Adventists in Name Only?
by Mark Gutman, November 30, 2014: Liberal Republicans have often been termed RINO’s by more conservative Republicans. RINO (pronounced “Rhino”) stands for Republican in Name Only, and the name caller is usually accusing the alleged RINO of failing to hold the party line in a key area. “If a Republican doesn’t sign Grover Norquist’s anti-tax pledge, or oppose abortion under all circumstances, or claim that evolution is a myth and global warming a hoax, he or she likely will be tagged as a RINO, or worse yet, as a moderate.”1
Some Adventists tend to regard other Adventists as AINO’s – Adventists in Name Only. As with politics, so in religion. Some who are more conservative don’t want those who are more liberal being grouped with them. “If I can’t do that, it’s off limits for all church members.” “I don’t believe that, so you shouldn’t either.” What would be the standard for deciding if someone is an AINO?2
The 28 Fundamental Beliefs would surely be a good starting point for a measuring rod. But not every Adventist sitting in a pew (or no longer sitting in a pew) agrees with all 28. How many of the 28 must one agree with in order to be considered a genuine Adventist? Having a problem with 1 out of 28 may raise the hackles of those who keep score. Even as Republicans who are much more Republican than Democrat get called RINO, so Adventists who are much more Adventist than Presbyterian or unchurched sometimes get classed as AINO’s. Alden Thompson points out that some want to make every doctrine crucial to Adventism.3 To miss one means you’re not an Adventist. On the other end, some don’t want to make any doctrine crucial, but may at least agree that the Sabbath and the second advent are important.
Perhaps someone agrees with all 28, but takes issue with parts of a few of the 28. The Church Manual does not allow disfellowshipping a member for not attending church (part of #11) or not paying tithe (part of #21). Many members either do not understand or openly disagree with at least a couple aspects of the sanctuary doctrine (#24). Yet they remain members of the church, even if that distresses some.
How certain does one need to be of each of the 28 to be on safe ground? Most members who agree with all 28 beliefs are not 100% certain about all of them. On the crucial doctrines, what % of certainty is sufficient? 90%? 51%? Human beings vary in their moods. Member Smith believed belief #__ 90% yesterday, but has a stomachache today and his certainty has dropped to 60%. Tomorrow all’s well, and Smith is back in church, and the 60% has rebounded to 95%. (Your companions will affect your beliefs and doubts.)
Statements of the Fundamental Beliefs are useful, but as a tool for deciding who is a “real” Adventist, they have their limitations. Which beliefs are critical? How much of each doctrine must be accepted? What % of certainty is required?
So far in this discussion, the judging has been focused on something printed in a book as the criterion. When explaining to the “expert in the law,” Jesus didn’t mention any “doctrine” that would be in that type of test.4 He told a story about a compassionate person who probably would have failed the test that the expert in the law had in mind. A kind person who would have failed a test on the 28 fundamental beliefs. Jesus, though, recommended the caring “heretic” (Samaritan) as an example. Sometimes, looking at a beliefs book can lead us to overlook plain old real-life Christianity.
I heard about a lady who was furious when the Adventist church of which she was a member showed kind treatment to gays. She was ready to pull her membership from that church and move it to another place that would be more fundamental, more “Adventist,” more “Christian.” Her berating others who differed from her and her insistence on unfriendly treatment of such people does not qualify as heresy. She hasn’t denied any fundamental belief. Her membership is not in danger. What a person thinks about belief #__ tends to engender more concern than how Christlike the person is.
Jesus gave a rule by which others would know that we were his followers. Here’s how: that we love each other,5 as demonstrated by Jesus and by the compassionate Samaritan. He said that love is the best Christian ID card. Sometimes in our eagerness to judge others, we forget about what Jesus said mattered most. The fact that we’re Adventists doesn’t mean that we have something that superseded what Jesus taught, that now it’s all right to be harsh with others. As Barbara Brown Taylor put it, “What I noticed at [where she used to pastor] is the same thing I notice whenever people aim to solve their conflicts with one another by turning to the Bible: defending the dried ink marks on the page becomes more vital than defending the neighbor. As a general rule, I would say that human beings never behave more badly toward one another than when they believe they are protecting God..”6
If people do not know what denomination we belong to, will they be attracted to ours on the basis of how we treat those who don’t see things our way? Church members who are cruel to others can lead out in the church, while members who mimic the Good Samaritan can get booted from the church because they are considered to be AINO’s. They, like the kindhearted Samaritan, may act Christlike but fail to get a good enough grade on the fundamental beliefs test to be allowed membership.
In our local church, we can stand for something. We don’t have to let people who openly disagree with important church doctrines (however we rank them) promote their disagreement from the pulpit or a Sabbath School teacher’s position. But would it hurt to let the people who are not entirely orthodox (according to us) enjoy our fellowship and ask their questions? We don’t help our cause by only allowing those who agree with us to be heard in the church. Most readers of this column have read many times the Ellen White quote that combines the words “as real spiritual life declines” with “[t]hey become conservative and seek to avoid discussion.”7 We can be fairly certain in our belief without being unkind (unchristian) to those who disagree.
The early Christian church had its disagreements. Paul didn’t see things exactly the way Peter did. Paul even scolded Peter in public.8 The fact that Paul and Peter had their differences didn’t mean that Paul considered Peter a CINO (Christian in name only). Neither tried to stop the other’s ministry. One individual from a particular set of circumstances and teachers cannot fairly impose her moral judgment on someone’s else’s theology or actions. “Religious people are notorious for confusing acceptance with agreement. When that happens, people assume that disagreement must result in rejection and condemnation. . . .”9
I may disagree with you on certain doctrines, but making it plain that I want nothing to do with you (and that I’m superior to you) because of those differences will mainly teach you that I have a hard time accepting people who don’t agree with me. By keeping you at arm’s length, I will cost myself any chance of winning you by my actions or by my words. Placing a label of AINO on you will make it harder for the two of us to enjoy Christian fellowship.
Outwitted
He drew a circle that shut me out–
Heretic, a rebel, a thing to flout.
But Love and I had the wit to win:
We drew a circle that took him in!
Edwin Markham
1See column by Geoffrey Kabaservice at: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-kabaservice/conservatives-not-republican_b_1236972.html
2I don’t know how AINO would be pronounced. If it’s pronounced as “I know,” it should remind the labeler that we actually know very little about the people we label.
3See the last section, A Model for the Church, in the article “Must we agree?” from Ministry, Feb 1988. https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1988/02/must-we-agree
4Luke 10:25-37
5John 13:35
6Barbara Brown Taylor, Leaving Church: A Memoir Of Faith (HarperOne, 2006), p. 106.
7Counsels to Writers and Editors, p. 39.
8Galatians 2:11
9Bruxy Cavey, The End of Religion: Encountering the Subversive Spirituality of Jesus (Colorado Springs, Colorado: NavPress, 2007), p. 66.
Edwin Markham has a great first name, but aside from that is reported to have some family connection with early Adventists. A good message from an individual tied into our church from its early days. How often in today’s world we seem to favor confrontation over winning the heart…..
You analysis a problem, and never give a viable answer. It would seem you assume “love” somehow trumps pure bible teaching and as long as someone manifests “love” we have no basis for discipline. It is a complex issue and several concepts concerning an answer should be considered. This is just one concept.
It is totally different when someone admits they don’t understand some objective church teaching and ask questions about it, vs. someone who claims they have carefully considered the issue and totally disagree with the church position. And this is a fundamental difference. And it goes beyond questioning various understandings of all that is implied by a simple declaration. So a stated church doctrine may not cover every possibility of application. None the less, if and when a person has considered the fundamental basis of the doctrine and considers it contrary to scripture, there must at some point be a split from the church.
And by the way, Jesus told a lot of parables to illustrate many points. To select one and build your whole understanding on one illustration to challenge any and all other possibilities is a very limited way to use scripture.
So again, you may have stated a significant problem but some would consider you solution more than a little superficial. And of course, we can always tell stories of how “mean spirited” Christians did thus and so in less than a redemptive way. While ignoring the error of some liberal agenda that suggests like Augustine, “Love God and do as you please.” A comprehensive problem will require a comprehensive solution. But we can be sure that a “God size problem” will be solved by Himself in His own way and time. And truth vs. error will be readily discerned when God creates the dividing factor. Simular to the Protestant Reformation when the simple divide was the authority of scripture. Rome claiming the church was the final authority, and Protestantism claiming otherwise.
I am not sure what kind of answer you are looking for. I am not assuming that “love” somehow trumps pure Bible teaching or that we have no basis for disciplining someone who manifests “love.”
When someone claims to have carefully considered an issue but still disagrees with a church position, which doctrines do we allow the disagreement on? None? Certain ones that are considered to be less important than others? Why does the Church Manual not permit disfellowshipping of members who do not pay tithe? In effect, isn’t it saying, “We’ll allow you to disagree with this doctrine”?
I realize that one can overdo application of a single story. In the theological arguments or putdowns that I’m thinking of, I’ve been concerned about the lack of apparent compassion or of a willingness to grant the Christianity or honesty of the other debater. There are reasons that other person believes differently from you – genetic, psychological, emotional, intellectual, spiritual, etc. Even when/if I’m right, I don’t do my position any service when I run over others to make my case or when I make it obvious that I consider my opponent to be less devout or honest or intelligent.
My treatment of the issue was understandably not comprehensive. I try to keep the column at 1,200 to 1,300 words. If I were more familiar with other types of theological disagreements, I would approach the subject differently. People who stir up anger, hatred, and bigotry in the church probably do more damage than people who don’t get a fundamental belief straight. Most church members would have trouble explaining most of the fundamental beliefs in depth. That’s not a cause for disfellowshipping. Lack of love is more to be feared than lack of theological understanding. 1 Corinthians 13:2 and 1 John 4:8 and Colossians 3:12-14 – In sermons about sharing our faith, those texts/passages need to be much more prominent. What good does it do to be right if we turn people away (and off) while proving it? We can at least treat them the way we’d want them to treat us if they thought we were mistaken the way we think they are.
Some things you can tolerate that may be wrong, Mark, and still not split the church. Tithe is one of them. It is a private matter. And things we do at home will often come under the same catagory. But somethings are a public matter and affects the whole church, such as the ordination of women vs. male headship. This is not a private matter and in fact, affects everyone no matter what side you are on. So this “doctrine” must be dealt with publically.
If a person opposes WO and considers it a moral issue, they can not go to church without offense if and when a woman acts the part they think is not scriptural. Neither can the church simply let each division or union Conference make the decision. Such an act is totally divisive and promotes congregational worship where each church then decides for itself on moral issues. The church must be definitive and consistent on a public moral issue. And I am aware that attitude is important in the conflict. But the final outcome is not attitude, but how to deal with non-negotiable doctrines.
I think we are aware that many, if not most, church members don’t care one way or the other and their solution is “tolerance” and “let the church decide” and they are willing to accept whatever decision the church makes. This won’t work for either end of the conflict. Some demand WO based on the moral imperative of equality in church government. They would not accept a decision for male headship, because they think it is devaluating a woman’s role. And those who demand male headship believe it is a God ordained order of church government. In which case, it would be challenging God’s authority to determine the role in society, the home, and the church. Unless we deal with the issue on this basis, we can not solve the issue.
I do believe that support for women’s ordination far and away finds its authority in the evidence of the Holy Spirit’s baptism of devout women, in these end times. I am a child of the 1960s, so is my wife, and we have never supported women’s ordination “just because the women’s movement demands it.” There has been support for Adventist women’s ordination for more than a century, long before Gloria Steinem was ever a zygote floating in body fluids under a microscope somewhere on the Left Coast…..
It is unfortunately true that some people cannot tolerate any form of worship with which they differ. To them the “moral” thing to do is to walk-out. I watched this happen many years ago during a King’s Heralds concert when they sang a song that some disapproved. A small group simply stood-up and walked-out right in the middle of the song.
I can imagine some people getting-up and walking-out if a woman stands up to preach. I suspect that also happened to Ellen White. And it probably still happens today in some places as there are many Adventist women who preach and baptize and lead-out in Communion. Ordaining these women will in fact change very little. I recently talked with a young Adventist woman in Africa who was invited to preach at a church there. Many of the “elders” openly objected, but privately a few of the lay leaders of that church encouraged her to persevere.
If my “Christian” standards are so intolerant that I feel the need to be rude what kind of a witness is that? I am saying that what I want is more important than anyone or anything anything else.
I confess that I myself have on occasion been in a meeting where I was sorely tempted to leave, even in an Adventist church. There have been a very few times where I and my wife have unobtrusively sought an opportunity to slip away for various reasons. Sometimes it was the length of the meeting when we had schedule conflicts, sometimes the music was so loud it hurt our ears. Sometimes the advertised topic was one thing but turned-out to be something very different that we simply did not care to hear. I do not always enjoy the music or the presentations or the rituals in my current local church but I still go there because I love the people very much.
On the other hand I have sat through more than one Catholic Mass conducted in the context of a wedding or funeral. I have also stood through pagan Hindu rituals in India. I felt it was more important to support my friends and associates than to make a theological statement at an inappropriate time.
We all have the rights to our own tastes and opinions. We do NOT have the right to be rude or distrustful or spiteful towards those who differ. We are told to love our neighbors as ourselves and even to love our enemies. That last one is difficult for me as I cannot think of any personal enemies to love 8-). Perhaps this is because I have long ago learnt that it is better to forgive, even when I cannot forget.
Anyone who thinks they cannot fellowship with someone whenever they have a disagreement will end-up in a very small church. Read James 3 & 4 to diagnose the root causes of this problem. Read John 17 for the antidote.
Why can’t each Division or Union Conference make the decision on the Ordination of Women? The Catholic church has orders, why can’t Adventists?
I guess you can if you want to follow the Catholic church and abandon the bible. Maybe we could ask, “Why can’t some SDA churches keep Sunday and some the Sabbath?
If you want to follow the Catholic church then you can teach Male Headship, Orders of Ordination and a host of other things that are not from the Bible but from Traditions of Men.
Where even once in the Bible do you find the word Ordination. The answer is this does not appear in the Bible. It was incorporated into the Catholic church from Roman civil government after the Apostolic era. From the beginning it was not so.
Some Adventists in the Samoa area do keep Sunday instead of Sabbath, and they won’t let the Saturday Adventists even meet in the church building that they helped build.
Mark, I’ve reflected a great deal on your opinion piece and would make a couple of points.
I am an AINO. Thin on the ground are points of agreement with “our” teachings!
I have refrained from comment to this point trying to find the best way to put my response to your blog. This morning I read an interview between Sam Harris and Zuckerman, and it captures the issue perfectly.
They make the point thus:
“Religion provides so much for people in terms of social capital, life-cycle rituals, and so forth, and if it were to just go away, most people would experience serious lacuna [gaps in their lives]… Most people want and enjoy at least some of the many things that religions have to offer, even if they don’t buy all the supernatural nonsense.
So here are the options, as far as I can tell:
First, secularize religion. By that I mean keep the rituals, the holidays, the buildings, the gatherings, the knickknacks, but let the supernatural beliefs wither and fade. The example of this that first comes to mind is Reform Judaism. Most American Jews get what they like out of Judaism—the ceremonies, the holidays, the sense of belonging, multi-generational connections, opportunities for charity—and yet they have jettisoned the supernatural beliefs. Many liberal Episcopalian congregations, too, are in this vein. Also Quaker meetings. And most Scandinavians, with their modern form of Nordic Lutheranism, are as well. They observe traditional religious holidays and they participate in various life-cycle rituals and they congregate now and then in church and they even “feel” Christian—and yet they do all these ostensibly religious things without a scintilla of actual faith in the supernatural.
Personally, I think it would be great to have Catholicism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. all existing here and there, but neutered of their supernatural hoo-hah. I know that may seem contradictory or absurd, but I believe it is possible.”
Now, I know such thinking will make some very uncomfortable, but why should folks like me not be permitted to be part of our “family? Church does meet those needs Zuckerman describes and I am socially a part of the “family – so I belong. The reason I’m not “welcome” is because of the very SDA tendency to emphasize “truth” over the other functions of Church which are probably the more important ones.
The other point I would make is about his point you make:
“In our local church, we can stand for something. We don’t have to let people who openly disagree with important church doctrines (however we rank them) promote their disagreement from the pulpit or a Sabbath School teacher’s position. But would it hurt to let the people who are not entirely orthodox (according to us) enjoy our fellowship and ask their questions? We don’t help our cause by only allowing those who agree with us to be heard in the church.”
As you noted, there is varying opinions on most doctrines. At the end of the day, even which are more important would be viewed differently. You are happy to “let” folks like me “ask their questions”, but not to promote our disagreement in SS or the pulpit. I understand the thinking behind this, but doesn’t that put you back where you started? You use “we” language over and over, but I am not one of your “we”. I am “other” to you. You may as well just kick the AINO’s out because where else can you draw the line? We are either welcome as functioning parts of the family or we are not! I don’t go to SS anymore for these very reasons – functionally kicked out. No, it would not hurt for “unorthodox” folks to enjoy “your” fellowship, but that is the very problem: whilst ever “orthodox” folks are defining who are “we” and who are “AINO”, and non-orthodox, and what can be said and taught, “we” can never belong in any fair and real sense of the word.
For the interview with Sam and Zuckerman, the link is long. You’ll find it on Sam’s Website.
To seperate the spiritual meaning from the rites and forms that a church practices seems inane and silly. So the secular world that celebrates Christmas on a secular level should also be accepted as part of the church family since they also “celebrate” some particular form and/or idea? The rites and ceremonies denote some spiritual truth. To deny the spiritual meaning while participating in the ceremony is like being baptized while denying that you believe in Christ. The Reformation began precisely because of the spiritual meaning attached to the ritual. If the spiritual meaning is not in harmony with the biblical explanation, then the ritual has no Christian meaning or purpose.
Bill, what is “spiritual”? Perhaps you are making your assessment from a too narrow understanding of the term.
I think I explained it in my previous post. I said it is what is in harmony with the biblical explanation.
Just wondering, how the measuring that is described in this article synchronizes with the Scripture. In Acts it says that God added to the Church those who being saved. We are directed to not judge the servant of another. The judgment described by Jesus found those guilty who did not care for others. Who do we thing we are to judge the servants of God. The corporate body must have rules to insure that all things are done decently and in order. To question what a person believes – not our pay grade.
BAIK
When the Pentagon was new, there was a civilian employee who wandered around its endless corridors wearing a large campaign button on which were the letters “BAIK.” One day a general accosted him and asked him what the letters stood for.
Said the man, “Boy Am I Konfused.”
“But,” protested the general, “Confused isn’t spelled with a K.”
Said the man, “See what I mean?”
I need that pin!
Why am I “Konfused”? It’s like this: There seem to be several subjects that precipitate an avalanche of words. For example, creation/evolution and homosexuality and the status of women in the church. Each with two armed camps. People speaking past each other. No one having the least intention of being convinced to change an opinion. Words without wisdom? At least words without useful purpose.
LOVE
I’m a simple-minded person impressed by texts such as Matthew 22:39. Jesus said to the lawyer (theologian?), “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God… and You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” Since this theme is repeated several times in the Bible, I assume it has some significance. Here are some examples:
Deuteronomy 6:5 Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.
Leviticus 19:18 Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.
Matthew 5:43-45 You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven.
Matthew 7:12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
Matthew 19:19 ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’
Mark 12:30-31 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.
Luke 10:25-28 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?” He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ ” “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
John 13:34 A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.
John 15:17 This is my command: Love each other.
Romans 13:9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
Romans 12:10 Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves.
1 Corinthians 13 If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
Galatians 5:14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
Ephesians 4:2 Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love.
1 Timothy 1:5 The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.
James 2:8 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right.
1 Peter 4:8 Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.
1 John 3:11 For this is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another.
These quotes are from the New International Version (NIV)
These are familiar texts with which we are all familiar. Are they so familiar that they need no discussion? That’s why I’m Konfused.
What is the real meaning, the practical meaning of “love”? How does one practice love?Of “neighbor”? Of “yourself”?
EVOLVE
I may as well admit it. I believe in Darwinian Evolution. But what does it mean to say that I “believe” in evolution? Simply this: It appears to me that 99% of the world’s biologists, paleontologists, geologists, anthropologists et alia believe in Darwinian Evolution and most of them seem pretty bright and actually do field research. They uncover fascinating fossils like Tiktaalik that sure look like transitional forms. So I accept their judgment because they know a lot more about the subject than I ever will. All the time recognizing, as they also do, that all scientific knowledge is provisional and subject to revision with the acquisition of new data.
Along with Einstein and Bohr and Feynman and Gell-Mann and Heisenberg and Schrodinger and a few score more who were bright enough to be awarded Nobel prizes, I also believe in quantum mechanics. But that stuff is so opaque to me that I wouldn’t recognize a quantum mechanic if one walked up to me and unscrewed all my nuts. To me “entanglement” is what happens when one ventures to blog on an Adventist website.
CREATE
Furthermore, I’m so Konfused that I also believe in Genesis. The Bible is the most miraculously preserved and studied document in the history of civilization. What’s not to like? However, it seems to me an act of arrogant presumption, for us to think that we can get inside the brains of the original authors. If there is anything that mutates with time, surely it is language.
Even a superficial reading of the Spectrum and Adventist Today websites reveals all sorts of people who complain that others are misunderstanding what they are trying to say. If native-born, college-educated, English speakers can’t communicate their thoughts accurately and understandably, why should I believe that we can get inside the brains of Hebrew speakers who wrote three millennia ago in a foreign language for which we have no ancient contemporary dictionary? By comparison with Hebrew, English is supposed to have a large vocabulary. So why can we write sentences like: “He put his airplane into a sharp bank to avoid a bank of clouds and almost crashed into a bank building before he succeeded in landing on the bank of the river.”? Pity the impoverished Hebrews with no rich vocabulary like ours!
And if the meaning of Genesis 1 and all other Scripture is so obvious, why do we have so many translations? When is anybody going to get it right? And if the “priesthood of all believers” means, at least partially, that we can all find salvation by our own personal study of the Bible, why do we need thousands of theologians and prophets writing billions of words to explain it all to us?
I’m so old that by now I’ve read a thousand or two books. And in all that experience I’ve noticed that whenever I see a story that includes talking animals, the story is always a myth or fable or parable or allegory or metaphor or whatever. (Except, of course, in Genesis.)
According to Short’s Law, “Inspiration seems to be directly proportional to antiquity.” And the Bible is ancient. But does that mean that it was written by God holding the hands of the prophets and directing every word? If so, one could wish that God could have had the courtesy to provide a parallel and unambiguous English translation.
NEIGHBOR
So what does it mean to love your neighbor as yourself? If you “believe” in evolution and in Genesis and vociferous members of your SDA community condemn you? How am I supposed to “love” those who say that I’m no longer fit to be an Adventist and I should find another church because my thinking and theology are contaminated? “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” (Matt 6: 21) My heart is/was in this SDA community. Maybe that’s what eight years of brainwashing at La Sierra and Loma Linda did to me. Am I to be an outcast because I have to admit that I’m impressed by what the overwhelming majority of scientists think? If six 24-hour days and six thousand years are so scientifically obvious (as a few of our doctors and lawyers would have us believe), why has this not been published in Science or Nature or some other reputable, peer-reviewed journal? Conspiracy? Or lack of evidence? Mark Twain said, “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.” For SDA relevance, insert “creation” before “science.”
Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount, “Love your enemies… .” Really? What does that mean? Am I the enemy of those who disagree with me? Are they supposed to love me? No way! Or is telling me that I should find a new church home their way of showing that they love me? And what is my obligation to them? Get on my soapbox and convince them that I am brighter and righter-thinking than they are? I believe in miracles, but that would be beyond miraculous!
HOSPITAL
I once had the weird idea that the Church was supposed to be like a hospital where sin-sick souls could go for healing. Now it seems that the only ones who are to be admitted are pure in heart and mind and body and with no bad habits. It’s like a hospital telling a patient who is slipping into diabetic coma to straighten out his diet and exercise program, get his blood glucose and electrolytes under control, and then come back when he is feeling well again. Some hospital that would be!
On the Adventist Today and Educate Truth websites, I once had the temerity to ask how a belief in evolution disqualified one from loving his neighbor as himself. I got considerable vituperation from some who thought that my belief in evolution was leading their wives and children into perdition (seriously!), but absolutely no one responded one way or the other to the question of what it means to love your neighbor as yourself. And if evolutionists, or even atheists, could do it. Maybe the idea that the commandment to love God and your neighbor being the peg from which hang all the law and the prophets was just a slip of the tongue of Jesus (and Matthew). So to undo my Konfusion, I wrote to Erv Taylor at AToday and asked him if he thought there would ever be a time when we could get a discussion going on what that kind of love entails. He replied, “The short answer is ‘No.’ ”
CHOICE
Look, we all choose to believe what we want to believe. I choose to believe in God. Not because I see any scientific evidence that is publishable in the peer-reviewed literature but because I can’t imagine not believing in God. I don’t know where He is or what He looks like or what He is made of, but I believe. I think I have seen His hand guiding my life. When I ask SDA friends where He is or what He looks like or what He is made of, I get a fishy-eyed stare that sends me off to a mirror to see if I have grown two heads or three eyes or some other anatomical anomaly. If we are made in His image, does that mean that God has a mouth and stomach and intestines and that He puts fruit from the Tree of Life in one end and stuff comes out the other end? I’m not trying to be sacrilegious but just to point out that if we are so ignorant about where and what God is, might we not want to be a little humble about proclaiming that we know everything about everything? Including origins and the exact meaning of Genesis? Do we know that there has been no evolution leading to new species? Or is that just what we choose to believe?
“I can’t believe that!” said Alice.
“Can’t you?” the Queen said in a pitying tone. “Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes.”
Alice laughed. “There’s no use trying,” she said, ”one can’t believe impossible things.”
“I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
Michael Shermer, my skeptical hero, wrote under the title “The Believing Brain” in the July 2011 Scientific American: “We form our beliefs for a variety of subjective, emotional and psychological reasons in the context of environments created by family, friends, colleagues, culture and society at large. After forming our beliefs, we then defend, justify and rationalize them with a host of intellectual reasons, cogent arguments and rational explanations. Beliefs come first; explanations for beliefs follow.”
Seems reasonable to me, Michael.
LIBERAL
Someone defined a liberal as a person with both feet planted firmly in the air. That’s me. Do we choose evil evolution or credible creation? The great philosopher of science, Yogi Berra, said, “When you come to a fork in the road, take it.” Amen, Brother! I agree. And that’s why I am an agnostic believer.
The Milk of Human Kindness
I grew up partly on a dairy farm in western New York. The primary product of the farm was milk, which was the only source of cash for my aunt and uncle. Milk had market value because it could be consumed directly or converted into other desirable products such as butter, cheese, yogurt, ice cream or whatever. In order to produce the milk, hay and oats and water were fed into the front end of the cow. The milk came out from near the rear (with a little encouragement). But that wasn’t all. In addition there issued forth modified hay and oats and water. These were collected on a bed of straw (left over from the oats) and the fragrant combination was referred to as manure, the most active ingredient of which could scientifically and delicately be referred to as bovine feces, (or BF?). This had no direct commercial value but was considered to be very useful. It was spread on the fields by a machine called a manure spreader (the only machine, incidentally, that International Harvester refused to stand behind). Thus another round of clover, timothy, alfalfa and oats was encouraged to grow for the production of more milk. And more money.
Lying awake one evening with my neural circuits unrestrained by their usual guidelines of strict logic, I thought that there was an uncanny resemblance to aspects of the Church. Scripture is fed into the front end of the Flock with the hope of producing the Milk of Human Kindness. Love, to one’s neighbors, but also even to one’s enemies, seems to be enjoined on the Flock in numerous texts which we have seen above.
But other products also derive from Scripture, which, I suppose, most would refer to as “doctrine”: Sabbath, remnant, state of the dead, hell, sanctuary and 1844, Trinity, justification, sanctification, salvation by faith, creationism, abstinence from certain substances and premarital sex, tithe, worship, prayer, adornment, military service, status of women, etc., etc. Very useful, but not the cash cow, so to speak. Would it stretch the analogy too far to suggest that the primary purpose of the Church Flock is to produce the Milk of Human Kindness and that the rest is useful but basically just like BF?
QUESTIONS
So how do we love God with all our heart and soul and mind? Certainly not by studying God’s other book, Nature. Isn’t studying Nature what all those secular scientists do who believe that the earth and life are billions of years old? So forget that.
Well, then, if Nature is out, how do we love our neighbor as ourselves? (Are “ourselves” worth loving anyway if we are just a bunch of luke-warm, ne’er-do-well Laodiceans?) And who is our neighbor? What does it mean to be a “Good Samaritan”? Concerning the Samaritan Jesus said, “Go and do likewise.” But was the Good Samaritan doctrinally orthodox? And what does “love” mean? Four “banks.” Four “loves”? CS Lewis thought about it and wrote a book on “The Four Loves.” (Do I get to choose which “love”? Especially if my “neighbor” looks like Marilyn Monroe?)
All kidding aside, I think the subject bears some critical thinking. It’s all about ecclesiology and soteriology and orthodoxy and epistemology and hermeneutics. And maybe even community? What do they mean? What should they mean? What is the Church? Who gets to decide what is orthodox? What does it mean to be a Seventh-day Adventist? Doctrinally pure? Sincerely caring and loving? Willing to overlook the mote in my brother’s eye because of the beam in my own? Searching for Truth? (On the subject of truth, I find myself standing, uncomfortably, next to Pontius Pilate and asking, “What is truth?”) What exactly, or even approximately, is the practice of Christianity?
Who is my neighbor? What if my “neighbor” is a drunkard begging for a handout? Or a Republican when I’m a Democrat or vice versa? Or a Catholic? Or better, a militant Islamist? Or, worse, a fundamentalist Adventist? How, exactly, do I love those who want me out? Whose understanding of the Golden Rule seems vestigial. Fight? Write letters? Or just leave. What does it all mean?
So. . . . Do we continue to argue about evolution/creation and sexuality and gender equality in the church, etc. until the final judgment and total exhaustion or do we move on to something practical and immediate? And even authentic?
Furthermore, there is wisdom in remembering that there is more that we don’t know than what we do know (and half of what we do know probably ain’t so).
What to do. What to do. Boy Am I Konfused.
Gordon Short
30 Sep 2013
It is easy to say that we should love our neighbors as ourselves, but what does that really mean? Here are some questions that I have wondered about (in no particular order):
What is our obligation to countries such as in equatorial Africa where they have many natural resources but out-of-control governments?
What is our obligation to local organizations such as food banks, homeless shelters, Salvation Army, etc.?
What is our obligation to SDA conferences that seemingly produce no observable benefit in helping local communities?
Is it appropriate to pay tithe instead of supporting front line organizations when there is no benefit from the tithe gift?
Are we responsible for the use to which our charitable giving is made or do we just leave it in God’s hands?
Is support of parachurch organizations such as Adventist Today and Spectrum an appropriate use of tithe and if not, why not?
What should be our concern with regional and national politics? Is it appropriate to discuss such a potentially divisive subject in church?
What should be our concern with Church politics? Leave it up to God to decide what is right and wrong?
What should be our concern with issues of social justice both in the Church and in the community?
What is the Christian way to deal with doctrinal disputes?
How does the Golden Rule influence our attitude toward serving in the military?
Should Christians be pacifists? And if not, why not?
Is there a Great Chain of Being implicit within Christianity?
Are non-christian religions also ways to approach the Kingdom of God?
How do we build community in the local church?
How do we go about helping those in need (physically, psychologically, spiritually) in the local church?
In what ways could our small group have an impact for good in our local non-Adventist community?
Is democratizing worship a useful idea?
Are creativity and the pursuit of excellence important goals in worship?
What can be done to make Sabbath the high point of the week for all ages and for all members, attending and non-attending?
What do we do to decrease the incidence of divorce, spousal abuse, sexual abuse of children?
Should we be interested in prison reform?
What should be our stance on gender equality?
Can we have a positive influence on the problems of drug abuse in society?
Why do we move heaven and earth to have a grade school but do nothing locally for teenagers in our church?
Etc., etc.
Mark Twain said, “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”
You can insert the word Creation or the word Evolution before the word Science in the foregoing and it is equally true.
The same can be said if you substitute the word Theology for the word Science.
On the subject of truth, I find myself standing, uncomfortably, next to Pontius Pilate and asking, “What is truth?”
When Pontius Pilate asked this question he was gazing unaware directly into the face of Truth. If we would spend more time contemplating the life and teachings of Jesus Christ we would gain a better comprehension of Truth.
Decades ago while in college I wrote an allegory (The Island) about the Adventist search for Truth in the Bible vs Science (aka the BRI vs the GRI). My allegory was a take-off from the ancient fable about the aged Father who bequeathed a field to his sons, telling them “My treasure is hidden in my field. If you would find it you must dig for it.”
In my Adventist variant of this fable the field lies in the interior of the Island. Through this field runs a stream named for an earlier battle. The sons in their digging find many stones from the field. One son focuses on extracting the stones, the other on raising the crops. The more stones extracted, the more bounteous the harvest. Together they prosper. One son moves to the East Coast to study his favorite stones, the other to the West Coast to study his favorite crops.
Accidentally one particularly unwieldy stone in the field falls upon another. Both stones break open. The sons are amazed to find inside these erstwhile unappealing stones, geodes bearing beautiful images of their beloved Father.
The First Commandment is to love our Father with all of our heart. The Second is to love our Neighbor as ourselves. Unless and until we comprehend the love of the Father we cannot comprehend how to love our neighbors. We are merely raising crops and flinging rocks.
The problem is that we Adventists fell in love with a set of doctrines, rather than falling in love with God. “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength” (Deuteronomy 6:5). Jesus said that is the greatest commandment. But it’s the one that we obey the least.
I think seeing love as something other than Biblical truth is hugely problematic. I think a major point of Mark’s article is exactly that love is by far the MOST important doctrine. It is a difficult, challenging, and supremely important truth which Jesus said was going to be the litmus test, deal breaker, identifier, and all important first thing for his disciples. Whatever else we say or do, if we aren’t loving well, we aren’t following Jesus.
I have some of the same frustration as expressed by Mr. Short but I will attempt for my comments to be shorter (pun intended) and I would like to address the original issue of “being AINO”.
What is the process by which someone becomes an AINO? What is the morphing process?
For a relatively new Adventist it could be by accident where a person joined the church through attending 15-20 emotionally charged meetings at one of our guerilla evangelism series, being baptized by a zealous evangelist looking to ensure that the ROI for his “crusade” was positive.
But for someone like me who grew up in the church, how do I become an AINO? Is it because I decide over time that I no longer identify with some of the 28 fundamental beliefs that the church has adopted? Perhaps the problem is the denomination itself.
Where did all of these doctrines come from? I am not saying that I disagree with the majority of them in principle, but I grew up in a church that had 5 basic doctrines, the “pillars of our faith” and they all started with “S”: “Sabbath, Second Coming, Sanctuary, State of the Dead, and Spirit of Prophecy” (Six if you include “Salvation by Faith” but it wasn’t talked about enough because it was included in the Sanctuary doctrine.
Now, even our most honored theologians admit laughingly that if Uriah Smith, James White, Joseph Bates, and the other founders of the church were resurrected today, they would deny the SDA church as being their church because of the “extra fundamentals” that have been added.
So who morphed into an AINO? Was it me, or the church itself? And isn’t that what Jesus was referring to when He criticized the legalistic Pharisees during His ministry?! We could say that Jesus was accusing them of becoming IINOs (“Israel In Name Only”). They had adopted burdensome regulations (doctrines) that were strangling the righteous, conscientious church members and Jesus said they were “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men”.
Is it possible that the church, whether the local church or the denomination itself, has become AINO and left the conscientious church members looking for somewhere to go?
In the original church as it was founded, there were procedures to remove apostate leadership and a
Continuing…
In the original church as it was founded, there were procedures for the members themselves to remove apostate leadership but that is also one of the changes that the church leaders have accomplished. Now the church elections look more like an election in China than in a democratically oriented organization. I still hope and pray that the Holy Spirit will accomplish true reformation in San Antonio.
It would be helpful if comments were limited to a certain length; I wonder how many read the lengthy compositions.
Maranatha
Gordon Short,
I was home alone when I read your post. I laughed ’til I (well, I didn’t actually roll on the floor but you know what I mean). Sally will be equally amused–if I don’t fall off my chair when I try to read her your post.
Why? Because 1. Older Seventh-day Adventists need to understand the nature of the questions younger members of the denomination are asking and 2. You really know how to turn a phrase!
In 1860, Delegates to a conference in Battle Creek voted “to call ourselves Seventh-day Adventists”.
So far so good.
They then voted to approve the creation of the “Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association”.
Not a Seventh-day Adventist “Church”, a Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association. There was a very good reason for what they didn’t do. They were aware of the tendency for “Church” organizations to become hirearchical, creedal and dogmatic. Most or all of the delegates didn’t want that to happen to the advent movement.
In 1861, a publishing association was formally incorporated but not by the name that had been voted. Instead, the name of the organization was The Review and Harold Publishing Association.
Hmmm. I wonder how that was decided?
That same year, Seventh-day Adventists in Michigan incorporated the Michigan Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. The word, “Church” was conspicuous by its absence.
Now I’ll admit that the pioneers’ concept of the church was colored in the 1860s by the closed door doctrine. It had been abandoned in the 1850s but a vistage of the we-are-it syndrome remained. In the 1860s, Seventh-day Adventists may have been confused about what, exactly, identifies a true believer in Jesus but they seem to have understood that believers constitute the church.
In 1863, there was another development. The incorporation of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. Still not a Church–an “Association”.
I’m still looking for evidence that ANY laymen participated in that decision (other than maybe Ellen White if you consider her to have been a layperson).
Did the clergy who created the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists realize the extent of the tendency of new members of the organization to assume that the Seventh-day Adventist organization was–and of necessity had to be (because they had been accustomed to it in the denominations of their former affiliation) hirearchical? Is that what the clergy who organized the General Conference wanted the laity to assume?
When did it become a matter of policy to encourage writers and editors to NOT refer to the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists by its actual name but call it, instead, the Seventh-day Adventist Church?
I’m a protestant so, when I found that policy online, I protested. When I tried to find the recommendation online at a later date, I didn’t find it.
Disaster averted?
Maybe temporarily.
When the officers of the organization of the church at Rome decided to refer to their organization as “Catholic”, the word meant, “universal”–as it does today. But think about this: when the word, “Catholic”, was first employed in that way, the Roman Church taught–and apparently the majority of professed Christians in Western Europe believed–that the Earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe.
How should Seventh-day Adventists who understand the meaning of the word, “universal”, respond to references to the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists as, “the World Church”?!?!
I have written some letters of protest but until or unless other protestant adventists take pen in hand, I’m afraid the spiral will continue.
Roger Metzger
P.S. to Interested Friend, I read long posts when they are interesting.
Roger,
I agree with much of what you wrote.
I do have two comments. First, if you look at the list of delegates to these early “sessions” most of them are what today would be called “lay pastors”. They were farmers or craftsmen who felt inspired to preach and teach. Very few were full-time workers.
Second, their aversion to becoming a Church had less to do with the Shut Door which they had abandoned after October 1851 (the last date set by Joseph Bates). From 1852 onward they gradually became more focused on outreach to the world around them. That is why their first collective institution was a publishing house.
So why the aversion to adopting a Creed becoming a Church? Almost all of these survivors of the Millerite movement had been disfellowshipped from their previous Churches when they deviated from the Creeds of said Churches.
First we became a Church. Then we adopted a Creed.
I totally agree with your sentiments regarding the tar-pit into which we have descended, where the Mother Ship in Silver Spring now think they ARE the Church. Their recitation of Church History begins in 1863. Sort of like the Catholics reciting Church History as a succession of Bishops of Rome.
Now I would like to put-forth a question. Will Carson become the Adventist Clovis? Of course since we are non-combatants Carson will have to be elected rather than consolidating his power by force of arms 8-).
In the foregoing I failed to mention that the original purpose of the General Conference was to promote and coordinate work in new territories where there was no incumbent Local Conference (ie most of the US of A and the rest of the world). What if the GC would stick to its original purpose (promoting missions and outreach)?
Within a single generation the GC morphed into the powerhouse that tried to control everything. Ellen devoted her later years to (among other things) promoting the formation of institutions beyond the reach of GC control.
For those who may recognize Carson but not Clovis:
In his time, Clovis was the most powerful ruler in Western Europe since the collapse of the Roman Empire. He consolidated the Franks into a single kingdom. He was the first Germanic King to be baptized into the Catholic Church. Then he commenced to subjugate the so-called Aryan tribes that did not submit to the authority of the Bishop of Rome. A mission completed by his successors after he died.
In the Adventist prophetic tradition, Clovis marks the commencement of the 1,335 days of Daniel 12, and the Advent movement marks the culmination. Now that we have our Church and our Creed, lack we only our Clovis?
If you claim to be a Christian and do not accept the bible then you are a CINO (Christian In Name Only). Also if you claim to be an Adventist but reject the 28 fundamental beliefs which are grounded in the bible then you are a AINO (Adventist In Name Only).
When I was baptized into the SDA church there were no 28 Fundamental Beliefs. There was the Bible and a set of Baptismal Vows taken from the Church Manual.
The 28 (originally 27) came later. The preamble says they are not meant to be a Creed, but merely a statement of our present understanding of the Bible.
Assuming you are a brother or sister and not an intangible oracular spirit, I submit to you that your claim that if I do not accept the 28 then I am not truly an Adventist, is to make of them a Creed which they were not intended to be.
If “Bible Truth” is a human being not possessed of a Divine oracular spirit, then this human has chosen a far more more arrogant appellation than anything that Ellen Gould Harmon White ever called herself. Even though she claimed to see visions and dreams, she called herself a Messenger and a Lesser Light.
I suppose that now that we have Bible Truth among us we can all relax and accept the truth as revealed to him/her/it?
Seriously, when someone is reluctant to use his/her real name I always wonder what he/she fells need to hide and why?
The description EGW uses is “Nominal Adventists”. Same meaning.
Bill:
EGW does not use the term “Nominal Adventist” in reference to people who do not accept certain doctrines of the church. The word “nominal” is used by her mostly to refer to non-SDA churches and others who profess to believe in Christ but who are more interested in things of this world.
The only reference to nominal Adventists was referring to those, mostly Millerites, who were critical of her first visions. The only reference to nominal church members (not necessarily Adventist church members, but members of any church is this:”All the terrible consequences of sin will come to those who, even though they may be nominal church members, regard it as a light matter to set aside the law of Jehovah, and to make no distinction between good and evil. {BLJ 179.2}”.
I do not think you have the right to make this judgment on anyone based on acceptance, or not, of the list of 28. Again, this discussion began in reference to the evidence of compassion and love for others, and each other, by professed SDAs.
Mr/Ms. Truth:
I assume your first name is Bible…
This may not be the forum to debate each and every one of the 28 fundamentals, which are based on someone’s “interpretation” of the Bible, and I would rather debate a real person with a real name, but I think the article that launched this discussion was whether love for ones neighbor is evident among people who claim the title of Adventist.
In addition, although I may accept the fundamental beliefs in principle, I may not accept the implementation of each belief as specified in the “Church Manual” and other procedural documents. In that respect, the organization itself may be AINO by denying the principles of its foundation as authorized by its founders.
Love is defined in scripture by way of doctrine, Richard. So your comment “This may not be the forum to debate each and every one of the 28 fundamentals,….” Every one of the “28 fundamentals” are based on love. Those who would seperate love from doctrine and define love in some other context are not going to be true to scripture. AINO would be someone who denies what the concensus of church members believe and advocate and teach otherwise. Some people may not believe in the Trinity as expressed by the church in general. They may still be church members, but hopefully, those in authority where they fellowship would not give them the pulpit to teach something contrary to accepted church teaching. A Sabbath school class would be more open to a discussion of differences of ideas and even then agitation against clearly accepted doctrine would still be out of line. Churches have a right and even obligation to state some self identity that all agree to. Otherwise, the name Seventh-day Adventist would have no meaning in the church or outside the fellowship. A non-SDA may ask, “What do SDA’s believe?” And there should be a concensus agreement and statement that answers that question. We have so much “Pluralism” in the church today, that there is real difficulty in defining bible Adventism with any real consistency. And this is not just in the laity, but among leadership who define the church and its fundamental teaching that establishes a consistent identity.
Bill:
Quoting you from 2 days ago…
“And truth vs. error will be readily discerned when God creates the dividing factor. Simular to the Protestant Reformation when the simple divide was the authority of scripture. Rome claiming the church was the final authority, and Protestantism claiming otherwise.”
I must now end my participation in this discussion.
Fascinating article and discussion. My observation within the denomination 16 years ago, was that many members disagreed with significant SDA beliefs, such as EGW, IJ, alcohol, vegetarianism. However, they remained members, and it’s understandable. Some may have believed their salvation was tied to membership; and many didn’t want to leave established friends and activities. If they left, where were they to go if they still believed in the Sabbath and Second Advent? Few, if any, choices.
However, I couldn’t say I was an SDA while disagreeing with fundamental beliefs. So I don’t. But having spent most of my life within the church, and with friends and family still there, I’m interested to see what takes place.
Re: Asking questions in SS
While visiting my inlaws, he a retired SDA pastor, we went to church with them four Sabbaths in a row. I even led the song service for SS. However, there’s really no point in raising questions on points we disagree with. It’s impossible to have a real discussion; they’re not interested in hearing a different point of view. And, as outsiders, it’s not our place. So we keep our mouths shut and they think we’re SDAs, although it’s not our intent to deceive.
The people in the congregation are sweet, loving people. Yet, their ultra-conservativism isn’t something we could live with. They oppose WO, wear long dresses, no makeup/jewelry, disparage worship music styles they disagree with, constantly quote EGW and believe the KJV is the only authorized version.
I’ve been amazed at the articles on AT, since I’ve been reading it the past month or so. And the discussions are even more amazing. Some really brainy people on this forum; way above my intellectual capability. And some very good points made.
There are only Seventh-day Adventists in name only.
And after 30 some years of there being a Seventh-day Adventist Church, our most reliable Seventh-day Adventist called for us to adopt the spirit from fourth years earlier when we defined ourselves by our willingness to engage with each other rather than define ourselves by what we believe. Amazing. See her lengthy article in R&H July 26 1892.
Apparently name only is everything and anything else is ever less.
Oops … Make that ‘forty years before’
“Adventist called for us to adopt the spirit from fourth years earlier when we defined ourselves by our willingness to engage with each other rather than define ourselves by what we believe.”
The only way to define any church group is to find out what they believe. Anybody can talk. Doctrine defines the church. And sad to say, we have little or no identity and this is exactly why the church is falling apart on many levels. Or as Jesus said, “Ye worship, ye know not what.”
“The only way to define any church group is to find out what they believe.”
Well according to Jesus the way to identify His true followers is by what they DO not what they SAY. He gave two tests, neither of which mentions doctrines.
1) Follow me.
2) Love one another (as I have loved you).
These directly reflect the two Great Commandments He taught from Deuteronomy. (2) shows that we understand (1).
Conservatives ask for Truth, Liberals ask for Justice and Charismatics ask for Grace. All three are important, but even greater is Love.
Jim, you hit the nail on the head. Beautifully stated! And besides Truth and Justice, there are also Faith and Hope. But the greatest of these is Love.
What then is the purpose of doctrine? I propose that it only has meaning when it serves to provide us with a deeper and clearer understanding of the character of God.
Sadly, doctrine is instead often used as a weapon consisting of whomever has the tallest pile of “key” Bible texts (it especially helps to have Ellen White quotes thrown into the mix).
If my pile is bigger than my neighbor’s pile – does this mean that I have the truth (or belong to the true church) and my neighbor does not? If I speak in the language of angels and have all the doctrines figured out but have not love, where does that leave me?
The world is caught up in a web of fear, death, and despair. In turn, I dedicate my time to the latest argument in an unkind manner for or against ordaining women? Then I wonder why my children seem not to be interested?
Can it be that my neighbor attending church on Sunday morning who believes Uncle Harry’s soul is now with the Lord
represents and belongs to God’s remnant people – because he/she exhibits the love of God to mankind and God?
After 20 years of being employed by my church in a variety of capacities – is it okay to still believe and practice the doctrines that give me a clearer picture of my God – but at the same time no longer care if my name sits in a ledger somewhere proving that I am a member of the remnant church? Is it possible that God’s remnant people are just that. His remnant people when the trumpet sounds. No matter how they respond when asked what church they attend.
If Jesus were literally here today (then maybe He is by His life in me and through me) and He walked with me and talked with me and He called me His own – would the things of earth grow strangely dim in light of His power and grace?
I think it would, I think it is. Though way too slowly.
P.S. Thank you Sister White for the book Steps to Christ. Thank you for your faults.
I look forward to talking with you soon in the by and by.
Your name dear Sister or Brother is with the Remnant Church of God, the Book of Life. Luke 7:19, “thy faith hath made thee whole” Praise God, our Sustainer and Redeemer. AMEN
I think we are too focused on identifying ourselves as Adventists, when we should focus on being followers of Christ. We are not saved by a denomination. We are not saved by theological hairsplitting. We are saved by grace through faith. “I determined not to know anything among you, except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.” I Corinthians 2:2.
Ellen White has already set the precedent that people are saved by being part of the denomination. This is ingrained in the SDA culture because it has been that way from the beginning and one cannot divorce that foundation from the fruit that Adventism has borne. Ellen White and the Adventist Church founders were not primarily concerned about focusing on being followers of Christ. It was part of their mission to split hairs and differentiate themselves from what they considered to be ‘false religion.’ Adventism is defined by those who founded it. If you do not agree, then cease to be Adventist, but many will not because of the tremendous social impact that it will have on them and their family. Most SDA’s would rather obey man rather than God.
Statements of the Fundamental Beliefs are useful, but as a tool for deciding who is a “real” Adventist, they have their limitations. Which beliefs are critical? How much of each doctrine must be accepted? What % of certainty is required?
My beloved friends, Who do you want to honor and worship (obey)? The Living God or mortal creatures? Are you looking forward to follow and believe God’s definitions and instructions or worldly concepts? Do you really want to know who is a “real” Adventist in God’s eyes, or the world’s eyes?
Let’s hear what the inspired Apostle Paul said in regard to a “real or genuine” Jew, and what the inspired messenger (Ellen White) said about a real/genuine “Seventh day Adventists”.
And we will identify the heart of this issue. Let’s see what they both have in common.
“Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God…You that makest thy boast of the law (who consider yourselves an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law) through breaking the law dishonors your God?
Continuation…
“For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles (other believers) through you, as it is written. …For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.” (Read Romans 2:17-29)
“Christianity is that system of religion founded by Christ, of which His life and teachings are the true exponents. Uppermost in His life we clearly see the principle of devotion to His Father’s will. This will was embraced in two considerations, which from their nature are inseparable– a life of irreproachable holiness, and a forgetfulness of self in ministering to the wants of others…
If Seventh-day Adventism does not embrace those principles in theory and in practice, then it is something distinct from Christianity. And in that case it is utterly useless and worse than useless.
The sacred obligations under which we [SDAs] by our profession, are placed, do not consist in contending for a NAME, but in the maintaining of a CHARACTER that EXHIBITS THE FULLNESS OF THE GRACES OF CHRIST. It is better to have the thing itself WITHOUT THE NAME, than to have the NAME WITHOUT THE OBJECT. Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, Oct. 15, 1895, G. C. Tenney (emphases supplied).
“Christ was a Seventh-day Adventist, to all intents and purposes.” Medical Ministry, page 49, Ellen G. White.
Both inspired writers tell us that God only values a Jewish or Seventh Day Adventist name when it reflects Christ’s Spirit and character in the believer. When a converted heart acts based on the same intents and purposes of Christ.
Only those SDAs who walk and stand on the light and principles the Bible has placed them, and not a modern creed of 28 beliefs, are genuine Seventh day Adventists before God’s Throne.
Only Christ can judge people’s consciences and determine who are “real” Seventh day Adventists. Is not a man’s right, a church or a civil court to define who is a “real” Adventist, and who must stop using it.
Right now, we have an ongoing legal conflict with a group of Seventh day Adventist believers known as “Creation Seventh day Adventists”. The G.C SDA Church (who has abandoned important biblical beliefs and teachings shared by SDA pioneers, has been prohibiting the use of the name “Seventh day Adventist” to those who don’t subscribe to their Church Manual (where the 28 beliefs are found) or their authority, using a civil worldly court to “define” who is a “real” Adventist, and who must be punished for continuing using the name of their faith, the faith of Christ in this last generation.
So the question is ¿Are you embracing and expressing the mind and Spirit of Christ, or the mind and spirit of the world, like trademark policies.
We may choose not agree or believe the testimony of other Adventist believers, but that doesn’t mean we have the right to define who is a real and genuine Seventh day Adventist. This role only pertains to God Himself. Otherwise, we would be trying to sit with arrogance on His Seat.
“If the Official SDA Church is not representing Christ character by using forceful and oppressive means. Why is she stopping others from honoring Christ’s Character thru the name “Seventh day Adventist”?
Let’s read what Christ said to the nominal and professed religious people of His days:
“But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.” Mat 23:13
“John answered, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in YOUR NAME, and we tried to stop him, BECAUSE HE DOES NOT FOLLOW WITH US. But Jesus said to him, “Do not stop him, for the one who is not against you is for you.” Luke 9:49-50
IS the G.C Religious Corporation of SDAs persecuting other believers because they feel their sins, shame and nakedness is being exposed by their faithfulness?
My friend, decide today what definition of “Seventh day Adventist” your heart wants to embrace, and what kind of Seventh day Adventist you want to become.
Official coc hackThis means that any player can so simply interact the software, get the assets uploaded to his account and nicely get to benefit from the game to the fullest without additional ado.
This sounds good my brother Mark, but the Adventist Church membership for someone who is interested in joining the Church is not contingent upon whether or not the potential member loves God or loves other people. It must be based on whether or not they accept the SDA Church’s unique doctrines. If before an individual is baptized, they say that they love God and that they accept Christ as their savior but do not see the validity going through several weeks of Bible study before getting baptized because they do not see that model in the Bible (most people were baptized immediately), they do not agree that the new testament church should keep the seventh day as the Sabbath, do not see the need for tithing in the new testament church model, do not agree that Ellen White is a prophet of God but rather, a writer of Christian books that can be read if one desires, they do not believe that there is a remnant denomination or that the identifying mark of God’s remnant church is the possession of a gift of prophecy, do not believe that drinking coffee is a big deal, and they do not believe that Christ went into the Most Holy Place in 1844 or that there is an investigative judgment going on right now but that they already know they are saved because they believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Should they be baptized with gladness? Should they be turned away or baptized anyway? Is their lack of acceptance of many of the SDA Church’s beliefs a roadblock to being baptized into Christ’s body.