Pineapple pizza to go?

• Luigi Amaduzzi
• The Guardian, Wednesday 3 March 2004
• Article history

A culinary abomination?

I wish to declare an interest. I have always been in love with good food. The real thing. For this reason, years and years ago, when I first came to the UK, I adored a good plate of British roast beef or steak and kidney pie followed by a hearty portion of bread and butter pudding. I will never forget that, as a young student in the early 50s, when I was at a college in Mumbles, a small Welsh village, now famous for having given birth to Catherine Zeta-Jones, I relied on fish and chips wrapped in newspaper from a local fish and chip shop to keep me going. How good they were.

Those who criticise British food are in the wrong. I believe that many British dishes, when properly and freshly prepared with the correct ingredients, are quite delicious. In my role as ambassador, when I have entertained Italian guests in this country, I have often served British dishes so as to offer my guests the opportunity of tasting the best of Britain. Nowadays, it is becoming increasingly difficult even here to find the real thing. In many cases, Italian tourists visiting Britain tell me they too have difficulty in finding authentic British dishes and have to make do with pale imitations based on the wrong ingredients and poorly presented.

This same "perversion" is noticeable in all the different kinds of foreign food, including Italian food, available here. The result is that too often some masterpieces of Italian cuisine are unrecognisable. I do thus understand the interest generated by an interview I gave recently in which I deplored the very idea of a pineapple pizza. Everyone is entitled to eat whatever they wish. I do object, however, to such a dish being described as Italian. A pizza base covered with pineapple or with curry is no more Italian than a steak and kidney pie covered with chocolate is English.

How have we come to this? In a generation, all over Europe, we have witnessed a deep evolution of the ways of eating and indeed of our relationship with food. Nobody would have thought in the years after the second world war that olive oil or fettuccine or indeed paella Valenciana would become household names in the British Isles.

When I was a young boy, I was taught by my mother about the sacred value of food. A gift from God. When bread was made in my house, a sign of the cross would be made on the dough. You had to respect food because, among other reasons, it was so scarce. Since then, food has undergone a process of, if I may say so, secularisation and democratisation. Balsamic vinegar or prosciutto were in the past prepared by the poor for the rich. Fortunately, nowadays practically everybody in the western world can afford them. New methods of production and better systems of transport have made it possible to make foodstuffs from all over the world available in Europe. The production and trade of food, and all kinds of commerce related to food have become big business.

When I came to live in London, in the 60s, as a junior diplomat, only a very small shop in Soho sold Italian food. If we looked for olive oil outside of London, we had to go to a pharmacy where it was sold in very small bottles for health purposes.

In the past 20 years, we have witnessed an explosion of Italian food products in the UK. Nowadays, these can be purchased in almost every corner shop in the land, as well as in all supermarket chains. Exact figures are difficult to obtain, but there are more than 6,000 Italian restaurants in the UK and far more eating places serving some kind of "Italian" dish.

The reason for this revolution may be found in the appeal of the Italian way of life and of its culture. And let me say how happy I am, being an unrepentant Anglophile, that this revolution is still spreading at an ever faster pace. Of course, a love and an overwhelming interest in Italian culture have given many Britons the desire to know more about its food. On the other hand, Italian cuisine is not only good and, more important, healthy, but also easy to learn to cook - as many TV programmes and books have demonstrated. It is also understandable that British visitors to Italy love to relive the emotions of their trip through the taste of Italian food. When they are back home, food - for those who appreciate it - can vividly recreate the atmosphere and feelings associated with their holiday.

Naturally, this revolution has not taken place without problems. Ideally, Italian restaurants should use Italian ingredients, good chefs and good-humoured waiters. But as we know, this is not always the case.

Italian cuisine is based to a large extent on genuine and natural ingredients and these can be expensive. But it is not only the fault of the restaurateurs. Customers are also to blame, as they do not often understand why they should pay more for a simple dish presented in the right way. It is not essential that potatoes are grown in Italy. It is, however, essential that artichokes come from Rome, prosciutto from Parma and red radicchio from Treviso because they have no equivalent.

Too many people in the food industry are interested only in making a fast buck; and so sometimes the result is that some Italian restaurants are offering dishes that have no relation whatsoever to Italian food. And just as certain Indian dishes do not exist in Indian cuisine, "spaghetti bolognese" does not exist in Bologna at all. Good Italian cuisine is delicate and does not make use of great quantities of garlic and heavy spices so easily found in dishes served in so-called "Italian" establishments. I wish all the luck in the world to the food and pizza chains that use an Italian name; but I have to say that these products must be judged with a large pinch of salt.

What can each of us do to reverse this trend? I am not as nostalgic about the past as to believe that we should go back to the ways of my childhood when food had its sacred value. Of course, we must be thankful that the days of scarcity and penury are over. But I do think that we should have more respect for food which threatens our waistlines and of which we talk so much more about nowadays (but which is still a dream for so many human beings in poor countries).

The bottom line comes down to culture. I would strongly recommend introducing the study of food and its benefits in schools as part of an obligatory study programme for all European children. Both boys and girls should be taught extensively about food and made aware of its healthy benefit as well as how to prepare certain dishes. Enhanced cultural awareness would also compel restaurants to raise their standards. If one pays, and certainly prices are not going down, one is entitled to a good and healthy meal. The inexorable laws of the market would then compel everyone in the trade to increase their standards.

I have come a long way from pineapple pizza. I would, however, like to add a final thought. Increasing integration in our continent is in the interest of all European nations. But integration does not mean homogenisation. Our national cultures are our collective wealth and we must strive to preserve them in all their aspects. This includes food.

Why Pray?

Why pray? Here are ten reasons [by superb blogger Ben Myers, www.faith-theology.com]:

1. Our Father who art in heaven
Because without prayer there is only – myself. Between the heaven of prayer and the hell of the self there is no middle way. The more I try to find myself, the more I am lost. To call on God as Father is to discover myself as someone God calls child.


2. hallowed be thy name
Not because prayer will give me what I want, but because it will knead and pummel my wants, stretching them my whole life long, until at the last hour of my life I have learned to want one thing only, the only thing worth having. And so my whole life becomes a secret sigh, an inarticulate utterance of the hidden Name of God. And so even my death will be my prayer, the sigh by which I give myself up into the presence of the holy Name.


3. thy kingdom come
Because my prayer encompasses not my own life only but the entire world of which I am a part. What defines this world is scarcity, injustice, and oppression – in other words, hunger. To pray is to find in my own hunger an echo of the hunger of the world, in my own small cry an echo of the cry for justice that rises like smoke from the scorched earth.


4. thy will be done
Because prayer is the end of willing, the beginning of wisdom. The life of prayer is a slow dying into the will of God, a slow awakening into the freedom to live.


5. on earth as it is in heaven
Not because prayer is a technique of self-improvement or an instrument of spiritual experience, but because it is beyond all human competency, beyond all language and learning and control. Prayer is the speech of heaven. To pray is to live beyond the narrow walls of the self and beyond whatever I can merely control. As sunflowers open to the morning, so the praying life opens towards heaven, standing up straight into the bright burning presence of the Name.


6. give us this day our daily bread
Because every day, morning and night, I hunger. The stuff of my life is hunger, need, and lack. Technology and affluence blind me to this truth, but one day – a single morning – without food is enough to show me the truth of what I am. I live by lack: God lives by fullness. I am only hunger: God is only food.

7. and forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors
Because hurt and disappointment and resentment are always knocking at the door of my life. As soon as I drive one away another arrives, eager to come in and set up its home in the little house of my heart. I will die of resentment; I am destroyed by what I am owed. But I learn to forgive when God writes off my debts and makes me free. Now I can live, now I can clear the debts of enemies and friends, and speak the magic word of forgiveness that drives resentments back into the dark.


8. and lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil
Because this world is only trial. Yet it is God's world, and all the evils that crowd in upon my life can never hide my voice from the listening God.


9. for thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, forever and ever
Because God is glorious. All my life I was asleep within myself, but when I bowed my head to pray I opened my eyes to the glory of God. Glory should be seen. Just as it is right for a mountain to be seen or a piece of music to be heard or the body of a lover to be loved, so it is right to give God thanks and praise, for God is glorious.


10. Amen
Because the life of God is prayer itself. It is deep calling to deep, the endless giving and receiving of unbounded self-divesting self-communicating joy. My prayer is an eavesdropping on the Prayer that is God. God's speech is grace and truth, God's life is love, God's silence is the annunciation of the Name. The word of my life is a modest, small, yet glad and true, Amen.

Swedish man survived in snowed-in car for two months

www.guardian.co.uk

The man survived inside his car by eating snow. Doctors said he may have hibernated, like a bear. Photograph: Scanpix Sweden/Reuters

A Swedish man who spent two months snowed inside his car as temperatures outside dropped to -30C is "awake and able to communicate", according to the hospital treating him, where stunned doctors believe he was kept alive by the "igloo effect" of his vehicle.

The man, believed to be Peter Skyllberg, 44, who was found near the north-eastern town of Umeå on Friday by passers-by, told police he had been in the car since 19 December without food, surviving only by eating snow and staying inside his warm clothes and sleeping bag.

Dr Ulf Segerberg, the chief medical officer at Noorland's University Hospital, said he had never seen a case like it. The man had probably been kept alive, he said, by the natural warming properties of his snowed-in car which would have acted as "the equivalent of an igloo".

"This man obviously had good clothes; he's had a sleeping bag and he's been in a car that's been snowed over," said Segerberg. "Igloos usually have a temperature of a couple of degrees below 0C and if you have good clothes you would survive in those temperatures and be able to preserve your body temperature. Obviously he has managed to preserve his body temperature or he wouldn't have made it because us humans can't really stand being cooled down like reptiles, for instance, which can change the body temperature."

Two months was at the "upper limit" of what a person would be able to survive without food, added Segerberg.

Skyllberg was found emaciated and very weak by a pair of snowmobilers who thought they had found a crashed car. They dug down through about a metre of snow to see its driver lying on the back seat in his sleeping bag, according to Ebbe Nyberg, a local police officer.

"They were amazed at what they found: a man in his mid-40s huddled inside in a sleeping bag, starving and barely able to move or speak," Nyberg, working in Vaesterbotten county, was quoted as saying.

A rescuer told the local newspaper Västerbottens-Kuriren: "It's just incredible that he's alive considering that he had no food, but also since it's been really cold for some time after Christmas."

Police said temperatures around Umeå had fallen to -30C. One doctor, Stefan Branth, said Skyllberg may have survived by going into hibernation mode. "A bit like a bear that hibernates. Humans can do that. He probably had a body temperature of around 31C which the body adjusted to. Due to the low temperature, not much energy was used up."

But Segerberg said he was "sceptical" of this suggestion. "We can't lower body temperature very much. A little bit we can, but if we lower body temperatures more than just a little bit, we lose consciousness and go into a coma," he said, cautioning that it was not his area of expertise.

Skyllberg is being treated in an ordinary ward in the University Hospital, where Segerberg said he was "feeling well". It was unclear how he had come to be stranded in the deserted lane.

Segerberg said that, even in a part of the world where sub-zero temperatures and heavy snow are the norm, this case was unusual. "There have been cases of people caught out in the mountains, and if they can dig themselves down in the snow they are able to survive and be found. But there must be something special in this case."

Walk Humbly with Your God

by: Dr Laurence Turner

MICAH 6. 8 
A nervous theology student stands outside the Pastoral Resource Centre at Newbold College.

He raises his hand to knock on the door, then has second thoughts. For he knows what awaits him inside. Just a few days before he’d preached his heart out, in the Homiletics class, to a room full of his class mates. And to a video camera. And now, on the other side of that door, judgement will be passed. For beyond that door is a monitor. And a video player.

And me. Even the most self-confident knocks timidly at the door. Once seated in front of the monitor, I run the tape for a few minutes, and invite the student’s self-assessment. Some have gripped the arms of their chair as if they are being executed. One held his head in his hands. One actually asked – ‘Is that me?’ Another asked, ‘Do I have to watch it?’ Such occasions produce almost universal humility.

But one day a young student, full of the joy of the Lord, sat down to engage in self- assessment. He sat there, experiencing his own sermon on the monitor, nodding his head. He responded with several ‘Amens’ to his own preaching. He was clearly blessed. Then I asked: ‘So how would you assess that?’ He turned to me, beaming, and said, ‘Excellent! Absolutely excellent!’

So, from one intemperate self-assessment to another. King Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon is once again at his favourite spot. On the roof garden of his sumptuous palace, just beside the phenomenal Hanging Gardens of Babylon. And as he stands there his eye scans the horizon. The double outer wall of the city runs for 27 kms around his capital. From the palace his eye wanders down the sacred processional way, 1 km long, its walls covered in high-glaze reflective blue tiles, decorated with 575 mythological beasts. And then on to the great citadel of Esagila, the temple of the high god Marduk, the ziggurat of Etemenanki, rising 90 metres into the air. A bridge 130 metres long spanning the Euphrates. Not to mention another three palaces and fifty-three temples. ‘Just look at it!’, he said. ‘Excellent! Absolutely excellent!’ Or, as the Bible quotes him: DAN 4:30.

And surely, you might think, it’s difficult to make any connection between that and ministry in the Adventist church. But the stories in the early chapters of Daniel present the significance of spirituality for leaders who are used by God. In other words, stories significant for pastors. And here we encounter a story of more than passing interest to pastors.

This story brings us to the climax of the struggle between King Nebuchadnezzar and God himself. And the battle between pride and humility. This has been the focus of the book so far. On the one hand the human obsession with size, power, influence and pride. And on the other hand, true humility in the presence of God.

So, a summary of the story so far: Episode 1: Nebuchadnezzar takes Jerusalem. Or, rather the Lord gives Jerusalem into his hand, as Daniel puts it. But Nebuchadnezzar can’t see it. Because at this stage he hasn’t met the Lord. Rather, he believes it is his power, his effort, which have brought him success. He’s filled with the pride of self-achievement.

Episode 2: Nebuchadnezzar dreams of a huge awe-inspiring, frightening metal idol. Sitting atop this idol, looking at all who bow before it, is a head of gold. The gold of Babylon. The beauty of the Chaldees excellency. But then the whole idol of human achievement is smashed to smithereens by a small stone. The stone of the kingdom of God. But at this stage, Nebuchadnezzar has only heard of the Lord. Nothing more. And the crushing of the idol of human pride means little to him.

Episode 3: Nebuchadnezzar’s resistance to humility continues. So he builds an idol 2

made entirely of gold. Now, this idol is monstrous. At 60 cubits (30 metres) second only to the legendary Colossus of Rhodes, one of the wonders of the ancient world, which stood 70 cubits high. Its size matches Nebuchadnezzar’s pride. But as he peers into the furnace, and sees the three friends walking in the flames, with another figure who looks like a son of the gods, the truth begins to dawn on him. But nothing more.

Which brings us to episode 4: Where God deals his final hand. Nebuchadnezzar dreams of a tree. A tree which represents Nebuchadnezzar himself. Its size matches Nebuchadnezzar’s ego. The tree is enormous – its top reached to heaven, visible to the ends of the earth. Which explains Nebuchadnezzar’s pride. ‘Is not this great Babylon?’ In previous episodes, Nebuchadnezzar, as he besieged Jerusalem, was ignorant of God; then heard of God, when Daniel interpreted his dream of the metal idol; then saw the workings of God, when the three friends walked alive in the flames. But here, in episode 4, he experiences God. And what is it that brings him to experience God? Humility.

Which is a sobering thought for us, as pastors. Being a pastor, we can lurch between two extremes. On the one hand, self-congratulation and pride. The Nebuchadnezzar syndrome. Are not these my baptismal candidates; my congregation; that I have built up and nurtured? Is not this my church? But on the other hand, depression – we’re just not achieving what the church expects of us. Few baptisms; rare Bible studies; doubts about our calling; awkward members; demanding conference presidents. The antidote for both extremes, of pride and depression, is humility. The humility of Nebuchadnezzar and his tree.

So let’s look a little more closely at that tree. The tree represents Nebuchadnezzar, great suzerain of the empire of Babylon. And the first thing to hit you about this tree is its size. DAN 4:10b-11. It is huge. Just like that massive metal idol, representing human super- powers, back in ch. 2. But remember, how the humble rock of the kingdom of God smashed the towering kingdoms of this world. For in the kingdom of God, size is not important. Which might be what Jesus had in mind. MATT 13:31-32. Note that Jesus calls the mustard plant a ‘tree’. Now, that is an exaggeration. It isn’t a tree. But he calls it a tree because his eye is on the Old Testament. And particularly, perhaps, on Daniel 4 and other places where trees represent kingdoms. In Nebuchadnezzar’s dream the kingdom of Babylon is like a great tree with its top in the heavens, and birds in its branches. In Ezekiel, the Kingdom of Assyria is like a huge cedar of Lebanon, with birds in its branches. And Jesus said the kingdom of God is like a mustard tree with birds in its branches. But the kingdom of God’s mustard tree is pretty insignificant next to Nebuchadnezzar’s tree that could be seen from the ends of the earth. Just as the humble stone of the kingdom of God was dwarfed by the huge metal idol. That’s the surprising thing about the kingdom of God. It will arrive in a surprising form; not as a mighty tree but as a humble garden plant. For the kingdom of God is no crushing human empire, built on might and power, but rather, a humble venture of faith.

Many of us are pastors of small churches, in small conferences, in small unions, and if serving in the TED, in the smallest division of the world church. So, we might be tempted to say, ‘Listen. I know all about humility!’ The first congregation in my ministry numbered three. Three old ladies. One to play the piano. One to take up the offering. And one to sleep through my sermons. I’d just arrived with a spanking new MDiv, and I thought I was learning humility. But the story of Nebuchadnezzar is more profound, more significant, than that.

Let’s look again at Nebuchadnezzar’s tree. The tree in his dream was ‘great and strong’. That’s what Nebuchadnezzar said ‘Is not this great Babylon ...’ He took in the full glory and power of his kingdom, in a moment of time. As someone else did, of course. As he too stood on a high place, and saw all the kingdoms of the world, in a moment of time. As he surveyed the imperial glories of Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, China, the Aztecs, the Zulus, France, Britain and USA. And was tempted to accept the principles of the kingdoms of this world. ‘Then leading him to a height, the devil showed him in a moment of time all the kingdoms of the world and said to him, “I will give you all this power and their splendour, for it has been handed over to me, for me to give it to anyone I choose. Do homage, then, to me, and it shall all be yours”’. (Luke 4:5-7. NJB). Jesus answered, LUKE 4:8. Christ’s answer showed that his gospel is based not on human ambition or pride, but on humble faith in God.

Which is of course, what Nebuchadnezzar finally learns. He learns it when his pride is humbled. This experience of Nebuchadnezzar’s sets the pattern for the rest of the Book of Daniel. Great cities fall; huge idols are destroyed; awesome beasts are slaughtered; boasting horns plucked up. And massive trees chopped down. And they all get their come-uppance. Because they never learn the lesson that Nebuchadnezzar finally did. Humility. That the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of this world. DAN 4:25b.

But what is the point? What is the point of humility? What is the point of humility for Nebuchadnezzar? For us as pastors? The point of humility is not, I think, simply to acknowledge God’s eternity, omnipotence, omniscience, and to be overwhelmed by how great he is. We might do that, of course. But I think the point of humility is more significant than that. Because one of the most prominent attributes of God, and one of the most forgotten, is God’s humility. God is a humble God. And when we exercise humility, we experience something of God. When we exercise humility, we come close to the heart of God.

Of course, the Bible does present the majesty of God. Isaiah sees the Lord, seated on a throne, and the hem of his robe filled the temple. But such passages merely make the humility of God all the more breathtaking. ISA 53:2b-3.

In his words, the Son of God underlined humility. MATT 20:26b-27

And by his actions, exemplified humility. JOHN 13:3 (the majesty). John 13:4-5 (the humility).

Which was finally the lesson learned by Nebuchadnezzar. King Nebuchadnezzar II. Great suzerain of the neo-Babylonian empire, learned humility by taking on the form of a cow. But Christ ‘though he was in the form of God ... emptied himself, taking the form of a slave’ (Phil 2:6–7). When Nebuchadnezzar experienced humility, he came close to the heart of God.

And this gospel of humility needs pastors of humility. Because when pastors experience humility, we too come close to the heart of God.

Some years ago I attended a small church on the east coast of the USA. About 50 members. In our Sabbath School class we often had a visitor. An older fellow. He wasn’t a church member, but he knew the Lord. Softly spoken. Unassuming. Would contribute quietly and thoughtfully to the Sabbath School discussion. John was his name. We normally just talked about spiritual matters in class. But after church one day, we got talking. The Olympics were on at the time. I asked him if he’d seen any ot it. ‘Oh, a little, you know’. ‘Do you enjoy athletics, John?’ ‘Oh. Yes. Did a bit myself when I was younger.’ ‘Really? Did you ever run competitively?’ ‘Oh, a bit.’ ‘So, what was your best achievement?’ ‘Well, I suppose,’ he said, ‘when I won the gold medal at the Olympics.’ John. John Woodruff. 1936 Olympics. Berlin. 800 metres final. In a time of 1 minute 52.9 secs. John Woodruff: Sabbath School member; and Olympic champion. And if I hadn’t asked an ignorant question, I would never have known.

As I mentioned at the outset, I teach some homiletics. I’m frequently asked, ‘What is the most important quality you need to become a good preacher?’ I never knew what to say. There are so many qualities needed. But the most important? But recently, I realised what it is. Humility. Humility to take preaching seriously. Humility to accept the authority of Scripture. Humility to accept that the Holy Spirit works more through the sweat of study and preparation than he does in the shower on Sabbath morning. Humility to accept that what our congregations need is not our cleverness, our trivial anecdotes, our threadbare cliches, but the fruit of our wrestling with Scripture and the fruit of our spiritual experience.

There is more to ministry than preaching. But by whatever means, as pastors, when we proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, we proclaim the triumph of humility over pride and status. We need to pray for the triumph of humility in our own ministry.

That of course, is at the personal level. But what about the corporate level? What about the humility of the Church? What might her humility look like? When was the last time the Church asked for forgiveness? Asked herself whether she too might be up there, on the palace roof, swaggering around with Nebuchadnezzar. A play currently running in London’s West End, ‘The Last Confession’, explores those very questions in the Roman Catholic Church. The tension between those, on the one hand, who see the church corporate in terms of power, influence, size, making an impression, not rocking the boat. Where the greatest virtue is to be a conservative ‘safe pair of hands’. And those on the other hand, who see the Church corporate in terms of service, simplicity, courage and humility. As I watched the actors on stage, parading as popes, cardinals and archbishops, I wondered. Couldn’t we stage a play like this about the Adventist Church? We’re a task-oriented church. That’s a helpful thing to be. But its down-side is that it’s relatively easy to congratulate ourselves on achieving goals: baptisms; church buildings erected; beds in hospitals; students in colleges. To be seduced by statistics. But, is that what the Lord requires of us? Remember, Nebuchadnezzar learned more about God when he thought he was a cow, than when he stood proudly on his palace roof gazing at his achievements.

It took a dream of a tree to turn him around. A tree which gave him a vision of what the Lord required. Just like that other tree. The tree which stands at the heart of the gospel we proclaim. A tree which sums up meekness and majesty. Glory and humility. ‘When I survey the wondrous cross, on which the prince of glory died, my richest gain I count but loss, and pour contempt on all my pride.’ Maybe that’s why Micah put it the way he did. He has shown us. He has shown us what is good. And what does the Lord require of us. To do justly. To love mercy. And to walk humbly, walk humbly, with our God.
---

Laurence Turner, PhD, is Principal Lecturer in Old Testament Studies and Director of Research Degrees at Newbold College, Bracknell, England. On a personal note, I've had the great privilege to be his student at both BA and MA levels. 


(Sermon @ EUROPEAN PASTORS COUNCIL, DeBron, NL, 2007)

Adventist Credophobia - An Explanation

Copyright © JULIAN KASTRATI, 2004, 2012. (PLEASE NOTE: footnotes are acknowledged but withheld for copyright reasons)

What do Adventists mean when they say that the Bible is their only creed and what are the methodological implications involved?

‘We have no creed but the Bible.’ This has been the constant chorus heard among Seventh-day Adventists from the very beginning of their existence. Since the early days, the Adventist pioneers, took a strong stand against the endorsement of any creeds or formal statements of doctrinal belief. They consistently held that the Bible and the Bible alone should be the church’s rule of faith and practice.
However, throughout its brief history, in order to protect its own identity from rivalling epistemologies, the Adventist Church has had to formulate statements of beliefs, as a current majority understanding, such as the adoption of 27 statements of fundamental beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists during the 1980 General Conference Session (a 28th statement was added during the 2005 session). Preceding these statements, there is a very important (yet often overlooked) preamble, which confirms the position of the Bible as the only creed and guarantees the future alteration or revision of the doctrinal statements.
Given the context, many questions come to mind. Have Adventists been consistent in using the Sola Scriptura principle? What led them to take a stand against creeds and confessional statements in the first place? How do the current fundamental beliefs fit in the picture? In this context, what do Adventists really mean with the Bible being their only creed? What are the methodological implications of such a stand in terms of biblical theology?

Adventists still accept the Bible as their only creed

Preamble to Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists: Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church’s understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God’s Holy Word.

The Anti-creedal Stand in Early Adventism and the Contribution of Ellen G. White
If Seventh-day Adventists today take pride in their adherence to no creed but the Bible, they need to give due credit to the pioneers which founded the church under this invaluable Protestant principle. This section will first take the reader back in time to the factors and the first few significant events in Adventism, which would set the anti-creedal trend of the church in the following years. Secondly, the focus will be on the undisputable contribution made by Ellen G. White towards this cause.


Anti-Creedal Stand in Adventism: Origin and DevelopmentThe Adventist stand against creeds goes back to William Miller. He considered creeds and formulas as infringing religious liberty: ‘We must…let our brethren have the freedom of thought, opinion and speech, or we must resort to creeds and formulas, bishops and popes…I see no other alternative.’[1] Indeed, the Millerites had been cast out of their former churches, not because they were proven wrong by the Bible, but because their beliefs were not in harmony with the creeds of their original churches.[2]
Many of the Advent believers in the mid-1840s were disfellowshipped because they had discovered new truths in their Bibles and refused to remain silent about them.[3] Ironically, the majority of the Millerites themselves, at the Albany Conference in 1845, ‘drew a circle of narrow orthodoxy around their beliefs, excluding those who believed in the seventh-day Sabbath, the visions of Ellen White, and the ordinance of footwashing.’[4] Because of such experiences the Sabbatarian Adventists—eventual founders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church—acquired a deep antipathy and phobia against creeds, having been direct victims of them.
Thus, as early as 1847, James White published a 24-page pamphlet, in which he declared: ‘The Bible is a perfect, and complete revelation. It is our only rule of faith and practice…’[5] For James White, man-made creeds lead to confusion and bondage. In two consecutive articles in the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, he stated: 'We want no human creed, the Bible is sufficient. It is the will of the Lord that his people should be called away from the confusion and bondage of man made creeds, to enjoy the oneness and freedom of the gospel.'[6] It is the opinion of the mass of professors of religion, that human creeds are indispensable to the maintenance of gospel order…Creed making has produced the Babel of confusion now existing among them.[7] As the heavens are higher than the earth, so is our creed, which is the word of God, higher in perfection and real worth than all human creeds.[8]
By the beginning of the 1860s, the Sabbatarian Adventists had decided to get organised under a separate denomination. The organisation of the Michigan Conference amounted to the first ‘moment of truth’ for the new born church, which distrusted creeds, yet realised the need for some sort of definition of Adventist doctrine. This situation was resolved when James White, backed by John N. Loughborough, proposed a ‘church covenant’ rather than a creed.[9] The covenant read: ‘We, the undersigned, hereby associate ourselves together, as a church, taking the name Seventh-day Adventists, covenanting to keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus Christ.’ This short statement avoided ‘the language of an inflexible creed, while at the same time fulfilling the group’s responsibility to say something about what it believed for the benefit of both members and outsiders.’[10]
During the meeting, J.N. Loughborough, while favouring the covenant, voiced his opposition to creeds by highlighting five logical steps on how the church could end up apostatising if it adopted them: 'The first step of apostasy is to get up a creed, telling us what we shall believe. The second is to make that creed a test of fellowship. The third is to try members by that creed. The fourth is to denounce as heretics those who do not believe that creed. And, fifth, to commence persecution against such.'[11]
The pioneers were concerned that were they to make a creed, this would disable them from future advancements, as their understanding of the Scriptures would mature. ‘Making a creed is setting the stakes, and barring up the way to all future advancements…The Bible is our creed. We reject everything in the form of a human creed.’[12]
An analysis of these early incidents in Adventism shows that because of their former persecution during and after the Millerite years, and because they wanted to remain faithful to the Reformation principle, the early Adventists took a stand against man-made creeds. According to them, adopting a creed implied potential ecclesiastical persecution, confusion, bondage, and would ban future advancements in doctrine.


Anti-Creedal Stand in Adventism: Contribution of Ellen G. White                      The contribution of Ellen G. White on this topic is very significant. Throughout her writings or oral interventions in crucial church conferences, she consistently turned everyone’s attention to the Bible, as the infallible word of God and the only creed available for Christians. Mrs White’s insights helped develop a theological framework that would uplift the Bible above any human opinion or interpretation. The following powerful quotation provides a good summary of Mrs White’s view on the topic: 'When God’s Word is studied, comprehended and obeyed, a bright light will be reflected to the world; new truths, received and acted upon, will bind us in strong bonds to Jesus. The Bible and the Bible alone is to be our creed, the sole bond of union; and all who bow to this Holy Word will be in harmony. Our own ideas must not control our efforts. Man is fallible, but God’s Word is infallible. Instead of wrangling with one another, let men exalt the Lord. Let us meet all opposition as did our Master, saying “It is written.” Let us lift up the banner on which is inscribed, The Bible our rule of faith and discipline.’[13]
There are profound implications in this statement. First, Mrs White alerts that the serious study of the Scriptures will lead to the discovery of new truths. Consequently, the embracing of the ‘new truths’ informs unity, something the creeds were designed to produce but have failed. Unity and harmony derive only when the Bible is accepted as the only creed. Secondly, Mrs White contrasts human fallibility with biblical infallibility. Creeds are man-made and hence fallible. They ‘present a presumption of infallibility that puts a stop to the continual unfolding of new truth. No statement of faith, however perfect, can ever stand as a final one.’[14] Lastly, Mrs White urges her readers to imitate Christ and use the Bible and the Bible for the defence and uplifting of their faith. If there is to be a rule, it must be Sola Scriptura.
Mrs White regarded the Bible, as opposed to creeds, as the sole foundation of Christian thinking. Only the Scriptures must define our own theology. In a contemplative sermon preached in 1889, she declared: ‘It is not how many years have I believed that makes it the truth. You must bring your creed to the Bible and let the light of the Bible define your creed.’[15] In another occasion, she advised: 'Do not carry your creed to the Bible, and read the Scriptures in the light of that creed. If you find that your opinions are opposed to a plain “Thus saith the Lord,” or to any command or prohibition He has given, give heed to the Word of God rather than to the sayings of men. Let every controversy or dispute be settled by “It is written.”[16]
Given these few quotations, a summary of Mrs White’s views on the subject of creeds may be attempted at this point. For Mrs White, the church should not adopt creeds because primarily, truth is progressive and cannot be confined by the cold prison walls of church dogma. Creeds, once established, are almost impossible to alter and henceforth they become a major obstacle in the pursuit for new truths. In addition, their extra-biblical nature makes them fallible. The infallible Word of God must be the only creed for the believer.


The Role of Fundamental Beliefs in Adventism
Development
While the Seventh-day Adventist Church has consistently abided by its anti-creedal stand for the past 150 years, it has on the other hand defined its fundamental beliefs. The covenant that the pioneers approved in 1861 was the simplest and posed no real debate or controversy.[17] The first official attempt of such nature was Uriah Smith’s 1872 declaration of belief. The second was a statement of beliefs in 1931 and the third and the most familiar to this generation is the set of 27 fundamental beliefs approved by the General Conference session in 1980.
In 1872, Uriah Smith anonymously authored a pamphlet titled A Declaration of the Fundamental Principles Taught and Practised by the Seventh-day Adventists. The introductory remarks of this statement are significant: 'In presenting to the public this synopsis of our faith, we wish to have it distinctly understood that we have no articles of faith, creed, or discipline, aside from the Bible. We do not put forth this as having any authority with our people, nor is it designed to secure uniformity among them, as a system of faith, but is a brief statement of what is, and has been, with great unanimity, held by them.'[18]
While the disclaimer speaks for itself, its author clearly intends to secure a measure of uniformity among Adventists. Through this pamphlet, the author intended to discredit the claims of some who said they were Adventists, and yet held views with which Adventists had no sympathy. However, his statement must be treated as ‘an exercise in moral suasion rather than an effort on the part of the church to force the issue through “official” declaration and subsequent enforcement of the statement.’[19]
The next major event is the appearance of the statement of beliefs in the 1931 denominational yearbook. This statement, has no special authorising action authorised and was not submitted to any committees for formal approval. It simply grew out of a need to inform outsiders about the Adventist beliefs. It was published by common consent and thus passed without major dissatisfaction of controversy since it was a general draft of a broad consensus directed to outsiders.[20]
From this moment on, the tendency in Adventism has been for such statements to sound more official. Thus, in 1941, a world church council approved A Summary of Fundamental Beliefs which was included in the Church Manual. In 1946, the General Conference in session voted ‘that no revision of this [1941] Statement of Fundamental Beliefs, as it now appears in the Manual, shall be made at any time, except at a General Conference session.’[21] This vote provided the legal basis for the formal action of the General Conference when it accepted the new statement in 1980. Indeed, the 1980 action made the fundamental beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists more formal than ever.
Yet, as Knight puts it, ‘the most astounding and important thing about the 1980 statement of fundamental beliefs is the preamble.’[22] 'Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church’s understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God’s Holy Word.' [23]
The value of the preamble is twofold: First, it remains faithful to the historic principle held by the pioneers and Mrs White of the Bible being the only creed for Seventh-day Adventists. Secondly, it guarantees and anticipates further future revisions of the fundamentals. Guy notes that ‘this anticipation gives them an essential flexibility that is absent from the historic Christian creeds and legitimates that Adventists do not, strictly speaking, have a “creed”.’[24]


Critical Evaluation
Having taken the time and the space to highlight the development of Adventist statements of belief, a critical evaluation of them is now possible. What is the rationale for the endorsement of these statements? What is their real function? Do they compromise the ‘sacred’ Protestant-Adventist principle of Sola Scriptura?
As previously discussed, throughout its existence, the Adventist Church has had to formulate statements of beliefs as a current majority understanding. The most important reason for the existence of such statements is that they function as signposts or borderlines that define the territory.[25] Thus, the early Christian Church, after the realisation that its mission involved the whole world rather than Israel, was forced to define certain tenets that would distinguish it from the other worldviews. Similarly, in order to protect its own identity from rivalling epistemologies, it has been necessary, as much as it is legitimate for Adventism to endorse statements of beliefs.
Because of the increasing secularisation of the world, especially during the past 100 years, Adventism, like Evangelicalism, has been on the defensive. In this context, the endorsement of doctrinal statements, like the 27 (now 28) Fundamental Beliefs looks like the natural and logical thing to do. The presence of the preamble, on the other hand, serves as a guarantor of the Sola Scriptura principle and allows doctrinal revisions resulting from the on-going study of the Scriptures.


Methodological Implications
Having completed a journey from early to modern Adventism, with its consistent rejection of creeds other than the Bible, it is the right moment to reflect and consider potential implications in terms of theology. What are the methodological implications of the anti-creedal, Sola Scriptura stand endorsed by Adventism? What do Adventists really mean when they claim that they have no other creed but the Bible?
From the very beginning, Adventists, led by the pioneers and Mrs White, rejected the creeds because they realised the difference it makes when biblical theology is being given priority. This is where Adventism is unique. The uniqueness of Adventism lies not in its doctrines, but on the method it applies.
Adventism assumes a method of Bible study that allows the Bible to speak for itself, free from every possible boundary. True, the 28 fundamental beliefs have their own importance and serve as boundaries. However, boundaries are not the story. The Bible needs to be allowed to tell its own story. Herein lies the mission for Adventism: to rediscover the biblical-theistic worldview and cleanse it from ‘systematic’ dirt. Just as the biblical story comes before the doctrines, so does biblical theology come before systematic theology.[26]
Because of this understanding, biblical theology should be free from tradition. Because of this understanding, the final products in systematics are always on-going products. Ultimately, because of this understanding biblical theology always deserves primacy, for there is the place where the first principles are found.

Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus

by Jefferson Bethke

19,137,902 clicks on youtube by 18 Feb 2012

A poem I wrote to highlight the difference between Jesus and false religion. In the scriptures Jesus received the most opposition from the most religious people of his day. At its core Jesus' gospel and the good news of the Cross is in pure opposition to self-righteousness/self-justification. Religion is man centered; Jesus is God-centered. This poem highlights my journey to discover this truth. Religion either ends in pride or despair. Pride because you make a list and can do it and act better than everyone, or despair because you can't do your own list of rules and feel "not good enough" for God. With Jesus though you have humble confident joy because He represents you, you don't represent yourself and His sacrifice is perfect putting us in perfect standing with God!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IAhDGYlpqY