. . . has been posted. My post received mention as best of the Methodist blogosphere.
I’ve been coordinating a small conference over the weekend, and I hope to write a few words about it here. I also hope to make some comment on other posts from the MBWR. It was, as Allan mentioned, a very good crop.
I don’t actually view myself as “ex” anything, even though we all are ex-something and headed onward to something else, I hope. But I don’t shun contact with members of the church in which I grew up, and thus I sometimes have to deal with the default identity of ex-Seventh-day Adventist.
Now don’t get me wrong. There are plenty of SDAs who see me as a person apart from that one point of identity. There are even some non-SDAs–who were never SDAs–who define me as an ex-SDA. The connection between the church in which I grew up and my present identity cannot be severed in their view. What they would like me to do is cut all ties as clearly as possible and make myself anti-SDA. It’s the old “if you’re not for us, you’re against us” approach. And of course that approach isn’t bad if the question is good and evil, God or satan, constructive or destructive. But for brothers and sisters in Christ, I reject that approach.
I can illustrate this through two experiences. The first came as I was coordinating a series of events with Dr. Alden Thompson, professor of Biblical Studies at Walla Walla University. One of these was at an SDA church. While I was in the back of the room selling copies of Alden’s book, a young man approached me and asked me about my own affiliations. When he found out I had been raised and educated SDA and yet was now a Methodist, he said, “I just can’t imagine how anyone could have issues with Seventh-day Adventists doctrine!” Well, I can.
The reverse occurred when I gave a copy of my mother’s book Directed Paths to an evangelical non-SDA to read. She objected to the fact that I quoted Ellen White in the preface, even though the specific quote was certainly harmless. To her, my quoting Ellen White implied some kind of endorsement of every word she had said, and thus put my dedication to orthodox Christianity in question.
But I simply don’t see it that way. I’m ex-SDA, and now United Methodist because I do not agree with certain specific SDA doctrines that would make it difficult for me to worship and do ministry as a member of an SDA church. There are similar doctrinal issues that would make it difficult for me to work and ministry through a congregation of the Presbyterian Church in America, the Southern Baptists, or the Assemblies of God. Yet I have no problem calling all of the above groups Christian brothers and sisters. In fact, rather than calling myself a Methodist, I like to call myself a Christian who is a member of a United Methodist congregation. You see, there are plenty of Methodists with whom I have similar doctrinal disagreements.
I would prefer to ask just what strengths there are in the Seventh-day Adventist tradition, and to look at just how I can benefit from those strengths. In my own experience there are quite a number. I was steeped in the Bible as a young person. I took an extraordinarily varied set of courses in Biblical studies and Biblical languages from skilled instructors in Seventh-day Adventist schools. I got an excellent view of ethics and some holiness teaching. I don’t agree with everything I was taught, but I have to ask who does agree with everything they were taught in school? More importantly, who should agree with everything?
If I am to criticize my SDA education I would say that I actually agreed with way too much of what I was taught, and was not challenged by enough “foreign” ideas. I didn’t spend enough time sufficiently early in my life learning to evaluate a variety of ideas.
As a Methodist, I’m not going to make the same mistake. I have a particular heritage because of my background. That gives me the opportunity to bring the broad center of Christianity into contact with Seventh-day Adventists and vice-versa. I think this is a good thing. It does force me to fight the ex-SDA label from both sides, but that’s worth the price. That is not the only barrier I’m interested in crossing, but it is one that I am well-equipped to challenge.
As Christians we are far too fearful of seeing our beliefs challenged, even by those within our own faith. As a Wesleyan-Arminian, I need to be challenged by Calvinists, and they by me. Those who tend toward antinomianism need to be challenged by the more positive view of law present in the Adventist tradition, and of course the reverse is true as well. If our doctrinal beliefs are so fragile that hearing a sermon or a teaching that challenges them frightens us and makes us want to go hide in our denominational caves, then those beliefs are too fragile, either ontologically or perhaps merely in our own minds. Fear is a sign of weakness, not of strength.
This weekend there is a conference going on at Andrews University commemorating the 50th anniversary of the publication of the book Questions on Doctrine. Some SDAs would prefer this event not be commemorated. I think it’s a good thing, simply because it stirred up thought. The bad thing is those who try to smooth the waters before the benefit of living water is gained by all.
At the same time I will be putting my words into action, as Pacesetters Bible School again hosts Dr. Alden Thompson on the campus of a United Methodist Church, in our conference on restoring Biblical literacy. This is too late for advertising. I simply provide the link as evidence that I practice what I preach on this point.
Those who tend to think of me as a closet SDA because I was raised SDA, have to do no more than read a little bit of this blog (the creation vs. evolution entries would do nicely) to realize that this isn’t the case. SDAs can ponder how I could possible reject SDA doctrines, and that’s fine too. Other ex-SDAs can wonder how I can both leave the church and still have a positive view of it. I hope they do think about that. One of the greatest tragedies is someone who lives their life in resentment over how someone treated them and whose identity is truly provided by what they have rejected.
There are joys and sorrows to being ex-SDA, and in the end, I find it’s not so different from any other piece of my life that I’ve left partially behind, but is still part of me.
When the RSV was first proposed one of the purposes for it was as an interdenominational translation, one that could be accepted by all Christians. That goal was unreachable as it happened. Today, with controversies over gender language added into the mix, it seems unlikely that we will attain to a “standard” Bible translation that can be accepted across all denominational lines.
Kevin Sam reflects on some of the differences in his post Denominations and Bible Translations. He doesn’t see a solution, but he does see some of the lines. Check it out!
OK, no, I’m not writing a Haiku myself, though perhaps it would be nice if I could master the form, but thus far, no, not so good . . . But I’m always looking for new ways of thinking about and re-expressing Biblical thoughts.
Through a comment on my Threads blog I found the Among the Hills blog, and an extremely interesting idea–lectionary Haikus.
Go check out Lectionary Haikus: The Persistent Widow and Lectionary Haikus: Ten. They should stimulate your imagination at a minimum.
A couple days ago I was getting my hair cut and the TV was showing scenes from the [tag]California fires[/tag]. People were commenting on the apparently high value of the houses they were seeing. One man was noting that he hadn’t seen any houses worth less than a million dollars. (We should nominate him for tax assessor somewhere! I actually have no idea of the value of the homes shown, nor do I know how representative the ones on TV were of the entire fire area.) Another suggested that we take a collection to take them some Dom Perignon, since they obviously wouldn’t accept bottled water.
The key theme was the difference in the response to fires in California and the response to Hurricane Katrina, and Ivan and Dennis in the two years before. The consensus of the barber shop was that because the Californians were rich, they were getting better treatment that us poor folks here on the gulf coast.
Now I do believe that there is a tendency to forget the poor, and that our perceptions impact the energy and efficiency of our responses. Any such differences should be corrected. I was pretty critical of government response at various levels at the time of Katrina.
At the same time, I think we should consider some things carefully before we throw stones–or bottles of Dom Perignon.
(For what it’s worth, while I was writing this I saw Governor-Elect Bobby Jindal commenting on the need to get free enterprise growing in New Orleans. More power to him in that effort.)
I in no way intend to excuse the failures during Hurricane Katrina, nor do I ever excuse treating the poor as second class citizens. But it is also inappropriate to treat the rich with less compassion, or to look down on the well prepared. Be envious, yes, just envious enough to make better preparations next time.
There will presumably be lessons to learn from this disaster, but good disaster response is something to be celebrated.
Evolutionary science is so much bigger, so much deeper, so much more interesting than its opponents (understandably) will admit. It’s more complicated than Michael Behe or Bill Dembski let on, and yet it’s not that hard to follow, for those who are willing to try. The best papers by evolutionary biologists are endlessly fascinating and scientifically superb, and reading them is stimulating and fun.
That’s how Dr. Stephen Matheson opens his excellent post They selected teosinte…and got corn. Excellent!, illustrating the process of evolutionary change from teosinte to corn. This is some excellent science writing for non-specialists (like me). It’s easy to follow and clear.
Everyone on both sides of the issue should go read it. (HT: Panda’s Thumb)
Regular readers of this blog (that imaginary group every blogger hopes he has!) will know that I am not a fan of the [tag]ESV[/tag]. More precisely, I’m not a fan of the hype that surrounds it in certain circles. It’s not a bad translation in my view–it’s just not very special.
Thus I was not immediately attracted to ESV, The Literary Study Bible despite the very attractive title. I think literary study of the Bible is one of the key elements that is lacking in Bible study by many Christians. Besides the specific benefits of the various literary disciplines, simply relating Biblical material to the metanarrative can improve one’s memory, if nothing else. I’m reminding of a lady who was in a study group I led. After about six months she suddenly got an expression of wonder and surprise in the middle of a session and announced, “I finally see it! It’s all connected!”
Adrian Warnock has printed an extract from this Bible (12 Literary Features of the Bible) with the permission of Crossway, and that one section is enough to spark my interest. I will certainly place this on my list to buy and use, and perhaps review here once I’ve had time to enjoy it a bit myself.
I must note that there are some nuances of the 12 features that I would state a bit differently, but without context, it’s hard for me to tell just how far I differ, so I will save my quibbles until after I have actually read and worked with this Bible. As it stands, I welcome a new tool for students of the Bible in English. Anything that directs people to another perspective from which to study will be helpful.
This is a good post. Not only is it true, but it’s fun. More of us should dissect certain advertising claims in this way.
There’s lots more. The full carnival is posted at Everyday Liturgy.
. . . has been posted at Everyday Liturgy.
My submission for this carnival was one I wrote for wife’s devotional blog. Next week, I will be hosting the carnival here.
