you realize that there is so much information dispensed about the controversy between Sabbatarians and Sunday"tarians." I consider myself a critical thinker and I find the controversy in general, "inherently" defeating.

Everyone must take a position in his/her Christian belief and this website has shared information that has cause me to see the other side of the story. I am thankful that the Holy Spirit is still teaching me.

I don't have any other specific questions for you besides those above, but please write back and share with me as I am hungry to learn God's word.

About myself - I am forty, married with two children. My parents are Adventists, and I was a strong Adventist until the early 80s when I read material by evangelical Adventists: Walter Martin, Desmond Ford and others and decided Adventism didn't have all the truth. I don't go to an SDA church, I don't have fixed views on Christianity, I'd call myself a fairly orthodox but open-minded Christian.

There's no particular objective to the web site. Over the years I had made a lot of notes about Adventism, I have had discussions with Adventists about what is good and bad in Adventism.. I suppose basically I had some ideas I just wanted to share with people, putting them on a web site seemed a good idea. I would like to make people think a little.

I don't think Adventism can be reformed, but I think there are intelligent, open minded Adventists who deserve an intelligent, open minded Adventist web site. Who knows, if people start to ask questions...

John

Thank you kindly for responding to me. Do you mind if I send you a few messages? I clearly see where you could relate to me in the matter of Saturday and Sunday worship. I'm not looking for someone to affirm my decisions, I just want to be lead truthfully.

So I realize that I must make a decision. Okay, now I'm at the point in the story where I believe your insight and knowledge would be beneficial. (I base this statement on the information that I've read from your web page and the fact that I embrace most of your information. Plus, you have traveled where I am traveling.) That is, I'm being confronted with leaving the SDA church.

What an enormous burden and decision? Could you relate to these feelings? So how is it done? I attended a Sunday church for mid-week services for the first time and I felt guilty and disloyal.

I believe God will lead me. However, I must admit that I'm scared to death. I've been told all my life that leaving the church would result to apostasy and ultimately eternal deception.

Now I'll listen to you...

The text which came to mind when reading your e-mail was Hebrews 4:9 "there remains then a Sabbath rest for the-people of God".

The book of Hebrews is of course concerned with the spiritual truth of the Old Testament: do we still need a High Priest, yes, but Christ is our High Priest (Heb 4:14), do we still need to offer a sacrifice to God? Yes, but Christ is our sacrifice (Heb 10:10), do we still need to be circumcised? Yes, but circumcision of the heart, not the flesh (Rom 2:29).

Similarly do we still need to observe a Sabbath rest? If so, how? Hebrews 3:11 quotes the Old Testament God saying "they shall never enter my rest" (Heb 3:11 quoting Ps 95:11), referring to those under the Old Covenant who had disobeyed him. So under the Old Covenant no one was able to enter God's Sabbath rest. In other words, keeping the seventh-day "holy" did not really constitute entering God's rest. The Pharisees who had kept every Sabbath rule and regulation had not entered God's rest. However the promise of that rest still remained: from the beginning of Creation God had rested on the seventh day (Heb 4:4; Gen 2:3), yet no one who had kept the Sabbath under the Old Covenant had entered that rest.

Hebrews says that some will enter that rest ("it still remains that some will enter that rest" - Heb 4:6) yet not through the Old Covenant keeping of the seventh day holy. Instead God has set aside another day ("therefore God again set a certain day" - Heb 4:7). Hebrews says that if the Old Covenant of keeping the seventh day had really enabled people to enter God's rest he would not have spoken of another day ("if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day" - Heb 4:8), and what is that other day? Sunday? No, it is Today, for "therefore God again set a certain day, called it Today" (Heb 4:7), for "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts" (Heb 4:7,quoting Ps 95:7), so there remains a Sabbath-rest, not on the seventh day, but Today, "for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his" (Heb 4:10).

This message of finding God through faith, not works is central to the message of the New Testament (Rom 3:28: "for we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law", "we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code" (Rom 7:6).

Furthermore we are not to understand that God accepts us through faith but then after that to show our love for God we are to obey the (written) law, for as Romans says above we "serve" in the new way of the Spirit. In Galatians the believers had been told that while God accepted them through faith they were subsequently to follow the written law, but Paul argues "did you receive the Spirit by observing the law?" (Gal 3:2) - obviously not - so then now you are Christians continue to live as you started, by faith, for "the righteous will live by faith" (Gal 3:11).

From what you write, you sound as if you feel unsure about worshipping God on a day other than Saturday. However don't look at things in a negative manner, but see the positive, every day is a day to worship God on. Every day is a day to enter his rest! "Today" - now - you can step sideways from the world and enter the rest of God, for God's time is not human time, it is another reality in which we can dwell. If worship on a Saturday carries a special meaning and significance for you, keep that special feeling within you, but recognise that every day is spiritually the seventh day. Feel the same sense of the sacred about every day, hour and second as you feel about Saturday.

In other words, I am saying don't look at it as not keeping Saturday holy, see it as keeping every day as holy and sacred as Saturday. Perhaps you are thinking - how can I keep every day as a Sabbath? Should I not shop at all? Should I not watch TV? If you are thinking that, what was the point of those rules and laws? Wasn't it to create space to experience God in? Yet how often on a seventh day Sabbath to we put aside "worldly" preoccupations only to replace them with "religious" preoccupations which postpone our meeting God as much as the worldly occupations did! The point is to through faith enter God's rest, not through works.

By the way, from a historical point of view the day Christians rested and the day the worshipped was not necessarily the same. The Ten Commandments only speak of "resting" on the seventh-day, not worshipping. For some Christians in the first few centuries of the church, Saturday was a day of resting and fasting, while Sunday was the day of worship. However eventually Sunday became both the day of rest and worship.

Regarding worshipping with non-Adventist Christians, I think the important thing is to find a church where you fit in. Provided the church teaches orthodox Christianity, I would judge the church from its spirit, not its doctrines. Don't think should I go to a Baptist church or should I go to an Adventist church (i.e. think doctrinally) but go to a place where you can find God, where your spiritual needs are met.

When you spoke of an enormous burden it reminded me of Pilgrim's Progress. Christian starts the book with an enormous burden on his back, but he is able to remove the burden at the Cross. Although it is difficult, put your burden down and live by faith. On a more practical note, once you have done this - once you have said to God, "ok, I'm going to trust you to sort this out" - actually expect an answer. Look for the answer and guidance God gives you. Some coincidence or sign will happen to show you what to do, and then you will feel that God is actually with you on your journey.

If we look back to the early Adventists and compare them with Adventists today one of the most striking differences is the fact that the early Adventists took coincidences seriously. I am not simply describing the application of prophecy to history, the coincidences that occur between time periods in the Bible and time periods in history, but their whole awareness of life. When the early pioneers had questions they expected God to answer them, and continually had an attitude of expectancy waiting for those answers. Following the Great Disappointment instead of simply saying "this was a mistake" they expected God to explain to them what had happened, they were watching and waiting for coincidences to appear to point them in the direction of the answer. When Joseph Bates appeared with the Sabbath truth his arrival was not seen as random chance but an important and significant event. Both as a group and individually no event was seen as random or meaningless, but everything was significant and with purpose.

If we take note of significant events - look for them and expect them - if we consider their meaning and purpose, we can rediscover our destiny and start to follow it. If we ignore or refuse to look for coincidence and meaning we will continue to exist without a path and without purpose.

Best wishes,

John

I just want to express my gratitude to you for providing materials such as what you have in "New Perspective..." I can easily identify with you folks.

There are about 20 registered churches that we are attending to here in the Philippines and most of the materials that we use, we get from your site.

Again, thank you so much making yourselves available through the internet. I'm sure you are an instrument in God's hands to help those of us who need guidance. We praise the Lord for you.

Very sincerely,

My name is Pastor Ray McCullough

And I would like very much to tell you something. I don't know how you will take this but yes Yahweh (God) has called together a Ministry in these last and evil days of history that is His True End time Ministry.

The New Covenant Church of Christ 7th Day. A Church that is non-denominational and untraditional in the since of most 7th Day Churches. This Church was established by Yahshua in 3 A.D. and is being re-established by Him through me, Pastor Ray McCullough.

As Paul stated in Galatians 1: 10-12, I was not called by men. Please read those verses when you get a chance.

I was called out of the Baptist Church in 1990, taught and guided by the Holy Spirit for 10 years, studying and researching every cult, religion and denomination in the world before it was revealed to me in October 2001 that Yahweh our God and Yahshua His Son was ready for me to establish His True Church because He wanted such a Church on earth active and thriving at His return..

When He first called me into the Ministry I had no idea what He had in store for me to do. But He placed in my heart a thrist for knowledge that seemed to be unquenchable.

He revealed to me even though there were 7th Day Churches on Earth, non of them truly worshiped Him in Spirit and Truth and all of them placed a burden upon His people the same as the Pharisees did when Yahshua walked the Earth 2000 years ago and really has missed the mark in understanding the truth of His commandments, along with a lot of other things they were doing that displeased Him.

I am not a prophet, but merely a servant-teacher of truth as revealed to me by Yahshua through the Holy Spirit. I teach truth strictly as it relates to the New Testament and The New Testament only with a divine revelation from Yahweh, using the Old Testament from time to time only as a reference and historical book that point to the New.

Yahweh has revealed to me that this is the only book I am to teach out of without writing or teaching anything on what I think or my having a opinion on anything.

We are about 4 members strong and people come and go. But that does not bother me. I will continue to teach truth and only truth until Christ once again return to claim His own.

You say you are looking for a true Church. Well there is one;

THE NEW COVENANT CHURCH OF CHRIST 7TH DAY
5411 AVENUE - LOS ANGELES, CA 90043
EVERY SABBATH 10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON
At (Faith & Love Christian Center)

Your Brother In Yashua (Christ Jesus)
Ray McCullough

Wow! I just stumbled on to your site this week...I have been teaching a young adults SS class this last year and have been frustrated by the lack of resources which link my personal faith to Adventist doctrine. I knew I had hit on something when I saw Dali, EGW, and Karl Barth on the same page!

My question to you is: are you aware of any discussion group that uses the topics from the NAD lesson quarterly* as a takeoff, and encourages free and open discourse from non-traditional viewpoints? I already suscribe to SSNET (hosted at Andrews University) which is, in my view, steeped in traditionalism and usually the only way I get anything out of it is if I find something I disagree with.

Last week I taught the class on "Christ our Righteousness" mostly based on my recent reading of Kierkegaard's Concluding Unscientific Postscript. I would have loved to have had the resources of others with complementary views (I'm currently living in the heart of the "bible-belt" where the SDA churches are small and the dominant religion is Southern Baptist). Your essays on the Sabbath will be invaluable as I prepare for the next 3 week's lessons*.

In any case, congratulations on your fair and open presentation of Adventism, and your courage to put forth new ideas. Many I agree with, many I don't, but on the whole I have found your site an inspiration.

...

* I assume by your site's address you live in England and I don't know if the churches there uses the same SS quarterlies. This quarter the lessons are "Pillars of our Faith" which attempt to review and clarify the unique teachings of Adventism. The first lesson emphasized Christian faith as the underpinning (not necessarily unique to SDA's) but the rest are on the Sabbath, the remnant, the second-coming, etc. This should be a very interesting quarter...maybe.

I love to hear from Adventists who mix old and new. I really smiled when I read "last week I taught the class on "Christ our Righteousness" mostly based on my recent reading of Kierkegaard's Concluding Unscientific Postscript"!! Somewhere around I have an SS quarterly which quotes Tillich - pity there isn't a little more of it.

Hope the site is useful for you - you're pretty much the "target audience" - let me know if there is anything you think it missing.

I looked at that page (Are you a?) last week but I didn't find the key--so I don't know which I am. But I personally tend to fall asleep on the whole "faith vs. works" argument for this reason: Most evangelicals (or fundamentalists) at least here in the USA define faith as belief in certain literal phrases which I am at a loss to believe. In Orwell's 1984 the state finally convinced our hero that 2+2=5, but at what price? It seems to me that we have replaced the legalism of yesteryear with an even worse one: that of cognitive dissonance. Is it right that I am "lost" because I may not believe in the literalism of creation, prophesies, incarnation, et cetera? It's much easier to follow a set of rules than believe something I just can't, and believe me, I've tried for many years. Maybe that's why so many Adventists stick to their legalism, because there are just too many "beliefs" to swallow.

Of course, my idea of faith has evolved to a more mature idea of 'oneness in Christ' and it seems to me I am at least headed toward the right path there. I recently read an excerpt from Jacques Ellul which concisely states this (Faith and Belief, http://www.christinyou.net/faithbelief.html).

I actually have a great deal of respect for much of Catholicism; the mystical tradition flourished in the monasteries (re Meister Eckhart), and the depths of experience conveyed by the music of the old church is unparalleled. Recent thinkers in the church that have impacted me are Ellul and Tielhard de Chardin.

But your idea of completing the reformation intrigues me. I think Protestantism is killing (has killed) itself by adopting the modern idea of literalism and therefore making an idol of the bible ('bibliolatry' I think in the words of Robert Brinsmead). Even accepting this, it is hard for me to get away from the "proof-text" method in which we are essentially Aristotleans, Baconians, et cetera. It is so easy to literalize, but difficult to demythologize/remythologize (re Bultmann) which is what I think we as a church need to do. I just have no idea how to go about it--being so foreign to our 21st century mindset.

So I'll continue my search and I'm going to try to figure out how to subscribe to the alt.religion.christian.adventist news group. Until later...

Yes I do agree with you about faith and works, it isn't something in itself that it interesting, however as a koan for unsettling a mindset I like the idea that traditionalist Adventists give the same answers as RCs whom they profess to be very dissimilar to.

Like you I find a lot of things interesting in RC, my favourite place to go on holiday is Italy and I very much enjoyed a week long visit to Rome, looking around the Vatican etc, I also like reading about the Counter-Reformation/Catholic Reformation and finding out about characters such as Philip Neri. Having said that, it is really the edges of Catholicism and appeals more than the traditional mainstream.

I've had a quick look through http://www.christinyou.net/faithbelief.html and it looks interesting - isn't Jacques Ellul someone Brinsmead quotes? I'll have to read some more.

Protestantism deconstructs itself in its suspicion of idolatory - if nothing is absolute but God, then our direct experience and existence is full of change and flux. All that is solid melts into air.

We start to remythologise when we encounter the mystical, allegorical spirituality that exists in the gaps and behind the literalism of western theology. We need to also look to Eastern Orthodoxy for a different understanding of Christian language and meaning. Gnosticism, modernism, poetry, dreams, silence, nature, music... there is a whole tapestry of spirituality within us and about us that we need to re-experience and re-connect with. Do not think the resurrection is unreal, rather the resurrection is reality and the world an unreality.

Seventh-day Adventism - what does that literally mean? It means to experience the Advent as a "Seventh-day" Advent. What does that mean? Well, we know the seventh day of creation was outside of time, it was the creation of God's rest, his day without evening and morning. Hence God's rest/ the seventh-day symbolises a cosmic sublime unconscious within which we all exist but can only enter when we cease our striving and realise we are already where we are seeking to go - a sort of zen experience of turning reality inside out. This means the "advent" - the arrival of God - has a special significance when we prefix it with "seventh-day" because this makes the advent of God a supremely supra-conscious dream-state, we wake up and enter the dream of God.

Good luck with alt.religion.christian.adventist - I found it irritating. If you scroll down http://www.fountain.btinternet.co.uk/sda/ and find the section Dialogue with Traditional Seventh-day Adventists you'll see what I mean.

If you want to know the "correct" answers for the Protestant/Catholic quiz, go to http://www.fountain.btinternet.co.uk/sda/ProtQuiz.html and fill in your answers then click on the "Score Now" button at the bottom and you will see how many of each answer you have given. Keep changing and scoring to see what the results mean.

God Bless

John

I tried out the quiz and see what you mean about the score...I agree that many of the things we're taught are closer to the RC position than the protestant. The problem I have with both positions is that the emphasis is on "being right" with God, a euphemism for "being saved" or "being rewarded" (ie. "going to heaven") rather than demonstrating true faith or love which seeks no reward. Again, my prejudice is that requiring orthodoxy (correct belief) is worse (more tyrannical) than requiring orthopraxy (correct works) which at least in some ways allows for freedom of conscience. The problem is most Adventists aren't trained to be rigorous thinkers and blindly call the pope the Antichrist, blah, blah, blah...

Another problem with this RC/Protestant debate is sola scriptura. The NT is clearly the product of "the church" and even if it were transcribed directly from God who would be your authority for interpretation? The whole logic of Bacchiochi's Sabbatarianism is rejection of man's authority (re: the church) so on what do we base our idea of canonization of scripture? I have never had this adequately explained to me. The whole concept of the HS doing the interpration is also quite vague.

In medicine there is a principle that if a drug works well for a given condition, there will be just one drug. If there is really no good treatment, there will be hundreds of drugs that all claim to be the best. (metaphor)

15 minutes at alt.religion.christian.adventist was enough. If you have any suggestions for other discussion groups...

I had never heard of Ellul until I stumbled across this site. I'm not sure what I was searching for at the time. He's a French RC, wrote alot in the 1960's & 70's. From what I can tell he's kind of a neo-luddite/mystic. There's a book of his: The Meaning of the City which deals with the theology of urbanization, which may be useful for an upcoming SS on Jerusalem vs.Babylon.

I presented the idea of Sabbath as a symbol of the eternal nature of God and discussed the absence of "morning and evening" in SS last week. Although I got a few blank stares, overall the response was quite positive. Thank you for your insights. I continue to look for productive ways to "add new light".

Here is a dilemma I am currently wrestling with: If we accept the fact that literalism is killing true Christianity, which way do we then go? It seems to me there are two paths: we can emphasize remythologization as you have proposed, or we could continue the current trend toward logos and pursue the historical Jesus and emulate his radical pragmatic humanism, as Brinsmead seems to propose. Admittedly, these paths are not mutually exclusive, but they do implicate a different emphasis. I consider myself to be rather enlightened but find it next to impossible to experience the indifference of Eckhart of the nirvana of Buddhism.

My current approach is to use Kierkegaardian subjectivity to approach Christian paradoxes such as the Trinity. Your approach to the Sabbath is in some ways similar to this. I just finished reading Brinsmead's Scandal of Joshua ben Adam (linked from your site) which I found quite inspirational. But, quite unexpectedly to me, he minimized the role of mysticism (subjectivity) and seemed firmly in the rationalist camp (I found this surprising because I was in agreement with him on many points).

The real question is: Is mysticism too exclusive...because any truth must be accessible to the masses or I can't see how that would fit with justice...

Anyway, I didn't mean to be long-winded. These are precisely the type of musings I would like to have. Don't feel that you have to respond. It's just somewhat cathartic to get some of this out...

You're quite welcome to send me your thoughts - it is interesting that how we express ourselves varies greatly depending on our image of who we are addressing - therefore writing notes to ourselves my not be the best way to clarify our thoughts. I enjoy having a dialogue with someone because I don't know what I am going to say to them - the encounter will bring out some aspect of my thoughts that I probably was not aware of. If I am arguing with a traditionalist Adventist I will use arguments which I believe will make sense to them, but which I would not use in other circumstances. When explaining ideas to you I find it very unusual because I have found so few SDAs with your enlightened viewpoint, therefore I will subconsciously revert back to more traditional SDA explanations.

There is a big gap between the spiritual and the moral, and one which I find within myself. Spiritually a religious way of life may be quite different to the moral - religious laws are strange in that they appear so simple to perform - keeping the Sabbath, eating right food, avoiding worldly activities - if you think that is what God wants then I don't see that they are particularly difficult to keep (unless some religious authority is forcing you to not keep them or to keep different religious laws). At a more interesting level a spiritual life means developing an awareness of God and being aware of where he is leading you, through meditation, prayer and mindfulness. However there is a strong tradition within the Bible for a religious and spiritual way of life to be meaningless (in a sense Barth's idea that religion is simply man's search for God, not God's revelation to man), and that what is important is a moral life, caring for the poor and powerless, fighting the rich and powerful. In practical terms this appears much more difficult and no wonder religious people prefer seeking spiritual battles.Although intellectually I accept that God demands justice and I do try to align myself with progressive political forces, when experiencing God I conceptualise a being concerned with an abstract sense of peace and love, rather than the Old Testament God of the prophets. Brinsmead is a rationalist seeking a pure, clear expression of God's purpose (at one time he was endorsing Albert Nolan's "Jesus before Christianity" - Nolan is a RC who believes the Jesus of history was concerned with justice and ethics and has been lost behind the Pauline myth of the dead and resurrected Christ). This seems to me to simply turn religion into a symbolic expression of morality. I wrote a number of times to Brinsmead arguing that he should accept a more mystical notion of God and our experience of God, in particular to re-claim the Gnostic tradition (e.g. read Elaine Pagel's "The Gnostic Gospels", a book I found made the scales fall from my eyes), however I got no reply. Have you read the Gospel of Thomas? I think it is very good, I like it a lot - particular the new parables.

Have you read Don Cupitt? I've read a lot of his books and he does appear to come close to combining the mystical and philosophical, but again his philosophy is too literal and abstract to finally be satisfying, however I have a lot of time for his ideas. I suppose I have found a gap between those theologians who make sense theologically (Tillich, Bultmann, Bonhoeffer, Cupitt) and real, practical ideas for living a spiritual life. The closest I find to fill the gap are "popular" spiritual authors such as James Redfield (The Celestine Prophecy/The Tenth Insight), Scott Peck (The Road Less Travelled), James Handy (The Empty Raincoat) etc. My reading of Buddhism is that it is in many ways similar to Christianity in the way it responds to a very traditional religious attitude to life (Hinduism) by deconstructing it - so for Hinduism/Buddhism read Judaism/Christianity.

Although I have read a lot of existentialism I have never read as much Kierkegaard as I have wanted to - he is a fascinating character and in may ways post-modern in his writing and style (lots of masks/styles/meanings). My main influences in existentialism are Camus and Sartre, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer but mainly Dostoyevsky. Their main insight I suppose is to always understand the challenge of ideas to yourself and your life - how does this truth challenge me? How does it challenge what I am and what I aim to be? There are plenty of mystics who combined justice with a mystical life - Philip Neri and Simone Weil are two names that come to mind.

I was nice to hear you discussing the Sabbath not simply as a set of religious rules but as a mystical state of rest that God wishes us to enter, it is probably best not to present the two ideas as exclusive, but it does seem to me that the NT presents the latter to the exclusion of the former, in a similar way to saying Christian's should be circumcised, but circumcision of the heart, not the flesh.

Something you may find useful is this web site http://sunsite.dk/Revelation/ Resources for the Study of the Book of Revelation. These are academics who study Revelation, and their discussions are always useful and enlightening. Once line of thought I find fascinating is the idea that "Babylon" is not Rome but Jerusalem. The argument is that Rome in the NT is never portrayed as the enemy, rather Christians saw the Jews as being led by Satan ("you belong to your father the devil" John 8:44, "Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children" Gal 4:25, "the synagogue of Satan" Rev 3:9). Therefore Revelation should be read as an encounter with the dangers of Judaism, not Rome.

Keep in touch

John

Thanks for your insights. I am really a neophyte (re: amateur) when it comes to philosophy/theology. Most of my ideas were developed in college (Andrews '89), particularly in Joe Greig's religion classes and Gary Land's Modern Western Thought. I tried to read in med school (started something by Camus) but never had the time & I lost interest. Over the last year or so I have had a renaissance of sorts, and have been reading from both the historical and theological strains. My knowledge of Tillich, Barth, and Bultmann is mostly second-hand, I have most recently read Bonhoffer's Cost of Discipleship and a compilation of Meister Eckart's works. I'm currently trying to read Buber's I & Thou but I admit it's not the easiest.

I appreciate the bio on Simone Weil--interesting that I was shocked it was a woman! My own prejudices continue to amaze me even in these supposedly 'enlightened' times. Our patriarchial system as it is, most western 'thinkers' have been men...I wonder what perspectives we have missed by sociologically marginizing women for so many centuries. An historian I have been reading recently is Karen Armstrong; in the Battle for God she talks of the rise of fundamentalism in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam as a new development that arises in part from the acceptance of logos over mythos in the modern mind.

Speaking of prejudices, I admit my own are often anti-Christian, or at least anti-religious. I often find greater truth in progressive ideology than in church on Sabbath. In this sense I agree with the message of Brinsmead, that 'secular humanism' is closer to the message of Jesus than ecclesiastical Christianity. I guess this is another example of my modern bias toward logos, or rationalism, over the mystical approach to God. As much as I fight against fundamentalist Christianity, I acknowledge the same prejudice toward rationalism within myself. Although I can accept the argument that asceticism or mysticism is needed, I find it difficult to internalize.

I haven't read the more "popular" authors of the day, probably again because of a bias against the dreaded "new-ageism". The problem is, anyone with a more mystical approach who becomes popular enough becomes labelled by church-goers as "new-age" and thereby discredits them -- you can always justify the classical and academic authors by claiming "intellectual curiosity".

I recently found the Gospel of Thomas on the internet (about a week before I found it on your site) and I thought it was very interesting at first glance. Some of the quotes about women are, to say the least, confusing. I appreciated your arguments about learning from these extra-canonical sources. (I also love the Wisdom of Solomon-Eckhart quotes from that alot). I checked out the reviews of Pagels' and Cupitt's books on Amazon.com (found your review of After God); both looked fascinating. I'm not sure where to start...

Anyway, I've got to get back to work. Hopefully we can keep in touch.

...

Question--are people like me really that rare in the Adventist church, do others who think like this leave the church, keep quiet, or just deny their questions? Any thoughts?

>
> historical and theological strains. My knowledge of Tillich, Barth, and
> Bultmann is mostly second-hand, I have most recently read Bonhoffer's Cost
> of Discipleship and a compilation of Meister Eckart's works. I'm currently
> trying to read Buber's I & Thou but I admit it's not the easiest.

Try John A.T. Robinson's "Honest to God", it is available at amazon.com

Here is one of the reviews:

I read this book thirty years ago, and ran across it the other day and decided to reread it. It remains as "honest and refreshingly revealing" today as it did thirty years ago. I was hoping to pick up several copies for friends but have discovered much to my dismay that the publisher is out of stock. Please publish it again, and soon. Robinson, who was Bishop of Woolwich, England in 1963 at the time of first publication, explores his personal faith concepts and convictions about God, the supernatural, religion, prayer and the like. He draws on the writings of such men as Paul Tillich and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. At the time of first publication it was deemed very controversial by clerics as well as lay people. I suspect that controversy would still exist. However, it demands to be read and reread, as the issues of God, and the presence of God, remain provoking to both believers and non-believers. To quote Robinson, in his Preface, ..."I suspect that we stand on the brink of a period in which it is going to become increasingly difficult to know what the true defence of Christian truth requires...I believe we are being called, over the years ahead, to far more than a restating of traditional orthodoxy in modern terms. Indeed, if our defence of the Faith is limited to this, we shall find in all likelihood that we have lost out to all but a tiny religious remnant...I am convinced that there is a growing gulf between the traditional orthodox supernaturalism in which our Faith has been framed and the categories which the 'lay' world finds meaningful today. And by that I do not mean there is an increasing gap between Christianity and pagan society...but...many who are Christians find themselves on the same side as those who are not. And among one's intelligent non-Christian friends one discovers many who are far nearer to the Kingdom of heaven than they themselves can credit...What dismays me is the vehemence--and at bottom the insecurity--of those who feel that the Faith can only be defended by branding as enemies within the camp those who do not. (find the traditional framework of metaphysics and morals entirely acceptable)."

>
> sociologically marginizing women for so many centuries. An historian I have
> been reading recently is Karen Armstrong; in the Battle for God she talks of
> the rise of fundamentalism in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam as a new
> development that arises in part from the acceptance of logos over mythos in
> the modern mind.

I like Karen Armstrong, I read her book on Muhammad and found she explained the origins of Islam very well, she was able to give you a "feel" for the religion as well as simply telling you about it (by the way, I have a page about Islam at http://www.fountain.btinternet.co.uk/islam/ as you can see if you read the page I was going to do more studies on it, but have so far not got around to going any further!

>
> bias toward logos, or rationalism, over the mystical approach to God. As
> much as I fight against fundamentalist Christianity, I acknowledge the same
> prejudice toward rationalism within myself. Although I can accept the
> argument that asceticism or mysticism is needed, I find it difficult to
> internalize.

There are two paths to knowledge, synthesis (bringing together) and analysis (breaking apart), and of course we use both of them. Some might argue that analysis is the scientific method (rationalism) and has a different approach to knowledge than synthesis, which is more holistic and potentially mystical. However after some thought I don't agree. Of course science is about breaking down cherished opinion through reason and evidence. A scientific theory is never proved, only not yet disproved, and it is the nature of scientific knowledge that scientists look forward to the day when what they currently hold to be true will be found to be in error. Although philosophy, religion, ethics, art etc approach their subject from an synthetic point of view - finding patterns, looking at the whole - nevertheless the authentic thinker who maintains their integrity always knows or feels where their beliefs are open to questioning and will go to that very point and examine their views most strongly at the weakest point. Some believers/thinkers, although aware of holes in their arguments will shy away from such thoughts and avoid the opportunity to test their beliefs in these areas.Yet it is a matter of commitment to truth to always be seeking to test your beliefs and actually rejoice if you find you were in error on a point and change your mind after serious reflection.

>
> I haven't read the more "popular" authors of the day, probably again because
> of a bias against the dreaded "new-ageism". The problem is, anyone with a
> more mystical approach who becomes popular enough becomes labelled by
> church-goers as "new-age" and thereby discredits them -- you can always
> justify the classical and academic authors by claiming "intellectual
> curiosity".

I wrote a review of some "popular" authors, although they were writing about "business" there is a lot of common ground between "business" books and very broad spiritual books - good example, Stephen Covey who is both a spiritual (he is a Mormon) and business (author of "Seven Habits of Highly Effective People) author. You can find the review at http://www.fountain.btinternet.co.uk/philosophy/empty.html

>
> I recently found the Gospel of Thomas on the internet (about a week before I
> found it on your site) and I thought it was very interesting at first
> glance. Some of the quotes about women are, to say the least, confusing. I
> appreciated your arguments about learning from these extra-canonical
> sources. (I also love the Wisdom of Solomon-Eckhart quotes from that alot).
> I checked out the reviews of Pagels' and Cupitt's books on Amazon.com (found
> your review of After God); both looked fascinating. I'm not sure where to

The Nag Hammadi Library is *the* gnostic book to get. Not only does it contain the Gospel of Thomas, but lots of other writings found from the same site in Egypt (Gospel of Truth, Gospel of Philip etc) however I think you need to read something like Pagels' book to put the writings into context.

> Question--are people like me really that rare in the Adventist church, do
> others who think like this leave the church, keep quiet, or just deny their
> questions? Any thoughts?

Well, thinking back to the people of my age I went to church with, I think a lot of them had serious questions they wanted answering, and the church didn't answer them. The irony is that our minister at the time a lot of us left was probably one of the most intellectual people in the church - he knew about Bultmann, Tillich etc - but he didn't want to debate anything, he just wanted us to accept things without question, to just take his word for it. He actually took the Sabbath School Youth class and every week we would out argue him, not in a debating sense of scoring points, but just raise issues that he was unable to deal with. It just became clear to everyone that he wasn't able to treat questions as genuine and serious and I think that made people disillusioned. Perhaps you will be showing people a better alternative in your lessons!

John

I'm really having a tough time with this week's lesson on Rev 14:6-7. I followed your argument up to a point in "Myth and Truth in Sanctuary Theology" but for me, I still find the whole "Investigative Judgement" issue devoid of any meaning, even mythical. The way it is presented by tSDA's is actually quite disturbing and I hadn't really thought about it much since Academy. You state: We reject the call to give up the sanctuary doctrine and deny its literalness. We adhere absolutely to the objective, concrete historical disclosure whose mystery and ineffible truth were witnessed by Adventism. The task now is to theorise correctly what they bore witness to, in a rigorous and analytically correct manner. We refer to the early church of Ellen White and the pioneers as the witnesses, it is up to the organised church now to articulate in a clear and specific manner what it was that they witnessed Great. I have virtually no idea where to go from here. Looking at the aToday forum*, they don't either. (esp. Joe Allen). Maybe it is time we accept the "Great Disappointment" for what it was, and use it as a lesson against literalism. Have you modified your position since writing this (1981)? If not, any followups on the task? I'm asking in all honesty. I'm ready to throw up my hands...

*I actually found a discussion group that I can somewhat relate to. You are probably well familiar with it: www.atoday.com/interact/forums/discus/

I think the IJ has a number of useful lessons, although as you may have probably gathered I feel any truth is a complex interrelationship of meaning so it would be possible to qualify any statement about the IJ with one that went in a different direction. However, these are points I make regarding 1844:

a) We should see this a a break with the religious past, God doing "new things", as an opportunity to separate Christianity from the historical religion. Historically the 1840s are a time of great change, and in other writings I argue that Adventism should see itself as part of this sea of change (Marx, Nietzsche, Freud etc), that just as other aspects of philosophy and culture were being radically re-thought, so 1844 and the IJ marks God's new revelation within the context of the modern.

b) Regarding Rev 14, it is useful to look at the Rev web site I referred to earlier. It could be argued that at the time those with marks on their foreheads were the Jews (Ex 28:38) and they were worshiping the devil. This is obviously in contrast to the idea that Revelation was originally attacking Rome. This can then be taken not an anti-Semitism but God's attack on religion - so we have a prophetic and symbolic attack on religion and religious works, the same as in the letter of Paul and other NT writers we have attacks on works and religious practises. We can then use Dr Desmond Ford's apotelesmatic principle to see how this principle emerges through cycles in history and has arisen again in our own time, so understanding our own religious situation through the symbolism of Revelation and the early church and their relation to Judaism.

c) The IJ itself has typically been associated with legalism. I believe the imagery of judgement is profound and mystically important - in particular the resonance with the Ancient Egyptian ritual of judgement and the relationship between the gods and man. I might be worth reflecting on this ancient symbolism and identifying lessons for us today. Temperamentally I like Ancient Egypt (remember the Gnostic library of Nag Hammadi was found in Egypt) and feel the stories of thousands of years ago still speak powerfully to us today. I would take the concept of IJ to be more complex than simple judgement however, and look to explore its meaning from a number of possibilities.

d) Brinsmead's critique of the IJ in "Judged by the Gospel" contains many important points and it is certainly necessary for anyone familar with the IJ to also be aware of the arguments Brinsmean makes. In particular the finality of Christ and the symbolism of heaven in Hebrews. It is necessary for any SDA to ensure their formulation of the IJ does not fail to address Brinsmead's criticisms.

e) The image of the IJ is also of course related to the Day of Atonement. Like Catholics, Adventists blur the finality of Christ's sacrifice by introducing a continual element to the atonement. For Catholics Christ dies again each time mass is celebrated, for Adventists Christ's sacrifice is an ongoing spiritual reality within the IJ. There is not only a theological but a moral and spiritual element to this reality, which makes it as important for Adventist's to experience as for Catholics experiencing the spiritual reality of the mass.

f) The IJ is essentially a moral judgement. It is not judging the keeping of religious practices and acts - rather it is the ethics of going beyond religion to true worship of God which is ethical living. Thus those who keep to religious practises as a means of being "religious" are denying the power of the IJ.

g). We should also consider the environmental judgement of God in the world today - the damage of human irresponsibility and how creation has risen up against man and judged our evil acts against the planet. This should be understood as part of the reality of the IJ.

h). 1844 marks the opening of a new spiritual dimension, the entering into the world of a new spiritual energy which those who know how to open themselves to it can receive. Some might speculate that the opening of this new dimension has been accompanied by new visitors to this planet - UFOs etc - through this new dimension.

i). Some Adventist groups see the IJ not as a single change at 1844, but that 1844 was the start of a process of judgement and renewal within the church. Davidian SDAs see Ez 9 as an indication that the judgement will start with the temple and the people of God - i.e. with SDAs themselves. Some see the OT festivals as symbolic of the process of IJ leading up to the Second Coming. The IJ must be understood within the context of the Second Coming - one cannot be understood without the other.

j). Adventists understand the present in terms of the future, from the perspective of the future, not from the past and not from history. The IJ cannot be understood from the past, only from stepping into the future.

Hope that helps.

God Bless

John

Very interested in your site. Not an Adventist myself but have attended the local church from time to time. Am surprised there is no discussion of the state of the dead issue, or soul-death, which I resile against. If I die and cease to exist, the person who is 'resurrected' can not be me, but a new and different person, possibly with my memories, but not me. It seems to me that continuity is necessary for identity.

Regards,

SDAs should argue that when the dead sleep they are unconscious but still a person, perhaps even kept by God, and so resurrection is the re-awakening of the soul. I agree with you that if I ceased to exist at death then any "resurrection" is of another person.

If you write an article on this topic in more detail I will put it on the site.

John

I have many questions concerning the doctrine of the SDA church. Please reply whenever you can. Thanks,

a curious believer in Christ

Regarding the Saturday Sabbath, the seventh-day has a spiritual significance in many places in the Bible, not simply within the Ten Commandments. The true Sabbath is not an "evening and morning" day like other days (see Genesis 2) but God's eternal rest that we are all invited to enter (see Hebrews 4).

If you have any other questions let me know and I will try to answer them.

John

> My understanding is that the Bible is the Holy Word of God that is
> infallible. I have done some research on SDA and Ellen White. Apparently she
> is considered a prophet by SDA's. There is contradiction between her and the
> Bible and her and herself. In Bible Times, false prophets were stoned.

Ellen White never claimed to be a prophet, only a messenger. In Bible Times true prophets were stoned too.

> Bible tells us to watch out for false prophets. And I believe the end times
> are at hand. I am not a prophet, but I do keep up on my reading of
> Revelation and have done some studying of the prophecies. And what I have
> studied and read is without error up to this point.

Congratulations, however I would be cautious if you think you have all the truth, even being "without error up to this point". I would be surprised if I have 60% of the truth but I'm not worried, because the attainment of spiritual knowledge is actually the gnostic heresy. All Christians are agnostics because we live by faith and not by knowledge.

John

Greetings from Western Australia.
For some many months I have been taking a keen interest in the articles you have posted concerning the many subjects as they relate to Adventism. I have found them extremely interesting as I am finding that a lot of the views I had formed are being backed up or supplimented by your propositions.

My personal situation is one of having been introduced, from outside, to Adventism - by the girl I have been married to for some 30 + years. We were married in the church and I said right from the start that I would be happy to "go along with the deal" as long as it delivered the goods. It wasn't too long and I was starting to find that there were "apparent problems and weaknesses" in many areas. I started asking questions on a whole range of issues. The answers that we recieved were far from satisfactory. They in most instances promoted even more questions.

I was challenging quite a lot of the propositions put to the flock on the local level as well as the Conference and General Conference point of view. These challenges were not going unnoticed. Along with a group of like minded thinkers I was a foundation member of The W.A. Christian Forum. This was formed to allow people to have an open platform by which they could express their thoughts without any fear of being pressured in any way. This really set the cat among the pidgeons but there were some really lively and constructive discussion resulted.

I came into the fray in the heady seventies and left the church in the eighties with theological indigestion. This took some ten years to "get over". During that period the Gospel sustained us.

I was encouraged when I came across your web site. A lot of the conclusions were reached by a great many most of whom have departed Adventism and sadly Christianity as well. Thanks for the work you have put into the content of the site. I refer back to this constantly as I share the gospel with those who wish to listen, which includes ex-Adventist as well as current Adventist (minority). Thanks for the courage and resourcefulness of your site. Do you get any reaction from official channels?

We are now content to "hover on the fringes of Adventism" and to discuss and help when called upon. The primary dedication is to spread the Gospel to all who wish to hear with all the means we have at our disposal.

Keep up the good work as it is appreciated.

I have had no "official" response to the site. It would be nice to see the church do something bold and imaginative to break out of the cul-de-sac they are in, but up to now there has been little evidence of such a breakthrough.

John

If it were, man would glory.

We miss it all when we view it that the gifts are to churchmen, to excercise according as one is given. God's gift is not as man's.

The gifts are to the church, first, for unity, "that there should be no schism in the body" 1 cor 12:25, and, BECAUSE of that, because of the unity,- "for the edification of the body, work of the ministry and perfection of the saints." This is the substance.

We miss our call in claiming gifts for anybody. What I believe of any person, as to their professed ministry is in Vain. A belief in Ellen White is not essential to salvation.

Which makes me think, what of the gifts?

As with Paul to Hebrews, we should care only that "we see Jesus." Nothing else avails.

Rgds.

There are a lot of forces at work in EGW, on the one hand there is the clear pattern of conservatism and traditionalism but then read another way is a radical rejection of orthodoxy. There is the IJ and there is 1888. For better or worse there is too much written by EGW hence there are probably 100s of EGWs. Create the one you want. Fight the one you want. Fear the one you want. The idea behind all her ideas is to have the courage to believe your own dreams as being messages from God and take them seriously.

Regarding how to read EGW she of course is not regarded as writing a Bible and hence she has to be read first critically and second spiritually (the Bible is the other way around).

She is a spiritual TS Eliot - all artists borrow, great artists steal - she threaded a hundred books together and made them one. This means we need to read a hundred different authors and dissolve them all one a single page. And in this dissolving we re-write the book using our own lives as the ink.

She exists in the gnostic tradition - teaching us to achive gnosis (knowlege of the heart) through spiritual enlightenment, she shows that we can empower ourselves to find the truth from within as well as without.

Regarding mental gymnastics I don't know of any tradition that doesn't involve this - best to include them in the choreography of life.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that this was behind all her ideas. I would say that her early work was much more authoritarian. I think she explored this, but when confronted with her own inconsistancy she moved quickly into authoritarian reasoning.

John - "Regarding how to read EGW she of course is not regarded as writing a Bible and hence she has to be read first critically and second spiritually (the Bible is the other way around)."

This would be nice in practice, but it is hardly reflective of what actually has happened. The paradox that has been created by this lesser light double speak is that because Ellen White supposedly never disagrees with scripture we end up interpreting the Bible by Ellen White. So there really is no such thing as a lesser light, but in fact she becomes the greater light. This can be easily demostrated by our denominational writings over the years.

John - "She exists in the gnostic tradition - teaching us to achive gnosis (knowlege of the heart) through spiritual enlightenment, she shows that we can empower ourselves to find the truth from within as well as without."

She may have worked on these themes, but was certainly not a gnostic. When she stated that anyone who ate meat was not fit to preach the gospel I highly doubt that this came from any gnostic tradition of internal spiritual enlightenment.

John - "Regarding mental gymnastics I don't know of any tradition that doesn't involve this - best to include them in the choreography of life."

When I refer to mental gymnastics I refer to the double speak surrounding many of the arguements presented in favor of her special inspirational skills. Much of it is achieved through shifting vocabulary. While I understand that some of these seek to understand her from a broader perspective, I still don't believe that they are effective enough presentations to convince me to see her as anything more that a slightly delusional woman with some good insights into certain areas. I read many other authors that I find much more insightful and more effective in their communication of these ideas that don't claim the prophetic gift. Henry Knowen, and John Powell come to mind. Francis Shaeffer and C.S. Lewis for the more intellectual seeker.

There may be a need to maintain the myth of Ellen White, but I believe that anyone who really looks at the history and studies not only Ellen White, but her critics as well, will find a remarkable person for her times, but one that came out of some very abusive concepts of God and propagated some of these same concepts while over coming others.

It is true to say that "The idea behind all her ideas is to have the courage to believe your own dreams as being messages from God and take them seriously" in so far as this must have been Ellen White's own belief - she had to courage to take the messages seriously, so shouldn't we take seriously the possibility that God may be in some way communicating directly with us?

Clearly Ellen White was not preaching gnosticism - if indeed there are a definitive set of "gnostic" doctrines for something so subjective - yet the fact that she listened to God speaking to her directly shows that there are important resonances with her assumptions and the possibility of Gnosticism.

Certainly read other authors - you will learn a lot about Christianity by studying its various forms and teachings - but the SDA church has a tradition and that tradition will move forward by evolution and reinterpretation, rather than a revolutionary "break" with the past.

Good to hear from you.

John - I think it is important to engage with Ellen White's writings since they are such a factor of SDA life. What is necessary is to produce a "reading" of her ideas so as to deconstruct the various traditionalist "readings" that are done in her name.

This is an interesting take. What this demonstrates to me is that you can "re-read" just about anything and produce a useful inspirational model. EGW is a very important source and inspiration for Adventist culture and has many useful things to say, but to me only in a historical sense. Its similar to seeing Darwin as the historical father of evolution even though many of his theories have fallen by the wayside. The difference with EGW is that she claimed to have something special directly from God. As I study her and understand her time, I don't find evidence that she was particularly special as far as her ideas. I often see her compared to the worst ideas of her time, but hardly ever with her sources.

John - yet the fact that she listened to God speaking to her directly shows that there are important resonances with her assumptions and the possibility of Gnosticism.

Actually this idea makes a lot of sense to me. If she had gone farther and taken a more Gnostic position I think that would be seen as revolutionary and certainly ahead of her time. The mythology of her dreams is full of possibility. Unfortunately her own interpretations of her dreams, when seen authoritatively, have really caused a lot of difficulty and paradoxical positions for people to deal with.

John - but the SDA church has a tradition and that tradition will move forward by evolution and reinterpretation, rather than a revolutionary "break" with the past.

This is true from a practical sociological and organizational position. For me individually, I have had to distance myself from those writings to be able to re-program my assumptions to what I have found to be much more workable and livable views of life. I find that much of Christianity is burdened by similar assumptions and EGW had no particular corner of that market. I would think that if God was communicating directly to her that she would have given us some hint that there was more to her ideas than appeared in the official writings.