Roy Branson, founder of Spectrum, has passed away at the age of 78 in his home in Colton, California.
One of the first Seventh-day Adventist scholars to pursue graduate work in ethics, Roy Branson inspired and mentored a generation of students at the seminary at Andrews University. Immediately after receiving his Ph.D. in religious ethics from Harvard University in 1968, he returned to the Seminary where his creative teaching caught the imagination of many students who themselves earned doctorates and who now teach ethics in church institutions. Concerned about the isolation of Adventists pursing graduate studies at outside universities, Branson conceived of, and for over 20 years edited, Spectrum, the journal of the Association of Adventist Forums.
Advocating for social justice is a passion that has marked his life. As a graduate student, he marched with civil rights demonstrators across the Edmond Pettis Bridge in Selma, Alabama; later he created the first national interreligious coalition to fight multinational tobacco companies; more recently, he has supported justice within the church through his support for women’s ordination. During his ten years teaching at Columbia Union College (now Washington Adventist University), he started the Center for Law and Public Policy.
Most recently he was a professor of religion and Director of the Center for Christian Bioethics at Loma Linda University. The son of missionaries, Branson grew up in Beirut Lebanon. His Adventist pedigree includes a father E.L. Branson, who established Middle East College (now University) at its present site and a grandfather, W.H. Branson, who was president of the General Conference.
Roy Branson was a living embodiment of the Advent Hope, and that hope is the legacy he leaves behind.
Loved the Magazine
Always enjoy reading Spectrum.
You think its appropriate to trash one of the major publications from SDAs in the thread or the time where the death of its founder is mourned?
Loved by the world, an SDA schooled in ethics from Harvard. If only more would follow his path the world would love us.
Why not? The European Union seems to want to trash the Church and its authority at every turn.
An interesting read, Meta.
The mention of "Spectrum" evokes quite strong emotions among our people -- many for, many against. It sounds like the magazine (and its connected 'organs') are truly representative of it's founder. But yes, Jesus makes the point doesn't He, that a corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit? I very much agree with Thomas, and believe that Spectrum has long given voice to those that are Adventist in name only.
Mr. Branson certainly leaves a legacy to the Adventist name. Spectrum helps to produce a new generation...
This reply had me thinking since wednesday...
First let me start by saying i do not agree with the notion to discuss a magazine whether you like it or not in a thread which mourns the passing of the founder...
"The mention of "Spectrum" evokes quite strong emotions among our people -- many for, many against."
" It sounds like the magazine (and its connected 'organs') are truly representative of it's founder. But yes, Jesus makes the point doesn't He, that a corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit?"
Wondering how this is meant..
" I very much agree with Thomas, and believe that Spectrum has long given voice to those that are Adventist in name only."
And here we go...
I am seriously wondering here so please bear with me.
How does one "define" that "Adventist-in-name-only" thing you speak of? Or other way asked how do you recognize or identify someone else is being an "Adventist-in-name-only"?
Sounds like a silly question but in the end it really is the important question here isnt it?
So is it when someone doesnt hold all descriptive 28 fundamental beliefs 100%? What about all those people who became ordained before the 28th was added? Or even better since the 28 fundamentals are descriptive and not prescriptive in nature according to the GC Session 1980 and 2005 does one truly have to hold all 28 as 100% truth? Isnt the descriptive nature itself already handing everyone leeway?
Or maybe it is defined by the "political" or "cultural" world view? Is one only a true Adventist when he subscribes to the "ultra-conservative-nothing-ever-changes" faction while those holding "liberal" are "Adventist-in-name-only"?
Or is it when someone states that EGW was only a human in the end influenced by her time and surroundings and not infallible?
etc.... (List of possible examples would be too long to add all but i guess you get the drift..)
As you can see the question how to define "Adventist-in-name-only" is very important and it is somewhat misleading i think. Here on the forum as example we have a lot of people which, i think, you wouldnt call "Adventist-in-name-only" as they agree on most of your views yet these very same people behave anything but as an Adventist or even a christian in the way they threat others and how they act in every other thread...
So i wonder are they "true Adventists" in your view because their "political" way of thinking is in line with yours or somebody else? Doesnt the bible teach us the word kills and the spirit gives life? (2 Corinthians 3:6) Or how about "action speaks louder than words"? (1 John 3:18,James 1:22 and many others) Or maybe it is "dont judge your brethren over different opinions"? (Romans 14:1,Galatians 1:10, Romans 14:10-13)
I am really wondering how one can call or define someone else "Adventist-in-name-only"..?
Maybe help me out here please..
So i wonder are they "true Adventists" in your view because their "political" way of thinking is in line with yours or somebody else?
It is quite simple. There are those who get swept up into the affairs of the world and think that by the power of human reasoning they can make changes to the world. Quite simply we do not have the power to even control our own affairs-simple affairs. My friend I have been telling you this one thing follow Jesus and I cannot even do that very well. Fall in love with him, He made you and knew you before you were even born and loves you. That is all. The world is going to do what the world does. Our world should be Jesus and him alone.
How do you know that someone else has not fallen in love with Jesus?
How do you know that the Holy Spirit does not want a specific person to do a given task say influence part of society around us?
Isnt that line of thinking already an uplifting on your part to be above God when you declare we shouldnt influence the world? I understand that this line of thinking is deeply embedded especially in conservative adventism but this does not necessarily mean it must be true or followed for all time neither is subscribing to that theory a classification which makes a "true Adventist" or an "Adventist-in-name-only".
As i read my bible i see Jesus engaging all the time with society, challenging and often directly opposing authorities to help people. While he doesnt engage himself with "unions" or similar things he doesnt shy away from influencing society through discourse and actions.
So if Jesus must be our example can one truly say we shouldnt try to change the lives of people through a discourse with authorieties and societies alike?
Furthermore if you read the Adventist Statements on how we should deal with society these paint a complete different picture than you keep repeating here over and over again. They call us to engage societies and engage problems within them and to be a change for the better.
So i wonder does the official Church get it wrong since decades? Are the mission Statements a lie? Following your arguments they are so i beg to ask the question how can one be a "true Adventist" and at the same time declare the Statements of the Church to be wrong?
(found here by the way:Link)
p.s.: Furthermore this hardly answers my question about the definition what makes someone "Adventist-in-name-only" and surely is not really a way you can judge others on since you can not know if they follow Jesus. If anything the examples of some "conservatives" behaving badly is exactly non-Adventist than after these guidelines