Mark Lowry Recovering Fundamentalist - Interesting

[doug yowell]

Because, quite simply, there is no single SDA version of EC, if there is any EC movement within Adventism at all.

You are, as you suggested, transposing what was said over some superficial observations about Adventist of varying strips and practices and slapping the labels on them.

The vast majority of SDA Churches that have changed anything, without regard for EC at all, would fit one or more of the descriptions in the first three. Very few, if any, Adventist churches or Adventist pastors could be described as traveling in lane 4.

I agree with what you have specifically described here. Yet it is also true that Adventism is NOT mainstream Evangelicalistic Christianity. That distinction gives everything a different perspective.

For instance, we have never agreed that differences in our distinctive doctrines are unimportant or negotiable none essentials for Adventism. So the (alleged) subtle changes in worship style, central leadership, doctrinal practices,SOP, ect... are not universally accepted as negotiables.Instead they are viewed as attacks on the very authority of the Bible itself. This puts many issues into the lane 4 category.True??

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

More to the point...

One of the primary voices (mentioned several times in the video) of the so-called "Emergent Liberal" is Brian McLaren. (Coincidentally his church is within walking distance of my house.) I have read a half dozen or so of his books. There is not much there to describe any SDA's, even those that could be described as or that actually consider themselves as in the emerging church movement.

It's that pigeon-holing thing, as I said...

Yet, your wiki info specifically listed "adventists" as one of the groups in which the movement could be evidenced. So who has the objective (with all due respect to Hamilton-Beach)truth here,Tom,Bob,Olger,McLaren, or wiki?

Follow the link to "adventist". It's not about us specifically. It is about "adventism" and describes more than a dozen denominations, of which we are but one. Notice that sentence also includes the full spectrum (including of interest to olger - anabaptist) among the range of theological alignment.

The point is that EC comes in a wide variety of theological flavors. The movement is very difficult to categorize and classify in traditional terms.

[olger]

Grandpa said if you toss a rock into a dog pack, the one that yelps is the one that got hit.

Hi Tom,

g

[doug yowell]

Words are important. Use them carefully.

Yeah, take that,Olger!!

[phkrause]

Again Bob I'm not disagreeing with your notion, but I'm saying is that I know of no pastors that are in this 4th group. Yes I do know members that are in this group but they have no way of changing our church. And most likely they will leave as others have done in the past. We know that God will not allow this to happen anyway.

[doug yowell]

Follow the link to "adventist". It's not about us specifically. It is about "adventism" and describes more than a dozen denominations, of which we are but one. Notice that sentence also includes the full spectrum (including of interest to olger - anabaptist) among the range of theological alignment.

The point is that EC comes in a wide variety of theological flavors. The movement is very difficult to categorize and classify in traditional terms.

Agreed, but (speaking of grey vs. black and white) wouldn't it be a reasonable step of logic to conclude that "adventism" would include the largest "adventism" in the world?

[olger]

Again Bob I'm not disagreeing with your notion, but I'm saying is that I know of no pastors that are in this 4th group. Yes I do know members that are in this group but they have no way of changing our church. And most likely they will leave as others have done in the past. We know that God will not allow this to happen anyway.

I do PK, and I understand that you probably don't.

[olger]

Elder Wilson would not have gone to the trouble of issuing two very solemn warnings to the world church, if it wasn't an insidious malignant poison.

I have researched it, and have friends that are into it. It is poison.

[Tom Wetmore]

I agree with what you have specifically described here. Yet it is also true that Adventism is NOT mainstream Evangelicalistic Christianity. That distinction gives everything a different perspective.

For instance, we have never agreed that differences in our distinctive doctrines are unimportant or negotiable none essentials for Adventism. So the (alleged) subtle changes in worship style, central leadership, doctrinal practices,SOP, ect... are not universally accepted as negotiables.Instead they are viewed as attacks on the very authority of the Bible itself. This puts many issues into the lane 4 category.True??

No. Not true. To have a praise team leading in contemporary music (the worship style thing) is hardly an attack on the authority of the Bible. The way we structure ourselves, select or organize our leadership is not following a Biblical template as much as it is post reformation tradition. If they are viewed as attacks or non-negotiable, that would be wrong.

Doctrinal issues would be an area that would fit the 4th lane. But my point is that few, if any, Adventist church's or pastors are really seriously traveling that path. The ones that do eventually leave the SDA Church. They find that Adventism isn't much of an multilane highway and find themselves on an exit ramp to a different roadway.

[olger]

Fredericks?

[Tom Wetmore]

One example, yes.

[doug yowell]

The way we structure ourselves, select or organize our leadership is not following a Biblical template as much as it is post reformation tradition. If they are viewed as attacks or non-negotiable, that would be wrong.

That would be an example of post modern conclusions begging the question. You know quite well that the structural makeup of the SDA church is seen to be authoritative because of it's origins (support of EGW). Home churches, non-approved entities using the SDA name,ect... are all perceived to be outside of the church's Biblical design (whether or not those beliefs are true). It's undeniably true that the EC has shed the strickly conservative/liberal armband but it seems to me that many of the issues themselves merge into lane 4 (isn't that the fast lane?)of the EC highway for Adventism?

[Tom Wetmore]

Yes, perceived perhaps, but that would be a misperception.

But my point remains, I think we are shadow boxing. I think what is perceived as EC amongst Adventists really is not EC. I think we have heretic hunters that gave up hunting for the Jesuits amongst us and now think they figured out a new straw man to attack.

And that takes us right back to where this all started when I asked what did we blame the ills of the church on before EC.

[ClubV12]

It's troubling that some folks are asking questions, particularly in Lane 4, but offering no answers, no solutions. Actually, I see that quite a bit here on the forum as well. Good people, asking good questions, not expecting an answer or a solution, just asking questions in a polite and apparently innocent way.

That kind of behaviour reminds me of the description we get from Sister White in regards to how the evil doer worked his subtle snares in heaven. Just asking questions, planting seeds of doubt, subtly guiding the idea that he himself had the answers. And would reveal them in time, when the seeds of doubt had matured a bit more.

So how did God deal with this? There's only one way, you have to allow it to come to fruition, so it becomes clear to all what the real underlaying problems are.

I think Olgers onto something, searching for God but not really wanting to find Him.

Absolam stood by the gate, greeting those who came by. A handsome man, kind to the poor, understanding of those with a grievance. Oh that he were made a Judge... it's very difficult to deal with this kind of subtlty.

[olger]

Salient observation, CV.

In the EC, it is the "conversation" that matters. Everyone has a story, and Absolam's story is just as valid as Daniel's story. But while emergents are getting misty-eyed about the prospect of more words, there is a cooling off towards The Word.

rejoice always,

g

[BobRyan]

Again Bob I'm not disagreeing with your notion, but I'm saying is that I know of no pastors that are in this 4th group. Yes I do know members that are in this group but they have no way of changing our church. And most likely they will leave as others have done in the past. We know that God will not allow this to happen anyway.

In the fiasco with LSU and evolutionism - we find not only pastors backing up the notion that we toss out the Sabbath and the Bible in favor of evolutionism - but even the former head of the LSU theology and religion department and "theologian in residence" argues not only for evolutionism but also for gay marriage at LSU.

And there is a strong support structure in the SECC among pastor for his work at this point.

This is the very kind of "kicking at the tires" when it comes to theology that the speak was getting at in his 4th group "emerging liberals" where they are described as taking a second look at prior doctrine and coming up with some rather odd twists.

But you need not go even to that LSU-level wild extreme to see progressive-meets-Emergent Liberal in the SDA church. All you have to do is pick up on the public statements of the SDA "Celebration Center's" pastor Steve Daily - to see just how far that rabbit hole goes even before you get to such extremes as evolutionism and gay marriage.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Doctrinal issues would be an area that would fit the 4th lane. But my point is that few, if any, Adventist church's or pastors are really seriously traveling that path.

Is it your position that SDA progressives like Steve Daily and Fritz Guy "do not exist"??

Are you saying that you would not describe yourself as an SDA "progressive"??

Or is it just that you think they do not fit the description for "Emergent Liberal" given as the fourth lane in that video?

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

More to the point...

One of the primary voices (mentioned several times in the video) of the so-called "Emergent Liberal" is Brian McLaren. (Coincidentally his church is within walking distance of my house.) I have read a half dozen or so of his books. There is not much there to describe any SDA's, even those that could be described as or that actually consider themselves as in the emerging church movement.

It's that pigeon-holing thing, as I said...

Yet, your wiki info specifically listed "adventists" as one of the groups in which the movement could be evidenced. So who has the objective (with all due respect to Hamilton-Beach)truth here,Tom,Bob,Olger,McLaren, or wiki?

[doug yowell]

But my point remains, I think we are shadow boxing. I think what is perceived as EC amongst Adventists really is not EC.

What is it then, just plain old school liberal/progressive/conservative figmentation? If Ruffles have ridges are they no longer considered potato chips? If we are just shadow boxing seems like there's no real threat of getting knocked out by an opponent?

[ClubV12]

Whoa, there is even a Wiki entry for such folks who call themselves Adventist?

...well that lowers the standard to the very dust.

[John317]

It's troubling that some folks are asking questions, particularly in Lane 4, but offering no answers, no solutions. Actually, I see that quite a bit here on the forum as well. Good people, asking good questions, not expecting an answer or a solution, just asking questions in a polite and apparently innocent way.

That kind of behaviour reminds me of the description we get from Sister White in regards to how the evil doer worked his subtle snares in heaven. Just asking questions, planting seeds of doubt, subtly guiding the idea that he himself had the answers. And would reveal them in time, when the seeds of doubt had matured a bit more.

Just asking questions and making suggestions. It is suggesting that all you do is think about certain things. "What if...?" They don't care if you believe it-- just consider it.

[John317]

Absolam stood by the gate, greeting those who came by. A handsome man, kind to the poor, understanding of those with a grievance. Oh that he were made a Judge... it's very difficult to deal with this kind of subtlty.

It's the kind of situation that Dr. Kellogg was in: teaching something but denying that he's doing it. Claiming he was in favor of Ellen White but actually seeking to destroy people's confidence in her. Satan attacking Michael the Archangel while denying that he's doing it and even claiming that he loves Him and is trying to help Him.

Ellen White wrote that these tactics would be used more and more as we draw closer to the end.

[doug yowell]

I just read Julie Clawson's complete blog (thanks for the lead)and found her attempt to package EC as something new and uncharted rather unconvincing but definitely disturbing.

If both liberals and conservatives "pigeonhole" the movement as classic liberalism then it seems her responsibility to prove the contrary rather than simply to cry foul and claim the opposite.

It is interesting that while she claims that "we are not home in either camp" she only cites a common philosophical and methodological connection with historic liberalism. She fails to give evidence for any commonality with defunct conservative methodology.By definition progressive is moving forward into uncharted territory something which she herself openly admits is the new frontier.Or to quote a former president "I am not a crook!"

[doug yowell]

But we are not at home in either camp. And to use extremely broad generalizations to explain why – it's because the conservative/liberal divide is a modern construct and emergents are postmodern. Conservatives and liberals are flip sides of the same coin. They employ modern methods and faith in scientific processes in their approach to faith/religion. Their world is black and white – they are seeking certainty and ultimately need to be right. So the bible has to be completely 100% literally and historically true or it is completely debunked and demythologized. It's one or the other – you must choose and choose wisely. But postmoderns are more comfortable with grays – with multiple possibilities held in tension. The Bible can be true in a variety of ways – including (gasp) historically. For us it's not about being right, but about being open to possibilities.

Notice that her explanation of the coin actually only accurately portrays the conservative side? The liberal/progressive does not employ these methods of determining truth.It is the classic liberal that has long before the emergence of the emergence argued that the Bible must be demythologized.Greys always demand allowance for any possible shade but never any black or white.

[doug yowell]

But postmoderns are more comfortable with grays – with multiple possibilities held in tension. The Bible can be true in a variety of ways – including (gasp) historically. For us it's not about being right, but about being open to possibilities.

In other words, "always learning,never coming to the knowledge of the truth."