by Andy Hanson
Last November I was given information regarding “The Masters Workshop, Exploring the Generational Challenge”. It was “Module VII” of a “Spiritual Leadership Training” course.
On page two, “Looking at Youth Ministry”, facts supported this “challenge”. A high percentage of Adventist church members between the ages of 18 and 40 are not active in church life, 60% of teens leave the Adventist Church, and 40% to 50% of Adventists leave the church between the ages of 17 and 27. The cause of these defections is identified as a postmodern “shift on thinking and life choices”.
EDITORIAL COMMENT
Unfortunately, the rest of this manual is the most egregious example of “silly science” I have ever encountered. I offer the following as evidence of these words. I have painstakingly used quotation marks so that you won’t think I’m either making this up or making fun of a serious attempt to meet the Adventist Church’s “generational challenge.”
Page three is titled, “Exploring the Postmodern World”. According to the chart on the bottom of the page, the postmodern world began in the year 2000. This world “represents a change in worldview moving from the values and beliefs of the modern era to the new postmodern era, which rejects many modern values and beliefs”.
The chart at the bottom of the page informs the reader that the postmodern world has produced “a self-determined pluralistic view of culture and religion” where there are, “conflicting truths and beliefs”. “Power and faith is in personal experience”. In the “Modern World”, 1500-2000+, “power and faith were in human reasoning, science, and logic, which also helped explain and interpret God”. In the Postmodern World, “Internet and media accelerate an instant global communication. In the Postmodern World, “suspicion of authority” prevails and “the Bible is open to many interpretations and is but one of many religious writings”. “The Theme” of this world is a quote from Sheryl Crow. “If it makes you happy, it can't be that bad” and “ and every viewpoint is a view from a viewpoint”.
Page 4, “Comparing Modern and Postmodern”, makes nine observations about the Modern World. Four are quoted here. “It fit well with many aspects of our [Adventist] faith.” “It believed that all knowledge was good and certain.” “Truth was absolute.” “Thinking, learning, and beliefs were to be determined systematically and logically.” In contrast, seven observations were made about the Postmodern World. Three are quoted here. “It brings back the supernatural view of life.” “All truth is not absolute.” “Thinking, learning, and beliefs can be determined nonlinearly.”
Page five of this course guide informs the reader that “postmodernism teaches that even language cannot have fixed or certain meaning but should be deconstructed—pulled apart and rearranged. There can be many interpretations of a word or text, not just one meaning. Postmodernism impacts values, ethics, sexuality, and even in our view of religion and spirituality. Postmoderns can have a mixture of religious beliefs which may come from contradictory sources. Postmoderns can fully embrace the contradictory mixing of world faiths. It is assumed that Leonard Sweet is a postmodern authority. He defines Postmoderns as “experiential, participatory, image driven, and connected”.
The “General Impact” of the Postmodern World can be summed up in just one of the nine bulleted statements of impact. “It is a different world out there,” but more specific information is provided. There is a greater interest in spirituality and openness to mystery and an increased search for the divine. Some young people are still modern in their thinking, and some older people are postmodern.
On page six, “Implications for Ministry”, we are told that people born on and before 1946 are Builders who are “often confused and wondering”. People born during the years 1947 to 1964 are Boomers. Members of this generation are an “influenced and contradictory mixture”. Busters or Xers were born between 1965 and 1983, are “influenced and shaped”. Folks born after 1983 are either “Nexters, Mosaics, Millennials, or Emerging—dominated and controlled.”
This page also asserts that Christian postmoderns see Jesus as “attractive”, and believe Christianity to be “a man-made organized religion”. Christians are “seen as close minded, judgmental”, and arrogant. “Ministry [to postmoderns] has become a cross-cultural mission” in which “We cannot presume acceptance of methodology or absolutes; everyone is not going to learn relate and think the same way; we cannot expect postmoderns to become modern” However, “postmoderns are open to hearing about Jesus and to an authentic life with him”.
Page Seven provides space for “Reflections and Ideas”.
On page 8 under the heading, “Studying the Impact on Youth”, the reader is informed of that “few adults are listening to teens, youth are searching and fighting for meaning and they are not alone, many youth are experiencing and results of relational breakdown”. And “we [members of the Adventist Church] are not meeting teens’ need to be heard and understood”. Teens are saying, “we're changing, confused, and vulnerable, our support systems aren't working, and it's stressing us out. We need a place to belong. We're hurting and hurting deeply. Will you be here for us?”
The “Unique Marks” of the emerging generation are as follows: they are “without a moral compass, culturally diverse, pluralistic and tolerant”, products of “broken relationships, media saturated, experience and feeling driven, suspicious of truth” have “overwhelming options”. They are part of “a globalized youth culture pervaded by violence, pushed, hurried and frazzled, materialistic, streetwise, concerned with appearance, despairing and hopeless, deeply spiritual, and crying out for redemption”.
“Ministry Applications” are the concerns of page nine. Here we are informed that humans are “hardwired to connect” and have “two primary connections: other people, moral meaning and openness to the transcendent”. Ministers are reminded that “the desire for human and divine connections is undeniably present”, and “before we speak for Jesus, we must live among our young people—like Jesus. We must participate in their lives—like Jesus”, and “we must listen—like Jesus. Ministry also includes a reeducation task for all age groups.”
The following are “Points to Remember”: “God is still God! Conversion is a supernatural process. It is the Holy Spirit's role to convict and convince. Our greatest weapon is prayer. Our best starting point is radical Christianity. We can look at this as an impossible task or an exciting adventure with God. This is our future.”
Page 10 provides a “Ministry Model”, a five-tiered triangle. Love for God is the base, followed by Love of Others, Accepting Others, and Walking With Others. Discipling is the capstone.
EDITORIAL COMMENT
“Module VII” of the Adventist church's “Spiritual Leadership Training” manual is a pseudoscientific insult to pseudoscience. Our problems cannot be solved by “postmodern” gibberish.
If the generational challenge to our church is to be met, we must rethink and reevaluate our 28 Doctrinal Beliefs. They are a creed that would be rejected offhand by the pioneers of the Advent Movement. Many do not represent the teachings of Christ; they are not in harmony with fundamental Christian tenants; and as such define us as a sect. In addition they are so specific that they are almost designed to promote dissension in the church and provide reasons for thoughtful members to leave.
I am fully aware a doctrinal change is extremely risky. Lots of jobs and pensions, not to mention mission work, would be put at risk. But if we continue as we are, the church in North America and Europe is “a dead man walking”. Our demise will result in a Third World church without a leadership structure that will sustain us as a worldwide Adventist community of believers.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Thursday, November 1, 2007
.jpg)
Monday, October 29, 2007
Blasphemy
Sarah Andrews
from a letter to me entitled
Quotes for Editorials
Suppose you adhere to the beliefs of a religion. You have given up something--made a personal sacrifice--to do this. Say sex, or certain other pleasures or comforts. Then someone comes to you and tells you that it's all a sham. You react emotionally. You feel that your beliefs have been blasphemed. You get it? It's like a betrayal.
It took me a while, but the more I thought about it, the more I knew that the way blasphemy works stood at the center of “Fault Line” and of what I was struggling to understand by writing it; that when people have adhered to a belief on the strength of faith alone, they feel betrayed, and, worse yet, humiliated by the very idea that what they have sacrificed to support that belief is in vain. Note that I am not talking about the definition of blasphemy--an irreverence or deviling of God or anything else held sacred--but about how it functions.
My realization of the way blasphemy functions led me to a partial disproof of my theory that scientific and religious faith and practice are similar. Scientists may hardly disagree when their beliefs are challenged, and can grow quite emotional, but they do not accuse one another of blasphemy. Scientists do not accuse each other blasphemy because in the practice of science, it is assumed that the truth is not known, and efforts are directed toward uncovering it. This is done by forming theories--false gods, if you will--and trying to disprove them. The scientific method is, in fact, a system that encourages blasphemy--or shall I say heresy, which is a more dignified form of challenge--through an institutionalized testing of beliefs. At its best, the scientific method leads us to the discovery of truths, or at least closer to them, and often toward a profound perception and admiration of the divine (read Albert Einstein, or Stephen Hawking). At its worst, the scientific method grows stodgy and collapses into a sheltered workshop for poorly socialized intellectuals. Many religions, by contrast, grow up around truth and accompanying rules revealed through an adept (Jesus, Mohammed, Joseph Smith), and, as the religion becomes institutionalized, the object becomes to accept on faith these truths and rules and adhere to them. At its most benign, surrender of individual wills to a religious ideal or leader leads toward enlightenment. At its worst, it becomes contorted and precipitates wars, or implodes into mass suicides, as happened in Jonestown. Before I enrage my readers with these generalizations, let me hasten to point out that I speak of religious practice, as contrasted to spiritual practice. Spiritual practice, more like scientific practice, usually lead the devotee a through a process of refinement and clarification toward a perception of ever larger and more universal truths.
THE SCIENTIST AS MYSTIC
Scientists do not like being told they're wrong, and much less do they like to face the public humiliation of having it proved it to them. They are no different with regard to the emotions behind these reactions than a member of any other culture, religion, or sports team. But because they presume everyone is playing the same game by the same simple rule--tell the truth as you know it--they do not gore each other with ancient jawbones over such humiliations; instead they bear up, examine the evidence, draw their own conclusions, and take their medicine when the time is right. They do not consider challenges to their beliefs to be blasphemous, simply because, as with spiritual devotees, their faith lies more in tune and their process than in their beliefs.
My husband once told me about scientific experimentation that apparently demonstrates that the human brain is hard wired to construct a context of logic--for example, a cause-and-effect linkage--about every experience it encounters. I think this is an important theory to consider, because it would mean we are compelled to interpret every experience we have, regardless of how incomplete or even misleading the data, and regardless of how sorely we are limited by the facts of who and what we are. The consequences of such an urge to interpret our experiences would impact every system of belief we have, be it scientific, cultural, religious, or even spiritual. The authors of the U.S. Constitution must on some level have known this when they guaranteed a separation of church and state
I am pleased to live in a country where each one of us has a chance to have his or her own thoughts, and follow his or her own heart to a place of truth.
Sarah Andrews is a mystery writer who is also a professional geologist, licensed pilot, and friend. Her latest book is “In Cold Pursuit: A Mystery from the Last Continent”. She is best known for her mystery series featuring forensic geologist Em Hanson.
from a letter to me entitled
Quotes for Editorials
Suppose you adhere to the beliefs of a religion. You have given up something--made a personal sacrifice--to do this. Say sex, or certain other pleasures or comforts. Then someone comes to you and tells you that it's all a sham. You react emotionally. You feel that your beliefs have been blasphemed. You get it? It's like a betrayal.
It took me a while, but the more I thought about it, the more I knew that the way blasphemy works stood at the center of “Fault Line” and of what I was struggling to understand by writing it; that when people have adhered to a belief on the strength of faith alone, they feel betrayed, and, worse yet, humiliated by the very idea that what they have sacrificed to support that belief is in vain. Note that I am not talking about the definition of blasphemy--an irreverence or deviling of God or anything else held sacred--but about how it functions.
My realization of the way blasphemy functions led me to a partial disproof of my theory that scientific and religious faith and practice are similar. Scientists may hardly disagree when their beliefs are challenged, and can grow quite emotional, but they do not accuse one another of blasphemy. Scientists do not accuse each other blasphemy because in the practice of science, it is assumed that the truth is not known, and efforts are directed toward uncovering it. This is done by forming theories--false gods, if you will--and trying to disprove them. The scientific method is, in fact, a system that encourages blasphemy--or shall I say heresy, which is a more dignified form of challenge--through an institutionalized testing of beliefs. At its best, the scientific method leads us to the discovery of truths, or at least closer to them, and often toward a profound perception and admiration of the divine (read Albert Einstein, or Stephen Hawking). At its worst, the scientific method grows stodgy and collapses into a sheltered workshop for poorly socialized intellectuals. Many religions, by contrast, grow up around truth and accompanying rules revealed through an adept (Jesus, Mohammed, Joseph Smith), and, as the religion becomes institutionalized, the object becomes to accept on faith these truths and rules and adhere to them. At its most benign, surrender of individual wills to a religious ideal or leader leads toward enlightenment. At its worst, it becomes contorted and precipitates wars, or implodes into mass suicides, as happened in Jonestown. Before I enrage my readers with these generalizations, let me hasten to point out that I speak of religious practice, as contrasted to spiritual practice. Spiritual practice, more like scientific practice, usually lead the devotee a through a process of refinement and clarification toward a perception of ever larger and more universal truths.
THE SCIENTIST AS MYSTIC
Scientists do not like being told they're wrong, and much less do they like to face the public humiliation of having it proved it to them. They are no different with regard to the emotions behind these reactions than a member of any other culture, religion, or sports team. But because they presume everyone is playing the same game by the same simple rule--tell the truth as you know it--they do not gore each other with ancient jawbones over such humiliations; instead they bear up, examine the evidence, draw their own conclusions, and take their medicine when the time is right. They do not consider challenges to their beliefs to be blasphemous, simply because, as with spiritual devotees, their faith lies more in tune and their process than in their beliefs.
My husband once told me about scientific experimentation that apparently demonstrates that the human brain is hard wired to construct a context of logic--for example, a cause-and-effect linkage--about every experience it encounters. I think this is an important theory to consider, because it would mean we are compelled to interpret every experience we have, regardless of how incomplete or even misleading the data, and regardless of how sorely we are limited by the facts of who and what we are. The consequences of such an urge to interpret our experiences would impact every system of belief we have, be it scientific, cultural, religious, or even spiritual. The authors of the U.S. Constitution must on some level have known this when they guaranteed a separation of church and state
I am pleased to live in a country where each one of us has a chance to have his or her own thoughts, and follow his or her own heart to a place of truth.
Sarah Andrews is a mystery writer who is also a professional geologist, licensed pilot, and friend. Her latest book is “In Cold Pursuit: A Mystery from the Last Continent”. She is best known for her mystery series featuring forensic geologist Em Hanson.
Self-serving Logic
Sarah Andrews
I discovered that laypeople know little of the mechanics of the scientific method. By extension, I fear that likewise they know little of the mechanics of their own religious belief system . . . To illustrate what I mean by that, let's consider how many people who believe that "If God existed, God would not allow the terrible things that happened in this world to happen." The logic behind this statement is self-serving. The subject first sets a definition of God (all powerful), then delegates all responsibility to God and has the temerity to erase God's existence based on performance of this impossible job. Anyone who's ever worked in management knows that when acccepting responsibility, one must also demand commensurate authority to define the job; even then, one must put up with endless criticism from underlings who, due to lack of experience, cannot perceive the true nature of the job. To believe that God does not exist, the subject of the belief has first defined for himself what God must be like.
Sarah is a geology professor at Cal State University, Sonoma, a friend, and the author of ten mysteries whose protagonist is Em Hanson. Em is a geologist who finds herself involved in a variety of mysterious and dangerous circumstances that occur because of her job assignments. At the end of her "Bone Hunter", a mystery novel published by St. Martins press, Sarah wrote an editorial comment that I have excerpted. Sarah's other mysteries can be purchased at Amazon.com. Her latest book is “In Cold Pursuit: A Mystery from the Last Continent”.
I discovered that laypeople know little of the mechanics of the scientific method. By extension, I fear that likewise they know little of the mechanics of their own religious belief system . . . To illustrate what I mean by that, let's consider how many people who believe that "If God existed, God would not allow the terrible things that happened in this world to happen." The logic behind this statement is self-serving. The subject first sets a definition of God (all powerful), then delegates all responsibility to God and has the temerity to erase God's existence based on performance of this impossible job. Anyone who's ever worked in management knows that when acccepting responsibility, one must also demand commensurate authority to define the job; even then, one must put up with endless criticism from underlings who, due to lack of experience, cannot perceive the true nature of the job. To believe that God does not exist, the subject of the belief has first defined for himself what God must be like.
Sarah is a geology professor at Cal State University, Sonoma, a friend, and the author of ten mysteries whose protagonist is Em Hanson. Em is a geologist who finds herself involved in a variety of mysterious and dangerous circumstances that occur because of her job assignments. At the end of her "Bone Hunter", a mystery novel published by St. Martins press, Sarah wrote an editorial comment that I have excerpted. Sarah's other mysteries can be purchased at Amazon.com. Her latest book is “In Cold Pursuit: A Mystery from the Last Continent”.
What Do We Know About Reality?
Janwillem van de Wetering
They try to define something that can never be caught in a word, but they'll think of a word all the same and then use it as if it had real meaning. Like the Dutch Reformed preachers holding forth about God. In the old days anyway. They have learned a little more modesty now, and there aren't so many of them left, thank heaven. What do we know about reality? Maybe we do at moments. Like early this morning, with my half-witted turtle pottering about in the grass and a thrush singing away. Maybe I understood something then but it was gone when I tried to put my hand on it. But a woman like Miss Kops thinks she catches it and coins a word and before you know it the word is in the dictionaries.
Commissaris speaking in
"Death of a Hawker"
p. 155
Ballantine/Mystery paperback
July, 1987
They try to define something that can never be caught in a word, but they'll think of a word all the same and then use it as if it had real meaning. Like the Dutch Reformed preachers holding forth about God. In the old days anyway. They have learned a little more modesty now, and there aren't so many of them left, thank heaven. What do we know about reality? Maybe we do at moments. Like early this morning, with my half-witted turtle pottering about in the grass and a thrush singing away. Maybe I understood something then but it was gone when I tried to put my hand on it. But a woman like Miss Kops thinks she catches it and coins a word and before you know it the word is in the dictionaries.
Commissaris speaking in
"Death of a Hawker"
p. 155
Ballantine/Mystery paperback
July, 1987
How Modern Should Theology Be?
Helmut Thielicke
I can really make the gospel my own only if I may believe it with my eyes open, only if my faith does not force me to throw out something, or ignore something, or forget it for a while.
Moreover, this is not merely a condition that I as a modern man have imposed on faith. Faith itself demands it. For Jesus Christ wants me totally. He wants me to belong to him with more than my conscience, my emotions, and my anxieties; He wants my reason, my knowledge, and all the areas of my consciousness as well. But if I have to repress and suppress anything that I as a scientist or historian know, if I run with the mind that is not awake and intact and able to say, "Here you have me with all I am and have, including my knowledge and my reason," then I do not belong to him totally. At most I am placing at his disposal only a part of me--my religiosity or my pious feelings.
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969) pages 15, 16.
I can really make the gospel my own only if I may believe it with my eyes open, only if my faith does not force me to throw out something, or ignore something, or forget it for a while.
Moreover, this is not merely a condition that I as a modern man have imposed on faith. Faith itself demands it. For Jesus Christ wants me totally. He wants me to belong to him with more than my conscience, my emotions, and my anxieties; He wants my reason, my knowledge, and all the areas of my consciousness as well. But if I have to repress and suppress anything that I as a scientist or historian know, if I run with the mind that is not awake and intact and able to say, "Here you have me with all I am and have, including my knowledge and my reason," then I do not belong to him totally. At most I am placing at his disposal only a part of me--my religiosity or my pious feelings.
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969) pages 15, 16.
DENOMINATIONAL PERSPECTIVE QUIZ
Test your knowledge of Seventh-day Adventist history and organization with these questions.
1. When was the earliest time set by William Miller for the return of Christ?
2. When was Ellen Harmon born?
3. Are infallibility and inspiration sy¬nonymous, and did Ellen Harmon ever claim infallibility?
4. Which of the early pioneers seems to have been most anxious to avoid making Ellen G. White’s visions a norm for the development of Ad¬ventist theology?
5. Has acceptance of Ellen G. White’s prophetic gift ever been a test of fellowship among Seventh-day Ad¬ventists?
6. In 1883, what three reasons did the General Conference give for refusing to adopt a church manual?
7. In order to assure adequate General Conference representation in local conference matters, how many of¬ficers from higher levels in the church may be called in to vote?
1. March 21, 1843
2. November 26, 1827
3. No and no. See Captains of the Host, Spaulding, p. 75.
4. James White. In the Review and Herald, October 16, 1885, he vigorously asserts that Adventist doctrines have been developed without reference to her visions. Instead, "We choose to believe Mrs. W's views which harmonize with the Word . . ."
5. No. In the Review and Herald, August 14, 1883, G. I. Butler offers evidence that her visions were not a test of fellowship. New members were accepted who had never heard of E. G. White, and some prominent ministers in the denomination did not accept the visions.
6. (1) A work issued under the auspices of the General Conference would once carry with it much weight of authority, and would be consulted by most of our younger ministers. (2) It would gradually shape and mold of the whole body, and those who did not follow it would be considered out of harmony with established principles of church order. (3) Minute, specific directions tend to weakness, rather than power. They lead to dependence, rather than self-reliance. Better make some mistakes and learn profitable lessons thereby, than to have our way all marked out for us by others, and the judgment have but a small field in which to reason and consider. 1883 Review and Harold article by G. I. Butler (then General Conference President).
7. All of them
1. When was the earliest time set by William Miller for the return of Christ?
2. When was Ellen Harmon born?
3. Are infallibility and inspiration sy¬nonymous, and did Ellen Harmon ever claim infallibility?
4. Which of the early pioneers seems to have been most anxious to avoid making Ellen G. White’s visions a norm for the development of Ad¬ventist theology?
5. Has acceptance of Ellen G. White’s prophetic gift ever been a test of fellowship among Seventh-day Ad¬ventists?
6. In 1883, what three reasons did the General Conference give for refusing to adopt a church manual?
7. In order to assure adequate General Conference representation in local conference matters, how many of¬ficers from higher levels in the church may be called in to vote?
1. March 21, 1843
2. November 26, 1827
3. No and no. See Captains of the Host, Spaulding, p. 75.
4. James White. In the Review and Herald, October 16, 1885, he vigorously asserts that Adventist doctrines have been developed without reference to her visions. Instead, "We choose to believe Mrs. W's views which harmonize with the Word . . ."
5. No. In the Review and Herald, August 14, 1883, G. I. Butler offers evidence that her visions were not a test of fellowship. New members were accepted who had never heard of E. G. White, and some prominent ministers in the denomination did not accept the visions.
6. (1) A work issued under the auspices of the General Conference would once carry with it much weight of authority, and would be consulted by most of our younger ministers. (2) It would gradually shape and mold of the whole body, and those who did not follow it would be considered out of harmony with established principles of church order. (3) Minute, specific directions tend to weakness, rather than power. They lead to dependence, rather than self-reliance. Better make some mistakes and learn profitable lessons thereby, than to have our way all marked out for us by others, and the judgment have but a small field in which to reason and consider. 1883 Review and Harold article by G. I. Butler (then General Conference President).
7. All of them
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)