Fear need context; and “fear” can be translated to mean “awe and/or respect”. There is a type of fear connected to awe. We use “awesome” too much. The inside of a cathedral might be awesome; and even some music. Jesus said he came to remove fear and give us peace.
3 Likes
In a general sense, I think some of the responsibility for childhood angst such as you have described should be laid (or is it lain?) at the feet of a child’s parents. Good parental support should counter or at least provide some kind of corrective for unhealthful input by schools, churches, or most any other societal institution. The experience of unconditional love and acceptance provided by parents could equip a child early-on to deal with whatever he faces and lessen the potential for these institutions to cause lasting damage.
I was a teen in the 1960s and consider that an advantage in dealing with the unfortunate values and
customs you allude to. A spirit of rebellion characteristic of that era provided kids with a way of easily rejecting that which was bothersome. News magazines such as Time and Newsweek kept us informed and in touch with the “free spirit” blooming in many institutions. I remember reading about Joseph Fletcher’s theological writings on situational ethics and the resulting uproar and about William Hamilton whose death of God metaphor allowed many to hold on to Christianity by allowing the rejection of the idea of a God but at the same time follow the example and teachings of Jesus. An elective religion class at Andrews University taught by Stephen Vitrano exposed us to the ideas of some 18th and 19th century European philosophers and the effect their ideas had on theology up to the 20th century. The movies of Igmar Bergman provided us with the examples of persons dealing with stagnant religious institutions and characters with similar religious doubts. (Some of his movies were dark and depressing but were wonderful, nonetheless.) I feel grateful for those experiences. Some of the lack of enrichment in Adventist culture was made up for by the availability of cultural alternatives (both good and bad.) When reading literature (Faulkner, etc) of the first half of the 20th century, I was thankful for the ability that my religious education provided to understand most of the plentiful biblical allusions. The lack of education in Greek mythology, was a glaring deficit, however. On balance I’ve been mostly able to hang on to parts of the Adventist experience that were good and helpful but recognize the deficits and try to take responsibility for dealing with them.
2 Likes
That’s all well and good, but that’s not everyone’s experience. What if the parents agree with the scary, negative, angst driven message that the child is receiving? Sure, parents should counter that kind of thinking, but unfortunately that’s not always the case times. Many times the parents are very on board with the whole mess.
1 Like
That is my point. It is not good parenting when parents promote an angst-inducing message which could leave their child(ren) feeling scared, isolated, and defenseless.
2 Likes
I don’t think anyone would disagree with that. But, there are a lot of parents raised in the fear culture of Adventism, and they thought/think they are doing the right thing by instilling this fear in their children.
3 Likes
I could go along with you except for one thing; the church had most of the parents boondoggled too, with their false egw interpretations and/or teachings about… well, just about everything. Corrupt and utter nonsense.
3 Likes
Thank-you, Carol. There must be an echo in here because I replied to the same statement with basically the same thing! Great minds and all that! lol
2 Likes
Yes…and we all make mistakes. Some are not so easy to undo. I am not saying the church is not to blame., but that parents and church share it.
I can agree that parents hold some responsibility, yet what’s a parent to do when they’ve also been raised in that culture? They know nothing else so instead of parenting they perpetuate the fear and the evil upon the child. But the responsibility lies primarily with the church, the Bride of Christ. Both administratively and corporately (the body). There will be a lot to answer for at some point.
1 Like
In a lecture from Bart Ehrman, he asked, ~“If someone you loved died and then you went to the grave 3 days later and found it unsealed and the body gone, what is the first thing that you’d assume?” Hint: It is not that your loved one was raised from the dead. No, you’d probably assume there had been a grave-robbing and the body was stolen.
But, when written down decades later, no one in the story assumed any such thing. Makes one wonder.
1 Like
What are your thoughts on the topic of Jesus? Do you believe He was raised from the dead? Do you believe that He was/is the Son of God? Just curious…
I could agree it matters who is more and who is less to blame, John, but as a parent its a heck of a lot more effective for me to guard against perpetuating the mistakes that my parents (and I) have made, whether the mistakes were church influenced or not, than it is to even think about working to change a monolythic institution like the church. This is partly because I love my kids a heck of a lot more than I love the church, but it is also because I know how important it has been to face my own demons, attempt to conquer them (or at least to get 'em under control,) and then move on.My way of moving on has been to deal more peripherally with the church and live my life concentrating on what is important to me and mine in my little world. Yours might be to mount a full blown Don Quixote-like charge at the windmills.
Your Preaching to the choir, @mwortman1. All good thoughts but it does not absolve an entire church of the evil perpetrated against the most vulnerable. Corporately, parents, teachers, pastors, members, administrators, all participated in that evil act. The only thing that can be done is for those of us who experienced it to speak out against it’s continuance in whatever form that may take going forward, and to attempt to educate our own kids and grandkids what the evil is, was, and looks like.
4 Likes
I think that it is finally time to put all the rationalizations and reinterpretations aside and look at the stark reality of the Second Advent doctrine. Seventh-day Adventists, growing out the Disappointment of the Advent expectation of 1844 have been proclaiming the “nearness” of Jesus’ return to the earth—that he is coming “soon”—for 176 years!
Even more absurd is the fact that Adventist evangelists still on occasion roll out celestial and other evidentiary “signs” of the “time of the end” and of the imminence of the Advent that include the Lisbon Earthquake (1755—265 years ago), the Dark Day (1780—240 years ago), and the Falling of the Stars (1833—187 years ago).
The biblical time prophecies so treasured by Adventists—dubious at best and based on false premises like the “Year-Day Principle”—provide no more support for the contemporary relevance of this doctrine. Even if these were exegetically sound, their foci are not specifically the Advent nor do their termination points provide any reasonable date of expectation of the event. Adventists typically embrace two, the 1,260-day/year and the 2,300-day/year prophecies.
The first is based on Daniel 7:24-26, “As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings shall arise, and another shall arise after them. This one shall be different from the former ones, and shall put down three kings. He shall speak words against the Most High, shall wear out the holy ones of the Most High, and shall attempt to change the sacred seasons and the law; and they shall be given into his power for a time, two times, and half a time. Then the court shall sit in judgment, and his dominion shall be taken away, to be consumed and totally destroyed.” (See also 12:7-9; Revelation 11:1-2; 13:5) Many Protestants, including Adventists, understood a certain event in Papal history as fulfilling the end Daniel’s prophecy (=42-month prophecy in Revelation with both calculated to be 1,260 days/years). However, this event was not anticipated in advance and was variously recognized after it occurred. The biggest challenge came when the many interpreters tried to find an acceptable starting date for the prophecy. However, even if we grant the veracity of these dubious dates as constituting the fulfillment of a very imprecise biblical prophecy (222 years ago!), it does not provide the interpreter with any advance information about the date of the Advent, leaving at best only a general time frame for be beginning of the “time of the end.” (Daniel 12:9)
The second is based on Daniel 9:13-14, “Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to the one that spoke, ‘For how long is this vision concerning the regular burnt offering, the transgression that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled?’ And he answered him, ‘For two thousand three hundred evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state.’” It was a fatally flawed interpretation of this material as pertaining to the Advent that led to the Millerite debacle and the failed expectation of in 1844. The SDA reinterpretation is equally flawed and biblically indefensible. Furthermore, in either case, the prophecy, whatever it means, extends no later than the middle of the 19th century.
Clearly, Adventists have a major credibility problem when proclaiming the nearness or imminence of the Second Advent. However, the writers of the New Testament and, by extension, all Christians who read them normatively have an infinitely greater problem. These writers sometimes even invoke the purported words of Jesus of Nazareth as authority.
One of the clearest pieces of evidence of this is a unit of the Gospel of Mark (8:34-9:1). There Jesus is reported to address his disciples and others on the significant implications of their following him. He concluded by declaring: “Those who are ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of them the Son of Man will also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” (8:38) That this reference to the Son of Man coming in glory with the angels clearly anticipates the Second Advent is beyond dispute. Mark immediately continues his report of Jesus’ words, “Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.” (9:1) In this tight literary context, the “kingdom of God” coming “with power” must also refer to the Second Advent. Therefore, Jesus is reported to have declared, with his solemn “Truly I tell you,” that at least some of those who were listening to his words would not die before his Second Advent, i.e., during their natural lifetime.
Matthew closely follows the essence of Mark’s report of this speech, while characteristically abbreviating it. (16:24-28) However, he eliminated any reference to the potential that some of Jesus’ hearers would be “ashamed” of him and he of them at his Second Advent. Instead, Matthew reports Jesus’ words as, “For the Son of Man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay everyone for what has been done.” (16:27) This focus on behavior, in this case in contrast to confession in Mark, is demonstrably a consistent theme of Matthew’s. Nevertheless, the event anticipated in Matthew’s report is still the Second Advent. Furthermore, Matthew echoes Mark’s report with equally solemn words, “Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” (16:28) As to the predicted event and its timing, Matthew’s and Mark’s reports agree.
Luke even more closely follows Mark’s report of this speech with minor exceptions, most notably referring to the “kingdom of God” without the expression “has come with power.” (9:23-27) If read in isolation from the context, Luke’s reference here to seeing “the kingdom of God” could reflect his sometime understanding of the kingdom as a present reality in the person of Jesus himself among his followers. (E.g., Luke 17:21). Such a reading would imply that some of Jesus’ listeners would experience the spiritual or political benefits of his physical presence among them. However, like Mark, Luke reports Jesus’ prediction that some of his listeners would not die until “they see the kingdom of God” immediately after Jesus referred to the “Son of Man” coming “in his glory and the glory of the father and of the holy angels.” Therefore, Luke’s report agrees with Mark’s that Jesus predicted the time frame of his Second Advent to be within the natural lifetime of some of his hearers.
The Triple Tradition (Mark followed by Matthew and Luke) report of Jesus’ speech about the implications of following him unanimously concludes with Jesus’ declaration that his Second Advent will occur within the natural lifetimes of some of those who heard him speak. Even if the hearers in this story included some young children, the end point of this projected time frame would be no later than the early 2nd century AD (at least 1,900 years ago!)
3 Likes
Response to you and if you don’t mind, one to cfowler’s question to you also.
The earliest Christian writings, those of Paul which make up half of the New Testament, seem to know nothing of a historical Jesus recently doing his thing in Galilee and Jerusalem. Paul’s Jesus is presented as having been a cosmic deity who descended through the layers of the heavens to the level of the daemons who killed him (in the cosmos) after which he was resurrected and rose back through the layers of the heavens back to the presence of Yahweh (compare this to a contemporary Jewish myth called “The Ascension of Isaiah”). No Galilean ministry, no preaching, no miracles, no cleaning of the temple, no crucifixion (either by Romans or Jews), no empty tomb, etc. If all we had were the epistles, the concept of a historical man named Jesus as we “know” from the gospels would not exist.
Decades later, someone wrote the Gospel of Mark creating a “biography” of a man named Jesus. His sources seemed to have been composite; Several characters known to history through Josephus (Jesus, the son of the high priest who predicted the destruction of the temple, the Egyptian who was dressed in royal robes, the preacher in the wilderness, Vespasian who worked a miracle using spittle, etc), Odysseus from Homer (see Dennis MacDonald), several pericopes from Isaiah and Zechariah, the Psalms, and even Julius Caesar. R.L. Price has recently shown Mark’s dependence on Paul’s teachings to help in creating several scenes. At some later time, the writers of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke used Mark’s narrative to greatly expand the legend, but in irreconcilable ways. The genealogies are completely different, the birth dates are off by many years, the birth stories are incompatible, their sayings are inserted into different points in Mark’s narrative, the details of the triumphal entry are off, Matthew creates his own zombie apocalypse with his night of the living dead on the Friday of the crucifixion, and both create irreconcilable resurrection narratives (something lacking in Mark). John’s gospel goes a step further and makes Jesus out to be Yahweh himself. Legends do tend to expand over time.
In short, the primitive Pauline cosmic Christ was given a life on earth, a biography, and a historical reason for the Christian supercession of Judaism. Of course not all “Christians” followed this current of thought. One searches in vain in other early Christian writings concerned with a historical Jesus. They sound more like a philosophical society concerned with ascetic ethics. Others, the gnostics, went in a totally mystical direction. We know which tradition won.
4 Likes
Both my mother and father were instilled with incredible fear as children in this church. It is impossible for them to be free of this burden even now many decades later (they are in their 80s), even though they no longer agree with some of the church’s doctrines and are unhappy with what they see happening in the church today. They are mentally chained to this denomination and its peculiar beliefs. They were taught this fear by their Adventist teachers and pastors. Their parents were complicit only in allowing it to happen as it was not in their personalities to teach this way. I’m sure they all thought the teachers and pastors knew best. And of course my grandparents and great grandparents (also Adventist) were all taught the same thing. We are after all a multi generational Adventist family.
For most of the 20th century this church has passed on its beliefs to successive generations through its school system, through church and through Sabbath school. Committed sda parents did what they thought was right by sending their children to sda schools and by faithfully attending church and sabbath school. They allowed the church to indoctrinate their children. That has been the experience of my midwestern, Texan and later Californian Adventist families since the 1870s, when they were converted, and it holds true in my husband’s Adventist families from the same time and places. Through the centralized bureaucracy the church has passed on a carefully crafted vision of how Adventists should live and think, which has led to a church full of people who do what they are told. Adventism has a way of shaping its people. (Btw, most of my six generations of SDA relatives left the church along the way—great aunts and uncles, cousins, etc.,—but those who stayed could tolerate this way of living and thinking. I will also grant that some parents along the way were more active and fanatical participants in the indoctrination than others.)
A child who is lucky enough to have mature, thoughtful, broadly educated parents is indeed fortunate. But most children do not have this. And a church which exacerbates the problem of immature, uneducated parents is indeed a sad situation. I’ve seen a lot of the exacerbation of the defects of parental character upon children in the Adventist church, directly related to the unique beliefs of the church.
To break the familial cycle of the tie to the Adventist church is difficult. Sometimes parents are the ones to do it and sometimes it’s the children who do it. But it is hard no matter who does it.
5 Likes
FEAR is a great tool to control, manipulate, and corrupt the crowds. Both in church and in society.
So many Senators are powered by fear nowadays, even if they have to compromise national security.
6 Likes
Barry, patience!
Just a few more days!
(but those might be thousand year days. Or something…)
Those assured clemency look forward for judgment!
1 Like
The earliest Christian writings, those of Paul which make up half of the New Testament, seem to know nothing of a historical Jesus recently doing his thing in Galilee and Jerusalem. Paul’s Jesus is presented as having been a cosmic deity who descended through the layers of the heavens to the level of the daemons who killed him (in the cosmos) after which he was resurrected and rose back through the layers of the heavens back to the presence of Yahweh (compare this to a contemporary Jewish myth called “The Ascension of Isaiah”). No Galilean ministry, no preaching, no miracles, no cleaning of the temple, no crucifixion (either by Romans or Jews), no empty tomb, etc. If all we had were the epistles, the concept of a historical man named Jesus as we “know” from the gospels would not exist.
Decades later, someone wrote the Gospel of Mark creating a “biography” of a man named Jesus. His sources seemed to have been composite; Several characters known to history through Josephus (Jesus, the son of the high priest who predicted the destruction of the temple, the Egyptian who was dressed in royal robes, the preacher in the wilderness, Vespasian who worked a miracle using spittle, etc), Odysseus from Homer (see Dennis MacDonald), several pericopes from Isaiah and Zechariah, the Psalms, and even Julius Caesar. R.L. Price has recently shown Mark’s dependence on Paul’s teachings to help in creating several scenes. At some later time, the writers of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke used Mark’s narrative to greatly expand the legend, but in irreconcilable ways. The genealogies are completely different, the birth dates are off by many years, the birth stories are incompatible, their sayings are inserted into different points in Mark’s narrative, the details of the triumphal entry are off, Matthew creates his own zombie apocalypse with his night of the living dead on the Friday of the crucifixion, and both create irreconcilable resurrection narratives (something lacking in Mark). John’s gospel goes a step further and makes Jesus out to be Yahweh himself. Legends do tend to expand over time.
In short, the primitive Pauline cosmic Christ was given a life on earth, a biography, and a historical reason for the Christian supercession of Judaism. Of course not all “Christians” followed this current of thought. One searches in vain in other early Christian writings concerned with a historical Jesus. They sound more like a philosophical society concerned with ascetic ethics. Others, the gnostics, went in a totally mystical direction. We know which tradition won.
1 Like
Lots to consider here. Stories do change over time. In 19th and 20th century America at a time when science and other fields of knowledge were making astounding leaps, Adventists had Mrs. White holding up a very large Bible higher than the level of her pumping heart for an extended period of time. Myth making does happen and it may take a bit of detective work for scholars to determine what bits are historically accurate.
edit: Tim mentioned Bart Ehrman in his post above. As Tim alluded to, in some of Dr. Ehrman’s works his aim is to do this type of historical sleuthing. (involving New Testament writings, not Mrs. White’s)
1 Like