Spectrum Booth Accepted, Rejected by the NAD

Good for you that you were associated with the Lutherans on a long-term basis. At least you didn’t have to deal with the "remnant arrogance!


Ultimately, the secular world and irreligious philosophers summarily reject ultimatums.

And with good reason.

Absolute certainty about anything-including the “meaning of life”-is almost certainly something that cannot be expressed in words. E.g., billions of humans have been trying to define terms like “Jesus”, “Mohammed”, “Lao Tzu”, “Buddha”, etc., for hundred and even thousands of years and as times goes on the resolution to these questions seems to have become ever more elusive.

A further complication with such tactics is that it is as impossible to force someone to “share your faith” as it is to make my dog take a drink of water if there’s a squirrel in the area!

One day, organized religions, and the people who support them, will perhaps adopt less strident, even humble approaches to solving all the world’s problems rather than insisting “you just gotta believe” this or that book.

And perhaps then we will be able to get on with the task of recreating the Garden of Eden here on earth, as it seems less and less likely that anyone’s gonna come back and help us with a task that is, and probably always was, humanity’s sole responsibility.

But I’ve been watching these polemics play out for years, and partisans from all sides prattle on for three score and seven, and ultimately I’ve grown tired of holding my breath.


Is it also possible that many “progressives”, i.e. liberals, who have a lot of money are just walking away from the church?


I am one of them, progressive.
A progressive without a lot of money though… :roll_eyes: :joy: :rofl:


Just curious, Is Spectrum going to report anything about the NDA Conference?


I doubt whether many progressives/liberals would give money to an organisation that would use it for another D&R seminar, so yes, you are probably right.

I, too, miss him. (Comments must be 20 characters, so this is meeting the requirement.)

1 Like

At least term limits.

Your comment gave me pause to wonder. In my experience Lutherans don’t have to be–they just are. There are no equivalent attitudes of “remnant”. Maybe Luther’s high disregard for the books of James (“a right strawy epistle”) and Revelation bypassed the possibilities of a “remnant” infection. The writings of Luther have been studied, dissected, scrutinized, doubted, spawned new thinking and have withstood the test of time by scholars and critics. I rather doubt that the collective works of the founders of the SDA movement would give rise to the equivalents of a Bonhoffer, Kirkegaard, etc. If it was going to happen, it would have already started. Instead we get Pacific Press lawsuits, Glacier View witch hunts, etc. And herein lies a significant difference between what is arrogant and that which is assured.


From what I’ve seen recently, there are some scholars-particularly some Jewish ones-who find Luther’s antisemitism a bit “distasteful”….

(I guess the concept is sorta timeless, tough, according to Neo-Nazis.)


1 Like

That makes 2 of us !

1 Like

I humbly submit that, in my considered opinion, this is a corrupted view of my spectrum. George made my day and I will keep on borrowing his words- sprectrum is mostly for dissenters. That hardly fits the bill - affirms our movement’s calling

Good move by NAD. Sprectrum is mostly for dissidents and dissenters as George Tichy said and CALLED 2022 is for those whose beliefs systems are still aligned to the official position of the church. I dont see why NAD should be lambasted

I’m really an oddball I guess. I’m gay but I don’t consider myself a progressive, at least in today’s political mode. I’m more of a Liz Chaney type conservative politically. Not sure where I fit in religiously. I’m certainly no LGT quack. I guess I’m an old style liberal, but don’t spread it around, George. Come to think of it Jesus was a liberal.

1 Like

It’s not just the Jewish scholars. Lutherans, at least in North America, are seriously wanting to distance themselves from Luther’s antisemitic attitudes. It’s providing more than just a bit of a public relations debacle. It calls into serious question the ideals and merits of Protestantism and Luther’s reasons advocating for separation from the papacy.

You do have a point. “But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do” 1 Cor 8:8. One of the weakness of our church is attempting to create a food based test of faith. The better Adventist are vegetarians, while meat and users of wine are not fully converted. I wish we could be free from this idea that God prefers those who use the Eden Diet plan. Instead I wish we were more intent on embracing salvation by faith alone, without the works of the law (Eden Diet), see Gal 2:16.

Yet I realize there are many positive things that come from an emphasis on food in faith–there is the hospital system and a greater interest in healthy living among SDA’s then many Baptist churches.

No problem with saying that healthy lifestyle is an emphasis of the church, that God has given us the gift of health and life to manage wisely and well, and here are different ways of doing it, including diet, exercise, social relationships, preventive health care, etc. As part of ongoing teaching of how to live life abundantly, that’s great!

Huge problem when you take a list of foods with cultic attachments from Lev. 11, and make that part of the baptismal/entrance requirements. It flies in the face of the gospel, its freedom, and the basis of the unity it creates.

Diet and days are identified by Paul in Romans as debatable, ancillary issues that should not be divided over. Adventism does the opposite. Even though there are lots of sincere and wonderful believers, it deserves its identification as a heterodox sect of Christianity. It’s been divisive and “spying out “ people’s freedom in the gospel since its inception.



Food for health’s sake not for salvation’s sake.


Martin Luther was a dissenter. He sought to reform the corruption and error of the church of which he was part. They threw him out because they didn’t want to hear what he had to say. They were beyond the capacity to self correct because it was too much a threat to the status quo, and to power and money. Something that all organized religions tend to fall into.

Be careful with your sweeping generalizations and conclusions.


This topic was automatically closed after 14 days. New replies are no longer allowed.