In the same issue of Adventist World that contains the article that Stan posted about in this thread, the current February 2010 edition, there is also an incredible article entitled “Adventists and Muslims: Five Convictions
How to build on what we have in common,” written by William Johnsson (former editor of the Adventist Review).

Here are some excerpts from it (emphasis mine):

Several months ago I received a message totally outside my previous frame of reference: a spiritual leader of many thousands of Muslims in several countries, a sheikh, stated that God had given him a vision about Adventists. He had made contact with lay Adventists; now he was asking to meet with leaders from the General Conference. [...]

[...]

The following day the sheikh and I met to consider what topic should form the basis for the discussions with the larger group. Almost immediately we settled on the Second Coming. We decided to ask each side to prepare short papers on the general topic of Jesus’ return, on the signs of the Second Coming, and on the antichrist. Then came the moment I had been waiting for. “Sir,” I asked, “is it true that you received a vision about Seventh-day Adventists?”

“Not one, but three,” he replied. “All three had the same message: Seventh-day Adventists are the true People of the Book [a term from the Koran, designating followers of Allah who are not Muslims]. Adventists already are God’s people, so do not try to convert them. Instead, work with them.”

[...]

I turn now to a second conviction: Seventh-day Adventists are uniquely positioned to bring the gospel to Muslims.

Adventists have the following advantages over other Christians in taking the good news to Muslims:

The place of the Scriptures. We base our practices and beliefs on the Bible and the Bible alone. This devotion and loyalty to the revealed Word impresses Muslims, who look to the Koran as God’s revelation.

[...]

A reform movement. We understand our message to be not a new one but a return to the teachings of the Bible. We are completing the partially realized reformation begun by Luther, Calvin, and the other stalwarts of yesteryear. Muslims also consider themselves to be part of a work of reformation.

These nine features uniquely position Adventists to establish relations with Muslims at all levels and to advance our divinely appointed mission of taking the gospel to the whole world. But we are not well known in the Islamic world; indeed, we are hardly known at all. When Muslims hear of Christians, they immediately think of pork-eating, alcohol-imbibing, loose-living men and women who side with Israel.

A major task with which we must grapple is to educate Muslims as to who we are and what we stand for. When that is done, attitudes change from disbelief to amazement, to appreciation, to warm acceptance.

In meeting Muslim leaders, I emphasize from the outset that I prefer to be known as an Adventist rather than as a Christian. For Muslims the name “Christian” carries such negative associations—associations that do not belong with Seventh-day Adventists—that I would rather avoid the term. And “Adventist” captures well the driving pulse of who we are—our hope in Jesus’ return and sense of divine calling to tell it to the world.

[...]

Among the negative stereotypes and myths about Muslims to which our people are subject are the following:

[...]

“Allah” is the name of a pagan deity. This myth is quickly disproved by a study of etymology. “Allah” is simply the Arabic term for God, was so used by Arab Christians before Muhammad, and is still so used. Because Islam arose among Arabs and the Koran is written in Arabic, inevitably the name “Allah” was adopted to designate God.

[...]

In recent months I have become acquainted with an Adventist businesswoman who bears a burden for work with Muslims. This was not always the case; in fact, she grew up disliking Muslims, but the Lord changed her heart. She confided to me that previously she wore expensive jewelry, but as she began to be involved with Muslims, with their emphasis on modesty, she felt she must remove the jewelry, eventually disposing of it.

Here, perhaps, is a parable of what could happen on a large scale as Adventists reach out to Muslims.

William G. Johnsson is assistant to the General Conference president for interfaith relations.

http://www.adventistworld.org/issue.php?issue=2010-1002&page=11

Well, okay, if they don’t want to be known as “Christian,” then so be it. Wow. There are just so many incredible things in the above excerpts.

What do you all think?

Jeremy

Jeremy,

This is a very troubling article. It shows that William Johnsson is more confused now than even when he made that embarrassing appearance with Walter Martin on the John Ankerberg show.

Stan

Stan Ermshar - 12 February 2010 11:53 PM

This is a very troubling article. It shows that William Johnsson is more confused now than even when he made that embarrassing appearance with Walter Martin on the John Ankerberg show.

Johnson is Assistant to the President for Interfaith Relations, it is supposed to be an expert in his domain. And he was an editor of the Adventist Review from 1982 to 2006. Shall we assume that he is not representative of the church’s position, a church which is clear regarding its protestant status? How many credentials he must have, how many years he should be the leader of the official publication of the SDA Church in order to be regarded as one who knows what he speaks and is not confused? Are 24 years insufficient?

Regarding his participation on the John Ankerberg show, the discussion revolved around the sanctuary doctrine and the investigative judgment. In may 1973 William Johnson received a doctoral degree in theology under the Direction of Professor L. E. Keck at Vanderbilt University. The title of his thesis: Defilement and Purgation in the Book of Hebrews. He has a doctoral degree in the book of Hebrews, related specifically with defilement and purgation, key elements of the sanctuary doctrine of the SDA Church. Are we supposed to think that such a person is confused about what he believes regarding the sanctuary doctrine, when his domain of expertise is the book of Hebrews, the only book in the NT when the meaning and fulfillment of OT sanctuary symbols constitute the main theme of the book? What more able and better equiped theologian has the SDA Church to defend its sanctuary doctrine?

It’s simply incredible to think that Johnson or other top theologians are confused about what they speak. I remember how Martin asked Johnson about believers having the sins washed away by Christ’s sacrifice. Johnson answered “If somebody is in Christ, yes”. “Are you in Christ?” asked Martin. “Yes”, answered Johnson. “Are your sins washed away?” followed Martin. At this point Johnson laughed nervously, and Martin said “Come on...” I don’t remember exactly how it was, but It became evident for me that Johnson was aware that his answers led him to the same position of Des Ford and implicit rejection of the Investigative Judment and stopped right on this point. Was he confused? For me, it’s clear had a logical mind and understood the implications of what he affirmed.

I don’t know why us, former adventists, should be “gracious” to such high-rank theologians and assume the best in them “he’s confused, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about”, instead of following the evidence that they know the issues, and consciously decided to defend a heresy out of loyalty for the church.

Gabriel

Stan

Is it possible that by word “confused” you had intented to signify something else and I misunderstood you?

Gabriel

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 14 February 2010 02:26 AM

Stan

Is it possible that by word “confused” you had intented to signify something else and I misunderstood you?

Gabriel

Well Gabriel,

It was pretty clear that on several posts yesterday that you were in an attack mode going after several of my posts.

I don’t mind, as this is an open forum. We just have different styles. Yes. I may err on the side of being too gracious, but that is my approach. It has worked well on another forum in order to be able to plant seeds, and do some watering, but I don’t want to uproot any plants that might grow.

Gabriel, please don’t take this post as an attack on you. I appreciate your zeal for the truth. You have obviously studied many issues much more thoroughly than I have. Thanks for your many valuable contributions on here.

Stan

Stan Ermshar - 14 February 2010 10:45 AM

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 14 February 2010 02:26 AM

Stan

Is it possible that by word “confused” you had intented to signify something else and I misunderstood you?

Gabriel

Well Gabriel,

It was pretty clear that on several posts yesterday that you were in an attack mode going after several of my posts.

I don’t mind, as this is an open forum. We just have different styles. Yes. I may err on the side of being too gracious, but that is my approach. It has worked well on another forum in order to be able to plant seeds, and do some watering, but I don’t want to uproot any plants that might grow.

Gabriel, please don’t take this post as an attack on you. I appreciate your zeal for the truth. You have obviously studied many issues much more thoroughly than I have. Thanks for your many valuable contributions on here.

Stan

I don’t want to ruin your position on revivalsermons. I understand that practical reasons make you always present the SDA church in a better light, and you prefer to err on the side of being positive toward it. I will no longer push you in the direction you don’t want to go. Hope that you will feel better in the company of adventists than you had felt in my company.

Gabriel