Bullseye: Retrospective

This series has covered a lot of ground. Before we end it we feel a need to tie all these threads together and reach some conclusions. First, while Borden periodically appeals to the Bible in a vague way to support his philosophies he fails to actually build a sound case based on biblical exegesis. In fact, we have proven that his philosophies run contrary to biblical directives. This alone should be enough to warn off any Christian who sincerely believes in the concept of Sola Scriptura.

What, then, is his basis? Borden has essentially “Christianized” secular business philosophies. In the world of secular business, everything done by the firm as a corporate body or by the individual employee is to benefit the firm. Yes, the firm exists to provide some sort of product or service to a client base, but doing that and doing it well is simply the means to the end of making the firm profit and grow. In this pursuit of benefit to the firm its employees are not only negotiable, but expendable. If someone is underperforming or insufficiently skilled they get replaced by someone better, quicker, or more highly educated. Everything is driven by the needs of the firm, and if the market changes the firm changes to find new ways of meeting its needs. These goals and methods of reaching them are periodically reexamined, and if necessary redefined, by management. Sound familiar?

The problem with transposing secular business philosophy into a religious context is that there are two key differences between the secular and religious contexts that make the secular philosophies incompatible with the religious context. The first key difference is that the secular business context is all about the corporate entity. Borden tries to make the argument that the same is true in the religious context, but as we saw in Unit of Mission the religious context is all about the individual. Therefore, the secular approach of individual expendability is incompatible. The second key difference is that in the secular business context the mission and vision of the entity are created by the entity’s leadership and are subject to change at any time. In the religious context the mission and vision have been created by God and are nonnegotiable.

“Every word of God is flawless;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
“Do not add to his words,
or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar” (Proverbs 30:5, 6).

“I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book” (Revelation 22:18, 19).

So why would Christians be interested in unbiblical philosophies? To start with, not everything Borden says is bad. As described at the beginning of this series, even we were able to find some Things We Agree On. Ultimately, however, this mixture of truth and error just makes the whole thing that much more problematic, because people are lured in by the good and assume that if some of it is good it must all be good (see Advice from the Spirit of Prophesy, Pt. 19). The other lure we see is that these philosophies are trendy. It’s not a good excuse, but it is a common one. It is also a very old one. It takes very little imagination to hear all the arguments made in favor of adopting Paul Borden’s philosophies coming out of the mouths of the Israelites when they wanted a king, “The old ways were fine back in the days of Joshua, but we need to update. We need to be culturally relevant. If we had a king the unchurched people around us could relate to us better. The whole theocracy thing is really just a guideline, anyway. It’s OK if we adapt it to our local needs.” As we saw in Corporate Distinctiveness, God takes a rather dim view of such arguments.

We have often heard the critique that we are putting too much emphasis on the law, and ought to be practicing Christian love instead. But here’s the thing: the two are not mutually exclusive. Loving people doesn’t mean ignoring transgressions of God’s law. In fact, helping people to see and correct their errors is actually the most loving thing you can do for them because God does actually deal in absolutes. He saves us by grace through His substitutionary sacrifice, but that doesn’t annul His law, it is a fulfillment of that law. True acceptance of God’s sacrifice means turning away from sin and God does not excuse willful ignorance or disobedience of His law by those who claim to be His followers.

“Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God” (1 Peter 2:16).

God fully expects us (with His help) to live up to the laws, regulations, and standards He gives us. This includes everything in the Bible. As Seventh-day Adventists, we also believe that that includes everything laid out in the Spirit of Prophesy (unless it can be shown to conflict with the Bible). This encompasses the structure of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which was instituted during the lifetime of Ellen White and with her approval under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, there are some who simply do not want to follow the rules, no matter how clearly they are laid out as being of divine origin and backing. Of such people God says, “Were I to write for him my laws by ten thousands, they would be regarded as a strange thing” (Hosea 8:12).

“The Lord has His appointed agencies; and if these are not discerned and respected by those who are connected with His work, if men feel free to disregard God's requirements, they must not be kept in positions of trust. They would not listen to counsel, nor to the commands of God through His appointed agencies. Like Saul, they would rush into a work that was never appointed them, and the mistakes they would make in following their human judgment would place the Israel of God where their Leader could not reveal Himself to them. Sacred things would become mingled with the common” (Youth’s Instructor, Nov. 17, 1898).

We write knowing full well that some of the minds reading this have already been closed on this subject. To those that have not we plead: let’s not abandon the expressed will of God in favor of unbiblical philosophies such as Paul Borden’s.

“Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you;
rebuke a wise man and he will love you” (Proverbs 9:8).