Sunday, March 08, 2009

"Truth Led Me Out"

ratzlaff2_0 Dale Ratzlaff. He is no longer a Seventh-day Adventist. But he should be of significance to Adventists. At the 2005 Ellen White Summit, Jud Lake, professor of preaching and Adventist Studies at Southern Adventist University called Dale Ratzlaff "the fountain head" of all who criticize the SDA denomination.

Dale Ratzlaff is the originator, publisher, and major contributor to Proclamation! magazine which is mailed free to an alleged 10,000 former, current, inquiring, Adventists and Evangelicals. The magazine is currently edited by Colleen Tinker, herself a former Adventist.

Dale Ratzlaff is obviously a controversial figure. If we go by the letters to the editor published in Proclamation! magazine, people either love him or hate him. And he has written a number of books arguing against Adventist theology. The two most significant are The Cultic Doctrine of Seventh-Day Adventists: An Evangelical Resource and an Appeal to Adventists which provides an incisive critique of the doctrines of the Investigative Judgment and Ellen White's inspiration; and Sabbath in Christ (an earlier edition was called Sabbath in Crisis) which argues that the Sabbath is no longer a requirement for Christians. In fact, this book played a significant part in the Worldwide Church of God giving up the Sabbath and commemoration of feast days.

I have always enjoyed reading about the spiritual journeys of people. And I have often wondered how individuals move from one belief system to another. How does someone like Dale Ratzlaff, originally a conservative, fourth generation Seventh-day Adventist who studied in Adventist schools, graduated from the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, and taught Bible in an Adventist school for seven years — how does someone like this come to make such a major shift in their understanding of the Bible and leave behind a system of belief? Wouldn't it be good if someone like Dale Ratzlaff shared with us his journey from one place to another?

Well... Ratzlaff has done just that in his new book Truth Led Me Out. It is a short book (only 156 pages including appendices) and yet provides a very useful insight into the process of one man courageously following where he believes the evidence leads.

In the preface, Ratzlaff explains why he wrote the book. According to Ratzlaff, he is

... continually being accused of leaving because I wanted to live in open sin. When I respond that I left because of thorough Bible study and a desire to be true to my conscience, I am often met with a blank, questioning stare. For many this is simply incomprehensible. How can one leave "the truth" and not go into error? (p. 9)

Ratzlaff offers three reasons for writing this book:

  1. It is his life story.
  2. He wishes to answer the many questions that he has received about the details of 'his exodus'.
  3. It may motivate some to do their own study to find truth for themselves.

Truth Led Me Out uses, as its "launching pad" an email Ratzlaff received from an Adventist pastor crying out for help as he 'desperately sought God's will.' (p. 11) He shares the email with the reader and then begins his story of his upbringing within the Adventist denomination. He shares the way in which he struggled with serious theological questions from an early age, his discovery of the gospel, secret meetings that occurred as part of the theological turbulence within Adventism as fundamental doctrines were challenged, and the challenging decisions he had to make as he left the denomination and established his ministry to ex-Adventists as he believed God was calling him to do.

There are a number of reasons this book is worth the time to read:

  1. It provides an insight into the real reasons that some people leave the Adventist denomination. Within Adventism, there is only one term that is used to label those who have left: apostate. The term implies some moral fall no matter what the reasons for leaving. For many Adventists, leaving the denomination is equivalent to losing salvation. Very few that I have talked to would imagine these individuals have left because they actually don't believe certain doctrines anymore. And often there is no consideration that they may still remain Christian. For many, leaving Adventism is the end of the road as far as salvation is concerned.

    It is important that we listen carefully to the stories of people who leave and accept their stories as their stories. It seems clear, from Ratzlaff's story, that he is deeply committed to God, believes he is following God's will. It is important to hear stories about the courage that others have to follow their conscience no matter what the cost.
  2. This is the first book I have read related to the theological controversy within Adventism where the author names names. Often, claims are made by critics of Adventist theology that Adventist scholars, administrators, and pastors don't really believe certain doctrines but we never get to know just who they are talking about. Well, Dale Ratzlaff tells us who. He provides the names of people who had discussions with him, suggested that he minimize the truth about what he believed, or keep them to himself, and so on. Ratzlaff wants to counteract what he believes is the traditional practice of '... Adventism and how its leaders have either tarnished or rewritten the history of those who have made public its errors.' (back cover)

Despite the value of reading about Ratzlaff's journey, I am a bit disappointed that it stops at the point it does and doesn't explore in more depth some of Ratzlaff's thinking. For example, there is his experience with John Wimber and Ratzlaff's speaking in tongues; his 'Encounter with the Holy Spirit' where he claims to have received direct revelations about others. I would love to read more about how Ratzlaff has incorporated these experiences into a theology of the Holy Spirit and how these relate to his previous understanding of Ellen White's ministry.

In addition, if you read Proclamation! you will find that Ratzlaff has adopted other beliefs held by most (but not all) Christians. For example, he now believes in the traditional Christian beliefs on death and hell and fundamentalist understandings of inspiration and the nature of the biblical text. Clearly, the end of Truth Led Me Out is not the whole story. I would have liked to be able to read how these journeys into other areas inconsistent with Adventist theology occurred.

Truth Led Me Out is an adequate, informative book about Ratzlaff's journey out of Adventism. It is simply told in straightforward narrative form. Although it makes reference to the broader context of the theological and political context of Adventism and the theological crisis that correlated with his journey, the story lacks a breadth and nuance that these would have brought if considered in more depth.

In addition, the suggested resources at the back of the book are all, except for one, critical of Adventism. In my view, when providing resources for people to think through an issue, both sides of the argument should be provided. So if you are looking for both sides of the debate on Adventist ideas and theology, then you will need to explore outside the resources suggested.

If you wish to gain some insight into Dale Ratzlaff and why he is one of the most significant critics of Adventism, then you will want to read this book.

28 comments:

  1. This seems to be a book many in teaching and administration should read for information and possible understanding. I don't see where it would benefit the average member or one struggling, as it would only cause similar resentments to build.
    Actually I cannot fathom leaving a church and then seeking to undermine both the faith and trust that people have in their family; as all families have troubles. To me church is a family, and I would never attack them after walking away. Having read from Proclamation, I see it is full of twisted thinking, anger, judgmentalism, absolute thinking, etc. I would say it definitely bears false witness.
    Why be surprised that the book is not balanced--the author's "truth" is the truth, and he sees no farther.
    If he ever came back, it would need to be a Damascus road experience and include humility and forgiveness of whatever wrongs he has encountered. I am reminded of Paul before his convesion.
    All the Jesus talk in this publication is just talk--there is no compassion and understanding and acceptance of people where they are as we find in Jesus.
    There are no fruits of the Holy Spirit. There is only condemnation and self-righteousness.
    The big doctrinal change for him is that to fundamentlism's ideas of heaven and hell. If that is all I knew of Christianity, I would not be a Christian.
    People become like the kind of God they worship.
    One needs to compare his relationship to the SDA church with that of the politician from Hawaii who still has good things to say about his former church as do many others.
    One does not need to be SDA to be saved, and to claim we say so is absurd.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I see many things in Dale Ratzlaff:

    Bitterness against a particular community of followers of God

    Us against Them mentality that is passé and oh so boring

    A yearning to make some kind of contribution, even if it means using negative stimuli (low self-esteem?)

    the Spirit of the Enemy who is forever the accuser of the brethren

    definitely not the Spirit of Christ

    financial motivations to capitalize on a streak of evangelical thinking that still thinks we're a CULT
    (this is all the more convenient when you're a ex-cult member)

    a strong tendency to fall on extremes: tongue speaking and visions? rejection of the Sabbath? What's next, Creation is a hoax?

    Considering these, I'd say his contribution to my daily walk with God is null.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ruth Davis has written an interestng book on the Charismatic movement - especially the more bizarre aspects. I don't think she is an SDA, but what she has to say would go down well with the SDA church. Her website True to His ways (same title as the book) is found here:

    http://www.truetohisways.com/

    Over the years I have briefly glanced at the website which Dale Ratzlaff's crew seem to use. It is basically a 'moaners' corner, and very shallow indeed. Certainly there is no great thinking there at all. I am myself an ex SDA, and certainly would not fall into that mode of thinking. Much of it seems to be plain silly.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I believe Dale when he states that he has moved to where he is because of his search for truth. His book The Sabbath in Crisis was well done, if you put faith in the Bible. He sends me Proclamation and it reads much like the Review and the Recorder. It feels like Adventism with different beliefs.

    And before we criticize Dale for speaking in tongues we need to remember that we have a very graphic description of Ellen White doing similar ecstatic utterances in the rapture of vision. Ellen White WAS a charismatic. She even complained when worship services began to be more formalized.

    I left the SDA church through the search for truth and I get the same types of accusations. I often am told that I left because I wanted to do some sin or the other. Or people want to ask me about my childhood and that must be why I left.

    No, I left because a belief in Adventist Christianity doesn't do what it claims and as I read the history of how the whole thing was put together, it became evident that not only was Ellen White not a prophet, but the whole enterprise of modern Christianity is a hoax. As this information about Christianity has become much more available I think we will see less and less people interested in Christian cosmology. We are already seeing a sharp increase in non-believers. Up to 35% in some polls.

    That doesn't mean there is less interest in spirituality, ethics, and healing. It just means that Christianity's answers have failed.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thinking of Ratzlaff as the fountainhead of all criticism of Adventism seems a little weird to me. I have been out of Adventism for 25 years having been raised and educated through graduate school in SDA schools. Ratzlaff played no role in my decision. Remember D.M. Canright?

    ReplyDelete
  6. He also suffers from acute conspiracy theory syndrome, as evidenced by the title of his diatribe.

    Does he really mean that everybody in the SDA Church is being lied to, that "Lies Kept Us In"?

    He has no credibility.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi everyone

    I thought I would respond to multiple comments in one post (quotes in italics)!

    Ellamae said:

    I don't see where it would benefit the average member or one struggling

    I think there is enormous benefit in hearing the experience of someone courageously following the evidence where it leads them -- in pursuing truth rather than conformity. Many Adventists struggle with doubt about certain Adventist doctrines. Ratzlaff is an example of someone who openly dealt with them.

    as it would only cause similar resentments to build.

    Not sure what resentments you speak of. Ratzlaff doesn't come across to me as someone who harbours any resentment about his experience. The book is a straightforward recounting of events.

    Actually I cannot fathom leaving a church and then seeking to undermine both the faith and trust that people have in their family; as all families have troubles. To me church is a family, and I would never attack them after walking away.


    To equate a denomination with a family is, I believe, unhealthy. Ratzlaff does not attack a family. He attacks certain doctrines, unethical behaviours, and power structures. Denominations are not families. They are institutional structures that do very little to encourage actual Christian family life (in the sense of spiritual family). If we were to generalise this criticism of Ratzlaff to other areas, we should also criticise ex-Jehovah's Witnesses, ex-Moonies, or any other ex- from saying anything against their particular ex-organisations.

    Having read from Proclamation, I see it is full of twisted thinking, anger, judgmentalism, absolute thinking, etc. I would say it definitely bears false witness.

    I have read every single issue of Proclamation since it began. To say it is "full" of the things you have said is an exaggeration. There is some twisted thinking (whatever that means) but there is some very good thinking, too. There is some anger expressed, but most of that comes from people who are still Adventist and express incredibly unChristian attitudes towards Ratzlaff. In the actual articles, I see little anger expressed unless you are interpreting something as anger when I don't. There is some judgmentalism, but mostly from conservative ex-Adventists. There are certainly judgments being made about what they believe is error, but that is no more judgmental than the millions of pages Adventists have written against what we see as error. There is some absolute thinking, but no more than the absolutist thinking of any system of belief -- the 28 Fundamentals are asbsolute thinking. There may or may not be false witness -- if by that you mean that some things are said that are not accurate. But even Adventist denominational literature suffers from that on many occasions.

    Why be surprised that the book is not balanced--the author's "truth" is the truth, and he sees no farther.

    Isn't that the same for most of us? All of our thinking is influenced by prejudice, stereotyping, and flaws. Human thinking is like that which is why we need to think critically about what we read. I wasn't surprised the book was not balanced -- just pointing out that it wasn't. I would say the same about most Adventist literature -- including the current Sabbath School Quarterly!

    If he ever came back, it would need to be a Damascus road experience and include humility and forgiveness of whatever wrongs he has encountered.

    It might be worth reading the book -- I don't think he would ever see the need to come back when he believes what he has now is better. You misunderstand Ratzlaff if you think he has left the church over wrongs that were committed. He hasn't. He has left because he believes that Adventist theology is unbiblical. Maybe it is we who need the humility and forgiveness.

    All the Jesus talk in this publication is just talk--there is no compassion and understanding and acceptance of people where they are as we find in Jesus.

    I can't believe you actually said that... It may be that Ratzlaff et al understand the gospel, compassion, and acceptance better than we do. You speak against Ratzlaff's judgmentalism -- isn't what you have said about him bordering on that?

    There are no fruits of the Holy Spirit. There is only condemnation and self-righteousness.

    Wow! You must be reading a different magazine to me...

    The big doctrinal change for him is that to fundamentlism's ideas of heaven and hell. If that is all I knew of Christianity, I would not be a Christian.

    If you read his books, you will know that the big doctrinal change was his realisation that the Investigative Judgment doctrine is unbiblical.

    People become like the kind of God they worship.

    That's true.

    One needs to compare his relationship to the SDA church with that of the politician from Hawaii who still has good things to say about his former church as do many others.

    I have read various postive statements about the people within Adventism from Ratzlaff.

    One does not need to be SDA to be saved, and to claim we say so is absurd.

    Experientially, many SDAs believe this to be the case. What they do is equate the 28 Fundamentals with the truth and say you cannot be saved without believing the truth. Therefore, you cannot be saved without believing all of the 28 Fundamentals. I personally know someone who says this -- so I know it is true. We may not officially proclaim it, but plenty of Adventists experience their relationship to the denomination in that way.

    teólogo said...

    I see many things in Dale Ratzlaff ... followed by a list.

    Have you read the book?

    Richard Harty said...

    I appreciate your comments, Richard.

    Teólogo said...

    He also suffers from acute conspiracy theory syndrome, as evidenced by the title of his diatribe.
    Does he really mean that everybody in the SDA Church is being lied to, that "Lies Kept Us In"? He has no credibility.


    Have you actually read the book? Concluding that he suffers from a particular syndrome on the basis of the title of the book alone is very poor thinking. Just because truth led him out doesn't logically imply that lies are the reason everyone else stays. But he most certainly is saying that Adventists are not being told everything -- once again, if you know anything about Adventist history, you will know that not being told everything is one of the patterns of our denomination -- check out the 1919 Bible Conference minutes for exammple.

    Don't get me wrong... I am not saying Ratzlaff has everything right... I don't agree with everything he says. But I have no difficulty believing his motivation is good. He is proclaiming what he believes is truth and that is something we need to respect. It is nothing more or less than what we do.

    Cheers
    Steve

    ReplyDelete
  8. One think I love about the Adventism is that I feel it is a thinking religion. Now, don't get me wrong. Our establishment may not be a perfect picturesque open forum of new ideas and exceptional transparency. But we're also not aligning ourselves with oxymoronic philosophies that have inexplicably taken hold like a disease on so much of the evangelical community (like taking a hard-line pro-life stance towards abortion and reproduction, but swinging completely the other way on war, capital punishment, and self-defense).

    I am saddened to see that this group seems to have actually gone backwards after leaving Adventism, becoming far more judgemental and antagonistic towards Adventism than Adventism has been towards Catholicism.

    ReplyDelete
  9. In friendly disagreement:

    The lack of feeling in the Adventist church is one of my deep frustrations. My conceit would be that we may not be given enough information cognitively to solve the "great mystery" (as Einstein hypothesized in "The Evolution of Physics"). Instead of being given this information through the brain, we are given it through the heart, in love, which the Bible purports God is. So it is through feeling or love or whatever connecting to "Other" is called that we begin to follow truth, not by eschatology or lack of it. This is generally (emphasis on generally) in my experience what the more Pentecostal branches of Christendom believe. To label this path right or wrong is, in my opinion, about the same as my labeling Adventist theology as right or wrong. In my opinion, we don't know enough, and I certainly haven't heard a booming voice from God saying either/or is right.

    BTW, I was friends with your sister in school, and I followed and helped fundraise for the band you had with Pedro. What a ride! Good luck to you.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Michelle
    I like your post. Faith comes from an experience with God or what some call a "heart" religion that over time reveals the fruits of the Spirit. We can't really know the truth for or against doctrines--they are mysteries.
    I reject doctrines that deny God's love. That is my basis for belief and why I reject the Protestant fundamentalist doctrine of such things as hell and limited salvation.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Steve,
    Now let's be honest--most people who are desperate, angry, or frustrated work mostly from emotions. They are not going to find help from a subjective diatribe against their current religion which seems to be disappointing them.
    People looking for "truth" in an objective manner will not find it in subjective material.
    I don't know Ratzlaff's story, but years ago I thought I heard he left or was fired from the denomination. If true, he would have bad feelings about it and unable to be very objective. I get this from the image he projects.
    Any one so angry that he starts a magazine targetted at SDAs
    (it came to me unsolicited) has to have a lot of baggage.
    No, even if I left the JW I would not want to bash them. I would only respond if asked. I think one can be saved as a JW if they have a relationship with God, and I think it's possible. God is not limited by labels.
    Sorry, but I personally have a difficult time seeing R's search as honest as you do. Maybe consciously he thinks so.
    You speak of conformity and other put-downs for those staying in the family, but I don't think any of us are conformed--we are all individuals. I even think nasty, old legalists will be saved if they believe in Jesus! (They jus won't be very happy here.)
    Yes, I think church is a family, perhaps seen more on the local level. I have an experience about this but won't go into it here.
    The infrastructure has a lot of problems and is too political and not very progressive, but there are some wonderful Christian people in it. God loves them too!
    (there are also some there in self-denial and secular in business outlook). I know I worked there for years.
    You say Adventists think you have to be one of them to be saved? Are you still living in the 50's (a lot of religions then thought that you needed their brand of religion to be saved and thought SDAs were lost)? In all my years I have not come across that attitude in the heirarchy or academic world. They are always sad when people leave but come short of thinking they are lost. Of course, one can always find some unthinking Pharisee type who might say that.
    I have seen a few good articles in Proclamation that could be in the Review, but they are usually ruined when I turn the page. It's a mixture.
    Ratzlaff perhaps need to forgive, I don't know.
    As for Truth we have it in Jesus, but as for "truth" we will never know enough in this world to claim it--only parts of it. I have found those in my SDA study, and they point to Jesus as love. As for IJ, I don't know what the commotion is about other than a misunderstanding and terminology. Don't you think Jesus will know who is saved and who isn't before he gets here? (pre-Advent) and what does time matter--it's different on this earth than out there? There is so much symbolism in the Bible, and I find it exciting to read about.
    I've written enough in this dialogue--I enjoy hearing your responses. Whether we agree or not I think this helps us see our own subjectivity better and at the same time get another perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  12. You're actually promoting the book of a guy who is doing his utmost to destroy God's remnant church? Come on now...if the devil wrote a book, should we read it for the "insights" as to why someone would choose to rebel against God?

    I say he can keep his insights to himself.

    oursword.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  13. Sorry for the second post, but I wanted to reply to another phrase in your post...I hope you don't mind.

    If Dale Ratzliff is "someone courageously following the evidence where it leads them -- in pursuing truth rather than conformity."

    Then again, (sorry for the same argument) would it be beneficial to read the Satan's book because he is "someone courageously following the evidence where it leads them -- in pursuing truth rather than conformity."

    That is the ultimate conclusion one must come to if we believe in Adventist doctrine. Dale Ratzliff was lead into error, not truth. To me, there is nothing "courageous" about it.

    oursword.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hi Ellamae

    You said...

    Now let's be honest

    I thought we had been ;-)

    --most people who are desperate, angry, or frustrated work mostly from emotions.

    That's a tautology -- anger, desperatino, and frustration are emotions. So if people work from those, then the, by definition, are working from emotions.

    They are not going to find help from a subjective diatribe against their current religion which seems to be disappointing them.

    You are using very emotive language here -- and it sounds like you haven't read the book. Ratzlaff's book is subjective in the sense that it is his perspective on his own experience. But it most certainly is not a diatribe (unless you are using the term in a sense I am not familiar with). The American Heritage Dictionary defines a diatribe as 'a bitter, abusive denunciation'. Ratzlaff's book, by any standard, is not that. He calmly describes the events around his leaving Adventism.

    Look... I don't feel any obligation to defend Ratzlaff. He can do that himself, I am sure. But we only bring ourselves into disrepute by emotively labelling what we don't actually know about.

    I am happy to have my review of the book disagreed with. But I would be much happier if the disagreement was informed.

    People looking for "truth" in an objective manner will not find it in subjective material.

    This is actually a false dichotomoy. The discovery of truth is not about choosing between the subjective and the objective. An holistic examination of truth will incorporate both. In fact, to believe that one can arrive at truth by purely objective means goes against all we know about human nature and the way humans think.

    I don't know Ratzlaff's story,

    Precisely. So how can you label it a subjective diatribe?

    but years ago I thought I heard he left or was fired from the denomination.

    Sounds like you need to ask Ratzlaff for the truth about this -- or read the book ;-)

    If true, he would have bad feelings about it and unable to be very objective. I get this from the image he projects.

    Why should leaving something necessarily entail bad feelings or lack of objectivity? And I'm not sure what you mean by "the image he projects". Please explain...

    Any one so angry that he starts a magazine targetted at SDAs
    (it came to me unsolicited) has to have a lot of baggage.


    What makes you think that he started the magazine out of anger? Maybe it was out of genuine concern for those he believes are being misguided...


    No, even if I left the JW I would not want to bash them. I would only respond if asked.

    The word "bash" is an emotive term. Plenty of people have left the Watchtower (and many other sects) and written books articulating what they believe is error in those organisations. That doesn't mean they are "bashing".

    I think one can be saved as a JW if they have a relationship with God, and I think it's possible. God is not limited by labels.

    Not sure how we got on to this theme. If you are suggesting that Ratzlaff claims that an Adventist can't be saved then you misunderstand his view. He doesn't say that at all as far as I know.

    Sorry, but I personally have a difficult time seeing R's search as honest as you do.

    But how can you make that judgment unless you've actually read his arguments? It would seem that you should suspend judgment until you have. I have read almost everything that Ratzlaff has written and one thing I would say is that he is honest. Unless you can identify a specific case of Ratzlaff being dishonest, do you think it is appropriate to question his character like that?

    You speak of conformity and other put-downs for those staying in the family, but I don't think any of us are conformed--we are all individuals.

    Maybe you have been lucky enough to be someone whose beliefs and behaviour have always coincided with the culture you live in. I can assure you that is not the experience of everyone. I know first hand what it is like to experience a reaction from traditional, conservative (whatever you like to call them) Adventists when I haven't always conformed to the cultural expectations.

    I even think nasty, old legalists will be saved if they believe in Jesus! (They jus won't be very happy here.)

    Ok... but not all Adventists think as you do on this.

    The infrastructure has a lot of problems and is too political and not very progressive, but there are some wonderful Christian people in it. God loves them too!

    I don't know of anyone who would deny this.

    You say Adventists think you have to be one of them to be saved?

    That's not exactly what I said. I said that some (many?) Adventists believe this in practice.

    Are you still living in the 50's (a lot of religions then thought that you needed their brand of religion to be saved and thought SDAs were lost)?

    No, I'm not. In 2009 I could give you the names of people I know who believe that.

    In all my years I have not come across that attitude in the heirarchy or academic world.

    I'm glad you haven't. But others have experienced otherwise.

    They are always sad when people leave but come short of thinking they are lost. Of course, one can always find some unthinking Pharisee type who might say that.

    Then you are saying nothing less than what I am saying. There are some Adventists who believe you will be lost if you leave Adventism. They see it as leaving the truth behind and, for them, if you leave "the truth" (as defined by Adventism), you must be lost.

    I have seen a few good articles in Proclamation that could be in the Review, but they are usually ruined when I turn the page. It's a mixture.

    Sounds just like the Review!

    Ratzlaff perhaps need to forgive, I don't know.

    Exactly... we don't know. So we need only worry about whom we might need to forgive.

    As for Truth we have it in Jesus, but as for "truth" we will never know enough in this world to claim it--only parts of it.

    Now you are sounding like Ratzlaff! :-)

    I have found those in my SDA study, and they point to Jesus as love. As for IJ, I don't know what the commotion is about other than a misunderstanding and terminology.

    Perhaps you are not aware, then, of the original IJ doctrine and the way it has, in recent years, been diluted. Get out the SDA Encyclopedia and check out the article on the Investigative Judgment. Or read the chapter in Great Controversy on the IJ and compare your understanding with it.

    Don't you think Jesus will know who is saved and who isn't before he gets here? (pre-Advent)

    That is not what the IJ doctrine teaches. That is what almost all Christian believe anyway. The essential, core, unique concept of the IJ doctrine is that, in 1844, Jesus began a work of examining the records of all people in history, starting with the dead, and working on to the living, to see whether their works revealed the legitimacy of their claim to be obedient to God.

    In recent years, the IJ doctrine has been diluted to mean much less than what EGW taught in Great Controversy. In saying all this, I am not defending the doctrine (I think it is unbiblical). What I am saying is that we should be honest enough to state what the doctrine actually is instead of making it more palatable. In much of our denominational writings, we have moved a loooong way from what EGW taught on the IJ.

    and what does time matter--it's different on this earth than out there?

    If that is true, why do we worry so much over the date of 1844?

    There is so much symbolism in the Bible, and I find it exciting to read about.

    Indeed!

    I've written enough in this dialogue--I enjoy hearing your responses. Whether we agree or not I think this helps us see our own subjectivity better and at the same time get another perspective.

    Absolutely... life wouldn't be right without disagreements that teach us things! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hi Todd G

    You said...

    You're actually promoting the book of a guy who is doing his utmost to destroy God's remnant church?

    Mmmm... I think he would define the remnant a bit different to you :-) I'm reviewing his book -- not promoting it. I think I made it clear (I hope) that I don't agree with everything Ratzlaff believes. I'm suggesting there is value in listening to other people's experience and learning something from them.

    Come on now...if the devil wrote a book, should we read it for the "insights" as to why someone would choose to rebel against God?

    Of course... equating Ratzlaff with the Devil is a bit of a low shot. I don't think there is much similarity!

    I say he can keep his insights to himself.

    That's ok... no one is forcing you to read them.

    Sorry for the second post, but I wanted to reply to another phrase in your post...I hope you don't mind.

    Not at all.

    Then again, (sorry for the same argument) would it be beneficial to read the Satan's book because he is "someone courageously following the evidence where it leads them -- in pursuing truth rather than conformity."

    If Satan had courageously followed the evidence where it leads he wouldn't be where he is now.

    I think comparing Ratzlaff to Satan is offensive and a cheap, emotive shot.

    Dale Ratzliff was lead into error, not truth. To me, there is nothing "courageous" about it.

    Have you read the book? If not... how do you know he wasn't courageous? Even if we were to believe he is wrong -- that wouldn't mean he wasn't courageous.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Steve,
    Oh my, I am spending a lot of time on this, but I guess I enjoy dialogue (or debate).
    Your post just begs for a response.
    No, I haven't read his book, but have read from Proclamation, and that is emotive. I just don't have time to spend on reading a book I wouldn't enjoy, and I doubt would help my spritual life. I am basing my opinion on Proclamation. And some of the "testimonies" are diatribes. Maybe I should shut-up about his book. The post sums it up in saying it is not balanced.
    I know I heard Rhea speak and was surprised how rational he seemed and not such an "enemy."
    I stand by much of what I said. I don't think anyone can be completely objective, but they should at least try to see the other side. I don't find that in Proclamation which does infer that Adventists can't be saved.
    What bothers me the most is that it is so totally different from what I know about church teachings (Christ centered) and people. I took lots of post-graduate religion classes at Loma Linda University including some from Dr. Heppenstall after he retired from the seminary. He is probably the best theologian the denomination ever had.
    I just don't know where these people are coming from. It's like they are talking about some other church.
    You mention my beliefs always coinciding with the culture. Ha! you don't know me very well! I have a number of divergent views, but most are not important. The openness of salvation is one I am most vocal about. Yes, occasionally I got in trouble for being different, but found others in denomational employment who agreed. I know of no place where it says the 28 fundamentals are a necessary creed for being a church member. I have been told that even belief in EGW as a prophet is not mandatory. People need to understand that no one is forcing them to conform.
    Why do you say beliefs have been diluted? Isn't truth progressive? Belief in the inspiration of our pioneers doesn't have to be absolute. I can't relate to black and white thinking. Maybe we are all trapped in our thinking styles--and God loves us anyhow.
    It's important not to generalize from a few to all church members.

    What little I remember about the incident at Southern College and the cookie monster, is that some teachers got a bum wrap. Somehow I relate him to that event. It seemss to have changed down there now.
    It is really Ratzlaff's intolerance and solicitation of Adventists that I dislike. He infers things that are just not true. One would think he had to know this at one time. (When we keep repeating the same thing over and over we come to believe it.) The same goes for a guy named Martin in Arizona. You just don't put out this kind of a magazine if you are a well-balanced individual. (I am reminded of Dawkins.) I can see a ministry to former Adventists, but it wouldn't look like this; it would help them forgive whether they came back or not.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I haven't read Dale's book, but after reading the dialogue on this comments page, my curiosity is piqued.

    I've also been called an Ellen White "basher." This is because I am questioning the doctrines I was taught as a child I must believe, or else. I'm hardly the only one who believed this.

    There seems to be an awful lack of compassion(for the most part) among practicing Adventists towards those who decide they can no longer call themselves Adventists. Not all of us spend the rest of our lives bitter, determined to scream "foul play!" to all who will listen regarding Ellen White.

    Most of us, I have a hunch, left the church as the result of much soul searching, and with much emotional, mental and spiritual pain. It's not an easy step to take. We are all individuals, we ex-Adventists, therefore there's bound to be more than one reason we all left. It's unfair and shallow thinking to assume we all left out of rebellion. I didn't feel rebellious; I felt dispirited, soul-sick, and as if I was now walking a high wire without a net to break my fall.

    The smugness of those who are so certain they are "in the truth" does nothing to help heal those who are broken. And Christ is close to those who are wounded and broken.

    We should know that by now. We really should.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I've followed this post and the following comments, but have largely stayed out. Myself a former Adventist, I don't like playing the apologist for my beliefs or lack of them. I'm confident with my decisions, I don't need this board's agreement or understanding, nor is it something I strive for unless misunderstanding is causing pain.

    Who cares what Ratzlaff believes? Honestly! Pentecostals as people are a mixture just like Adventists, heaven knows I went to them searching after I left the Adventist church. I was appalled at some things, driven batty by some of their beliefs and authoritarian culture, and touched by their relationship with God. In the end I left them just as I left the Adventist church.

    Of course these arguments and debates are incredibly important. It makes everyone think. It sharpens faith or dulls it--whichever was in the process of happening anyway, makes us think why we're on the paths we're on. We need each other, and I definitely need this.

    But from an observation standpoint, it's also frustrating to watch this debate. There's a clipping sharpness to some of these replies and beliefs, and my Mama told me to never run with scissors. Respectfully, I wouldn't feel safe sharing my beliefs and heart in this forum, the responses are too pointy and dangerous. They don't brook disagreement, and I'm nothing if not disagreeable when it comes to theology.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Michelle, that's pretty cool about fundraising for Pedro's band! What a small world.

    In response to your comment (I'm sorry for the delayed response), I think if religion is to have any value, it needs to value both the emotional AND the intellectual. My comment refers specifically to movements of Christianity that practice beautiful and powerful styles of worship, while buying into the idea that Jesus can be reconciled with intolerance, greed and war mongering. How a person can draw that conclusion by reading Matthew, Mark, Luke or John perplexes me to no end (I recommend the film "Jesus Camp" as an extreme, but very real example of this phenomenon).

    I would argue that this is not to due the presence of emotion in religion, but rather the absence of intellect. Problems always come about when our religion becomes one-dimensional. You're absolutely right to say that Adventism sometimes lacks feeling, and that is a huge fault. We could even be accused of being no dimensional in some circles--no intellect, no emotion, which really strips the value out of it.

    But as a young adult who remains an Adventist, I have seen evidence to give me reason to hope, and it is my sincere desire that we work to fully realize both dimensions, and thus make a much better case for our denomination, for Christianity, and for the value of the continued existence of religion & spirituality.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hey Brian,

    I respect what you have to say and agree with a great deal of it.

    You know that bit in "The Great Divorce" by C.S. Lewis, where the guide to heaven comments on why various artists hadn't made it to heaven? He said something like, "they came to worship the medium and the representation more than God."

    I see alot of denominations fighting for their way of doing things, however they do it, by intellect, emotion, meditation, whatever. I don't think any one is better than another, nor do I think a mixture is "just right." I learn from Spinoza as I learn from Assissi, as I learn from Gandhi, as I learn from YWAM (Youth With A Mission, the group affilliated with the camp shown in Jesus Camp), as I learn from SDA's. I think it's a matter of personality rather than "right" or "wrong." It's just another path.

    I worked with YWAM in the wake of my departure from the Adventist church. I was young, opinionated, and I'm a bit autistic so I say whatever enters my mind without thought for the consequences. (A trait that gets me into no end of trouble.) I struggled with emotion versus intellect and recorded that struggle by journal. It's an interesting read, but also extremely painful to look back on.

    I met some amazing people in YWAM, people I love and respect and who I would never, ever shape my life after because we're so different. The people who I was most touched by were the people who were most in love with God, and not the path they were following to struggle after God.

    In this, I defend Ratzlaff unequivocally. So he chose the path he did? It's no worse and probably no better than the one I've chosen or the one you've chosen.

    What I see you referring to both in your journal and here as the bad outcomes in Pentecostal-based religions is in my opinion a bad outcome based on worshipping the path and not God.

    Being the idiot I am, I said as much to the leaders of YWAM, utilising Richard Wright's narrative of his exposure to the cult-like atmosphere in 20's Chicago Communism. I told them that if I confessed my wrongs and used their path to get at their goals, they'd inevitably forgive me for the wrongs I'd committed. (In this case, strongly and vocally disagreeing with the leaders.) They responded in the extreme negative, unsurprisingly. (I don't blame them, I quoted Mao Tse Tsung and Trotsky at them, and compared them to Stalin. I was only a 17-year old autistic girl! It didn't occur to me that they'd do anything but think what I'd said through and weigh it based on its merit, not on its offensiveness.)

    When they responded extremely angrily to my opinions, for various emotional reasons on my part I did exactly what I knew would give them the ability to forgive me. I confessed my wrongs and started to 'prophesy' (i.e. pointing out what anybody with eyes could see). They forgave me and I left YWAM on my own terms a few months later. I got what I wanted: a church family for the moment, and they got what they wanted: complete and utter agreement and sameness.

    I know if, even now, I confessed my "wrongs" to the Adventist church (going to the media and suing the Adventist church in regards to child molestation and in general hurting about my own experiences) and "forgive" the individuals in question and ignore the issues from here on out I myself would be "forgiven." I would be welcomed back into my Adventist family. If I were able to set my opinions and feelings and my own striving after God aside, I would get everything I long for. This, to me, is what this fight on this board is all about. It's about path, not about God.

    Who cares about path? I believe that Ratzlaff is genuinely striving after God, and I have alot to learn from him. I also think you are too, and I actually know you and respect you and think you're a damned good musician.

    Sorry about all the run-on sentences. I'm having a hard time vocalizing and want to make sure to be clear. (Why use one example when I can use five?)

    ReplyDelete
  21. Michelle,

    Thank you for your response--I totally sympathize with your struggle to get your point across without a lot of words--I can never seem to keep my answers short and I also struggle to feel like I'm getting my point across quite often.

    I completely agree that we must keep our focus more strongly on the end (God) than the means (or the path) that gets us there. I also would completely agree that people take a wide variety of paths to find the same God. But this is exactly my frustration with Ratzlaff's movement. As an Adventist, I find it difficult not to feel that they are being too quick to judge. It's not that I think they are illegitimate in how they have come to connect with God. My issue is that I think they go too far in suggesting that we (Adventists) are. From the little bit that I've read, I very much get the feeling that they see the Adventist religion as inherently evil. Please correct me if I'm wrong about their sentiment towards Adventism.

    Michelle, I totally respect you and I don't mean to illegitimize in any way, where your spiritual journey has led you, or anyone else for that matter. I'm not a person who thinks that Adventism is the one and only true church, though I personally have found great value in it. I only mean to express my own sentiments based on the perspective my spiritual journey has placed me in.

    Thank you so much for your kind and affirming words, and for further humoring my interest in discussing this.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Brian,

    Thanks for your kind reply. I don't know that there's much more to say that I ought to say. I haven't read Ratzlaff, and while I'm deeply prejudiced against the Adventist church, I know you most certainly are not yourself inherent evil, and are not following inherent evil. I would be against the suggestion of anyone saying you are.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I have not read Dale's latest book although I have read all his others. Dale and I were seminary students together at Andrews and I worked for him in a student business and later took over the business when he graduated (I was one year behind)

    We have dialogued quite a bit over the past several years. Some of you may not know that I was the pastor who came in to pastor the Damascus SDA church when Richard Fredericks took most of the members out of the denomination. So I have quite a bit of experience in this area.

    Proclamation has even published a letter of mine with full identification which they do not normally do.

    Two years ago I spoke at the Arizona Camp Meeting and took time to have lunch with Dale. I also met with Mark Martin, a former Adventist pastor, who has grown one of the largest Protestant churches in Phoenix.

    Some of the writers on this blog have talked about attitude and feelings and anger.

    Dale cannot understand how I can remain an Adventist and still believe in biblical grace. He cannot accept who I am.

    Mark Martin on the other hand was most gracious and said that he would pray for me and my church.

    The attitude difference between the two former pastors was the difference between night and day.

    In the end it is not what you believe that is most important but how you live that belief out in the market place.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hi David,
    I am glad to see your post and know that you have been in contact with these folks.
    I am also glad to hear of your visit with Mark Martin. Thankfully he may have changed. I have a friend who was a new member of the SDA faith at the time, some seven or eight years ago. Her sister was a member at Mark's church, and he was holding a series on cults of which he named SDAs as one. Her sister sent my friend a lot of literature against Adventists that he had written and some tapes.
    I wrote to him pointing out some things and received an offensive letter. My answer to that letter was simple--have your group read Desire of Ages and ask them if they think it was devil-inspired, and see what they say. I would challenge anyone to do this. Verbally inspired or not isn't the issue--but does sweet water come from a polluted spring?

    Questioning something is not the same as saying it is of the devil, which is what he did.
    Praise God if Mark Martin has changed.
    Ella

    ReplyDelete
  25. Jesus used parody when he described the Pharisees swallowing camels

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hi there! Do you know if they make any plugins to protect against hackers?
    I'm kinda paranoid about losing everything I've worked hard on.
    Any recommendations?

    My web-site - http://torontowinetasting.com/

    ReplyDelete
  27. With havin so much written content do you ever run into any problems of
    plagorism or copyright violation? My site has a lot of exclusive content I've either written myself or outsourced but it seems a lot of it is popping it up all over the internet without my permission. Do you know any methods to help prevent content from being stolen? I'd genuinely appreciate it.


    Here is my web-site; usp.br

    ReplyDelete
  28. This paragraph will assist the internet users for building
    up new weblog or even a weblog from start to end.

    my web page - just click the next website

    ReplyDelete