Cherrytree

I have almost been in tears over Ted Wison becoming GC President.  The 2 paragraphs that list his 'plan' further cements my concern.  The list of potential candidates had more qualified people on it then Ted.  I feel his is a political appointment and that things will move backwards.  We need change and enthusiasm and creativity and new out of the box ways to do things.  It pains me to feel so sad about something that should be celebrated.    Same old same old.........when will the church structure get it?

Educatetruthers will be dancing on LSU's grave. 

My concern in seeing Ted Wilson put in as president is that his father made some grievous errors while serving, and I'm afraid Ted is using his father as a role model in aspiring to the presidency.

It's sad.

Ted's Agenda:

--

Another priority will be to lift up the Spirit of Prophecy to be more than devotional-level reading, and to employ them for instruction and counsel. Another issue he addressed was the use of Scripture. In interpreting Scripture, we must make sure we are not following the historical critical approach, he warned.  

--

These two priorities are a direct attack against Progressive Adventism. They affect the two areas which define any movement away from traditional Adventism. Ellen White more than devotional, what does that mean? It means EGW as an authority on theology, interpretation and even Science and of course the very method of Biblical interpretation must be limited to that used by Ellen White.

I feel sorry for so many Adventists who are employed by a church which will now actively fight honest convictions of their own members.

Cherrytree,

The average Adventist who reads your post might have trouble seeing what Ted Wilson described that you find objectionable. I certainly can't see what the problem is.

Revivial, reformation, Spirit of Prophecy, not following historical criticism, city evangelism, medical missionary work, practical missionary work, unity without coercion: it all sounds so basic.

I don't see where he gave any idea that he was opposed to appropriate innovation.

TXalchemist,

From what I have seen, EducateTruthers want to see LSU not teach evolution over millions of years as fact. To equate concern about the hijacking of an Adventist instution with relishing the death of that instution sounds like spin.

As a younger member of the church that carries minimal historical baggage, seeing a man of God that states He wants to make the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy elevated is a breath of fresh air.  How can the other commenters be so concerned when someone says that want to elevate scripture?  Is there something else they would want elevated in it's place?  That's where my concern would lie.

Jason

I could not be happier with the decision to elect Ted Wilson to the presidency.  His initial comments regarding his priorities are very encouraging.  If only the "machinery" of the church will support him, we will soon be heading in the right direction. Revival & reformation are our most urgent priorities.  An emphasis on upholding the Spirit of Prophecy to its true purpose will also strengthen God's work.  And by highlighting the need to approach the Bible with the correct methodology he has put his finger right on the button so to speak.

All power to Ted.  My prayers will be raised on his behalf as he seeks to steer the church into the future.

P.S. Regarding focusing on the large cities of the world ... bring it on! 

Richard L. Noel, DMD

I will spare you the numerous statements of EGW against Ted Wilsons plan for her writings.  His face told it all.  He doesn't know how to show the love and Joy of Jesus.  He is a determined person like Saul of Tarsus, full of zeal without knowledge. I pray he will have a Damascus road experience and become a Paul the Apostle.  

Ella M

On a personal level Ted is a fine man, friendly, and interested in others. He will need our support and prayers.

I am concerned about his understanding of NAD and the western world. They will not respond to his priorities.  This sounds like a return to the 1950's when there was a lack in spirituality and members focused on sterile beliefs, and we heard little of Christ.   Poeple want something deeper.  We are not JWs who focus on a set of proclamations.  We need to be people who are spiritual, and I don't see anything spiritual here but rather a human regard for an institution.

That is my first impression based on this post.

Revival and reformation. Hmmm, sounds like we’re in for some more rungs to climb, as if personal ladder climbing somehow gets us up there; brings Him down here.

Hopefully, Brother Ted will shed his inherited and now presidential authoritarian cloak and call God’s friends to a meaningful “glacier view” effort to truly define the Church’s definition of “The Gospel.”

The late M. L. Andreasen hit the proverbial nail on its head when he wrote, “The matter of greatest importance in the universe is not the salvation of men, important as that may seem. The most important thing is the clearing of God’s name from the false accusations made by Satan.”

Hopefully, our new president will take on the humbling experience of going to the “Spirit of Prophecy” to trace how Ellen White’s opinion of the General Conference radically progressed; humbling as well as illustrative of how even an inspired writer comes to truth progressively.

May God bless President Ted Wilson’s efforts.

C. A. Lugo

I agree with you. He will probably use his father as a role model. 

How sad that Elder Wilson was just elected and all we have to share about this news is negative comments. Didn't our parents and teachers teach us that "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all"? Let's remember we're God's children, working together to do His work. Please, brothers and sister, be more positive. And, when we have concerns and "sad"ness, let's pray about it and for the individual.

Right now, Ted Wilson is our president. Let's get behind him, pray for him, support him, and enable him to be the best president possible in our church world today.

Mr. Pickle, I would have expected you to be jubilant with the news of Ted Wilson.  I suspect the majority of the posters here that are not pleased with this news are reacting primarily from their direct knowledge of Mr. Wilson and how he has administered in the past.

It's going to be a bumpy ride for awhile I'm afraid.  

We should put this in perspective:  the G.C. president is largely a ceremonial position, much like Queen Elizabeth:  speak at pontifical gatherings, but have little or no influence on the day-to-day operations of the church.

The local church is the pulse of the organization and it is doubtful if the majority of members will be affected or even know who is president.  He has no control over local churches:  they may ordain who they wish; baptize members they choose; disfellowship those that they deem should be; and, in short, life goes on much the same as before.  Like an elephant, the church is such a large and unwieldy organization that it moves at glacier speed and life will go on in all the churches much the same as before.

Whatever one thinks of the president, there is no comparison between the SDA president and the U.S. president.  The former has little power to make drastic changes, and can only persuade by influence.  While the U.S. president has the difficulty of working with Congress, nevertheless he has infinitely more power to effect change.

 Whether Wilson or Paulsen before him, there is little that either can do that will effect much change:  it will be at the local level where all change begins:  from the ground up and not the top down. 

Dilbert,

I wouldn't say that I am jubilant, but I do very much appreciate having a leader who is unafraid to publicly affirm that he believes key Adventist doctrines, and that publicly acknowledges that we must make spiritual matters, like revival and reformation, a priority.

You write:

I suspect the majority of the posters here that are not pleased with this news are reacting primarily from their direct knowledge of Mr. Wilson and how he has administered in the past.

Your comment is non-specific. What has he done in the past that was so objectionable? And why are posters apparently reacting to his comments and beliefs rather than to alleged past mistakes if alleged mistakes rather than doctrinal beliefs are the problem?

Sadly, like so much of modern life, the comments here on this news seem to come down to a conservative/reactionary vs liberal/progressive divide.

Ted Wilson's statement of his priorities places him very firmly in the former camp. Elevating the SOP (spelled EGW) 'above devotional' is code for using her writings canonically as arbiters of doctrine. Similarly, explicitly decrying 'historical critical' modes of Biblical interpretation is code for supporting literalist interpretation.

In turn, those positions tie the church as a whole to its most conservative possible positions on creationism, homosexuality, women's ordination and pretty much every other issue.

I applaud the idea of not saying something if we don't have something nice to say, and of supporting our president, but I also think it's important for those who are concerned by this clear signal of a direction of the overall church to make themselves heard.

Many will be jubilant at these clear signals, and many more will be desolate... and it's unsurprising which groups will be which. I fear that our church as a whole may be on the path to a schism, as the Anglican/Episcopalian church is currently experiencing, and around the same kinds of issues.

I assumed that I was alone in my feelings and concerns with our new president. After reading the comments, everything I was afraid to write was already expressed.

Yet at the same time I know that God is bigger than His church. Sometimes He lets us wander in the wilderness and sometimes He takes us into the Promised Land. I fear we are headed back into the wilderness. But I am willing to stay with God’s people wherever we are.

I will continue to pray for the GC, our new president, and all the new leaders. I pray that politics will be eliminated and that everyone will be in tune with the Holy Spirit's leading. I can't wait for the day when we will all sit at Jesus feet and no one will be politicking to sit on his right or his left.

Eddy Witzel

Spread a thicker layer of "EggWhite" on your crackers and hold on as he moves the church deeper into sectarianism!

Romans 3:24

Ella M

I think it is the ordination issue which in the western world would indicate that the church does not stand for gender equality.  It is a matter of what is right and what the average person thinks as right in western civilization. It is about witnessing to that part of the world.

On the other hand my first impression had to do with the terminology that will sound odd to the public.  We don't have medical missionaries any more, we have a church helping in their community.  (And we need to be teaching the dietary principles that we have had all along and now are being proven right by the secular world.)  Revival and reformation are also churchy words that will be misunderstood by nonbelievers.  He needs to get away from church verbage.  This is why I do not think his stated priorities will find a response in the western world where will not understand our language or motives.

Ella M says, "We are not JWs who focus on a set of proclamations." 

But the Adventist church previously was a mission-oriented church whose mission was centered around our interpretation of the three angels' messages.  The twin pillars of our movement were the 1844/investigative judgment and the Sabbath as a memorial of a six day creation.  These twin pillars are exactly what are most under attack from "progressive Adventists."  It is high time Adventism returned to its mission, and the election of Ted Wilson signals a seriousness about doing exactly that. 

What bothers we most about what Ted Wilson said is his strong assumption that we are not just any church, but God's remnant church. I know, we keep God's commandments and the testimony of Jesus.... really, all of them?

What about my own Adventist church in Germany congratulating Hitler in 1933 after his election and throwing out Jewish Adventists after that, simply because they were Jews? Does this mean keeping God's commandments?

What about racial segregation in the 1960's in our Adventist schools in the U.S.- was that in tune with God's commandment of "loving thy neighbour as thyself"?

What about Ruanda - and the Adventist leader convicted of killing or helping to kill hundreds of Tutsis during the 90's? Great that he kept the Sabbath, but does not another commandment say "Thou shalt not kill"?

Don't get me wrong, I hope that Adventists will make a great part of God's remnant people. But in the light of what happened in the past in this church, and assuming we are all sinful humans (me included), I consider it a bit arrogant to state WE ARE God's remnant, just because of our  theological understanding of God's commandmands. Only those who are doers of God's will will be part of God's remnant, to my understanding no matter what denomination they're in.

Ted's election only hastens the day of the vibrant future of the Adventist movement.

His push for the past will speed the 'coming out' of the tens of thousands of us who are at the core of our churches, high schools, hospitals, and universities.

Sure, the attempts will be made to have us all sign 'statements of belief' aligning with a "present-truth" of a bygone era - but the Holy Spirit is moving too fast in this organization to allow another 100 years of stale, legalistic, dogmatic religion - providing a convenient veil from the truly spiritual.

Ted and his well meaning, but misguided dinosaurs (Batchelorurus rex and Goldsteinasaurus) are doomed.

This is the first step towards a brighter future of a unified body of Sabbatarians, who while keenly focused on the soon return of Christ, are today passionate about the relevant and living Christ.

In all epic struggles, in the very end, God wins.

Always.

Really David???

The future of the Adventist Church is focused on the twin pillars of 1844/investigative judgement and a six day literal creation???

Wow.  That's a twin pillar strategy that's sure to win hearts for Christ.

If that's our "mission" for the future - our opportunity for growth through relevancy is doomed.

Ted's "stick" isn't big enough to beat us back to the past. 

History isn't kind to those who try to hold on to what no longer is...

I am adding my joy in having Elder Ted Wilson as the new GC president based on his priorities he has immediately made public. He is a true servant of God appointed in this end-time period to do God's will.

Congratulations and God's blessings and grace to God's Church.

Dear 1844veggieEGW:

 Shouldn't the "coming out" start with you using your real name?

Re Ted Wilson's rallying call around the historical-grammatical method for Scripture interpretation:

Our pioneers allowed a handful of dilettantes to interpret history even though they were not historians, imagining all the time they were following the historical method. Instead, they arbitrarily selected dates and events to fit pre-conceived conclusions.

We accepted a few tinkerers of Scripture to establish the foundations of our distinctives, trusting those unskilled in biblical semantics while thinking they were using the grammatical method. Instead, they have ignored word meanings and context, especially in Daniel.

Our pioneers abused the historical-grammatical method. Is Wilson calling us back to that abuse or does he want us to apply the historical-grammatical method properly? If properly then we will have to change most of our interpretations of prophecy. I can't see that happening. It seems to me that Wilson is out of his depth in theological and church history issues.

While on the past let me add............

Our pioneers had no vision to march with suffragettes. The demonstrators achieved the franchise for women without our help. We thought these heroines were wacky left-wing liberals, radical feminists.

Stubbornly we remained mute when women cried for equal pay. We fought them in the courts to guard our miserly purse, and lost.

I have a dream that one day my church will have the heart to campaign as Christ campaigned, promoting liberty and equality for all...........that one day leadership will have the pluck to set the agenda and lead by example in the home province, allowing the gifts of the Spirit to rise above gender and race differences, forcing male chauvenism to wither and die.

We inherited a lot from the Reformers and then turned on them and branded them apostate Protestants while insisting we were superior Protestants.

We denigrated the Catholics for their mariolatry and emphasis on tradition, at the same time building a hagiology around another woman and chanting the mantras of the nineteenth century.

I have a dream that one day we will be well known as leaders in all areas of biblical scholarship, not academic pariahs and partisans (with a few exceptions)............a dream that one day hagiology will fade into an embarrassing blip of the past and the mantras of old will be replaced with credible exegesis of Scripture............a dream that includes research centers at our academic institutions that research Scripture rather than the red books.

............a dream in which infantile literalism shall be exchanged for the mature recognition of biblical genres.............in which modern science is respected and taught in parallel to an enlightened understanding of Scripture. Scripture reflects the science of its time. It is never to be the rudder to dictate the direction and conclusions of science.

Those of the status quo guarantee the election to office of those committed to the status quo. Mediocrity persists as we cut down the tall timber in our woods and construct coffins out of the logs. I have a dream that mental giants like Paul will still rise up and re-educate the thinking of this generation. Paul and Barnabas discovered a mission field in Jerusalem. Peter and James at the center of Christendom were radically transformed during the First Christian Council. It could happen again...........I have a dream that reformation will begin with our leadership, bringing a breadth of learning and experience and toleration and devotion similar to the First Council.

...............it's only a dream.   

nww

Milton, although you have made a few valid points, you are sounding too much like a bitter twisted old man - which doesn't do you justice. You appear to be doing what one of your favourite mentors used to say, that we can undo by overdoing (or overstating) our case. For example, we didn't turn on the Reformers and brand them apostate. We have preached how they were used by God to bring us light. It's later systems who have rejected further known light and held to teachings of the medieval church that have been call apostate. Also your comparison between the mariology of Cathoicsm and the respect given to the writings of a woman believed to have been used by God to give prophetic guidance to the church is just over the top - and to use a term you have used, infantile,unless you are referring to extreme ultra conservatives. Also, considering the many discarded, as well as the currently accepted but unproven tenents of evolutionary science, I wouldn't be rushing to throw out Biblical perspectives as completely irrelevant - especially if it means discarding not only the plain words of Jesus about origins but the also the theological foundations underpinning vital concepts of sin and the plan of salvation. The fact that there are still good qualified scientists who do not swallow all of the so-called "facts" of science should give us cause for caution.Your reference to the First Christian Council reminds me that perhaps you are lacking a clear ecclesiology and dissallowing the possibility that the Holy Spirit may still be directing the church.

Neil,

I admit to being "old" but "bitter" and "twisted" is a bit over the top. In my senior years I actually feel quite happy and contented and still very straight. Ask those closest to me and discover if this is not true.

I'm notice you did not object to the main thrust of my post. I therefore assume you agree with me that our church has abused the historical-grammatical method of interpretation when interpreting prophecy. It seems it is only a couple of peripheral issues I raised that trouble you.

One was relating to the harmony of science and Scripture. Let me clarify myself. I'm not advocating that we "throw out Biblical perspectives as completely irrelevant." Instead, I'm arguing that we pay careful attention to literary genre in Scripture. Once we acknowledge genre then the question of literalness or otherwise is often resolved. It seems to me that Ted Wilson has not considered the genre of Genesis 1-11.

Another point you raised was in regard to Ellen White. You say she was "a woman BELIEVED (emphasis mine) to have been used by God to give prophetic guidance to the [SDA] church." You don't specifically commit to believing that personally but let me ask a question for those who do believe it. I have read a lot of her letters and manuscripts in their unedited versions, including all her letters written while in Australia (her most prolific period). What struck me was the number of times she could have walked down a Battle Creek street or taken a buggy ride around the edge of the Cooranbong cow paddock in order to eye-ball someone with whom she had a grievance. Instead of sorting it out according to the biblical model of a one-on-one discussion, or calling in the help of an elder or two, she sat at home and wrote them letters that were often scathing, letters that are now in the public domain and euphemistically called "testimonies." Why would she ignore the biblical admonition and be so uncharitable? If she was not infallible (that's what we believe) would there not be instances of her judgmentalism that destroyed church members?     

Milton,

Do you really believe that Ellen White didn't take every opportunity to talk directly to those whom she had a testimony for. You accuse her of judgementalism. This ill behoves someone in your position as an Honourary Research Fellow at Avondale College. [rest deleted by AT moderator]

nww

Milton, I don't wish to enter into a lengthy dialogue by means of a public forum, but perhaps allow me to just make a few more remarks. Firstly (and perhaps light heartedly) I would say that the terms "twisted" and "straight" are very relative terms and what you call being straight might be quite different from my understanding of the term!

I can agree that, in the past especially, our church has in certain instances abused the historical-grammatical method of interpretation when interpreting prophecy. I don't think this can be said on the whole today however and yet I believe our foundamental beliefs and the general thrust of the latest and best of our church's generally accepted prophetic interpretations can still be defended biblically.

I'm not sure how far you are taking your comments on the the genre of Genesis 1-11, but if you are going as far as some of your "Good News" friends and take it to allow you to basically dismiss the obvious implications of what I said in my last posting about the comments of Jesus on origins, the doctrine of sin and salvation etc and accept theistic evolution -then I cannot agree with you. Whatever genre Genesis is, it is not teaching something so different to what Christ and Paul and other Bible writers have taken literally as a basis for their theological teachings on these subjects.

I am certainly no believer in an unrealistic, ultra conservative inerrancy view on Ellen White and have kept up with my reading on most things written on this subject in recent years. I do happily and unashamedly confess however to believe that she has been used by God to give prophetic guidance to the [SDA] church. I'm sure you have a number of reasons why you have drastically modified your view of Ellen White and her writings over the years, but the one you have given in your last posting seems flimsy to say the least and a little like clutching at straws. One simple reason why she may have chosen to  write testimonies to people rather than always going to see them personally is that the counsel or rebukes she gave were to be useful to others who may have been in similar circumstances in the years to come. That would seem to me to be part of the legitimate role of someone who was being used by God to bring counsel, encouragement and rebuke to His people. By the way, don't you think some of the Bible prophets sounded a bit uncharitable?

Oh the shame of our dear brother Milton Hook. He thinks that Ellen White wrote her "testimonies" because she had a grievance with people. (Quote-Unquote). My reading of her writings assures me that she was burdened with a divine burden and that she sincerely believed that she was following the Lord's will in writing her testimonies.

As one, who as a boy traversed the cow paddocks of Cooranbong, (and played in the backyard of her home), I have to ask the question - How many testimonies did she send to residents of Cooranbong and Martinsville? You know, and I know that the number of testimonies to these residents could be counted on the fingers of one hand (and probably very much less). In other words, this particular charge is fallacious.

[deleted by moderator]

On the matter of the genre of Gen 1-11, I happen to be dealing with this very matter at the moment as I write for a Higher Degree Research program. There is ample evidence from scholars and commentators of many stripes to support a literal reading of Genesis. Next, you will be telling us that the serpent of Gen 3 was nothing more than a snake and that the reason for this chapter being there has nothing to do with the problem of evil and everything to do with why people are afraid of snakes.

Dear Brother Hook,

You assert that our pioneers had no vision to march with the suffragettes. As one whose paternal great aunt was one of Britain's foremost suffragettes and one of the first female doctors of the British empire, as well as one who has studied much about the vision of our pioneers, I believe I may be excused for commenting on this issue.

Truly, the suffragettes adhered to a noble aim of gaining the vote so that they could then create legislative protections in surport of a dry society and healthier family life with less abuse. Ellen White and our pioneers joined them in promoting the cause of temperance and even assured Adventists of their duty to vote in this manner. THE NOBLE CAUSE OF TEMPERANCE was very much in the sights of both suffragettes and of our pioneers, at least in New Zealand. Most suffragettes in New Zealand (the first nation on earth to grant women the vote) were members of the Womens Christian Temperance Union.

One the hundreth anniversary of the granting of the vote to women in New Zealand, one of my church members was President of the NZ WCTU and vice President of the world WCTU. She was in the capital for the celebration of this event with the Prime Minister and other notables. At that time, our local woman Member of Parliament was spearheading a push for the homosexual law reform. Tell me, which woman was honouring the memory and sacrifice of those early suffragettes, on that occasion?

The early suffragettes would roll over in their graves, were they to hear of the Adventist Today support for homosexual law reform.

Brother Hook, as a church historian of note, I wish you would deal more carefully with historical facts.

" There is ample evidence from scholars and commentators of many stripes to support a literal reading of Genesis."

Should it be assumed that your degree will be from an SDA school?  To limit to those who support your view (apologists?), if from a secular institution would not satisfy the essential needed for complete research.  Nor should it be accepted at any accrediting university.

Elaine,

Actually, I have a degree in librarianship from one of Australia's largest universities, which presumably means that I know how to do effective research. My mono-zygotic sibling has a graduate degree from Harvard. We both believe the same thing.

My blog enties are being targeted and deleted by the moderator of this blog.

[rest deleted by AT Moderator for not meeting comment guidelines. Please avoid targeting another commenter and stay on the topic that started the discussion]

I have a graduate degree in liberal studies, majoring in history.  What I personally believe, has absolutely no place in research if given for credit in any major university.  Research must be objective; otherwise it is useless.

 In my graduate thesis, I inadvertently used A.D. for the history after Christ, and was corrected and asked to consistently use C.E. as a non-religious dating; and B.C.E. as the required usage prior to that time.  So, even that small item, indicates a subjectivity not allowed.

 Of course, if your research is either personal, or for a religious school granting degrees, that may be considered proper.

The histories I read are all objective:  the beliefs of the authors have no place in such historical writing as they indicate a bias that prevents the true evaluation.  The only one I have read is that of a orthodox Jew who, writing as an historian of the Jews, chose to give his belief as a practicing orthodox Jew; yet his writing gave an interesting history of how the Hebrew Bible had been told, retold, interpreted with each telling so that we have only what was finally frozen by writing.

Sister Nelson,

Your claims to objectivity in research are absolutely laughable.

Far better to acknowlege your presuppositions, examine them critically, and then do your interpretation.

If you have a naturalistic presupposition, your interpretation of data will be far different than that produced by a presupposition that accepts God and the supernatural.

Further, if you accept the presupposition that God is timeless, your interpretation will be far different than that produced by a presupposition that accepts that God truly is capable of dealing with humankind and our world within the sequence of time. Mr Augustine Hippo was possessed of the conviction that God is timeless, and most Christians today follow that same conviction. Oscar Cullman and others believe that God Himself is able to truly reach humankind within time.

The presupposition that God is timeless and somehow removed from humankind will logically stumble at believing that God did indeed create our world in 7 literal days. The alternative presupposition can logically embrace this belief.

Calvinism, with its strong assertion of the absolute sovereignity of God, can be excused for it's presupposition that God is timeless. (Our dear Brother Hook is forgiven).

Adventists, with their belief in the ability of God to relate himself to time and history as in the prophecies of the Bible, and also their belief in God involving Himself with the world and humankind in the 7 days of creation, have certainly embraced a mutually exclusive presupposition.

"If you have a naturalistic presupposition, your interpretation of data will be far different than that produced by a presupposition that accepts God and the supernatural."

I agree with you 100%.  One brings her own suppositions in reading and interpreting everything, but in particular, the Bible is one book that induces many interpretations from all readers.  Their heritage, place of birth, parental training, plus education in home, school, and education will all affect the interpretation when reading the Bible.

It should be recognized rather than believing that everyone should read and interpret the Bible exactly the same and come to the same conclusions.

Why should we expect this to be different?  Everyone has a different background. This is a good illustration to remember:  Had you or I been born in the center of China we would have an entirely different perspective of the world; had we been born 4,000 years ago we would likewise have entirely different perspectives; had I been born in Afghanistan, and you in India, how could we be expected to be Christians without ever hearing?  We neither chose our parents or birthplace.  Had our parents been Roman Catholics, the odds are overwhelming that we would still belong that church. 

This should be a reminder that each one of us reads and interpets the Bible far differently and should expect nothing less. 

Yes Sister E,

But the Spirit of God will lead us all in the task of critical examing our presuppositions and even bringing us to stand on a united foundation of godly presuppositions, if we submit to His guidance.

The fragmenting of Adventism is not the result of such humility and truth seeking but the result of  both the intellectual arrogance of the left and the insular thinking of the right.

God accepts people where they are, whether born in the middle of China or behind the purple curtain. His hand is not slack. It can save even there. However, by His still small voice He can and does lead people from these places into the full light of His truth.

And remember, this full light of truth will become a blaze of glory before the coming of our Lord. It just may be that truth is an important safeguard against deception and cunning craftiness of men with their deceitful plotting.

Is this because there is no one truth, only versions of it? 

Elaine ...

The issue is that their is only one truth.  The many versions mentioned are the shapes, forms, and ideas developed from the given predispositions of those who wrestle with the truth for whatever the reasons they do.  

If you and I engage the Bible with the determination to discover the truth of it, and lay aside all preconcieved ideas about what it will tell / teach us, we will be led to the understand the truth of the Bible alike.  That does not mean we will see / understand the truth exacltly alike, but there will be a harmony.  The example I like to use is this: if you are standing at the front of an elephant, and I am standing at the back of the elephant for the purpose of discovering what an elephant looks like, how will we approach our investigation and reporting?  You in the front, and I in the back are able to see similar but different details of the elephant.  But how will we report / respond to each other about what we've seen?  Will we become blatent in defending what it is that we see alone?  Or will we take into consideration what one another has seen, if not trade places and investigate for ourselves to see if there is more to the truth of the elephant then what we saw all by ourselves?  

Jesus said the truth will make you free...and if the Son makes you free, you will be free in deed."  And since He stated that He was the truth, the way, and the life, it is quite easy to conclude that there is one truth, Jesus.  Every other Bible teaching / doctrinal truth must start and end with Jesus.  The versions are for the most part simply what we think the truth is.  No mystery why there is a serious lack of harmony amongst believers.

Peace

Mark, I am sorry to say you are just plain wrong with your comment suggesting it was a very small number of instances when EGW could have confronted people face-to-face. And the fact you grew up in Cooranbong and played in the backyard of Sunnyside is interesting but it does nothing to strengthen your argument.

When I made the comment I especially had in mind letters she wrote to Herbert Lacey, J G Shannon, L N Lawrence, Metcalfe Hare, and the pioneer teachers at Avondale. On one occasion Avondale administrators sent her a bill for grazing her cow on school property. She wrote a blistering letter claiming she should have free access to the pasture. Perhaps she was right, but the fact is she wrote the letter instead of going to face the school accountant.

The number of letters she wrote under similar circumstances at Cooranbong is far more than you can count on one hand. See my documentation in my doctoral dissertation. The fact is she followed the same policy wherever she lived. If one was to add all the instances throughout her writing life the total would be significantly more than you think.

No I didn't, and I will not be, telling anyone that the serpent in Genesis was a snake. You are putting words into my mouth. I won't play that game. 

Neil,

Sorry, it's that bitter and twisted old man back again!

Yes, the Bible prophets did sound a bit uncharitable. You are suggesting EGW is on a par with the biblical prophets. That is unorthodox according to the Fundamental Statement. Besides, you have missed my point about the biblical injunction of a face-to-face confrontation. Biblical prophets like Elijah facing Ahab, and John the Baptist facing Herod Antipas and Jonah facing the people of Ninevah, etc., etc., illustrate my point. True, many of the biblical prophets wrote their messages down but they also got out onto the streets and faced the people that they were calling to account. Jesus, too, didn't sit in Nazareth writing scathing letters to the Pharisees. He faced them.

The reason you offer for EGW writing her messages to people within close proximity prompts another question. Why should we not value the writings of other pioneers who were experienced in church administration and wrote letters to people near and far? I've read hundreds of them. Didn't those men have spiritual gifts too, gifts that would benefit the church nowadays? Furthermore, I feel certain that most of the scathing letters that I had in mind in my original comment were ones that she herself did not intend for general church instruction. The White Estate itself, in earlier days, recognised that fact by tagging some of them as the Z-File. They were highly confidential. I read them all in the course of my research. Nowadays they are for general readership.

You ask, Why have I modified my understanding of EGW? I suppose it began with Arthur White. I was researching in the White Estate in Washington in 1977 and requested the release of some statements. Arthur said to me, "Milton, we are happy to release anything provided it doesn't detract from Ellen White's image." That said it all as far as subjectivity goes and I started to re-think the view I had been raised with. Since then Dr Robert Olsen, a scholar in the White Estate whom I admired for his honesty, wrote in MINISTRY 1990, "I think usually she [EGW] was a homiletician. She used Scripture as an evangelist would." This position was expressed similarly by Dr Raoul Dederen in MINISTRY October 1981. It is, of course, a position not matched by the Fundamental Statement and certainly not held by a large number of SDAs. Administration has failed to re-educate the members in the pews, leaving them to believe EGW had more than the gift of preaching or homiletics.

What has this got to do with the election of Ted Wilson? The point is that in the past administrators have chosen to ignore their best scholars in specialist areas, men like Robert Olsen and Raoul Dederen. Both men were lucky to retain their positions. Other good men of similar learning were axed after they spoke their mind.

The church is about to repeat history in this respect. At the GC session Dr Benjamin Clausen of the Geoscience Research Institute publically and bravely admitted that the Institute, and many other scientists I presume, could not provide a credible short model for the creation week. So, after expending millions of church dollars trying to find a short model expected by the literalists, Ted Wilson is going to ignore the advice of the specialists, sharpen the sword so he has a mandate in 5 years time, and then do the Peter thing by slicing off the ears of the GRI scientists. They will be replaced by quislings who will sing the party tune. We can expect to read in the church magazines that startling new scientific discoveries prove a short and literal creation week. And the hoi polloi who know nothing about science will shout "AMEN BROTHERS."

I feel sorry for Dr Jan Paulsen. He is an honourable man who respected the research of the GRI. He initiated a number of worldwide seminars to air the creation issues and highlight current scientific research. Now he is made to look like he allowed heresy to prosper on his watch. Objective historians will not judge him in that vein. Historians respect those who have a broad intellect and work toward reconciliation in the spirit of Christ, as he did. But historians have a poor opinion of those who reach for the sword, dismissing specialists whose conscience will only allow them to speak what they believe.

I would suggest that the dismissal of any brother or sister in Christ, simply because they may disagree with one's understanding, has grave eternal consequences for the swordsman unless it is followed by a Peter-like repentence.              

Yes, you are correct, Brother Hook.

I am well aware that the suffragettes were active in the period 1880 - 1914 or thereabouts in many countries of the world. My great aunt happened to be an English woman. She probably was not interested in temperance. (She was more a forerunner of the 'burn the BRA ladies' of more modern era). They certainly wanted the vote.

But as a matter of historical fact the suffragettes in New Zealand of the same period were by and large Woman's Christian Temperence Union stalwarts. The reason these women wanted the vote was that they were interested in protecting and improving the quality of family life by promoting legislative reform to the liqour laws and establishing dry localities. New zealand women have these women temperence advocates to thank for gaining the right for women to vote in New Zealand. And New Zealand was the first country in the world to grant universal woman's sufferage. One of these women was a lady by the name of Kate Shepherd.

My previous comment about Homosexual Law Reform not being in synch with the agenda of these suffragettes was made in the NZ context of their vigorous support for the tranquility of the family. I wrote a Letter to the Editor of a local newspaper in this vain. It was published because the facts that I have alluded to above, cannot be denied.

I honour the rather avant garde worldview and vision of Ellen White that led her to embrace such contemporary issues as temperence and the anti-slave movement.

As far as the Avondale community goes, I believe that you named just five testimonies that Ellen White wrote rather than visit these people personally. This is as I have said - 5 or less. When a young boy, I happened to live next door to an old lady who for a time in the 1890's had been part of the secretarial help to Ellen White. She visited our home for Sabbath sundown worship on occasion. She certainly didn't believe that Ellen White's testimonies of that era were misplaced. She accepted their full inspiration.

Milton, if you wish to decry the visionary leadership of Ellen White, please don't do it in the pages of Adventist Today.

Milton, I very much appreciate your point of view and insights into various aspects of SDA history. I read some things you wrote on another website about Jones and Waggoner and was fascinated by your conclusions, which I was already anticipating.

I've read extensively in the writings of EGW, recently reviewing more than 350 examples of her use of "impute" and its cognates.  EGW was hardly  a Biblical scholar, certainly not in the vein of someone like Melanchthon. Actually, at times, it appears that she used Scripture without reference  to the original intent of the writer. A good case could be made that the legalism and, certainly, the perfectionism, which has troubled Adventism is largely, if not entirely, her responsibility.

 I'd like to see you produce some interesting articles for AToday on facets of SDA history which especially interest you. I expect that many other AToday readers would appreciate what you have to say.

Mark,

The 5 names I offered each received more than one letter. And those names were only a sample. Add to that other letters she wrote while in Sydney, Melbourne, and Battle Creek and you finish up with a significant number.

Hi.

Wish I could address you by your first name. Nevertheless, thankyou for your kind remarks. Others have expressed the same encouragement and in the near future I must give it some serious thought.

At present I have 2 SDA history projects in the cooker. When they are finished I will get rountuit, as they say.

Replay to June 27th, 2010 post (Ella M)

What?!?  The General Conference session of Seventh-day Adventists is not an address to the world. (Wilson doesn't use such terms with general public.)  More importantly, truth is not a matter of what the average person thinks is right.  (Such reasoning begat the Mark of the  Beast.)   

Reply to June 28th, 2010 post (Magdalena)

No other church fulfills the requisite qualities of Rev 12:17 in it's defining documents. Obviously, Wilson believes there needs to be reform in order to live up to that high calling.  But your highlighting the ugliest misAdventures is no virtue.  

“The church of Christ, enfeebled and defective as it may be, is the only object on earth on which He bestows Hissupreme regard.”—Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers, 15.

I'm afraid that the SDA definition of the Spirit of Prophecy is rather narrow. As an SDA member it has only recently become apparent that the use of the term "Spirit of Prophecy" in Adventism is synonymous with Ellen G White. This seems too narrow and exclusive an interpretation of Rev. 19:10 to be valid. Of course the definition of "testimony of Jesus" is found in Rev. 12:17. But this is not the only place in Revelation this term is used. The term "Testimony of Jesus" is found twice in Chapter 1. Both times the apostle John uses it to refer to the revelation he received on Patmos. The book of Revelation is the "testimony of Jesus". Therefore, it is also the "Spirit of Prophecy" (12:17). There appears no good reason to define the Spirit of Prophecy in any other way.

I don't think that the use of the term spirit of prophecy to refer to EGW is correct. When we quote from EGW, we should name her. We should not use a term that obscures the author. We don't do this with any of the Bible writers/characters. We simply say, for instance, "in Matthew Jesus says....." or "in Romans Paul says..." So I think we must be careful when applying such terms to EGW. I have no problem proclaiming that she had the gift of prophecy. But saying that she is the spirit of prophecy is another thing altogether.

I must echo your sentiments.

I would add one further thing. Is it really plausible, for a church to claim Scripture as our only rule of faith, to have a newly elected conference president come out and say that the "spirit of prophecy" is to be how the denomination will interpret the Bible? Such claims cast doubt on our adherence to the Reformation principle Sola Scriptura. It appears that SDAs are now adding the "spirit of prophecy" to the Bible as our authoritative creed. 

It appears that SDAs are now adding the "spirit of prophecy" to the Bible as our authoritative creed. 

In case you are unaware, it already has.  Here is the 17th of Adventists Fundamentals Believe:

One of the giftts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White.  As the Lord's messenger her writings are a continuing and AUTHORITATIVE source of truth, which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction and correction.  They also make clear that the Bible is the standard  by which all teaching and experience must be tested.

In this statement, the writings of EGW are an authoritative source.  Is there another possible definition?