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.

“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?”
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.

Pastor Newman,

That’s quite a teaser. Making us wait till July or August. I can’t wait to see this issue.

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

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.

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.”

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

“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:
““What about SDAism do you think is relevant?”
Your answer is the general characteristics of Christianity with the exception of our exclusive remnant status which makes us more humble.

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?

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.

good interview; wished I got to know you better when you were at the GC.

My only criticism is–Grow some hair!

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
the subject morphed from Solomon to Sam Harris’ book the End of Faith.

“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).
If 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.”
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.

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?