112. With True Dignity

Today’s reading: “The Ministry of Healing” pp. 215, 216.

As their minds are thus drawn away from their own selfish interests, many will surrender themselves to Christ.

Today we look at presenting “stewardship” to the rich

Yesterday we learned,

• Let them keep doing all the business and charitable things they already do. They can do a better job of running their business than we can.
• Ask just for the money they now waste on intemperate vices.

How do we do that?

• Simply present the gospel i.e. present the self-sacrificing love of Christ, as seen on the cross.
• Bear yourself with dignity
• Remember angels are our companions.
• Memorise Scripture especially the words of Christ to the rich
• Do your duty bravely and faithfully
• Make it plain, “God expects you to relieve suffering humanity.” (i.e. stewardship)

The work is difficult but remember Matthew 19:26; with God all things, even the salvation of the rich, are possible. Miracles will occur, the greatest of men will be reached.

God will convert men who occupy responsible places, men of intellect and influence. Through the power of the Holy Spirit, many will be led to accept the divine principles.

First they give their time and money to help us relieve the poor. Then, they will be drawn to Christ and converted.

Once converted, they will use their influence work for other rich people.

This is important, first step is working alongside us for the poor. Second step is them reaching the rich.

So we end this section with the great, Christ-uplifting promise,

Only eternity will reveal what has been accomplished by this kind of ministry — how many souls, sick with doubt and tired of worldliness and unrest, have been brought to the great Restorer, who longs to save to the uttermost all that come unto Him. Christ is a risen Saviour, and there is healing in His wings.

111. Enduring Riches

Today’s reading: “The Ministry of Healing” pp. 213, 214.
That which will reach them effectually is a consistent, unselfish presentation of the gospel of Christ. Today we find out why “temperance” and “stewardship” are the central pillars of ministry to the rich. Today the emphasis is on “temperance”.

Key Words

• Needs
• (Temperance) even though it is not mentioned.

First, you won’t get anything out of this unless you have read yesterday’s post. Check the sequence for medical missionary work; i.e. start with the instructing and healing the tempted, the intemperate, unemployed, homeless and the poor, then minister to the rich.
Second, realise that most of our society, most of our neighbours, are in the class of being “rich”.
Temperance is self-control. People without self-control don’t become rich, at least not for long. So the rich have got most areas of their life well under control. Or so some of them think.
So what is their need? To learn the “joy of giving”.

How not to reach the rich

• Get to know them accidentally, casually
• Expensive, logic-based programmes
• Ask for money

How to reach the rich with temperance

• Deliberate, business-like, personal meetings with them where we,
• Show them the the results of harmful indulgences on body mind and soul (p. 211),
• Present the gospel in a simple, consistent, unselfish manner, through stories of our work for the needy,
• Present Christ as the Saviour of sinners, through stories of our work for the needy,
• Emphasise how they can feel the joy of giving, i.e.
• Ask them to be temperate
• Ask them for the money they would otherwise spend on things that destroy their own heal, their peace of mind or their character. (To do this would require self-control)
• Follow-up and show them (“consistent gospel” means we follow-up) where we spent their money.

Remember “To such an appeal not many would refuse to listen.” p. 211.
Tomorrow we will look at idea of “stewardship” in ministry to the rich.

Veiled Doctrines

I have learned a lot in the last three and a half years. But it is time to move on to other things.

In the last couple of months I've been reading quite a bit of reasonable argument from several nontrinitarians especially Brendan Knudson. In fact the title of this post came from a discussion with Brendan.

Thanks, Brendan for calmly showing me why you believe as you do. It is good to clearly see where you, and others, are coming from. But I especially want to thank you for the idea of "veiled doctrine", it is much more elegant than my own "thin doctrine". It gives me the idea of a doctrine that God is covering because it is too holy for our limited, sin-affected minds at present.

Just doing these posts today also brought me back to Willie White. He didn't discuss the Godhead publicly, even at a time of controversy, even when he disagreed with the direction the church seemed to be taking.

This has challenged me. Do I really need to spend time studying this doctrine that God has veiled? Is it "necessary to be known"? Am I as tolerant of different opinions in the church as he was?

After coming to the conclusion that the answer to all those questions is "No", I've decided to follow Willie's lead. Like him, I will keep busy working on other things until "the revelation" about our uncertainties.

There is another, maybe even more unsettling, idea that comes from Willie's letter. It seems that his mother, Ellen White, saw no purpose in correcting her own family's, or anyone else's, opinions on the topic of Godhead even though her statements could be used to support either view. The Bible is similar so there has been divergence on this since Jesus ascended to heaven. It is almost as if God doesn't mind which way we believe.

In any case, I'm taking to heart Mrs White's example and not going to push my views on others beyond the two facts that Father and Son have "forms" and are separate individuals.

So that is it... until the revelation.

In the meantime, any readers of this blog (of any persuasion) are welcome to come to Toronto church or follow what I'm doing on my NCD blog or at Traditional Hydrotherapy.

Reply from W. C. White to H. W. Carr

April 30th 1935

Elder H. W. Carr
164 Saxton Street
Lockport
New York

Dear Brother Carr

I hold in my hand your letter of January 24. For some months I have been so heavily pressed with work connected with manuscripts which we were preparing for the printer that my correspondence has had to wait.

In your letter you request me to tell you what I understand to be my mother's position in reference to the personality of the Holy Spirit.

This I cannot do because I never clearly understood her teachings on the matter. There always was in my mind some perplexity regarding the meaning of her utterances which to my superficial manner of thinking seemed to be somewhat confused. I have often regretted that I did not possess that keenness of mind that could solve this and similar perplexities, and then remembering what Sister White wrote in "Acts of the Apostles," pages 51 and 52, "regarding such mysteries which are too deep for human understanding, silence is golden," I have thought best to refrain from discussion and have endeavoured to direct my mind to matters easy to be understood.

As I read the Bible, I find that the risen Saviour breathed on the disciples (John 20:22) "and saith unto them, "receive ye the Holy Ghost." The conception received from this Scripture, seems to be in harmony with the statement in "Desire of Ages", page 669, also Genesis 1:2; with Luke 1:4; with Acts 2:4 and also 8:15 and 10:44. Many other texts might be referred to which seem to be in harmony with this statement in the "Desire of Ages."

The statements and the arguments of some of our ministers in their effort to prove that the Holy Spirit was an individual as are God, the father and Christ, the eternal Son, have perplexed me and sometimes they have made me sad. One popular teacher said "we may regard Him, (the Holy Spirit) as the fellow who is down here running things."

My perplexities were lessened a little when I learned from the dictionary that one of the meanings of personality, was characteristics. It is stated in such a way that I concluded that there might be personality without bodily form which is possessed by the Father and the Son.

There are many Scriptures which speak of the Father and the Son and the absence of Scripture making similar reference to the united work of the Father and the Holy Spirit or of Christ and the Holy Spirit, has led me to believe that the spirit without individuality was the representative of the Father and the Son throughout the universe, and it was through the Holy Spirit that they dwell in our hearts and make us one with the Father and with the Son.

My answer to your second question "Does Sister White's writings anywhere teach that prayer should only be addressed to the Father, or that we should not address Christ in prayer, only through the Father," is that I think not. I have not found such teachings in Ellen White's writings.

Your third question "Does she anywhere tell what the power is that "shall plant the tabernacle of His palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain?" I must answer in the same way, I think not. We have not found any statement regarding this in Sister White's writings nor do we remember any statement made orally in our presence.

Enclosed with this brief and unsatisfactory letter, you will find our News Letter of April 4.

I pray that you may have help from heaven in studying that which is necessary to be known and patience to wait for the revelation of that regarding which we are now in some uncertainty.

With kind regards, I remain,
Sincerely your brother,
W. C. White

Carr's main request (from our point of view) is:
"Will you kindly tell me what you understand was your mother's position in refference (sic) to the personality of the Holy Spirit."

Willie refers to this answer as "brief and unsatisfactory". At least one reason why it is unsatisfactory is that he didn't answer Carr's main question because:

1. Willie "never clearly understood her teachings on the matter".
2. Willie was somewhat perplexed by his mother's meaning
3. Willie superficially, thought his mother's meaning was confused.

I really appreciate this candour. Willie honestly did not know or understand what Mrs White taught on the Holy Spirit. But even more to be applauded is what he did with his perplexity... he "refrain(ed) from discussion" and "directed (his) mind to matters easy to be understood".

Rather than stirring up discussion and dissent on this confusing and confused issue, he concentrated on things where the Bible and Mrs White are very clear. I wonder if H.W. Carr followed his example.

I think this single private letter is the only reference we have from Willie on the Godhead after his mother's death. If so, it shows how well he followed his own resolve not to discuss the it.

In the letter, Willie, despite not being sure if his mother would have concurred, then goes on to tell of his own personal beliefs in this area:

1. the Holy Spirit is not an individual
2. the Spirit was denigrated when ministers, in an effort to make the Spirit an individual, call Him things like "the fellow who is down here running things".
3. Christ is the eternal Son,
4. "personality" can mean characteristics
5. the Father and Son have bodily form, the Holy Spirit doesn't
6. the Holy Spirit is the representative of Father and Son, throughout the universe and in our hearts

Modern antitrinitarians would probably agree with all these points. I disagree only with the first.

The letter finishes praying Carr heavenly help as he studies what is necessary to be known. I infer from this that Willie didn't intend to do any further study himself.

I will sum up in the next post.

H.W. Carr's Letter to W.C. White

C. A. SCRIVEN. PRESIDENT J. B. FRANK SECRETARY-TREAS.
NEW YORK CONFERENCE
SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS
Union Springs, N. Y.

H. W. CARR
SUPT. LOCKPORT DISTRICT
164 SAXTON STREET
LOCKPORT. N. Y.

Jan.24 1935

Eld. W. C. White
St. Helena, Calif.

Dear Elder White

Your recent reminder of the efficient provision for carrying forward Sr. Whites work, and the gems of thought which accompanied your announcement is very much appreciated, "She being dead yet speaketh". God has lead this people on, and is still leading, through his chosen servant, for which we praise Him.

In the first pages of Great Controversy it is stated that the "Father had an associate -- a co worker... The only being that could enter into all the councils and purposes of God. "The Father wrought by His son in the creation of all heavenly beings... "He holds supremacy over them all. "Sin originated with Satan, who next to Christ had been most honoured of God, and was highest in power and Glory among the inhabitants of heaven. "Next to Christ he was first among the hosts of God. The Son of God had wrought the Father's will in the creation of all the hosts of heaven. "The Son of God was exalted above Satan as one in power and authority with the Father. Christ created Satan. Ezekiel 28:15.

It is urged by some of our leaders now that The Holy Spirit is a third person of the same nature of the Father and son, a member of the heavenly trio, cooperative in creation and personally active with the Father and son. For many years I have used these statements Of (sic) Sr. White in combating false teachings relative to defining the Holy Spirit.

Will you kindly tell me what you understand was your mother's position in refference (sic) to the personality of the Holy Spirit.

Does Sister White's writings any where teach that prayer should only be addressed to the Father, or that we should not address Christ in prayer, only through the Father?

Does she anywhere tell what that power is that "shall plant the tabernacle of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain? Daniel 11:45

I know Brother White you would not depart from your mother's teachings, and that you have as perfect an understanding of them as any one. I shall appreciate your opinion very much.

Assuring you of the high esteem and respect I have had from my childhood in your father, mother and family,

I am very truly yours in the blessed faith,

H. W. Carr

This is 1935, so the trinity issue had been bubbling away for some years and the 1931 Yearbook states that "Trinity" was one of our beliefs.

H.W Carr's problem is that some church leaders are arguing that the Holy Spirit is:

1. a third Person of the same nature as Father and Son
2. a member of the heavenly trio
3. cooperative in creation
4. personally active with the Father and Son.

H.W. Carr uses the same line of argument that modern antitrinitarians do, to disprove/correct the "personality" of the Holy Spirit. See The Godhead in Black and White"

His most pertinent question is:
"Will you kindly tell me what you understand was your mother's position in reference to the personality of the Holy Spirit."

Carr asks because he believes Willie "would not depart from (his) mother's teachings, and that (he would) have as perfect an understanding of them as any one."

The next post will be Willie's reply.

Edson White and the Trinity

Like his father, Edson though definitely non-trinitarian, rarely mentioned the subject. He made two passing statements in two of his twelve published books
"The angels, therefore, are created beings, necessarily of a lower order than their Creator. Christ is the only being begotten of the Father." {J. E. White, Past, Present and Future, p. 52. 1909}
"Only one being in the universe besides the Father bears the name of God, and that is His Son, Jesus Christ." {J. E. White, The Coming King, p. 33}

He believes that Christ is begotten of the Father, a literal Son. I and the mainline SDA Church would disagree with him on this.

He also believed that Jesus is God. We can all agree with this, as would any trinitarian.

Once again as with his father, the paucity of non-trinitarian material, indicates that he considered this a subject of little importance at the present. Neither did he promote the doctrine to the generally trinitarian public. Both books quoted were subsciption books which enjoyed sales in the hundreds of thousands, perfect opportunities for spruiking non-trinitarianism, but he chose not to do so.

We can debate why Edson didn't promote his beliefs on the Godhead, but his example is one that we can all follow, which is to hold your beliefs on Godhead quietly and promote the pillars of the church especially the soon-coming Saviour.

If present-day antitrinitarians were to follow Edson's example they would publicly mention, just once or twice in their life, their views on the Sonship of Christ.

Thin Doctrines

Trinity and antitrinitarian doctrines are "thin" in the sense that

1. There are very few Bible references on the subject and mostly no positive testimony, so...
2. There are lots of inferences and speculations. So...
3. There are lots of fights, with little clarity so...
4. There is lots of chicanery (the use of clever but tricky talk or action to deceive or evade) so...
5. There is no definite end point or clear understanding of definitions between the sides to judge it from. So...
6. Arguments are interminable

Another interesting characteristic is the gender bias. These squabbles are conducted mainly by men. I think there are three reasons for this:

1. Women don't like silly arguments (that they can't win). They are too practical and sensible.
2. Women have better things to do with their discretionary time. Things like sleeping or improving their relationship with Jesus, their friends and family.
3. Women only get involved if their men are being damaged.

Adventists add another factor to the first list; we invoke Mrs White.

Because there are so few Bible references, we use Mrs White to arbitrate. Compilations from "the pen of inspiration" are required.

But here is the delicious catch: Mrs White is a sensible woman! All three characteristics above apply to her as well. She usually steers well clear of these issues. So the descent through inferences, fights and chicanery leads to more interminable arguments.

Thin, angular, bony, anorexic doctrines that exercise the minds of SDA combatants are things like:

• Original sin
• The nature of Christ. Pre-fall or post-fall?
• Identity of 666
• Why Christ waits
• Last generation theology

In the wider world Free Will versus God's Sovereignty is a biggie. Arminianism versus Calvinism.

Give me a cuddly and curvaceous Fat Doctrine any day. Justification anyone? (I'm joking of course.)