Freedom and Security
Do you ever notice words and phrases that aren't generally considered cliché but should be? In the seminary waters where I swim, "postmodern" and "come along side" make me want to jump out of the pond and go off in search of an ocean with original language.
The reason many of these words and phrases overstay their welcome is that we can't find anything better to do their job. Consider the almost universally despised terms "liberal" and "conservative." Nearly everyone I know in the Adventist Church is dissatisfied with them, but nearly every Adventist I know has used them in conversation with me at one time or another.
Few Adventists who categorize other church members with these terms are willing to apply those labels to themselves. And it is clear to many that those categories obfuscate nuance and abet controversy, yet we continue to use them. Why? What function do they serve?
I submit that there are two coherent ways to understand "liberal" and "conservative." The most common use of the terms places them along a continuum of receptivity to change in relation to a perceived middle. On a given issue where change is proposed, the liberals, on the far left of the continuum, desire the most change; and the conservatives, on far right, desire the least change. But it is the perceived middle that tells you how far right you can go before you are a conservative and how far left you can go before you are liberal.
This liberal-conservative continuum is politically useful, because it helps identify who is with or against us on various issues. But it is also the arena where "liberal" and "conservative" are both rally points and weapons for intra-church battles. And because "liberal" and "conservative" are defined in relation to the perceived middle, which is always shifting as battlefronts do, the continuum offers us no moral guidance on what change is correct.
The truth telling ability of the liberal-conservative continuum is therefore limited to description of political positions. The subjectivity of the perceived middle means we cannot prescribe the left, right or middle as a position that always ought to be taken. And, if you doubt the middle is a matter of subjective perception, consider how frequently those with extreme positions point to those on their left and right to describe their position as the happy median.
There is
another way of understanding of the terms "liberal" and "conservative" that I
believe can offer us moral guidance, not on controversial issues, but for spiritual
growth.
Most of us recognize that freedom and security are fundamental human needs. They are opposites in the sense that many situations we face force us to trade one for the other. But it is also true that we are only as free as we are secure, and on the other hand, security without freedom is meaningless.
Liberals are those in our church who feel the need for freedom more strongly than the need for security. Liberals seek liberty (which is freedom) and to liberate those who are captive, whom they believe suffer from too much security. They value creativity and see the world as a canvas waiting to the painted.
Conservatives
feel the need for security more strongly than the need for freedom and thus try
to 
conserve structures that provide stability. They see the world as a place of
danger and the church as a place of refuge. So they warn those they see freely
wandering into danger and defend the church against perceived threats from
within and without.
If it's true that we need both freedom and security, it follows that we need both liberals and conservatives in the church to ensure those needs are met. In this sense liberals and conservatives are both equally good for the church. Yet that conclusion taken on its own would have us fight an endless dialectical war where liberals and conservatives battle it out, achieving synthesis after synthesis with each successive synthesis being its own justification. So this dialectic process, though it may be present in the church, cannot claim to provide moral guidance any more than the liberal-conservative continuum.
And here we must confront the sense in which liberals and conservatives are both equally bad for the church. For in emphasizing the need for freedom and the need for security, liberals and conservatives rule out the act of faith. And, as Paul says, "...whatever is not from faith is sin" (Rom 14:23 NET).
For the liberal, who pursues freedom, faith is eventually seen as a restriction holding us back from achieving our true potential. Therefore, faith is no longer placed in God but in our own ability, reason, and judgment; and God is no longer needed.
For the conservative, who seeks security, faith is eventually seen as something dangerous that pushes us into situations out of our control and into the unknown. Therefore, faith is no longer placed in God but in institutions, dogmas, and rules; and God is no longer needed.
The solution to this sin, as with all sin, is Christ. In Jesus we have perfect freedom and perfect security. He invites us to submit to His yoke of security, which is freeing in its lightness, and rest from our self-imposed political and dialectical battles (Mat 11:29-30).
With Jesus meeting our needs for freedom and security, we no longer need to emphasize one need over the other. And this is how knowing where I, not others, have a tendency to be liberal or conservative becomes a guide to spiritual growth. Personally, I have a tendency to see freedom as more important than security. So when I face challenging issues, I need to be especially careful to pay attention to biblical directions and church guidance and remember Jesus call to obedience. However, a conservative may need to learn more respect for the spirit of law and remember that limiting God to our expectations is sinful (Mark 3:29-30).
With their needs met by Jesus liberals and conservatives are no longer enemies but spiritual siblings who can help each other find a better experience of faith.
 | David Hamstra | David Hamstra is a Divinity student at Andrews University. He has a BA from Canadian University College and was a pastor in Grande Prairie, Alberta for nearly four years. David has been involved in the Adventist blogging community since 2005 and still occasionally posts at his blog, apokalupto. David is married to Heidi, and God has blessed them with one son and no pets. He enjoys cooking, jogging, telling jokes, and road trips. |
Comments
Re: Freedom and Security
You wrote:
The solution to this sin, as with all sin, is Christ.
After telling us you hated cliches? Really?
I think you had some good insights but the second to the last paragraph is entirely too short to deal with the topic. And the grand kumbyah at the end---is there a synonym for cliche?
Re: Freedom and Security
I knew some wise guy was going to come on here and point out a cliche or two in my article! ;) But if Jesus is in fact cliche, that's one cliche I'll always be cool with. I sure can't find anyone better to do his job...
I think the reason, besides word count, I spend more time addressing the problem than the solution is that I have seen more of the problem than I have of the solution. What I'm proposing is something I have not seen a church community actually do, so I don't have a lot of material for exposition.
Perhaps the commenters would like to offer their wisdom on how we have Jesus meet our needs for freedom and security and what the results of that look like.
David Hamstra
Re: Freedom and Security
David, I don't think you were all that definitive about the issue of conservative and liberal thinking.
In a radical spiritual way, it is legalism vs. antinomianism. That is, if you want to make both sides wrong.
So a religious conservative would accuse a liberal of being antinomian and a religious liberal would accuse a conservative of being a legalist.
Since both of these terms deal with a person's motive, we can not truly evaluate the reality of either unless the individual states clearly their meaning and intent when discussing a biblical issue.
Few, if any, do this. The only reason we can "judge" the Catholic faith is this, they freely confess you can merit and earn your salvation by good works. This is an official church statement.
How many other religious denominations do this? And how many individuals do you know who would freely claim they can merit heaven by doing God's will? Or, since I am a Christian, I can do as I please. Neither idea is stated, but may be implied.
Even if a person says, "I'm saved by grace, I don't have to keep the law" is not proof they are antinomian. Neither is a person ipso facto a legalist who states, "We must keep the law to be saved."
Unless there is a clear definitive statement on what a person means by these declarations, we can not know what is meant and if it fits the biblical norm. And since no one seems to be able to define what they mean, we end up coming to our own conclusions of what they mean by what they do or how they act.
The same is true of American politics. Claiming to be Democrate or Republican will not necessarily place a person in either camp of liberal or conservative. Neither will it apply to socialism vs. capitalism.
Only if and when there is a more clear and definitive explanation and application of these concepts can it be discerned exactly what it means.
Bill Sorensen
Re: Freedom and Security
Refreshing and thought provoking David!
Here's another one.
Open minded.
Whether on the left or the right, it should be a continual and life long process of remaning open minded. With each view point and its consideration, always going to God's Word for the final word.
As of recent, I see so much battle over who is right and who is wrong and in the midst of all that, the spiritual relationship of both parties can be severely damaged.
An attitude of "we're in this together" would be nice. As we all search for our version of truth, we should be encouraging to each others relationship with Jesus. Only He knows what is deep inside all of us and what are motives and passions represent.
To me, what you present draws all of us to the middle looking upward. Nicely put.
Wayne Blakely
Re: Freedom and Security
Bill Sorenson says of the Catholic church: "they freely confess you can merit and earn your salvation by good works. This is an official church statement."
I'd point you to this, which is THE official Catholic statement on the subject.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a2.htm
Re: Freedom and Security
"Few, if any, do this. The only reason we can "judge" the Catholic faith is this, they freely confess you can merit and earn your salvation by good works. This is an official church statement."
Bill, what you have stated here is the Pelegian Heresy, and not anything like an official church statement. Pelagius (born around 354 AD) taught that man had within himself the capacity to acheive his own salvation, and that Jesus was just an exampe of how to do that. This was condemed by the Catholic Church.
Interestingly I think that the Advenstist and Catholic positions are actually quite close (if not identical) with respect to Merit and Good Works. The Catholic Church teaches that we are justified by the gift of grace, and not by anything that we can do ourselves. Here is a quote from the Council of Trent: "None of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification; for if it is by grace, it is not now by works; otherwise, as the Apostle [Paul] says, grace is no more grace" (Decree on Justification 8, citing Rom. 11:6).
Once we start out on our faith journey, we are called to cooperate with all the graces which we receive from God, and in doing so we do Good Works. While we may Merit from these good works, it is God that provides the impetus and grace to allow us to do them, for we can do nothing without Christ (cf. John 15:5).
The Catholic Church teaches only Christ is capable of meriting in the strict sense—mere man cannot (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2007). The most merit humans can have is condign—when, under the impetus of God’s grace, they perform acts which please him and which he has promised to reward (Rom. 2:6–11, Gal. 6:6–10). Thus God’s grace and his promise form the foundation for all human merit (CCC 2008).
Hope this helps!
Clement
Re: Freedom and Security
Benjamin Franklin
Re: Freedom and Security
Clement said.....
"Here is a quote from the Council of Trent: "None of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification; for if it is by grace, it is not now by works; otherwise, as the Apostle [Paul] says, grace is no more grace" (Decree on Justification 8, citing Rom. 11:6). "
Clement, any knowledgeable Protestant knows the Catholic church does not teach that an "unbeliever" can merit heaven.
The convoluted view of Rome is this, when you become a believer in Jesus, then Jesus will help you merit the ongoing salvation that Jesus has provided.
Simply speaking, this means Jesus helps us merit salvation. So the works you do in Christ's strength are meritorious.
Or, they may say, like apostate Protestants, I am not doing the works, it is Jesus in me doing the works. This is pure spiritualistic mysticism where the believer has no identity and it is actually Jesus doing the works while we do nothing. (Morris Venden theology)
The only sense in which we can say, "Jesus gets credit for what I do is this. He empowers and motivates. I am the one who does the works by my own free will and volition."
And how does Jesus motivate me? By a revelation of the cross. The true meaning of the cross is all we need to motivate us to obey God and do His will. And a pure Christian motivation has no merit, either at the beginning or the end.
There is no merit in creature obedience, period. God owes us nothing, never has, and never will. And we can not make Him beholden to us on any level at any time. This includes all the sinless angels and every "born again" Christian who has ever lived on this earth.
Every blessing of God is mediated through Jesus who alone is "worthy" and all the sinless angels subscribe to this reality.
So, as you say, the Catholic church teaches that no unregenerate sinner can merit heaven. So what? That's not the issue. But the Catholic church does teach that a born again believer can and does merit the favor of God.
This is the spirit of antichrist and all the Catholic church can do is continue in "original sin" and serve the devil's agenda on and on.
The do not have the "Holy Spirit" but an "evil spirit". Called, "The spirit of devil's working miracles......" Neither can a Roman Catholic have the Holy Spirit as long as they advocate their false theology and false doctrine.
Some Roman Catholics have a spirituality that transcends their church's teaching. The are not "good" Roman Catholics. And some day, they must confront their own spirituality in opposition to their church and decide if loyality to God and His word transcends their church loyalty or not.
Seventh day Adventists will have the same decision on various levels of truth. Loyalty to the church has always been the antichrist spirit when the word of God is presented and they must choose.
Historically, people have generally chosen the church over the word of God. I would suspect most SDA's will do the same. Sinful human nature is always the same.
Bill Sorensen
Re: Freedom and Security
Hope this helps!
Clement
Once again, Clement, this is typical of Catholic misunderstanding of salvation.
Man is not saved to merit heaven.
Catholic theology teaches that God "infuses merit" into man, and thus man can merit salvation.
Bible Protestantism teaches that God "imputes the merits of Christ to the believer and the believer's works."
So, God treats us "just as though" we were meriting heaven, even when we are not. This is legal imputation by way of God's word. Neither is it "legal fiction" as Rome claims.
Rome would claim God could not impute merit to someone who has no merit and still be a just God.
They fail to see that we are married to Christ, and all that is Christ's including Himself, belongs to the believer in a legal sense.
Just as a woman takes her husband's name and all that is his, is now her's as well. And this is not "legal fiction". It actually belongs to her by way of a legal marriage. All she had to do was marry her husband.
Just so, God treats us as though we are meriting heaven, even though it was Christ alone who merited it.
Now it is equally true, that God will impute the merits of Christ to no one who does not intend to honor the marriage covenant. We have a contract to "all the Lord has said, we will do and be obedient." This is a moral contract in the marriage. It is not for the purpose of seeing if we can merit the favor of God.
The investigative judgment is not for the purpose of determining who has merited heaven. But rather, who has accepted the moral conditions of loyalty to God and His kingdom.
EGW Adventism is light years from Roman Catholic legalism. Those who can not distinguish between the legal and moral function of the law can never understand salvation nor explain it in its biblical context.
The ceremonial law pretains to the legal implications of God's government. And the moral law is the obligation of the Christian community in the covenant agreement.
Neither does "love" release us from this moral obligation.
So we obey God because we want to, and we obey God because we have to. Neither motivating factor eliminates the other. Even though many SDA's seem to think so.
Bill Sorensen
Re: Freedom and Security
Bill:
While legalism and antinomianism are represent extreme positions taken by some conservatives and liberals, respectively, they are not the same thing as liberal and conservative. I know liberals who are not antinomians and conservatives who are not legalists. This is because legalism and antinomianism are positions with regard to the sanctification aspect of salvation, wheras "liberal" and "conservative" (under my second definition) are attitudes towards life in general.
You are correct to mention that matters of motivation are private unless shared with others.
David Hamstra
Re: Freedom and Security
David, the freedom v. security analogy for liberal v. conservative is of limited utility. In the political realm, we see "liberals" who are in favor of bigger government and higher taxes in return for the promise of greater economic security, so the analogy fails there, and is in fact backward. It is true, however, that conservatives are willing to allow a slightly more invasive government in return for greater physical security against the threat of, say, domestic criminals and foreign and domestic terrorists, so the analogy holds, more or less, there.
With regard to religion, the analogy again is of limited usefulness. Within a narrow spectrum, it makes sense. But where is the freedom of someone who, having ceased to believe in Adventist doctrines (say, the Ervin Taylor edge of the liberal spectrum), somehow feels he must remain an Adventist? There is someone whose need for security, the security of a name--religion as comfort food--is beyond irrational, truly abject. The traditional Adventist is free, as is the ex-Adventist who goes his merry way without looking back, but one who no longer believes yet wishes to remain in the church (and this includes a large proportion of the bloggers here and at Spectrum), has a need for security that is truly enormous.
Re: Freedom and Security
David said to me.....
"
You are correct to mention that matters of motivation are private unless shared with others."
David Hamstra
And so, David, that is also why I said apparently only Rome seems to know how to state and define what they believe and how it is applied. Even if they are wrong, and they are, at least they clearly define their doctrine so no one needs to guess or misunderstand what they are saying.
SDA's can not define what they mean. And for the most part, don't even try. The phrase "righteousness by faith" could be defined in the SDA community about 40 different ways with none agreeing with another.
And people in the pews generally place their own understanding on what is said and assume the speaker or writer means what they think he means. And no one knows exactly what anyone else believes. People "worship, they know not what". Jesus
Now the fact is this, in the end, what is preached in the pulpit and taught in our schools is what SDA's believe by concensus and I don't care what a group of theologians write in a book like the 28 Fundamentals of Adventism.
Unless those "fundamentals" become a litmus test of who the church will hire as pastors or teachers, to some extent, it is a worthless statement of faith.
In other words, most don't really believe it in reality nor apply it in describing church doctrine. By the way, have you ever read the disclaimer in the front of the book. "This is not an official statement of SDA beliefs......"
So, as I said, at least Rome can be evaluated by some official declarations of their church like the council of Trent.
Years ago Brinsmead rightly said, "Most SDA's hardly know more than what day to go to church on." The biblical ignorance of the doctrine of salvation for most SDA's is an "idea that flits across the top of the brain." (Luther)
In other words, a very superficial understanding of law and grace in its biblical context. So it is assumed that any exhortation to keep the law to be saved is legalism. NOT. Only if it is stated like Rome, this is how we merit heaven by God's grace.
Even you could not tell the difference. And thus equated historic Adventism with an affinity for Rome and its spirituality. And a large class of SDA's agree with that evaluation.
Causing a major "identity crisis" in the SDA church.
Bill Sorensen
Re: Freedom and Security
Re: Freedom and Security
I can't say I really agree with the article, so I created a response for my blog
http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2009/10/ideological-differences-in-sda-churc...
Re: Freedom and Security
Bill, where to start!
I am really keen to continue our conversation but am conscious that this may not be the best forum in which to do so, given that we are quite off the topic of the original post. Perhaps I could email you? I am also very happy to continue our discussion here, but being new to the blog, I don't want to tread on anyone's toes, so will follow your advice. If we continue here, perhaps we could begin by discussing whether we as created beings can please God. Many thanks,
Clement
Re: Freedom and Security
Clement
I believe the bible answer is "yes". But not apart from Christ. The "works" we do that are wrought "in Christ" are pleasing to God. But only if they are according to His will. That is, biblical works. or, the ten commandments.
This means, in the judgment, Jesus does not simply insert Himself in our place when our name comes up. A popular SDA misunderstanding. Not all believe this of course. But a significant number do.
Socialism vs. Capitalism is not so easily discerned except by way of definition. Just as antinomianism vs. legalism in application can be rather obscure in practice.
So, in at least some cases, definition is easier than identifying a person as one or the other. I suppose in a technical sense, a legalist is also an antinomian. Because he limits the law. Even if he does not deny it altogether.
And even an antinomian has some law he goes by. We see that socialism is not so "social" when it comes to applying it to those who have control of the government. They have different rules for themselves when it come to "share the wealth".
And Capitalism is equally opressive when "the rich" get control of all the money and business.
As Christians, I think we know that all ideas and governments of man are faulty because of sin. This is why America can not survive no matter how ideal the principles of republicanism and a democratic society are put in place.
Sin destroys everything. And self government under God's rule is abandon for greed and power. Human wisdom falls by the way side and sinful man can not rule himself, no matter how hard he tries or what principles he hopes to install for the betterment of mankind.
This is probably the final lesson for mankind and all Christians know it is true in the end. God's kingdom alone can prevail. We need no other form of government. And if the principles of God's kingdom are followed, it doesn't matter if the civil government has a king, paraliment, or any other judicial ruler, it can and will succeed. Because ultimately, all is subject to God's rule.
But such a government can not be created by man in this world of sin. Even though many present day "Christians" thinks so and hope so. Rome is coming to the top. I think many of us think, "It won't be long now."
But the SDA church is ready to "roar like a dragon" and already has on a number of occasions. A final comment.
People have the spirit of the beast before we see the mark of the beast. And more than a few SDA's have this spirit and it will be manifested in the near future as it has been manifested in the past.
Loyalty to the church over and above the bible is "the spirit of the beast."
Bill Sorensen
Bill Sorensen
Re: Freedom and Security
David R:
Firstly, I do not use freedom and security as an analogy for liberals and conservatives, but rather as a way to analyze the fundamental needs that drive those attitudes. But your examples point to some of the interesting dynamics that take place between our needs for freedom and security. Remember that "that we are only as free as we are secure" and that "security without freedom is meaningless."
I specifically avoided discussing liberal and conservative in relation to civil politics, because the labels are very confused in that context. What we now call conservative political ideas, free markets and civil liberty, used to be called liberal. (Australia's right of center party even retains the name Liberal.)
Today, both major parties in America have their own blend of freedom and security. To put it simply, Republicans offer economic freedom and social security, and Democrats offer economic security and social freedom. This is because for a political party to be succesful it must respond to these two basic need.
With regard to what you say about religion, I would say that anyone who is involved in organized religion has a need for security that is being met by that involvement, and that security allows them certain freedoms thereby. In your analysis of Erv Taylor (who I am guessing for you is a stand in for liberals), conservative, and ex-Adventists, you have drawn your evidence selectively. For Erv, you have talked about his security and not about his freedoms, and for the conservative and ex-Adventist, you have talked about their freedom, but none of their security structures.
So being liberal or conservative is not a matter of whether we have security or freedom in our religious experience, but which need we emphasize. Adventism is affording both freedom and security for those who are involved in it. But liberals have a tendency to view it as a secure platform upon which to found their freedom, and conservatives have a tendency to view it as a fortress where they can be free of the problems in the world.
David Hamstra
Re: Freedom and Security
As in politics: A liberal becomes a conservative when he becomes a tax-payer.
In Adventism: A liberal is a former conservative when he no longer tithes.
Like taxes, the tithe-payer has no discretion on its use. Which is why in a voluntary religious organization, tithes should be freely-given, not called "robbing God."
Re: Freedom and Security
"I believe the bible answer is "yes". But not apart from Christ. The "works" we do that are wrought "in Christ" are pleasing to God. But only if they are according to His will. That is, biblical works. or, the ten commandments.
This means, in the judgment, Jesus does not simply insert Himself in our place when our name comes up. A popular SDA misunderstanding. Not all believe this of course. But a significant number do."
Bill Sorensen
So, I think what you are saying is that we can please God, when we respond to the grace he gives us through Jesus, by doing good works, and we will be judged on our works. Is this correct?
From your statement, you equate works with the ten commandments. Are works therefore limited to this in your view? Also, I don't understand how one can do a work "wrought in Christ" (whatever that means) that is not according to God's will. Surely if a work is wrought in Christ it must be in accordance with God's will?
One final question, you have said in your last two posts that - Loyalty to the church over and above the bible is "the spirit of the beast."
Can you show me where this is found in the bible?
Thank you for yoru patience with me, I appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions.
Clement
Re: Freedom and Security
One final question, you have said in your last two posts that - Loyalty to the church over and above the bible is "the spirit of the beast."
Can you show me where this is found in the bible?
Thank you for yoru patience with me, I appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions.
Clement
A Sunday keeper is accepted by way of forgiveness for a sin of ignorance if they have not been enlightened. Yet their motive is in agreement with God. Such "works" are "wrought in Christ" even if it is wrong.
Is God pleased? I would think so. Not because they are doing wrong, but because they are trying to do what is right and assume they are doing God's will.
If they really have "the spirit of Christ", when they see they are wrong, they repent. If they don't repent, even if they see they are wrong, they have "the spirit of the beast".
We apply the mark of the beast to a Sabbath/Sunday issue. And so it is. But in a more comprehensive and generic way, any sin is "the mark of the beast". It is the outward manifestation of the spirit of the beast or the spirit of Satan.
"One final question, you have said in your last two posts that - Loyalty to the church over and above the bible is "the spirit of the beast.
Can you show me where this is found in the bible?"
I guess for me, this is so obvious I had not taken the time to look up all the bible passages which confirm this point. But if people keep Sunday in honor of man's religion, then they must necessarily have the spirit of Satan. If and when "the church", what ever denomination we are speaking of, either sets aside, ignores, or attacks any part of the word of God, they must necessarily have the spirit of the beast.
In the case of Adventism, they ordain women as elders contrary to scripture. But when they are opposed, they don't want to discuss it. They try to ignore it as much as possible, while some work endlessly to "force" their agenda on the church community. We could add dress, music and the celebration movement in general that is endorsed by much if not most of present day Adventism.
I have spoken with many people who will admit it is wrong and they don't approve of this agenda. Some will say, "But the church has decided." They have the spirit of the beast and will necessarily eventually become Sunday keepers as many have already.
If "the church" can set aside any part of scripture, then it is clearly manifest they can set aside all scripture. The bible is a complete whole and non-negotiable. Rome reflects this false view that "the church" has authority to change scripture.
And Sunday keeping is simply the outward manifestation of their false doctrine. It is "the spirit of the beast". A false motive.
"Unconditional election" for the church makes people abandon their personal responsibility to make moral decisions in opposition to the church. Many, if not most SDA's think that Adventism is somehow "elected" to finish the work and it is impossible for "the church" to fail.
What they mean, is the organized church structure called the SDA church. If they simply mean, the historic message of bible Adventism as advocated and explained by EGW is unconditionally elected and those who agree are elected with the message, then, this is true. But this is not what they mean. If they did, they would be up in arms about leadership apostacy in departing from the message.
In June, 2005, the Review published an article by Kevin Ferris about the judgment that was so anti-SDA at least some people wrote letters to the Review about it.
Did they "repent" and admit the article was wrong. Not hardly. Neither did they reply publically to the letters even though they published some of them in the Review.
Many if not most are novices in doctrine and really couldn't see anything wrong with the article. Neither are they qualifed to lead the church into a clearer understanding of truth. Yet they hold positions of influence and authority and are taking the church down.
Can the church recover? I don't know. Certainly not while these individuals hold positions of authority and refuse to repent.
Much of Adventism has the spirit of the beast and I doubt Satan is willing to let go his hold without a tremendous struggle and conflict.
Bill Sorensen
Re: Freedom and Security
Looking back over the discussion following this article and others posted by Adventist Today's new Online Columnists, I've observed that people on this site find it easier to discuss philosophy and theology and the problems of others than their personal needs for spiritual growth. Does anybody have a theory of why that is?
David Hamstra
Re: Freedom and Security
A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged.
A liberal is a conservative who's been arrested.
Re: Freedom and Security
"A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged.
A liberal is a conservative who's been arrested."
This principle proves that all witnessing is sin. No matter how well you state a position, the parallel between law and gospel will leave your testimony in same area weak or faulty.
Luther said, "Sometimes heresy is the only way to make a point."
And this is true. Witnessing is often overstateing your position to emphasize a point. The bible writers do this as well. For if some issue is ignored or opposed, they press the opposite point to make an impact.
Of course, as SDA's we are often accused of over-emphasizing the Sabbath. And in some ways, so we do. And we need not apologize for doing so. For it is a point ignored and/or opposed and we press the point at times, over and above the scriptural emphasis.
Luther emphasized "justification by faith alone" in the context of merit. And yes, he over-emphasized, and even at times, went beyond the biblical truth of the doctrine. But to make his point that Christ alone without human participatation merited for us the favor of God, he left no stone unturned to make sure no one misunderstood this issue of merit in his opposition to the Catholic church.
So, our witness is always faulty from some perspective. Maybe to confrontational at times, but equally so, we may be too patronizing and condescending which is equally wrong.
But we all judge everyone elses witness and are quick to tell them how to do it. Today, the SDA church is over run with people who want to tell us any confrontational witness is wrong. Aren't they "judging"? Of course they are.
Apparently they think they know just how to do it, and are more than willing to tell everyone else when their witness is faulty.
I find it amazing that God would use any "witness" of sinful human beings since no one is qualified. None the less, the Spirit uses faulty witnesses and brings out what a person may need to hear and some benefit by it. Some never do.
Bill Sorensen
Re: Freedom and Security
David,
Do we not grow ourselves by discussing and learning theology and philosophy? I know that I find such conversation edifying and illuminating. I think that our personal needs for spiritual growth are in one sense very intimate, and we only truly grow towards God in prayer, that is in spending time in His presence, listening as well as talking to Him. Of course this includes listening to His word. I think that we also can also grow and be encouraged by one another, and surely that is part of what sites like this are about. I would also add that we can be encouraged and learn from the example of those who have gone before us in the faith, for as St Paul says "Imitate me, as I imitate Christ" 1 Cor 11:1.
Just a few thoughts, rather than the theory you are after, but I hope useful nontheless.
Clement
Re: Freedom and Security
I must confess that I do not see the freedom/security dichotomy as a very useful way to understand what drives liberals and conservatives. As David points out, it is not at all useful in politics, so why would one think it might be useful in looking at religion? I think there is only one reason. In religion, conservatives are usually in power, and those in power want to preserve the structures and beliefs that reinforce their power. Liberals would have no church if it weren't for conservatives. This is not true in politics. In modern politics, power moves back and forth between conservative and liberal policies. So, as David acknowledges, the freedom/security model doesn't work.
It doesn't really work in religious organizations either. If you look at the places in the church where liberals actually do have power, they have no particular affection for freedom. Just look at Adventist higher education, at least where progressives dominate. They profess to value freedom, but whenever their hegemony is questioned, see how quickly they resort to the same arguments used by conservatives to retain power - the same demonization of those who question them - the same ad hominem attacks against the questioners.
David mistakes the need to control for a security need. Human nature seeks power and control over others, while at the same time resisting the attempts of others to exert power and control. Were the Bolsheviks freedom-loving? No, they were power hungry. Likewise, progressives (liberals) in the Church today, in my opinion are far more interested in controlling the agenda of the church than in freedom.
Solzhenitsyn observed that the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every man. So the line between the need for freedom and the need for security cuts through the heart of every man. Only in free surrender to the living Christ who promises us a new heart is the conflict resolved each minute of every day. And whether we are Liberal, conservative, progressive, or fundamentalist, we all need that kind of freedom, and that kind of security!
Re: Freedom and Security
Clement:
Thanks for your thoughts. I certainly was not after a grand unifying theory. Question: Do see a tendency on this site to discuss theology and philosophy to the exclusion of the other aspects of spiritual growth?
Nathan:
If liberals and conservatives both rule out the need for faith, then we should expect both to be seeking control, though to different ends. Remember that under the freedom and security definition at issue is not whether one has one need or the other but which need is emphasized over the other. The point of the freedom and security definiton is not classification of political opponents, for we cannot know their motivations, but recognizing our own need for spiritual growth. In that light, I could not agree with your final statments in bold more.
David Hamstra
Re: Freedom and Security
Some people have complained about my posts on A-today.
Let me say, there are some who post and comment that I never read. For instance, I already know how Elaine thinks and seldom read her comments. And there are others who I seldom or ever read.
Why not just skip my comments if you don't like them and read what ever you do like? Not many respond to what I have posted anyway.
You are like a person who keeps jabbing themselves with a pencil and hollars, "Someone take this pencil away from me before I hurt myself."
So I say, "Quit jabbing yourself and stop complaining."
Bill Sorensen
Re: Freedom and Security
David:
I am very new to this site, so I don't really feel qualified to comment on the particular tendencies of bloggers to focus on some issues to the detriment of others. However, I do share you general concern that pontificating about theology and philosophy is of little value unless it leads to a greater love of God and neighbor.
That said, the honest pursuit of theology and philosophy, like the honest pursuit of science, can only lead us to a greater knowledge, understanding and therefore love of God. For He is the creator of all things, He made us in his own image, and gave us our intellect and the yearning for Wisdom. The wonderful thing is that God is at both ends of the journey: for "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom." (Proverbs 1:7, 9:10 and Psalm 111:10) This is crucial because, without God's self revelation to us we are not capable of knowing him, this is why he spoke through the prophets and in these last days he has spoken most supremely through his son, who is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being (cf. Hebrews1:1-3). In Christ we have the full revelation of God. Thus when our theology, philosophy and even science is Christocentric and enlightened by those divinely revealed truths which we as created beings are incapable of working out for our selves, then can we progress on our journey in faith, with God at our side every step of the way.
As for my posts on this particular thread, I am sorry if they have been off topic and a distraction from the focus of your original post - that was not my intention. I do feel the need to correct factual inaccuracies where there is (in my view) a clear misrepresentation of a particular church's beliefs and doctrine. I hope that I can make a positive contribution to this blog, so please let me know at any point if my posts are doing anything but that.
With all good wishes,
Clement
Re: Freedom and Security
David:
I would also add that in one to one conversations (whether by email or face to face) it is much easier (though still very hard!) to only say what will be useful and loving to the other person. This is even more difficult in the blog context where many conversations occur concurrently and, in a public forum which anyone can read. This makes it particularly difficult to guage the most useful and loving reponse to a given comment or question, as we are all at different points on our faith journey. As St Paul says, we are called to be all things to all people, and to bear with all, lovingly, at what ever point they are in their faith, only doing what will encourage and never causing anyone to fall. This is a very difficult ask! Thank God for the gracious gift of his Holy Spirit, may He help us in this and all things,
Clement
Re: Freedom and Security
Bill and Clement
My question regarding the kinds of discussions that take place here was not directed against you. I have no problem with the kinds of topics you were discussing and have had similar discussions online as well. My question was merely an attempt to highlight an absance that I have noticed in the conversations over here. For example, this post, by my friend Josue Sanchez about struggling with depression garnered just one comment. That's not a theological or philosophical topic, but one that certainly merrits discussion.
I'm still pondering why this is and what to do about it.
David Hamstra
Re: Freedom and Security
David:
I read the article that you linked and found it very moving. Speaking for myself, depression is a very delicate and personal topic, one that I would find hard enough talking to a very good friend of mine about, let alone someone I don't really know online. Perhaps with these delicate topics it is harder to engage, becasue they are more intimate and speak more of personal feelings and experience. This could be one reason that fewer people comment. Perhpas what we need to do is build the community feeling across the whole of the site, so that people can come alongside one another in their feelings and experiences, without feeling that they have to have a solution to the questions presented.
I think that the question you are asking is really why do people write anything on a blog? Is it to discuss points of view, to share experiences, to offer encouragement, or to float ideas around? I think that bloggers have many different reasons for interacting in a forum such as this, but perhpas many find it hard to deal with the truly deep personal issues that we all face at one time or another in such a public context.
I will now leave a short mesage on Josue Sanchez post!
Clement
PS I would appreciate your thoughts on my previous comments if you have time.