Comment on Rewrite of fundamental belief 6 voted by NCC by Sean Pitman.
Why were there so many opposed to the resolution?
This came as a surprise to me as well. I would have thought that the NCC constituency would have been more decidedly in favor of supporting the pillars of the SDA faith. However, there were a large number, even of pastors, who strongly opposed the addition of anything at all more restrictive to the interpretation of the Genesis account as being a truly literal narrative.
They felt that such a restriction would be equivalent to producing an unmovable creed when in reality our only creed should be the Bible which is alone unmovable. Our understanding of the Bible is much more fluid and changeable and should not be immortalized in creedal statements of belief.
It was felt that such a creedal statement would remove needed “academic freedom” from teachers and even pastors to present the truth as their own consciences dictated as they, as individuals, were inspired by the Holy Spirit. 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.
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. As an example, one pastor noted that James White was an Arian, believing that Jesus was created by the Father, yet “Ellen White did not remove him from her fellowship or even from her bed.”
Besides the fact that James White eventually changed his mind when his wife received definitive light and wrote very clear statements on the nature of the Trinity, such arguments miss the concept of “present truth” as the founders of the SDA Church understood it.
Mrs. White writes that no one is to go ahead or fall behind the current leading of God in the understanding of the Church as an organized body and expect to remain a recognized part of that body (much less a paid part of the body).
God is leading out a people, not a few separate individuals here and there, one believing one thing, another that. Angels of God are doing the work committed to their trust. The third angels is leading out and purifying a people, and they should move with him unitedly. Some run ahead of the angels that are leading His people; but they have to retrace every step, and meekly follow no faster than the angels lead…
– Ellen White, Testimonies for the Church. p. 207. Vol. 1.
This concept of “present truth” and the idea that Church government should be based on this idea, that perfect liberty to do as one pleases independent of the body cannot be sustained by the Church ( especially as a paid representative) was also supported, very strongly, by both James White and J.N. Loughborough. Loughborough, in particular, wrote a book on the maintenance of Church order and discipline through the use of “Card of Commendation”. The response was not uniformly positive. Loughborough described the reaction as follows:
Of course those who claimed “liberty to do as they pleased,” to “preach what they pleased,” and to “go when and where they pleased,” without “consultation with any one,” failed to get cards of commendation. They, with their sympathizers, drew off and commenced a warfare against those whom they claimed were “depriving them of their liberty.” Knowing that it was the Testimonies that had prompted us as a people to act, to establish “order,” these opponents soon turned their warfare against instruction from that source, claiming that “when they got that gift out of the way, the message would go unrestrained to its `loud cry.’ ”
One of the principal claims made by those who warred against organization was that it “abridged their liberty and independence, and that if one stood clear before the Lord that was all the organization needed,” etc… All the efforts made to establish order are considered dangerous, a restriction of rightful liberty, and hence are feared as popery.
– J.N. Loughborough, Testimonies for the Church. p. 650. Vol. 1.
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.
