tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.comments2022-10-23T08:50:54.845-04:00αpokaluptoDavid Hamstrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00918076742603923375noreply@blogger.comBlogger579125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-92103055040240139192022-10-05T17:46:33.966-04:002022-10-05T17:46:33.966-04:00Steve if 13 is positive how does it produce what h...Steve if 13 is positive how does it produce what happens as a result? And if 13 is negative how could the exact same words be positive 3 verses earlier? Remember that the capitalized He is an interpretation. Context would suggest the he refers to the priest and/or the prophet and when read that way the entire chapter makes perfect sense. Only tradition is preventing it from being read as it reads.Pastor Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13123888052840135593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-49732952459334453282022-10-05T17:45:14.984-04:002022-10-05T17:45:14.984-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Pastor Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13123888052840135593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-14610308786339986032022-09-13T00:55:19.883-04:002022-09-13T00:55:19.883-04:00Thank you for sharing this profound article! God b...Thank you for sharing this profound article! God bless your ministry work for His cause!<br /><a href="https://sdahymnalsongs.com/Hymnal/693-almighty-father-hear-our-prayer/" rel="nofollow">SDA Sabbath Songs</a>DEEPAK SARDARhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08011610122854252678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-81417354729593766042022-03-13T19:00:13.692-04:002022-03-13T19:00:13.692-04:00very informative very informative Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01220746766135846673noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-39990305450567086332022-02-21T13:06:16.417-05:002022-02-21T13:06:16.417-05:00I wholly agree that "Relying more on smaller ...I wholly agree that "Relying more on smaller free associations would get us something else we need to get along with material benefits but can't get from organizations to which we are numbers, not people: affirmation of our way of life from those we respect." I learned this from Roy Branson who learned it from Talcott Parsons who learned it, at least in part, from Alexis de Tocqueville who identified them as a distinctive feature of North American life. I have the impression that a number of contemporary communitarians are traveling down a similar path; however, I have no first hand knowledge of this. Roy Branson thought of Adventist Forum and "Spectrum" along these lines. You are in good company! David R. Larsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07871869981013920010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-33416282040589599652021-04-08T14:15:51.832-04:002021-04-08T14:15:51.832-04:00My son David has pointed-out that may of the claim...My son David has pointed-out that may of the claims made by an anonymous commenter are unsourced and potentially untestable. However the claims regarding the lethality of leprosy vs COVID are testable from published sources. In the following evaluation I am drawing from data published by the WHO (for leprosy) and by the USCDC, AMA and Johns Hopkins (for COVID).<br /><br />First I would like to remind readers that the overall human mortality rate is 100% with very few exceptions (eg Enoch, Elijah). Even Methuselah eventually died (possibly by drowning in the flood?). It is true that 100% of lepers eventually die, and that would include the leprosy "survivors" healed by Christ. It is also true that 100% of COVID "survivors" will eventually die. The best hope to arrest this mortality rate is the Second Advent. <br /><br />According to the WHO, in a study in Southern India (published in 1972) where the incidence of leprosy is far higher than in North America, leprosy was a contributing cause in about 1% of all deaths. On the other hand, data published by the CDC shows that in 2020 COVID was the third leading cause of death in the USofA. Depending on how you analyze the data COVID was a contributing cause in at least 20% to 25% of all deaths in the USofA, whereas leprosy was insignificant.<br /><br />Without modern medical interventions the ancient death rate from leprosy would perhaps have been higher than in Southern India a half century ago. Had there been a COVID pandemic in ancient times the death rate would have been much higher than presently in the USofA today. One only has to consider the relative mortality from the Spanish Flu pandemic a century ago to appreciate how much less mortality is experienced with modern medical care, or the death rates experienced early in the COVID pandemic while doctors were learning how to treat these unfortunate patients.<br /><br />From the foregoing, it is entirely reasonable for civil authorities to treat COVID as a public health emergency. If quarantining anyone who showed early symptoms of potential leprosy was reasonable in the law of Moses, quarantines and other extreme measures taken to arrest the spread of COVID are Biblically supportable.<br /><br />Next I would like to address what may in part be a typo in the same anonymous comment. From CDC data the short-term death rate from reported COVID cases in the USofA is about 1.8%. CDC and AMA studies would support a ratio of total vs reported COVID case of 4:1 to 6:1. Taking the higher ratio the short-term death rate from COVID in the USofA would be 0.3%, rather than the .003% in the comment, presumably a typo given the same comment claims a 99.7% survival rate.<br /><br />However comparing the short-term death rate from COVID to the long-term death rate from leprosy is a major fallacy. Nobody knows what will be the long-term death rate for COVID. Preliminary studies are showing indications of ongoing respiratory impairment and symptoms of brain damage in COVID survivors, at rates that may be an order of magnitude higher than the short-term mortality rate.Jim Hamstrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11262977923479647353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-76981714428572078992021-03-08T14:31:54.689-05:002021-03-08T14:31:54.689-05:00In what follows, I will address selected claims ma...In what follows, I will address selected claims made above by an anonymous commenter to further clarify my positions and methods in the essay above for the sake of my readers.<br /><br />First, to the commenter's claims that I have written something wrong or unseemly, it is my experience that anonymous rebukes are to be taken with a grain of salt. There is nothing shameful about addressing arguments that a fellow pastor and church have offered to the public to justify their course of civil disobedience precisely because civil disobedience and the consequences it entails are not their own justification. My conscience compeled me to respectfully disagree and explain why. In the course of doing so, I did not impugn the character of Pastor Coates or GraceLife Church. I explained why they are mistaken without impugning their motives. We cannot say the same for what the commenter wrote about me.<br /><br />Second, the commenter made a host of historical and scientific claims that we cannot evaluate because the commenter did not provide any sources for those claims.<br /><br />Third, many of the skin lesions that were cause for quarantine according to Old Testament law were symptomatic of skin diseases that were not the disease that we call leprosy today (see, for example, https://answersingenesis.org/biology/disease/biblical-leprosy-shedding-light-on-the-disease-that-shuns/). There is no biblical evidence about how debilitating the effects of those other skin lesions were. So we cannot limit the principle of quarantine on the assumption that biblical quarantine was only practiced for a skin disease with severely debilitating effects.<br /><br />Fourth, I did not use A.T. Jones as a source for my claim that shutdowns fall within the government's scope of authority but as a source for my claim that the two-tables principle is part of the Adventist tradition.<br /><br />Fifth, I do not deny that there is a first-table issue at stake in limiting the size of worship gatherings and the ability to conduct them during a pandemic. The point is that there is also a second-table issue at stake which falls under the authority of the government. This is also the case when, to appeal to a generally non-controversial example, the government sets an occupancy limit on a worship space based on fire safety regulations, which limit religious liberty in order to prevent a very small number of disasters from happening.<br /><br />Sixth, I agree with the commenter that religious liberty was alluded to by the Founders in their list of inalienable rights, but not as in addition to them. Rather, it was likely a part of what would have been involved the "pursuit of happiness" according to liberal political philosophy at the time. The other general rights contemplated but not mentioned in the Declaration were likely along the lines of Locke's "indolency of body; and the possession of outward things" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_Liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_Happiness). But we still need a way of explaining where rights have their limits, and understanding general, non-specific rights as being less limited and specific rights as more so seems to hold.<br /><br />I think most North Americans would agree that where religious practices jeopardize others' life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and other general rights, they are liable to be limited, albeit in ways that are narrowly tailored to the objective because religious liberty doesn't simply go away just because it has limits. Accordingly, I approve of the US Supreme Court's order that California permit houses of worship to reopen because I hold that religious liberty requires that religious groups should not have greater second-table restrictions on them than other groups in civil society.David Hamstrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00918076742603923375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-35041797096465463992021-03-08T13:31:24.312-05:002021-03-08T13:31:24.312-05:00When it comes to freedom I would expect more from ...When it comes to freedom I would expect more from a "liberal", though perhaps this affiliation is a new school liberal and not the classic school that I may lean to. Reading this I am struck by Niemoller quote of-They came for the socialist, unioinist and Jew but I said nothing as I was not them, when they came for me- there was no one left to speak for me. (paraphrased). Interestingly it ends with a statement that You (individual) are within your rights to exercise free speech and they (government) forcing restrictions on your constitutional rights is within their authority , and at no time as they restrict our religious freedoms should the argument of religious freedoms be voiced. Seems strange to come from a "Shepard" of a church. The argument of the Lepers has to do with a known disease- Alberta restricting healthy people from attending or singing does not apply here, unless we wont be using actual numbers released from the government. Quarantining people and restricting participation before someone is sick is closer to the Minority Report where you can be arrested before you commit a crime, maybe that doesnt apply, but certainly the Leper argument does NOT apply here. PoppaJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12468776625530138572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-84924921821365810392021-03-07T22:14:32.177-05:002021-03-07T22:14:32.177-05:00Finally, there are no examples in the Scriptures w...Finally, there are no examples in the Scriptures where the sanctuary service was shut down because some people had leprosy or any other illness. And only sick people had to quarantine. The forced confinement of healthy people is a disgrace to a free society, and shame on David Hamstra for his defense of such oppressive measures. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02742833398134576977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-57813705061716792032021-03-07T21:57:05.134-05:002021-03-07T21:57:05.134-05:00pt 4
3. Hamstra misrepresents the inalienable ri...pt 4 <br /><br />3. Hamstra misrepresents the inalienable rights provision in the Declaration of Independence, and falsely claims that the rights spoken of are confined to “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” This is simply incorrect. The Founders prefaced the rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness with the words “among them”. Liberty of conscience and religion are included not excluded from “inalienable rights. <br /><br />In fact, the First Amendment to the Constitution states that Congress shall make no law with respect to the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and the right to assemble to seek the redress of public grievances. In other words, these rights are inalienable. <br /><br />Patrick Henry said “give me liberty or give me death.” The reason he said that is because death is preferable to slavery. <br />In Canada, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says that Canada is a society which is to be a “free and democratic society”. Nowhere does it say that it will be a safe society, or nanny state like the one being proposed by Hamstra. <br />5. Generally, Hamstra ought to be more concerned to stand up for the religious rights of his brother, instead of kicking him while he is in prison. Job’s useless friends, anyone? Do you think that kicking an evangelical pastor while he’s down will make it more likely or less likely that he will support your religious liberty regarding the Sabbath? <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02742833398134576977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-87080193963442398432021-03-07T21:56:40.904-05:002021-03-07T21:56:40.904-05:00pt 3
Dr. Hinshaw is certainly interfering in rel...pt 3 <br /><br />Dr. Hinshaw is certainly interfering in religious worship and doing so on the false and deceptive promise of “safety”. Do we forget so easily what the Scriptures say? “For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.” Government cannot make you safe. That is an illusion, and one which many are embracing, trading that which is of infinitely greater value – their personal liberty. <br />Slavish reliance on the government to safeguard health is an act of idolatry. Jesus said - “man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” <br />The Adventist church with its health message ought to be the last denomination on the planet excusing government lockdowns on the pretense of safeguarding public health. At no point in Canada’s history has the government ever prevented religious gatherings, not even during swine flu or Spanish flu, both of which were far more dangerous than Covid. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02742833398134576977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-40733140056291553022021-03-07T21:55:17.868-05:002021-03-07T21:55:17.868-05:002. Hamstra misuses A T Jones. Hamstra cites Jone...2. Hamstra misuses A T Jones. Hamstra cites Jones’ arguments on the Blair Bill and then tries to argue by implication that Jones would support his argument that the health requirements do not infringe the first four Commandments in the Decalogue, and therefore that Caesar (the state) has lawful jurisdiction to prevent churches from gathering/severely controlling services. <br /><br />With all due respect to Hamstra, this argument is just simply incorrect. <br /><br />The first four Commandments in the decalogue deal with the worship of God. The first commandment requires people to have no other gods before the Lord. The second commandment forbids idolatry. <br />On its face, telling people they can’t gather to worship God in accordance with their conscience and religion on the pretense of stopping Covid (which is not a credible threat to the majority of the population) is interfering with the first commandment. It is reminiscent of Daniel 5, and the prohibition on praying to anyone but Darius. <br />More to the point, however, the sacrilegious elevation of healthcare to the single predominant priority and power in Canada is an act of idolatry. Mankind has obligations to their Creator that the state is prohibited from meddling with. Each person is a free moral agent, an individual, created by God, and the right of individual conscience is a sacred principle. In a free society, where a virus like Covid is present, thinking people have a right to decide to gather or not gather. <br />If you think its too great a risk to go to church, don’t go. Stay home. Be afraid. But in a free society, a free people have a right to go, to hold Bible studies in their homes, to make judgments about the (miniscule) risks to their person and act accordingly. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02742833398134576977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-29558068278131828202021-03-07T21:49:48.876-05:002021-03-07T21:49:48.876-05:00Pt 1
I’d like to make a few points in response t...Pt 1 <br /><br />I’d like to make a few points in response to this embarrassing and misleading essay. <br />First though, the fact that David Hamstra has taken the opportunity to kick James Coates while he is down and in prison for his faith, shows terrible judgment on Hamstra’s part. Hamstra’s essay comes of as petty and arrogant, and if he wasn’t so busy throwing stones at a man in prison he might realize just how small it makes him look. <br />That aside, Hamstra’s essay contains a number of deceptive/misleading arguments which need to be addressed, some of which are the following. <br />1. Hamstra compares leprosy (he cites Leviticus 13 and 14, both chapters dealing with the examination and exclusion of lepers) and Covid and the government of Alberta closing or severely limiting church services. Frankly, comparing the Levitical isolation of persons with leprosy from the camp of ancient Israel to Covid is ridiculous. <br /><br />Lepers were known to be lepers because they showed physical symptoms of a disease which was always crippling and debilitating and horrific. There was no treatment for it. People who contracted it had to isolate, not for 14 days, but usually for the rest of their lives. The fear of leprosy in the ancient world was not misplaced. <br /><br />The vast majority of people who get covid, by contrast, recover without any treatment whatsoever. The mortality rate for covid across all age groups is .003%. That means the survival rate for Covid is 99.7%. Let that sink in while you contemplate whether Hamstra’s comparison of leprosy to covid makes any sense. <br /><br />Furthermore, most people who get covid are asymptomatic, meaning that Covid is so little of a threat that when people get it, most of them never even know they had it. Those who exhibit symptoms typically exhibit mild symptoms. <br /><br />When you got leprosy you knew it. When your fingers and nose fall off its impossible to miss. <br /> <br />The comparison of leprosy or other deadly illnesses like Ebola, with covid, is intellectually dishonest, and is a foundational and flawed premise to Hamstra’s article. <br /><br />Hamstra proceeds from his flawed premise to the conclusion that, because Covid is so dangerous government is justified in overriding citizens’ constitutional rights and their free will. He cursorily alludes to data from the US to justify Canada’s lockdowns, ignoring the fact that states that didn’t lock down faired about the same as states that did lock down but the non-lockdown states preserved civil liberties and their economies are not devastated. Hamstra also doesn’t tell the reader that the data shows that 2020 was not an abnormal year in Canada or in any province for aggregate deaths when compared with 2017, 2018 and 2019. <br /><br />Let me repeat – Covid is so deadly it didn’t move the needle on deaths for 2020 when compared to 2017, 2018 and 2019. <br /><br />Hamstra gives a mere nod to the socio-economic-constitutional devastation wrought by the lockdowns. His argument about how good it is that government has overridden civil liberties ignores the fact that people are literally killing themselves because of the lockdowns. Many people have lost everything – their jobs, their businesses, their domestic peace, their freedom. Drug and alcohol abuse is through the roof. Domestic violence is way up. Suicides are skyrocketing. But Hamstra thinks James Coates is wrong for wanting to minister to his hurting congregation. Maybe some of Hamstra’s congregants secretly wish they had a pastor with the principles and the courage of James Coates, instead of the petty pastor who takes pot shots at Coates while he’s in prison. I note Coates congregation is growing rapidly. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02742833398134576977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-32454789497201044612021-03-04T06:22:56.808-05:002021-03-04T06:22:56.808-05:00I was a member of the church Lowell Rideout was pa...I was a member of the church Lowell Rideout was pastor at, down here in northern Kentucky. That was in the early 90’s. I lost faith in the sda, and left. <br /><br />I was bored, and Lowell’s name popped into my head so, I googled him. You can’t imagine my shock, and surprise, when I started reading this account of his behavior as a marriage counselor!!!! <br /><br />I can’t add much, except that 30 years ago he seemed like a decent man. Maybe he quickly left Kentucky for a similar reason? That part, I don’t know for I had already left the church. Painkillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08397762998462787536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-19712247236270960882021-02-28T09:25:17.301-05:002021-02-28T09:25:17.301-05:00This was an excellent article!This was an excellent article!Sergiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11710771607249915761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-87308526703712622872020-09-03T17:08:55.512-04:002020-09-03T17:08:55.512-04:00Thanks, Gary!
I think you are spot on in your obs...Thanks, Gary!<br /><br />I think you are spot on in your observations about liberal and conservative theology vis a vis traditional and contemporary worship. I, too, find that the liberal theology and traditional worship get along very well. And where conservative theology thrives is more often in churches with contemporary worship. Not that the other combinations don't exist as well.David Hamstrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00918076742603923375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-48639143657889087312020-09-02T14:20:27.894-04:002020-09-02T14:20:27.894-04:00Great thoughts and well written.
Several years ag...Great thoughts and well written.<br /><br />Several years ago, some of us mavericks at the seminary were seeking ways to plant churches that would reach postmodern, secular urbanites. Thanks to NADEI, we were provided resources and a network to gather about 100 people from around the globe. This post would have fueled some great discussion.<br /><br />As I read down through the four categories, I was tempted to think of myself perfectly balanced in the center cross hairs. But when we got to the discussion of the apocalyptic group, I winced.<br /><br />On paper, this group sounds good, but as you alluded (maybe accidentally), these folks tend to see themselves as the police for other people's beliefs and practices. I've pastored too many churches with strong arm zealots who seem to have free reign in those churches. Because of their focus on the Third Angel, a litany of EGW quotes, and an impressive way of keeping KJV and the church manual close by, they gain power and control.<br /><br />If it weren't for those shenanigans, I'd probably not lean so far left - but I want nothing to do with that tyranny.<br /><br />On the other hand, social justice and recovery, taken too far, can abandon the power of the gospel and rely too much on methods and human solutions. And finally, evangelical Adventism is beginning to look too self-centered.<br /><br />I recently drew a similar graph. The horizontal lines was a measurement of conservative vs. liberal (Adventist/biblical) theology. The vertical axis is a measurement of traditional vs. contemporary style.<br /><br />I find that what many people call "conservative" is actually traditional, and what they call "liberal" is actually contemporary - when either one could be leaning to literal Bible theology, or a more relaxed reading of biblical understanding. For instance, my last church leaned towards to the traditional worship style, yet called themselves conservative (note: they were quite liberal ).<br /><br />It would be great if you could get religious sociologists to develop a survey - I'm betting you could get some great data to support your theories!<br /><br />Nice post!gwalterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17718853479599970033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-55922723575909128012019-11-09T22:27:59.341-05:002019-11-09T22:27:59.341-05:00We need to go back to the old paths where is the g...We need to go back to the old paths where is the good way, and walk therein and find rest for our souls.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11461098129321557584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-92013576113466343372019-08-22T08:57:09.431-04:002019-08-22T08:57:09.431-04:00I have expanded the answer to the question above i...I have expanded the answer to the question above into an article: https://thecompassmagazine.com/blog/will-we-all-be-white-in-heaven-dissecting-a-strange-statement-from-ellen-whiteDavid Hamstrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00918076742603923375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-21646721195860995282019-08-06T15:19:00.330-04:002019-08-06T15:19:00.330-04:00So to make that application explicit, I don't ...So to make that application explicit, I don't think she was saying that people of other races will be racially white in heaven, because she wasn't addressing racial identity. I don't think it's even likely that she was saying the we will all have bodies that resemble the white phenotype.<br /><br />I do think she was saying that we will all have Christ's 'white' character and all have white robes and shining faces in glory.<br /><br />So, basically, she and I are focusing on two different kinds of whiteness. I'm talking about worldly whiteness and what it means of us on earth that we will retain that and other racial identities in Heaven. She's talking about a Heavenly whiteness that will subsume all of our other identifies.David Hamstrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00918076742603923375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-85391894120269049142019-08-02T20:17:32.113-04:002019-08-02T20:17:32.113-04:00I guess I was hoping you might discuss how that st...I guess I was hoping you might discuss how that statement relates to your article since it was the first thing that popped into my head when I started to read your post. Perhaps you think you have, and I just am not on the same track. But thank you for taking the time to respond. I really am struggling in my faith at the momentSeekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10074708378513686023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-64522573548984318662019-07-31T12:43:58.678-04:002019-07-31T12:43:58.678-04:00We have other examples where God showed her an inc...We have other examples where God showed her an incomplete picture of things in order for her overall message to connect with people at the time (e.g. Joseph Bates and Jupiter's moons). And sometimes it's also the case that the way she explained what she saw leaves us with questions we want answered today but that weren't relevant back then. Whatever interpretive option is correct (there may be others I haven't considered), this is definitely a case of the later, if not the former. And therefore we shouldn't hypothesize about the glorified bodies, much less the racial identity, of the redeemed based on this isolated statement.David Hamstrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00918076742603923375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-584364135818717472019-07-31T12:43:30.140-04:002019-07-31T12:43:30.140-04:00Seeker,
You are asking about one of those perplex...Seeker,<br /><br />You are asking about one of those perplexing one-offs in the Ellen White corpus that probably made sense at the time but for which we lack the context to arrive at a satisfying explanation of what she meant. You are not the only one who has wondered about this statement. I will offer a brief run-down of the interpretive options I have come up with, with the caveat that I am not an Ellen White expert.<br /><br />First, I think, given the overall point she was trying to make about unity in Christ across the races, that Ellen White was not saying that we will all be racially white in Heaven. That would have militated against her overall message. She was trying to say that the saved are going to share a state of whiteness with Christ that obviates racial whiteness. So what that be?<br /><br />(1) Ellen White, drawing of the symbolism of Revelation, also talked about the saints in glory as having been made metaphorically white in reference to their character reflecting the perfect, spotless character of Christ. So she have been trying to say that while some think that it's racial whiteness that counts, what really matters in the end is developing a character that is symbolically white like Jesus's. And that's something that people of any race can do by God's grace.<br /><br />(2) Related to that symbolism in Revelation, she may have been understood as referring whiteness in terms the physical appearance of the saints whose white robes and halo of Edenic glory that she saw in her visions would be like the white garments and shining face of the ascended Christ. She could have meant that these white and shining physical manifestations of inner-character will the privilege of people of every race, not just white people.<br /><br />These interpretive options are not mutually exclusive and are supported by a subsequent statement she wrote two years later to what is now Oakwood University in which she expanded on the same themes:<br /><br />"I have a message to bear that our white teachers shall encourage the black students ... that it is not the color of the skin that will spoil their record [or] that the Lord will make a special heaven for the whites and another for the blacks. All will receive their reward according to their cleanness of heart.<br /><br />"If Christ makes the colored race clean and white in the blood of the Lamb, if He clothes them with the garments of His righteousness, they will be honored in the heavenly kingdom as verily as the white, and when the Lord Jesus’ face shall shine upon the righteous black they will shine forth in the very same complexion that Christ has." (Letter 304, 1903, paragraph 5)<br /><br />(3) Finally, she may have been talking about a phenotypical whiteness that people of all races will possess in their glorified bodies. Jesus took on our infirmities in a brown body, but his resurrected body was not like that one in many respects. He was not immediately recognizable to his friends. This is why I say I don't know what we will look like in the resurrection. It is possible, but I think on the biblical evidence not probable, that we will all look similar in Heaven in a way we do not now, but in a way that Ellen White viewed as phenotypically white.<br /><br />This last is the most troubling interpretive option to me. But I think it's a live option, not only because we don't know what we will look like in heaven, but because God meets people where they are. I know of a few people whom I believe to have seen Christ in vision. And the Jesus they see doesn't look the same. He often looks like they do. Ellen White may have been shown a phenotypically white Jesus because she most likely would have identified as a white person. And because her early ministry was primarily to white people, she may have been shown a vision of the saints they could identify with.David Hamstrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00918076742603923375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-21079234371598426102019-07-28T16:27:16.694-04:002019-07-28T16:27:16.694-04:00". . . In heaven there will be no color line;...". . . In heaven there will be no color line; for all will be as white as Christ himself."<br />(EGW, The Gospel Herald, March 1, 1901, para. 20)<br /><br />Ignoring the obvious fact that Jesus would have been brown skinned, please discussSeekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10074708378513686023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-49794194838218964022018-08-30T10:02:02.807-04:002018-08-30T10:02:02.807-04:00Hi Dave!
I actually came here looking for somethi...Hi Dave!<br /><br />I actually came here looking for something I didn't find (I think I need to check your FB page) and stumbled onto this. While I have always credited you for doing the best work on trying to solve this seemingly intractable issue, I still find your framework (at least as it relates to the baker) to fall short of the mark in several ways. I'll try to be as brief as I can, but I think this is best framed by starting with quotes from you - <br /><br />1. "The Colorado baker isn't suing to stop everyone from using any of his cakes in a same-sex wedding. He isn't screening every customer based on their beliefs about same-sex weddings or asking about the intended use for every product sold." - This seems to be factually disingenuous to me. You're either arguing that he doesn't ask (which I'm not sure is the case) or you're arguing that people will have to hide the purpose of their event to "trick" him into serving them. Also, what happens when he delivers the cake to the event and discovers he's been duped? I get the feeling his sincerity will create even bigger problems there. But the most important part of this is that you are in essences saying to same-sex couples that in order to be served they will occasionally have to hide who they are.<br /><br />2."The extent of the exemption he is requesting would determine whether this baker is trying to push his rights past the minority group's nose." - Does intent matter here? Does it really matter if he's trying to do something if he's actually doing it? If so why?<br /><br />3. "On the other hand, the Colorado baker's conscientious objection was not part of a broad social exclusion of sexual minorities from the wedding cake market. The gay couple was able to get their wedding cake from another local goods and services provider." - This is probably the most troubling part of your analysis to me. So discrimination is OK so long as you do it just a little bit? Also is the right to discriminate (or to be free from discrimination) dependent on where you live? What happens when there isn't another local provider? If we were to institute your framework, what would happen to same-sex couples who live in regions of the country that largely don't believe in their unions? What if that couple has to pay a significant cost to get their service from the next town (city, region, state)? How much do the oppressed have to take on in order to suborn their own oppression?<br /><br />4. "In a free society, while there is a right for minority groups not to be excluded from public life, including the marketplace, there is no right to be shielded from every indignity." I don't know that I necessarily disagree with this as it is stated abstractly, but to say this means that we are saying we are OK with a society where some people just experience less freedom then others based on who they are. Because of history or whatever (I don't know that the reasons matter), Black people will face more indignities than Whites, non-Christians more than Christians, Women more than men, the LGBT community more than heterosexuals. I know you say you're doing this to protect a "free society" but this society doesn't seem that free to me with all these indignities floating around (and, I must say, young White Christian men floating above it all for the most part).<br /><br />In the end, every free society has limits. The question will be how we determine those limits. I appreciate the balancing you've tried to do here. I just think it ends up increasing discrimination and oppression, not the other way around.<br /><br />JasonAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18295290293115746582noreply@blogger.com