| Author | Message | ||
| jtree |
One more out of the fire. I had recently been notified by an SDA friend, who after I gave her http://get.to/the.truth a few months ago, And recently changed her online name from ****SDA to ********, she told me she resigned her membership from her local SDA church. PRAISE THE LORD.... Her testimony would be welcomed here. | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Thanks, jtree. Tell your friend that I for one would love to read her testimony on this website. -Jude | ||
| 156 |
<deleted: Beyond the scope of this forum> | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Friends, I am sharing the following for you to read and respond with any comments you may wish to make. -Jude XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX A review of Chapter Two, ìWhy Everyone Should Think Theologically,î from Fritz Guy's 1999 book THINKING THEOLOGICALLY (TT) FRITZ GUY REVISITED AND REVIEWED By Max Phillips For me Fritz Guy has always been ñ and he remains ñ one of the most brilliant stars in the SDA theological constellation. However, after having read the chapter assigned to me for discussion, I found myself in such painful disagreement that I contemplated resigning from my assignment. Before I explain why, let me first read Luke 15:4. ìWhat man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?î Meaning: I have chosen to leave alone the ìninety and nineî of Guyís points with which I agree in order to retrieve the one ñ actually two ñ with which I disagree. I. THE FIRST ìLOST SHEEPî is summed up in the following paragraph (TT 35): ìBecause I [Fritz Guy] am an Adventist theologian writing primarily for Adventist readers, the phrase ëthe community of faithí often refers particularly to the Adventist community; but most of the content of this chapter is applicable as well to many other Christian ñ especially Protestant ñ denominational communities and would be consonant with their self-understandings. Referring to ìdenominational communitiesî ñ Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Methodist, Southern Baptist, Pentecostal ñ recognizes that these different groups understanding the activity of God and the proper human response to it in ways that tend to differentiate them from other Christian communities. Unfortunately, every denominational community, including our own [SDA], tends to make its distinctiveness the very center and soul of its spirituality and theology, thus often blurring, and sometimes distorting, the Christian gospel.î Whether Guy himself indulges in his-own-termed ìunfortunate tendencyî ñ although I believe he does -- is not my question. My question is, Why face the issue with such resignation? Why so toothless an attack? Why just dismiss as only an ìunfortunate tendencyî something that blurs and distorts the Christian gospel? Why not engage vigorously? If the gospel has become blurred, why not refocus it? If the path has become distorted by earthquakes and landslides, why not at least try to ìmake straight in the desert a highway for our Godî? Instead, Guy simply ignores the abundant positive biblical evidence that supports the spiritual reality of a single, undivided, worldwide ìcommunity of faith.î Ephesians 4:4-6, for instance: ìThere is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.î He simply ignores, as well, the negative biblical evidence that specifically condemns separate, multiple ìcommunities of faithî that blur and distort the Christian gospel. 1st Corinthians 1:10-15 (NIV), for instance: ìI appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloeís household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, ìI follow Paulî; another, ìI follow Apollos;î another, ìI follow Cephas;î still another, ìI follow Christ.î Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. Virtually all SDA theologians of my hearing or reading, address this passage by limiting its application to ìthe Adventist community.î They then use this term, or equivalent, interchangeably with the term ìcommunity of faithî or equivalent. Some even take this distorted application to the extreme of excluding all other ìcommunities of faithî by assuming ours to be nothing less than ìthe remnant.î Here I should make clear that I do not see Paulís passage as forbidding, or even discouraging, the existance or formation of different organizations. And indeed there are many Christian organizations that are truly ecumenical in the sense that they (1) claim no standing as separate ìcommunities of faith,î (2) assert no ìfaith exclusivityî from the rest of the body of Christ, and (3) refuse to transgress the sacred canon of ìone body, one Spirit, and one baptism.î Nor can a viable interpretation of 1st Corinthians 1:10-15 sustain an application that is limited to any single ìcommunity of faith.î For the following reasons: REASON NUMBER ONE: At the time Paul wrote the Corinthians letters (about 55 CE) there were no distinctly separate Christina ìcommunities of faith.î There was only one, which in some places (Rom. 7:4, 1 Cor. 10:16, 1 Cor. 12:27, Eph. 4:12) Paul calls ìthe body of Christî and in other places, as above, simply, ìChrist.î Rhetorical question: ìIs Christ divided?î Understood answer: ìNo!î Logical conclusion: There is no separate ìcommunity of faithî among others. REASON NUMBER TWO: These ìdivisions,î these ìquarrel parties,î these incipient, would-be-separate ìcommunities of faithî were not creations of the Corinthian community. They were ecumenical in character, forming around ecumenical evangelists or teaching authorities. Following is a tongue-in-cheek encyclopedic chart of these early parties as they might have developed had Paul not nipped them in the bud: THE FIRST SEPARATE ìCOMMUNITY OF FAITHî WAS FOUNDED BY PAUL AND CALLED ìCHURCH OF PAULî A Jew from Tarsus (in modern Turkey), educated in Jerusalem in the school of Gamaliel, Paul converted to Christianity on a trip to Damascus (in modern Syria) ìbreathing out murderous threats against the Lordís disciplesî (Acts 9:21, NIV). Paul was influential in the entire early Christian church. Watchword of believer: ìI am of Paul.î THE SECOND SEPARATE ìCOMMUNITY OF FAITHî WAS FOUNDED BY APOLLOS AND CALLED THE ìCHURCH OF APOLLOSî A Jew from Alexandria (in modern Egypt), Apollos baptized about twelve men in Ephesus ìwith the baptism of John,î a baptism Paul labeled as ìof repentance,î but not as of the Holy Spirit, and re-baptized them (Acts 19:1-7). Apollos was influential in the entire early Christian church. Watchword of believer: ìI am of Apollos.î THE THIRD SEPARATE ìCOMMUNITY OF FAITHî WAS FOUNDED BY CEPHAS AND CALLED THE ìCHURCH OF CEPHASî A Jew from Galilee (in modern Israel), Cephas (Peter) served as an early church leader and spokesperson. Cephas was influential in the entire early Christian church. Watchword of believer: ìI am of Cephas.î THE FOURTH SEPARATE ìCOMMUNITY OF FAITHî WAS FOUNDED BY CHRIST AND CALLED THE ìCHURCH OF CHRISTî A Jew born in Bethlehem and raised in Nazareth (both in Modern Israel), Christ Jesus is proclaimed by all Christian ìcommunities of faithî as founder. But this one claims the most exclusivity. Christ Jesus was influential in the entire early Christian church. Watchword of believer: ìI am of Christ.î REASON NUMBER THREE: Paul was not writing about cracks of theological schism local to any separate ìcommunity of faithî limited to Corinth. He was writing rather about ecumenical cracks that threatened the unity of all Christians everywhere. I have heard no small number of SDA pastors and theologians whose only application of this passage is that there should be no parties forming around theological teaching personalities within ìthe Adventist community of faith.î All Paul meant, according to them, was that no one should say, for example, ìI am of Bacchiocchiî or ìI am of Brinsmeadî or ìI am of Fordî or ìI am of Heppenstallî or ìI am of Koranteng-Pipimî or ìI am of Maxwellî or ìI am of Numbersî or ìI am of Provonshaî or ìI am of Wieland and Short.î At best this is a weak and misleading application, for it implies that Paul would abhor the sub-divisions, but would find the large division itself to be acceptable. No way! If anything, Paul would argue against the very claim, ìI am a Seventh-day Adventist,î if by that claim one means the historical exclusivity traditional implied and ascribed. He would argue against the Seventh-day Adventist split-off itself. Or, in graphic Pauline imagery, he would abhor the dismemberment of the body of Christ ñ a chunk ripped out, lying off by itself, torn and bleeding -- and yet boasting itself to be a separate ìcommunity of faith,î not to mention ìthe remnant.î II. THE SECOND ìLOST SHEEPî is summed up in the following quotation (TT 35,36): ìIn all of this variety of groupings and occasions [such as Sabbath potlucks, Sabbath School classes, church publications, church boards, and GC executive committees], the common element is the personal interaction that constitutes the living reality of the community of faith. This point needs to be emphasized because of a long-standing, deeply felt, and thoroughly mistaken tendency of some to think of ëthe churchí as a transcendent spiritual entity that somehow floats ëaboveí the individuals in the community of faith. The truth is that the community of faith just is the people, and their interactions constitute its life.î I [Max Phillips] must confess, I am one of those ìindividuals in the community of faithî who hold the ìlong-standing, deeply felt, and thoroughly mistaken tendency of some to think of ëthe churchí as a transcendent spiritual entity that somehow floats ëaboveí the individuals in the community of faith.î Only I would take strong issue with the characterization that it ìsomehow floats ëaboveí the individuals in the community of faithî on the ground that Guyís description is but a caricature of the living spiritual reality. In scripture it is described in many places. My personal favorite is Luke 17:20,21, NIV: ìOnce, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, ëThe kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, ëHere it is,í or ëThere it is,í because the kingdom of God is within you [Greek, plural].î In other words, whatever a literal ìkingdom of Godî or ìkingdom of heavenî may be after a literal Second Coming, the spiritual reality lives right here and now. It is not something ìsomehow floats ëaboveí the individuals in the community of faith.î It is an ecumenical, living and thoroughly spiritual community of individuals ñ namely the always-whole-and-never-divided body of Christ on earth. It exists NOT ABOVE BUT WITHIN this whole and un-torn community of faith. It exists right here. It exists right now. It is all that will ever exist. In this life there is absolutely nothing more ñ all Sabbath potlucks, all Sabbath School classes, all church publications, all church boards, and all GC executive committees notwithstanding. Guy correctly characterizes this reality as a ìtranscendent spiritual entity,î for that ìentityî can be nothing less than the Holy Spirit of Christ. But he grossly misses the whole point, metaphorical though the language must be, by calling it ìthoroughly mistakenî and by cartoonizing its reality as a sort of ìimaginary cloudî that ìsomehow floats ëaboveí the individuals in the community of faith.î For it is a living spiritual reality within all believers. And it bursts the cramped, rigid and brittle boundaries of all self-proclaimed, and thoroughly mistaken, separate ìcommunities of faithî even as new wine bursts old wineskins. It is true that we can never understand it ñ and certainly not scientifically ñ this ìkingdom of Godî that surrounds us. But it is equally true that there is incontrovertible proof of its existence ñ and that is the always-loving behavior of its citizens. And in that all-embracing love we can live and move and have our being as citizens living peaceably within its borders. Copyright 2000 by Max Phillips, reproduced here by permission of the author. | ||
| Lynn W |
And to make matters worse, SDA take pride in being separate from the rest - like a badge of honor. | ||
| Colleentinker |
Jude--I finally had a chance to read this document by Max Phillips which you posted. My husband came across a printed copy of this same document which he obtained from a good friend, and Richard (along with me) thinks that Phillips did an excellent job responding to Guy's points. The copy Richard obtained indicated that this paper was presented at a Sabbath discussion at LLUMC. Do you have any idea how this paper was received? Did any Adventists have reactions to Phillips' points? I'm quite curious to know if this paper has generated any SDA responses! Do you know? Thanks for sharing it. Colleen | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Colleen, I'll ask Phillips and let you and Richard know. -Jude |
