We Adventists seem to have a propensity to get all uptight and worked up about things, going from one extreme to the other, like a car careening from one side of the road to the other! We have often focused on the sensational and unique aspects of our message, rather than the basics contained in the words of Christ.

We have so much ‘counsel’ to get wrong. We don’t just have 66 books (as if that weren’t too much already), we have piles and piles of authorititative books. And then piles and piles of books which interpret the authoritative interpreter’s interpretation of the book which is its own expositor!!!

I like Ellen White a lot, but I don’t think she got everything right, and I believe she would be absolutely devistated if she could see how abominably and even diabolically her writings have been used and interpreted, and how many people have been hurt, as well as helped, by her best efforts!

Thank you for kicking off this latest round of discussion! At the outset of your piece you indicate “The following is the text of my response….”. I am curious as to the means you employed to prepare this text. Did you use audiotape, your speaking notes, your memory, a combination of these, or some other means altogether? The reason for my inquiry is that my memory (admittedly a weak resource) of your presentation is somewhat divergent from your text. For example, I believe I recall your presentation including an acknowledgement of your awareness that you were employing ad hominem argument (i.e. “argumentum ad hominem”). Am I mistaken here?

My take on the work of Bull & Lockhart is somewhat different than yours, especially regarding their “revolving door” model. It seems to me that the model is retrospective and descriptive, as opposed to prospective and prescriptive, and as such represents neither a deterministic nor fatalistic viewpoint. Perhaps the “visceral” defensiveness of many SDAs in response to this model is telling in and of itself. Given the demonstrated objectivity of these two, combined with their relative youth, I have little doubt that, if and when this model is no longer useful in describing dynamics within N. American Adventism, Bull & Lockhart will prove only too ready to provide us with new descriptive tools and insights.

I hope that your future endeavors include work on developing an accepted terminology relating to the “ism” of my youth, particularly in defining the borders (if any there are) surrounding Adventists and Adventism. Your use of the term “Adventist World” seems to hold promise as a starting point in this regard. It seems to me that there is room for meaningful discussion of practical norms in regard to “correct” or “best practice” personal conduct if and when one comes to a point where some subset of Adventist doctrine is clearly rejected.

1) If atonement (at-one-ment) were “finished” already, why are people still killing each other? (If I guessed at the answer, it would be that some otherworldly transaction was finished at the cross. But doesn’t the work of Christ continue, on earth, through the church? And if it doesn’t, then what are we good for?)

2) The anti-Old Testament tone in some of the conversation overlooks this fact: Jesus (and even, I imagine, the author of Hebrews) were revising a tradition they basically loved. Christianity without Hebrew passion and insight, as captured in the Old Testament, is an irrelevant gnosticism.

This is top-of-the head, and I throw it out for the purpose of conversation. Julius’s remarks, and the exchanges that followed, are terrific.

Go Third Way!

“Those only who through faith in Christ obey all of God’s commandments will reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression. They testify to their love of Christ by obeying all his precepts” (Manuscript 122, 1901, quoted in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 6, p. 1118).

“If we live a life of perfect obedience, His promises will be fulfilled toward us: T.Vol 2 pg. 122

“If they will live according to every word, He has spoken, every good word and promise will be fulfilled unto them. But if they come short of perfect obedience, the grand and precious promises are afar off, and they cannot reach the fulfillment.” T. Vol 2 pg. 148

“Each one of you needs to … [be] working with your might to redeem the failures of your past life. God has placed you in a world of suffering to prove you, to see if you will be found worthy of the gift of eternal life” (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 3, p. 530).

As the Son of man was perfect in His life, so His followers are to be PERFECT in their life. A well-balanced character is formed by single ACTS WELL PERFORMED. One defect, cultivated instead of being overcome, makes the man imperfect, and closes against him the gate of the Holy City. . . . In all the redeemed host not one defect will be seen. . . . ” The Faith I Live By, page 44,

When the character of Christ shall be perfectly reproduced in His people, then He will come to claim them as His own.” {COL 69.1}

“The Christian life is constantly an onward march. Jesus sits as a refiner and purifier of His people: and when His image is perfectly reflected in them, they are perfect and holy, and prepared for translation” Vol 1 page 340

EGW “Those who accept the Saviour, however sincere their conversion, should never be taught to say or feel that they are saved. … Those who accept Christ, and in their first confidence say, I am saved, are in danger of trusting to themselves” (Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 155).

This takes away all assurance of Salvation, for in our hearts, we all know we still make mistakes. The bible says, “he who says he is perfect, is a liar” It leaves us constantly looking at ourselves to see how successful we are in attaining total perfection. It leaves others in the church policing each other when they see errors.
I know there are EGW statements that indicate other then this, but this is the problem, she goes in every direction with her authoritative statements. It has caused total confusion in the camp. When one has been taught and sincerely believes that he must ultimately live in a perfect condition, for a whole year, without a mediator in the Sanctuary, it is terrifying to say the least. The Investigative Judgement doctrine, as most Adventist pastors teach it, is a doctrine of devils. It completely takes away our assurance of Salvation. We are continually left HOPING that we are going to make it.

I do not judge Ellen White. I leave that to God alone. But I no longer believe that everything she wrote was inspired and equal with the bible. Unfortunately, much of her early statements which would enlighten, have been deliberately deleted. Why is this? The answer is obvious.

The reason that the SDA church is in such a crisis, is that they cannot refute the 2300 day Sanctuary doctrine and all of it’s ramifications, without destroying the prophet to the remnant church. It’s a no win situation. Ellen White gives terrifying statements for those who turn their backs on the sanctuary doctrine. Unfortunately, the whole movement was built on the 1844 doctrine, which EGW says is the pillar of the church. Take that away, and the whole movement ceases to exist.
Our faith must be built on Jesus or we have nothing. “He that hath the son, hath life”

I can identify with those writing above who fail to see a heavenly sanctuary depicted in Dan 8:14 and appeal to the clear witness of Hebrews. Like many others, I discovered this for myself through direct Bible study. It was like I was the first one who had ever found this stuff. When I started to tell people, they told me I sounded like Des Ford, who I’d never read at that point.

I agree: our church commenced with a screw-up and then rebounded by launching into another screw-up to cover the first one up. I’m sure it was all done in all sincerity, but it was a screw-up nevertheless.

I also fail to see any Biblical injunction to teetotalism and can’t see the New Testament continuing to endorse a clean/unclean food dichotomy.

So am I still an Adventist? Absolutely.

For me, the saving grace is that the 28 Fundamentals were conceived with a preamble. Thank God for the preamble!!!

And I quote:

Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church’s understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture.

Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God’s Holy Word.

Quote ends

In other words, we’re not perfect - we haven’t yet arrived at the pinnacle of truth (will we ever?).

When I okayed the Fundamentals at my baptism, I also okayed the preamble. And in order for a “fuller understanding” and “better language” to be possible, there needs to be room for discussion and even dissent.

I’ve changed address and I’m about to change my membership to the new church I’m attending. I’ll be letting the pastor know where I’m at with the 28. It’ll be up to him and the Board to decide whether my loyalty is sufficient. All I can do is be honest and true to my conscience.

But at some point, “somebody” needs to summon up the courage and suggest official changes to our sanctuary doctrine, our health doctrine and anything else that does not stand up to clear Biblical examination. I’m too chicken and doubt the quality of my scholarship at this point.

But the mechanism exists for suggested changes to the 28 Fundamentals to go through the various heirarchical Boards and Committees to the GC. Would such suggestions make it through? Has it been tried before? I don’t know. Can anyone enlighten me on this point.

I’ve sometimes wondered what would happen if there was an organised attempt to introduce amendments to the 28 by a large number of people at various locations around the world at the same time. Surely at least one or two would sneak through the trickle up process?

Sorry Julius, these discussions always get sidetracked. Enjoyed your article, even if I haven’t read Bull & Lockart.

The entire Old Testament, namely Jewish religious system, with its history, fragments, facets - law, tabernacle, liturgy, sacrifices, festivals, observances – stood for the old covenant, a shadow, a copy that met its original in Jesus Christ, the Word Incarnate, God’s final and complete revelation to man. By the virtue of his saving work Jesus introduced a new covenant or “the time of the new order”, thus making the old one obsolete (Hebrews 7:22., 8:7.13., 9:10).

The entire Book of Hebrews makes this clear by stressing the superiority of Jesus in relation to every detail of the old covenant. Thus Jesus stands for – a better Moses, (who was the best of the prophets) (3:2.), a better meaning of Sabbath (4:9.), a better priesthood (7:12.24.), a better law (7:12.), a better high priest (7:15.16.26.27.), a better sacrifice (7:27., 9:26., 10:12.), a better ministry (8:6.), a better hope (7:18.), a better promise (8:6.7.), a better covenant (7:22., 8:13., 9:13.), a better order (9:10.11.), a better tabernacle (chapter 9), a better access to the Father (6:19., 10:19-22.)

To retain elements of the inferior shadowy old covenant as if they were the reality themselves, would mean to veil, undermine, even make a mockery of the impact, importance and significance of the mechanism by which the New Covenant was put into effect; namely the once-and-for-all completed Atonement in the life and death experience of Jesus Christ. It would mean just the same as if one were to proclaim the insufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice. It would also mean to remain unnecessarily under the veil, under the law, dull and blind to the light of the gospel. (2. Corinthians 3:12-16.)

Expressions such as “after he had provided purification” (1:3.), “having obtained eternal redemption” (9:12.), “appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin” (9:26.), “offered for all time one sacrifice for sins” (10:10.12., 7:27., 9:26.), “entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood “ (9:12.), “he sat down at the right hand of God” (1:3.,. 8:1., 10:12., 12:2.) – strongly imply the completed activity, and the one of the most profound importance, namely the finished Atonement, which was followed by His immediate return to the Father’s most immediate presence (Hebrews 9:12.).

Nowhere in the Book of Hebrews is there a suggestion or a hint that whatever followed His return to his Father’s presence was to be a continuation of the Atonement, nor that the atonement is a phased process with different stages of emphasis. The concept that infuses any kind of ongoing heavenly liturgy into the finished atonement is not far away from the Roman-Catholic concept of Christ who is being continuously sacrificed, every time and whenever the Holy Mass is conducted. Such a concept certainly perverts the gospel of Christ, because the objective nature of the Atonement is lost. In other words, the ongoing heavenly liturgy becomes the ground for my acceptance in addition to the blood of Jesus.

To go a step further, by claiming that sometimes, at a much later date, commenced “the great antitypical Day of Atonement” equals to making the mockery of the Gospel because it gives another date the redemptive significance which only belongs to the Cross, and to the Cross alone. The ongoing atonement concept confuses a follower of Christ seeking the assurance of salvation. On the contrary, the intercessory ministry of Jesus only makes sense if placed within the context of the-once-and-for-all completed Atonement at the Cross. Christ does not intercede in order to save, but He qualifies to intercede because He has already atoned for our sins.

It was the finished, successfully completed atonement that empowered Jesus to go boldly, “on behalf of man” (6:19.), “where none had gone before” – to the very presence of the Father, to the “consuming fire” (Heb. 12:29.), to the “unapproachable light” (1. Timothy 6:16.), to the very throne of God (Hebrews 8:1.). What no other man could had ever done before due to the damage caused by sin, He achieved by the one sacrifice. His crucified body became the bridge between the two irreparably separate realities – earthly and heavenly, never to be un-bridged again. The age of separation, represented by the Holy Place was gone forever, and the age of free access to the Father, represented by the Most Holy Place, had began. Even the veil between the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place in the Jewish temple was “torn in two from top to bottom” (Mark 15:38.) at the time of crucifixion, pointing that the end of separation between man and God had gone for good. Through Jesus the access to the Father was now open forever. As C.S. Lewis has put it: “Once crucified Master was now the supreme Agent of the unimaginable Power on whom the whole universe depends”.

Instead of teaching that Jesus Christ Himself is now involved in a complex heavenly intercessory liturgy, which moves him from one location to another across the heavenly divides, during which process various doors are being closed and opened, the Book of Hebrews acknowldeges only one location - the very presence of God into which believers are being continually invited to enter “with confidence” (Hebrews 4:16.) “as long as it is called today” (Hebrews 3:13.) through a “new and living way” (Hebrews 10:19-22.) - namely through Jesus Christ. Indeed, by faith and on the account of Jesus’s perfect sacrifice, believer may already count himself dwelling in the very presence of God, because “God seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 2:6.).

Thus, “The right hand of the Majesty in heaven” (Heb. 1:3. 8:1., 12:2., Acts 6:55.56.), ”the inner sanctuary behind the curtain” (Heb. 6:19. 10.20), “the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord” (Heb. 8:2) and “the Most Holy Place” (Heb. 9:24), even the Mount Zion (12:22.) and the heavenly Jerusalem (12:22.) – all stand for one and the same reality which is the very throne of God, the city of the living God (10:22), namely the heaven itself (9:24.), where Christians of all ages have been called to come with confidence, freedom and assurance, since the time of Cross and not since 1844.

If the Adventist Church desires to move forward it needs to become honest to the centrality of the Gospel in Jesus Christ, that totaly abolishes any affirmative interpretation regarding 1884. Cosmetic changes touching only the cultural aspect of Adventism will not sufice.

Unlike some others, I find the Creation Sabbath of great worth. I do not necessarily feel that I am “under” the restrictions, regulations and death penalty of the Exodus Sabbath, which was intended to regulate millions of slaves. Neither do I abide by rules of the Pharisees or the limitations of Ellen White. But I find the unencumbered original Sabbath both a gift and a delight.

I don’t think the day/year theory from the book of Ezekiel (”I have appointed thee a day for a year”) should be taken out of context and applied to Daniel 8:14, making “2300 evening-mornings”, into 2300 years (starting in 457 BC and ending in 1844 AD). “Twenty-three hundred evening-mornings” would be just over 6 years, not over two millenniums. It is an end-time prophecy according to the angel.

Neither do I believe that Jesus went into the Most Holy Place “for the first time” in 1844 to make atonement. Scripture teaches that He made atonement at the cross and went into the Most Holy Place at the ascension, soon after the resurrection. He was already there, as our High Priest, mediating the blood of the New Covenant, when the book of Hebrews was written.

Jesus didn’t come to earth in 1844, and He didn’t go into the Most Holy place “for the first time” in 1844 as the SDA pioneers thought. This idea was hatched up by an ever-so-sincere, but sleep-deprived and disappointed man named Hiram Edson in a dried-up cornpatch the next morning. He was going more on emotion than on deep and careful Bible study. Ellen White made the mistake of endorsing his view as a substitute theory for the failed return of Christ to earth. It was a desperate attempt to salvage their mistaken interpretation of prophecy. After the Great Disappointment, they created another Great Disaster and Delusion which still persists today, championed primarily by SDAs. The pioneers also claimed that probation closed in the 1840’s. They taught this from about 1846-1851. They were wrong on every point. It was confusion and fanaticism. People were being “slain in the spirit” and “getting messages”, falling off of chairs, and crawling on the floor, shouting, disturbing the neighborhood, greeting one another with “holy kisses”. You get the idea.

We need to move on—hard to do, but necessary. We must have more thorough Bible study, and take more accurate positions, that will stand up to scrutiny, instead of adopting other people’s theories, assumptions and fantasies.

However, I have found it helpful to refer to the later period Life of Christ books of Ellen White (Desire of Ages, Christ’s Object Lessons, and Thoughts From the Mount of Blessing) for her mature inspired thoughts. Even Desmond Ford (in his 1979 Forum presentation called Desire of Ages the greatest book ever written other than the Bible - I hope I’m remembering correctly) and Walter Rea (who in published correspondance with Alden Thompson indicated he could preach from Desire of Ages - again, I hope I’m remembering accurately).

I’m not suggesting that everything is fine, when it’s not. Just that it is better to approach difficult issues and to heal hurt feelings from a position of positive faith with the Teachings of Jesus at the center of all theological studies, both positive and negative.

Until the leaders of the SDA church can present evidence that all these cover ups and many more then I mentioned, are not factual, there will continue to be a crisis in Adventism. which is not going away any time soon. By ignoring it or trying to act as if it didn’t happen or coming up with the “New Inspiration” theory, by tearing down the bible writers in order to justify Ellen White’s blunders, . I’m sorry Mr. Nam, but your attempt at side stepping the real issues just don’t make sense to intelligent, thinking minds.

I am just an old 3rd generation SDA who about 30 years ago decided to go back and take a careful look at the historical “roots” of Adventism to find out for myself “whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11) that I had been taught from birth up through Cradle Role to college Graduate studies in Adventist schools.
But, according to EGW, this is a dangerous course –to study your roots and check out the foundation of your belief system and worldview. She describes those Millerites who “stepped off the platform to examine it” as “fighting against God,” “for God was the Master builder”. (See EW 258-259, 250-251; etc.) She even says God held His hand over some Millerite errors so they would not see them! Her whole perspective on Millerism is colored by her “holy experiences” as a teenager in the Midnight Cry and their “little flock’s” conclusion that God was leading them, so Millerism could not have been a false belief system. But compare this with what Jesus, the True “Master Builder”, says in His parable of the foolish man who built his house on the sand. Jesus and Paul (another “Master builder”) both advised their followers to dig down through all the sand and rubbish of human intellectual comparativism and false traditions to the Solid Rock for our Sure Foundation in times of storm and trouble.(Matt. 7;24-27; Lk. 6:47-49 1 Cor. 3:10-15).

My Bible tells me to “believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” (1 John 4:1). Jesus did not agree with the dissident Samaritans who “worship ye know not what.” (John 4:22). He also condemned the Jewish “blind leaders of the blind,” for, “if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.” (Matt. 15:14). He also warned against following false “traditions of the elders” that make “the commandment of God of none effect” (Matt. 15:2-6; Mark 7:3-13). The “more noble” Bereans “searched the scriptures daily,” seeking to know “whether those things were so” –both the traditions they had been taught by their elders and Christ’s New Covenant that Paul was then teaching them. (Acts 17:11).

What my historical Adventist “root studies” found was not this “unwise” “sociological comparativism” I see in Seeking a Sanctuary,” but a false Millerite “time-setting” “theory or system” just like so many other false “time setters” have followed into “great disappointments” all during the last 2,000 years of Christian history– in direct disregard of our Lord’s last warning to His apostles (Acts 1:6-7).
And when Miller himself manfully acknowledged his “error as to the time,” what did the little “Sabbath and shut door” “little flock” do (that later became the core of the Seventh-day Adventist Church)? Did they also honestly acknowledge their “error as to the time” like “father Miller” did? No! Instead, they condemned “father Miller”, claiming he was “led astray” by his brethren– and then they followed a so-called “vision” seen the morning after their Great Disappointment by one Hirum Edson (later expounded by Crosier) that REINTERPRETED the disappointment not as Christ’s EARTHLY Second Coming but as His “HEAVENLY coming to His Father” –”for the first time”– into the heavenly sanctuary’s Holy of Holies– in 1844 AD– directly contrary to the unanimous clear teachings of the whole NT that Christ “sat down at His Father’s right hand”– right after His ascension !! Ellen White soon endorsed this unbiblical REINTERPRETATION as “the true light on the sanctuary,” and later strongly supported the “Investigative Judgment” doctrine that soon developed out of it in the late 1850’s.
I had to ask myself, should I blindly follow these “blind leaders of the blind” right “into the ditch”? This whole Millerite time-setting system and early SDA REINTERPRETATION of it was simply WRONG, absolutely unbiblical!

I don’t see how any amount of “intellectualizing” and “sociological comparativism” can ever change these plain HISTORICAL and THEOLOGICAL FACTS into anything but a sad history of false “time setting” and subsequent misguided attempts to “reinterpret” the Great Disappointment to try to make it more palatable and believable. The simple truth is that these facts are the basis of the current SDA “Identity Crisis.” God did not lead the “blind leaders of the blind” into the current “ditch” of the “identity crisis” in which Adventism now finds itself. The pile of errors swept under the rug is now too noticable to ignore or cover up. The only resolution of this crisis is to honestly admit our “unique” core beliefs were fundamental unbiblical theological errors, and that our ‘traditions of the elders” have only perpetuated them, and then follow Jesus and His Good News in simple faith and trust, following the Light that “lights every man that cometh into the world.” (John 1:9).

I can not, and would not choose to divorce myself from the friendships, the values and the sense of ministry, that have surrounded me from my earliest days. But honestly calling myself a member of the SDA church is more than that, isn’t it? It must mean that I also accept the
very foundation (reason for being) on which the church is built - that “we are God’s special people chosen to deliver the final message of deliverence to a fallen world.” What if my most deeply held spiritual convictions are no longer that narrow? What are my options?

Do I join the ongoing debate over our “unique” doctrinal positions in the hope that they might be modified in some way? Whats the possibility of real change when we’re talking about the core identity of the church and church leadership’s fear that we might become like “any other Christian denomination?” That would be turning their back on God’s call - no real change possible.

Do I participate in the safer discussion (now - not 25 years ago) on how to soften the graceless sting of some of our “special truths?” But in doing that aren’t we really opening the door of grace wider today only to shut it once again in the future (not our responsibility this time - God’s the Judge) on the basis of our “special truths?” Seems so, if we really beleive that one way or another only those who accept “God’s final message” will inhabit eternity. The intellectual and emotional dissonance is too great.

Isn’t the current attrition in the North American SDA church more about discomfort with the “them - us” (read saved - lost) nature of our theology than anything else? It can’t be lifestyle any longer causing people to leave “the family” even though the church leadership wishes it were that simple.

I love my “family”, and I have great relationships with most of my cousins and several of my uncles and aunts. And we all love and respect grandpa although we never discuss religion at Thankgiving anymore. He’s never going to change, his convictions run deep - and we’re never going to change, so do ours.

I have lived in the Sanctuary of Adventism in many different ways. As a missionary kid in the heathen longhouses of Borneo trying to teach sons of headhunters the 2,300 day prophecy from picture rolls, to a sanctuary in the form of a pulpit at a large Adventist church in the south where I tried to preach peace in the midst of a sanctuary war between the conservatives and liberals. After a personal crisis, the Sanctuary ceased to protect me…I had to walk out the revolving door.

Today I live in another kind of sanctuary ..I am a business owner in Sin City-Las Vegas, with MGM Casino and Trump Towers as some of my customers’ .Funny thing about these places that Adventism would call “worldly”.. They too have revolving doors!

Sometimes on a Friday night, as I walk past the noisy slot machines and the beautiful show-girls, a song from college vespers would fill my head..”Day is Dying in the West” and for a few seconds it is as if I am jolted with an Adventist Endorphin. Ah..The romance of Adventism. I just can’t shake it loose. Perhaps this is my Sanctuary?

Audrey: It was great to meet you in Santa Rosa. Thanks for sharing with me similar struggles for self-definition and re-appropriation that you’re facing in your tradition. I think the binary approach works well for many people, while for others it’s the most suffocating thing. Do you think it possibly comes down to personality style, rather than theology?

Dave & Joselito: You have given me two different responses to my suggestion of defining “Adventist” more broadly, though Joselito has chosen to go more in-depth with it.

I guess I sound like “once an Adventist, always an Adventist.” It’s very autobiographical–what I’m doing. I confess that I’m projecting my Adventist experience and creating a definition out of it. That’s how we normalize our experiences.

I think Adventism can be thought of being in layers or multiple concentric circles. I’m not simply broadening the one circle to the rest of the world touched by Adventism. I think there’s value in formal declarations and clear community boundaries. Still, I don’t think one ceases to be an Adventist just because he/she leaves the community. I recognize that there can be other ways of claiming Adventism for oneself that go beyond the formal boundaries.

The question is: When does re-appropriation along the trajectory of the tradition become cooptation and betrayal of tradition?

Another figure that came to mind in light of your eagerness to make all sanctuaries Adventist inclusive and in connection with your vision of Adventism’s transformation from sect to a mature community : Are you not simply painting “Adventism” on all the street signs you encounter?

Labels and their contents are social constructs. To be meaningful, there must be genuine dialogue: Not, you’re an Adventist because I said so!

It does make me rather sad that progressives like us have to keep reminding people that there are Third Ways: we aren’t either dogmatics or heretics; we aren’t either rule-bound legalists or hedonists; we aren’t either Democrats or Republicans; we aren’t either men or women (whatever those terms mean in the cultures they are used within); we aren’t either “with US or with the terrorists.” There are always third options open beyond the binaries we are squished into. And, even after all these years, it takes prophets to keep reminding us that. Thanks for keeping up this much-needed tradition of prophesying, Julius!

Wayne: That’s the nicest backhanded complement I’ve ever gotten…hahaha. Frankly, I don’t understand everything I’ve written myself. That is, all the implications of what I stated remain to be seen. And…probably your bewilderment has something to do with the fact that this was written as a response to Bull & Lockhart’s book and presentation at the conference where this essay was read. Essentially, you’re getting only one side of the conversation. Have you read their book? If you did, what did you think of their main theses?