GOODBYE

This is the last edition of Adventist Perspective. It’s been an interesting adventure. However, I’m tired of reviewing Adventist periodicals on a regular basis. If you enjoyed the cartoons, 521 of them remain. The Perspective Magazine contains, among other things, an unpublished book by Sakae Kubo and Jane Spear’s stories of a childhood spent as the daughter of missionary parents in Ethiopia before WWII.

I will continue as moderator of Reinventing the Adventist Wheel and blog at Adventist Today.

Adventist Perspective is a window into my world. I hope you consider me a humorist and loyal critic rather than a blasphemer. I’ve tried to be honest about who I am and what I believe. That isn’t always easy to think through much less put into words, but it’s the challenge I leave with you.

As a going away present, I’ve included Christmas cartoons along with others that I like for personal reasons. They include my all-time favorite Noah’s Ark sendup.

Love and best wishes for a Merry Christmas and a happy and healthy New Year!

Andy

Views on the Trumpets

Readers,
In these “last days”, it is comforting to know that official Adventism is publishing important and relevant Biblical research. ISSUES IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE SEVEN TRUMPETS OF REVELATION by Angel Manuel Rodriguez, published in He January issue of MINISTRY: The International Journal for Pastors, has been judged important enough to make the cover! The following chart maps his research findings.

Adventist No Longer

I received this email from a friend. It’s sad that the current “revival and reformation” mantra requires conscientious Adventist members to sacrifice science and reason on the alter of blind, irrational belief.

“It's official: I'm no longer an Adventist. It took a surprising amount of persistence to get this done, but I'll admit to feeling a bit nostalgic now that I've actually succeeded! One does not abandon an entire upbringing easily, I guess. "Abandon" is too strong a word, really... "Release" might be better.

“I harbor no resentment against Adventism, no bitterness about the way I was raised. Being raised as part of this church gave me much that I greatly value. A strong sense of morality, and a reasonably healthy lifestyle, and a deep knowledge of the most significant literary work in Western civilization. A low tolerance for caffeine and red meat. The love of my life, who I met at PUC. The training to become a pretty good teacher, and the drive to always learn more. And, ironically, it gave me the foundation for the rationality ---perhaps excessive rationality--- that eventually brought me out.

“When I look at the discussion boards at sites like exadventist.com the people there don't seem particularly rational. Or content. I see no need, as they and many others do, to define myself by what I am not. Nor have I found it particularly productive to reform Adventism from within. Kudos to those of you still trying, but such a reformation would require that a lot of people make changes to something that works fine for them as it is. Perhaps it's just laziness on my part, but I've come to accept that it's not really my problem.

“So I'm out. Keep in touch, though, you who are my SDA family and friends. I'm still the same person, just not officially Adventist any more.”

MAKING SENSE OF THE CREATION EVOLUTION DEBATE

A critique by Andy Hanson

Note: This critique was shortened and framed in the larger context of a series of Hope Channel evangelistic efforts being produced by the Adventist Church. It can be viewed on the Spectrum Blog, thanks to its editor, Alexander Carpenter. The following is my extended critique of the five presentations alone.

Watching this series was a painful experience. For starters, the production values were abysmal—the audience never learned the name of the man who introduced the participants each evening, the camera work could only be rated “inexperienced amateur”, and the content of the five, ninety-minute broadcasts belied their promised titles.

Neither speaker appeared comfortable with their almost extemporaneous, tag team presentation of information. Timothy Standish babbled excitedly about the wonders of nature, and Ron Clouzet’s presentations were a jumble of theological and scientific references. He spoke when only a biblical worldview could satisfactorily establish what really happened.

Darwin was quoted often. His words revealed him to be very aware of the problems his evolutionary theory presented to the scientific community. He did not speculate about the origin of life, and only published The Origin of the Species after years of consulting with the leading scientific minds of his day. These honest reflections and carefully worded letters were used by the speakers to diminish Darwin’s credibility.

As I reread my notes, I have come to the conclusion that people who weren’t in attendance may think I’m overly critical. If you come to this conclusion, I suggest that you order this series of lectures and see for yourselves. It will be available in about six weeks. Email understandingcreation@gmail.com

Wednesday, May 4

THE WAY WE WERE: GOD AND THE BIG BANG

My title: Poetry is Science?

Notes:

• The Big Bang theory was competently explained and then discredited by an appeal to logic.
• The literal seven-day creation story was treated as fact.
• Creation of the earth, sun, and moon took place in six literal twenty-four hour days.
• When the stars were created was a matter of speculation. (There was no mention of the Genesis 2 creation story.)
• It was assumed that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible at God’s direction.
• There are a myriad of reasons, scientifically, to support the notion that our world is a very unique and special place.

Thursday, May 5

THE LIFE OF CREATURES: WONDER AND TROUBLE IN PARADISE

My title: Literal Confusion

Notes:

• All viewer questions considered were of the “softball variety”.
• Differences between accepted scientific conclusions and the literal words of the Bible are due to misinterpretations of the Biblical text.
• A Biblical world view takes into account supernatural acts and is therefore “unrestricted”
• Evolution requires periods of impossible “spontaneous generation”.
• How life began requires a “theological explanation” for both evolutionists and creationists.
• There is a difference between theoretical Macro Evolution and observable Micro Evolution.
• The earth was created 6000 years ago.
• The biblical account of the Universal Flood is factual. (It was not mentioned that, according to the biblical chronology, the Flood occurred around 2500 BC.)
• Basic animal “kinds” entered the Ark in pairs. (No mention was made of another account in Genesis 7.)
• According to Standish, the Arc was “a very big boat”.
• Waters above the earth and beneath the earth combined to cover the entire world.
• It is possible that a miraculous wind evaporated enough water so that dry land finally appeared.
• According to Clouzet, “There are a number of things we don’t have an explanation for.”
• The humility of Moses is required as believers seek to understand other worldviews.

Friday, May 6

GENES AND GENIES: WHAT WE KNOW AND WHAT WE DON’T

My title: Gee Wiz!

Notes:

• Viewers with questions regarding race and repopulation of the earth after the flood are told that Abraham lived 500 years after the flood.
• Standish dazzles with stories about the incredible biology of life and gets carried away. This leaves Clouzet very little time to make his theological contribution.
• “It’s incredible!”; “It’s amazing!” are a frequent refrains.
• Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived, still didn’t understand why things happen the way they do.
• Clouzet: “It takes trust to figure out what we don’t understand.”

Saturday, May 7

THE FLOOD AND THE FOSSILS: RECORD OF A LOST WORLD

My title: Lost in Geologic Time

Notes:

• Early on, it was clear that neither Standish nor Clouzet knew what they are talking about.
• Apropos quote: “Don’t always believe people who speak with great confidence.”
• ‘There’s not much chance that you will meet Darwin in Heaven.” (That is almost a direct Standish quote.)
• The geologic column is like a layer cake.
• The Grand Canyon’s exposed, extensive, unbroken sedimentary layers are evidence of a recent universal flood.
• There is very little evidence of life in the Precambrian period.
• Radio carbon dating is explained and critiqued. (No other dating method was mentioned.)
• (There was no discussion of the age of dinosaurs, Neanderthals, evidence of primitive homo sapiens, genetic history, oil fields, or plate tectonics.)

Sunday, May 8

FATHER GOD OR MOTHER EARTH: THE PROBLEM OF EVIL AND A LOVING GOD

My title: Blind Guides

Notes:

• A disclaimer from Standish: “We are not archeologists, physicists, or geologists.”
• “You’ve all seen the Discovery Channel.”
• God’s creative power is revealed in nature because most natural things are “happy and cooperating”.
• “No one can find out God from beginning to end.”
• Herbivores are “good” animals and remain pretty much as God created them.
• Sin turned some animals into “bad” animals like carnivores—a picture of serrated shark tooth flashes on the screen.
• “Rational people are unsettled by violence in the natural world.”
• Darwin was influenced by Milton’s deistic tendencies in Paradise Lost.
• “Darwin wrote about a God he didn’t understand.”
• “Everyone has a religion, even atheists.”
• “Science has no position regarding evil.”

Thanks Ted!

The “outing” of undesirables has already begun. Check out this anonymously edited website whose purpose is as stated.

http://adventisttruth.webs.com/

Our Purpose
This site and ministry exists to hold Adventist leaders of all stripes "accountable to the highest standards of belief based on a literal understanding of Scripture" as called for by newly elected President Dr Ted Norman Clair Wilson at GC Session 2010. We call on faithful Adventist [sic] worldwide to point out persons in positions and organizations of leadership and influence who are undermining the church.


"Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences [sp] contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them (Rom 16:17 [KJV])."

While you're there, Shawn, have a nice time.

Leigh Ruben

That is the famous Leigh Ruben of Rubes fame. He invited me to attend his “cartoonie” presentation in Sacramento, and I went, bought seven of his cartoon books, and posed with him. That picture was a failure, so you, dear reader, are spared another shot of my mug.

Leigh is a great guy, very funny, down-to-earth, and modest about his amazing talent. He is syndicated in 400 newspapers, and has graciously allowed my to “modify” some of his cartoons on my blog.

Lest We Forget

From Non Sequitur, by Wiley
(click to enlarge)

The Most Essential Difference

Hi Andy,

Just read your letter to the editor in the new issue of Adventist Today [in which you basically said we need to "abandon the god of the Old Testament."]

Good timing! For I have told you I would one day like to discuss the essential differences between left and right in America.

So, I think the time may be now! I see your letter there as going to the heart of what I believe to be the most essential difference between political left-leaners and political right-leaners in this country. That is, I believe most left-leaners either do not take the Bible to originate from God at all or they have a less orthodox view of its origination than do right-leaners. Just to be clear: I do not mean to say that right-leaners are all believers in literal, word-for-word Scriptural inspiration--or necessarily believers in the Bible at all, nor do I mean that all left-leaners are secularists or agnostics. I'm saying that the more solidly one believes in the divine origin of the Bible (if you are a Jew, the Old Testament; if you are a Christian, both the New and Old Testaments), the more likely one is to lean right; the less solidly one believes in the divine origin of the Bible, the more likely one is to lean left.

This is not my own epiphane. I followed Dennis Prager over several years of thinking this through on his radio program, and that is the conclusion he finally came to, a year or two ago. I was not so sure for a long time, but I am increasingly a believer in his thesis, with a few modifications perhaps in his phrasing.

I realize now there are probably very few Leftist Christians who look at the Bible in the same way I do. Meaning, that it is all divinely inspired, probably thought-inspired rather than word-inspired, but nonetheless very reliable as written. How this inspiration works, and how literally the Bible is to be taken in any given divinely-inspired passage, is not, I think, the point. The point is more the firmness with which one believes the Bible to be of divine origin (OT for Jews, OT-NT for Christians).

I think most, if not all, of the seeming contradictions in the Bible can be explained by a theology which is well versed in historical-contextual studies and general Biblical exegesis. I believe this in part because it has been my privilege to know several such theologians, one of whom, a well-known scholar in our church, has been a very close friend and go-to person on Biblical questions for many years. I am always amazed at how he can explain Scripture out of most any hole! And very credibly.

I also find I am a lover of paradox. If I could understand everything about God and His Word, I would be God. I do not care to be God. I prefer to be His creature, and my Biblical questionings--railings, even, at times--delightfully confirm to me my smallness, my human limitations. On one level I find it deeply satisfying that I am not fully satisfied.

So, I think the kernel of the differences you and I have encountered in our discussions lies in this, our differing view of the Bible. How this facet of a person pushes them in either direction politically is a fascinating topic. I think it likely has something to do with the following: The more seriously you take the (whole) Bible, the more you will see and understand--really understand, from your head to your gut--that human nature is not basically good. It's not basically evil, either; it has inclinations in both directions, with the inclination toward the bad being stronger.

Once you realize that human nature is not basically good, there is a cascade of changes in your priorities and in to your approach to human problems. You will care more about ethical training in the young. You will lean more toward tough-love approaches than enabling approaches. (The Old Testament is full of examples of these, in God's seeming incomprehensibly harsh dealings with Man. In the NT tough love seems, on the surface, somewhat harder to find, but especially if read in the light of the OT, I think it is possible--just as I think God's immense love and mercy is visible all through the Old Testament.)

You will recognize real evil earlier, with fewer illusions as to how to approach it. You will more easily grasp the importance of a belief in objective right and wrong. You will be more concerned about global, totalitarian Islamist aspirations than about global warming, which you may suspect is more a product of pervasive political demagoguery than of too many SUV's. You will worry more about soul pollution (bad language, incivility) than about air pollution (second-hand smoke). You will concern yourself more with the molding of children's characters than with ensuring they get early sex education. You will detest and oppose the producers of MTV more than you detest and oppose the producers of cigarettes.

You will better understand the intrinsic connection of widespread, decent, freely-chosen and openly-practiced religion to a decent society. You will see more clearly the dangers in too much power devolving to central authorities, and therefore of too much money flowing into those coffers. You will understand that humans are not re-moldable into perfect creatures, and that any utopian attempt to steer society toward perfection through egalitarian schemes is not only doomed to failure, but is almost certainly going to end in disaster--ship-wrecked on the rocks of human corruption.

In short, you will be what we call today "conservative."

That's the view from here! Subject to modification, as always... ;)

Ever your friend,
Janine Goffar

Editor's note: To read my review of Escape from the Flames, click here.

What Can I Say? Wes is One of My Oldest Friends and Influentual Critics

Andy, For many long years I've been checking your old SDA Perspective site and not a creature or culture was stirring, not a peep, bleat or pixel, a still coffin, waiting. Goldstein and E.G.W. moved upon the earth unmolested, in those days. But finally the trumpet soundeth and the dead cometh forth, grave clothes thrown aside and mantle freshened, blogging reviews of the "Review" and recaptioned comics all over the place like daffodils in the spring. Alas, a very miracle. The resurrection. With you and so many other ProgAdvs rising from the ground to apotheosis, the real resurrection yet to come could be anticlimax. Congratulations! It is proper, isn't it, to congratulate one upon his resurrection? I let your recent birthday go by but not your resurrection.

W.

The Guindon cartoon is an affectionate gift to Wes Kime, a brilliant artist, pen and ink master, wonderful cartoonist, talented wordsmith, and friend. Needless to say, I constantly beg him for more material. How about begging him with me?

Our friendship began way back in “Perspective” days when he volunteered his time as an illustrator and poet. We were reunited when Claudia and I visited my son, Jonathan, when he was stationed at Wright Paterson Air Base in Dayton.

He illustrated “The Badge”, an essay I wrote for “Perspective”, and rewrote the first paragraph in the bargain. I photographed his three-dimensional work of art; I refuse to take it out of the frame, picture quality be . . . not withstanding.

Andy