Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Christianity

  • The Joys and Sorrows of being ex-Seventh-day Adventist

    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.

  • Highlights from Christian Carnival CXCV

    • From The Peculiar Club, there is How to Know God, simple, practical, brief, down to earth–all the things my posts usually aren’t! This one would be worth putting into practice.
    • After reading the book unChristian, Tom Gilson says “Christianity has a reality problem.” He then does a very thoughtful job of discussing just what is involved in that reality problem.
    • Mark Olson has a thought-provoking post about being aliens. Are you an American Christian or a Christian living in America (or whatever country you live in).

    There’s lots more. The full carnival is posted at Everyday Liturgy.

  • God Reducing Machine

    Check it out here. Reduce your God to a manageable size!

    HT: 42.

  • For Thinking Women of Faith

    . . . oh, and pardon me for stopping by to read and enjoying the blog! (HT: 42)

    For a break from white male Christianity, try Renita Weems’ blog Something Within, subtitled “For Thinking Women of Faith about matters of church, race, gender, sex, values, culture, justice, spirituality, and, oh yeah, God.”

    I particularly enjoyed her recent post on the church’s view of sex, which challenges a good deal of common thinking in the church pews these days, if any thinking goes on at all.

    Go, enjoy, and be challenged!

  • On Creationisms – Quotes Link

    I want to promote this link from the comments to a full post. There are a number of valuable quotes in this post showing the different views of creation that are held by various Christians. The binary creation vs evolution controversy oversimplifies the issues considerably.

    One should always be careful with quotes. First, I have encountered a number that appear to be PR quotes, one key example being those regarding whether God is the designer or not. Second, all quotes should be considered in context. But Martin LaBar has done a good job of giving some of the variations in these positions.

  • Breaking Christian News and Nereus=Noah

    In my Breaking Christian News e-mail today the headline story was Depictions of Noah, the “Wet One”, Discovered in Ancient Greek Art.

    This sort of thing makes me crazy. The article will leave many Christians with the impression that somehow Greek archeology or [tag]Greek Mythology[/tag] has now produced some sort of proof for the stories in Genesis. But if one follows the links to images, which anyone with an acquaintance with the cultures involved and having a basic understanding of comparative mythology can recognize a contrived parallel.

    Apparently this author, Robert Bowie Johnson, Jr., has written a number of things on this topic, all of which appear equally without merit. There’s a good review of a prior book here:

    Athena and Kain is a silly book with a pernicious message. It seeks to rob the ancient Greeks of their uniqueness, to taint their contribution to the formation of western culture, and to replace both with a fundamentalist cant that does no service to Genesis. . . .

    I’m so glad when competent people take the time to read trash, so that I don’t have to take the time. “Silly” was the first word that came to my mind as well.

    Now what is it that prevents Breaking Christian News from recognizing the same thing? Either claiming this sort of thing in support of Christianity, or even presenting it in such a way that one can get that impression can only reflect badly on Christianity and Christians.

  • Religious Doctrine Trumping Science

    According to this story on MSNBC.com, Archbishop Francisco Chimoio claims that two European nations are trying to kill off Africans by providing condoms that are already infected with the virus:

    “I know of two countries in Europe who are making condoms with (the) virus on purpose, they want to finish with African people as part of their program to colonize the continent,” Archbishop Francisco Chimoio told Reuters.

    He refuses to name the countries and he also provides no evidence, thus there is nothing here that can actually be investigated, but it is not hard to discover what’s going on. Catholics are opposed to condoms and would prefer abstinence as the means of combatting [tag]HIV/AIDS[/tag]. In fact I would prefer abstinence as a means of fighting the disease because it’s absolutely sure–if you practice it. But the fact is that the human factor cannot be ignored, and thus in practical terms, condoms must be part of any strategy to combat AIDS.

    The sort of claims made by this Bishop Chimoio are extremely irresponsible, and I believe represent a case of religious doctrine trumping science.

  • Defining my Position on ID and Creation

    A couple of questions have arisen about my position on these issues, and though I’ve stated all these things before, they have generally been in longer presentations. So I’m going to try to state my position.

    I see three easily demarcated positions on design:

    1. The universe is designed as a fully functional system, and the origin and diversification of life can be explained by natural processes within that universe. A theist in this sense believes God created the universe, but is not required to interfere.
    2. The universe was established in such a way that a particular result would occur through apparently natural processes. This is an approximation of “front-loading” which some equate to intelligent design.
    3. The origin or life and/or its diversification cannot be explained by solely natural processes. The designer (God, despite claims to the contrary) interferes at particular points. This is the ID position, and is the one I was addressing in my post The Common Thread in Modern Creationism yesterday.

    The second option might be divided between those who think God’s interference can be detected, and those who don’t, but I don’t think that is of great consequence for my purposes here.

    When I say that I believe the universe is designed, I mean in the sense of #1. God ordained the universe to exist, including the natural processes of variation by whatever means and natural selection, and that is an adequate explanation. I do not mean that variation and natural selection explain everything, but other elements to the explanation will also be natural. My statement that the universe is designed is in no sense a scientific statement. I’m not a biologist. I am not professionally involved in any of the natural sciences. I’m a Bible teacher. That statement is theological and faith based.

    I do not exclude the possibility of option #2, but I have no expectation that God’s action will ever be detected, and I see no difference between completely indetectible (even in principle) interference and no interference at all. Certainly one can never actually know in an objective sense.

    I think there is a strong desire to find this interference, either through front-loading or through ongoing interference because there is a desire in Christian theology to believe that the existence not just of life, but of intelligence, and specifically human intelligence was foreordained. I do not believe that must be the case. Should intelligence appear on another plant in an arthropod form, I would regard that creature to equally bear the image of God.

    I believe the universe is bigger, less predictable, and more risky than we in the theological world have ever believed. On this topic I would commend to your attention the book God after Darwin by John Haught.

  • White Supremacists and the Jena 6

    MSNBC is reporting that there is a [tag]white supremacist[/tag] web site reporting phone numbers and addresses for families of the [tag]Jena 6[/tag]:

    CNN first reported Friday about the Web site, which features a swastika, frequent use of racial slurs, a mailing address in Roanoke, Va., and phone numbers purportedly for some of the teens’ families “in case anyone wants to deliver justice.” That page is dated Thursday.

    It pretty much had to happen, and I’m surprised I haven’t heard anything before. I’m fairly certain there has been some activity. I’ve noted a number of times that for me tolerance and diversity are values, not absolutes, and thus I am quite willing to be intolerant toward intolerance. White supremacists fall into the category of persons for which I have no respect. They’re disgusting. They enjoy being disgusting. The FBI is investigating them, and hopefully if they have crossed the line to incitement something substantial will be done about it.

    The existence of such white supremacist groups should remind us, however, that there is a broader fringe in society that is racist, but not so extreme. The important thing here should not be a battle between extremes, but rather the search by all people of good will for a just way to handle the situation. I’m not asking that nothing happen to those accused. I’m asking that they be treated in an even-handed manner.

    But more importantly, their community, and numerous similar communities need to look at their underlying attitudes, and take action earlier. One of the critical actions would be for churches to look toward more integration. It has been said, though I forget by whom, that 11 AM on Sunday morning is the most segregated hour in our area. When you start from that point, other bad things will grow out of it.