Filed under: Main
Nathan Brown is editor of Record and Signs of the Times in the South Pacific, based just out of Melbourne, Australia. He has degrees in law, literature and English. He has also worked as a freelance writer, written an (as yet) unpublished novel and is working on a number of other book projects. His first book, Relevation, was published late last year and 7 Reasons Why Life is Better With God will be released early this year by Review & Herald.
Read the companion feature on Nathan and Relevation over at Re-Inventing the Adventist Wheel, whose “Shameless Plug” includes an excerpt of the book.
In the Foreword to your book, Relevation, Bill Johnsson commends you for taking up “the task of translating Christian faith into today’s idiom.” Does everyone not speak today’s idiom? Why did you find it necessary to provide a translation?
As a Christian and an Adventist writer, I am consistently challenged by C. S. Lewis’ comment, “The vernacular is the real test. If you can’t turn your faith into it, then either you don’t understand it or you don’t believe it.” Within our various Christian subcultures—as with all subcultures—we develop our own jargon and layers of meaning. They can help us belong but can also settle into the sediment of cliche between ourselves and become a language of exclusion of others. Thus, Lewis’ challenge is sobering: our inability to communicate effectively outside our religious-speak—to translate—calls into question either our basic understanding or belief—or both.
We must be able to “translate” our faith for two practical reasons:
First, for ourselves. The disconnection between faith (or at least church experience) and the rest of life is fatal for healthy, useful faith. In Finally Comes the Poet, Walter Brueggemann suggests the two most common reactions to church programs and preaching are alienation and rage. These are real emotions sparked by faith talk that does not connect with our lives—when we know it should.
Second, for others. We have faith worth sharing but, for a variety of reasons, we don’t seem to do it well. In a world with so many voices and ideas competing for attention, there is a significant difference between making noise and being heard. We can print, broadcast, billboard, post and whatever but unless we are “talking” in a way that “makes sense” and presenting something that matters, we are just making noise.
What are some of the principles or personal criteria that you use in doing the work of relevation?
The first is to be. A genuine person of faith lives, cares, laments, rejoices and seeks goodness. A relevant faith is a faith lived, a hope that motivates and a kingdom in which one participates every day.
The “work” of relevating—as a Christian communicator—should flow from that. I seek to do good work, with cultural and intellectual credibility. I engage with culture—particularly reading with enthusiasm and some breadth—not just to mine from it but to enjoy the goodness, the glimpses and possibilities of God that are there. At the same time, we must be servants of the world and the culture—noticing the injustice, oppression and heartache—and finding ways to speak and act for the voiceless and against the oppressors.
Which part of aspect of the book are you the most happy about?
Simply that I was able to do it in the way it has happened. The material for this book was drawn primarily from my four years as a columnist for Adventist Review and I consider the opportunity to do that as a great privilege. So to be able to collect that in a book form as that opportunity came to an end was pleasing. To that core of material I was able to add a few things I was unable to say as a Review columnist—for various reasons—and one or two other articles I had written during that time. From a personal perspective, it is nice simply to have a collection of my work in this form but I hope it also adds up to something more than the sum of its parts.
Which part of Christianity and Adventism in particular do you find the most difficult in relevating?
A point of doctrine or practice hanging on the third possible explanation of an obscure Hebrew verb that is used just once in the entire scriptural text—or something like that—may be encouraging or helpful for some but it is probably not a major focus of faith. When we get lost in the minutiae—and the fight about it—we risk missing the grandness and goodness of the forest of God for the microscopic bark structures on one particular tree. A fascinating study, perhaps—but relevant?
Who is your primary intended audience?
Because of its antecedence, it follows that this is a book for Adventists—particularly those of my generation and those older, “jaded” Adventists who seem to resonate with some of this material. But I hope it can spark discussions across the breadth of Adventists, agreeing or disagreeing—”angry letters are good.” I also hope it might paint an alternative picture of the possibilities of Adventist Christianity for those on the edges of the church, who might come across this.
What excites you the most about today’s Adventism? What do you think is Adventism’s greatest selling point to the world?
The reality of God, the essential relevance of Adventist Christianity and the possibilities of what we as a church can do in the world.
Connected with this, Adventism’s greatest “selling point”—at its best—is the magnitude of Adventist vision across the length of history, the depth of authentic spirituality, the breadth of wholistic and practical living and the height of God’s love. But perhaps we need to move away from the language of selling to a different way of speaking.
Please tell me about your own spiritual/religious journey. Why are you a Seventh-day Adventist?
Grew up in a good home of an Adventist pastor, with no “Adventist” education beyond elementary school. The inherited faith had to become my own in the context of the experience of grief, which sorts out the foundations pretty solidly—or doesn’t. And with the foundation of Christian hope emerging intact, most of the rest of Adventist belief seems to hold together. The continuing challenge is to live like it’s real, to be an ambassador of hope and goodness in the world.
Was there ever a time you had serious issues with the Adventist church? If so, how did you resolve it?
The alienation and rage, mentioned above—and I’m still working on it. Perhaps writing is therapy.
Could you describe the sense of calling or purpose that you feel about your work for the church?
To borrow from the Blues Brothers, we’re on a mission from God.
Five years ago, working for the church wasn’t on my list of things to do. But through a process of discovery and growth, I have come to appreciate and be challenged by the reality of the kingdom of God and see the possibility of church as an agency of that kingdom, growing hope, justice and goodness in the world. Paradoxically, it’s what I see the church as not yet being—at least not as it could be—that has motivated me to become more directly involved.
Primarily, I work for the church because it is an avenue for service. The infrastructure of the church allows me to work with a wide variety of other people and resources to try to make some kind of positive difference in the world. To do that involves challenging the church to take this mission seriously and joyfully, and engaging with the community and culture in which we find ourselves.
Who else in the Adventist is a good relevator? What about among Christian authors?
Attempting to give an answer to this questions will reveal my ignorance of so many people who are doing good things and my mostly narrow focus on things literary, but here goes…
Adventists: I am a fan of Chris Blake’s work; Jim Coffin is a good writer to the church and beyond; Gary Swanson gets the opportunity to share his connection with culture at Adventist Review online; I am a supporter of Samir Selmanovic’s vision for the Faith House project in New York; I have been a fan and friend of re-church and Ryan Bell’s work, now in Hollywood; Grenville Kent does good things in our corner of the world (see, for example, thedavincidecode.net); I wish we heard more from Andy Nash; Lee Gallaher’s work with Life.info in the U.K. is impressive; some of the church-planting adventures in European Adventism are impressive; I appreciate Cliff Goldstein’s work engaging the intellectual end of culture, and thought his God, Gödel and Grace deserved more attention; and I admire others who are doing it in other ways, such as Adventist Peace Fellowship. I’m sure there are many more. But the most significant “relevators” are those people who do practical things in local churches, communities, on the streets, in refuges, orphanages, hospitals and all kinds of places like that.
Christian authors: I am still in awe of Gilead by Marilynne Robinson. U.K. writer (and atheist) Nick Hornby—describing it as a “beautiful, rich, unforgettable work”—comments, “I don’t even mind that it’s essentially a book about Christianity, narrated by a Christian; in fact, for the first time I understood the point of Christianity—or at least, I understood how it might be used to assist thought.” What a review! Australian writer Tim Winton does a similar but more subtle kind of thing in mainstream literary circles. The Turning is a great example. Other (current) Christian writers such as Anne Lamott, Miroslav Volf and Donald Miller—even people like Frederick Buechner, Tony Campolo, Michael Frost and Brian McLaren—seek different and more everyday ways of connecting faith and life.
There’s a perception over here on Stateside that Australian Adventists tend to either very conservative or very liberal in comparison to American Adventists. Or is that simply reflective of the Australians that we’ve been exposed to over here?
I have heard that comment but probably don’t have enough experience with the breadth of Adventism in the U.S. to comment. Certainly we have some extremes and I think I manage to challenge/annoy both extremes from time to time. Of course, there are so many great people between those two extremes.
Without wishing to cast any aspersions, I think our church leaders in this part of the world tend to be more open to different ideas in ministry and outreach, perhaps in response to the real challenge of a strongly secular culture, which allows some resources to support creative ideas—and, in turn, entrenches the hardliners still more strongly. Just the fact that we are well-off means we have the resources to make noise in a variety of ways, whether we are being heard—I’m not sure.
What’s the most recently coined word that you haven’t yet shared publicly?
“e-jerk reaction”: An email response written in anger and/or haste, where one presses send without any time for reflection or otherwise thinking better of it, the truth of which is painfully obvious to the recipient. Example: a significant number of letters to the editor of any publication.
Also, I’m still thinking on the idea of “anti-evangelism”—that sometimes we should measure our evangelistic “success” by how many people we don’t turn off/away from Jesus. Matthew 18:6 suggests serious consequence for those who cause “little ones”—those of little faith—to sin and turn them away from God. Would our assessment of whether evangelism “works” be different if we were to add up the positive but off-set them with the negatives? And just how would we do that? Would five baptisms outweigh 50 people who are disgruntled, confused or otherwise discouraged by the same evangelistic endeavor? It’s a work-in-progress—it will need more careful explanation than this and I am uncomfortable with a counting approach to evangelism.
An excellent and honest interview. And great book suggestions by Nathan!
Comment by Marcel 02.01.07 @ 8:53 amHi Nathan, and thanks Julius for another great interview. When I still received the Review I appreciated Nathan’s columns.
In response to the question of what you thought was Adventism’s main selling point you answered–:
“The reality of God, the essential relevance of Adventist Christianity and the possibilities of what we as a church can do in the world.”
Can you elaborate on this? What about SDAism do you think is relevant? In what way does the Adventist church in your experience make the “reality of God” more apparent? The SDA church is almost unknown in North America. Maybe your Australian experience is different, but while the church can do good things in the world, were the smallest of the small, so to speak. How can the church make its mark?
Comment by Glenn 02.01.07 @ 4:53 pmGlenn, thanks for the big questions. I’ll try them one at a time.
“What about SDAism do you think is relevant?”
Hope. Health. Environment. Anti-consumerism. Relationships. Community. Lifestyle. Justice. Freedom. Compassion. Peace. Inclusiveness. Humiliy. Goodness. Kindness.
Each of these concepts at their best can be found within the basic beliefs of the church and, in many instances, in ways that are somewhat unique to us. If only we could understand what we say we believe in that way—and then live it out in our communities and our world. They are not just nice ideas; they are calls of action.
It’s great there are many other groups and individuals working with these issues in our societies, but we—who should have deeper and more profound understanding and motivation—are continually left behind on issue after issue, casue after cause, opportunity after opportunity, mostly because we don’t act like these are priorities.
We must stand up, speak up, put up—not neccessarily to gain converts, increase our public image or whatever, but because it is the right thing to do.
“In what way does the Adventist church in your experience make the “reality of God†more apparent?”
I don’t think the “reality of God” as I included in this answer is something neccessarily unique to Adventists. But when we join in with what we see God doing in the world, when we wrestle with what it means to be His people in our time and place and when we choose to be part of the kingdom of God now, we will find ourselves part of something bigger than we dreamed—even when it doesn’t look like it.
“The SDA church is almost unknown in North America. Maybe your Australian experience is different, but while the church can do good things in the world, were the smallest of the small, so to speak. How can the church make its mark?”
If anything, the Adventist church is even less prominent in Australia than the US. But it is less about making a mark, than doing what is right. The church should not be primarily focused on making “its mark,” but on representing God and others (see Matthew 22:37-40).
Comment by Nathan Brown 02.01.07 @ 6:54 pmIf we choose to be a voice for the voiceless—in Greg Boyd’s (The Myth of a Christian Nation) terminology to be a “power under” the powerless, the oppressed and the disenfranchised—we can trust God to look after the outcomes.
One of my mission statements in writing—and beyond—is borrowed from Charles Scriven:
“But what is desperately needed are people who speak distinctively and movingly from within Adventism to the larger community; voices who, from the core of Adventist particularity, express a universal message for our time; people who allow the power of the gospel to challenge those who oppress the vulnerable.â€
To do this, we must to take risks, including the risk of being largely ineffectual and frustrated. But we also can be prepared to work with others and other organisations toward outcomes that are good—and good primarily for others.
I don’t think we should underestimate what could be done. If we take our call, our beliefs, our mission more seriously, we must change the world.
Great interview … Nathan’s books are going on my to-read list. Nathan Brown doesn’t know it but he’s near the top of my list of “Writers who Make Me Glad I’m Still an Adventist, and Who Give Me Hope for the Church.” (I have to come up with a catcheir title for that list!) His columns in the Review have given me a lot to think about over the last few years.
Comment by TrudyJ 02.02.07 @ 1:26 pmNathan wrote:
““What about SDAism do you think is relevant?â€
Hope. Health. Environment. Anti-consumerism. Relationships. Community. Lifestyle. Justice. Freedom. Compassion. Peace. Inclusiveness. Humiliy. Goodness. Kindness.
Each of these concepts at their best can be found within the basic beliefs of the church and, in many instances, in ways that are somewhat unique to us.”
—-
Of course the same could be said for any group from Opus Dei to Latter Day Saints and every Mainstream Christian denomination.
There was a time when SDA’s would say they were unique because of their unique doctrines, now most of those doctrines have been shown to be less then accurate, some even untrue and others totally irrelevant. So now the church leadership chooses vague words and hopes they can insert some historic meaning into the broad and vague terms. (The undefined term Great Controversy is a classic example)
The leadership can’t acknowledge the strain in Adventism that seeks to remove the traditions of Christianity and historic Adventism from themselves because that is not what the leadership wants. But that is what Adventism has to offer the world, but we are not exclusive in that offering and that is still a sticking point for many Adventists who want to remain the Remnant of their tradition. But when you hear a young leader of the SDA church like Nathan describe the relevance of the SDA church in such a vague way it is hard not to realize there is a problem.
It is why I think it is actually good that our lesson studies this quarter focus on Ecclesiastes because then maybe we can learn that questions spur thoughts and that we have to listen to the questions to give reasoned answers. As it turns out in my current lesson study post on http://cafesda.blogspot.com
Comment by Ron Corson 02.02.07 @ 1:43 pmthe subject morphed from Solomon to Sam Harris’ book the End of Faith.
Nathan–
good interview; wished I got to know you better when you were at the GC.
My only criticism is–Grow some hair!
Comment by Cliff Goldstein 02.02.07 @ 5:07 pmDear Ron,
No, I am not talking vaguely. I believe these things are specific, urgently relevant and in many ways can be appreciated at their most significant and profound in aspects of Adventist belief.
Knowing the creator, we should be able to outhug any treehugger. We can view salvation and repentence as the deepest first steps toward social justice. We can celebrate Sabbath as the ultimate in anti-consumerism and egalitarianism. We employ our prophetic tradition and calling to speak on behalf of the voiceless. Our hope in the Second Coming is a primary motivation to work for justice and goodness now, that will be finally and completely established then. Our focus on health makes more and more sense in view of environmental and wider health emergencies. Our aspiration to the call to remnancy sparks our impulse to humility, servanthood and inclusiveness. And so it goes…
That’s not the stuff of vague, greeting-card feel-goodness.
Comment by Nathan Brown 02.02.07 @ 6:50 pm“Our aspiration to the call to remnancy sparks our impulse to humility, servanthood and inclusiveness. ”
Well, I’m glad you are sounding the call to inclusiveness (are you still at the Review–it sounds like you’re not).
Unfortunately, exclusivity is more the norm than the exception in Christianity across the board and Adventism, sadly, in particular. Our evangelistic seminars, for example, tend to highlight Adventist “distinctives” and its remnant status especially. And this has tended more often than not to result in pride rather than humility. How do we reverse that, especially since our evangelistic outreach seems so rooted in an old, exclusive way of doing things?
Comment by Glenn 02.02.07 @ 7:50 pmYes Nathan you are vague as your answers say nothing about Adventism, I will give you examples by using your words:
“Knowing the creator, we should be able to outhug any treehugger.”
–So other Christians can’t know their creator? Or they don’t respect the created world or the creator? What makes this different for Adventists?
“We can view salvation and repentence as the deepest first steps toward social justice. ”
–So other Christians don’t have any feelings about Social Justice, that is something new that came about with the arrival of Adventists?
“We can celebrate Sabbath as the ultimate in anti-consumerism and egalitarianism.”
–But Sunday Sabbath keepers are consumerists and against egalitarianism? Or wait they may buy something on Sunday whereas a SDA will wait a whole day to buy something, not really anti-consumerism.
“We employ our prophetic tradition and calling to speak on behalf of the voiceless.”
–You mean like Mother Teresa? Or are you talking about the ultimate in anti-consumerism of our certainty of coming Sunday Laws. Frankly that sounds like pretty words with little meaning.
“Our hope in the Second Coming is a primary motivation to work for justice and goodness now, that will be finally and completely established then.”
–Unlike all those other Christians and Islamists and Jehovah’s Witnesses who…look for the second coming and the establishment of complete justice?
“Our focus on health makes more and more sense in view of environmental and wider health emergencies. ”
–We certainly are not alone in the health care movement are we?
“Our aspiration to the call to remnancy sparks our impulse to humility, servanthood and inclusiveness. And so it goes…”
–You mean like the way you have excluded the rest of Christendom from justice or caring about health or caring about the environment? That kind of humility?
So in reality to the question asked:
Comment by Ron Corson 02.02.07 @ 9:54 pm““What about SDAism do you think is relevant?â€
Your answer is the general characteristics of Christianity with the exception of our exclusive remnant status which makes us more humble.
Ron,
I think it’s your turn to let us know what it is about Adventism that is truly relevant. After that deconstruction that you’ve just done on Nathan’s piece, you’re making me very curious as to what you might have to say.
Meanwhile, I wonder what’s eating you, Ron =) Why do our particulars have to be *different*? Can’t we be happy with the sum of the particulars being unique? I fear you’re Ron is perpetuating the myth (in my assessment) that it’s the particular distinctives that make Adventism relevant or meaningful.
I don’t know if what justifies our existence is the uniqueness of our particularities. Rather, it’s what we do together and who we are that makes us unique. Furthermore, it shouldn’t matter if we’re unique or distinctive to begin with. Who says we have to be unique to exist? Who made that a criterion for raison d’etre? And…why do we even have to justify our existence to begin with?
(I’m ranting, aren’t I? Or is it amn’t I, or ain’t I? OK…enough of solipsism.)
Where was I? OK, ummm, oh, yeah, another thing. Why can’t we be vague? This religion business that we’re in is a mysterious, mystical thing here. It’s our modernist forefathers and foremothers who tried too much to be clear…resulting in theological overcommitment. Being vague is our way of backing off, recognizing that we can’t and mustn’t be precise. We don’t want to commit the heresy of overexplanation, do we? Vagueness is what connects us. Clarity kills and divides; we can’t worship that idol. Sure, we can be disingenuous vague (which is intellectually dishonest). But we can also be kind, gentle, humble, inclusive, and Nathan Brownish vague (which is really a loving and creative thing to do). We build community and encourage creativity by leaving things unsaid and undefined.
So…kudos to Nathan for being vague and bland. (No tongue in my cheek.) I’m Korean, but I don’t dig sharp and spicy. So…no kimchi theology, please. I like my Adventism to be pasta-esque. Versatile, goes with lots of different kinds of sauce, slurps down real well, easy on the stomach, gives power to the whole body
Comment by Julius 02.02.07 @ 11:14 pmJulius,
What is the difference between “disingenuous vague” and “ingenuous vague”? When you do “vague” then it is humble and creative; but when others do it then it is disingenuous, divisive, and arrogant?
I’m Korean-American, and I still like kimchi, . . . but remember that there is a kimchi museum in Seoul - on display is kimchi through the ages, and in the various regions, in different seasons, for different social classes, with different dishes, prepared in different combinations, and some kimchi that is not “sharp and spicy.” Kimchi, researchers have shown, contains Vitamin B-12, and the peppers have some health benefit (weight loss) . . . of course the massive salt content doesn’t help with the hypertension. Pasa, on the other hand, my thin friend, has a lot of carbs! I should know (my wife TIVOs “Everyday Italian”). But it’s nice you have the moderation so as not to let the carbs make you fat! Ha! Then again, my dad will eat kimchi with pasta, so that would mess up your Adventist diet. Just kidding.
Anyway, I enjoyed Nathan Brown’s thoughts. But Ron Corson does ask a good question - what is “unique” about it? We don’t have to be the only lonely voice crying out in the wilderness - after all Elijah thought he was the only prophet, but God informs him 7,000 have not bent the knee to Baal. But I submit there is indeed a somewhat “unique” perspective Adventism can share: that we have championed. I don’t think it’s necessary to take sole credit (or even if that’s possible), but Adventists have held views that others have come to appreciate and adapt in their own way.
1. Even the Sabbath - relatively recently, Eugene Peterson has written beautifully about the meaning and practice of the Sabbath. I think he observes it personally on Monday by talking nature walks and writing personal letters. But he writes so well on it! Still, it’s out there - the concept. And the Jubilee Sabbath is making its rounds in relation to both the environment and debt forgiveness of third world nations. As for the seventh day, maybe the Jews and us can keep pounding away at it. Who knows, maybe everybody will cave, and then we can fret about impending “national seventh-day Sabbath laws” instead. Jurgen Moltmann talks about the Sabbath as the true basis for ecology. Dang! Why couldn’t an Adventist have written that?
2. Holism - both in personal health and environmentalism. We’ve used “non-immortality of the soul” as a bulwark against spiritualism but our health reform message is out there as well. Honestly, those in eco-theology point to ontological dualism as a clear obstacle to Christian involvement in environmental concern. Almost all Christians have come late into that game. Sadly, so have Adventists - but we’re sitting on good theological rationale. That’s not to say other Christians who are “dualists” can’t come up with other rationale . . . but I like what we have in this regard.
3. Many American Christians didn’t give a fig about smoking, and we used to have advertisements of doctors endorsing certain brands of cigarettes. But yet we plugged away with 5 day stop smoking programs. Everybody else thought we were being silly teetotalers and legalistic. Yeah, probably legalistic, but with less cancer! Anyway, you can’t light up in many public spaces now.
4. Vegetarianism. Not a “doctrine” per say, but not at all a common practice back in the day. Now, it’s even a common environmental concern (burning the Amazon rainforest to make grazing pastures for future hamburger donors). Foget personal health benefits, vegetarianism may very well have a global impact.
And so forth. Thanks, Christianity, for catching on and catching up. No thanks for passing us up, leaving us in the dust, and left feeling petty and ashamed of our heritage. Eh, that’s our own deal, I guess.
No, I don’t think that eventually everyone will come around to our way of thinking on all points. Apparently, we won’t even come around because there’s no way we even agree on many points.
Dr. Sang Lee, formerly of Weimar Institute, claims he treated apologist Walter Martin before Martin passed way. Dr. Lee said, after much discussion, that Martin concluded that he wished he could have been an Adventist if he could do it all over again. Did that just mean health-wise? Probably. But perhaps more.
Comment by Jimmy 02.03.07 @ 6:40 amJimmy,
Looks like you’re up early. Each year, I’m finding myself waking earlier and earlier. Like many other things in life, it reminds me of my mortality.
I can’t assume disingenuous (what a hard word to spell!) vague on anyone unless I have some concrete evidence that they’re being disingenuous. That’s ultimately a heart and integrity matter, isn’t it?
And…dude…you can’t take my simple analogy and shred it like that! That was a great adventure is missing the point, friend.
I have no problem whatsoever in your list. I like each, point by point. It’s very similar to Nathan’s, just packaed differently. And I think Ron will have the same issue with you as he did with Nathan. None of those are unique to Adventism. And my assertion, I repeat my earlier post really briefly, is that it’s the particular set of beliefs and practices (each of which we share with others) that makes us unique. But furthermore, we don’t need to be “unique.” No one’s asking that question but ourselves…and we’re choking ourselves and one another with it.
I believe we’re called to be faithful to what we know and believe…not to be unique. Like you point out, Jimmy, we should rejoice that many others are also sharing in our “uniqueness” and celebrate the Giver and Provider of All Truth and Knowledge.
Comment by Julius 02.03.07 @ 8:53 amJulius, you said: “Who says we have to be unique to exist? Who made that a criterion for raison d’etre?”
Surely, you jest. The entire history of Seventh-day Adventists, as with most other denominations, demanded that they offer something different, something unique that would separate themselves from all the other religious beliefs. So, yes, the Sabbath and 1844 with its fearful Second Coming–later re-interpreted as a face-saving maneuver–was the entire raison d’etre.
Now if you care to correct that assumption, how can you revise Adventist history without destroying its origins?
Comment by Elaine Nelson 02.03.07 @ 9:02 amRon and others,
The demand for the unqiue so sadly misses the point.
Fritz Guy puts it well: “To be Adventist is to be, first and foremost, Christian; and what is most important in Adventist experience, practice and belief is not what differentiates us from other Christians but what unites us to them.”
He continues: “As a movement within Christianity that is acutely conscious of its distinctiveness and so regards itself as a ‘prophetic movement’, we are tempted to make this distinctiveness our theological and spiritual center and thus to become theologically and spiritually eccentric. This temptation should be consciously, conscientiously and constantly resisted.â€
It excites me that aspects of what might be regarded as Adventist belief are shared by others and that, when we can move beyond “eccentricity,” we can learn from others in how to do it and believe it better as well as sharing what we have to help them do it and believe it better.
The point of doctrine is both the better appreciation of the goodness and greatness of God and the better application of it in service and doing goodness.
God’s call is not a call to unqiueness, exculsivity and self-centredness; it is always a call to faithfulness, embrace and service.
Comment by Nathan Brown 02.03.07 @ 4:29 pmYou know, Julius, these interviews from the diverse voices of Adventism would make a great book. Or have you already thought of that?
In continuing your series, you might want to think about interviewing Alden Thompson from Walla Walla. He’s the author of a now out of print manuscript on inspiration, fittingly entitled Inspiration as well as a book on EGW called Escape from the Flames. He has a website which houses much of his writings which have been a key source of my evolving understanding of Adventism. He is also the author of a paper entitled The Adventist Church at Corinth, what I think is a seminal piece on diversity within Adventism. He’s pretty accessible. I’ve never met him in person and never went to Walla Walla but I emailed him and struck up a good correspondence with him.
Comment by Glenn 02.03.07 @ 6:55 pmGlenn,
Thanks for your encouraging suggestions. You seem to be a mindreader.
Yes, the book idea is certainly on my mind. We’ll see how this develops. And yes, I’ve already contacted Alden Thompson about an interview. He’s snowed in with other commitments so it’ll take a few weeks….
If yo have other suggeestions, please feel free to email me at jjnam@llu.edu
Comment by Julius 02.03.07 @ 7:15 pmNathan’s last comment with the quote from Frtitz Guy (one of my professors at La Sierra aeons ago) “To be Adventist is to be, first and foremost, Christian;” is precisely what I teach to people joing New Hope. Everyone who joins whether by baptism or transfer has to take a class with me. In that class I emphasize that we are Christian first and Adventist second. The exclusiveness of Adventism has been biggest hurdle to overcome. I am so interested in this point that I am editing a special issue of Adventism Today on the Future of Adventism in the US. And Julius is one of the writers for this issue. Here we will address what the mission of Adventism is all about. Is it the same as when it began or has it changed? What is our relationship to other Christians and what is God’s plan for Adventism? Big subject. Make sure you subscribe. Will come out in the July August issue.
Comment by J David Newman 02.06.07 @ 6:15 am“I am so interested in this point that I am editing a special issue of Adventism Today on the Future of Adventism in the US. And Julius is one of the writers for this issue. Here we will address what the mission of Adventism is all about. Is it the same as when it began or has it changed? What is our relationship to other Christians and what is God’s plan for Adventism? Big subject. Make sure you subscribe. Will come out in the July August issue. ”
Pastor Newman,
That’s quite a teaser. Making us wait till July or August. I can’t wait to see this issue.
Comment by Glenn 02.06.07 @ 7:23 amIn response to Comment from Julius
Time: February 2, 2007, 11:14 pm
“Ron,
I think it’s your turn to let us know what it is about Adventism that is truly relevant. After that deconstruction that you’ve just done on Nathan’s piece, you’re making me very curious as to what you might have to say.”
Ok, I will consider it when you get down the list (probably way down) to my interview.
Comment from Julius
“Meanwhile, I wonder what’s eating you, Ron =) Why do our particulars have to be *different*? Can’t we be happy with the sum of the particulars being unique? I fear you’re Ron is perpetuating the myth (in my assessment) that it’s the particular distinctives that make Adventism relevant or meaningful.”
The question you asked was about particulars, I was not inserting particulars into the subject the question was:“What about SDAism do you think is relevant?â€
To say hey we are Christians and that is our relevance would have been a more acceptable answer to me. Though it would not have been a very responsive answer to a question which is predicated upon a subset of Christianity known as SDAism. That was the problem in Nathan’s answer, it makes it appear that those things:”Hope. Health. Environment. Anti-consumerism. Relationships. Community. Lifestyle. Justice. Freedom. Compassion. Peace. Inclusiveness. Humiliy. Goodness. Kindness.”
Are not found in the rest of the Christian world we have to go to the subset of the Christian world, the SDA’s to find these relevant issues.
So yes maybe it is my problem that I think a response to a specific question should have something to do with that specific question, I guess I am funny that way.
Comment by Ron Corson 02.07.07 @ 10:05 amAs previously suggested, I was not arguing any of these were exclusive to Adventism but that Adventism has some unique contributions to make to each of these aspects of engaged Christian living.
Comment by Nathan Brown 02.07.07 @ 2:38 pmThanks for a great interview Nathan. I love your Lewis mantra: “The vernacular is the real test. If you can’t turn your faith into it, then either you don’t understand it or you don’t believe it.”
I especially resonate with the ensuing conversation about uniqueness as someone raised Adventist and still grappling with religious identify issues. I think Elaine is onto the simple marketing problem (why is our take on the Bible a better bet than the Methodists down the street who seem like nice souls). However, I love Julius’s thoughts that perhaps the urge for clarity and conciseness is what gets us into trouble in the first place, making us clearly mark who is “in” and who is “out.”
Into the mystery it is.
Comment by Daneen Akers 02.07.07 @ 8:34 pm