The University of Iceland issues annually an extensive calender as a booklet where you find all kinds of information for every day of the year. Information useful for farmers and many others. As far as I recall it also has the information which saint is hallowed by the Roman Catholic church on each day of the year.

So it might be difficult to find a day that is not hallowed in memory of some saint by the Catholic church as well.

As a church pastor in Virginia, many years ago, I became aquainted with the concept of a "Chrismon tree." I found this to be a very meaningful celebration of Christiaqn liefe an belief.


Briefly: Congregational members handmake Christian themed things to hanage on an evergreen tree. A Chrismon tree has nothing seculasre hanging on it. At its best, it is teh work of loving members of the congregation.

IF you want to, you can find a lot about Chrismon trees on teh Internet. But, here is one post:



NOTE: The word "Chrismon" has been trademarked/copyrighted. See that story on the Internet.

I know lots of churches that have beautiful bouquets of flowers on the platform. Most have greenery, or floral arrangements of some sort in the foyer, on the piano, or on the platform. In the fall (thanksgiving) we often have colorful garden produce near the front as decoration. And yes, I've often seen small trees used as well (not just at Christmas)

Are you saying it's wrong to decorate churches with nature?




As for the symbol of the cross --
I know one elder who insisted all the handles on the top of the communion covers be cut off because they were in the shape of a cross.
I thought that strange -- a denial that the communion was in remembrance of what happened on a cross 2000 years ago.

It seemed to me like this "movement" claiming the cross was a pagan symbol swept in particular parts of the United States about 50-60 years ago. It was about the time I moved from America to Europe. I found no such stigma in Europe at that time.

In Germany, however, I found a similar stigma against the use of churches. Adventists refused to use a church, and would only have their services in a hall or a chapel. They felt that a church building was like a Catholic relic.

Let's assume that you're transparently representing the honour of your SDA clergy colleagues Johann - they are all following EGW's counsel to the best of their knowledge - and to the best of your recollection as a world-traveled minister.

Take a small item, flesh eating clergy, given sharp emphasis by EGW, but laughably legalistic to the world.

S.A. Nagel hosted you at his home, and you spoke highly of him in a recent post I recall. Yet he wrote a book "Anti-Meat Special" where he testified that most of his G.C. brethren ate flesh in the cafeteria. Surely it was a bold move for brother Nagel to place inspired counsel above his peers' ridicule. Or was brother Nagel a liar?

Or have the ministers now evolved to heed all the counsel of EGW, shunning not only dead flesh but all animal foods?
Or possibly, have they adopted this 100 year-old light and built upon it, as is their duty & privilege, bringing new light to the people?
Was Sherman Nagel a disgrace or a beacon of light?

Is EGW relevant to ministers today?
_____________

If EGW's counsel were fully followed we would have a very different church today -- there is no question on that point in my mind.

There are ministers that I know who regard EGW as merely a good spiritual writer but not as an "authority".

There are two extremes -
1. Those like I stated above who regard her as merely a good spiritual writer.
2. Those who like to use her as a hammer -- extracting all her most severe statements to individuals, leaving out the statements that show the balance which she gives to the subject, and then making the "extreme statements" a test.

It has often been those operating in #2 mode that have driven people away from EGW's writings for they appear to them unreasonable and outright damaging. They fight against a distorted picture of her messages.

An example -- one person was very familiar with EGW's anti-meat statements. When he found out that EGW herself ate meat occasionally well after writing out the health message, he turned against all her writings.

Eating meat or not eating meat is a principle for HEALTH. If we care for our health we do not eat meat as long as there is other nutritious food available. Meat should not be part of our diet. And yes, she wrote some strong statements to ministers who insisted on a meat diet.
The only way they were going to shake the habit was to STOP their meat consumption totally.

Yet, when EGW and her family were up in the mountains where her husband was recoperating from a stroke, her son went out and shot a duck for food. It's not a matter where we take a stand in which we would rather die than eat meat.

"We are getting short of provisions...A young man from Nova Scotia had come in from hunting. He had a quarter of deer... He gave us a small piece of the meat, which we made into broth. Willie shot a duck which came in a time of need, for our supplies were rapidly diminishing.--Manuscript 11, 1873.

The interesting thing is how those who like to compile her strongest statements against something, will disregard her statements where she says something is "OK" which they think should have been severely rebuked.

Example -- she gives counsel on HOW to observe Christmas, while they heap the whole concept of a time to celebrate Christ's birth with darkest paganism.

But as to your question --

Is EGW relevant to minister today?
Yes, today of all times ministers NEED to take EGW's statements seriously. We are on the brink of stupendous times -- we need the messages God gave her to cast a light on the endtime path even as we keep our eyes on Jesus.

Your assumptions are not fully correct.

For clarification let me make a few statements:

1. I have never been to the home of Dr. Nagel. He visited us in Nigeria and enjoyed everything on our table.

2. I have been a vegetarian all of my life, and I have no intention of changing that.

3. As much as I respect Dr. Nagel, I will never make his writings my Bible, nor a foundation for my evaluation of my church.

4. Although I have never had a meal at Dr. Nagel's place I have had meals with uncountable Seventh-day Adventist pastors in many countries in three different hemispheres of this world.

5. Again, although I am a vegetarian myself, my church has never made it a test of fellowship to be a vegetarian. If I do that, I am no longer true to my own church and my fellowship with the believers.

6. Some of the compilations of the writings of Ellen White give more the views of the compilers than those of Ellen White herself. Often those compilers dismiss quite a bit of what she also has written. Consider the post of dedication.

I agree with these points, Johann. Well said. Compilations of Ellen White frequently fail of transmitting her thoughts accurately. She was far more balanced than people make her to be when they quote the more outlying statements.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

That sounds very good

EGW, contrary to the way that she is often presented was a reasonable person.

How many of you have heard that she said that every woman should have a red dress to wear--Not what she actually said.