It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Reviewed by Tompaul Wheeler
Rarely has a book enjoyed such a straightforward title. It clearly marks out an intended audience--disaffected Adventists--and point of view. The subtitle, The Untold History and The Doctrine that Attempts to Repair the Temple Veil, suggests a broader intent. It promises "an "inside scoop on the SDA lifestyle and mentality."
"The shackles of fear and servitude." That's how "one theologian" quoted on the back cover describes the Adventist mentality, and it aptly sums up the Beems' take on Adventism--a culture of fear of persecution, of outsiders, of open-mindedness. The degree to which the book will speak to you will likely reflect how much that resonates with your spiritual experience.
The Adventism described
within is nearly invariably that of an insular, ghettoized, fundamentalist
strain. Page xv tells readers that an Adventist "can live his entire life
without encountering any serious challenge to his doctrines. These doctrines
can be confusing, imposing fear and prejudice against their brothers in faith.
We have found Adventists tend to be fearful and joyless because their core ideology
is a judgement of law not of grace. . . ."
It's Okay NOT to be a Seventh-day Adventist covers such a wide array of topics that it's tempting for a reviewer to proceed point-by-point. While a full analysis is beyond the limits of this review, I shall note that the same presuppositions prevail throughout, as filters that illuminate or obscure everything that follows.
Ellen White looms large over the book's pages--a static, one-sided figure. On p. xv the Beems write, "[Ellen White stated that] unless we keep the commandments flawlessly we cannot be assured of salvation: `If we are disobedient. . . . it is stating a falsehood to say, I am saved.' Adventists often resist resting in the assurance of Christ's atonement at the cross for they believe God is constantly testing Christians to prove them worthy."
Ellen White has been quoted as supporting one position or another since she first spoke publicly. That makes context essential, especially when we're more than a century removed from the specific viewpoints she addressed. Writing to a smug audience who, as she had written earlier in that paragraph, was tempted to "rest in a satisfied condition, and cease to make advancement, saying, `I am saved," she encouraged them to press on in faith. To an audience who felt a keen sense of their own unworthiness she wrote such words as, "[Some say]: `I have not the light that I desire; I have not the assurance of the favor of God . . . If that is the struggle going on in your mind, I fear you will gain no strength, and will finally become discouraged . . . Some seem to feel that they must be on probation, and must prove to the Lord that they are reformed before they can claim His blessing . . . Jesus loves to have us come to Him just as we are--sinful, helpless, dependent" (Review and Herald, April 22, 1884).
As controversies in early Adventism raged about salvation, justification, and righteousness by faith, White emphasized different aspects of the broader issues. Her messages comforted the afflicted and afflicted the comfortable. Furthermore, her emphases developed over time, as she came, alongside the church, to greater appreciate certain truths and divine attributes.
Such context is absent from the Beems' book. Instead, White's words are treated as if written in response to our twenty-first century issues.
Chapters 1-4 make up the section "History of Adventism" (actually a look at the Millerite movement and its aftermath). Chapter 3 cites numerous newspaper reports of tragedy and mental breakdowns stemming from involvement in the Millerite movement. The Beems cite disapprovingly (p. 51) James White's words (mistakenly attributing them to Ellen) regarding other post-Disappointment Millerite sects, while ironically dwelling on how leaders of those groups came to scandalous ends.
The Beems take particular exception (p. 56) to the Whites' justification for Miller's error of interpretation, that "[God's] hand covered a mistake". They write, "The little flock salved their wounds and were rejuvenated from the idea that God schemed to deceive and disillusion them. Yet Scripture promises that God does not deceive; God does not tell lies, Satan does." The Beems do not address the scriptural parallels Adventism has always found in this experience-e.g. the road to Emmaus, in which Jesus hides His identity while His followers express their disappointment, or, more pointedly, Revelation 10:9-11. Adventists believe those verses predict the spiritual journey of God's end-time movement--a time of joyful expectation turned to pain, and then a call to preach a final message to the world.
The second of the book's three main sections is "Pillars of the Church." which, they write, focus on "only those doctrines which are considered the pillars of the Adventist faith--Ellen White as prophetess, The Three Angels' Message and Sanctuary Doctrine and lastly the Sabbath doctrine." Their designation of Ellen White as a "pillar doctrine" is telling. The Beems emphasize White's self-description that "My commission embraces the work of a prophet, but it does not end there. It embraces much more . . ." They make no mention of the many times she expressed frustration at those who put her authority on parallel with scripture or used her as an excuse to not think for themselves.
Examining Ellen White as an individual, the Beems take particular note of her record as a parent. Noting such quotes from Ellen White as "wicked children God does not love," the Beems reflect, "Some Adventists excuse this as scare tactics to get her children to behave while she was gone and argue that all mothers during the 19th century spoke to their children this way. That is no excuse for Ellen who considered herself `more than a prophet.' She was one who was presumably given orders straight from the throne of God to chastise other believers and spared no pains to try and reverse their errors. Her doctrines, her writings, especially those written to her own children should arouse the most intense skepticism" (p. 75).
The record is clear--Ellen White's understanding of and appreciation for God's love developed over many years. In the latter part of her life she bookended her five-volume Conflict of the Ages series with the words "God is love," but that theme does not shine as bright in her earlier writings.
Ellen White made no claims to a perfect character or flawless integrity or judgment. She grew spiritually as much as any other believer, and came to express regret over certain aspects of her child-raising.
The Beems devote numerous paragraphs to Ellen White's counsel to her son Edson regarding his impetuous marriage, but skip the "rest of the story." They do not tell how, two decades later, Edson wrote to his mother that he resented his more spiritual younger brother, was "not at all religiously inclined," was tired of Adventism, and was ready to stop practicing Christianity altogether. White wrote her son a lengthy response, confessing how in her sleepless nights she would "review and criticize myself to ascertain where I have made a mistake" in how she had treated him.
Edson at last took his mother's counsel to heart, and decided his spiritual condition was up to him. He finally embraced God and the church wholeheartedly, and went on to pioneer evangelism among blacks in the racially oppressive southern states.
It's Okay gives the issue of Ellen White's inspiration particular scrutiny. On page 84 they write that, in Ellen White's later years, "the Adventist leadership began to back down as to the extent of the inspiration of Ellen's writings. She had written earlier in her life that every word was from God."
That's a juicy claim, but no Ellen White quote is provided to back it up, because no such quote exists. White never claimed verbal inspiration, and strove to dissuade any who took such a view of herself or scripture. The Beems cite quotes that express confidence in the Spirit's assistance, but which do not come close to that assertion. Much of Adventism spent much of the twentieth century propagating some form of that view, but White herself could not have been more insistent against it. Her 1888 introduction to The Great Controversy (briefly alluded to by the Beems, but without analysis) describes her view of both biblical and her own inspiration, and even acknowledges her use of outside sources (statements that both White's critics and advocates too long ignored).
Regarding the Whites, the Beems write, "Considering James' inability to generate financial profit, his wife's visions enabled their aspiration to be met." In actuality, James White was a phenomenally gifted and successful businessman (who bragged that he never made less than $20 a day at a time when a laborer earned a dollar). The Beems refer to "rumors" (p. 71) that the Whites' marriage was not "the little heaven Adventists were told"--a curious statement, given that they elsewhere quote from George Knight's Walking With Ellen White, which gives as thorough and balanced a look at the ups and downs of the Whites' sometimes tempestuous but ultimately solid marriage as exists in print.
Regarding the first angels' message, they write that "Neither does `worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters' relate to the Jewish Sabbath" (p. 124). That's a surprising statement, given that the text directly quotes Exodus 20:11 ("For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them"). Indeed, many study Bibles cite Exodus 20:11 in the margins next to Revelation 14:7.
Adventism's investigative judgment is presented, not as a reassurance of God's mercy and fairness, but something that is "especially scary for the believer" (p. 112). Ellen White's counsels to not take sin lightly are transformed into warnings to repent of sins people may not even know they committed (p. 113). White's depiction of Jesus rejecting a believer who has become "self-confident" (that is, a legalist) is cited as an example of White being legalistic, but without her next sentence: "But the Father pities the self-distrustful, God-fearing soul, harassed though he may be with doubts and temptations. Jesus pleads for him, and confesses his name before the Father and His holy angels."
The Beems comment that "This is salvation by one's own acts of self-control and repentance, putting the Holy Spirit out of a job." And yet the quote they've cited says precisely the opposite, condemning the "self-confident" while encouraging the self-doubting with a promise that Jesus will save them.
The Beems continue, "We have encountered a suicidal young person who felt controlled by sin and Ellen's words made him feel hopeless. Year after year while in Adventism, we witnessed people either so hopeless that they no longer cared how they behaved, or who lived a life of constant spiritual defeat and guilt."
And then there's more "tabloid Adventism," such as they describe on page 114: "We often heard in Adventist circles, `God is watching you to see if you are safe to save.' . . . Why would he let impure people into heaven for another round of the sin experiment? . . . You probably won't find any SDA literature with those statements, but that is what Sabbath school leaders and SDA school teachers taught us."
And that's it in a nutshell. The Adventism to which the Beems are reacting is a distortion. It's the Adventist version of the fundamentalism you'll find lurking in any major religion, just with a few extra doctrines to distort.
On page 115, the Beems describe the fear some Adventists have had of imminent judgment--"What if you are breaking the Sabbath by dropping an important document off at work and your name comes up? . . . The idea that at any second your eternity might be sealed--while alive and walking around without being aware of it--haunts many Adventists. Every single moment you must watch to behave perfectly. It's an awful way to live and it is not scriptural."
It's not what core Adventism teaches either. As Ellen White wrote, "The character is revealed, not by occasional good deeds and occasional misdeeds, but by the tendency of the habitual words and acts" (Steps to Christ, pp. 57, 58).
Perhaps the Beems' perspective is most clearly addressed on page 233, where they reflect, "We lived for twenty years in one Adventist town and an additional fifteen in different Adventist communities. One question continued to plague us: Why is there an unhealthy spiritual atmosphere in Adventist communities while metropolitan churches, where the believers are forced into mixing with non-Adventists, are relatively well balanced?" The Beems compare Adventist doctrine to carbon monoxide, which "becomes deadly" when "confined in small spaces." They cite "atheistic SDA college professors and children on anti-depressant drugs" as "typical outcomes of these Adventist-concentrated areas."
They give no mention to Ellen White's own sharp denunciation of Adventist ghettoes as fomenting spiritual stagnation. Few stories in Adventist history loom as large as that of Battle Creek, Michigan. It was home to the church headquarters and several other prominent institutions, until, according to White, its Adventists became too power hungry and navel-gazing, and God finally moved to break the monopoly.
The rest of the book examines issues of the Sabbath, covenant theology, and the challenges of leaving Adventism (with such advice as "It's okay to panic when you get your ears pierced"). On page 249, they note as well that one should not "expect too much from other Christian denominations. They may have healthier theology, but they are just people with more foible than merits--like all of us." Appendices give quick looks at such topics as "Ellen White's Strange Quotes" and the controversial Clear Word Bible Paraphrase.
The young Ellen White struggled with a fear-based religion, fearing that without the threat of an ever-burning hell, people would spurn the gospel. And in Adventist history, people have distorted the gospel no less than in the rest of Christianity's twenty centuries. Arthur and Teresa Beem have rightly rejected a fear-based religion, but they haven't let go of the presuppositions.
 | quartho | Tompaul Wheeler is a seminary graduate and the author of two books - Things They Never Taught Me and Godspace. He's also a professional photographer and videographer. Tompaul writes book, film and music reviews for Adventist Today. |
Comments
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
This is a really excellent review! There is, however, an interesting backstory about Teresa Beem that I happen to know because I grew up in the same small Adventist town in which she lived during her college years and beyond. We went to school together; I know her family and she knows mine. In fact, my sister briefly dated her brother.
As long as I can remember (going back to early 1980s) Teresa was a crusader against the abortion-on-demand regime of Roe v. Wade. This was her main issue of concern and activism. She was greatly frustrated by the lack of a strong Adventist witness against abortion, and especially by stories that elective abortions were being performed at Adventist hospitals. When she left the Adventist Church, she became a Roman Catholic, a church with, obviously, a much stronger pro-life stance than Seventh-day Adventism. I know Teresa was disgusted at Adventism's silence on abortion, and I wonder how large a role this played in her decision to leave the church. My gut feeling, bolstered by the fact that she became a Catholic, is that it played a major role.
I sympathize with Teresa's frustration about Adventism's muted witness (to put it charitably) on the issue of abortion, but I would not want the church to become too focused on that issue, just as I do not want the church to get too wrapped up in current left-wing enthusiasms like environmentalism. We have our package of special concerns--the Sabbath, the six-day creation, the literal world-wide Flood, the investigative judgment/1844, the soon return of Christ, the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation, etc.--and adding the baggage of people's political enthusiasms, whether conservative or liberal, isn't going to help.
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
To our Adventist friends,
Thought we might say a couple of things here. Tompaul is a dear friend of ours and we love him greatly. He was courageous to take on a review of our book, so our hats are off to him. Though we have no expectations of Adventists understanding or appreciating our ministry, I thought I would throw in our perspective for some further dialogue.
When we left the church, we were happy, active Adventists (We did have a quest to clarify and strengthen the SDA position against abortion, David Read is correct. But we had anticipated doing that from within the church). We attended SDA schools through college and taught in Sabbath Schools, were involved in children’s church, choir and wrote occasionally for SDA publications. My favorite day of the week was Sabbath. The reason we left was that we came to believe some of the Adventist doctrines are not biblical. We were not bitter nor hurt.
To our shock, once our resignation letters circulated on the internet, we were bombarded by testimonies of those who had a very different experience in Adventism than we had. Heartbreaking testimonies of sexual abuse by SDA leaders, stories of people’s inability to cope, fears, disillusionment, bitterness. From South Africa to Canada, we heard a great cry for help. God placed in our hands a new and unexpected ministry.
The book was written, not for the spiritually healthy Adventist, but to support those who had been hurt in Adventism. Many who were raised in the church truly believe they cannot join another Christians community without jeopardizing their salvation, hence the reason we titled the book, “It’s Okay NOT to be a Seventh-day Adventist.” We believe it is necessary for the reader’s healing to take a trip into history and understand why Adventism developed and compare some of its doctrine to scripture. The book encourages those who have left the church to raise their eyes towards “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world.”
We rejoice that Adventism is progressing and is loosing its legalism, but that is not a huge comfort to those who were raised believing Adventism is the sole remnant church and someday Adventists will be hunted down and tortured by apostate Christians. God has placed into our hands a ministry to those people. I am sorry that in the process of helping them, Adventists feel offended.
God bless you all,
Teresa (with her husband's Arthur's permission to write on his behalf.)
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Ms Beem,
I appreciated your clarification. Thank you. The title of your book resonated with me as I suspected for most of my adult life that it "was OK not to be an adventist." From John Polkinghorne's book "The God Of Hope And The End Of The World" nothing separates us from Gods love if we choose to accept it. That includes leaving the SDA church.
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Teresa: I'm sorry, but I'm not buying the idea that unscriptural Adventist doctrines drove you from the SDA church. If you were so concerned with fidelity to Scripture, why did you then join the Catholic church, which gives tradition a role in the formation of its doctrines that is at least equal to, and in practice surpasses, the role of Scripture? Where is the Scriptural support for such doctrines as:
1. Mary is the Mother of God.
2. Mary was a virgin before, during and after carrying the baby Christ.
3. Mary was immaculately conceived.
4. Mary was assumed into heaven.
5. Mary is the mother of the church.
You defend these doctrines at this website: http://thejoysofbeingcatholic.blogspot.com/ (but mostly from church tradition, not Scripture). On the same website, you have a long article attacking the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura, in which you also attack the companion Protestant doctrine of the priesthood of the believer:
You've come to the position that it is illegitimate to try to support a doctrine solely from Scripture in derogation of the authority of the church, yet you expect us to believe that you left the Adventist church because "some of the Adventist doctrines are not biblical"? I think it must have occurred to you that some of the Catholic doctrines are not biblical, either, which is why you are attacking sola scriptura, and building up the authority of popes, councils, and the Patristic writings. Fidelity to scripture was the basis for your critique of Adventism, but it is not your desideratum for evaluating Catholism and its doctrines? If you really had left Adventism because of its unscriptural doctrines, you would have joined a church whose doctrines, by your evaluation, are more scriptural. Instead, you threw out the criterion of Scripture and replaced it with church authority and tradition.
Bill Cork, who had his own fling with Catholicism, listened to you on a radio show called "the journey home" and came away with the following impression:
That's more or less what I thought, and still think.
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Does anyone want to discuss the book?
In Christ,
Teresa
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
David and Bill - Ms Beem's book was reviewed by an AToday contributor, and she was kind enough to stop by the site to contribute to the discussion.
As a person of another faith, she is a guest here on atoday.com, and it would be great if we showed a little consideration, some manners, and a lot of hospitality to her as our visitor.
Questioning her understanding of her own religion, as if she is dense, delusional, or ignorant is rude. Your tone is rude and challenging, as if she was here to compare and debate the merits of Adventism versus Catholicism with David or answer to an assertion that she is ignorant with regards to both her former religion and her current one from Bill. I know I'm not exactly Miss Manners, but please show some class, you two.
Her book and its stated purpose seems to be noble and well-intentioned. Why don't the two of you truck on down to your local bookstore and purchase or order a copy of her book, read it, and come back here to discuss it? I'll even make the two of you a deal. If you do it, I will, and I'll be happy to continue the forum discussion with you two. I'm sure she'd be happy to be a part of a thoughtful discussion regarding her work as well.
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com
On July 1st, 2009 David C. Read made the following statement: “As long as I can remember (going back to early 1980s) Teresa was a crusader against the abortion-on-demand regime of Roe v. Wade. This was her main issue of concern and activism. She was greatly frustrated by the lack of a strong Adventist witness against abortion, and especially by stories that elective abortions were being performed at Adventist hospitals.”-
“Why We Left: A Letter to Family and Others”
http://sdaforum.com/page112.html
Some Adventist hospitals perform abortions-on-demand. At least one that I have personally investigated does partial-birth abortions. In 2000, I (Tesa) called the General Conference about the abortion issue. Jan Paulsen's office directed me to Dr. George Reid to get the official church policy. Reid stated that the church is pro-choice and that he was disappointed that the "
Arthur and I have been involved with the Adventists for Life since 1985. We have seen deception from our leaders and deliberate cover-ups attempting to appear neutral on this issue while SDA institutions are actively pro-choice. No more will be elaborated on this subject, as it is too lengthy to get into in this venue. However, the murder of innocent children cannot be swept under the rug of our consciences as a small sin. We will continue to educate the SDA membership about this problem but in a capacity that will not implicate us in this crime.
I recognize that all churches are filled with the wheat and tares and no church will ever be perfect. The Adventist church is replete with wonderful Christians and has the precious message of the Sabbath. We have been blessed by being born into her culture. However, through prayer and study of scripture we find that its beliefs are not consistently in line with the Bible.
The major issue that has compelled us to separate from Adventism is its lack of a stand against the murder of the unborn child. In its infancy, the SDA church was vehemently pro-life. James and Ellen White edited an article that stated that in the eyes of the Lord it was one of the most abominable things a woman can do. J. Harvey Kellogg was a leader in the turn-of-the-century movement against abortions. Yet by the late 1960's, our church had moved so far from its original stand that Neil [sic] Wilson, General Conference President at the time, was quoted in a major newspaper as saying that, "Although we [the SDA Church] ride the fence on this issue, we come down in favor of abortion because of the problem of overpopulation."
In 1985, I spent the year researching the subject and became increasingly horrified that our church waffled on this issue. Not only are we pro-choice in theory but some of our hospitals perform abortions-on-demand. Because of this, I began the first Adventist Pro-life organization. I was invited to speak at the General Conference Abortion Symposium in 1988 at
Later that year, I was invited to be among the voting members of a General Conference committee (chaired by Albert Whiting) that would recommend updated guidelines for the church on the subject of abortion. The guidelines that our committee revised became the 1992 official guidelines of the
We have remained active in trying to change the stand of the church since that time. Knowing that most Adventist's are pro-life and unaware of the church's stand, we had hoped that it would be only a matter of educating them and they would protest. Yet, I soon learned that the ambiguity in the guidelines left most members confused, inciting little enthusiasm in this cause.
Several weeks ago, I called Jan Paulsen's office to see if there was any update on the church's position. Though President Paulsen was not there, his secretary assured me that the pro-choice position had not changed. She then advised me to get the "official" word from Dr. George Reid, head of the Biblical Research Institute. I was shocked at his admission that the church was indeed pro-choice. I told him that I was speaking at an ethics class, taught by Pastor Bill Kilgore at
That he would openly state this knowing that I was going to quote him stunned me. Up until this point, the officials in the church had always denied being pro-choice. It dawned on me that even my conscience had been insulated by the ambiguity of the church. Now the church was openly admitting its support of abortions-on-demand directly and indirectly.
Ellen White says that we will be held accountable for the light we have been given. We are intimately aquatinted with the facts surrounding the SDA abortion guidelines therefore are obligated to act upon that light. Some have advised us to stay and fight for what is right. However, in the scriptures, Christ asks us to spread the gospel message not to reform an organization. If we are truly in the last days, our efforts are needed more urgently elsewhere.
Many Adventists excuse the stance claiming that the church should not take a position on political issues. Yet, prophecy predicts that the Sabbath will become a political issue. What will the church do then? When worshipping on the seventh day is legislated against, will we waffle on that "political issue? Are our church's beliefs becoming so diluted that uncomfortable truths are hid as not to make us look weak?
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Dear Nic,
it is nice to see you engaged in the conversation! You are a wonderful substitute crusader since I have left! God bless you! Yes, the issue of abortion is a major doctrinal disagreement we had with the church, and was the impetus of our researching early Adventist pioneers and digging into scripture. However, there were many more reasons following abortion. I think we list in our resignation--20 or so...
I just don't want people to believe we left over a single issue, as that would be a misleading statement.
Keep up the good work! In Christ,
Teresa Beem
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
statefarmsteve
Perhaps you are to quick to rebuke David and Bill. David's general statement was accurate and non prejudicial. As to the context of the discussion here, Teresa herself brought her reasons for leaving into the discussion.
Quote: "Though we have no expectations of Adventists understanding or appreciating our ministry, I thought I would throw in our perspective for some further dialogue.
When we left the church, we were happy, active Adventists (We did have a quest to clarify and strengthen the SDA position against abortion, David Read is correct......(snip) The reason we left was that we came to believe some of the Adventist doctrines are not biblical. "
Nick is also on topic when he points out these were not the reasons given until now/recently. All of this is a connected topic since the perspective of the author is all important. It is not a work of fiction or a cookbook. You cant just talk about the book in a vacuum.
The points or accusations in the book itself are not empirical either.
Take the quote here.
Talk about subjective assumptions! Shall we take that as undisputed fact and discuss it or shall we say the perspective of the author is paramount to the unfounded charge?
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Leah - my "rebuke" of David and Bill is simply related to their manners. I did not challenge the validity of David's statement regarding Teresa's pro-life position contributing to her alienation from the church, especially since she herself verified it.
I don't know if you read Tompaul's review, but it's a pretty tough one. He directly contradicts several assertions made by Teresa, and he uses the same quote as you did relating to the Beems' experience in Adventist communities, slanting and coloring their view of the Adventist church as a whole. In other words, Tompaul essentially calls them out with regards to their "presuppositions" preventing them from seeing the Adventist church clearly, and disqualifying them from making an impartial judgement regarding the Adventist church.
As a writer, I know from personal experience that it's hard to get a tough review. Yet she still bravely shows up here to contribute to the discussion regarding her book - not to vociferously defend herself or her book, but to discuss the book. Furthermore, she very, very graciously thanks Tompaul for his tough review. Yet David and Bill would rather attack her than ask open-minded questions about her experience and where she might be coming from. Please tell me you're not defending their attacks on her personal religious experience and her intellectual and spiritual integrity as proper behavior...
To Teresa - I grew up in an Adventist community, where an Adventist hospital, school, and church formed the dream triumvirate of Adventist communities. Overall, I felt like my experience growing up was positive, and while we had some inner-family political issues and organizational issues, I thought it was a great way to grow up. In that small Adventist community, I was able to forge a foundation that has served me pretty well where I live now, in a huge, multi-cultural metropolitan area.
What are the inherent weaknesses you see within a small-town Adventist community, or can you speak with more detail with regard to what you see as the spiritual dysfunctionality of these enclosed Adventist communities? I almost hate to ask, not having read your book yet, but I promise to remedy this soon.
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Steve,
I grew up in Dallas, Texas attending Dallas First SDA church. It was marvelous--very grace-oriented, or perhaps I better say, I perceived it as very grace-oriented because my father taught us "salvation by faith alone" at home and additionally in Sabbath School (early teen years, I think.) When I moved to Keene, Texas I noticed a drastic change in Adventism. Under the surface of this predominantly Adventist community there was a strange superficiality to their beliefs--they preached and defended the conservative Adventism and then at home lived a radically different lifestyle. I am a little tired tonight, so I am not expressing myself well, but there was just a cloud of spiritual hopelessness and discouragement even when lives were seemingly happy. For the next twenty years I contemplated why such a drastic difference in spirituality in this little town compared to where I grew up.
In the book, we also base our critique of "adventist ghettos" on the communities of Loma Linda and Collegedale, Tennessee where I also lived. I did not coin the phrase "Adventist ghetto" that was the name the residents gave it. There are a few pages dedicated to this topic in our book and it explains the problem in detail. Happy 4th of July everyone! THANK you LORD that we have the freedom to discuss these things without fear of political repercussions! Amen.
In Christ,
Teresa Beem
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com
On July 3rd, 2009 Teresa Beem made the following statement: “I just don't want people to believe we left over a single issue.”
-
Even though you left the Adventist community of faith for many other reasons, you seem to grant that the Adventists decision to compromise on the issue of abortion was a major factor for your decision.
-
I can relate to this because I went through a similar struggle of faith and for three months I attended the-
I want to point, though, that if abortion were the only issue, I would join the Catholic Church without hesitation. I do admit that the Pope is probably wrong on the state of the dead, but he is definitely right on the state of the living. Worshipping God on the correct day of the week is important, but protecting the most innocent members of humanity from genocide is more fundamental to a belief in God.
-
We should not forget that Sabbath keepers were the ones who crucified the Lord of Life and then hurried to keep the Sabbath.Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Nic,
I remember the moment, it was right before Doug Batchelor went onstage at Keene SDA church for an evangelistic series. I found him in the television control room and I began talking to him about how Adventists For Life needed a prominent spokesman. Doug was very sympathetic and agreed that the SDA position on abortion was heartbreakingly weak. So I didn't expect the answer he gave me. I asked him to help us and he replied, "Do you want me to loose my job?"
It was then that I realized there was a systemic problem. My church claimed sole remnant status by virtue of keeping the Ten Commandments and yet it reasoned away their church-sponsored hospitals performance of abortion on demand. They would take a public and loud stand on the fourth commandment, but wince at the sixth, "thou shalt not kill." This doctrinal issue did not cause us to jump ship but cracked the foundation so we fell through. If Adventism was so weak in their understanding of life issues, then perhaps all their doctrines needed to be investigated. So it is correct to suggest abortion is a venue in which God spoke us to begin scriptural studies on all SDA doctrines.
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
For those interested, another review of the book can be read at:
http://sda2rc.blogspot.com/
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Bill, please allow me to back up my statement. To what email may I send my source material?
In Christ, Teresa 7
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Christians will generally agree that even the most loving, grace-lavishing doctrine can be interpreted and presented in a legalistic way. And conversely, even the most severe doctrines, illuminated upon by a spirit-filled apologist, can bring out the justice and mercy of God. It is all in the explanation. What becomes complicated is rooting out the original intent of doctrines. Is the substance of a church’s beliefs intrinsically legalistic?
The face-lift given to the doctrines by the Progressive Adventist movement presents faith, not works, as true version of the Adventist gospel. They insist that the traditional, legalistic instruction of the doctrine misrepresents the original intent of the Adventist pioneers. This is where we, as the authors, disagree.
“Its Okay NOT to be a Seventh-day Adventist” carefully unfolds how the history and certain SDA doctrines such as the Investigative Judgement, the last-day prophecies of torture and perhaps even martyrdom for Sabbath-keeping are intrinsically legalistic and would naturally create fear in the believer. I think in dissecting our disagreements on Adventist doctrine, we see legalism flowing from different sources. Most Progressive Adventists believe it’s the legalistic teacher misrepresenting the doctrines, whereas many former Adventists believe it is the essence of the doctrines themselves that result in legalism.
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Bill - It is very natural, and yes, commendable, to desire to defend one's faith. What I find to be unnatural, and less worthy of praise, is your compulsion to apply "heat." when someone visits our "kitchen."
If you don't find it OK to not be SDA, then state your position, explain it, and do it in the spirit of kindness, brotherly love, and confidence. You can avoid meanspiritedness, anger, and arrogance if you so choose. In telling someone that they "worship, you know not what" you are calling them spiritually ignorant. I'm not sure if you've ever been wrong before (it sounds like a very, very rare occurrence) but it's not fun having your nose rubbed in it, or getting swatted with a rolled up newspaper.
I can very clearly understand Teresa's point of view, and in light of your declared understanding that free-wheeling abortion is clearly wrong, I'd think you'd also have questions regarding the validity of an organization that refuses to take a position against the legality of such practice. In your own words, you are choosing to worship with an evil-doing (albeit lesser evil-doing) organization whose worldwide leader, Jan Paulsen, not only refuses to take a public stand against evil, but for all practical purposes is the defacto "CEO" of a global medical system that provides at-will abortion services dozens of times over every day for a profit.
Bill, Is our Church's public position on abortion defensible? I personally don't feel it is, and I resent being forced to "choose the lesser of two evils" with regards to what religion I subscribe to. Why on earth should we allow this to pass off as acceptable?
If you agree, is there something that we, as lay people, could do? Perhaps a public position against abortion, with an emphasis at our health care facilities on abortion alternatives, with a financial commitment from our health system (maybe money better spent than a $3.3 million salary for a single person) to assist in adoption, or young parent social services would help us reduce the number of abortions our church via its hospitals performs each year. A public wave of support from the laypeople could at the very least help people like Doug Batchelor stand for their beliefs without fear of losing their jobs (although I'd hope that if a minister or church administrator truly felt that abortion was wrong, that they'd take a stand regardless of their job status. After all, if fear of the unemployment line keeps one from standing up for their beliefs, how quickly would one crumble under threat of real persecution?)
Bill - I'm not calling you out on this topic. After all, I think we're closer to agreement than disagreement. Like you, I too, don't think I can find it "OK" for myself to not be an SDA if we truly believe the SDA church is the purveyor of truth. However, like you, I see our church's flaws, and would like to know what, if anything, we can do from within to affect real, necessary change when we see the need for it.
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Statefarmsteve wrote:
A couple of months ago I did a larger review of the book. If you think Tompaul's review was tough you should read mine. I think my conclusion was something like the book is too factually inaccurate to have been published. As much as I agree with some of their goals the method is too shoddy. Here are the links to the articles:
Part 1
http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2009/01/review-its-ok-not-to-be-seventh-day.html
Part 2
http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2009/01/review-its-ok-not-to-be-seventh-day_25.html
Part 3
http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2009/01/review-its-ok-not-to-be-seventh-day_30.html
Judged by the Ten Commandments connected to part 4
http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2009/02/judged-by-ten-commandments.html
Part 4
http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2009/03/review-its-okay-not-to-be-seventh-da...
Part 5
http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2009/03/its-okay-not-to-be-seventh-day.html
Sorry I have not put them all together on a web page yet.
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Teresa:
"If Adventism was so weak in their understanding of life issues, then perhaps all their doctrines needed to be investigated. So it is correct to suggest abortion is a venue in which God spoke us to begin scriptural studies on all SDA doctrines."
Okay, that's a story I will buy (although I'm not sure it was God speaking to you). You were disgusted with the SDA church on the abortion issue, and after a while that alienation caused you to re-examine all the Adventist doctrines with a jaundiced eye. That's exactly what I thought happened, and it is perfectly understandable. If abortion were my main issue, I'd join the Roman church, too.
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
David - you are almost being magnanimous, and it warms my heart. I also agree that many times, we begin our journey on a very noble Godly mission, and sometimes go astray in our quest to achieve what we feel God has called us to do.
There are many, many pitfalls for each of us in our earthly journey. None of us are exempt. Sometimes those potholes and tripwires are created by ourselves. The most important thing to remember is that we can always get back up, call upon the name of Jesus, and resume our journey back toward salvation. If that spiritual journey doesn't lead a person immediately back to the membership list of the SDA church, I believe it's OK, because I personally believe that God's grace extends beyond the rollcall list of the SDA church.
At some point, as members of the SDA church, we have to take some responsibility for those that have strayed or been otherwise hurt because of obvious wrongs committed by the Church. For instance, in 2005, 60 years after the Holocaust, the Adventist Church rightly apologized for its failure to protect the Jews, for falling in line with anti-semitism, and most significantly, for excising and abandoning SDA's of Jewish heritage to be arrested, tortured, and killed. I would hope the church doesn't wait another 60 years to correct their present position that allows them to profit from the practice of abortion in Adventist healthcare facilities.
Until that happens, until all the obvious wrongs are corrected, I don't think anyone can fault us for finding it "understandable" when a person finds a wedge between themselves and Adventism.
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com
On July 4th, 2009 bill sorensen stated:-
“I don't defend abortion as an acceptable norm nor do I think a true believer does. None the less, we live in a world of sin and whether people like it or not, there are times when we must choose the lesser or two evils.”
-
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com
On July 4th, 2009 Teresa Beem stated:
“I remember the moment, it was right before Doug Batchelor went onstage at Keene SDA church for an evangelistic series. I found him in the television control room and I began talking to him about how Adventists For Life needed a prominent spokesman. Doug was very sympathetic and agreed that the SDA position on abortion was heartbreakingly weak. So I didn't expect the answer he gave me. I asked him to help us and he replied, ‘Do you want me to loose my job?’"Teresa, this is a tragic example of the frailty of humanness. It is rather easy to verbally defend one’s convictions, especially when a person is being paid for doing so, but the test comes when a person is asked to walk his talk. I didn’t expect this from Doug Batchelor. In this, Doug failed miserably like Peter when he failed to live up to what he had asserted he would do.
Fortunately, we have a compassionate Lord who is ready to forgive us our weaknesses and use us in spite of our failure to live up to what we believe in if we repent.Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Will there ever come a time when honestry and pinpoint accuracy will be found on both sides of the fence? Will there ever come a time when the use of broad strokes will no longer be in vogue? Jesus temporarily hiding his identity to the disciples on the road to Emmaus is a poor polemic to counter God willfully participating in deceit and lying to William Miller in direct opposition to Scripture, "No one knows the day or hour of my return." {Matthew 25:13, Matthew 24:36.} William Miller accepted his date setting as his mistake, not God's. I respect William Miller's humility in recognizing that he, along with many others who were preaching a definitive time for the Second Coming, were just plain wrong to do so.
Since Ellen White offers so many contrasts in her views over her lifetime, a person quoting her early "Arian" perspective on the Godhead, can be countered by someone quoting her affirmation of the Trinity later on in life. Since so many contrasting "views" can be found, some of which those outside of Adventism readily find contrary to Scripture, the overarching question really is, "Can a prohet be wrong about a prediction, or legitmately change theological positions like the blowing of the wind within the contextual argument of being a growing Christian?" My old Sabbath School teacher George Knight would say yes, but Deuteronomy 18 tells me prophets can't be wrong, so I say no. I imagine most Adventists would say yes. Is there enough room under the tent for all of us?
The major roadblock I see in Adventism ever changing, and yet it's strength in existence, has to do with the "all in one theological package". Not unlike Roman Catholicism, or Mormonism, or the Jehovah's Witnesses, leaving "the fold" of Seventh-day Adventism comes with sociological, psychological, and theological consequences. Those consequences, having been engrained into the psyche over a lifetime, assist in keeping members in the pew, negatively affecting their ability to perform critical thinking, and can chain them to a cursed "merry go round" of circular reasoning. Truth remains relative to what you have always known, not to what truth truly is, nor what truth, truly may be.
Whereas other denominations change, all too often not to their benefit, Adventism, Mormonism, and Roman Catholicism, have maintained quite a close consistency in doctrine and practice, because their political structures inherently prevent major change, and because their particular stringent views of theology hold the keys to heaven and hell.
I'm afraid the Beem's have jumped from the psychological comfort of one "all in one theological package" to another. The challenge we all have, is not so much the inconsequential matters of theology, but whether we truly know Jesus, love Jesus, worship Jesus, and refect Jesus to those around us; for the benefit of their salvation! Move beyond headline watching my friends, and keep your eyes fixed on Jesus, the author and finisher of our hope!
Many Adventists would find my last two sentences too simplistic, and maybe that is part of the problem....
Yours in the blessed hope!
Jeffrey
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com
On July 4th, 2009 RonCorson stated: “A couple of months ago I did a larger review of the book” [written by the Beems]
Ron, I noticed that on “Part 5” of your review, you criticize the Beems for making statements like the ones I list below, and you argue that: “This is one of the clear examples where the authors inject their ideas into Adventism.”
Quote: 1. “An example is the pro-life controversy. Many believe that speaking against abortion will lead to enacting laws to protect unborn humans. They fear that involvement in this political issue will break open the floodgates of morality legislation and lead to blue laws fulfilling the prophecy of their demise. Because this fear is so strong, all attempts at legislating morality are taken as a sign of the end and must be condemned. According to this thought pattern, all legislation that protects their beliefs (and them) is constitutional, but any attempt at laws to protect unborn children would be oppressive and conspiratorial.”
Quote: 2. “Adventists believe that God would have us sacrifice the lives of unborn children in order to preserve their freedom to go to church on Saturday.”
Quote: 3. “Although there may be some legitimate arguments made against enacting legislation to regulate abortion, to Adventists the reasoning is purely self-centered. They place their potential suffering above all attempts at alleviating the suffering and wholesale slaughter of the unborn. This is but one of countless theological dichotomies Adventists find themselves in.”
I was surprised by your claim because the Adventist dramatic shift regarding the issue of abortion was the topic of my doctoral dissertation, and I did reach conclusions which are very similar to those described by Teresa Beem. I agree with you that it would have been wise for the Beems to document their claims; nevertheless, to suggest that they might have been in error regarding the facts of the issue, and to assert that “this is one of the clear examples where the authors inject their ideas into Adventism” represents, I believe, an error in judgment on your part. [See http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2009/03/its-okay-not-to-be-seventh-day.html]
You did cite the “official statement entitled Guidelines on Abortion you can read it here.” Nevertheless, you failed to cite the following statement which is found in the fine print of those guidelines:
Quote: “God gives humanity the freedom of choice, even if it leads to abuse and tragic consequences. His unwillingness to coerce human obedience necessitated the sacrifice of His Son.”
This argument seems to imply that God sent Jesus to die in order to guarantee our freedom of choice to kill our own unborn children. If this reasoning is kosher, then perhaps Jesus also died to guarantee my freedom to rape innocent women and to sexually abuse little children.
Such twisted logic seems to have been originated by a very influential SDA leader of the church named John V. Stevens, Sr. who even today believes that the unborn do not have any intrinsic right to life until they take the first breath. [I can document this if you want me to!]
Perhaps the strongest defense of the practice of abortion by a SDA leader was written by John V. Stevens, Sr., who was occupying the position of Pacific Union Conference Public Affairs/Religious Liberty Director at the time of publication of his article entitled Abortion Answers and Attitudes by the Pacific Union Recorder in 1990.
Here is one of the arguments he advanced to justify the killing of the unborn:
Quote: “The best example is Christ who chose to die in order to restore that freedom lost through sin so that all can choose to mold their own destiny. Christ valued choice over life. . . . Every human being, created in the image of God, is endowed with a power akin to the Creator--individuality, power to think and to do. (Education, page 170) This takes place after birth, when the developing baby becomes a person. . . . Pregnancy, abortion, birth, life and death, can all be traumatic. Others have no authority over our consciences in regard to our response to life crucial events. The Holy Spirit is the only True Guardian of the conscience. To allow society--or the state--or the church--or even the family-- to replace the Holy Spirit is to be guided by the spirit of the anti-Christ. . . . From the perspective of respect for God's Word, Biblical history, and the fundamental principle of free moral agency, the Adventist church could justify adopting a pro-choice position.” [http://sdaforum.com/page114.html]
The idea that the image of God is limited to the “power to think and to do” is one of the main arguments used by James Walter in his book “What is a Person,” a book written in defense of the Adventist current policy on abortion. The argument is flawed, because if it were true, then Hitler and even the Devil would easily qualify for having possessed the image of God. Ellen White describes the image of God elsewhere as reflecting God’s character. Without this, all we have is the character of the great deceiver and the one who has been a “murderer from the beginning.”
I could say much more, but let me end with what Neal Wilson stated when he was in charge of the NAD, the man who eventually became the president of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists; when faced with the dilemma of whether to allow Adventist medical institutions to offer elective abortions to their patients, he stated:
Quote: “Though we walk the fence, Adventists lean towards abortion rather than against it. Because we realize we are confronted by big problems of hunger and overpopulation, we do not oppose family planning and appropriate endeavors to control population.” [http://sdaforum.com/page114.html]
I guess perhaps ADRA should start killing instead of feeding the starving people of the world.Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Teresa went from the ideal of reforming the SDA church to attacking its basic biblical foundation. There is a world of difference. Now she wants to sell her book and I see this as her primary goal. That she could not distinguish the spirituality of Catholicism from the bible should cause anyone to doubt her qualification on any basic spiritual matters. Just because Rome opposes abortion is hardly a reason to embrace her basic spirituality. Assuming that what she said about Doug Batchelor is correct, his response is typical of those who think "preserving their influence in the church" is more important than defending the word of God.
Other than a general policy condemning abortion as sin, there is little a church can say concerning each individual case since it is a family matter and no specific rule and application could be stated with any continuity. Is it a sin to "buy" on the Sabbath? As a general rule, yes. But if a person is sick and needs medicine, who wouldn't go to the drug store and buy what is needed? Exceptions to the rule defy the possibility of a statement covering all the possibilities. The same with abortion.
This does not excuse our hospitals from doing abortions on demand with no moral accountability for such actions. But it does show the impossibility of stateing exactly how, when and why such activity could or would be acceptable and possibly necessary.
For the church, idealism is to be stated as the norm and goal and abortion must be condemned as sin in principle. There should be some qualified statement on this issue by the church. But even if such a statement were made, someone could and would surely find some flaw in it regardless of how it was stated. And rightly so, for it is impossible to make such a statement and cover all the possibility.
Keep the faith.
Bill Sorensen
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Mr. Sorenson,
The book took over five years of full-time research and writing. Because the book has a very distinctive audience, we had no illusions of making money on it. It was written as a ministry to former Adventists. Additionally, there is no difference in the books sales at all when Adventists review it or give it publicity. Those who would benefit from our ministry generally do not read Adventist magazines or visit Adventist websites.In Christ,
Teresa Beem
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Teresa Beem writes: "“Its Okay NOT to be a Seventh-day Adventist” carefully unfolds how the history and certain SDA doctrines such as the Investigative Judgement, the last-day prophecies of torture and perhaps even martyrdom for Sabbath-keeping are intrinsically legalistic and would naturally create fear in the believer. I think in dissecting our disagreements on Adventist doctrine, we see legalism flowing from different sources. Most Progressive Adventists believe it’s the legalistic teacher misrepresenting the doctrines, whereas many former Adventists believe it is the essence of the doctrines themselves that result in legalism."
Reply............Well, if your goal is not to sell your book, then it must necessarily be to convince SDA's that they should be Roman Catholic. Apparently your many years of "research" must have been very selective. Did you read the Council of Trent and its confession of faith against the Reformation? Or "The Attempted Compromise at Rattisbon (Germany)"? And you have the nerve to call bible Adventism "legalism"? I guess we should, in your opinion, "jump from the frying pan into the fire".
Actually, Teresa, you are free to believe and say what you please and express your "spiritual convictions" anywhere people will listen. But no viable student of the bible or history will take you seriously. You may deceive the ignorant, the blind, and the prejudice including yourself. I hope you find the true bible faith as you deal with your own personal identity crisis. We all have to do that, don't we? I won't "bicker" with you any further. I have said enough so people know where I stand. I think I know where you do as well. The Holy Spirit creates the Christian community by way of the bible. Any other "means of grace" is secondary, including the church.
Bill Sorensen
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
NIc wrote:
--
You did cite the “official statement entitled Guidelines on Abortion you can read it here.” Nevertheless, you failed to cite the following statement which is found in the fine print of those guidelines:
--
I hate this type of tactic. I linked to the Guidelines article, I quoted only one paragraph of the article (point 4) and since I did not post the entire article you claim I failed to show the fine print of the article to which I supplied the link.
Then you claim an inference that is simply nonsense:
--
Quote: “God gives humanity the freedom of choice, even if it leads to abuse and tragic consequences. His unwillingness to coerce human obedience necessitated the sacrifice of His Son.” -This argument seems to imply that God sent Jesus to die in order to guarantee our freedom of choice to kill our own unborn children...
--
The reasoning which you imply is totally your own, it is without any warrant. God has given us freedom, we can abuse it, our sinful natures needed rescue and that is the reason for the sacrifice of Christ.
Suffice it to say that what you read into the statement is totally against the intend of the document which by the way does not ever encourage abortion as you seem to infer in the above.In fact you did not even quote the entire paragraph (see below)
But if you think your logic in the above is sound than you will like Beem's book, for the rest of us who find meaning in context your argument is nothing but pretext. As for the subject of abortion that is not the subject of this thread.
From the guidelines:
Life: Our right and responsibility to decide
9) God gives humanity the freedom of choice, even if it leads to abuse and tragic consequences. His unwillingness to coerce human obedience necessitated the sacrifice of His Son. He requires us to use His gifts in accordance with His will and ultimately will judge their misuse (Deuteronomy 30:19,20; Genesis 3; 1 Peter 2:24; Romans 3:5,6, 6:1,2; Galatians 5:13).
10) God calls each of us individually to moral decision making and to search the scriptures for the biblical principles underlying such choices (John 5:39; Acts 17:11; 1 Peter 2:9; Romans 7:13-25).
11) Decisions about human life from its beginning to its end are best made within the context of healthy family relationships with the support of the faith community (Exodus 20:12; Ephesians 5,6).
12) Human decisions should always be centered in seeking the will of God (Romans 12:2; Ephesians 6:6; Luke 22:42).
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
I am aghast at Bill Sorensen's statements: "That she could not distinguish the spirituality of Catholicism from the bible should cause anyone to doubt her qualification on any basic spiritual matters." "You may deceive the ignorant, the blind, and the prejudice including yourself."
This is unbelievable, and profoundly offensive to all the Catholic readers of this site, who are now heaped among the "ignorant" and "blind."
What did Ellen White say? "Brethren, I feel hurt when I see that so many decided thrusts are made against the Catholics. Preach the truth, but restrain the words which show a harsh spirit; for such words cannot help or enlighten anyone." (Counsels to Writers and Editors, p. 64.)
I promise you, Bill has not led one Catholic to see his "truth" today.
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Hugo.Mendez says: I am aghast at Bill Sorensen's statements: "That she could not distinguish the spirituality of Catholicism from the bible should cause anyone to doubt her qualification on any basic spiritual matters." "You may deceive the ignorant, the blind, and the prejudice including yourself." This is unbelievable, and profoundly offensive to all the Catholic readers of this site, who are now heaped among the "ignorant" and "blind."
Reply..........I have stated that she does not represent the Catholic position on salvation or the bible. No well informed RC would agree with her own confession of faith. And in the end, I said....."She worships she knows not what." Simply stated, she does not know the Protestant faith, she does not know the RC faith, and she does not know bible Adventism. Yet she claims the qualification to tell others what is "truth" in all these areas. And I might add, at least a few Catholics have embraced Protestantism as God has used my witness to help them see the errors of the RC church. So your statement "I promise you, Bill has not led one Catholic to see his "truth" today." Is typical of those who "blow smoke" about things they know nothing about.
In the end, I have no desire to "defend" my witness, but your statement was so far "off the wall" and typical of how many evalute, I thought I should at least make some comment on what you stated.
There are many honest truth seeking Roman Catholics who are open to hearing the bible. These sheep of Jesus can and will be "called out of Babylon" as well as many others who seek for truth. And some people are tired of a patronizing "milk toast" religion that refuses to challenge anyone on anything. So, we work and "do our Father's business" each in his own way.
Bill Sorensen
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Bill Sorensen: "So your statement... is typical of those who "blow smoke" about things they know nothing about."
Bill, I will pray for you. Your comments continue to be condescending.
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Bill - I was wondering how and if you would address Hugo's EGW quote regarding a harsh spirit's inability to enlighten.
Interesting that you are confident enough in your witness to completely disregard the admonition of Mrs White - and to directly contradict her. She says you can't enlighten others with a harsh spirit, and yet you glibly boast of your ability to convert Catholics with your harsh words. Have you spiritually evolved past the point of introspection? Are you beyond reproach?
Have you considered that Mrs White's caution came about as much because for each person that you intimidated or cowered into accepting truth with a "harsh spirit" a hundred may be driven away by your words and your attitude and your arrogance, never to return? Or are you so perfectly in step with your Savior that his prophet's words no longer apply to you?
Remember, Bill, Jesus Christ spent 99.99% of His time here on earth ministering with acts of kindness and words of hope, and only about 30 seconds of his life overtuning the money-changers' tables. It sounds as if you, in addition to dismissing His prophet, are accusing Jesus Christ of running a "milquetoast" ministry while he was here on earth. Or perhaps there is something to be said for simply being nice when witnessing for the Prince of Peace, when showing people that God is Love.
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
I feel that anyone who leaves the SDA church and joins the Catholic church (for whatever reason) has done a complete about face. I hate to burst this couples bubble, but in 1985-86-87 when I lived in Orlando, Fl. I was told by several people that worked at the Adventist hospital that there were more Catholics working there than Adventists! If that is the case, it is very possible that there were "Catholics" that were involved in abortions also? I have never been able to understand why people who leave the Adventist Church have to "bash" the church. Why not just leave, embrace your new religion and move on? I can also speak from first hand experience that being pro choice does not mean pro abortion! I am against abortion personally, but I feel that we should have a choice in what we decide. Christ has given each one of us a choice to be saved or lost - that is the whole basis of being a free moral agent. The love that we have for Christ is the reason we attempt to keep his commandments. The Bible states that the man (or woman) who knows something is wrong, to him it is sin. Our eyes must be on Jesus more than on those around us. Be wise as a serpant, gentle as a dove.
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
All theology is personal, but it seems to me that little good theology is formed when debate gets personal.
Tompaul Wheeler
Staff Reviewer, AToday
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
StateFarmSteve: Miracle of miracles, something we agree on!
Even if you are pro-choice politically, it doesn't mean the SDA church should be taking a pro-abortion position, and doing elective abortions at our own SDA hospitals. As a church, we should be pro-life, and we should not be doing abortions at SDA clinics and hospitals. What should be legal and what Adventists should be doing are two different things. Just because adultery is de jure legal almost everywhere, and de facto legal everywhere, does not mean Adventists should be committing adultery.
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
"Remember, Bill, Jesus Christ spent 99.99% of His time here on earth ministering with acts of kindness and words of hope, and only about 30 seconds of his life overtuning the money-changers' tables"
Reply: Since you don't know what I do with 99.99% of my life, you have no basis to evalute my witness. And when I read the bible, I think Jesus spent more time than you allow in a rather challenging dialogue with those who disagreed with him. Not to mention his pronouncements such as Matt. 23. But again, I doubt anyone can divide up their time in some percentage factor of how much is challenge and how much is encouragement.
But for the sake of consideration, how many people do you think considered Noah, Elijah, Jeremiah and all the prophets as "kind and loving and patronizing" in their witness? How about John the Baptist, and Luther? Or even EGW? To be sure, I am none of these. Jesus said, "Offenses must come, but woe to that man by which they come." Wasn't He especially speaking of Himself and His own witness?
If a person stays in the church and "attacks" it duplicity, I have no objection and in many cases would readily support most of what they would probably say. But when they abandon the SDA faith and turn and throw rocks at the church and our historic message including EGW, I have no sympathy nor any words of encouragement to share with them. I spend little time on this forum......or what ever it is. But let me say as a side note. Every Sabbath afternoon I go to the county jail and give a bible study to about 30 or more people on bible Adventism.
In a jail, the turn over is about two or three months. And it is infinitely more rewarding than "bickering" with apostates, liberals, and various other factions of unbelievers in the SDA church. What I do here is a "side bar" for me. I posted on the A-tomorrow forum until JR Layman gave it up. He invited me to post there when he left A-today a few years ago. I know he didn't agree with much of what I had to say, but I think he felt he needed some "conservative" input if there was to be any real dialogue. He also knew I was a product of the "Brinsmead awakening" in the 60's and 70's and it was a controversial ministry.
People who know me, know I am not a "me too" SDA. I have a keen interest in "sound doctrine" and I don't think the church does today. It is more into politics and Pluralism. Money and power. Most who try to "do theology" are novices at best and as Brinsmead once said, "Most SDA's hardly know more than what day to go to church on." And this includes many if not most church leaders, theologians, and pastors and bible teachers. Most of my theological education came from Brinsmead who pointed his followers to the Reformation and the bible.
He abandon his own advice and ministry focus and opted for a humanistic philosophy and abandon the bible. He could not harmonize his view of original sin and the concept of a final atonement coupled with moral perfection. In his confusion, he followed Dr. Ford and attack EGW and bible Adventism. So now you know, at least to some degree, where I come from and how and why I relate to the church as I do.
Keep the faith
Bill Sorensen
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
I can understand how Teresa felt. When you're pro- life, and your church isn't, you can feel like you're the only one. It seems like our pastors have turned their backs and pretend that that there's no such thing as abortions, that it isn't happening. Maybe If they don't say anything, it will go away. Like it's not important, no big deal, of no consequence. We don't hear about it from the pulpit, or most of the periodicals. It's bad enough to hear of atrocities out there in the world,but in the church? In our clinics and hospitals? It's hard to believe that the sixth commandment does not apply to our unborn boys and girls God created in the womb. Is that what we believe? Our members are not hearing about the wrongness of abortion in church.They are likely to think that getting one is really no big deal They're not hearing otherwise. We've lost not only those killed by abortion, but all the descendants they could have had, God is the same yesterday,today and forever. I don't believe He's any happier about our sacrifice of our babies than He was about the Israelites.How can we be ready for Jesus to come with this state of affairs? Are we the church without spot or wrinkle that He wants? Are we they that keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus? We must pray. Prayer will bring the needed reformation.
Neena Cleef.Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Bill - what I wrote was neither a judgement on your ministry or a presumption about how you spend whatever percentage of your life doing. It was simply an appeal to be nice.
I do find it very interesting that you continue membership and try to convert others to a church and religion that you feel lacks "interest in 'sound doctrine.'" A church whose leaders, theologians, and pastors and bible teachers are biblically ignorant novices. A church that is into "politics and Pluralism, money and power. " One thing is for sure: your cutting edge sure doesn't discriminate.
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Teresa:
Sorry I miss spelled your name. I didn't notice it until I saw it posted.Neena Cleef
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com
On July 5th, 2009 RonCorson made the following statement: “The reasoning which you imply is totally your own, it is without any warrant. God has given us freedom, we can abuse it, our sinful natures needed rescue and that is the reason for the sacrifice of Christ.”
-
I don’t blame you for thinking that way, because you probably are not aware that I invested thousands of hours reading everything which was published in the major Adventist sources between 1970 and 2005 regarding the issue of abortion. The objective of my doctoral dissertation was to discover what led the Adventist Church to abandon the clear pro-life position of the early SDA pioneers. This process led me to the conclusion that the basic ideas on which the new liberal view of abortion was based on was as follows:-
1. The theory that Jesus died to restore our freedom of choice. This theory is fallacious, of course; because Jesus died in order to free us from sin, and not to grant us the freedom to sin. Human beings have been free to sin since Adam and Eve were created. There was no need for Jesus to give his life to grant humans the freedom to sin.-
2. The notion that the image of God is “the power to think and to do” which the unborn have not developed yet. The notion that the image of God is limited to the “power to think and to do” was used by John V. Stevens Sr. and it is also one of the main arguments used by James Walter in his book “What is a Person,” a book written in defense of the Adventist current policy on abortion. This idea is erroneous as well for the simple reason that it is incomplete. If the image of God is simply the power to think and to do, then we must conclude that Hitler, Idi Aim, Stalin, Bin Laden, and even the Devil himself did possess the image of God. Ellen White describes the image of God as possessing the character of God.-
3. The belief that the image of God is formed when a baby, like Adam and Eve, takes the first breath. This belief is likewise fallacious. Adam was the result of an instantaneous act of creation by God, the way Jesus transformed water into wine in the blinking of an eye. Adam and Eve were the only humans created in that manner. The rest of us are created as a first cell which develops though a process.-
I was able to trace those false assumptions to John V. Stevens Sr., one of the influential contributors to the “Guidelines on Abortion” who was occupying the position of Pacific Union Conference Public Affairs/Religious Liberty Director at the time of publication of his article entitled Abortion Answers and Attitudes by the Pacific Union Recorder in 1990. Here is one of the arguments he advanced to justify the killing of the unborn:-
Quote: “The best example is Christ who chose to die in order to restore that freedom lost through sin so that all can choose to mold their own destiny. Christ valued choice over life. . . . Every human being, created in the image of God, is endowed with a power akin to the Creator--individuality, power to think and to do. (Education, page 170) This takes place after birth, when the developing baby becomes a person. . . . Pregnancy, abortion, birth, life and death, can all be traumatic. Others have no authority over our consciences in regard to our response to life crucial events. The Holy Spirit is the only True Guardian of the conscience. To allow society--or the state--or the church--or even the family-- to replace the Holy Spirit is to be guided by the spirit of the anti-Christ. . . . From the perspective of respect for God's Word, Biblical history, and the fundamental principle of free moral agency, the Adventist church could justify adopting a pro-choice position.” http://sdaforum.com/page114.html and John V, Stevens, Sr. “Abortion Answers and Attitudes,” Pacific Union Recorder (20 Aug. 1990).-
It is true that God grants us freedom of choice, but there are serious consequences if we make the wrong choices. Look at what happened to humanity as a result of Adam’s wrong choice! This is why the Lord gave us the Ten Commandments, and one of them prohibits shedding the blood of innocent human beings. Taking the life of human beings who are made in the image of God is the antithesis of the gospel.-
Jesus sacrificed his comfort in heaven that we might have life, while our own “Remnant” church not only justifies the killing of the unborn under a variety of circumstances, but it also allows our own medical institutions the freedom to offer elective abortion on demand. This erroneous policy has led many Adventist girls and women to murder their own flesh and blood for the sake of convenience, ignoring the fact that there is a better alternative to abortion: adoption.-
For those who might be interested in reading my doctoral dissertation entitled “From Pro-life to Pro-choice” you can do this online. Here is the link: http://sdaforum.com/page13.html .Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
"Bill I don't know how many years ago it was over on AOL when you posted on SDAonline. Please correct me if that was not the name of the forum there since it has been many years and I'm not sure. I will say you are very consistent over the years. If I remember correctly what you are saying now is very similar to what you posted then and you have the same approach now as then." Richard
Reply.........Yeah, that's me.....We just keep on keeping on. God has not changed, neither has His message. Grace does not do away with the law as it is being advocated in much of Adventism today........Jesus said, "By their fruits, ye shall know them." And the fruit of modern Adventism is the celebration movement and all that it implies and demonstrates in action. We need no other evidence that what ever "gospel" is being taught in the church today, it is not the bible gospel. So, even if a person is not a "theologian", they can readily see that Satan has moved in, in a considerable degree and now controls much of the church.
Keep the faith,
Bill Sorensen
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com
On July 4th, 2009 bill sorensen made the following statement: "I don't defend abortion as an acceptable norm nor do I think a true believer does. None the less, we live in a world of sin and whether people like it or not, there are times when we must choose the lesser or two evils.”-
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Bill, don't fall out of your chair, but I essentially agree with you.
I agree that aborting a child is a sin, and yet the government needs to stay out of the fray. I don't think our church's health ministry should be facilitating, performing, or profiting from the procedure, though. I don't think our church's official current vanilla position, especially with regards to abortion within our health ministry facilities, is in compliance either with our Christianity or our Adventistism.
I also see that your personal burden for the last 4 or 5 decades has been preparing yourself and others for the last days. I can tangibly feel the frustration in your words, as you have watched the church, for the last several decades, hit its spiritual cruise control, and coast passively when it should be working overtime to shovel coals into the furnace in an effort to hit overdrive. I think I'm beginning to understand you a little better. Your passion, sense of urgency, and especially your commitment to Bible fundamentals should be commended.
I apologize if I have come across as combative, but I assure you that my passion to do right is also present and that any fire I have shown was sparked by it. Admittedly, I am young, and have much to learn yet. I will try to approach our future dialogue from a more respectful position and with a better willingness to learn. It doesn't mean we'll always agree, but I hope to garner more knowledge and insight from you, and be more deferential to your years of study and commitment to truth.
Can I also ask, with regards to the "breath of life" if people have argued that this "breath" was not literal, but metaphorical? After all, a fetus shows all the other signs of life that are currently recognized by modern medicine (brain waves, heartbeat, vision, movement, etc.)
Respectfully,
Steve
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Nic wrote:
--
Quote: “The best example is Christ who chose to die in order to restore that freedom lost through sin so that all can choose to mold their own destiny. Christ valued choice over life. . . . Every human being, created in the image of God, is endowed with a power akin to the Creator--individuality, power to think and to do. (Education, page 170) This takes place after birth, when the developing baby becomes a person. . . . Pregnancy, abortion, birth, life and death, can all be traumatic. Others have no authority over our consciences in regard to our response to life crucial events. The Holy Spirit is the only True Guardian of the conscience. To allow society--or the state--or the church--or even the family-- to replace the Holy Spirit is to be guided by the spirit of the anti-Christ. . . . From the perspective of respect for God's Word, Biblical history, and the fundamental principle of free moral agency, the Adventist church could justify adopting a pro-choice position.” http://sdaforum.com/page114.html and John V, Stevens, Sr. “Abortion Answers and Attitudes,” Pacific Union Recorder (20 Aug. 1990).
--
Do you have the quote without the ellipses. Since I have seen what you did with the previous document quote where you ignored the part that changed the meaning from what you placed there, I would really need to see this as a full quote to decide if you are being accurate. By they way that ellipse technique was one of the problems with Beem's book also as they took stuff from various paragraphs and strung them all together to make it seem that the person was saying something totally different.
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
"Can I also ask, with regards to the "breath of life" if people have argued that this "breath" was not literal, but metaphorical? After all, a fetus shows all the other signs of life that are currently recognized by modern medicine (brain waves, heartbeat, vision, movement, etc.) Respectfully, Steve ".
Reply.........I don't think we can equate physical life as being the same as spiritual life. Jesus said, "Ye must be born again." and I take from that a clear contrast between physical life and spiritual life. And I think the distinction is imperative to comprehend the bible and what all is comprehended in salvation.
After Adam sinned, God continued to give physical life to the human family, and we as children of Adam are on probation to decide who will will serve spiritually. Spiritually, after the fall, we are children of Satan. So we are on probation as sinners to decide if we will "repent" (change mind) and join God's side of the sin issue. Before the fall, Adam was on probation to decide if he would remain loyal to God or not. So we see Jesus was like Adam before the fall spiritually. He was not born a rebel against God like we are.
To some extent, how you are tempted, either to remain loyal to God, or continue in sin and refuse to repent is not a relevant issue. We don't know which temptation is worse but we experience both.
Back to the issue........babies have at least some physical life even before birth. This, in my opinion, does not prove they are already human beings. I opt to believe they become human beings when they are born and I conclude this is when God gives them an identity of their own and creates a "living soul". People ask, "Are you pro-life, or pro-choice?" This is a false dilemma. It is worded to create the idea if you are pro-choice, you are not pro-life. Many of us are pro-life and pro-choice. The two are not "mutually exclusive" even if pro-life people try to make it so.
I can say, in the end, I don't know if anyone can "prove" when a baby is a human being. At least not by the bible. But I also think it is clear that abortion is a sin in principle and must be dealt with on this basis.
So, in this world, we must choose the "lesser to two evils" in some cases and abortion falls in this area in my thinking. I am totally opposed to civil law legislation on this issue and think it is not in the realm of civil law since I don't think it is murder. People want to call it murder so they can justify civil law legislation. It is a moral issue, not a civil law issue.
Keep the faith
Bill Sorensen
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com
On July 7th, 2009 RonCorson wrote the followin in response to my previous posting: “Do you have the quote without the ellipses.” *********
To the AT Webmaster: How can you provide for breaks between paragraphs?
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com
On July 7th, 2009 BUTAYL stated the following: “There is no reason to ever leave the SDA church! “ and “These people left the remnant church for the apostate church - that is a fact!” *********
Reply:Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Deleted by moderator. Please use email for personal chats.
--AT Moderator
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Hi Nic/All, I am the AT Web Developer, You should be able to just hit enter to create paragraph breaks, can you give me information on your browser configuration? Are you able to use the built-in rich text editor for the site?
Any additional information would be helpful. You can get in touch with me via email at ryan@ryanfreelance.com.
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Deleted by moderator. Please use email exchange for personal chats
-- AT Moderator
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
It seems like we have wrapped up the discussion about the book, so I will say goodbye and wish you all the best. It was nice to post to you.
The Lord bless you and keep you;
The Lord make his face shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The Lord turn his face toward you and give you peace.
In Christ,
Teresa Beem
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com
On July 7th, 2009 RonCorson wrote the following comments” Do you have the quote without the ellipses.”
Ron,
In my previous response to you I answered that I did not have the quote without the ellipsis. Today I did remember that I did keep a copy of John V, Stevens, Sr. original article in my file. I have it in front of me, but it is quite lengthy and it would take perhaps one hour of my time to type it. I did try to access the same from the Pacific Union Recorder archive, but it goes back only to 2003. Besides, I do not think that A.T. management would be happy if I post a long document on this blog. This is why the accepted practice of referencing sources was invented. In the event you are located too far from an Adventist library, I can type it for you and send it via Email.
By the way, the bulk material of my doctoral dissertation is made up of short quotations. Had I elected to include the entire context for each quotation the document would have been extremely long for practical purposes. My question to you is: Do you always include the entire article for each quotation you use in your writings? Don’t you reference each quotation in order to allow readers to check the sources in case there is any doubt about the accuracy of the statements?
You also claim the following: “I have seen what you did with the previous document quote where you ignored the part that changed the meaning from what you placed there. I would really need to see this as a full quote to decide if you are being accurate.”
Can you be more precise and explain where, according to you, I altered the meaning of what I had quoted? I do not think I changed the meaning, but rather clarified it by quoting from one of the individuals who influenced the drafting of the Adventist Guidelines on Abortion. Since you have an aversion for ellipsis, I will string the same quotes from the article written by Stevens to illustrate the fact that my interpretation of those guidelines was reasonable and based on common sense:
1. “The best example is Christ who chose to die in order to restore that freedom lost through sin so that all can choose to mold their own destiny. Christ valued choice over life.”
2. “Every human being, created in the image of God, is endowed with a power akin to the Creator--individuality, power to think and to do. (Education, page 17) This takes place after birth, when the developing baby becomes a person.”
3. “Pregnancy, abortion, birth, life and death, can all be traumatic. Others have no authority over our consciences in regard to our response to life crucial events. The Holy Spirit is the only True Guardian of the conscience. To allow society--or the state--or the church--or even the family-- to replace the Holy Spirit is to be guided by the spirit of the anti-Christ.”
4. “From the perspective of respect for God's Word, Biblical history, and the fundamental principle of free moral agency, the Adventist church could justify adopting a pro-choice position.”
http://sdaforum.com/page114.html and John V, Stevens, Sr. “Abortion Answers and Attitudes,” Pacific Union Recorder (20 Aug. 1990).
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Nic wrote:
--
You also claim the following: “I have seen what you did with the previous document quote where you ignored the part that changed the meaning from what you placed there. I would really need to see this as a full quote to decide if you are being accurate.”
--
I already did that. But for whatever reason you did not see it. I suspect because you interpret the Adventist document statement not by what it said but by what you choose to add to it.
Here is what you wrote on "On July 5th, 2009 nicsamojluk says:"
--
You did cite the “official statement entitled Guidelines on Abortion you can read it here.” Nevertheless, you failed to cite the following statement which is found in the fine print of those guidelines:
Quote: “God gives humanity the freedom of choice, even if it leads to abuse and tragic consequences. His unwillingness to coerce human obedience necessitated the sacrifice of His Son.”
This argument seems to imply that God sent Jesus to die in order to guarantee our freedom of choice to kill our own unborn children. If this reasoning is kosher, then perhaps Jesus also died to guarantee my freedom to rape innocent women and to sexually abuse little children.
--
On "On July 5th, 2009 RonCorson says:"
--
The reasoning which you imply is totally your own, it is without any warrant. God has given us freedom, we can abuse it, our sinful natures needed rescue and that is the reason for the sacrifice of Christ.
Suffice it to say that what you read into the statement is totally against the intend of the document which by the way does not ever encourage abortion as you seem to infer in the above.In fact you did not even quote the entire paragraph (see below)
But if you think your logic in the above is sound than you will like Beem's book, for the rest of us who find meaning in context your argument is nothing but pretext. As for the subject of abortion that is not the subject of this thread.
From the guidelines:
Life: Our right and responsibility to decide
9) God gives humanity the freedom of choice, even if it leads to abuse and tragic consequences. His unwillingness to coerce human obedience necessitated the sacrifice of His Son. He requires us to use His gifts in accordance with His will and ultimately will judge their misuse (Deuteronomy 30:19,20; Genesis 3; 1 Peter 2:24; Romans 3:5,6, 6:1,2; Galatians 5:13).
--
Notice the quote from the Adventist document above and your use of the quote, you did not even include ellipeses you simply wrote:
--
Quote: “God gives humanity the freedom of choice, even if it leads to abuse and tragic consequences. His unwillingness to coerce human obedience necessitated the sacrifice of His Son.”
--
You ignored that last sentance because it would not work at all with your interpertation of the verse as you expressed it in your next sentance. I will show you how nonsensical it is if you had used the entire quote from the Adventist document:
God gives humanity the freedom of choice, even if it leads to abuse and tragic consequences. His unwillingness to coerce human obedience necessitated the sacrifice of His Son. He requires us to use His gifts in accordance with His will and ultimately will judge their misuse
"This argument seems to imply that God sent Jesus to die in order to guarantee our freedom of choice to kill our own unborn children. If this reasoning is kosher, then perhaps Jesus also died to guarantee my freedom to rape innocent women and to sexually abuse little children."
As for the article I will have a copy of it in a few days thanks to a friend who lives near Loma Linda. I am pretty sure that you are distorting the guys position especially when you say that the quote is long. It would be a pretty unintelligent position to say that Christ died to give us freedom of choice since we have clearly had it all along. Possibly if Adventism was Calvinist that argument might have some merit but not in a movement that comes out of Arminism. So when you used your list and begin by saying:
--
1. The theory that Jesus died to restore our freedom of choice. This theory is fallacious, of course; because Jesus died in order to free us from sin, and not to grant us the freedom to sin. Human beings have been free to sin since Adam and Eve were created. There was no need for Jesus to give his life to grant humans the freedom to sin.
--
You are making a straw man argument. And it appears to be made from inferences of one person, even if Steven's said it, it does not mean it should be read into the Adventist document written by many people even if Steven's was one of the people involved.
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Well I got the copy of the Pacific Union Recorder and it does appear that the quote of Steven's was taken out of context and that ellpses were used to connect things from entirely different paragraphs. Here is what Nic gave as the quote:
Quote: “The best example is Christ who chose to die in order to restore that freedom lost through sin so that all can choose to mold their own destiny. Christ valued choice over life. . . . Every human being, created in the image of God, is endowed with a power akin to the Creator--individuality, power to think and to do. (Education, page 170) This takes place after birth, when the developing baby becomes a person. . . . Pregnancy, abortion, birth, life and death, can all be traumatic. Others have no authority over our consciences in regard to our response to life crucial events. The Holy Spirit is the only True Guardian of the conscience. To allow society--or the state--or the church--or even the family-- to replace the Holy Spirit is to be guided by the spirit of the anti-Christ. . . . From the perspective of respect for God's Word, Biblical history, and the fundamental principle of free moral agency, the Adventist church could justify adopting a pro-choice position.” http://sdaforum.com/page114.html and John V, Stevens, Sr. “Abortion Answers and Attitudes,” Pacific Union Recorder (20 Aug. 1990).
Here is the actual quote (using >> << to indicate sentance where Nic quote is taken from:
Which Freedom?
There can be no genuine personal development without full freedom to choose between options. While the will to abort involves an attitude toward potential life, so does denying freedom to others. That brings us squarely to the ultimate issues—freedom to live and freedom to choose. Does either have a priority? For many the answer comes quickly—the freedom to live.
Others would select freedom to choose. >>The best example is Christ who chose to die in order to restore that freedom lost through sin so that all can choose to mold their own destiny. Christ valued choice over life.<<
God made man as free to obey or to disobey His law. He knew the worthlessness of forced obedience. “God never forces the will or the conscience.” (Great controversy, page 591)
His will is revealed in Scripture, which contains His laws touching on whether personhood begins at conception or birth. “I will cause breath to enter into you and ye shall live.” Ezekiel 37:5; “A time to be born and a time to die,” Ecc. 3:2, marks the beginning and the end of life. Person incorporates intelligence, conscious decision making, qualities that cannot be assigned to a developing baby.
>>“Every human being, created in the image of God, is endowed with a power akin to the Creator—individuality, power to think and to do.” (Education, page 17) This takes place after birth, when the developing baby becomes a person. << Animals function by instinct. While they can do, they cannot think. Animals are programmed, humans are not.
Nic's quote next line is not until 14 paragraphs latter.
Pretty clearly Nic's characterization that: "This argument seems to imply that God sent Jesus to die in order to guarantee our freedom of choice to kill our own unborn children. If this reasoning is kosher, then perhaps Jesus also died to guarantee my freedom to rape innocent women and to sexually abuse little children. " and his bullet point:
"1. The theory that Jesus died to restore our freedom of choice. This theory is fallacious, of course; because Jesus died in order to free us from sin, and not to grant us the freedom to sin. Human beings have been free to sin since Adam and Eve were created. There was no need for Jesus to give his life to grant humans the freedom to sin."
Are indeed strawmen, created out of taking Steven's out of context and stringing a few sentances together. I sincerly hope you got a bad grade on the dissertation.
-
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
I have read through this thread. And this is the first time I have ever felt the need to post a comment on a thread I have read. But I could read no more without making a stand for what The One and Only True God has to say.
The assumption here is the abortion is sin and that God has said this somewhere. But this assumption has not been substansiated anywhere. We are just to take it as fact. This is where I have a problem. These pages of typing and not one place is what God say's about where life begins even mentioned.
If you would open your minds and your Bibles we can find without a doubt what God has to say about the state of a fetus.
Exodus 21:22-25
22 If men, while fighting, do damage to a woman with child, causing the loss of the child, but no other evil comes to her, the man will have to make payment up to the amount fixed by her husband, in agreement with the decision of the judges. 23 But if damage comes to her, let life be given in payment for life, 24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, blow for blow.
God clearly states here that this man that caused the loss of this fetus is NOT a man slayer or murderer. But is any damaged were caused to the woman causing her death then he would be put to death. If this fetus counted to God as a life then God would have required the death of the man involved.
God knew that abortion would happen and that people would be divided. And what an awesome God we serve that He gave us HIS answer.!
But people do not want to know what God has to say. I have heard " I know that is what the Bible says, But this is what I believe." so many times in the church today. It has always amazed me. If we do not believe what God has said in His Word than we are not Christians at all. We worship ourselves or this life. There is a name for this and it ia Humanism. And unfortuantly this is where so many of the church members are today.
Humanism teaches that death is the worst of all things. And people strive with all they have against death. But to a true believer death isn's the end. Or even something terrible. The next thing that is seen but a true believer after death will be Jesus when they open their eyes again. So how can this be the worst of all things?
Humanists on this abortion issue are presumtious claiming that the fetus will become a life once it is born. But God says that we do not know the future. We are not even to say that tomorrow we will do this or tha. But only say God willing we will do something. Because only God knows the future.
And God is the Only Authority. And if God says that a fetus is not a life and that someone causing the fetus to end is not to be punished as a murderer. Then we are His followers need to accept that. Or we need to renounce our faith and claim our true religion of Humanism. Because these Humanists claiming to be Christians are ruining our witness as Christians to the world.
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Steveg, you can't be serious.
The passage you quote also has been used to justify slavery, and to treat slaves as less than human - if you killed a slave, you were also not punished for murder, yet a slave was clearly a human being. According to Exodus 21, you can also sell your daughter into slavery, and I have 3 daughters (human ones) whom I have never considered selling into slavery based on the authority given me by God in Exodus 21. How is it that you find this passage to be God's clear message to us regarding how to treat our daughters, slaves, and fetuses? And this is so clear to you that if I can't see it, then I should disavow myself of Christianity and convert to Humanism?
I would suggest that you look at these instructions in historical perspective. First, a newborn baby, much less an in utero fetus, had very, very low survival rates in relation to today's infants and fetuses. Four or five thousand years ago, it also would have been essentially impossible to ascertain if a person were responsible for a miscarriage, to determine a causal relationship between a physical incident and a miscarriage without modern technology of forensic pathology, diagnostic equipment, and laboratory testing. Secondly, a miscarriage essentially spared a pregnant lady from the crapshoot of childbirth, where dying was a distinct possibility, since they were in a tent in the desert, squeezing an 8 pound baby out of their birth canal without the benefit of sterilization, anesthesia, epesiotomies, or even forceps. This may be a reach, but in times such as those, miscarriage might even have been considered a blessing in disguise.
In light of the odd, clearly historically stunted context of the bible passage you quoted, it would be beyond a stretch to test the malleability of reality by conveying upon this passage of scripture the significance of being God's word on abortion.
Most people's anti-abortion stance is based on several factors. First, very early on, a fetus shows all the signs of life recognized by modern medicine. It takes in oxygen and nutrition, expels waste, displays motility, a heartbeat and brainwaves - all things that define your life and my life as present and accounted for. If it is classified as anything biologically, it might be considered a parasite, but it is still a separate life, different than its host. Mothers and Fathers form strong emotional bonds to unborn children.
You might have a hard time finding Biblical reference that jibes with our modern definition of life, in light of the absence of EKG's, ECG's, fetal heart monitors, and ultrasound equipment circa 1500 BC. You might say that through God's blessing upon brilliant minds, through modern technology we've uncovered a better understanding of what life is and isn't. And medically speaking, a weeks-old fetus shows all signs of life, and with modern technology can survive outside of the womb as early as 21 weeks.
Don't get me wrong. I believe there is still a complex moral dilemna surrounding the legalization or illegalization of abortion, encompassing everything from church/state separation, individual rights of the mother and father, safety of the mother, the doctor-patient relationship, societal and financial factors, etc. But I think the definition of "life" is more biological than biblical, and modern science supports the fact that very early on, a fetus is a "life."
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com
Ron,On July 10th, 2009 you made several statements which I want to respond to.
1. You quoted from the “Guidelines on Abortion” the following:
“9) God gives humanity the freedom of choice, even if it leads to abuse and tragic consequences. His unwillingness to coerce human obedience necessitated the sacrifice of His Son. He requires us to use His gifts in accordance with His will and ultimately will judge their misuse (Deuteronomy 30:19,20; Genesis 3; 1 Peter 2:24; Romans 3:5,6, 6:1,2; Galatians 5:13).”
2. You also made the following comments:“Suffice it to say that what you read into the statement is totally against the intend of the document which by the way does not ever encourage abortion as you seem to infer in the above.In fact you did not even quote the entire paragraph (see below)”
My answer is: Did I really say that the document does “encourage abortion”? If I did, please, quote me verbatim saying this! If I ever suggested that the document encourages abortion I would like to know this so that I can correct myself. My main criticism of the guidelines is that the document seems to justify the killing of the unborn under a variety of circumstances, including rape, incest, when the pregnant female is a minor, and even when the pregnancy affects the mental health of the woman.If you think this through, you will realize that there is hardly any significant difference between the Adventist pro-choice position and the pro-abortion one. All a woman needs to do to secure an abortion for an unwanted baby is to find a physician who will agree with her that her pregnancy is affecting her mental health and—bingo--another baby is deprived of life. Do you think that finding an abortionist willing to help her get rid of her baby is a difficult task?
So tell me, Ron, what is the real intent of the document? If you read the entire document, will you agree with me that the clear intent of the document is to justify the Adventist pro-choice position on abortion? This is precisely why I quoted that portion of the document, because it makes reference to “freedom of choice.” I ask: Freedom of choice to do what? Isn’t it to kill our own innocent children for the sin of either the parents, or one of the parents? Is this what you are defending: our moral right to kill the innocent for the sins of the guilty?3. You then quote the comments I made following my shortened version of the Guidelines quote cited by you under Item # 1 above:
“This argument seems to imply that God sent Jesus to die in order to guarantee our freedom of choice to kill our own unborn children. If this reasoning is kosher, then perhaps Jesus also died to guarantee my freedom to rape innocent women and to sexually abuse little children.”I am having a hard time figuring out why you find fault with my argument! The entire document was designed to defend the Adventist pro-choice position on abortion; consequently, the use of the phrase “freedom of choice” was carefully chosen for the purpose of justifying the killing of the innocent for the crime of the guilty, which is condemned in the Bible. If abortion is morally acceptable because Jesus died to guarantee our freedom of choice to kill the unborn, then I conclude that perhaps Jesus also died to guarantee our freedom to rape and sexually abuse little children. Where did I go wrong?
4. You also state: “Notice the quote from the Adventist document above and your use of the quote, you did not even include ellipses …”Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com
Ron,
On July 11th, 2009 you claimed that I did take what Stevens said out of context. You then quoted a larger portion of Stevens’ article and concluded that I had built straw men out of quotes I had selected from the man’s article. Do you realize that you failed to identify or describe the alleged straw men? Am I supposed to be able to read your mind and take an accurate guess as to what those straw men are supposed to look like? I have read your posting several times, and I must be blind, because I do not see those straw men there! Can you please elaborate on the points where I have allegedly erred?
The entire article written by Stevens was designed to suggest that the unborn has no right to life until he has had taken the first breath. Notice some of his main arguments:
1. “Ezekiel 37:5; “A time to be born and a time to die,” Ecc. 3:2, marks the beginning and the end of life.”
Do you agree with Stevens that human life begins at birth? Can I conclude that the human life of Jesus began when he was born? Does this mean that it is morally acceptable to dismember the body of the unborn before he/she has taken the first breath? The unborn is dependent on the mother for the intake of oxygen, while after birth the baby can receive the same directly from the air. What is the moral difference between the two? Is it ethically acceptable to disconnect a patient who is temporarily connected to a lung machine?
2. “Every human being, created in the image of God, is endowed with a power akin to the Creator—individuality, power to think and to do.” (Education, page 17) This takes place after birth, when the developing baby becomes a person.”
Stevens attempts to bolster with this statement the notion that the unborn has no intrinsic right to life. Do you agree with his conclusion? Adam’s life started when he took the first breath. Does it follow that the life of all humans start when they take the first breath? Are all human beings created the same way Adam was created?
-
Besides, does Ellen White statement he quoted represent a full description of the image of God? How about the other statements where Ellen describes God’s image as possessing God’s character? If Steven’s argument is right, then can we conclude that Hitler, Idi Amin, Stalin, Bing Laden, and even the Devil did possess God’s image? They sure were able to think and to do--what--God's will or the Devil's will?
-You end your comments with the following statement: “I sincerly hope you got a bad grade on the dissertation.” Do you realize that this represents an unchristian desire? I did get a good grade. I started my dissertation with the hypothesis that the Adventist Church had deviated from the pro-life postion of the Adventist pioneers, and my research tended to confirm my hunch. Do you disagree?
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
I am sorry NIc, I find your last two post intentionally obtuse. For instance you say:
--
My question to you is: In a previous posting you criticize me for using ellipses, and now you blame me for failing to use the same. I am a little bit confused!
--
I criticized your incorrect use of ellipses. Thus it is prefectly legitmate to critcize your incorrect uses of ellipses when you fail to use them as when you use them by taking the sentances out of context.
Actually I posted an article on my blog about how when people lose all objectivity I lose respect for their arguments and question their opinions. There is no reason to debate with someone who has lost the ability to be rational. I think you have fallen into that category.
http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2009/07/without-objectivity-what-is-there.ht...
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com
Bill,On July 12th, 2009 you made the following statement: “, I want to affirm that your evaluation of Nic's research and conclusions are correct in my opinion.”
I have a question for you: Do you have any evidence that Ron did read my doctoral dissertation? Have you personally read my dissertation? Do you know what I attempted to demonstrate with my research and the conclusions I did reach? There are 300 pages in my dissertation. How many of those pages did you read? Can you state at least the title of my research? If you can’t answer these questions satisfactorily without peeking into my work a posteriori, how can you “affirm” that Ron’s “evaluation” of my research and “conclusion are correct?”
I hope you do not follow Ron’s example who, when faced with tough questions, opted to refuse answering them, declared victory, and decided to retreat.Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com
Ron,
On July 14th, 2009 you stated that I had taken statements from the article written by Stevens out of context. In your response you cited a larger portion of Stevens’ article showing where I had taken my quotes from, but you failed to show the actual damage I had done to Stevens’ main argument, which is that a baby that has not taken its first breath has no right to life and that Jesus died to restore our freedom to choose.
I hope you realize that the expression “freedom to choose” is a loaded phrase in the context of the abortion controversy. I ask: freedom to choose what? Isn’t it to choose to kill our own unborn children? My belief is that Jesus did not die to restore our freedom to make the wrong choice, but rather freedom to make the right choice. Human beings have enjoyed plenty of freedom to sin, but they became almost powerless to make the right choices between good and evil.
When you analyze what Stevens has said, you need to keep always your mind fixed on the basic premise the author is trying to affirm. I am convinced that within the larger context of what Stevens was attempting to prove, I have not taken his quotes out of context, but rather emphasized his main objective of proving that there is no moral wrong connected with killing the innocent children who have not had the privilege of making it through the loop.
-
My question to you is: do you share Stevens’ conviction that killing an unborn baby is morally acceptable because they have not yet been able to breathe on their own. Do you also share his belief that the image of god is simply “the power to think and to do” regardless of whether we use said power for good or for evil? These are tough questions. I hope you take time to answer them. Of course, you have the freedom to refuse to answer them, declare victory, and opt for a retreat! It’s your choice.Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com
Steve,
On July 12th, 2009 you built your case on the biblical text found in Exodus 21: 22-25 which reads as follows:
-
“22 If men, while fighting, do damage to a woman with child, causing the loss of the child, but no other evil comes to her, the man will have to make payment up to the amount fixed by her husband, in agreement with the decision of the judges. 23 But if damage comes to her, let life be given in payment for life, 24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, blow for blow.”My question to you is: Are you aware that the same text reads quite differently in many of the modern translations. Compare the version you did choose with the following rendering of the same passage:
"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”-
Do you realize that if this translation is more accurate than the one you had chosen then the death of an unborn baby would carry the death penalty for the guilty? This is the problem when you attempt to build your case on a single Bible verse. Killing the unborn implies shedding the blood of the innocents which is condemned in the Bible not once but rather many times. In Old Testament times parents killed their unborn children after birth and they offered them as a burnt offering to the pagan god Moloch. We moderns kill the unwanted babies before they are born. We are more sophisticated.Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Dear Readers--
The most recent exchanges have taken a far detour from the intent of our original article. We're encouraging a quick U-turn to avoid further violation of our guidelines.
Regards,
AT Moderator
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Dear Moderator:
I could not disagree more with your apparent disapproval of the discussion of abortion and Adventism. Although this thread began in response to the review of Teresa Beem's book, the confused ramblings of someone who claims to have left Adventism because it was unscriptural, yet has recently produced this website: http://thejoysofbeingcatholic.blogspot.com/ , are simply not interesting, nor worthy of anyone's time or serious consideration.
What is interesting, and worthy of our time and consideration, is the real reason Teresa Beem left Seventh-day Adventism, to wit, because we are effectively a pro-abortion church. I was unaware, until reading this thread and Nic's webstie, that several of the early Adventist pioneers were decidedly pro-life. For example, James White wrote:
and J.N. Andrews wrote this:
and John Harvey Kellog wrote this:
How the SDA church abandoned the principles of these pioneers is surely a topic of keen interest, worthy of our time and most serious consideration.
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Bill: I would defer to Nic on this, since he's researched it, but his website (where I got the above quotations) doesn't have a strong Ellen White quote either way. Doubtless, if she had written as strongly against abortion as James White, J.N. Andrews, and J.H. Kellog, the Adventist church would now have a pro-life position, rather than what is effectively a pro-abortion position. It is dangerous to draw conclusions based upon silence, and I can't say whether or not EGW considered abortion murder, or even a sin, nor can anyone else.
In the absence of anything strong one way or another from either the Bible or Ellen White, as a church, we've had to figure this one out for ourselves. I would argue that, in doing so, we've relied too much on the tender mercies of our medical professionals, and their allied "ethicists." The next thing they are going to try to sell us is mercy killing. If you don't believe me please read my December 14, 2006, blog entry here:
http://www.clarioncallbooks.com/page6.html.
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Thanks David for the link to the blog. It was quite revealing to read.
That is one wierd conglomeration of thought. To say the author has issues is an understatement.
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com
Bill,I am not David, but I could not find any reference by Ellen White to abortion. Nevertheless, there is one statement where she talks about “almost murdering” unborn children. When I quoted this to one of the Loma Linda renowned ethicists, he responded by saying: “That places her in the pro-life camp.” I copied this from my dissertation:
Quote:
If the father would become acquainted with physical law, he might better understand his obligations and responsibilities. He would see that he had been guilty of almost murdering [8] his children, by suffering so many burdens to come upon the mother, compelling her to labor beyond her strength before their birth, in order to obtain means to leave for them.
9. White. Selected Messages, Vol. 2 (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1958), 429-430.
http://sdaforum.com/page114.html
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Has any really read what the GC is saying about the whole issue about abortion? I do really doubt it very much. I read through it just the other day.
I find nothing there I can't support 100%. Maybe you might have a problem with the Adventist healthinstitution in USA. I don't know anything about what is going on in them; but seen from an Adventist European point of view, then I can say that the only reason for an abortion would be in the cases of rape, incest or endanger of the womans health. Just as the GC has stated. So if the whole pro-life discussion is not allowing to perform abortion in the above mentioned cases, then for sure I can not in any way support the pro-life stand.
We need to remember that we are living in a non-perfect world, where we need to take decision we really don't like to take.
God bless you, Sven B. Ito-Frederiksen
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com
Ito,
On July 16th, 2009 You asked the following question: “Has any really read what the GC is saying about the whole issue about abortion?”
My answer is: I did, about twenty times or perhaps more, because that was the topic of my doctoral dissertation. You did describe the Adventist position quite well. It states that killing the innocent is justifiable in cases of rape, incest, malformation, when the pregnant female is a minor, and even when the unwanted pregnancy is affecting the mental health of the woman.
This means that all a woman faced with un unwanted pregnancy needs to do to have her unborn baby dismembered or poisoned is to find an abortionist willing to agree with her that her temporary mental depression is affecting her health and—bingo—another innocent baby is sacrificed on the altar of convenience. This is the modern equivalent of the sacrifice of unwanted infants to the pagan god Moloch. And you say that you agree with such a policy?
One of the biblical definitions of sin is “missing the mark.” When a woman decides to kill her own unborn child instead of giving it up for adoption, she is missing the mark. She is choosing the worse option available to her instead of the best. Do you think that penalizing the innocent unborn baby instead of punishing the guilty is morally acceptable? Do you accept that when a baby is not physically perfect it is right to take its life?
-
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com
David,
On July 15th, 2009 made the following statement: “We've relied too much on the tender mercies of our medical professionals, and their allied "ethicists." The next thing they are going to try to sell us is mercy killing.”
Yes, one of the mistakes, I believe, the church made was to delegate the role of drafting the “Guidelines on Abortion” toRe: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
David: Can you reference where exactly does Teresa Beem
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Bill:
Your are right that in its explicit statements addressing the issue, the Adventist church is not pro-abortion. Because Adventists hospitals perform elective abortions, however, and there is no official church policy to prevent them doing so, the church is effectively or practically a pro-abortioin church. Our written statements really make no difference; all that would be necessary to make us an effectively pro-life church would be to issue a policy against performing elective abortions at SDA hospitals. That's not mucn to ask. I would think it could be easily accomplished. That we don't do it means that we are effectively a pro-abortion church.
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Cultural Adventist:
First, in my July 4 post, I quoted Teresa saying that it was the abortion issue that caused her and her husband to "re-examine" all of the Adventist doctrines. Second, as I noted in the second post on this thread, I've known Teresa and her family for a quarter century; her reasons for leaving Adventism are known to many people. Finally, anyone with a modicum of discernment can figure out why she left. Would anyone who really left the Adventist church for scriptural reasons join a church that does not teach that doctrinal beliefs need to be supported by Scripture? But that church just happens to be the most adamantly pro-life church on the planet. Can you put 2 and 2 together?
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com
CulturalAdventist,
On July 17th, 2009 You asked David the following question:
I think that you will find the answer to your question here:
Why We Left: A Letter to Family and Others
http://sdaforum.com/page112.html
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com
Bill,
On On July 17th, 2009 you stated the following:
“Those who press this agenda don't know what they are asking for. More government meddling in private and family affairs. More socialism. More civil law power over the family.”
My question to you is: Would you use the same argument if instead of abortion we were discussing rape, incest, and the sexual abuse of children. Do not forget that in the case of rape, incest, and sexual abuse, the victim has the chance of getting their wounds eventually healed and the possibility of living a productive life. This is not available to the victim of abortion.
-
This leads me to conclude that if we do have laws and penalties for rape, incest and sexual abuse, we have more serious reasons for penalizing abortion. The damage tone to rape victims can be partially reversed, while the damage done by abortion is irreversible.Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com
BUTAYL,
On July 6th, 2009 You made the following statement:
“I can also speak from first hand experience that being pro choice does not mean pro abortion! I am against abortion personally, but I feel that we should have a choice in what we decide. Christ has given each one of us a choice to be saved or lost - that is the whole basis of being a free moral agent.”
-
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com
Bill,On July 7th, 2009 You posted the following comment:
“You are trying to simplify a complex issue. In the first place, abortion is not murder. It is rightly called "abortion" for a good reason. It is stopping the process of the development of a human being that is not yet a human being. It has no specific identity. It has no legal rights. It has no name. It can not own property.”
Abortion is not murder in whose eyes, human or God’s eyes? What does the Sixth Commandment says? What about the many passages in the bible condemning the shedding of innocent human blood? The early Adventist pioneers did clearly state that abortion was murder. If the unborn is not a human being then what kind of being is it? Most of the aborted babies have a head, a torso, human extremities, and a beating heart; and when the abortion is over, the nurse assistant must account for all the body parts of the dismembered baby.
-
Have you seen the gruesome pictures of aborted babies? They look very human to me! You claim that the unborn has no specific identity. Have you heard about DNA? Doesn’t the DNA establish identity? You also argue that the unborn has no legal rights. Well, women and slaves did not have any legal rights for many centuries, and slaves were considered below the human status for millennia. Do you really believe that the right to life is acquired when a name is chosen for a baby? How about babies born before the woman gets to the hospital? Is it lawful to kill such babies? Finally regarding owning property, there was a time when women could not own property either.Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Bill:
"Neither is it murder. Therefore, no civil authority or law can be made to enforce it as a crime against the state."
Assuming for purposes of argument that abortion is not murder, many things that are not murder are still crimes. At one time, not so very long ago, these things included abortion. Roe v. Wade effected laws in all 50 states, even the ones that had already somewhat liberalized their abortion laws. Abortion was always considered to be within the general police power--the power to regulate health, safety and morals--that resides in the general governments, which are the state governments (the federal government is a government of limited, delegated powers). The same general police power that allows state governments to criminalize all sorts of private behavior between consenting adults--e.g., gambling, prostitution, narcotics, etc.--was used to criminalize abortion in all 50 states. (I often hear people say that you "can't legislate morality" but, in fact, government exists for little else.) Criminal laws in every state of the union--all duly voted on by the elected legislators in each state and duly signed into law by a duly elected governor in each state--were all struck down by the supreme court's ruling in Roe v. Wade.
The idea that abortion is somehow beyond the police power is an idea that has developed since 1973, because Roe v. Wade in effect put it largely beyond the police power. When you say that it can't be a crime, you're basically saying that you agree with the Roe court that it shouldn't be a crime. You're making an argument. But, obviously, the majority of people in the U.S. in, say, 1960, believed that abortion could and should be a crime against the people, against the peace and dignity of the state, and in fact at one time it was a crime in all 50 states, and was still a crime in most states under most circumstances in 1973.
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Nic
I must admit that you would be hard pressed to find a woman today that is having an abortion to sacrifice to Moloch.
The translation that you quoted says the same thing as the one that I quoted as they are both the Word of God. However the one you quoted is more misleading or ambiguous.
When you read your translation and it says "she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury" You believe that the baby was not lost because you believe the loss of a unborn child would be an injury. So your presumption of this causes the misleading. If you read that the fetus prematurely came out of this woman and did not live then you could see that the "no injury" is talking about the woman.
Both scriptures have to say the same thing otherwise they are not the Word of God!
The root of the problem is that man has grown to the point that we suppose to know more than God. These men follow their father Satan who was the first to believe he knew better than God.
Someone said that people have used these scriptures to uphold slavery. And I say what is wrong with that? Who told man that slavery was wrong? Was it God? No of course not. Man told Man that slavery was wrong. So here we have a society that wants both to serve God but to have it their own ways. How different was it in Jesus' time when the religious leaders added to the Law of God.?
Doesn't the Word of God warn against adding too or taking away from God's Word?
God brought His people out of slavery and into the wilderness with the promise of entering the promised land. In the wilderness God gave the Law is His people. And God doesn't hold back. He told them exactly what was right and wrong. But yet God did not tell His people, who were just freed from slavery, that slavery was wrong.
So why did the God that said not to murder, steal, lie or commit adultery not command that His people not own slaves? God told them how to act toward their slaves. So in the Bible, in God's Word and in His eyes slavery is not a sin.
But since man has eaten from the tree of good and evil Mankind knows better than God what is sin? I do not believe this.
God is God. The creator of the heavens and the earth. There is none that know more than He.! And He has given us His Holy Word! If we would just trust in HIM! And not in our flesh.
Seek God where He has set for us to seek Him. In His Word. The Infallible Word given to us as a guide for all time.
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Statefarmsteve
On your July 14th post you ended saying.
But I think the definition of "life" is more biological than biblical, and modern science supports the fact that very early on, a fetus is a "life."
You are saying that you believe that falliable man that can do nothing more than look at things that have been created know more about the origin or definition of life than God the Infalliable Creator of Life?
These people "modern science" that you are counting on for your definition of life are the same people that have evolution being taught in our public schools as fact of the creation of life.
So if we came from monkeys which came out of the primordial soup by pure chance and brought the first life into existance without God then the Bible means nothing.
But regardless of what science has said over the years they will never know the truths about life that the Creator of life knows. And our God have given us His Infalliable Word. And we must trust that this is the truth.
Our flesh can not be trusted. God said.
King James Bible
1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
1 Corinthians 1:20-21 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God
The Bible is full of what God has to say about this modern scientists and their worldly wisdom that you hold in such high regard.
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
I never said it was an easy issue, David. But if you think it through carefully, as those who had to consider Roe vs. Wade did, it was obvious to them that it was impossible to make a civil law regulating abortion. They could not prove it was murder. And since it is called "abortion", it must fall into some moral catagory that could only be regulated by the family.
Certainly the church should have some relevant councel in light of this fact. I still think any viable bible Christian would consider it sin and in this light, people must be warned that they will face God in a final judgment. So any decision should not be taken lightly on what would be the best course to take in dealing with the issue. And we must make a clear distinction between "civil righteousness" regulated by civil law, vs. "moral righteousness" defined and judged by God's law. God defends the laws He makes. And the civil government defends the laws it makes. Each determine the penalty for a violation of the law. "Thou shalt not kill" is God's law recorded in the ten commandments. Civil law may parallel and emulate the same law, "thou shalt not kill". But it is not God's law when the civil government makes such a law. It is civil law and administered by the civil government.
This difference may seem trivial to most people, but it is imperative to understand the difference and maintain the true meaning of seperation of church and state. Just because the state makes a law that parallels God's law, does not mean it is God's law.
Let me give you an example. My neighbor tells me he makes his kids go to bed at 9 o'clock on school nights and helps maintain home discipline and school needs. I see the wisdom of his rule and concur with the value of "his law". So my wife and I agree to make the same law for our children. But my children object and say they are under the law our neighbor made in his home. We reply, "Not so, just because it is the same law, it is not his law you are under, but ours." How do we know whose "law" we are under? We know by who has the authority and power to maintain it and discipline those who break it.
God made no one the authority over His law nor the right to discipline and administrate the penalty for its violation. God alone made the law, and He alone can define and enforce the penalty for its violation. Even the church makes laws paralleling God's law. But even the church can not enforce God's law on anyone. So, the church may dis-fellowship a member who violates the law of the church. But they have no authority to consign anyone to hell for a violation of its laws.
Even if a church law parallels God's law, they have no power to "judge" the salvation any person. Yes, they can warn anyone and everyone and point to the bible as God's law. But only God can judge and determine who has kept His law and who has not. In the end, God has a law, He made it, and He enforces it. This is because "God's law" includes motive, knowledge, grace, faith, and every other factor in the human experience that no man can possibly know nor consider in determining the final outcome.
Man's best judgment is always faulty, God's judgment is infallible. So, a Christian can and will submit to civil law, he will submit to church law, he will submit to family law and briefly, any and all laws that do not violate his conscience in his relationship to God's law. And here he draws the line. For he knows only God can give Him eternal life and only God can divine every factor in his life experience.
Loyalty to God and to himself transcends every other law or system of law and like Luther said, "My conscience is bound by the word of God." This is the one and only viable confession of faith for a true Christian. It is the one law he dare not violate for fear of offending God and destroying the relationship. And it is the one and only confession of faith God can and will honor as those who are viable members of His government and kingdom.
Keep the faith
Bill Sorensen
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Whoa Bill, What are ya saying? Your appeal to the separation of church and state as it applies to Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton is a complete repudiation of the analysis given by our own religious liberty department immediately following the 1973 decision. It was also rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Webster case in (1992?).
In addition, It violates the principle that Adventists have always promoted i.e. that the state has every moral right to regulate in areas that pertain to the last 6 commandments (man's treatment of man).And that is not even mentioning the fact that every single Adventist pioneer who ever addressed abortion (James White--co-founder of Seventh-day Adventism, Uriah Smith, J.N.Andrews, Kate Lindsey , J.H. Kellogg) rejected the analysis you suggest as truth.
Are you suggesting that the seven Supreme Court Justices in 1973 were more thoughtful than all of the above mentioned even though their opinions included nothing in reference to a first amendment? Or are you suggesting that all those who disagree with your take are just naively wrong?
What's going on ?Help me out here!! I thought you were a "historical" Adventist?
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Bill: I'm not sure what the point of your last post was. I think you might have been trying to say that God's law proscribes abortion, but man's law should not try to enforce God's law. Am I close? If that was your point, I could not possibly disagree more. God's law proscribes murder, theft, perjury, etc., and you could not have a functioning civil society unless man (i.e., the state) also outlawed those crimes.
Certainly there are some things in God's law, e.g., Sabbathkeeping, that it would be wrong for the state to try to enforce. And there are some things that states once criminalized--e.g., adultery, sodomy--that they no longer criminalize. But the fact that something is condemned in the Bible is no reason at all why it shouldn't also be condemned by the state.
Interestingly, the situation with abortion is almost the opposite: "God's law" is not clear but "man's law" was perfectly clear. Abortion is not explicitly condemned in Scripture; you can make an argument that it is implicity condemned, by combining the proscription against murder with the texts indicating that, even in the womb, we are already human souls. But while Scripture is not clear, the criminal laws of all 50 states were perfectly clear that abortion was a crime, under certain circumstances. The laws of all those elected state governments were struck down in one fell swoop by the decision of 7 out of 9 unelected judges.
Roe v. Wade was part of the changes that occurred in less than a decade, between about 1967 and 1975, that are popularly known as the "sexual revolution." During that time several sex-related things that had been illegal--abortion, hard-core pornography, no-fault divorce, open homosexuality--became legal or effectively legal. The sexual constitution was profoundly altered. People my age (45) and younger do not understand the sexual world that existed before the sexual revolution. I really should write a short book about the sexual revolution, because no one in my generatioin has a clue what the sexual world was like before the revolution. All of our adolescent and adult lives have been lived under the new sexual constitution.
One of the points I made in my long dialogue with StatefarmSteve on another thread is that, in the 19th Century, Christians were genuinely scandalized by Islam's sexual constitution, with its multiple wives, unlimited concubines, easy divorce (for men), and the promise of sexual gratification in the life to come. Post-Sexual Revolution, the shoe is on the other foot; it is the Muslims who are scandalized by the West's sexual constitution, with its strip joints, pornography, un-closeted homosexuality, abortion on demand, extreme women's liberation, etc.
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
On July 19th, 2009 David C. Read says: Bill: I'm not sure what the point of your last post was. I think you might have been trying to say that God's law proscribes abortion, but man's law should not try to enforce God's law. Am I close? If that was your point, I could not possibly disagree more. God's law proscribes murder, theft, perjury, etc., and you could not have a functioning civil society unless man (i.e., the state) also outlawed those crimes.".
reply: Well, David, you missed the point. I never said the state could not legislate "civil righteousness". This means a law against murder, stealing, lying under oath........etc. I did say, this is not God's law when it is legislated by the civil government. It is a civil government law.
I also said, "Just because it parallels God's law, does not make it God's law." Go back and read my post again. One more example that may clarify the issue. A civil law judge may be a Christan and function in the context of civil law and society. When he "judges" a case in the court system, he references his decision based on the civil law. That is, he does not say, "I am sentencing you to prison for 10 years for robbing the bank because you have violated God's law, thou shalt not steal." No......he sentences the convicted individual to prison for ten years because they have violated the civil law of the land, which says, "Thou shalt not steal." He is not acting in God's behalf. But rather in behalf of society and the civil government. I don't care if it is the same law. It is still not God's law when it is legislated by society. As a Christian, he may later go to the jail and share the gospel and point out that the convicted person has violated God's law as well. And invite him to repent and accept eternal life and thus avoid God's judgment. If he tries this in the civil court, he should be dismissed as unqualifed to judge a civil law incident for he is mixing church and state which is contrary to the constitution.
I have a jail ministry where I explain the issue at various times. How is it that people in jail understand this issue, but many Christians do not? They think if the state makes a law that says, "Thou shalt not kill", it is God's law. Not so. It is man's law, and God approves of this arrangement and exhorts us to submit to civil government authority as long as it does not force us to violate God's law. The point is this, just because it parallels God's law, does not make it God's law.
Keep the faith
Bill Sorensen
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Elaine Nelson
Has anyone asked: "Is it O.K Not to be a Christian"?
Of the millions who are now living, and have lived on this earth, by far the larger number has never heard of Christ or Christianity. Yet, many have tried to live good, honest, sincere, and noble lives as best they could depending on their circumstances--circumstances over which few had control.
The majority of Adventists in North America are NOT first generation, but second, third and more. Had those same people been born in India or China, the chances are zero that they would be Christians, and even less, Adventists.
The early church grew so rapidly because it became an inclusive church: prior to that, it was born of Judaism which was very ethnocentric and was both a race and religion. It was only when all peoples were accepted, that the church grew and flourished.
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Steve G - You do understand that the very words you use to justify your proposal that a fetus is not a life in God's eyes say that a human slave and a female human is not a life, either.
I am saying that there is a clear, modern, scientific definition of a living person according to modern medicine, and the Bible contains no such definition, inspite of your assumption.
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Bill: Thanks for your dicussion of God's law versus man's law. I was already pretty clear on that (I earned a J.D. degree from an excellent law school), but I guess review never hurts.
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com
Steve,
On July 19th, 2009 you made the following statements:
1. “I must admit that you would be hard pressed to find a woman today that is having an abortion to sacrifice to Moloch.”
Those Old Testament women burned their unwanted babies with fire after birth; modern women burn their unwanted babies with chemicals before they are born or else they dismember their tiny bodies puling their arms, legs and heads apart. What is the moral difference? The end result is a dead baby.2. “However the one you quoted is more misleading or ambiguous.”
Modern Bible scholars have a better understanding of the Hebrew language; this is why I trust the translation I quoted more than the old renderings of said biblical passage.
3. “Who told man that slavery was wrong?”Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
The Beem's book raises serious challenges about the whole SDA belief system, and most interestingly, it challenges SDA beliefs by showing how they plainly contradict Biblical teachings.
It is curious how Brother Wheeler, in his review, complains about the book giving an unbalanced treatment of Sister White, but then sets out in his review to give a wholly unbalanced treatment of the Beems' book. The book is full of Biblical evidence backed up by logical, well thought out, and strong arguments. The Beems deserve credit for putting together a challenging, and perhaps even devestating, book that cuts to the root of the SDA system of theology.
And what about the unbalanced treatment of Sister White? For decades Adventists have been served syrupy-sweet stories about Ellen White, and have had their fill of it. It's about time someone told the other side of the story! It's not like the Beems are writing to people who never heard of Sister White! Why should they rehearse all the same out-dated fanciful stories to people who've heard it from first grade up? Thank God we finally have a book demolishing the fables about her.
Read this book and you may be surprised to discover there is a difference between SDA "truth" and Bible truth.
Dirk Anderson
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
I would like to say a few words to those who don't think of pre born children as humans or persons.Even if you're not interested, you should educate yourself about prenatlal life and development. There are many resources such as books. articles. and videos as well as what can be learned on the internet. There are beutiful pictures and videos of ultrasound images of unborn babies at different stages of development.
The unborn children are able to react to their experiences, remember things, experience the senses, learn,and dream. They can be seen doing everything a newborn baby does. We can now peek into the womb, see, and watch them;moving, turning, and jumping.something that we couldn't do before.
Jesus, the source of all knowlege has given us this technology. The electron microscope even allows us to watch conception taking place Jesus provides the spark of life, a miracle only He can do. He does'nt want humans to take life from other humans because only He can give it. .Neena Cleef
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
As a new participant, I appreciate the challenges raised by the Beem's book and the thoughtful, if tough (but not harsh) review in AT. As a hospital chaplain specializing in addiction and mental health treatment I have had the privilege of working with thousands of folks who have had less-than-satisfactory experiences with their churches of origin. While they, like the Beems, may have experiences that don't fairly represent those churches, their experiences are real. I have found as Einstein said, “The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them;" whether the disaffection and damage occured in an Adventist, Catholic, or other setting, it is rarely resolved in that same setting. The baggage is just too great, so I find referring folks to a new spiritual home is far more helpful to rebuilding a spiritual foundation. This may be necessary to sustain the spiritual transformation needed to reconcile them to the Divine and to the community needed to live well in this world. As a fifth generation Adventist who has lived in the Adventist ghetto, but whose life and work in immersed in the larger world, it has become clear to me that God is not limited to our religious boxes; God works with people of faith in (and beyond) all communions, and it is OK to be something other than SDA. I am fascinated by how God leads people in ways that can overcome the human limitations of all religious organizations. I have come to understand that even for myself I do not have to be an Adventist to be in the Kingdom of God; I've studied with a number of other communions and I've found each to be flawed, both doctrinally and as human systems. And yes, that includes years of training in Spiritual Direction in the Catholic church. I'll even risk saying this: I'm still an Adventist, not because Adventism is flawless, not because it is "the truth," but because I already know where the hazards are here. If I changed churches like some of my friends have, I'd have to spend a lot of time learning the territory; I'd rather spend my time and energy serving others and helping this Adventist communion develop and mature.
Several important distinctions are missing in this discussion, as well as in most Adventist discussions dealing with abortion and other issues that combine religious and political considerations:
- Civil law and religious doctrine are based on different systems of authority. Even when two parties agree on a doctrine, they may have legitimate differences about how to apply that to the public sphere. I may be pro-life in my doctrine and still advocate for the right of others to have rights I disagree with.
- Religious doctrine and hospital policy may also be distinguished. Adventist doctrine should be scripturally based, not influenced by the admittedly big business of Adventist healthcare and the larger influences of public and private healthcare financing issues. I've worked 30+ years in various Adventist hospitals, coast to coast; I've been on Ethics Committees in three different Adventist healthcare systems. I'm currently Co-chair of a hospital Health Ethics Committee. I've never heard even once a discussion of abortion policy that was influenced by financial considerations. Personally, I have reviewed, revised and monitored compliance of abortion policy in such a way as to respect life, to require careful consultation with multiple professionals, and at the same time to respect the autonomy of an individual. My current work setting illuminates this distinction clearly: our healthcare system includes Adventist and Catholic hospitals. There is a distinct difference in how we do ethics. The Catholic hospitals operate under "Ethical Imperatives" which impose church doctrine and authority on ethical concerns, consistent with how Roman Catholic authority works from the top down. In Adventist hospitals we operate under "Ethical Guidelines" which place responsibility for policy in the local institution and responsibility for decisions with the individual/family in the context of their own faith community, which is consistent with the Adventist/Protestant understanding of authority.
- The distinction between pro-life and pro-choice in the current polarized American context is overstated and badly flawed. Finer distinctions need to be made. One of the character flaws of Adventism is the gnostic idea that because we have "the truth" we do not have to wrestle with difficult decisions that were not clearly defined by our founders. I'm not satisfied that our current ethical guidelines are as good as we can do. The flaws of overstatement in Stevens' influence on the guidelines concern me. On the other hand, a character flaw in Catholocism is its equally unrealistically high view of itself, particularly in the area of authority. When it places itself between God and the people and fails to understand legitimate political authority, it oversteps reason. I disagree with those in the Catholic world who say "You cannot be pro-life and pro-choice;" I think that is very possible. I disagree with those in the Adventist world who say our position is "pro-choice" if by that they mean we are not "pro-life. I understand our position to be first "pro-life" and secondly, in the context of a broken world, we support autonomy rather than legislated morality, especially when it applies to people beyond our communion. In that sense we are secondarily "pro-choice."
- Finally, the distinction between being an "abortion mill" motivated by the profit motive and a hospital that permits abortion under clear guidelines is significant. While I can't speak for Washington Adventist Hospital, I have yet to find real evidence of an Adventist hospital being an "abortion mill. Accusations, as in this discussion, are rarely accompanied by any real evidence, like "when, under what circumstances, and how many?" Yes, I've heard accusations, even by some opinionated (and usually otherwise disgruntled) folks in places where I've worked. I've taken the resonsibility to investigate, to check numbers, policies and compliance, I've not found those accusations to be true. Have I found questionable practices? Occasionally, yes, and they have been addressed either with policy change or increased compliance monitoring.
My personal view is that I can trust God to lead people on their spiritual journeys. I believe that is part of the specific work of the Holy Spirit, present in the world today. I'm sorry when anyone is faced with a decision where abortion can be considered an option; it is a terrible decision to have to make. Either decision will carry lasting consequences and the person will need Divine accompaniment to overcome the difficulties; they will also need a supportive spiritual community, perhaps immediately, perhaps much later. I'm sorry that the Beems and many others have felt they needed to leave the Adventist church, but if that's what they need to do to grow spiritually, I know God can and will go with them on the journey to His Kingdom; that is the affiiation that counts most.Glenn Sackett
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Glenn: Thanks for your thoughtful and articulate comments. You obviously speak from experience and it comes through. I actually agree with the Beems that its okay not be an Adventist. In fact, that is the main message I wish I could get across to 80% of the people who post on Spectrum and Atoday: its okay for them to leave the church. In fact I'd much rather they leave the church than continue with their project of transforming the SDA church into a liberal church that has thrown out the six-day creation and adopted Darwinism, that has thrown out Ellen White, and that has thrown out the authority of Scripture. If they have their way, and transform the SDA church into just another liberal church, of which there are already many, then the SDA church will have betrayed its mission and have no reason whatsoever to exist. So, yes, it is much more than okay to leave the Seventh-day Adventist Church; it is the right thing to do for about 80% of the people who post on Spectrum and Atoday (very much including Ervin Taylor). In cases of people who deny SDA doctrines while drawing tithe-supported salaries, it is the only decent and honorable thing to do.
Also, I'm totally on board that many people have been so badly abused in their church of origin that the only way for them to continue their spiritual journey is to join another church. I know for a fact, however, that this is not the case with the Beems. Teresa Beem left the Adventist Church because of abortion. Period.
Where you are wrong is in asserting that the distinction between civil law and religious doctrine is "missing in this discussion." The opposite is true. If you read the thread, you'll see that we continued to flog that horse long after it expired. I also disagree with you that the Adventist church can still be "pro-life" in some meaningful sense while allowing Adventist hospitals to perform abortions for any and every reason. Even if we claimed to be pro-life, the abortion policies at Adventist hospitals would give the lie to that claim. But in fact, we don't claim to be pro-life, so there is no conflict between doctrine and practice. The fact of the matter is that the SDA church is pro-choice in both doctrine and practice.
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com
David,
You made the following statement On July 27th, 2009:
“Even if we claimed to be pro-life, the abortion policies at Adventist hospitals would give the lie to that claim. But in fact, we don't claim to be pro-life, so there is no conflict between doctrine and practice. The fact of the matter is that the SDA church is pro-choice in both doctrine and practice.”
Yes, we are definitely pro-choice; nevertheless, many Adventists have been led to believe that we are pro-life, and this includes Jan Paulsen, the President of the General Conference. Notice the following public declaration Paulsen made some years ago while visiting the“Dr. Paulsen made another statement regarding this topic in connection with his visit to thePhilippines
[5]Nestor Rilloma, “Adventists laud Pope for concern on world peace, poverty and family” Seventh-day Adventist Church/Southern Asia-Pacific Division (11 Mar. 2005). Accessed from http://www.ssd.org/news/mar1105.html on 25 Oct. 2006.
http://sdaforum.com/page112.htmlRe: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com
Bill,
I do agree. The real dilemma is the choice between pro-life and pro-death of the unborn. The pro-choice is equivalent to pro-abortion. It is like saying, I am against rape, but I believe that rapists should be entitled to choose between alternatives. Pro-choice and pro-abortion are the same enchilada with merely a different amount of ketchup in it.
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
LETTER TO BEEM SUPPORTER ON ANOTHER WEBSITE
http://sda2rc.blogspot.com/2009/07/review-its-okay-not-to-be-seventh-day.html
Thanks for writing. I agree with most of your comments, and I accept your rebuke as well. Let me make clear that I am not an Adventist, and I certainly am not hostile to Catholicism. I enjoy the Mass (although I am not permitted to receive Communion yet). (When I lived in Israel I used to attend a Hebrew Catholic Mass in Jerusalem daily.)
I agree that the SDA position on abortion is improper. I also did not know the abuses were so widespread. Teresa indicated that they were limited to the Washington DC Adventist hospital.
You might appreciate knowing that the SDA position on abortion is close to the Jewish Halachic position, which holds that while one may not abort a fetus for cosmetic purposes, if the mother's life is threatened in any way by the pragnancy then the fetus is expendible. Strictly speaking this means a physical threat, but recently rabbis have expanded that to include emotional or mental trauma and the like, which appears to be the position adopted by the SDA church.
I take your point about the difficulty of reforming the SDA movement. When I spoke to a local SDA pastor I know about Teresa's blog, he dismissed it and accused me of being insubordinate to "God's Anointed". Perhaps I will post here my response to him.
As far as the title of the book, "It's OK...", I think this reflects the SDA approach to evangelism, which apparently Teresa has not renounced or outgrown. SDAs do what I call surreptitious evangelism, by which I mean they do not like to identify themselves when they do their Bible Studies. They like to present all the arguments for their doctrines, without identifying their church affiliation. I feel that Teresa is doing the same thing. She should be up front about declaring herself to be Catholic. Perhaps a better title to her book would be: "SDA's OK, but Catholic's the Way!"
My testimonial appears here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8680151/MPKs-Testimonial
http://jesusoverisrael.blogspot.com/2008/03/open-letter-to-jewish-friend.html
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Let me try to be as specific as possible. Of course you are correct that there are many ways to interpret Scripture. I do not dispute this.
But the specific problem with evolution is that it does away with the foundational Christian doctrine of original sin and the need to accept Jesus as our atonement.
The Bible says Adam and Eve sinned in Eden and brought death into the world.
Evolution says that death has always been part of our evolving universe. Ergo, no catastrophic sin in Eden, no sudden death, and therefore, no need for Jesus!
Here is a letter I sent to Prof. Francisco Ayala, the leading Catholic authority today on Evolution. Try to follow my line of questioning to him. (Ayala is a former Dominican Priest!) Catholic and Adventist Friends,
The following is a letter to Prof. Francisco Ayala, a prominent evolutionary biologist in California and a devout Roman Catholic. Ayala was one of the keynote speakers at the recent Vatican conference on Darwinism:
http://www.faculty.uci.edu/profile.cfm?faculty_id=2134
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/04/27/science/conversation-with-francisco-j-...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7920205.stm
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09060/952458-51.stm
In this letter I try to prod Ayala to face up to the radical implications evolutionism holds for Biblical interpretation. Read it and consider whether you would wish to reinterpret Genesis 3 along the lines that I believe Darwinism, if true, necessitates. Of course, the problem is that once you relativize the meaning of "sin", "death", and "Fall of Man" in this chapter, you obfuscate the words of Jesus in the New Testament that appear to validate these concepts as literal truths and you cast doubt on the veracity of any of the historical and moral accounts in the Bible.
This would also mean that, while the Catholic Mass is a beautiful ceremony, it has as much correspondence to reality as an opera or a Hollywood fantasy movie. It is all spiritual wishful thinking and ultimately a powerful form of escapism and self-hypnosis.
Sincerely,
Michael Korn
_____________________________
Dear Prof. Ayala,
I would like to ask you about two very intriguing ideas that emerged from your book about Darwin .
You noted that only humans bury their dead, suggesting that only humans are cognizant of the significance of death; and that only humans suffer pain in childbirth, which you attribute to the large human head that evolved disproportionately faster than the human pelvis.
I wonder if you would be willing to reinterpret the Genesis 3 account of the Fall of Man from an evolutionary viewpoint in the following way:
1. The idea of man eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge does not represent a concrete act of disobedience, but is actually a metaphor for man's tragic self-awareness of his own mortality, which arose simply due to the inexorable evolutionary development of his large brain?
2. This idea would be reinforced by two of the "punishments" pronounced for this act of "disobedience":
a. That women would suffer pain in childbirth; which again from an evolutionary perspective was simply the consequence of the disproportionately rapid enlargement of the human cranium relative to the female pelvis, causing pain in childbirth?
b. That man would have to labor for his food; which reflects another evolutionary development: that man could no longer eat like the other animals directly from the earth, but would have to process his food to allow him to digest it properly in his more advanced evolutionary state?
3. Finally would you be prepared to say that when the New Testament says Jesus came to reverse the "curse" of the First Adam and to do away with death, it simply means that Jesus came to do away with the fear of death, which always existed in an evolving universe and about which Adam's only "sin", due to his evolved intellectual level, was to recognize it as a biological reality?
Sincerely,
Michael Korn
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com
JesusOverIsrael,On July 29th, 2009 You posted the following comment: “You might appreciate knowing that the SDA position on abortion is close to the Jewish Halachic position, which holds that while one may not abort a fetus for cosmetic purposes, if the mother's life is threatened in any way by the pregnancy then the fetus is expendable. Strictly speaking this means a physical threat, but recently rabbis have expanded that to include emotional or mental trauma and the like, which appears to be the position adopted by the SDA church.”
I believe that when the life of the pregnant woman is in serious jeopardy, then saving one human life from a sure death is preferable to loosing two. Not long ago, there was a case in
Common sense tells me that anytime a woman is faced with an unwanted pregnancy, she will feel mentally depressed and another innocent human being will be sacrificed on the altar of convenience. I learned thanks to my doctoral dissertation on this topic that our Adventist pioneers held a strong pro-life position and considered abortion as a direct violation of the Sixth Commandment. You can read the result of my investigation online: http://sdaforum.ipower.com/page13.htmlRe: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Neena Cleef I was wondering how an abortion helps the mental health of a pregnant woman.. Abortion causes a psyciatric condition called post abortion syndrome.It's symptoms include guilt, anxiety, anger,depression and sense of loss, broken relationships,psychological numbing,suicide, and other psychological problems. Teenagers are especially vulnerable to PAS because they are in a critical developmental period of life. If a pregnant woman is already having mental problems, wouldn't having an abortion make things worse? Just wondering.
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Elaine Nelson
Surely, you have heard of postpartum depresssion--which is caused by drastic hormonal changes in a woman's body.
A pregnancy, regardless of whether going to terrm or aborting is a terrific psychological problem. Which is why we should help the girl or woman in either situation. It is possible that the post-abortion depression is aided by the church's attitude toward it. When one is made to feel guilty, there are always psychological difficulties.
A teenager giving birth also undergoes many of the symptoms described following an abortion. The few girls I know who have had abortions, are far healthier and successful than had they become a mother in their teens. Children should NEVER be a punishment, but eagerly wanted. And no law in the land should force a woman to either abort or to adopt. The latter is making a pregnacy a slave condition.
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
On July 27th, 2009 David C. Read says: "...it is much more than okay to leave the Seventh-day Adventist Church; it is the right thing to do for about 80% of the people who post on Spectrum and Atoday..."
David,
A good portion of those posters you refer to, have lived many years (perhaps their lifetime) as Adventists and have given a great deal of time and money in support of the church. They accepted on good faith the church's claim to be devoted to scripture and have developed an allegiance to the church because they really believed that Adventism was committed to the truth. At the same time their lives became enmeshed in the Adventist culture and community.
Many of those who post here feel betrayed by a group of traditionally oriented Adventists that pay lip service to a commitment to scriptural doctrine and the truth. These traditionalists behave as if they have inherited an infallible system of truth. They invest as much authority in the Adventist ancestors as Roman Catholics do in the Pope. And they are verbal militants committed to purifying the church of people who don't agree with them. There are several of these spokesman who post here regularly.
Your 80% estimate emphasizes that the traditionalists are probably greatly outnumbered here on this blog. But, it doesn't take much research to notice that the traditionalist make a greatly disproportionate contribution (in words) on the plus side.
Another interesting observation is that the traditionalists that post here are pretty careful not to turn on one another, but you can tell from what they blog that they are not as theologically unified as they would have you believe. The primary thing they share is a need to espouse the superiority of Adventism.
What people like you seem to ignore, is that Adventism has always made a loud profession of its commitment to pursue the truth at any cost. There are some Adventists that have embraced this claim and expect Adventism to honor it.
There is one truth traditionalists seem determined to ignore at great peril to Adventism and themselves. Human beings are fallible and will find a myriad of ways to distort the truth. A finite human who behaves as if their beliefs are infallible has already denied a fundamental truth.
Adventists that are not willing to make room for other Adventists to raise honest questioning and try to identify the flaws in our beliefs have already abandoned an essential truth on which Adventism was founded.
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Elaine Nelson
What about the thousands, maybe millions of SDAs who, when they joined, did not have to agree with any list of 28 Beliefs, but simple baptismal vows, much like the Apostle's Creed.
What happens to those members who joined a church and the church later added many "conditions" for membership.
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Bill - I hesitate to be too critical of your many posts for 3 reasons.
1) You are, if nothing else, an interesting curiosity.
2) I have a hard time believing you're really serious.
3) If you are really serious, it would do no good whatsoever to enter into dialogue with you, as you are so self-assured that any discussion is one way in nature. At some point, your thirst for knowledge and truth became so thoroughly quenched that you became a fountain of it instead of a seeker of it.
But one point that you made, I will engage. A great example of your philosophy in general is your statement that the Bible is "infallable [sic] and beyond correction." With this statement, you are making a bold declaration of perfection, while at the same time, misspelling a key word within the statement. Would you say that your statement is wrong? Or just that you spelled a word wrong?
Herein lies my point: We can sometimes be right and wrong. We're human, and the complex SDA Doctrinal web we've spun out of human scriptural translation, that we built between the concrete pillars of God-given perfect doctrine, is man-made and thus inherently subject to flaws. We've regretably created a litmus-test document of 28 fundamental beliefs, although Jesus never endorsed such religiosity or legalism. Everything in the bible I've read about Jesus showed that he revealed a simplified salvation. Yet our human nature, over time, inevitably reclouds the path with our brilliance.
It was suggested that the honorable thing to do, if you don't cleave to the 28 Fundamentals, would be to leave the SDA faith. I, however, would suggest that it takes real honor, real conscience and real conviction to both question established doctrine and to resist further complicating our religion. It takes true courage to challenge theologians to return to basics and reverse the human parsing of the simplicity of salvation into a complex melange of fundamental beliefs. The Adventist Church was God's church before they published the 23 Fundamentals in 1931, and we didn't step more fully into the light of God's grace in 1980, when it was expanded to 27 fundamental beliefs, and come to complete understanding of Christ when we last expanded it to 28 Fundamentals 4 years ago. I'm not sure if anyone is willing to put forth this theory of our church growing more perfect over the last several decades as evidenced by our ever expanding creed, but I'm willing to put forth the opposite hypothesis that this swelling of the 28FB's has actually carried us further away from Jesus' prescription for eternal life.
You have nothing but disdain for many of the people that write articles and post comments on AToday because you disagree with them. I don't agree with everything that people say. I can't even comprehend the scientific nature of some of the things that are written. However, I am not under the illusion that I have a monopoly on truth, so I have nothing but admiration and brotherly love for the people that take the time to study and have the guts to put forth what they have found - even when I don't agree or fully understand.
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Elain,
Postpartum depression is only a temporary condition lasting only while a mother’s body adjusts to the change of no longer being pregnant. On the other hand, PAS may last indefinitely for many years unless treatment is successful. PAS is just one of the dangers of abortion.
We all experience emotional ups and downs when we’re pregnant, but that’s normal. If a women or girl is feeling guilty, it’s not coming from this church. This church does not oppose abortion and she won’t hear anything about it from the pulpit. It didn’t use to be that way, as Dr. Nic explains in his dissertation. The guilt is coming from the law of God written on the heart.
Guilt is not a bad thing. It leads to repentance, which leads to confession, which leads to forgiveness, which leads to removal of the guilt.
I’ve known pregnant girls too who went on to give birth and are glad and thankful that they did the right thing. (Who said doing right is easy?) They went on to accomplish amazing things. Post abortion girls are not healthier. They have an increased incidence of breast, ovarian,cervical and liver cancers. They have an increased incidenc of complications of pregnancy and labor.There is ancreased risk pelvic inflammatory disease and endometritis and this is only a partial listing.
Children aren’t ever a punishment; they are a gift, a blessing, and a treasure from the Lord. Maybe the parents didn’t anticipate them, but God did. He is their creator and their life giver. Once they are lost, they are irreplaceable. No one can rewind time for a second chance to do right.
If the children are wanted, it doesn’t necessarily mean they will be loved. If they’re not wanted, it doesn’t necessarily mean they will not be loved. Many wanted children are mistreated, and child abuse has gone up, not down with abortion on demand. http//www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.a…ategoryid=life
Who could be more eagerly wanted than a child who has been placed for adoption? His/her parents have been waiting for years for a baby to love and raise. They are extremely grateful to the birth mother who did the right thing.
Murdering some else for one’s own benefit is not the right thing. (King David did that to his trusted officer Uriah.)
The laws of the land are for the protection of the most helpless and vulnerable. Who fits that description more than the unborn?
http//www.revivalsermons.org/forums/index.php?topic=3053.0 4
http//www.atoday.com/content/Adventist-pastor-not-shy-about-his-prolife-stance#comment-3831
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist
Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com
Elaine,
On August 16th, 2009 you posted the following comment: “Children should NEVER be a punishment, but eagerly wanted.”
I agree. Motherhood should be embraced as a great blessing. When a girl is faced with an unwanted pregnancy, there exists a much more desirable alternative to killing an innocent baby: adoption. Pregnancy lasts merely nine months. The death of an unborn human being lasts forever.Jesus sacrificed all the comforts of heaven that we might live. The woman choosing abortion sacrifices the entire life of a human being because she wants to avoid the inconvenience a being pregnant for merely nine months. The Bible states that whoever knows how to do good but chooses not to, it is sin to him. Heaven forbids the shedding of innocent blood, and there is no human being more innocent than the unborn.
Re: It’s Okay NOT to Be a Seventh-day Adventist