David. So quick and so inclusive and I thank you. You have a very robust pen and reflect out of years of experience. Knowing you, I know that you did not suggest that the choice must be between love or doctrine. That is a favorite lawyer's trick--the either/or trap. Knowing Ted, I am sure he wanted to emphasize the Jesus worthy of our worship and obedience AND the bibilically explicit issues that identify those who choose the narrow road, the rock instead of the sand. Seems there is no middle road when all is said and done. I think that he has immersed himself in the biblical narrative we call the Great Controversy Theme. He sees the purpose of the gospel as Paul did. He is aware that in his world's last days, there will be a tremendous and terrifying conflict between His willing followers and those who, in the end, chose to ignore our Lord's last appeal to join His loyal followers. There are a number of ways that all this can be spun and still fulfill Revelation 14. Such are my thoughts, dear Editor. Courage and Cheers, Herb

Find your wings and soar!

Thanks David for summing up Pres Wilson's sermon!  I read the original and felt discouraged and like I was back in the 60's and 70's and listening to my grandparent's religion. 

Pres Wilson's model is not going to work for any of my non-churched friends.  If I am feeling like falling asleep reading the sermon how far will it be able to go to attract the people of today.  They do need Jesus in their lives but not in a rules oriented , judgemental, and intolerant way.

The majority of my church school classmates rejected the church of the 50's, 60's, and 70's.  It was too judgemental and Ellen White was the supreme authority everything was compared to. That style did not work well and I hate to see it repeated again.

I do pray that Pres Wilson will be open to ammending his plan when need be.

dave evans

 I'm struck by President Wilson's admonition to look forward and not backward and yet many of his comments do just the opposite of what he says.  By saying that Ellen White is just as relevant today as she was 90 plus years ago we are left with the need to ask many questions about how to do so.  I'll posit two sets of questions:  One has to do with relevancy the other has to do with legitimacy.

In terms of relevance, just what part of her writings are relevant today?  All of them?  Even the comments which we have with quiet embarassment kept in a locked vault with hopes that everyone will forget--the shut door that came open again, that masturbation leads to insanity, assegenation of the races, that meat eaters will not be translated, etc.? I could be accused of creating a paper tiger with these comments, but there are others that have real claws--such as our dependance on her for the Sanctuary Doctrine.  I would conservatively submit that easily 50 percent or more of Adventist ministers cannot prove the Sanctuary Doctrine from scripture alone but must accept generous help from the red books, which is probably one reason we need them.  Do we want to go back to hating the Catholics?  Condeming fallen Protestants?  Believing that unless we have reached perfection we can't live through the close of probation in the absence of the Mediator?  Make everyone take off their wedding rings?

In terms of legitimacy, I can certainly buy into her statements on righteousness by faith, the frailty of the human condition, the incomparable graciousness of God, the need to subjugate the sinful nature by obedience to God's law of love through dependance on the power of God, and many, many other spiritually uplifting themes such as witnessing, healthy living, family life, etc.  But Wilson--and many others--say this is inadequate; she is more than a devotional writer; she is a prophet whose writings are essentially biblical instruction.    Is he suggesting that her books should be entered into the Biblical cannon?  If not why not?  My observation is that conservative Adventists indeed have already essentially treated her writings as NOT being extra-biblical, or simply put--they quote Ellen White with the same authority as they quote the Bible.  Not only that, but it seems our church membership is confused about our belief on biblical inspiration; inconsistency reigns on this subject.  We SAY we accept that the writers of the Biblical books were inspired, but their words were not.  However, when it comes to Ellen White, we immediately tend to go for verbal inspiration.  And many Adventists WISH we believed the Bible was verbally inspired because our proof text method of apologetics demands it.

I will not doubt Ted's Christian experience. I respectfully disagree with many of his points.  I must say I applaud his other comments as well.  I just hope that those who are energized by his nostalgia for mid-20th century Adventist culture will be inspired by his admonitions to be winsome and gracious in seeking unity with Adventists who have different views.  But I fear such will not be the case.  Adventism was born out of the fundamentalist Protestantism of the 1800s and the Adventist apple hasn't falled far from the Protestant tree.  We seem to be caught up in the wake of what I call the emerging American National Church and its neo-conservative xenophobia.  It amazes me to see how many Adventists sing the refrain of this neo-conservate American Christianity when according to the Great Controversy, America is doomed to be the agent of the Beast power of Revelation.  So, if we're going to return to days of yesteryear by reclaiming Ellen White's rightful place as an intra-biblical prophet, shouldn't we be eschewing this jingoistic impulse?   

Rarely have I been so encouraged by a message. Those who care about the core values of Adventism and the mission of the movement found the president's sermon highly refreshing. 

Cherry, I know many previously unchurched persons who have embraced Adventism for what it is, a movement to prepare people to stand in the final conflict. This agenda will be a boon for church planting. Persons with mission and direction can best plant new churches.

AudioVerse.org is working to get this sermon on the site. I am sure it will be heard many, many times.

-Eugene Prewitt

The time has come for us to breathe new life into old methods and embrace new ideas at the same time.  We must do this if we are going to truly impact this world for Jesus.  President Ted Wilson's sermon helped to clarify our foundation so we can move forward as an unified Church family.  If we don't have a SOLID ROCK foundation (Jesus and His lifesaving truth) we won't be able to work together in the harvest.  We will spend most of our time arguing about the basics (creation, worship style, etc.).  Let's stop fighting against the truth God has already given us and look forward... keeping our eyes locked on Jesus. 

You can watch part of Ted Wilson's sermon at www.AdventistVoice.com

The odd idea that doctrine and love are opposed to each other is something new but not an improvement over what the Word of God teaches on that point.

Turns out that the doctrine on God declares Him to be a God of Love. You shall know the TRUTH (and Jesus IS the Way the TRUTH and the Life) and the TRUTH shall set you free.

Fear of truth is not the right path for Seventh-day Adventists. It is short sighted to view truth about God (theology) to be opposed to teaching that "God is love". President Wilson's message should be read and understood by all. It is exactly what the church needs at this time in earth's history.

But now the church members at every level need to stand up and be counted. Let the church boards and the conference leaders and the Union leaders know that you are behind our new Adventist Administration and are supporting the vision statement as it was given last Sabbath.

In 2Thess 2 the saints are known for having a "love of the Truth" which means that the saints value the truth they have, seek to find more and live in accordance with the light that they have. Constantly complaining about reformation efforts, and complaining about the call to love and focus on the Truth - is not in that list.

in Christ,

Bob 

Richard L. Noel, DMD

Amen,  now down to the details.  I wish the President were willing to publicly quote the adviced EllenWhite gave in 1890. 1894, and again in 1901 to church leaders to "never say Ellen White said," again.  These are directly accessable from the EGW Estate. They were even published in Selected Messages.

I have no confidence in a leader who fails to follow the explicit command of the prophet he claims as his leader. The president has laid out the course for the final destruction of the SDA church as an organization.  He seems to believe as his father said in court that the GC president is equivalent to the Pope for the SDA church.

Herb, you are right that true doctrine and love are not in conflict.  My main concern was whether we were going back to the picture that James White commissioned on the mission of the Adventist Church where the law tree and the ten commandments were the focus of the picture verses the picture that Ellen White brought out in 1883 where the same elements were there but the law tree and commandments had vanished into the background and Jesus on the cross was now the main focus of the picture.

We printed a very important article three issues ago called Legalism or Permissiveness: An Inescapable Dilemma?  Click on this link and go to page 16 if the readers of this column missed it.

http://www.atoday.com/files/24601_AdventistToday%20Winter%202010.pdf

David Newman

Editor, Adventist Today

Thank you, Mr. Newman for putting up this summary. I have also just read the sermon. I´d like to comment on a few of the summary points. I know that some of the points were explained by Mr. Wilson in greater detail, but as I see certain trends that are very common in SDA´s, i´d like to comment on them.

2.       We are the remnant church We who? Registered members of the SDA church or people at the end of time who will eventually be God´s followers? I say this because I think everybody agrees that those two things do not necessarily go hand in hand. Who knows whether those who truly love the Lord and wish to do His will are actually going to gather in a congregation with the name “SDA”? The reason I say this is that the new president, I assume,  uses the word “we” about the congregation of registered SDAs (since the church with that name is now under his dominion), whereas the true remnants may be gathered under a different name or not gathered under no name at all but are merely a parts of transections of different churches or communities. Why do I mention this? Because of the danger that members of the church may feel safe based on such a superficial thing as being members of a man made/organized institution.

3.       Ellen G. White is God's inspired prophet to the Adventist church and is just as relevant today as when she lived.  My impression was that he quoted from Ellen White more than from the Bible.Your impression does not surprise me as I frequently witness the same trend listening to church sermons. I guess this is in accordance with the fundamental belief part 18 where it says that “her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth”, the authority of her writings therefore being at level with the Bible (I don´t see any other way around it). She herself, however, did not put her writings at the same level with the Bible as she described herself the lesser light (The Bible the greater light). Therefore I can only come to the conclusion that this phrase should be removed from the fundamental beliefs.

6.       We are not just another denomination but a special gift of God.“We” who? See comment to nr. 2.

12.   Then he sounded a series of warnings: Beware of new styles of worship; do not go to seminars put on by mega churches; beware of prayer leaders who talk about centering and contemplative prayer; beware of too much emotion in worship services; don't listen to people with complicated charts; beware of the historical-critical method when interpreting the Bible. I wonder what “new styles” means. It wouldn´t happen to mean dancing, using percussion instruments or raising hands, would it? Quoting from Psalms 150: “1 Praise the LORD. Praise God in his sanctuary; praise him in his mighty heavens. 2 Praise him for his acts of power; praise him for his surpassing greatness. 3 Praise him with the sounding of the trumpet, praise him with the harp and lyre, 4 praise him with tambourine and dancing, praise him with the strings and flute, 5 praise him with the clash of cymbals, praise him with resounding cymbals. 6 Let everything that has breath praise the LORD.” and from psalm 134:2 “ Lift up your hands in the sanctuary,  and bless the LORD. “ Maybe there are other things that the president has in mind with regards to contemporary worship style, but if these mentioned above are some of them, then his opinion is not biblically based and, in fact, opposing David´s and others´ message that we should praise God with everything we can.Also, with regards to prayer, “centering” on what? And if the president is opposing contemplative prayer, then he´s opposing Jesus´ own habits: “And it came to pass in those days, that he went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God.” (Luke 6:12.). By definition this must have been contemplative prayer. Surely that can´t be opposed to that.

15.   There is nothing antiquated about the Spirit of Prophecy; it is just as relevant today as when she wrote. This came out over and over again. Is the Holy Spirit a woman? Why is the personal pronoun “she” referring to the Spirit of Prophecy? If the meaning is EGW, then I would like to encourage people to please stop putting an equal sign between her and the Spirit. It can lead to false assumptions, especially since other people through history have had the prophetic gifts, even people acknowledged by SDA leaders. She may have had the prophetic gifts of the Holy Spirit, but she wasn´t the Spirit.

I carefully listened to the sermon three times.  I tallied up the total number of certain words/phrases.  FYI:

60                Jesus Christ, our Lord, Savior, Friend, Advocate, High Priest, Redeemer, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Coming King

43                Bible, Word of God, Scriptures

22                Quotes from the Bible

21          Seventh-day Adventist Church, the church, advent movement

18          Grace

18                Jesus is coming, second coming (12 of these were in foreign languages)

17                Mission, evangelism, witness, proclaim the truth/message

15          Ellen White, Spirit of Prophecy

14          Holy Spirit, revival, latter rain

13                Bible lifted from pulpit

13                Salvation, justification, sanctification

12          Quotes from Ellen White

12        Humble, humility, no self-exaltation, never self-centered, denying self, simple

10        Sabbath

9         Remnant

8         3 Angels’ Messages, First-, Second-, Third-

  4    Cross

4              Reformation

3          Great Controversy

          3     Heaven

2            Character

Loudest applause/amens from congregation followed these statements:

“Look within SDA church for evangelism methods” (applause – this was the first time the congregation broke his rule about not clapping)

“Beware of emotionalism” (applause)

“Worship is to lift up Christ and put down self” (applause)

“We believe in 6-day creation” (amens)

“Hold your leaders accountable” (amens)

“Though I lost my Bible, I’ve not lost the Word of God!” (amens)

I liked this sermon very much. It was Christ-centered, Bible-focused, and mission-focused.  Thank God for such a sermon!

nww

Richard, you claim that "the president has laid out the course for the final destruction of the SDA church as an organization." What an extreme emotion-based statement to make! Do you really believe that? If you do, then I think you are way off mark and a long way from where millions of faithful Adventists are. If, as some respondents are claiming, Pr Wilson is taking us back to the church of the 50's and 60's (as if that was some evil prehistoric time) then how is it that the church didn't see destruction then, according to your reasoning? I am not wanting to go back to that time either, but it wasn't all bad and was in fact a time when outreach and member involvement and conversions to the faith were (relative to the membership at the time -and before Global Mission took off) happening at quite a healthy rate.  Let's remember that God is in control and it would be better for us to pray for Pr Wilson to be led by the Lord rather than continually criticising him and bemoaning his appointment. If we have any faith in the leading of the Spirit in this church then we have to accept that he is, for this time at least, God's annointed leader  and although he will not be perfect in everything he does, he needs to be in our prayers and given a chance to show how God can use him. 

@faithbearer 

Bravo, good relevant points my friend