Adventist Extremes
by Preston Foster
Perhaps a certain type of person is drawn to Adventism. It is, admittedly, not an easy religion for post modern folks to adapt to or practice. Adventist’s folkways are, generally, inconvenient — and seem a tad weird to those steeped in the secular world. Those who convert to Adventism usually experience a radical change in lifestyle. Perhaps those who would consider such a change might be predisposed to do so.
Our health teachings and practices of dress put us out of the mainstream. Most of us who were raised in the faith, were taught to be proud of being a “peculiar people.” Some of us made sure that the peculiarity was noticeable — a badge of honor, of sorts.
Maybe this is what God wants. He said the He preferred that we be either hot or cold, rather than lukewarm. From all evidence, we are doing a bang-up job at that.
We have vegetarians, but, for some, that is not enough. Vegans are the few and the proud. We have believers in justification by faith, but they are questioned by those who believe in justification by faith, only. Some believe that works count, but others believe that you will only be saved if your works reach a state of perfection. Some wear jewelry freely (usually in excess), others not a spec.
I say this as an observation, not a criticism. After all, I am an Adventist, and happily so.
I will confess that when I was much younger and foolishly thought that visiting nightclubs (in my college town) was cool, you could always tell who was Adventist: they danced too hard — and, usually won the dance contests. It gave a whole new meaning to “do it with thy might.”
Many times, extremism is simply conviction or complete faith, appearing extreme to those of little or no faith. One person’s conviction is another’s extremism. Conviction about the spiritual realm (including atheism or agnosticism) shapes one’s world view. Conviction energizes our efforts for evangelism for Christ, or, ironically, against it.
A seemingly extreme position, based on a conviction, is an anathema to most intellectuals. Decisions based on intangible evidence causes those trained to trust traditional philosophy, solely, to run the other way. Some former or so-called liberal Adventists have run to the brink. Many are now appalled by their association with such “peculiar people,” yet they cannot completely let go of it. To objective observers, this, too, seems a bit extreme.
This dynamic would be merely interesting, if it did not have strong implications for divisiveness within the church. Issues are framed and debated on the extremes. Some lament that, in their view, an extreme traditionalist has been elected GC president. However, his election can be arguably be explained as a reaction to an extremely liberal agenda (see “the election of Barack Obama” for a reverse example of this dynamic). Again, this may be what God wants. Or not. Extremists tend to get more “airtime” than they’ve earned. Their positions tend to either dominate or suck all the energy out of a room.
Adventists, generally, seem not suited to consider moderation as philosophy for living. Those who do are seen as weak or uncommitted. Unlike national politics, where moderates (i.e. Nixon’s “Silent Majority”) are large in number and influential in elections, moderates in Adventism are a minority and are, for the most part, discounted and unrecruited. The lack of a critical mass of moderates likely impedes progress on divisive issues.
However, our penchant for intensity is mostly a good thing. The Adventists that I know are, for the most part, extremely pleasant people (those who are most vocal at church board meetings — not so much). Love and conviction are a powerful and persuasive combination. That combination often generates interest from people who, without the benefit of a personal relationship with an Adventist, might never consider investigating the faith. Our friends of other faiths who, understand (or admire) our idiosyncrasies, explain us to their unexposed friends like all majorities do: “They are nice when you get to know them. Some of my best friends are Adventists!”
Moderation is no fun to Adventists. Each of us push our favorite issue near its extreme. It is the common trait amongst us. Those of us who claim to be free of the burdens of works, work hard at being free of works. Where else (beside Starbucks, Anyone) can a debate about coffee generate as much passion? Some of us focus on the good news and freedom in Christ. Others focus on health, or music, or Ellen White (pro and con), or end-time prophecies. Whatever the issue, we push it to the brink.
What positive use might be made of this?
The extremists are the loudest voices, but I suspect not the majority. Certainly here in Australia SDAs are more likely to fit the ‘luke-warm’ mold from trying so hard not to be ‘extreme’ in anything. Everything is done ‘decently and in order’, and any excess – even in worthy things – is discouraged. Is the average American pew warmer any different?
Perhaps places like this encourage those who visit frequently to imagine that this is representative of the church at large, but is it?
Kevin,
The Adventists in my part of the vineyard (Black America) are anything, but passive and moderate. I see several extremes:
The African-American Adventist church generally consists of what most would call a strong traditionalist majority, who assert their influence to grow the church. Within this traditionalist channel, there are churches with extremely varied worship styles:conservative/Anglican, African-American “praise and worship,” and iterations in between.
Within the church, there are active extremes of belief and practice regarding music, dress, diet, Sabbath-keeping, grace and works, and “public sin,” to name a few (notably absent: the debate over EGW). The general assumption is that the traditionalist view will rule. However, all of these forces combine to affect and, in most cases, liberalize (in very small increments) the traditional point of view — or, at least, its application.
There should be more congregational-type SDA churches that are free to develop their own forms of practice, what they will accept, and what is forbidden (which should be very few).
Historically, Adventism has always strived to be different in many ways, and sometimes something of which to be proud. As the church grows it is not always practice exactly alike around the world, but why should it? There needs to be more autonomy in each congregation and less central control.
I have a question pertaining to this post. With all of these extremes in place, being an extremist by nature myself, is there no assurance of any measure of consensus / unity for the church?
Preston,
I have a question relating to your post. As one who has been prone to extremes, is there any hope for a consensus concerning what the gospel of the kingdom actually is? How else can it be proclaimed with power, if by our preferential extremes we fight with each other over what we thing is a matter of priority / vital importance?
Good question laffal! Our conclusion to “What is This Gospel of the Kingdom Anyway II?” is, in essence, an attempt at consensus building insofar as what it is that must be “proclaimed with power,” as you put it (before the end comes).
laffal, In my view, the downside of extremes is the set mind (as opposed to the mindset). Clearly, those debating the issue must first be convinced and convicted about God, His Word, and His Second Coming for there to be a chance for consensus regarding the gospel of the kingdom.
Assuming that common ground, a set mind is, in my view, a disadvantage to the building of consensus. It not only impedes listening and consideration of other points of view, it also discourages trust (re: motive) for one side vs. the other.
Having said that, many would argue against the necessity of consensus to preach the gospel of the kingdom. They would posit that consensus would water-down the message, stripping it of its power. Consensus might, unintentionally, undo the complementary nature of the different parts of the body of Christ. In other words, there might be a benefit to all this extremism, debate, and emphasis: it might serve to distill truth.
What is, in my view, unquestionably destructive, is the way some advocate their point of view. I could point to many issues where I agree with the writer (in terms of the direction of their post), but am horrified at the spirit of it. The message is dominated by the spirit of the messenger. The verse, “By their fruits ye shall know them” comes to mind. Extremism about the point (in their mind) justifies a meanness of spirit that is based in vanity.
In short, being right is not enough. Jesus was right on the issues, but it was His manner that engaged and convinced others to consider His way.
Consensus might, unintentionally, undo the complementary nature of the different parts of the body of Christ.
Just to be asking, how can as a result of extremism, a lack of consensus about the gospel of the kingdom be a benefit, if the extremism (set mind) “impedes listening and consideration of other points of view, it also discourages trust (re: motive) for one side vs. the other.” In John 17 we have Christ praying that we have the same unity as He and His Father in heaven has. It is this unity that is the real time evidence that God sent His Son into our world. God knows that there is a very certain lack of this type of evidence when it comes to our extremes, and how we express them. How can truth be distilled to its essence when we won’t listen to each other, trust each other, and consider one another. I have no problem with the idea that we will never all understand truth alike. But that does not mean that we cannot come to the place by which, and by the grace of God, lay down our extremes to hear what someone else has to say about what they SEE when WE look at any issue that is of vital importance to us all. If I’m going to fight you about the difference between the front and the back of an elephant, although there are some apparent similarities, because I can only trust what I see standing in the front vs what you see standing in the back, we’re at a huge loss and disadvantage. What’s it going to take for me to humble myself and not only trust you enough to consider what you are telling me about what you SEE, but, come to where you are and look for myself, and vice versa, we will continue to be at a loss and disadvantage, because everybody’s watching us, extremes and all.
I personally don’t see any good coming from our extremes. Yet, our convictions must always stay in tack. The good will only come when we understand what Christ meant when He said that we will only be recognized by the world as His disciples when we have the same love for each other that He has had / demonstrated for / to us.
Peace
The article states:
—
Some wear jewelry freely (usually in excess), others not a spec.
I say this as an observation, not a criticism. After all, I am an Adventist, and happily so.
—
“Usually in excess”…that sounds like a criticism to me. I have to wonder about the objectivity there.
Ron,
Since my premise is about extremes, describing how Adventists wear jewelry (either in excess or not a spec) is an observation — about extremes. Having said that, I believe all claims of objectivity — which I never claimed, by the way. are questionable, at best. Everyone (writers and readers) has a point of view — among Adventists, probably an extreme one.
I am beginning to see why we so often fail to agree. I think you have no conception of what you are saying. Saying someone wears jewelry to excess is not an observation it is a judgment…a criticism. An observation would be that a person was wearing jewelry or noting the number of jewelry items. To say excess means you have decided what the proper amount of jewelry is and they have exceeded that amount so you are labeling it as “to excess” If you want to say something is not a criticism but rather is an observation then it has to be objective. Your claim was that you were not criticizing but were observing.
Ultimately when people lose the rational component of their argument they have lost their argument. Unfortunately what I have seen is that you have lost the rational component and don’t even realize it when it is pointed out.
This is a classic example where you defend your use of excess which means; “the fact of exceeding something else in amount or degree”, as not a criticism shows how truly biased you are toward your own opinion. That is the kind of extreme we should be decrying. When we gauge opinions against facts and reality and history and science those types of biased extreme positions decrease. But until you yourself start practicing those methods of gauging your opinions you are just as extreme as those you pointing at.
I must agree with Ron. Adventists, unlike other Christians, are quick to notice behaviors. Whether in dress, food, entertainment, and more. What other denomination is so intent on external observations? The amount of jewelry is absolutely inconsequential to one’s spiritual life; nor is the drinking of coffee; eating meat, attending movies. None of this should be the subject of conversations. And yet it has always been in the forefront of Adventism or just below the surface as a form of judging others. We have ignored the many Bible reminders that we should not judge and have almost become experts. While this is not nearly so strictly applied as it once was, it nevertheless is a deeply ingrained heritage which began with EGW as none of these can be found in scripture. Moderation alone, without specifics on any of the so-called Adventist standards is biblical.
Actually for Americans it began with the Puritans, we can’t pin it on EGW for following their traditions, she just gave it prophetic authority. But my comment to Preston has more to do with reason and the ability to look at what we say and believe as a means of removing extremism, we have to try to be objective or extremism will flourish.
Ron and Elaine,
You are debating a point that I am not contending. To observe that some people wear not a spec of jewelry and other wear it in excess is to make a point about extremes, not about jewelry. How do you know that I am criticizing one and not the other? Could it be that your biases inform your interpretation? I bought my wife the biggest ring I could afford. The criteria I gave the jeweler is that it look “excessive.” To say someone wears jewelry to an excess is a judgment of style. To say someone is a Christian for not wearing jewelry, or to say that others, who wear it in excess, are not Christians, would be a moral judgment.
You must consider the possibility that excess (or the perception of it) can exist (in this case, regarding jewelry), without judging the motives or moral character of the wearer. One could say that rap stars wear ostentatious jewelry without saying that those who do are bad people. It is a matter of style.
Again, having said that, I never positioned myself as objective, as I believe all claims to objectivity are self-delusional. I have an opinion. Hopefully, I am biased toward my opinion, as it aids sanity and makes for good conversation — in most cases.
If possible, let’s not retread these old arguments about traditional Adventist judgment of others. It exists, OK? So, too, does the judgment of traditional Adventists. We all have a share a tendency to judge and condemn those who do not see the world as we do. It is part of our shared tendency toward extremism.
Is it asking too much for everyone to look at themselves before attacking others? The blog was about our collective tendencies toward extremes. The question is, what good use might be made of it?
Preston wrote:
“To observe that some people wear not a spec of jewelry and other wear it in excess is to make a point about extremes,”
What you originally said was [speaking of “we” Adventists]: “Some wear jewelry freely (usually in excess), others not a spec.” The parenthetically usually in excess is the judgment not a statement of extremes or a person would say some wear no jewelry and some excessive jewelry.
The point of all this is that you could easily have said I said that poorly, I should not have included usually in excess while saying I was not criticizing. But you won’t change, you change what you claim you said but you won’t admit to the reasoning error your article used. That is the problem with the extremes. You are a living example of an extreme, one that won’t listen to correction or acknowledge an error. That is what gives us extremes. So I am trying to make good use of it by showing how poor reasoning skills lead to extremes. If you want to get out of extremism you have to look at things objectively and reason you way out. Those who refuse end up at the same extreme where they started.
You have provided an excellent example, but there is only one way out and if the person holding the extreme position refuses to listen and can’t acknowledge errors there is no way out. The only good use is made by those who watch the extreme position holders and see how poor their reasoning is and decide that they will not behave that way.
Preston,
I am not sure any good can be made of extremes other than to learn this…it is a misrepresentation of God’s will to EITHER OVERSTATE OR UNDERSTATE HIS WORD. Where God is not explicit we should not be.
Pat, what I would like to reconcile is the seemingly contradictory thoughts contained in these verses” 1) “He who striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things (1 Corinthians 9:25), and 2) ” I know thy works, that thou are neither hot nor cold . . . because thou art luke warm . . . I will spew thee out of my mouth (Revelation 3: 15-16).” The Bible is explicit in both cases (or seemingly so). What are we to do with these instructions?
Ron,
I am happy to let others judge who is being extreme in this case. God bless.
Ah good, now you offer the choice between who is being extreme between me and you. Seriously you don’t see what you are doing? Really how am I being extreme because I said you were being critical in a statement that you said was an observation and because I called you on it. That would somehow make me extreme? Is that the case you are talking about? Or is this what other people of extreme do by saying I am happy with what I have said and even if I can’t make a reasonable argument I am content either way. In short extreme with no intent to moderate.
Well I am guessing that with your text you want to be extreme thinking that Traditionalism is the extreme that is hot, because that fits your definitions and presuppositions. But as I have said before unless you examine your presuppositions to gauge where you stand reasonably you remain at the extreme and won’t be moved. So your extreme therefore is the truth.
Elaine, re: your question re: other denominations that focus on behaviors, I have a friend who grew up in the Church of Christ with whom I had a spirited discussion regarding “approved” behaviors. My friend argued that his church was more conservative than Adventists, as instruments were not allowed in worship, make-up nor jewelry were allowed, going to movies was forbidden. I learned that others shared (and sometimes exceeded) our peculiar folkways.
I should add here that the tradition that hot is good and cold is bad is not what the text in Revelation says. He wishes they were either hot or cold, each being useful for drinking but lukewarm not being as palatable. In that verse either hot or cold is what God wanted not the lukewarm. But tradition being what it is we forget what the scripture says and insert our tradition so that we can be “hot” for God.
We are in every sense contained in a ‘legalistic’ Society which dictates the norms, freedom’s and governance which we all have to subscribe to – or else! We abide by the rule of the law; follow the rules of the road as motorists and pedestrians; take our prescribed medicines; write our prescribed exams; avoid criminal activity; and doing all this for what? … Just to appease our Society’s demands, dogmas and creeds? Yes, we’re legalists. –>>> However, on the flip side we advocate no absolutes when morality, religion and God are concerned. For that we subscribe to ‘pluralism’, humanism and self-determination within some factions which is dictated by cultural changes and perceptions. –>>> Extremism has no absolute ‘boiling point’ so we fluctuate between the various norms, ideologies and practices, which, even within an analogous people group, will find varying cases of extremism, or fanaticism as some call may call it. What is even more dangerous is when we try to work hard at not looking extreme or try hard to be dissimilar to those we perceive to be fanatical by even disobeying God in order to NOT bear the traits of what is perceived to be extreme. This striving hard to not to look like an extremist is in essence a form of legalism too and displays similar characteristics to fanaticism as well. –>>> Our first line of safety in avoiding extremism is the Indwelling Christ (Gal 2:20). –>>> T
Ron Corson,
I can’t seem to locate your email address, please contact me for the article you wanted.
Here is an Ellen White take on this:
In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you. Titus 2:7, 8. {TMK 178.1}
Let not anyone be afraid of going to extremes while he is a close student of the Word, humbling the soul at every step. Christ must dwell in him by faith. He, their Exemplar, was self-possessed. He walked in humility. He had true dignity. He had patience. If we individually possess these traits. . . there will be no extremists. {TMK 178.2}
T
I am puzzled by the take on “extremes”–I don’t see it in my local church. The majority seem luke warm or just too busy. obviously there are extremist on here; that’s what these sites attract. Maybe opinionated is a better word.
I do think that the SDA position on jewelry is something that needs to die. I do wish the church would quit making a big deal about it. I think it should be between the individual and God.
That being said, I do think that good Christians shouldn’t have too much display and spend too much time and money on fashion. I don’t want to judge others, but personally I think it’s just best to keep the adornment to a minimum.
No one has yet defined what “adornment” means, never mind what is maximum of minimum.
Hi Elaine,
I am an Advenitst and I do have jewelrey. I have gone back and forth on wearing or not wearing it for years and years. I have noticed that jewelry for me effects how I am with God. Let's take last night for example. I went to put some earrings on and as I was looking in the mirror to see which ones I wanted I stopped and asked myself why I was putting them on. My answer was to make me look prettier or to feel better about myself. When myself gets in the way that is when I notice a distance between God and I. I put them back in the drawer and didn't wear them. Everyone may have a different reason for wearing jewelry. I am only speaking about me, not anyone or everyone else. So for me jewelrey is an adornment to glorify me. A watch, if I wear one is because I don't want to carry a cell phone or computer along with me. Most of the time I don't even wear that. However, when I do wear a watch I don't feel like it is to make me look pretty or to feel better about myself. It is just to tell time with. Usually I end up asking someone for the time. Now wearing a necklace with a watch on it would be another story for me. That wold make me feel like I am wearing it to be pretty or to feel better. I am learning that my relationship with God is the most important thing in this world. Not weather I am an SDA or if I eat meat or this that or the other. When I focus on my daily relationship with God everything else will fall in to place. Sometimes I wonder if those who focus on what everyone else is doing or not doing would focus only on the daily relationship what the world would be like. I too am at fault with this and it is something that I am asking God to help me with daily. So adornment for me would be anything that puts the focus on me and not God. Sorry this was so long.
Nash4343,
You are right on! Jewelry and dress is always a most personal subject. For some, it gives them a sense of looking their best, just as an added scarf of the right color, or even choosing colors that are best for you. We all want to look our best, and that may be different for people, as it should be. I seldom wear jewelry but occasionally, it add to the overall look of being "put together" and not merely hastily throwing clothes on.
For men, ties are surely adornement and I do notice the color and pattern of the tie and shirt and how well they are coordinated. Jewelry is the same: it can be inasupicious or glaring, depending on the individual as well as the occasion.
A bride with a single strand of pearls or even pearls sewn into her gown adds much to the special occasion which it is and the Bible speaks of a bride adorned, which has always been practiced around the world: special occasions call for special attire. So, if one feels that being at church is being in God's presence, is there a better place to look our very best, however that may be described?
Elaine and Nash4343,
Well said, I couldn’t agree more. You have both nailed it.
However, one major caveat is in order. When theoretically dressing for an appointment with God, while wanting to look one’s best, it is helpful to the worship experience of men (speaking for most men) when women worshippers intentionally exercise the same moderation as they would if they were indeed literally dressing to commune with their Creator.
While this may be politically incorrect, it is nonetheless indisputably true.
SDAs these days seem to see “adornment” as rings, necklaces, bracelets, and earrings. Brooches, fancy scarves, neckties (with tacks or slides), watches (even fancy ones), and hair ornaments are fine. Expensive clothing and handbags are also fine. HA HA
Yes, Christine. I agree. We seem to have our favorite versions of adornment that are rationalized by the wearer (clothes, hats, cars, jewelry, titles, you name it), and, then, condemn whatever it may be that is not our preference. Elaine, “adornment” may be that which is worn for show or self-glorification. Not Webster, just Foster.
Reading this kinda felt like Alice through the looking glass–a world where everything is tipped upside down and words don’t mean what they used to mean. Nixon’s so-called ‘Silent Majority’ were “moderate”? Really?? People who sat quietly by while thousands of their sons were being killed in a pointless war were “moderates”? People who sat approvingly in front of their TV sets while young people were being killed at Kent State were “moderates”? People who passively shrugged their shoulders as their president engaged in criminal conduct were “moderates”?
I have a little issue with the linguistics here. Passively allowing evil to have its way is not what I consider “moderation.”
On the other hand, we are told that the election of Ted Wilson is a reaction to an “extremely ‘liberal’ agenda.”
Again….really????? What possible definition of “liberal” could a person be using to ever, in any conceivable stretch of the imagination, attach that to anything done by the church? If anything, the previous administration was beginining, in a tentative way, to explore the possibility of entertaining the idea of possibly, at some point, maybe sort of looking at thinking about making some minor changes here and there….they were approaching humanity, yes, but calling that “extremely liberal” really stretches the boundaries of Webster’s definitions.
I ask: How can be possible that this column do not consider the extensive biblical teaching in at least the basic theological hermeneutics? Where is the Bible opinion? You can say anything you want… It’s very easy to write or say anything about what you think.. but that’s not Bible. I’ve never read anything very powerful and extensive, refreshing about what the Bible has to say. I’ve never read on the AdventistToday a comprehensive and scholarly study about what the day is wrong in adventist theology. What a boys!!! 🙂 😉
Moderation In ALL things. My Interpolation of that phrase reads “Moderation in ALL things,(Including Moderation)”!
Does Moderation in all things also include Faith? (1st Corinthians 9:25 )
“Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last; but we do it to get a crown that will last forever.”
So when you compete you are NOT competing in Moderation.
By Competing Paul Meant with complete Self Discipline that one Should Train Himself as an “Extreme” Athlete “ABSTAINING FROM” unwholesome foods, wine, coffee, tea, jewelry, cars,clothing etc….any distractions whatsoever(including arguments over “extreme vs moderation”….),in order TO WIN the race!
(1st Corinthians 9:26-27)
26 “Therefore I do not run like a man running aimlessly; I do not fight like a man beating the air. 27 No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.”
Moderation is the way to go so you can be “EXTREME”,(in certain “specific, well thought out” areas of your life),in other words not running aimlessly,
to WIN the Race “TO” God!!!!!
🙂
kuducate,
I’m sorry if my use of language offended you. On another site, I’ll bet we would agree on most points about Nixon and his acolytes.
At any rate, the example of Nixon’s so-called Silent Majority applies in that he was purposefully appealing to a large, politically disengaged group (thus “silent” — in contrast to his base) who could swing elections either way (Humphrey came very close in 1968). The larger point is, this group was large enough to draw the attentions of a politician, who sought to include them in his coalition — and use it to move his issues forward.
It seems to me that this is not the case in Adventism. We have extremes, and virtually no middle, no moderate or otherwise (“swing states,” if you will).
Regarding, Elder Wilson, although the church has not adopted so-called liberal positions (on evolution and the role of EGW, for example). However, the election of Elder Wilson, one could argue, was a conservative revolt, to buttress the church against the vocal agenda from the the Adventist left (who, ironically, tend to be political conservatives). At any rate, again, there is no discernible center — at least one of critical mass.
I agree, the terms “liberal” and “conservative” as applied in Adventism might be unrecognizable elsewhere.
Juan Gabriel,
The article was intended to be a observation about Adventist social norms. Although we alluded to how those social norms manifest themselves in church politics, operations, issues, and, yes, theology, the point of the article was to discuss my observations of Adventists, as a people.
The question, “What good use might be made of this?” invites your thoughts on what the Bible or other sources might say about this.
Thanks much.
Juan Gabriel,
By the way, in terms of a good discussion on a slice of Adventist theology, we have a pretty good debate going on “Nailed to the Cross.” You might to check it out — and get in!
Dear Preston Foster, the problem with the thought that "The article was intended to be a observation about Adventist social norms", is that according to the Scriptures, we cannot guarantee a position abour doctrines or any kind of thinking if that's not supported by the Scriptures. So, when you wrote your article, without an scriptural base, that's just your opinions. Now, if you tell me your opinions are based on Scriptures, do you expect everybody can undestand that when read your article? Talking about "Nailed to the Cross", I respect opinions, but I'm surprised, that all those things in that article too, have been answered by the church as well. And I have followed the bereans way, studying by my own if is like that. Now I know, would be well to participate in the debate, but depends of the spirit of the debate (according to the Bible.)
Juan Gabriel Piedra.
Lyf,
I am very much with you on this. I think you are perfectly on point. Thanks!
Hi Preston,
I enjoyed reading your thought process on extremes. I have witnessed extremes growing up in the church in Australia. In my day (as a young man) you wouldn't find anyone wearing a single piece of jewelry, but you would see folk driving up in the latest Jaguars and Mercs! (I leave the church unnamed). I'm certainly not against, expensive cars, nice jewelry etc (neither of which I possess) but for those who live in vanity (caught up in the externals) need a good slap in the face by the Holy Ghost (sorry about the extreme expresion).
We as humans tend follow the trends of what others are doing/saying/wearing etc. That is how culture is formed. Adventists have a perculiar subculture that has been in place for many years. There is no doubt benifits from Adventist lifestyle whether you are a believer or not.
What I am interested in finding out is, what would happen, if we followed Jesus' EXTREME example? What sort of culture would come into being? What would happen, if people lived in purity and power? What would happen if we lived in reckless abandon to His will? I reckon we'd see a generation (young and old) moving in supernatural power that is beyond human understanding.
I have been hungry for something more than just what you wear and don't wear on the Sabbath…I am hungry to see Kingdom culture (Heaven's atmosphere, agenda and will) established on the earth (Mt 6:10). Who other than Jesus set this standard by His life on the earth and made it accessible by His death and resurection. Kingdom culture is EXTREME. His way is the only way. A supernatural lifestyle is normal in the Kingdom, where nothing is impossible for those who believe!
Hi Matt,
That is an "experiment" worth to pursuing.
My guess is that the experiment would be met with the same extreme response that Christ encountered: acceptance, embrace, and gratitude by sinners; doubt, anger, and ridicule by religious leaders.
Ironical then, sad now.