In Prase of Dissent

[Laodicean]

This is absolutely true, and that's why I've questioned the assumption that dissent is a lone affair, or is in anyway less useful when it is not.

The loner-supreme idea -- along with the scientific examples you added -- perpetuates the "great man" theory in which one person unilaterally discovers something brand new and further reports do not acknowledge either precedents or compadres.

I hear you, Aza, and agree with the point you are making. However, once again, I'm not arguing against dissent...really. Nor am I saying that dissent has to be a lone affair. I was just bringing out another aspect of dissent; that is, that dissent for the sake of dissent, because it's "cool," or dissent because a larger groups seems to trump a smaller group, or dissent based on feeling instead of reason, these are dissents that don't carry the kind of bravery of the person who will dissent based on his convictions alone, regardless of what the majority opinion is.

My point was not that true dissent must be a loner affair, but rather that some might read the eulogy of dissent to mean, I will balk at every point made by anyone, because, hey, I have an independent mind.

Stormy is right when he says that the kind of character the article speaks of would "go it alone" even if they were in fact the only ones who believed as they did. But in fact we each build on and adapt to the contributions of others, whether we know them or work in the same era or not.

I passed by a comment today on Harry Connick Jr.'s work in New Orleans. He was aware of Brad Pitt's work in the area but even though they have several people in a common network, and are doing the same work in the same city, they have never met. They are not in communication, but neither of them is efforting alone because the effort of one opens up additional possibilities for the other. The question is whether dissenters or observers can zoom out far enough to see that.

righto!

The article also spoke about experiments in which planted dissenters were able to infuse their group with diversity whether specific opinions were changed or not -- but their reward nevertheless was peer mockery and isolation.

and that's the sad part. Group-think seems to lead to stagnation, a huddling together and validating of each other's views, and a tendency to ridicule any ideas that offend or violate the established views.

Perhaps you and I have very different concepts of bravery and compliance.

maybe you missed the point I was trying to make?

 

[sentipente]

And what of it? Is company only company when localized by space or time?
If so, then every prophet that ever lived was a lone ranger.

But God said to Elijah, "I have 7,000 who have not bowed the knee."

Laodicean seems to be suffering from an acute case of localization, the idea that a body only exists if all the parts are in the same geographic area at the same time. He would probably have difficulty conceding that modern man can take credit for building the Pyramids even though we were not present.

 

[sentipente]

the bravery of dissent is only evidenced when there is no supporting body for the dissenter; i.e., Galileo, Martin Luther.....

Have you really read the story of Galileo and Luther? Who do you think made copies of Luther's 95 Theses after he posted them on the door of the church? Who do you think became Galileo's patron when he resigned from the university, long before the church got involved?

 

[AzA]

maybe you missed the point I was trying to make?

Always possible.

I just don't think that whether we adduce an act of dissent "brave" or not -- however we choose to do that today -- has any bearing on its social function and impact.

 

[AzA]

FYI, if anyone is curious about Kiesling's resignation letter, here it is as published by the NYT in 2003.

Quite the artifact.

 

[Laodicean]

Laodicean seems to be suffering from an acute case of localization, the idea that a body only exists if all the parts are in the same geographic area at the same time. He would probably have difficulty conceding that modern man can take credit for building the Pyramids even though we were not present.

And Senti seems to be suffering from a critical case of sarcasm embodied in a myopic understanding of "localization." Let's see if I can help.

The members of this forum are from many geographic areas and yet they are "huddled together" in virutal space, holding basically the same supposedly "progressive" views on Adventism.....all the while suppressing poorly hidden resentment against those who enter with views dissimilar to theirs.

Sometimes it helps to see ourselves as others see us. And this is how I see most members of this group. In the same breath, I'm sure I'm viewed in ways that I don't realize myself, so I'd appreciate any constructive criticisms of my own approach to conversation here. Thanks.

 

[Laodicean]

Have you really read the story of Galileo and Luther? Who do you think made copies of Luther's 95 Theses after he posted them on the door of the church? Who do you think became Galileo's patron when he resigned from the university, long before the church got involved?

I remember reading, a few years ago, Galileo's Daughter: A Historical Memoir of Science, Faith, and Love. Unfortunately, I've forgotten the details. I should read it again.

My original point re dissent has been long since buried under protests, so let's not pursue this any further. You may be quite right, and I may be quite wrong on this.

 

[Laodicean]

Always possible.

I just don't think that whether we adduce an act of dissent "brave" or not -- however we choose to do that today -- has any bearing on its social function and impact.

Of course, you are right, whether we adduce an act of dissent brave or not has no bearing on its social function and impact. I was just sharing a further insight on the subject of dissent, that I foolishly thought I could share without causing ruffled feathers.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Furthermore, those who remain Adventists and dissent remain Adventists. And operate both within and without. It is their duality that makes them valuable.

Similarly, those who do not remain Adventists operate both within and without. Many of them maintain healthy connections with the individual SDAs with whom they've built close relationships over a period of years. It is their duality that makes them valuable.

Healthy discension can happen in many different ways.

But it sure is odd to hear dissent being devalued on the basis that a dissenter may have peers. Under any other circumstance we recognize the value of being in community and criticize people who abandon the social for the solipsistic.

I agree. Perhaps we have also overstated the concept of "peers." Even among peers, there is often diversity of thought. A careful examination of me and my peers will immediately reveal the truth of this statement. We disagree on any number of things and our differing views have been documented here in this forum. However, I view our diversity as a positive thing. It the rich diversity of thought that keeps bringing me back to this forum.

Therefore, I would hardly agree with that those who post here have "basically the same" views. Also I'm not sure that I sense the poorly hidden resentment that Lao seems to see.

LAO WROTE: The members of this forum are from many geographic areas and yet they are "huddled together" in virutal space, holding basically the same supposedly "progressive" views on Adventism.....all the while suppressing poorly hidden resentment against those who enter with views dissimilar to theirs.
​

Perhaps Lao has missed the fact that we actually have very different perspectives on a number of subjects?

BFA

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I agree. I'm not knocking dissent. I'm only making a distinction between the brave dissenter and the mean-spirited, disgruntled, toxic dissenter, or the dissenter who disagrees because dissent is cool, and "cool" is the majority opinion.

Mean spirited? Disgruntled? Toxic? Cool?

Where do these adjectives come from? What is their source?

BFA

 

[Avonia]

The members of this forum are from many geographic areas and yet they are "huddled together" in virutal space, holding basically the same supposedly "progressive" views on Adventism.....all the while suppressing poorly hidden resentment against those who enter with views dissimilar to theirs.

I find this judgment a bit troubling.

I would challenge you to spend two weeks in an Ashram. Then two weeks in a Wiccan circle. And then two weeks with Sufi masters. And so on. That is, if you are questioning openness. You may learn something about your own comfort with "dissimilar views."

I have no more interest in changing the beliefs of any member of these groups than I do in changing the beliefs of the most traditional Adventist. Or the other way around.

However, when injurious behavior manifests through the vehicle of belief, I'm interested.

 

[AzA]

Similarly, those who do not remain Adventists operate both within and without. Many of them maintain healthy connections with the individual SDAs with whom they've built close relationships over a period of years. It is their duality that makes them valuable.

For sure. This is why, when there were moves to restructure this forum I hoped that we would be able to keep former Adventists around. And so we have, but that doesn't mean (per your secondary point) that there is not significant range among us all.
Among the things that are common to us is that we wish to talk.

While I was washing dishes the other night I couldn't help but think of all the stories I read when I was younger about persecuted Christians under civil Rome. People who might have ended up in X dungeon or Y circus on their own, or mixed in with slaves and criminals. Or who might have been rounded up with their families and be watching members being cut down ahead of them.

Can't escape the fact that whether the groups were large or small, what created social trouble for them was their difference, and their visibility. Hebrews talks about a "great cloud of witnesses" populated mostly by people long dead. But drawing associations across groups, across time, is a pretty consistent strategy for helping people find additional meaning in their situation and for their cause.

What's that slogan about God + 1? Had to google it... "God plus one is always a majority." Interesting...

Yet remove the threat of persecution from the same group, and it's not long before internal dissent springs up and the church unified begins to splinter.

We've had some knockdown disagreements in this section. But I suppose we handle them differently than most other subforums. Which I actually like.

 

[Avonia]

We've had some knockdown disagreements in this section. But I suppose we handle them differently than most other subforums. Which I actually like.

We do have quite a lovely mix here. I'm pretty sure I can close the deal and convert BFA, Sophia, and Victor by end of year.

Converting Joe may be doable as well - as soon as I figure out what "flavor" he currently is.

Has anybody seen my pamphlets?

 

[AzA]

Has anybody seen my pamphlets?

Yes, and the graphic design is fabulous!

 

[Sophia7]

We do have quite a lovely mix here. I'm pretty sure I can close the deal and convert BFA, Sophia, and Victor by end of year.

Convert us to what?

 

[Avonia]

Convert us to what?

What will be interesting is witnessing my daughter's path. Although I am an active member of the SDA church (for now), my daughter knows that I have no preference about whether or not she is an Adventist - or a member of any religious community. I wish for her to live well and help others live well.

One of the things that's surprised me is her own neutrality in the matter. She is attending an SDA school and seems to have no resistance when it comes to the dogma/rules stuff. She says things like "it's important to the people in my school to not wear jewelery." So, she doesn't wear it. Or, "my school believes" and then states the belief in an appreciative way.

This may be the most dangerous dissent, because she simply honors people's right to get up tight about silly stuff. And does it in a way that draws people to her. I've learned a lot from being around her.

Alas, Sophia, I will not be converting you this year. Only sending a measure of blessings and bliss.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Avonia, this post made me smile!

We do have quite a lovely mix here.

I think so too.

I'm pretty sure I can close the deal and convert BFA, Sophia, and Victor by end of year.

You've already accomplished it, but we haven't realized it yet!

Converting Joe may be doable as well - as soon as I figure out what "flavor" he currently is.

When you figure that out, clue me in.

Has anybody seen my pamphlets?

Yup. We have meetings on Friday nights to study them. I particularly enjoy the large, colorful illustrations of the beasts!

With tongue in cheek . . .
BFA

 

[Byfaithalone1]

We've had some knockdown disagreements in this section. But I suppose we handle them differently than most other subforums. Which I actually like.

Me too.

BFA

 

[Joe67]

The Jews/Judah who went to Babylon ( the first group without chains/the last group with chains) did not fight among themselves as much as they did when the temple was still standing and the ark was in the most holy place.

The greater the emphasis upon laws that are materially recorded using human written language, the greater the quarrels among the believers of these as the righteousness/kingdom of God.

We can see this problem increasing in the world. Nations are stating that their laws and institutions of material duty is the kingdom of God. Thus the nations are angry.

Indifference toward the righteousness and kingdom of God is not the answer, though I wrestled with that angel for many years, and the Lord Jesus in his grace delivered me from his snare, and is delivering me and will deliver me in that day to the praise of the glory of his grace and the edification of the Body, the church of Jesus our Lord.

Matt 6:31-34
31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?

32(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.

33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. KJV

Joe

 

[Avonia]

The Jews/Judah who went to Babylon ( the first group without chains/the last group with chains) did not fight among themselves as much as they did when the temple was still standing and the ark was in the most holy place.

The greater the emphasis upon laws that are materially recorded using human written language, the greater the quarrels among the believers of these as the righteousness/kingdom of God.

We can see this problem increasing in the world. Nations are stating that their laws and institutions of material duty is the kingdom of God. Thus the nations are angry.

A great post, Joe.

I've been thinking about the high art of cooperative dissent. A way of coming more into relationship with people - dissent as an act of support.

There have been a couple of very wise teachers in my life that have overtly challenged me (and it was highly uncomfortable) - and I knew at the time, and I know now, they were with me, not against me.