Comment on Rewrite of fundamental belief 6 voted by NCC by Sean Pitman.
@Eddie:
“Many others felt that even though a literal interpretation of the creation week was true and important that such explicit language would give fuel to “witch hunts†and a form of “inquisition†of a nature similar to that seen in the Dark Ages.†– Sean Pitman
I have always believed in a literal six-day creation week in the relatively recent past, but I agree with this concern–it’s happening already, and it’s divisive.
Truth itself is divisive. Jesus did say that he came not to bring peace, but a sword. – Matthew 10:34.
Of course, this isn’t to say that we shouldn’t strive for peace. We should strive valiantly for peace. However, we shouldn’t strive for peace at all cost – certainly not at the cost of foundational truths that have been given to us by very clear leadings of the Holy Spirit and at great cost to many people who have defending these truths so that we could have them today at the cost of their fortunes and very lives.
It is similar to the situation where King Ahab asked Elijah why he was troubling Israel? Elijah responded that he wasn’t troubling Israel by speaking and standing up decidedly for the truth. Rather, it was King Ahab who was troubling Israel by not standing firmly for the truth. – 1Kings 18:18.
“Still others felt that such emphasis on doctrinal positions would take away from the main message of the Gospel – that of brotherly love and support for the individual worth of those with which we may have doctrinal disagreements.†– Sean Pitman
I agree even more strongly–much more strongly–with this concern. Which is why I wish we SDAs weren’t quibbling publicly over all of this. The more narrowly we interpret scripture the more hate and less love there will be among us. What would Jesus do: would he simply state the truth and let others decide what to believe, or would he argue and argue and argue? I wish we would spend more time on our knees in prayer and less time hammering on keyboards. The Bible can speak for itself. The word “literal†simply isn’t there. A literal interpretation seems obvious to me, but if not to others, why love them any less?
I dare say that the doctrinal pillar of a literal creation week is not a “narrow” interpretation of Scripture or some minor detail. It is a foundational concept that upholds the “Good News” of the very Gospel itself in my opinion. It is the very basis of a solid hope in a bright literal future. It is even foundational to the Sabbath and is part of the very name “Seventh-day Adventist”.
Now, don’t get me wrong, everyone should always be perfectly free to decide what to believe on these issues. The Church should never ever think to force itself on anyone with the use of civil power. That never works and is directly contrary to the Spirit of Heaven. However, if someone decides, of his/her own free will, to join the SDA Church and to take on official responsibilities as a paid representative of the SDA Church, surely the SDA Church has not only the right, but the obligation to expect that such a paid representative will uphold the stated ideals of the SDA Church in their capacity as an official representative.
If such a person cannot, in good conscience, uphold the foundational pillars of any organization, to include the SDA Church, that person should not think to receive money from his/her employer while undermining what that employer is paying him/her to do and should therefore resign. It seems to me like robbery of the employer’s time and money to do otherwise. Upon what basis should the SDA Church be expected to pay any and all for any kind of idea that a person decides is “true” independent of the Church opinion as a body of believers? – regardless of how sincere the person might be? It is kind of like expecting to be paid by Nike while working for Reebok.
This sort of thing does not a viable organization make. It has nothing to do with friendship or the love of the individual. Some of my very good friends are agnostic and a few are strong atheists. We still get along great and like each other. It is just that they do not claim to be SDA and do not expect to get paid by the SDA Church to promote their own personal views on these issues…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Rewrite of fundamental belief 6 voted by NCC
@Larry Roberts:
The question was asked above, “Why were there so many opposed to the resolution?†I found myself asking the same question during the Constituency meeting. The debate on “Other Agenda Item†#3 was fascinating.
I agree with your critique of Agenda Item #3. It was poorly worded and went too far – as far as a suggested intrusion into one’s personal life. This is, hopefully, the primary reason why it was voted down. It was possible, however, to reword the proposal during the meeting, but no one had enough foresight to suggest such a thing – including me. Things happened so fast that it was hard to think of such things at the time. Perhaps such a reworded proposal can be introduced next time which will be more in line with your suggestions…
Until then, the LSU situation in still on the table and still needs to be addressed in a decided manner if the school, and perhaps even the Church, is to be saved from a severe fracture…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Rewrite of fundamental belief 6 voted by NCC
@Carl:
Note to Sean: When you respond, please point me to a short-history model that can be scientifically tested. You already know the list of events that it must explain in sequence, but you have never addressed that point. Simply saying that things can happen faster than the standard model claims is not sufficient.
This is not the proper thread for this particular discussion. See my response to your questions at the 3ABN thread:
http://www.educatetruth.com/media/educatetruth-com-promoted-on-3abn/comment-page-3/#comment-12669
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Rewrite of fundamental belief 6 voted by NCC
@Carl:
Thanks, Eddie. I find it strange that we try to improve on Scripture.
This isn’t an effort to improve on the language of the Bible. It is, however, an effort to present a clear interpretation of what we think the biblical authors as a whole were trying to say about creation. Different people disagree on this. However, the SDA Church, as an organized body, has a specific belief in this regard which is considered to be a fundamental pillar of our faith…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!
The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…
The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…
Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?
Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.
Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).
Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.
