Legal Posturing Options

[PeacefulBe]

LD,

Your words reminded me of the great divide we find within the practice of Christianity. Most of us know the beautiful parable of the Prodigal Son, how he carelessly squandered his half of his father's wealth and then realized how hopelessly lost he was without his father. And then, there is the other brother:

Luke 15:25-32

25 "Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. 27 'Your brother has come,' he replied, 'and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.'

28 "The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. 29 But he answered his father, 'Look! All these years I've been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!'

31 " 'My son,' the father said, 'you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. 32 But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' "

Ricardo B Graham's revealing Perspective article, BLACK SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS AND RACIAL RECONCILIATION, that studies the color divide and racism within our denomination, has some insightful offerings as to how the parable of the Prodigal Son demonstrates the divide between contractual and prodigal forms of religious expression. I am quoting his article from page 130 but the section starts in the last paragraph of page 129:

"In explaining the phenomenon, Dittes explores the parable of the prodigal son, found in Luke 15:11-32, where he finds two forms of religious expression presented - the contractual and the prodigal. Practitioners of contractual religion tend to limit their experience to the terms of a contract: service and obedience. In other words, if a person serves and obeys hes/her parents, then he or she can expect to be rewarded, as the older son in the parable expected. If Christians serve and obey God, they expect God's reward. If not, they fully expect God's punishment, which they believe they deserve.

Those who practice a contractual form of religion can be referred to as 'legalists,' which in this context means to be dependent upon the fulfillment of the claims of the law, or in the words of Dittes, meeting the obligation of a contract. The father in the parable is 'impulsive and extravagant in his outpouring of love and forgiveness'. The father is accepting and affirming rather than judgmental and censorious. This is a demonstration of prodigal religion, in which the elements of compassion and forgiveness, acceptance and love, are emphaxized over condemnation and faultfinding."

Granted, Graham here, was applying the parable as it relates to the "persistant exclusion" by white Christian of black, but it can be applied more widely as well, to all aspects of religious practice and expression. The entire article is eye-opening and something every SDA Christian would do well to study to help to chip away at the color boundaries in our denomination.

When I think of our recently banned Dannyfingers brothers and sisters, so trapped in their rigid and legalistic point of view, yet blind to the elephants crowding in around them, I think of this parable.

This post has been edited by PeacefullyBewildered: May 15 2007, 07:17 AM

[Shepherdswife]

The training was appartently too deep though. . . . I've been around extreme conservative SDAs quite a bit and know their ways. There's a rigidity that sets in that is almost beyond description. Combine that with familiarity with the writings, and a closed approach where there's almost nothing new to learn--you've got quite a recipe for arrogance. They talk down to everyone...as if playing the part of the recent prophet herself, and writing a new chapter in the testemonies, volume 11.

Having been there myself (extreme conservative SDA) for most of my formative years, I can corroborate your observations.

1. I had to be right, or I would be lost. "The Truth" was all important, whether it was dress length or level of education.
2. To be right, I had to know what EGW said on every topic, and do it. (I had read everything published by her at the time, by the time I was 17)
3. Once you have read it all, know it all, and do it all (well, most of the time), you are better than everyone else, who hasn't bothered to do what you have done.
4. If they haven't read it, know it, and aren't doing it, what could they possible say that you would have any interest in hearing?
5. If anyone disagrees with me, one of us is WRONG, and that one is lost. Since I can't go there, and since I have read it all, know it all, and do it all, that one cannot be me. I refuse to even consider the possibility.
6. Once I have caught a person in even one nuance of a thought or action or opinion that is "wrong" according to my reading, knowing, and doing, I discount everything they ever say again--after all, "there is no light in them."
7. This template locks you into your "truth" forever, because no one can influence you. Until, that is, you get so burned out from reading, knowing and doing that you have a breakdown, physically, mentally, and spiritually, and you then throw it all out and start over at the beginning with a much more real and honest version of truth, reading, knowing and doing--praise God!
(Believe me, that is not the end of it. I will struggle with the legalistic voices to my dying day...but I am not ruled by them anymore)


shepherdswife--who just told her spiritual development story in 7 simple statements.

[PeacefulBe]

Shepherdswife,

Praise God for your spiritual victory and AMEN!

[Clay]

When a person is banned, either temporarily or permanently, is it proper to gloat over it?

Doesn't that place us on the same level as those who were banned?

Shouldn't we have simply and privately acknowledged the ban notice/s and moved on?

I don't see it as gloating and no it does not place us on the same level.... to talk about the fact that there were those among us who were a pain to deal with at times is a reality and should not be brushed aside. I see the comments as a collective "exhale" and not gloating....

Likewise, I have a real problem with your idea that the banning should have been privately acknowledged and then people move on..... that is what Danny and Co. hoped would happen with his mess.....and I am glad that we did not privately acknowledge it and move on... but that's just me....

[PeacefulBe]

I don't see it as gloating and no it does not place us on the same level.... to talk about the fact that there were those among us who were a pain to deal with at times is a reality and should not be brushed aside. I see the comments as a collective "exhale" and not gloating....

Likewise, I have a real problem with your idea that the banning should have been privately acknowledged and then people move on..... that is what Danny and Co. hoped would happen with his mess.....and I am glad that we did not privately acknowledge it and move on... but that's just me....

Clay,

I agree and I love your "collective exhale" take. I'm sure each one of us who is not an only child can look back to when a sibling got their just reward for being mean. I know the sense of relief I would get, even the smug satisfaction, that the offender was not getting away with the unkind word or deed.

This is a forum. We must express. However, if we had simultaneously broken into a giddy chorus of "Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead..." along with our happy dances, that would have qualified as gloating, IMO.

PB

[watchbird]

When a person is banned, either temporarily or permanently, is it proper to gloat over it?

Doesn't that place us on the same level as those who were banned?

Shouldn't we have simply and privately acknowledged the ban notice/s and moved on?

I don't see it as gloating and no it does not place us on the same level.... to talk about the fact that there were those among us who were a pain to deal with at times is a reality and should not be brushed aside. I see the comments as a collective "exhale" and not gloating....

Likewise, I have a real problem with your idea that the banning should have been privately acknowledged and then people move on..... that is what Danny and Co. hoped would happen with his mess.....and I am glad that we did not privately acknowledge it and move on... but that's just me....

I agree with Clay. When someone is banned and the board is not told about it, most of us don't have a clue as to whether they are just absent for a while or are truly gone.

When someone is banned, I think it is appropriate that the grounds for that decision is made known to us. Otherwise, we do not learn where the boundaries are and in what way the banned person stepped over them.

When someone has been personally abusive to others as the Dannyfingers have been... calling everyone liars at best... it is, I think, appropriate for the abused to express their thanks for their deliverance from their abusers. It is not NECESSARY for everyone to express that.... as with other things, once a few have expressed it, others can give silent assent if they choose.

These persons have been valuable to us in their own way. Most of us have not suffered nor witnessed personal abuse from Dan Shelton. But we have all suffered and witnessed the abuse that his supporters have given. We are all first hand witnesses to this.

[Pickle]

If I says much more, I'd probably ended up in a JOYless Pickle of a mess!

Actually, I think we may have more Joy, despite the Pickle we're in, than the other side, don't you think? It's actually not that bad.

[YogusBearus]

Clay,

I agree and I love your "collective exhale" take. I'm sure each one of us who is not an only child can look back to when a sibling got their just reward for being mean. I know the sense of relief I would get, even the smug satisfaction, that the offender was not getting away with the unkind word or deed.

This is a forum. We must express. However, if we had simultaneously broken into a giddy chorus of "Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead..." along with our happy dances, that would have qualified as gloating, IMO.

PB

While I don't necessarily disagree with these points, I'm left wondering if the DS supporters aren't a necessary element in this discussion. I'm going to predict that things will get pretty tame on this section for a few days until we get delivery on the new/recyled crop. I don't mean to be cynical but have felt for some time that if we didn't have an adequate number of foils, we would have to go out and recruit them. Just some bear ruminations...

[YogusBearus]

Wow! Really good stuff Shepherdswife. I don't know that I've seen a better descriptor of the legalism trap.

I'm particularly struck by your item 7. I think you are describing a best case scenario/resolution there. I've witnessed to many, who upon reaching that stage, have thrown up their hands and said "it's no use." I am so happy you were able to discover the real "truth" in your life.

-bear

Having been there myself (extreme conservative SDA) for most of my formative years, I can corroborate your observations.

1. I had to be right, or I would be lost. "The Truth" was all important, whether it was dress length or level of education.
2. To be right, I had to know what EGW said on every topic, and do it. (I had read everything published by her at the time, by the time I was 17)
3. Once you have read it all, know it all, and do it all (well, most of the time), you are better than everyone else, who hasn't bothered to do what you have done.
4. If they haven't read it, know it, and aren't doing it, what could they possible say that you would have any interest in hearing?
5. If anyone disagrees with me, one of us is WRONG, and that one is lost. Since I can't go there, and since I have read it all, know it all, and do it all, that one cannot be me. I refuse to even consider the possibility.
6. Once I have caught a person in even one nuance of a thought or action or opinion that is "wrong" according to my reading, knowing, and doing, I discount everything they ever say again--after all, "there is no light in them."
7. This template locks you into your "truth" forever, because no one can influence you. Until, that is, you get so burned out from reading, knowing and doing that you have a breakdown, physically, mentally, and spiritually, and you then throw it all out and start over at the beginning with a much more real and honest version of truth, reading, knowing and doing--praise God!
(Believe me, that is not the end of it. I will struggle with the legalistic voices to my dying day...but I am not ruled by them anymore)


shepherdswife--who just told her spiritual development story in 7 simple statements.

[princessdi]

Wow!! If that isn't it in a nutshell!! You go Gurl!! Praise God for accepting the Freedom through Jesus Christ!

Having been there myself (extreme conservative SDA) for most of my formative years, I can corroborate your observations.

1. I had to be right, or I would be lost. "The Truth" was all important, whether it was dress length or level of education.
2. To be right, I had to know what EGW said on every topic, and do it. (I had read everything published by her at the time, by the time I was 17)
3. Once you have read it all, know it all, and do it all (well, most of the time), you are better than everyone else, who hasn't bothered to do what you have done.
4. If they haven't read it, know it, and aren't doing it, what could they possible say that you would have any interest in hearing?
5. If anyone disagrees with me, one of us is WRONG, and that one is lost. Since I can't go there, and since I have read it all, know it all, and do it all, that one cannot be me. I refuse to even consider the possibility.
6. Once I have caught a person in even one nuance of a thought or action or opinion that is "wrong" according to my reading, knowing, and doing, I discount everything they ever say again--after all, "there is no light in them."
7. This template locks you into your "truth" forever, because no one can influence you. Until, that is, you get so burned out from reading, knowing and doing that you have a breakdown, physically, mentally, and spiritually, and you then throw it all out and start over at the beginning with a much more real and honest version of truth, reading, knowing and doing--praise God!
(Believe me, that is not the end of it. I will struggle with the legalistic voices to my dying day...but I am not ruled by them anymore)
shepherdswife--who just told her spiritual development story in 7 simple statements.

[Daryl Fawcett]

I guess it isn't as much as what we acknowledge as much as how we acknowledge it.

I am also not against notifying others here when a person is banned, whether it be a temporary ban or a permanent ban.

Some of the reaction posts here, however, sounded like gloating to me.

[Clay]

I guess it isn't as much as what we acknowledge as much as how we acknowledge it.

I am also not against notifying others here when a person is banned, whether it be a temporary ban or a permanent ban.

Some of the reaction posts here, however, sounded like gloating to me.

understood.... I think it is a case of we all read something and perceive it differently...

[princessdi]

I will admit hat my reaction is that o f an Admin who is weary of walking the line with these ppeople, and trying to find reasons to keep them members. I, personally, have tried to make them feel apart of BSDA is posts, in private. That is not what they want. They want and live for the kaos(Ok so I liked "Get Smart" ) they created here each and everyday. I really do love serving the members of BSDA, and helping where ever I can(and still look forward to seeing as many as possible at our 2010 GC Reunion ). God is not through with me yet, so a great source of my frustration was not to act as a member who could careless about being banned myself, and typing something that most definteily have to be deleted by Calvin or Clay after my ow departure. My repsonse is clearly a sigh of relief. They had wore out the patience of the saints and every rule int he book. It was time for them to go. Simple.

I guess it isn't as much as what we acknowledge as much as how we acknowledge it.

I am also not against notifying others here when a person is banned, whether it be a temporary ban or a permanent ban.

Some of the reaction posts here, however, sounded like gloating to me.

[Daryl Fawcett]

Yes, I understand all of that as I, as the Administrator of MSDAOL, also had to ban people there, which I do not enjoy doing, but nevertheless need do so for the sake of the others posting or even lurking there.

[LaurenceD]

Having been there myself (extreme conservative SDA) for most of my formative years, I can corroborate your observations.

(snip)

shepherdswife--who just told her spiritual development story in 7 simple statements.

Wow! Thanks. I'll be rereading your story from time to time. You sound like someone else I know. And I think this is the essense of true conversion. I use the term self-righteous, indirectly, with a couple of the banned members...which clearly bothered at least one.

When I think of our recently banned Dannyfingers brothers and sisters, so trapped in their rigid and legalistic point of view, yet blind to the elephants crowding in around them, I think of this parable.

Your parallel is powerful here...something to think about. Thanks for that.



Don't know if anyone caught it or not, but the "God bless" in my post above was a code expression probably known only to a couple people around here. This beliefnet member "Discerner" who I mentioned in the previous post, signs off just like two or three others I'm familiar with...one member here, and someone who wrote a letter to AToday...

http://www.atoday.com/6.0.html?&tx_ttn...Hash=b7534bfb09

And so, I never use the term, but I could sign off with...

gob less!



PS: thanks sonshineoneme for your post. I'm now tuned in with the tools on this forum!