Electric Fence

September/October 2008 Proclamation! – The Brickell Story: Objection, Relevance!

Bruce Cameron — Sat, 16 May 2009 22:00:45 +0000

Introduction: If you are already familiar with the Electric Fence, skip this introduction. If not, give me a few moments to explain this unique blog. This blog has one purpose: to defend Seventh-day Adventists against the attacks of an organization called “Life Assurance Ministries” (variously referred to here as “LAM,” “lammers,” “wolves,” “whiners,” or “howlers.”) LAM publishes a bi-monthly journal called Proclamation! and its principal purpose seems to be to paint the Adventist Church as the “Great Satan,” and suggest that members should leave the Adventist Church as quickly as possible. If you want more details, read my entry “Why the Electric Fence?”

Each issue of Proclamation! has a section called “Stories of Faith,” in which it recounts why some poor sap left the Adventist Church and joined the lammers. (By the way, “on the lam” is an old term for someone who is a fugitive from the law - an apt description of the lammers.) The lammers’ purpose in these stories is to explain why you, too, should leave the Adventist Church.

Beginning in 2008, each time Proclamation! issues one of these new stories, I intend to “take on” the story. I’ve been a regular reader of Proclamation! for a number of years now. (They “spammed” me onto their mailing list.) As far as I’m concerned, these howlers would throw the Church (if not their mothers) under the train. Proclamation! has a real hard edge to it. I’m a lawyer and a litigator, and “brass knuckles” debate is nothing new to me. You will see a hard edge in this blog that you see nowhere else in my Internet Bible studies because I normally do not believe in taking brass knuckles to fellow believers. What I am concerned about, and I apologize in advance if I give any offense to the reader, is separating the wolves (for which verbal brass knuckles are permitted) from the poor saps who are featured in each Proclamation! “Story of Faith.” I’m sure those people who leave the Adventist Church are sincere, if confused. They are not the target of this blog, even if it might seem that way. The target of this blog is the editors and managers of LAM who offer up these poor unfortunates as an example of why you should leave the Adventist Church. Okay, are we clear? I’m not out to insult those poor souls who left the Church, this blog is to explain why their reasons for leaving were illogical, and (when applicable) irrational.

This month Electric Fence takes on the story of why Sondra Brickell left the Adventist Church. Read on.

From Torah Observant to New Covenant: The Brickell Story

The lammers seem to have lost sight of their goal! The purpose of the “Stories of Faith” series is to recite why other good Adventists have left the Adventist Church to show why you should too. Even the title of this story “From Torah … to New Covenant” suggests the story will track the usual goal.

But no, we have yet another story about why someone who was never really in the Church is still not in the Church. The story starts with Sondra, whose father left the Seventh-day Adventist ministry because of his divorce. Or, maybe it wasn’t his divorce, maybe it was that Ellen White copying thing. Or, maybe it was the sanctuary doctrine. Let me guess, would a pastor’s divorce (the story leaves out important information about whether or not adultery was involved), or a pastor’s views about 1844 be more likely to cause his separation from the Church? Boy, the lammers are in fog about this. Are they sure global warming was not the cause? In any event we are told that “one or both” of these events (Des Ford and 1844 or the divorce) “marked the end [of her father’s] ministry.” Let’s go for “one” of the events – the divorce – and leave 1844 and global warming out of it.

So, dad got a divorce, and left the Adventist Church when his little girl is ten years-old. As he is leaving, dad confides in his daughter that he does not really believe the key doctrines of the Church.

In any event, ten year-old Sondra, who is “never persuaded” of the doctrines, gets married, attends a non-Adventist Church and then “for a few years” she joined the Adventist Church along with her husband who “lacked a better alternative at the time.”

Sondra recites that during that very short window of time in her life when she was actually a member of the Adventist Church “something prompted me to start a serious study” of the Bible. Now here is a lightning bolt – being a member of the Adventist Church inspires reading the Bible. Who would have guessed that?

Apparently, the lammers’ editing skills are not quite up to par. At one point Sondra admits, “But after leaving Adventism, it seems we abandoned out dependence on God and became confident we could find our own way.” Isn’t that the truth!

Sondra worshipped with a Bible church for a while, but decided that it “seemed so simple and boring to me.” She moved on to worshipping with a Messianic group, which the article seems to say differs from Messianic Jews because the members were gentiles and not Jewish.

To further separate Sondra’s group from other Messianic congregations we are assured, “Messianic Jewish brothers … have a clear picture of the new covenant.” Hold on just one moment! I thought one of the major problems with that Great Satan (the Adventist Church) was that it taught people to worship God on Saturday – which shows Adventists do not have a clear picture of the new covenant. Why do these people get a pass on Sabbath worship and Adventists do not? I know! Most Adventists are not Jewish. It’s a racial thing. Now, where did it say in the Bible that Jews and gentiles could read the Bible differently? Must be in here someplace, Let’s see….

Back to our story. Next, we are introduced to the religious background of Jeff, Sondra’s husband. Turns out (rats!), Jeff has no background in Adventism to renounce. Instead, after his brief membership in the Church he wanders with Sondra through various Christian groups until he reads the book of Galatians. He reports, “when I finished reading, I stood up with my hands on my chest of drawers and took a deep breath. It felt like the weight of the world just lifted from my shoulders.” One might think that it was the weight was the chest of drawers, but it turns out that that it was “all the “layers of falsehood [that] started to peel away…. We repented knowing we had only ourselves to blame.”

Who let that statement into the story! It was supposed to be the Adventist Church that is to blame for them missing the Galatians reading all those years. Surely it must be part of the layers of “falsehood.”

Our story ends with Sondra and Jeff returning to the “simple” Bible church where they now treasure the “simple truth.” There is no doubt the gospel story is simple truth, but how the Adventist Church gets indicted in Sondra’s story is not so simple. It seems that dad losing his job as an Adventist minister coupled with the divorce made such an impact on a young girl’s spiritual development that for years she wandered from church to church. We cannot help but be sympathetic to Sondra. These are traumatic events in a young girl’s life. However, they are hardly a reason for mature Adventists to leave the Church. Guess we are going to have to wait until the next issue where the lammers can take another crack at the Church.

July/August 2008 Proclamation! – Phillip, We Never Knew Thee!

Bruce Cameron — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 22:07:51 +0000

Introduction: If you are already familiar with the Electric Fence, skip this introduction. If not, give me a few moments to explain this unique blog. This blog has one purpose: to defend Seventh-day Adventists against the attacks of an organization called “Life Assurance Ministries” (variously referred to here as “LAM,” “lammers,” “wolves,” “whiners,” or “howlers.”) LAM publishes a bi-monthly journal called Proclamation! and its principal purpose seems to be to paint the Adventist Church as the “Great Satan,” and suggest that members should leave the Adventist Church as quickly as possible. If you want more details, read my entry “Why the Electric Fence?”

Each issue of Proclamation! has a section called “Stories of Faith,” in which it recounts why some poor soul left the Adventist Church and joined the lammers. (By the way, “on the lam” is an old term for someone who is a fugitive from the law - an apt description of the lammers.) The lammers’ purpose in these stories is to explain why you, too, should leave the Adventist Church.

This month Electric Fence takes on the story of why Phillip E. Harris, Jr. left the Adventist Church. Read on.

I am in the arms of Jesus: The Phil Harris Story

At what segment of the Adventist audience is Proclamation! directed? Those with no common sense? Those totally bereft of logic? If so, I worry about why I got spammed onto its list!

The Phil Harris Story is “exhibit A” for the argument that these stories are directed towards those with seriously impaired reasoning. A comparable logical argument to the Phil Harris story would be this:

I had bunions on my feet.
I stopped believing in Ellen White and the Investigative Judgment.
My bunions disappeared
Ergo, believing in Ellen White and the IJ causes bunions.

The connection between Phil Harris and the Adventist Church is so slim, it is hard to understand why the lammers thought he should serve as an example of why Adventists should leave the Church. He seems to have hardly known the Church.

Phil Harris’s connection to the Adventist Church is as follows:

1. Genetic: his relatives were Adventists.
2. Geographic: he knows where Ellen White lived.
3. Educational: He spent a total of four years in an Adventist elementary school; and,
4. Brief: He once visited a “very deadening” Adventist church.

Let’s explore these in greater detail. We are told that Phil is a “fourth-generation” Adventist. His grandparents were medical missionaries to China “sent … by Ellen G. White herself.” It appears that somehow core Adventist doctrines got lost by the following generations. Phil reports the tragic loss of his four year-old brother, but writes that as a young boy he was “assured that [his brother] was in heaven and safe in the arms of Jesus.” Since the rest of this entire issue of Proclamation! is devoted to explaining why the Adventist doctrine of “soul sleep” is wrong, some relative at Phil’s home had already gotten off the Adventist theological track while he was still a young boy.

Phil reports that he spent first, third, eighth and ninth grades in Adventist schools. This is hardly a compelling argument for a vigorous Adventist upbringing. In any event, Phil reports that he departed the Church at the age of sixteen. While it does not seem that Phil had much of a connection to Adventism, he did know where Ellen White lived. Surely that is worth something.

The point of these stories is to give us Adventists reasons to bolt from the Church. So, why did sixteen year-old Phil leave? What reasons does he give that we should emulate? He was told by a visiting Adventist preacher that “90% of us were going to hell.” Phil does not say who “us” was. If he is referring to his last year in an Adventist school – ninth grade – then Phil seems a little old. More likely Phil heard this at church. Which, explains why this preacher was “visiting.” It seems unlikely that an Adventist minister would tell his own Adventist congregation that 90% of them were going to hell – unless, of course, that minister had been reading Proclamation!

In any event, Phil weighed his odds, decided that they were not good, and left the Church. His article speculates that this 90-10 ratio came from Ellen White who wrote “not one in twenty whose names are registered upon the church books are prepared to close their earthly history.” Leaving to one side that a less than one-in-twenty ratio is less than 5%, not 10%, I’m not clear on what Ellen White is saying. I’m not prepared to close my earthly history, but I do believe I’m saved.

There are, of course, the words of Jesus on the subject: Matthew 7:13-14:

13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. (NIV)

Jesus, unlike the visiting preacher, did not put a percentage on the subject. What kind of percentages would be a fair conclusion from the Bible? Certainly not 50% If that were true, Jesus would have said “There are two alternative paths.” How would you rate “small and narrow” compared to “broad?” “Many” as opposed to “few?” A 75-25 split seems too generous for “many and few.” How about 80-20? If the visiting Adventist preacher based his comments only on the Bible, suggested that 80% were going to hell, would Phil have stayed in the Church? I’m doubtful.

At that point in his young life Phil is out the door of Adventism and (apparently) out the door of Christianity as well. As the title of this section says, “Phil, we never knew thee!”

Later in life, while in the Marines, Phil meets a Christian who introduces Phil to his wife. The Christian has a positive influence in bringing Phil back to Christianity and helping him to meet a Christian girl. Phil marries the Christian girl and they attend a small Christian church. At some point Phil and his wife try visiting an Adventist Church, but find it “very deadening.” Whether Phil is harking back to the discouraging statistics which caused him to leave the Church years before, or whether he is referring to the sound qualities of the building, or something else is not clear.

This visit to an Adventist church is important to Phil’s life we are told, because at this point he puts “Adventist doctrine to the test of Scripture.” Somehow, I’m doubtful. Doubt, turns to a chuckle when I read Phil’s next words, “Having been well-trained in Adventist theology, I believed that that the investigative judgment was their unique core doctrine that I needed to test.”

When, precisely, was Phil “well-trained” in Adventist theology? Was it his theology classes in First grade? Third grade? I suppose it would be more likely the deep theological classes he took in eighth and ninth grades! Or, maybe it was that relative of his who taught him that his departed brother was immediately taken to heaven upon death.

I would like to take a survey of Adventist ninth graders and find out how many of them are up to speed on the “core doctrine” of the investigative judgment! This is just one of those places where I suspect the Proclamation! editors did a little editing of Phil’s comments. The odds of Phil, based on his four years in an Adventist grade school, decades later being able to explain the investigative judgment, much less testing it are, well, significantly lower than his odds of getting into heaven.

What aspect of the investigative judgment caused Phil to break with the Church? Apparently the teaching that the Leviticus 16 “Scapegoat” is Satan, rather than Jesus. From this he decided that Ellen White was a heretic and a false prophet. I guess when you are armed with an elementary education in theology goat identification takes on a lot of importance. That non-Adventist theologians reasonably differ on the meaning of the Scapegoat appears to have escaped the notice of Phil and the LAM editors. The Wycliffe Bible commentary says about the Scapegoat (azazel) “it seems clear from the references in this chapter that it was some sort of demon who represented to the Jewish people that which was opposed to Jehovah.” The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge says regarding the name of the Scapegoat “other learned men think it was the name of the devil.” Thus, non-Adventist theological minds differ on the identity of the Scapegoat.

But, goat misidentification was enough for Phil to be out (assuming he was ever in) the Adventist Church and sufficient for him to conclude that Ellen White was a fraud - something which put her, according to him, “in a bad light.”

According to Phil’s story, thereafter he was not only out of Adventism for good, he was also out of Christianity and separated from his wife. Mysteriously, Phil suggests that Ellen White had something to do with all of this and that when he released Ellen White his wife called and wanted to reconcile with him. What do you think? Do you think Phil’s wife returned when he got goat identification right? Think Ellen White had anything to do with his marriage? Na, I don’t think the two had any relationship either. But, the editors at Proclamation!, ever anxious to toss a rock or two at Ellen White or the Adventist Church, seem to want us to think there was some sort of connection.

My view of Phil is that he is a simple Christian who knows little about the Adventist Church. I’m glad that he is back in the fellowship of Christians, but to suggest that his story gives any Adventist a reason to leave is quite a stretch.

May/June 2008 Proclamation! — Zip-tee-do-duh!

Bruce Cameron — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 21:22:45 +0000

This month Electric Fence takes on the story of why attorney William F. Ziprick left the Adventist Church. Read on.

Finally Forever in Jesus: The Bill Ziprick Story

The lammers over at Proclamation! have a real prize this time! They claim a lawyer who says he was “involved at the highest level of the General Conference of the Adventist Church.” A Church insider who rejected the Church!

Well, let’s dissect this lawyer’s story a little bit. His article ends with a partial recitation of the conflicts with Church doctrine, but that is not what caused him to leave. Instead, what caused him to leave was a commuting issue!

Lawyer Ziprick writes that he and his wife relocated 45 minutes away from Loma Linda and he commuted back and forth to work each day. That tells us that his law office was in the Loma Linda area. Instead of commuting to his old church in which he was comfortable with “good preachers, schools and a social networking system,” he joined a small local church near his new home.

The new, small church was a disaster, with “vicious” things going on, a split in the church, and the local conference intervening to try to straighten things out. Ziprick and his family had a terrible time in the new church.

Ask yourself what you would do in such a situation. Every day you commute to work. Why not do the same on Sabbath and attend a church where you find “good preachers,” and good friends? Would that be such a burden?

Let’s assume you decide it is too much of a burden, would a situation like the one described by Mr. Ziprick tell you something bad about the Adventist Church? In the Adventist centers he is perfectly comfortable. In the small church, where higher church leadership thinks there is a problem and intervenes, Mr. Ziprick notices that there is a defect in Adventism. If you had a bushel of apples, and you picked up a rotten one, would you assume that apples are a bad fruit? Or, would you look at the rest of the apples and decide the rotten one was not a proper representative of apples in general? This seems such obvious logic that you wonder how a lawyer (of all people) could get it wrong.

At this point, lawyer Ziprick and his family decide that they can no longer attend the “bad apple” local church. The obvious answer is to commute 45 minutes back to their old church. But, do they do that? No. He admits that they do not attend church at all for “many months.” This is Southern California. Even if you were not willing to drive 45 minutes to your old church, surely you could find an acceptable Adventist Church within a reasonable drive.

Instead, Ziprick and his family start attending a non-Adventist church. He recounts how the Christians in the non-Adventist church were friendly and the pastor cited Bible references that were really in the Bible. (They checked!) Wonder why Ziprick wasn’t looking for horns, pitchforks and torture chambers when worshiping with non-Adventists!

This is another one of the Lammers’ attacks. They not only attack the doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, but they describe Adventists as thinking that their fellow Christians are charlatans and devil-worshipers. As a Seventh-day Adventist, I believe that my fellow Christians (in non-Adventist churches) are filled with the love of Jesus, filled with the Holy Spirit and concerned about understanding and obeying God’s will. Period. I’m sure there are slackers in other churches, just like there are slackers in the Adventist Church. What makes the difference between the Baptists and me is that I am more in agreement with the doctrines of the Adventists than I am with the doctrines of the Baptists. That is why Baptists are not Lutherans or Episcopalians. It is not because Baptists think Lutherans and Episcopalians wear horns and lie about the contents of the Bible!

The final chapter of lawyer Ziprick’s story deals with how he represented the Adventist Church leadership and they were difficult clients. He reports, “after almost 20 years of my working with the church brethren, that professional relationship came to an end.” He does not say who decided to terminate the relationship, but I will tell you that as a general rule, law firms do not “fire” large institutional clients. He ends the paragraph about losing the Church as his client with the sentence “God had fully awakened me and made it clear that it was really time to leave the Adventist church.”

I think that brings us to the heart of the Ziprick story. He had an unpleasant experience in a small Adventist church which causes him to leave that congregation. Around the same time his professional relationship with the Adventist Church comes to an end. Since he reports a “significant part” of his legal work was representing a church institution, no doubt the end of that relationship is a significant blow to the firm’s income.

What is your guess – does lawyer Ziprick leave the Adventist Church because of a disagreement over doctrines (doctrines that he was comfortable with for decades), or does he leave it because of hurt feelings?

March/April, 2008 Proclamation! - Cain Is Not Able

Bruce Cameron — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 23:08:02 +0000

by Bruce N. Cameron, J.D.

Copr. 2008

Introduction: If you are already familiar with the Electric Fence, skip this introduction. If not, give me a few moments to explain this unique blog. This blog has one purpose: to defend Seventh-day Adventists against the attacks of an organization called “Life Assurance Ministries” (variously referred to here as “LAM,” “lammers,” “wolves,” “whiners,” or “howlers.”) LAM publishes a bi-monthly journal called Proclamation! and its principle purpose seems to be to paint the Adventist Church as the “Great Satan,” and suggest that members should leave the Adventist Church as quickly as possible. If you want more details, read my entry “Why the Electric Fence?”

Each issue of Proclamation! has a section called “Stories of Faith,” in which it recounts why some poor sap left the Adventist Church and joined the lammers. (By the way, “on the lam” is an old term for someone who is a fugitive from the law - an apt description of the lammers.) The lammers purpose in these stories is to explain why you, too, should leave the Adventist Church.

Beginning in 2008, each time Proclamation! issues one of these new stories, I intend to “take on” the story. I’ve been a regular reader of Proclamation! for a number of years now. (They “spammed” me onto their mailing list.) As far as I’m concerned, these howlers would throw the Church (if not their mothers) under the train. Proclamation! has a real hard edge to it. I’m a lawyer and a litigator, and “brass knuckles” debate is nothing new to me. You will see a hard edge in this blog that you see nowhere else in my Internet Bible studies because I normally do not believe in taking brass knuckles to fellow believers. What I am concerned about, and I apologize in advance if I give any offense to the reader, is separating the wolves (for which verbal brass knuckles are permitted) from the poor saps who are featured in each Proclamation! “Story of Faith.” I’m sure those people who leave the Adventist Church are sincere, if confused. They are not the target of this blog, even if it might seem that way. The target of this blog is the editors and managers of LAM who offer up these poor saps up as an example of why you should leave the Adventist Church. Okay, are we clear? I’m not out to insult those poor souls who left the Church, this blog is to explain why their reasons for leaving were illogical, and (when applicable) irrational.

This month Electric Fence takes on the story of why Brian Cain left the Adventist Church. Read on.

Rebuilding the Foundation of My Faith: The Brian Cain Story

This month’s exciting account of why good Christians should leave the Seventh-day Adventist Church recites the departure story of Brian Cain, a third generation Adventist.

According to Proclamation!, what really began the separation between Cain and the Church was the “misguided … Adventist error” of an Adventist minister refusing to marry Cain to his non-Adventist girlfriend. The lammers are absolutely outraged! As Proclamation! reports: “How could two Christians be unequally yoked?” My first reaction is to mark down one point for our side because the Proclamation! question seems to admit that Adventists are Christians. My second reaction is “Don’t these guys proofread their articles for glaring logical errors?”

How could two Christians be unequally yoked? Well, for a starter, what if they worship on different days of the week? Duh! Since the picture of Cain and his wife show they are very young, the ordinary expectation is that they will have children. What day of the week will the children go to church? Does Cain care about attending church by himself? Does he care if he never attends church with his wife and children? If Cain was, say, 65 years-old, I suppose he could get married to a Sunday-keeper on the agreement they would attend church Saturday and Sunday. What else have they got to do in their retirement years? (Hopefully, the answer is “A lot,” but that is a different subject.) But, for a young couple starting out in life, spending two mornings a week in church does not seem a likely solution. There is after all, lawn mowing, vacuuming, clothes and car washing to consider.

We read that Cain is “furious” with the Church for refusing to marry him to a Sunday-keeper. Perhaps hoping that the average Proclamation! reader has a very short attention span (likely true), one paragraph after Cain’s reported furor over this “Adventist error” we read “the division in our marriage grew daily.” Why? Because his wife was, four years later, not an Adventist. Well now, maybe this “Adventist error” was not such an error after all! Being unequally yoked by marrying a non-Adventist, according to Cain’s admission, was creating a “division,” “brokenness” and “split” in his marriage. Well, well, well. Who could have predicted that? Turns out the Adventist pastor who refused to marry them was a prophet!

Then there was this other little problem. Turns out that Cain and his wife worked for Loma Linda University Medical Center. What was the problem? “The pressure soon became too much for my wife. She could not stand under the unrelenting strain of the law.” Really? What kind of a shop does LLLUMC run? Does everyone have to attend night law school? Is the “law” the Ten Commandments? Maybe she was staying up too late at night watching “Boston Legal.” The article never says what kind of work they did at LLUMC, but it appears they were nurses, they certainly were not chaplains. Do the nurses at LLUMC have to memorize the Ten Commandments? How about sections of the Bible? Clearly, this “pressure of the law” strain is pure nonsense - a creation of the LAM howlers.

Ultimately, the obvious “unequally yoked” problem gets resolved. Cain and his wife start attending church – on Sunday. What a surprise! Cain notes that sitting in the pew on Sunday “the messages were not all that different from what I believed from the Adventist church” - but, he reports he had a “filter over my ears and mind.” Filter? Is Cain talking about something like unfiltered Marlboros? No, it turns out the “filter” is Ellen G. White. So, what, exactly, is Ellen White filtering for Mr. Cain? The story is not all that clear, but it appears that with the help of Ellen White Mr. Cain had previously believed that when Jesus lived on this earth He could sin. Now, with the “filter” removed, Cain now understood “Jesus wasn’t sinless because He kept the law. He was sinless because He did not have a sinful nature.”

I guess it would be too much trouble for Cain to actually cite where the Adventists teach or Ellen White wrote that Jesus had a sinful nature. I guess just imagining these things is good enough for lammers. Or wait, maybe the wolves are arguing that Jesus did not keep the law? Surely that could not be the case, because that would take them quite decidedly out of the mainstream of Christian orthodoxy.

So, what is the lammers’ point? What reason did Cain actually leave the Adventist Church (other than he married a Sunday-keeper against the advice of his pastor)? What is the critical error of the Adventist Church that has Cain and the Proclamation! lammers arguing that we should also leave the Adventist fold?

We are told that Cain’s reason for leaving the Adventist Church was the “false foundation upon which I had built my life” and a “giant neon sign, The Great Controversy blaz[ing] in [Cain’s] head.” I suppose that if one had a giant neon sign blazing in your head on any subject, that might constitute sufficient reason for leaving the Church – or at least visiting your favorite neurosurgeon. I’ve been an Adventist Lay Pastor for a couple of decades - even baptized a member. Never in any baptism, when the convert dipped under the water, did we insert a sign in their mind, neon or otherwise. My guess is this is a problem unique to Mr. Cain. But, what is this “false foundation?”

It appears that Proclamation! is arguing that Jesus could not have sinned because He did not have a sinful nature. You don’t have to be much of a Bible student to see the error in that statement. Adam and Eve were not born with a sinful nature and they managed to sin. Obviously, the fact that Jesus did not have a sinful nature did not mean He could not have sinned. If Jesus had no option to sin, I’m sure Satan would have been yelling out “foul” to all the rest of us who understand Romans 5 to say that Jesus stood in the stead of Adam and succeeded in living a sinless life where Adam (and Eve) failed.

I suspect the lammers’ real point is we should not think that obeying the law has any relevance to the Christian walk at all. (Now you know why I say the chose the right name - LAM - since they are running away from the law.) What does the Bible say about the Christian and our obligation towards the law of God? John tells us not to let anyone “lead you astray” on this point (he was doubtess talking about the wolves at LAM, among others):

1 John 3:7-10
7 Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8 He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. 9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. 10 This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.
(from New International Version)

Are we sinless? No! (At least I admit I’m not.) Is holiness our aim? You bet it is!

Cain missed the boat by leaving the Adventist Church. Where have I heard about another Cain who was not overly concerned about obedience? Wait, let me think……

January/February, 2008 Proclamation! - Let’s Not Earp Prematurely

Bruce Cameron — Sat, 17 May 2008 20:47:00 +0000

By Bruce N. Cameron

Copr. 2008

“I Found Rest on the Journey”: The Royce Earp Story
Royce, a second generation Adventist, who graduated from an Adventist academy and university, decided to learn about Ellen White after his children were born. The story says that Royce graduated from Southern Adventist University in 1984. The family picture shows he has a couple of grinning sons, the oldest of which cannot be more than 15 years-old. According to my rough math, ten years out of school (all the while a member of the Church), Royce decides that he wants to learn about Ellen White.

I’m not sure how much attention Royce was paying in school, but it seems quite remarkable that he could go through Adventist schools, be a member of the Church for ten years thereafter, and know so little about Ellen White. Of course, the story also mentions that he did not know about the book of Galatians either.

According to the story, the beginning of Royce’s break with the Church occurred when he noticed that Genesis 3:6 said that Eve was with Adam at the time when he ate the forbidden fruit, while Ellen White said that Eve was susceptible to temptation because she had wandered away from Adam. That conflict, coupled with reading a few attack articles on Ellen White, convinced Royce she was a false prophet. As Royce wrote: “a thoughtful and open-minded person must reject Ellen White as a messenger of God.”

All this because Royce thinks Ellen White and the Bible have a location dispute!

Let’s look just a moment about what “thoughtful and open-minded” people would reasonably conclude about this alleged location conflict. Take a look at Genesis 3:1-6. A great deal of detail is omitted from this brief account of the fall. Would it make logical sense that Adam would stand mute at the side of Eve during her entire conversation with the serpent? Would he really say nothing when she first took hold of the fruit and then ate it? Paul tells us in 1 Timothy 2:14 that Adam was not deceived, he knew what he was doing. Would an Adam who knew exactly what was going on stand mute while Eve fell into sin? The Bible does not say that Adam was there the entire time and it defies common sense to think he was. So much for being “thoughtful.”

But, don’t listen to me. If Royce had taken the time to study some Bible commentaries he might have decided that Ellen White’s commentary was in line with several others. The Jamieson, Fausett, and Brown Commentary on this section says:

Much is evidently left to the reader’s imagination in this brief statement. We are left to picture the tumult of conflicting emotions that filled and distracted the breast of Adam when he heard the woeful intelligence; surprise at the recital of his wife’s strange conversation with the serpent, astonishment at her fatal act, and the powerful motives that led him coolly and dispassionately to take the fruit-branch from her hand.

Adam was “surprised at the recital of his wife’s strange conversation?” Obviously, these commentators do not think Adam was present at the time of the temptation. Instead, he heard it later. These scholars make their views clear here:

Unto the woman —the object of attack, from his knowledge of her frailty, of her having been but a short time in the world, her limited experience of the animal tribes, and, above all, her being alone, unfortified by the presence and counsels of her husband. Though sinless and holy, she was a free agent, liable to be tempted and seduced.

Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. (1997). A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments.

Consider the famous and universally respected Matthew Henry commentary. Matthew Henry explicitly says in his commentary on Genesis 3:1-5 that Eve was alone during her temptation: “ The person tempted was the woman, now alone, and at a distance from her husband, but near the forbidden tree.” Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: New Modern Edition, Copyright (c) 1991 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.

Matthew Henry says this about the later statement in the Bible that Adam was “with” Eve:
She gave also to her husband with her. It is probable that he was not with her when she was tempted (surely, if he had, he would have interposed to prevent the sin), but came to her when she had eaten, and was prevailed upon by her to eat likewise; for it is easier to learn that which is bad than to teach that which is good.
Id. (Commentary on Genesis 3:6)

The Teacher’s Commentary by Richards, L., & Richards, L. O. (1987 Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books) says this: “It is fascinating to note the strategies of the tempter. First he isolated Eve from Adam. He gave the pair no opportunity to strengthen each other in a resolve to choose the good (cf. Heb. 10:24–25).” If Eve is “isolated,” she is obviously not with Adam and the time of her temptation.

Wiersbe’s Expository Outlines on the Old Testament, Wiersbe, W. W. (1993 Wheaton, IL: Victor Books) says this: “Eve should not have ‘given place to the devil’ (Eph. 4:27); she should have held to God’s Word and resisted him. We wonder where Adam was during this conversation.” Clearly Wiersbe does not think Adam was present with Eve during the temptation.

Not one of these esteemed Bible commentators are Seventh-day Adventists. If Royce had taken the time to check out a few of the best-known Bible commentators he would have realized that Ellen White’s statement that Adam and Eve were apart at the time of her temptation is a reasonable reading of the Bible text. Of course, Royce’s admission that even after getting his secondary and college education at Adventist schools (with their mandatory Bible courses) he is a little vague on Ellen White and Galatians shows that he is not claiming to be a theological heavyweight. He reinforces the point in his article by saying that just after he had thrown Ellen White overboard: “I had a very good non-Adventist friend, Mike, who had recently
become a Christ-follower, and he began to teach me about life apart from the law.” That’s just great. Royce is now taking theological instruction from someone who has just been converted!

Royce is no doubt a sincere guy, but he is hardly someone from who Adventists should take theological direction.

The more fundamental question concerns the Proclamation! wolves. Either they know that reasonable, mainstream Bible commentators agree with Ellen White’s statement, in which case in my opinion publishing this article is a virtual fraud, or they are as uninformed as poor Mr. Royce Earp. I’ll let you choose which is true - but I’ll trust that you are smart enough not to follow them.

Sabbath Sense For Those On The LAM

Bruce Cameron — Sat, 17 May 2008 20:31:32 +0000

(Or, one Adventist’s poke in the eye of the howlers at Life Assurance Ministries)
Bruce N. Cameron, J.D.
Copr. 2008

Introduction: King Solomon complained in Ecclesiastes 1:10 “Is there anything of which one can say, ‘Look! This is something new?’” (NIV) It is hard to find new ideas and new thinking, particularly in the areas of law and theology. Both “look back” to what has been written and previously decided to determine what is the right thing to do in the current situation.

Most of the time when I read attacks on observing the seventh day Sabbath, Solomon is right, they are simply a rehash of old theories which have always suffered from a wobbly Scriptural foundation.

Only Catholics have a consistent and logical theological base for their views on Sunday keeping. If, as Catholics believe, “the Church” holds “the keys” to the Kingdom of Heaven to the extent that decisions made here on earth are binding in heaven (see Matthew 16:18-19), then a Catholic would reasonably defer to the decision of the Catholic Church to change the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday.

The problem for Protestants is that they do not accept that this kind of authority has been given to the Catholic Church – or even their own church for that matter. Thus, if Protestants care about the authority of Scripture, they are stuck with trying to cobble together a defense of Sunday keeping from a few uncertain New Testament references. Generally the best they can argue is that the specific day of worship does not matter. The glaring omission from their arsenal of Scripture-based argument is any Bible text from either of the testaments which positively commands believers to worship on Sunday. None exists. Any argument that Christians have a positive obligation to worship on Sunday comes from extra-Biblical sources. (Actually, most arguments I have read in favor of a positive obligation to worship on Sunday are based on Bible texts which mandate Saturday Sabbath worship!)

On the LAM: In recent years, a Protestant organization calling itself “Life Assurance Ministries” has been taking aim at the Seventh-day Adventist Church and some of it more prominent doctrines, including the seventh-day Sabbath. The organization refers to itself in its publications as “LAM,” which always strikes me as “laugh out loud” funny. Being “on the lam,” is an old phrase describing a criminal running away from the clutches of the law. That seems a fair, but unwitting, description of LAM: running away from the law of God.

LAM has a magazine entitled Proclamation! which publishes letters to the editor. From time to time Adventists write to LAM to express their unhappiness with its attacks on the Adventist Church and its doctrines. Most of the letters selected for publication from Adventists sound angry and twisted (or illiterate), which no doubt is one reason the LAM editor publishes them.

Not that I overly blame the angry and twisted Adventists who write. Each edition of the publication contains stories of ex-Adventists who write as if leaving the Church is the functional equivalent of leaving an addiction to drugs or alcohol. The Adventist Church gets painted as the “Great Satan” and Ellen White is its satanic prophet. One reason I find the LAM acronym (as in “on the lam”) so humorous, is that I come away from reading Proclamation! with the impression that these “on the lam” people are by and large a humorless, mean-spirited crew. Being funny when you have no intention of creating humor is the highest form of humor!

No animosity seems too low to publically vent in the LAM publication. The current editor of Proclamation! is a woman. One edition published an attack on her husband’s ex-wife! Worse, the attack article was written by the son of the ex-wife. If using your step son to take public shots at your husband’s ex-wife is suitable material for the publication, Adventists can hardly expect that LAM’s editor will show any discretion in publishing any real or perceived problems in the Adventist Church!

One of the truly humorous (and ironic) aspects of LAM is how oblivious it is to the way in which its rebellion against the Adventist Church frames its arguments. One constant theme of its publication is that Adventists are arrogant in their thinking that they are the “remnant church.” The obvious truth to those on (or in) the LAM is that God’s people are present in all of the churches. Yet, the paper constantly publishes personal accounts of how those newly part of LAM have escaped Adventism and become converted. I have no doubt that these new people are newly converted - but the “point” of all of these articles is that you cannot be a Christian and an Adventist. You have to “come out” to be converted. So much for LAM’s idea that God’s people are present in all churches. It must be “all churches” other than the Adventist Church!

The “mirror image” fallacy of believing you cannot be a Christian outside the Adventist Church, is the fallacy that only those who have left the Adventist Church (and gone on the LAM) are Christians! It is like a former victim of racial discrimination now discriminating on the basis of race. If LAM wants Adventists to “grow up” and recognize that sincere followers of Christ exist outside the Adventist Church, then LAM needs to grow up (mature as Christians) and realize that sincere followers of Christ also exist inside the Adventist Church.

The real controversy between LAM and the Adventist Church - which all of its “I came out of the Great Satan” articles obscure - is not who is a follower of Christ. Rather, it is who best understands the will of Christ.

In addition to publishing articles about how some ex-Adventists have wriggled out of the grasp of that “Great Satan” which we call Adventism, LAM also publishes in its magazine what passes for scholarly theological argument. These are generally written by ex-Adventist pastors and college teachers. Defying the wisdom of Solomon, LAM makes what I believe is a new attack on the seventh-day Sabbath. I doubt this argument is original to LAM, but it was only 10-15 years ago that I first started seeing this line of argument. LAM is part of a contemporary movement making this new attack on Sabbath-keeping. To my knowledge, none of the historic books or articles in support of Sunday-keeping contain this argument.

LAM Logic: The December, 2005 publication of LAM’s magazine printed a couple of well-stated arguments from Adventists in favor of seventh-day Sabbath keeping which were followed by LAM’s rebuttal based in part on its “new” argument against the Sabbath. To help set up a discussion of LAM’s attack on the Sabbath, what follows are the two letters to the editor written by (what must certainly be) Adventists followed by the LAM rebuttal.

The Adventist letters:
With each issue of Proclamation! I scan for any comments dealing with Sabbath in Eden. You are very silent on this topic. Neither Dale Ratzlaff nor Proclamation! has answered the fact that the Sabbath was made before any law or covenant. Genesis 2:2 & 3 says God rested from His work and made the Sabbath holy. He obviously told Adam and Eve what He had done, or how would we know about it today? The Sabbath was created for perfect sinless mankind. Why should God destroy or change what was perfect?

McGregor Wright wants to nail this perfect Sabbath to the cross???…Sabbath is not a law but a perfect and changeless INSTITUTION. Eden gave us two institutions, marriage and the Sabbath. God later surrounded these institutions with protective laws …. If the Sabbath was an Eden law and it was nailed to the cross, was marriage in Eden a law that was also nailed to the cross? Are you opening a new twist on gay theology?…

Thanks for your efforts, Colleen and Richard. You are a good ‘wordsmith’ and produce an artistic journal, but until you answer the above, I can only feel great sorrow for your chosen blindness. Satan is blessing your efforts.

Elizabeth Iskander, MD

The second letter to the editor:

Thank you very much for sending me your Proclamation! magazine. We go through every article, including the letters, with a [fine] toothed comb, analyzing them and comparing them to the Bible …. It seems like the old worn-out Protestant arguments are repeated time after time. Nevertheless, it has been very useful to us, as it has helped us to affirm and to appreciate more our belief in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Just as an example, I would like to mention your editor’s note to the letter ‘Nothing to say” in your September/October, 2005 issue. You say: “Nowhere does the Bible command people to keep the Sabbath because it is a memorial to creation.” It seems to me that you are blinded by your ideology, as you just have to read the fourth commandment to see that verse 11 starts with the word “for,” with gives us the reason why God asks us to ‘remember the Sabbath day,’ (‘for in six days God created heaven and earth….’)

You also conveniently forgot that in Genesis 2:3, it says that ‘God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because (here we have the reason for the blessing and sanctification) in it, He rested from all of His work which God had created and made.’ ….

The truth is that the Sabbath was given to mankind, regardless of race or nationality…

Thank you for your magazine that helps me see in a very distinct way your errors, as I contrast them with the beauty of the Bible and the truths of the Seventh-day Adventist church. Please keep them coming.

I hope that when you publish this letter, you also print my name. I’m not ashamed of my name or my beliefs.

Antonio Romero

LAM responded:
Editor’s note: Genesis 2:2-3 states that God blessed the seventh day because on that day He “ceased”or”rested”from all his work. His work was completely done, and just as Christ completed His work on the cross, so on the seventh day of creation week, God ceased His work of creation. He might just as well have said, as did Jesus,”It Is Finished.” He and Adam and Eve were in complete oneness. His blessing the seventh day was (1) without evening and morning, unlike the previous six days, and (2) was not a command. It was simply God “ceasing,” not”observing a day.” He was done. He was at rest; Adam and Eve were created and entered that rest with God.

The Levitical Sabbath was a reminder not of creation—God’s working—but of His rest. It was a reminder of the unbroken existence Adam and Eve and God enjoyed after His finished work. It was never about the six days, per se—it was always about God’s finished work—His “ceasing” and rest.

The Levitical Sabbath also looked ahead to the again finished work of God after Jesus shed His blood of the eternal covenant. Again mankind would be able to enter His rest and live in unbroken communion with Him—a communion that had not been possible since Eve ate the forbidden fruit. The Sabbath looked back at God’s once finished work and oneness with humanity, and it foreshadowed the again finished work of God and oneness with humanity after the cross.

God didn’t ask any human to DO anything at the end of creation related to the Sabbath. His rest simply WAS. Just as Adam and Eve did nothing to enter the sacredness of the seventh day (which was timeless—without evening and morning), so we do nothing to enter God’s rest TODAY (Hebrews 4:7) except surrender to Jesus. We again enter the holiness of God’s presence. The ‘institution” of Sabbath at creation was never about “observance” or “holy time.” Always it was about God’s finished work providing the means of God’s people entering the holiness of intimate relationship with Him through no work of their own.

Exodus 16 preceded Sinai by about one month. God gave Israel the symbols of the Bread of Life and His rest simultaneously. They were inseparable. Gathering the manna—the shadow of the Bread of Life—meant also observing the shadow of His rest every seventh day. Both were shadows of the coming Christ (see Colossians 2:16-17).

One month later at Sinai, God made the Sabbath the symbol of His covenant with the nation of Israel. Until Jesus came, that day would remind them that, originally God created men to live in complete rest with and in Him, and again, they would be able to enter that rest when the Messiah came.

The entire point of salvation is entering God’s rest through His finished work—by no work or observance of our own. The Sabbath was a reminder of that salvation rest. Now that we have the reality in the finished work of Jesus and in our birth from above, we have no more need of the day of reminder. We now have Jesus Himself!

The shadow or reality—it’s an eternal choice.

6 Proclamation! 17-18 (November/December 2005)

Since I did not want LAM to be able to suggest that I was “unfair,” I reproduced the entire response to the two Adventist letters. It is the end of the response that contains the “punch line:” at the cross we entered into a new time of “rest,” described in Hebrews 4, in which all of our days are “Sabbath time,” therefore eliminating the need for a weekly day of worship. As LAM said in the quote above: “we have no more need of the day of reminder.”

The logical conclusion to be reached from this is that unless we attended daily Mass (as some Catholics do), we would have no need to worship weekly.

Thus, we see the clash between Adventists and those on the LAM. Adventists say that the Sabbath’s position as a day of rest memorializing God’s authority as the Creator began at Creation, was reaffirmed at Sinai in the Ten Commandments, and then reaffirmed again at the crucifixion when Jesus rested in the grave on the Sabbath. LAM responds that any importance that the weekly Sabbath might have had before the cross, ended at the cross because at that point Christians entered into the new spiritual “day” (age) of Sabbath rest. We now all live each day in the “Sabbath.”

Is this LAM argument that a weekly Sabbath worship rests on the junk heap of history the actual conclusion of the LAM people? Quite the contrary, LAM constantly refers to weekly worship on Sunday. It promotes weekly worship - on Sunday. How does that make any common sense or Bible sense? If we have entered that phase in time when weekly worship is “out the window,” then what are they doing worshiping once a week? The only “common” sense is that everyone else worships on Sunday - but, all of these other Sunday worshipers must have missed the key LAM argument that worship is no longer a weekly event. We are now in the Sabbath age of rest and worship.

Perhaps the most “common” of senses for those on the LAM leading a church is the need to collect money from the faithful, which would be greatly complicated if you had one continuous Sabbath instead of a weekly event. I certainly do not understand what motivates the disjunct between LAM’s theory and practice.

LAM interprets the historical Sabbath of the Bible like some amorphous, boundary-less “rest.” That is not the picture of the historical Sabbath and nothing in Hebrews modifies the importance of the historical Sabbath.

Acknowledging the Obvious: Instead, the historical Sabbath is best pictured as a celebration. In Genesis 1:31-2:3 we find that God creates the Sabbath and then asks humans to celebrate that event. God creates, and man celebrates his transformation from dirt to a living human being.

In Exodus 31:12-13 we find that God says to His people, “I am making you holy. Remember this by observing my Sabbath.” God again creates, and man celebrates his transformation from a dirty soul to a holy being.

In Deuteronomy 5:12-15 we find God telling His people: “Celebrate My Sabbaths because I freed you from slavery in Egypt.” God took slaves and made free men and women out of them. Once again we see that God creates, and man celebrates his transformation from a slave to a free human.

This is the historical, Biblical, pattern of God’s work. God creates something wonderful for humans and He instructs them to remember what He has done by celebrating it on the Sabbath.

With the life, death and resurrection of Jesus we are indeed, as LAM suggests, entering into the great time of rest which will culminate with Jesus’ Second Coming and our life eternal with Him. What is the obvious, reasonable reaction to this fabulous blessing? This creation on our behalf? This work done on our behalf by our Savior?

“LAM logic” says “forget about the Sabbath. This is a discard of the past.”

The student of the Bible, on the other hand, sees that at the cross Jesus re-created us, freed us from slavery to sin and covered our sins with His blood, so that we could be holy beings acceptable to a Holy God. This bundles together all of the historical Biblical reasons why God told His people in the past to celebrate the Sabbath. Since God commanded a Sabbath celebration for all of these individual acts in the past (Creation, forgiveness from sin, freedom from slavery), the obvious logical response to entering into His great (post-resurrection) time of rest is to celebrate it by observing His seventh-day Sabbath!

What better way to remember and celebrate the Sabbath rest described in the book of Hebrews than to celebrate on Sabbath!

Perhaps an extreme hypothetical will help make this more clear. Let’s assume that LAM preaches (as it surely believes) that animal sacrifices are no longer necessary because Jesus has fulfilled the Old Testament sacrificial system. Although our God was sacrificed once for all times (Hebrews 9:24-28), a truth which LAM prominently proclaims, for some reason LAM still clings to animal sacrifices - except that it sacrifices eagles to memorialize Jesus ascending into heaven. No Bible text anywhere suggests that eagles should be sacrificed, but LAM thinks this has great symbolic meaning. Can you see the inconsistency in this extreme hypothetical?

If a weekly Sabbath is a thing of the past because we have entered the rest of the “Sabbath age,” then those on the LAM should stop worshiping on a weekly basis! If those on the LAM are going to worship on a weekly basis, they should at least follow what God said about it: worship on Saturday. What person who still believed in animal sacrifices would choose an eagle as opposed to a lamb (or some other animal approved by God)?

Why is it that LAM has such a problem recognizing the obvious logic of this? Why would our perpetual “Sabbath rest” LAM brothers and sisters be celebrating on Sunday instead of the Sabbath? It must relate back to their chosen name: LAM. They are on the run away from the will of God.

Why the Electric Fence?

Bruce Cameron — Sat, 17 May 2008 20:20:35 +0000

By Bruce N. Cameron, J.D.
Copr. 2008

No one goes in the living room of my home. It is the “museum” section of our house. But, if anyone did they did they would find a cow. Actually, a picture of a milk cow. And, not the front end either. My wife grew up on a large farm and as a result loves bovine art. For her it is “udderly enthralling!”

While dating her, I learned about a lot of things that were not part of life on the acre of ground on which my boyhood home was located. One of those things I learned about was an electric fence. My general view was that a fence had to be bigger and stronger than whatever it was supposed to keep out (or in) the pasture. The issue was, who would be stronger, men or animals? Men or the invaders?

An electric fence was different. It was not force, it was brains. Men could keep out invaders by being smarter, thinking more carefully.

My “Sabbath Sense” article shows that I think the Proclaimation! people (Life Assurance Ministries) are literally “on the lam” (Life Assurance Ministries = LAM). “On the lam” is an old phrase for running away from the police. The LAM/Proclamation! crowd is running away from the law of God. If they were simply doing that, it would make them one small part of a huge unwashed mob. The problem with them is that they are not content to just run away, they attack those who are not running away from God’s law. It reminds me of soldiers on a battle line. Adventists see themselves at war with Satan. The good guys, according to Revelation 12:17 (NIV), are “those who obey God’s commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.” The Proclamation! crowd are like a pack of deserters who are not simply content to run away, they want to hurl insults at the faithful who remain on the battle line.

This is very odd conduct for deserters. Instead of fleeing from the battle with the real enemy, they engage in battle with the faithful on the battle line. They are constantly taking shots at the Adventist Church and its members. Their goal is to steal or shame the Adventist faithful. For that reason, I decided to create an electric fence to keep out the Proclaimation! wolves and howlers. The Electric Fence is merely an extension of what I have been doing for decades: defending the faithful and the faith.

Money Is No Motive: In one Proclaimation! article early in the Tinker editorial tenure, she complained about her husband not being able to continue to work for an Adventist Church institution. Somehow “wolf logic” says that you should be able to bite the hand that feeds you. Unlike Tinker, I’ve never been an employee of the Adventist Church. The only money flowing from the Church to me has been payment for published articles I’ve written and expense reimbursement for meetings. Compared to what I’ve contributed to the Church, the dollar amount coming back is infinitesimal. The Electric Fence does not exist because I’m getting paid by the Church.

Xenophobia Is No Motive: No part of the motivation for the Electric Fence is that I think the Adventist Church is the only place where faith resides. My entire professional life has been devoted to defending employee religious and political freedom. When I started litigating in my small legal niche (compulsory unionism), Adventists were already protected by the law. The work of my three decades of litigation has been to expand the borders of the law to protect those believers who were not Adventists. I don’t keep count, but I would estimate that one in one hundred of those employees I have defended is an Adventist. This process has proven to me, beyond any doubt, that the highest level of genuine faith exists outside the walls of the Adventist Church. Indeed, I expect that when I enter heaven Adventists will be a small minority of those enjoying eternal bliss.

Today, I teach at Regent University School of Law, which is part of a non-denominational university. My fellow faculty members are devout Christians. Regent is a very special place where the Spirit of God exists in power. I’m the first and only full-time member of the law faculty who is an Adventist. Because both the university and the law school have their own weekly worship, during the school year I hear two non-Adventist sermons for every Adventist sermon I hear on Sabbath. I admire and respect the faith of those who I have defended in court, those with whom I work, and those young champions who I teach to go out and change the world for Christ.

The Defense of Truth: The reason I’m an Adventist is because I think it has things “more right” than anyone else. Would I have “29 Fundamental Beliefs?” No. Five, maybe ten would be sufficient for me. (Check out the Southern Baptists sometime. They have a surprising large number of statements of belief.) Are there nuts and lunatics among Adventism? Absolutely. Sometimes it seems there is a distressing number of them. I remember having lunch with a nationally known Adventist evangelist who said to me “There are too many lunatics in the Church.” I agreed. But, you know what? Every church has them. As far as I can tell, our lunatics are a better breed. Most of the lunatics in other churches don’t believe in the Bible. They might not admit that, but they think they know better than God, and thus they create the word of God in their own image. Our lunatics, for the most part, are very concerned about doing the will of God. They are not bending the word of God to their will. I admire that devotion.

Since I think Adventists are right for the most part, I don’t like to let the Proclamation “lammers” paint the Church and the faithful as some sort of “Great Satan.” What these “lammers” have not figured out yet is that their fight is not against the Adventist Church per se, it is against the “holiness tradition.” There is a very large number of Christians who are diverse in their denominational affiliation, but who share the view that knowing God better and obeying His law more fully, is the first priority of humans. They are saved by faith alone, but the attitude of their life is to understand and obey God’s will. That is why the Fourth Commandment (the Sabbath) is no more optional than the Sixth Commandment (murder).

So, take a ride with me. I’m strapping on my warrior armor, getting on my horse (maybe it’s one of my wife’s beloved cows, I’ll have to check), lowering the level of my lance-pen towards the Proclamation crowd, and charging off in opposition to every issue. I’m not going to challenge every article in every issue. I don’t have the time, and even those on the lam can’t be wrong 100% of the time.

Instead, I plan to focus on the personal “Stories of Faith” section of each issue - the testimony of those who left the “evil clutches” of Adventism to enjoy the elevated life of those on the lam. The tricky part is that I do not want to attack the people who left, I want to attack their logic and theology. If it seems I’ve crossed the line, I apologize. From my point of view those who left are confused people, and I do not want to add to their woes. However, since they have put their names and their stories in print to try to persuade others to leave Adventism, there may be a little “collateral damage.” I apologize in advance.

Beginning with the 2008 Proclamation!, let’s look at the logic of those who are willing to publicly state they left in order to encourage the rest of us to leave too. Let’s see if their reasons hold any logical or spiritual water - or whether they are “all wet.”