Johnny Ramirez-Johnson has a new blog called Johnny on C.P.R.. Ramirez-Johnson is a treasured colleague of mine at Loma Linda University Faculty of Religion. His specialty is in Relational Studies with an emphasis in Psychology & Culture. Here’s a link to his LLU homepage.
The C.P.R. of “Johnny on C.P.R.” stands for Culture, Psychology and Religion. He explains, “Most questions about religion are really about culture, this is so because religion is a subset of culture, meaning, without culture religion could not be expressed…. Value system, traditions, and beliefs are all a part of culture, at the same time they are all a part of religion.”
Johnny, I look forward to your contribution to our broadening understanding of the world!
It must all the post-Christmas bile I’m building up, but I’ve been going negative ballistic on Joseph this week. Which is why it took so long to write this post on the Sabbath school lesson. It’s a sour note to end the year, but here are the issues—some serious, some tongue-in-cheek—I have with Joseph. Kyrie, eleison!1. Jewelry (Gen 41): Joseph had no qualms about having extravagance placed on himself (signet ring, robe of fine linen, signet ring [function excuses vanity?]), chariot, slaves. Where is his Daniel-esque resolution?2. Interfaith Marriage (Gen 41): Joseph married an Egyptian. Wasn’t intercultural, interfaith marriage a big issue with Esau? What’s different between the two? Asenath, Joseph’s wife, was no ordinary Egyptian, either. She was the daughter of Potiphera, priest of On. Was this forced on Joseph? He must’ve had some choice on this matter. If he was the most powerful person in Egypt, second only to Pharaoh, why couldn’t he send for a woman from his kinsfolk?3. Oppression of Egyptians (Gen 41, 47): I can understand Joseph taxing Egyptians 20% of their grains during the time of abundance in preparation for the famine that is to come. I can also understand Joseph selling the grains back to the people after the famine started. However, his conduct after money ran out among the people troubles me greatly. First, it’s the livestock that he takes from the people, and then it’s their land, and then finally the people themselves. Read the very troubling verses, 47:20-21: “So Joseph bought all the land in Egypt for Pharaoh. The Egyptians, one and all, sold their fields, because the famine was too severe for them. The land became Pharaoh’s, and Joseph reduced the people to servitude.” I seriously question if this was what God intended when he gave the visions about the 14 cows. With the very grain that came from the people’s hard work during the first 7 years, Joseph proceeds to rob every Egyptian of the dignity that they have as human beings in serve of the monarch. No wonder Pharaoh was so good to him and his family. And no wonder, eight verses after he is placed in a coffin, a Pharaoh arose “who knew not Joseph,” and enslaved all of Israel. (more…)
The 13th Annual Spiritual Renaissance Retreat starts today at Hyatt Regency Monterey Resort in Monterey, California, hosted by the husband-wife team of John Hughson (executive pastor of the Pacific Union College Church) and Joan Hughson (nursing professor at Pacific Union College).
Here’s a brief description of the Presenters and Topics:
Carrol Grady, Author, Lecturer: “SDA Families Dealing with Homosexuality: How the Church Can Help.” If a gay couple began attending your church what would you do?
Roy Ice, Campus Chaplain, Pacific Union College; Tim Gillespie, Campus Chaplain, Loma Linda Academy: “Squeaky Wheel Theology: Who is Defining Adventism to the World?” Are the “theological edges†defining the Adventist middle by default? Or does the middle have something important to say?
George Knight, Author & SDA Historian: “The Fat Lady Rides Again: A look at the Current General Conference Initiative on Restructuring.” If you were the devil, how would you structure the church? What if you were God?
Steve Mosley, Author, Script Writer: “Disarming Difficult People: How to Transform the Problem.” Is it possible that you can learn the most from the very people who annoy you the most?
Becky Wang Scriven, Physician, Lecturer: “The Health Message After Legalism: A Lifestyle for the New Century.” What is the relationship between health habits and our spiritual, physical and emotional well-being?
Chuck Scriven, President, Kettering College of Medical Arts: “The Remnant Church: Do You Love or Hate the Metaphor?” Does It Really Matter? Is claiming to be the remnant church being rather arrogant?
Borge Schantz, Specialist in understanding the Religion of Islam: “Islamism: A Genuine Threat to Western Culture and Christians?” Where does Islam fit in SDA’s end time scenario?
Alden Thompson, Religion Professor, Walla Walla College: “Predicting the End: Frightened Adventists, Frenzied Evangelicals and Secularists Who Shrug.” Knowing what we can know from Scripture and Adventist history, what should we be saying and thinking about the end-time?
*******
According to the Hughsons, the Spiritual Renaissance Retreat is a partner with Adventist Today for both seek to help in shaping progressive Adventism for its relevant role in a hurting world. SRR also identifies with the stated mission of the Association of Adventist Forums, “to create community through conversation.†It is a shared hope that the retreat will: (a) Inform and challenge, (b) Stimulate thinking and imagination, (c) Inspire service from a grateful heart, and (d) Motivate involvement in solutions that honor God.
Adventists have not raised a distinctive voice on such issues. We have fought over the origin of Creation rather than the condition of Creation, over the nature of Christ rather than the nature Christ upholds, over the eating of pork rather than the treatment of pigs, over personal jewelry rather than global conflict diamonds, over a gold ring on a finger rather than the massive amounts of cyanide dumped into groundwater during the extraction process, over abortion rather to realize the way to be consistently pro-life to guard the environment where these babies will live, over intelligent design rather than intelligently designing for more efficient, economical and environmental lifestyles, over a heavenly Sanctuary rather than how to provide sanctuary for endangered flora and fauna (including humans).
There are Christians who think that the Church should not get “distracted†by such issues, and focus on spreading the Gospel. Amen! But what is that eternal good news to be proclaimed to every demographic group (per Revelation 14: 6, 7)? It includes the command to “worship the Creator!†How do we worship a Creator? By despising his Creation?
Ellen White, in The Desire of Ages (367), wrote : “If men today were simple in their habits, living in harmony with nature’s laws, . . . there would be an abundant supply for the needs of the human family. There would be fewer imaginary wants, and more opportunities to work in God’s ways.†This call to ecological simplicity would make it easier to spread the Gospel.
There are a number of Adventists calling for greater attention to environmental issues.
Since 1999, Bonnie Dwyer has served as editor of Spectrum, the quarterly journal of the Association of Adventist Forums. She studied at La Sierra University and California State University—Fullerton, receiving from the latter, M.A. in journalism. Prior to assuming the editorship of Spectrum, she worked for La Sierra and Pacific Union College as well as several healthcare institutions in California.
What role does Spectrum seek to play within Adventism?
Our mission continues to be to encourage SDA participation in the discussion of contemporary issues, and to foster Christian intellectual and cultural growth. Those are words from a mission statement written in the 70’s, but they hold true today. Creating community through conversation is the current four-word version. Listening is an important part of conversation. We particularly listen and give voice to the academic and lay communities within Adventism.
Given its history, is it appropriate to say Spectrum represents the liberal bandwidth of the Adventist theological spectrum?
Many of our regular writers come from the “liberal bandwidth.†But we use material from many people with differing points of view. Perhaps because we are not an official church publication and therefore place no limitations on writers to toe the party line, we seem to some readers to be more “liberal†than the rest of the church press.
What is it that continues to bind Adventists of diverse theological persuasions today?
Christ has always been the center of the Great Advent Hope. He continues to be what all agree is of primary importance in our understanding of God.
What should it be?
Well, gratitude for the gifts that God has given us in Christ and the Sabbath would go a long way in creating an atmosphere of acceptance and love.
Mark Finley’s message to the General Youth Conference held in Sacramento in December 2004. In his usual dynamic fashion, Finley delivers a stirring call to step up for God when opportunities arise. Though some may react negatively to the logic he employs, his underlying message in this 8 min. 20 sec. clip is a powerfully challenging one to which we should all give ear and heart.
Sunday December 24th 2006, 1:30 pm
Filed under: Main
Comments Off
The December 21 issue of Adventist Review carries longtime editor William G. Johnsson’s last editorial at the helm of Adventism’s flagship journal. The editorial is entitled “Finally, Brethren (and Sisters)”.
Bill Johnsson succeeded Kenneth Wood in December 1982 as the editor of the Review and has watched over the magazine’s journey throughout the controversial and polarizing period of post-1980 Adventism. Johnsson’s concern over the increasing fragmentation of the church was clear in his 1995 book, The Fragmenting of Adventism: Ten Issues Threatening the Church Today as well as numerous editorials and articles he composed in the Review. Not surprisingly, Johnsson’s final words focus on his desire that the church learn to live together in spite of racial and theological diversity within its ranks. “We must learn to value our diversity,” he writes, “to treat one another with respect and dignity. We must spend a lot of time talking to each other, face to face. Not about each other, but with each other, listening, seeking to understand, praying silently as we converse.” These words echo the plea that he made at the dinner for theologians hosted by Jan Paulsen that I wrote about in the Dec. 22 post. At that time, Johnsson was the first to speak up and made an earnest plea for Adventist theologians to work at talking to each other and loving one another.
I have two little concerns/issues with his final editorial. First, I wish he hadn’t put “and Sisters” in parentheses. I know he only meant it in the kindest way that’s meant to bring smiles on our faces, but it reminds too much of the parenthetical place that women leaders and members still occupy in Adventism today. In addition, I wonder what he meant exactly when he stated, “the Fundamental Beliefs draw the boundaries, and so long as any Adventist assents to them, he or she deserves respect and fellowship.” What if an individual Adventist has a problem with one of the 28, or one line in one of the articles? Does that person cross of the boundaries and become undeserving of respect? I doubt he meant to say this, but what are the implications of what he said? I’d love to engage in him in further conversations and learn from his wisdom and erudition.
Though some criticize Johnsson and the Review for having lost the uniquely Adventist flavor of, say, the Kenneth Wood era, I want to join great many in applauding him for leading both the Review and the world church into a greater level of maturity in which we proclaim our unique convictions with Christ-centered humility. I don’t know him personally and what his post-retirement plans are, but I want to express my appreciation and admiration toward a man who has exemplified loving, respectful, and responsible thought-and-life leadership. I look forward to continuing contributions coming from him.
Thank you for these 24 years—and for your final plea, Elder Johnsson!
1. Jewelry (Gen 41): Joseph had no qualms about having extravagance placed on himself (signet ring, robe of fine linen, signet ring [function excuses vanity?]), chariot, slaves. Where is his Daniel-esque resolution?2. Interfaith Marriage (Gen 41): Joseph married an Egyptian. Wasn’t intercultural, interfaith marriage a big issue with Esau? What’s different between the two? Asenath, Joseph’s wife, was no ordinary Egyptian, either. She was the daughter of Potiphera, priest of On. Was this forced on Joseph? He must’ve had some choice on this matter. If he was the most powerful person in Egypt, second only to Pharaoh, why couldn’t he send for a woman from his kinsfolk?3. Oppression of Egyptians (Gen 41, 47): I can understand Joseph taxing Egyptians 20% of their grains during the time of abundance in preparation for the famine that is to come. I can also understand Joseph selling the grains back to the people after the famine started. However, his conduct after money ran out among the people troubles me greatly. First, it’s the livestock that he takes from the people, and then it’s their land, and then finally the people themselves. Read the very troubling verses, 47:20-21: “So Joseph bought all the land in Egypt for Pharaoh. The Egyptians, one and all, sold their fields, because the famine was too severe for them. The land became Pharaoh’s, and Joseph reduced the people to servitude.” I seriously question if this was what God intended when he gave the visions about the 14 cows. With the very grain that came from the people’s hard work during the first 7 years, Joseph proceeds to rob every Egyptian of the dignity that they have as human beings in serve of the monarch. No wonder Pharaoh was so good to him and his family. And no wonder, eight verses after he is placed in a coffin, a Pharaoh arose “who knew not Joseph,” and enslaved all of Israel. 
