Being An Ex-Adventist Adventist
by Ervin Taylor
A contributor to an Adventist interest web site recently posted a statement on why he could no longer be a member of the Adventist Church.
Quoted below is the substance of his reasons:
- “I cannot be a recent creationist and remain sane: the evidence is just far too overwhelming in the direction of evolution and long time spans.”
- Gay people need to love and be loved, get married, be included as full members of the community.
- Caring for the poor is a massive thrust of the whole Bible and of Jesus (sheep and the goats has nothing at all to do with denominational identification, in fact says it ‘won't save you if you don't help the poor) yet I see here again and again how ‘Christians' want to side with the rich and clutch their possessions and demonise the poor.
- [W]hen I was in church while Israel was bombing the life out of the Palestinian settlements and heard prays from the front 'Lord be with your people Israel', I just about exploded. People are people, whether they're on the 'right' side or not, and again, it's the oppressed, not the oppressors, we're called on to help.
- The glee for the destruction of the earth exhibited by…Christians. The job God gave us in Eden (metaphorically) was stewardship of the earth, but burning it all down as quickly as possible seems almost to be doctrine these days.
-
Ellen White has some great stuff and some abysmal stuff. Sadly those who use her as a club tend to focus on the latter.
Maybe those are my doctrinal differences. But most of them are more cultural than doctrinal (though some struggle with that distinction). But they're the reasons. By all means decide they're bad reasons ‘for you’, but you don't get to decide whether my reasons are good ‘for me.’
He ended with the comment, “Truth is important”
Commentary: Obviously, we all should respect the decision of this intellectually-honest individual. My only comment is that there are number of Adventists who would agree with many or all of his points (I do, with some minor reservations). I am reasonably certain this individual could hold these views and express them openly and be an Adventist in good and regular standing in many Adventist Churches, including the Adventist Church I attend. (I realize that in other Adventist Churches he would not.) He would be especially welcomed in the Sabbath School class I attend. I realize this would be difficult because the individual lives in Australia.
I would encourage this individual and others to read Dr. Richard Rice’s, Believing, Behaving, Belonging: Finding New Love for the Church, for a perspective that suggests believing is not the most important element in an identification with a particular faith tradition, including the Adventist version. Here is a quote from the introduction of that book: "Community is the most important element of Christian existence. Believing, behaving, and belonging are all essential to the Christian life, but belonging is more important, more fundamental than the others.”
Seems to me the shaking is going on…..
I'm pleased and happy to be an ex-adventist, as I have previously declared. I cannot be a member and be an honest person. I simply cannot believe the young earth, young life myths, in the face of abundant evidence to the contrary.
However, I can understand why some people would remain in the church due to the extent of the bonding that exists with family connections in the church. Leaving the church, in some cases, would disrupt all sorts of family and other social connections, and, in some cases, would require the formation of new relationships outside the church in ways that growing up SDA discourages.
To me, just substituting some other church or faith-based reference group would not do. But I have found many wonderful and fulfilling relationships with other people. Some live in other countries, some have their own Christian or non-Christian religious connections, some differ from me in gender identification or orientation, they come in all ages and colors and genders and faiths (or not–they include agnostics and atheists). I am able to go nearly anywhere in the world and find someone I know or who has a mutual friend.
Being an ex-adventist is very comfortable for me. For those who avoid leaving for fear of losing something, I advise evaluating very carefully what the loss would be. If the loss is unthinkable, stick where you are; but think of the mental health consequences of living a lie by professing to believe what you cannot concientiously believe. But, as Erv points out, you can stay and be honest too, if you join a group like his Sabbath School class at Loma Linda. I'm just saying, it isn't so scary out here beyond the boundaries of the church.
Wishing you well,
Joe
How sad but true, that only in a few discrete places on this earth of ours where Adventists, both "ex" and still members, feel free to express opinions. Ervin and Joe have given their reasons why some of us still find freedom in such blogs as this that would be unthinkable in the vast majority of SDA churches worldwide. What a pity for a church to lose its best educated members who dare question the teachings of the church!
It is for Joe's integrity, mine, and the many silent ones for whom we speak who simply walk away from a church that is misogynist, gay-hating, absolute literalist Bible reading; and that if our private thoughts were known would be dismembered and slated for a final barbecue for disbelief. It is odd that we who have left could walk into almost any church in this nation and by professing belief in God could be welcomed into fellowship. By SDA standards all of the patriarchs would have been thrown out of that church today.
I'm happy to 'out' myself as the original poster of the points Erv quoted in this post. That doesn't make my comments any more relevant than anyone else's, of course, but I thought I'd join the discussion.
I like what Erv and AToday do in standing against the reactionary tide in the church. In one way I would like to stand alongside them, because I do value the church of my youth.
In another way, though, I can't and don't want to. I'm afraid I simply *don't* belong any more.
Partly because I have been told so, in no uncertain terms: in particular on origins issues, there are plenty of voices to say that no-one who does not accept a recent literal creation belongs in Adventism. Of course, the people who say that are not really the people whose thinking – or spiritual insight – I really respect, so in itself their saying so would not stop me belonging.
But the other part is that I too no longer feel I belong. That list was a quick set of reactions off the top of my head, in a particular context, but there's enough in it – and enough that's common to enough SDAs here and internationally – that I don't feel at all at home or comfortable in church. But there are other things as well: if I'm honest with myself, I'm probably more panentheist (google it if you need to) than Christian these days in my religious views.
And finally, I think organisation is the fatal flaw of organised religion. As one with many friends and family members who have been hurt by abusers within the church and then hurt again by the church when their abusers were protected and they weren't, I can't really see any way in which a corporate body can be prevented from placing the protection of the corporation before the protection of individuals.
That means that, when someone recently asked me 'how could the SDA denomination reform itself to attract you back?', my response was: 'disband!' Not because I dislike SDAism: as denominations go it has much good, and has treated me well in my life. It's that I think organised religion is inherently toxic.
Jesus started out with a group of flawed, human, like-minded friends, and ended up the same way. He didn't build any edifices or huge congregations. He comforted the afflicted and afflicted the comfortable. *That's* who I want to be.
I guess I've spent most of my life in a different SDA Church than Mr. Geelan.
As for the 6 points:
1–I believe the opposite is true; that the evidence is overwhelming against evolution and long time spans. And, although some may disagree, I believe I've been able to retain my sanity after many decades of believing this way.
2–While I agree that homosexuals should be loved, Scripture clearly condemns the lifestyle, provides an escape, and allows for only heterosexual marriage.
3–I've never heard the SDA church speak out against helping the poor. But it is up to each individual to do so, as they have the opportunity. As a church our mission is not that of the Salvation Army, it is to preach the 3 angels' messages.
4–I've worshipped in many SDA churches around the world, and have never experienced this. It is not the norm.
5–I've rarely seen this expressed among SDA's, either.
6–I agree that one should not use the SOP as a club, but disagree that any of her material is "abysmal." It is for those upon whose toes she steps when condemning pet sins, I'm sure.
David Geelan
Presenting a more moderate response to the writer than the above:
1) If you have a problem with the genesis account, read it for what it means than whether it happened exactly as written. I believe that God wants us to understand the spiritual and ethical considerations in the story foremost. What does it say about God and His character? Why wouldn't He just destroy the sinners and start over? What does it promise? What does a serpent represent in the Bible? etc.
2) Though the SDA church may not perform the ceremony, gays have a civil right to marriage. If without a partner, they should not be stereotyped as sexually active any more than other single church member. Yes, they need love and understanding, and the church deserves more education on the subject by its media.
3) The church as a whole is very active in promoting ministry to the poor (I can't figure why the writer thought otherwise–it's one of our tradmarks; maybe he is talking about some political references, but God is neither Republican nor Democratic!)
4) Never heard this before; I would suggest the writer not judge every church from what he heard at one strange church (more likely one person's idea); the church by history takes a noncombatant stand or CO.
5) Many articles have appeared in denominational magazines about stewardship of the earth using the Eden account as a basis. Wicked humans ultimately destroy the earth (see Revelation symbolism); any destruction (purifying) by the consuming fire is ultimately re-created by God Himself. The "lake of fire" is prepared only for Lucifer (evil) and his minions and any who choose it.
6) EGW material is a mixture by an inspired individual (I believe) on many things, but also a person of her time. Some of her specific advice (often to specific persons) has been abused and misused by individuals to promote their agendas based on their own needs and mindset. And sometimes these are church leaders.
What a wonderful, balanced perspective, Ella. I never cease to be puzzled at how many grown adults, who flaunt themselves as superior, evolved Adventists or ex-Adventists, are in reality outing themselves as angry adloscencents struggling to become independent without internalizing principles of personal responsibility; unable to find an identity and define their humanity apart from their successful, happy, God-fearing parents. They lash out at the religious authorities they have negatively experienced without having the maturity to see that the blessing and curse of myopic, narrow-minded authoritarianism is endemic to humanity. It ineluctably permeates all family, religious, political, and educational relationships. Ironically, the most dangerous people are those who think they have escaped the anvil of religious authority, and can neither be grateful for it nor guard against its potentially toxic, but ubiquitous presence in their own lives.
David,
You would fit right in at Erv's sabbath school. So get a green card, sell your house and come to California! Just kidding.
Actually your sentiments and Joe's ring loud and clear in my minds eye. I suspect many believers in other faiths suffer from some of the same pangs of conscience regarding the official position of their "church" and that of their personal positions.
In places like LLU you are pretty much left alone as Adventism has little to do with medical education and science education. Experts in the biological sciences come every Thursday to mix with the faculty and the students learn the scientific language of evolution and realize it is not the boogeyman that Adventism makes it out to be.
When I was at the Univ of Calif for my post doc training I severed any ties to the SDA church and it was quite liberating. Also I did not lose my moral compass, suddenly turn to reckless living or suffer from a loss of "community" as I made a whole host of new friends. In the end I am indelibly tied to the SDA and other Christian denominational communities not because of my teaching and scientific endeavors but because of a tangled web of family and colleagues that identify with the SDA and other Christian traditions. Out here there is mix of people that identify with Adventism both culturally and doctrinally and some just culturally. As I said before your position would be welcome for discussion at Erv's Sabbath School. So come on and visit us sometime.
Dr. F
I do make it to the US now and then, and would very much like to drop by one Sabbath morning.
David: Please feel free to contact me directly at retaylor.ca@att.net if you are planniing to be in southern California in the coming months or years.
Richard Rice has it exactly backward. Believing is the most important factor.
Let's face it, the SDA Church doesn't actually have any behavioral standards anymore. It is rare that anyone is disfellowshipped on behavioral grounds. (It was once the case that the "at fault" party in a divorce was at least asked to step down from church office, if not disfellowshipped, but no longer.) You can do whatever you want as long as you don't do it on the platform on Sabbath morning.
Belonging is simply a matter of habituation. I guarantee that if you attend the local Presbyterian Church every Sunday for the next five years, and visit with people and eat at their potlucks and participate in their activities, you'll belong there as much as any born and bred Presbyterian.
Protestantism, lacking the view that partaking of the mass was salvific, has never been communal but has been organized around shared belief, shared doctrine. Unique doctrinal perspective was often the reason for the existence of Protestant denominations. Among those that were founded in the United States, and did not begin as national churches, a new doctrinal perspective has typically been the sole reason for their existence. This is obviously true of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. It was founded because of new perspectives on the Sabbath and Bible prophecy. The Adventist Church as a generic evangelical church is unthinkable. Without its unique doctrinal package, it would have no reason to exist.
I think people in the Loma Linda area have a completely skewed idea of the Adventist Church. The church there is totally overshadowed by an enormous and astonishingly wealthy Adventist institution. It affords many opportunities for profitable associations and business and social networking. It isn't that way in most Adventist churches around the country and around the world. They come together and stay together, usually in small numbers of fewer than a hundred, solely because of shared belief. Without the shared doctrine, there would be nothing to hold them together, no advantage whatsoever in continuing to attend. And when people no longer share the Adventist faith, they typically leave immediately, because there is nothing to hold them, no great, wealthy institution, with hundreds of physicians and scientists, no splendid church service with a silver-tongued Randy Roberts and professional-grade music.
In short, very few Adventists are in danger of becoming confused about what matters most among believing, behaving, or belonging.
A 'generic' Evangelical church is a bit of an oxymoron, isn't it? The fact that we have so many different Protestant churches is testimony to the power of doctrine. Yet, Richard Rice is correct. For most people coming into a church, belonging is more important than belief. That is one of the most disturbing results from soicological research on conversion. People will, if they want to belong, believe anything the group believes. But, once they do belong, belief does often become a very significant reason they stay. It is often, in the eyes of the believer, the main, if not only, reason to continue to belong, and also becomes the reason they believe they joined. I believe we are partly seeing the results of not moving both converts and our own youth from belonging to believing.
I still find it disturbing that people will believe that if they die just as an unseen flying saucer passes over head they will be saved, but we believe people won't join us because we have 'strange' beliefs. Perhaps it is simply easier to accept that people find our beliefs strange than it is to accept that people don't want to join us because they find no reason to want to be with us.
Because of my experience at different Adventist churches I am going to most vigorously disagree with your statements about belief being superior and belonging simply being habituation. Your views could not be more opposite from the reality I have been experiencing with God.
Over the last several centuries Christians have generally reduced "belief" to simply assenting to the reality of God's existence without necessarily allowing God to change a person. Adventists have taken that up a step by insisting on agreement with a specific list of doctrines. However, even that comes nowhere close to the believing described in scripture. I suggest you sit down with your concordance and do a word search for variants on belief (believe, believed, etc.). NOTHING in modern Christian teaching comes close to the level of belief that Jesus called people into. That belief was absolute, total immersion in God with complete submission to His will in every aspect of their life with unconditional and unquestioning trust that He was powerful enough to do everything He had promised. Yes, Jesus called us to believe. Not in a set of doctrines assembled by humans, but in HIM.
As for belonging being simply habituation? Where in scripture do you find that modeled? Instead, what I find is that the New Testament church was a community of believers. Come visit my church (Grace Fellowship in Madison, AL) and you'll discover what a loving community a church can be.
William,
You say "That belief was absolute, total immersion in God with complete submission to His will in every aspect of their life with unconditional and unquestioning trus…."
First tell me how you are not an automaton? Secondly what is the submission to his will? God has never told me on any one day what his "will" is. I guess I am on a different frequency. You see I maintain that I make decisions, not God. Right or wrong humans direct their own path not God. If God is there then he appears to be a hands off observer not an active force in human affairs.
Why do you think someone who is totally submitted to God's will would be an automaton? My experience has been nothing of the sort. I've been enjoying the greatest spiritual adventure of my life. I still have the same power of choice. Daily, and often numerous times a day, I must choose again to submit myself to God's will. I have discovered the joy that comes from being in a closer and growing relationship with God. He does not force his will on me. Rather, I choose to submit because of the blessings that follow.
How can you learn to know God's will? Let me propose this simple test: ask God to reveal His will to you and to help you be perceptive to see what He is revealing. Don't get frustrated if it looks like He doesn't answer for a while. That's because He comes to us gently and it can take a while to find a hole in our habitual defenses, most particularly our desire to be in control of our lives.
I'll be very curious to see how God reveals Himself to you. I can guarantee from my experience that it will be very personal and special to you.
So sad to see people leaving the Adventist faith . There is a way that seem right to a person but the end is of death . Interesting that some who leave the church would say that somehow they saw the light and they had to leave . unfortunately for those souls, they didn't see the light of scripture . The overwhelming " evidence " for theistic evolution is missing . And on accepting " homosexuals " I think we all Welcome them , Jesus ate with sinners , he loved all these people at the same time he told the woman found in adultery " go and sin no more " that is the power of the gospel , it change evil practices , it can create a new heart . If the gospel doesn't have the power to change me then , it is not e power of God for salvation . But I believe that Paul says the opposite " it is the power of God " so my friends , let's reason and don 't be so close minded to the biblical evidence .
I regret that I must disagree with Mr. Read. Dr. Rice has expressed what many younger Adventists have already come to understand concerning the appropriate role of theological belief in contemporary Adventism. I’m sorry that Mr. Read does not as yet appreciate this.
However, I’m glad that he has an appreciation of the positive qualities and contributions that the Loma Linda University Church makes to the contemporary Adventism. It is certainly an excellent church family which has a very active, positive outreach to the community around it thanks to the inspiring forward looking leadership of its pastoral staff and an active laity. Many around the world are able to be a part of the worship service by viewing it on the Loma Linda Broadcasting Network. Mr. Read might wish to tune in when he can. He will certainly hear a fine sermon by Pastor Randy Roberts.
In many respects, this church is modeling the positive aspects of what modern Adventism can become.
If Loma Linda is an example of what "Adventism" can become, we can have nothing but fear for the future.
But I'm coming to believe that "Adventism" is not necessarily the same as Seventh-day Adventist. The SDA Church is not just another "ism," it's God's remnant church. I realize that may have caused many of those who frequent this site to gag, but there are still many of us who believe it, and can back it up with Scripture.
I believe Dr Rice is correct in theory, but outside a few larger city churches – often attached to institutions as David Read mentioned – the reality on the ground is that SDA churches are bound by doctrine, and except in a few rare exceptions, anyone who seriously questions those doctrines is excluded – subtly or not so subtly – from the group. I know of a number of churches where not being a vegan is enough to put you outside the pale. You may be tolerated, but it is made evident that you are being tolerated. I am not accusing those churches of being mean and nasty, they simply don't know how to act around someone who makes them feel uncomfortable, and questioning (let alone denying) a church doctrine makes them very uncomfortable. They usually want to welcome everyone, but they expect that everyone will conform to their beliefs and standards very quickly.
I think we sometimes forget that it is a strongly held belief by the majority of our members that SDA doctrine is simply 'Bible truth'. They do not believe we 'interpret' the Bbile to get our beliefs. We simply read it 'as it is'. Any honest person who reads the Bible without any biases or pre-suppositions will arrive at traditional SDA beliefs. And some of those people are well-educated people who genuinely believe that not only is that correct theory, but that is how they acepted SDA beliefs as truth. You cannot tell those people that being SDA is not defined solely by belief.
We are also an ideological organisation. To say we are not held together by doctrine is as logical as saying the Russian Communist party was not held together by 'doctrine'. Over time, members come to be held by social ties as well, but the doctrinal ties can only be weakened by the organisation compromising its mission. Mission and ideology are tied together. There is much room for variance in how closely or how losely the ideology is defined, but it can't be removed if the mission is to be retained. I think that is where liberal/progressive SDAs part company with Traditional, Conservative and Evangelical SDAs. Liberals are willing to compromise, or even jettison, the mission, for the sake of the community, while the rest of us aren't. As a left wing evangelical I am willing to define the ideology by broad principles, but the mission is what defines us. Perhaps that is also why I am not willing to label the SDA church in the way that Elaine has, while still acknowledging that many within the church do a good impersonation of someone who fits the description. But does acknowledging that all of us are human (perhaps some more than others) really require us to deny any divine component to the church?
Trevor, you are right: we are not absolute literalists. We are literalists except when doing so would lead to a conflict with our doctrines. Unfortunately, we have no hermeneutic to guide us in when to be literal and when not, which often leaves us looking like hypocrites, or at least as somewhat un-genuine and often a bit 'dodgy' to others. Biblically – or exegetically – speaking, why is it OK to take Genesis 1:1 as not being literal (as well as other summary statements that say 'in 6 days God created the heavens and the earth and everything in them'), but taking anything else non-literally is heresy? Why do we take Luke 16:23 figuratively, but argue that the other parables are to be taken literally?
Kevin,
It is that binding to doctrine you refer to that concerns me. It is not an issue of if the doctrines are right or wrong, but what we do with them and how we relate to them. We have generally allowed doctrine to become so superior to other aspects of basic and essential Christianity that our common teachings and practices minimize, overlook or even dismiss them. We have become so singly focused on teaching doctrines (with particular emphasis on a limited cluster of them) that we see little or nothing else. We have come to think that, because it is important to us it should be important to the world and, if it should be important to the world that it actually is important to them. Then, when the world pays little or no attention to our message, we comfort ourselves by making big news of minor success to convince ourselves that we really are doing God's work the way it should be done.
The solution is simple: discovering the Holy Spirit and letting Him take control, both of ourselves and our church. We have invested huge amounts of money and effort into building structures, concepts and practices that the Holy Spirit will render irrelevant when we allow Him to take control.
We need to quit arguing about what we think matters and discover what really matters to God: us discovering and coming under the control of the Holy Spirit.
RE: Mrs. Nelson's comment: "walk away from a church that is misogynist, gay-hating, absolute literalist Bible reading"
———–
Without wanting to disrupt the generous mood of the AToday ex-Adventist Support Group Rally (which is a Great idea Dr. Taylor and commendable Sir – and maybe that is your niche in Adventist Ministry – reaching out to those on the far side – seriously – go for it Sir!), I'll just comment on one of the three of Mrs. Nelson's very subjective allegations from her docket which she has opened above. "absolute literalist Bible reading" is really quite over the top Ma'am. This is absolutely NOT true.
Example:
We have always understood such a passage in terms of a figurative rendering NOT literal.
The women hating and gay hating accusations are grossly unfounded and remain as all three are, very subjective to say the least. Do ex-Adventists really believe such accusations/allegations to be true?
♥T
Official Seventh-day Adventist doctrine is, at this time, that women cannot be ordained as pastors. (There are some work-arounds in some areas.) It is an area of controversy, but there is a very large and very influential group in the church that believes women are not fit for leadership roles. That is pretty much textbook misogyny, or at the very least discrimination on the basis of sex.
Official Seventh-day Adventist doctrine is, at this time, that homosexual people must be celibate for their entire lives, and are not allowed to have a loving, committed marriage relationship with one another. The *doctrine* is not 'gay-hating', but there are plenty of members who are: and 'hate the sin love the sinner' is an offensive cliche. I am not gay, but I have a number of friends who are. Even if I didn't have good friends, as an issue of equity I believe all human beings, regardless of orientation, should have the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of a loving marriage – as I do, very much.
Literalism is, of course, a movable feast: no eternally burning hell, but definitely literal creation. And so on. No strong hermeneutic of which bits should be taken literally and which should not, simply a strong confirmation bias that means the Bible is *always* interpreted so as to support rather than to challenge existing positions.
As I signed off the original post: truth is important.
If "hate the sin love the sinner" is an offensive cliché, then Jesus was one of the worst offenders. That's exactly what He did. "I don't condemn you, but go and sin no more." If we are not to hate sin and love sinners what would you propose? Love sin and sinners? (the attitude of the world) Hate sin and sinners? (highly unlikely unless one is mentally challenged.) Love sin and hate sinners? (the attitude of the Jewish leaders at the time of Christ) Why is it that we can condemn Uncle Fred's kleptomania, while still loving the dear old man? But we can't condemn Cousin Bruce's homosexual lifestyle, while still loving him and praying for his deliverance? It can only be because so many people have bought into the false assumption that homosexuals are that way naturally, that they have nothing to be delivered from, and we shouldn't interfere–and neither should God. With all due respect, that's just plain goofy.
Horace, Butler
says "because so many people have bought into the false assumption that homosexuals are that way naturally,"
On what basis to make this statement? I do not think you can find any evidence for it in any scientific research and especially not through the experience of gay people who would certianly not choose to be afflicted this way. You have stated the biggest fallicy concerning homosexuality which is the same as "bearing false witness" from a commandement of our Lord.
David
Yes, "love the sinner, hate the sin" is an offensive cliche to gays. As I have said before on AT, while it is
intended as a loving gesture by someone who can't think of anything else to say, to a gay person it comes across
like a aguided missle closing in on a target. Being gay is not necessarily what one does, but who you are. I
should know. For more info read my posts on Kendra's blog "God loves gays and so should we"
As for marriage, I see it as a definition issue not a discrimination one. Marriage is one man married to one
woman, period. By definition, gays are precluded from marrying someone of our own sex. I don't see
anything discrimnatory about that. I'll agree that the church has a long ways to go in being more inclusive to
gays. In my opinion,sanctioning same-sex marriage is not one of them.
It is sad to say but David Read is right: How many new Adventists are converted by simply belonging? Aren't the majority convinced that SDA beliefs are right and they wish to be in the remnant? Does the new convert from a short Revelation seminar suddenly feels he belongs? Without beliefs of the founders, there would be no Adventists so believing was at that time was of ultimate importance for which some were kicked out of their former churches.
Erv is also right: In a very few areas like LLU, there is very open discussions and an attitude that welcomes differences, but that certainly does not represent the world of Adventism. In the Inland Empire what is the one answer expected if asked of the man in the street of what he knows about Adventists? He would say they keep Saturday, it is the MOST distinguishing feature.
Now the huge medical center in the heart of Loma Linda is busy on all days of the week, no one within the medical complex could tell one day from the next. Go to the SDA clerk in WalMart or the waitress at Denny's and if she were asked to work on Saturday she would say that she cannot. Yet the same church that taught her to refuse to work on Saturday would provide someone from the Religious Liberty Dept. to help her with her superiors to get that day off. No one in the medical complex would even suggest such a thing as all medical workers are a special breed of Adventists who never have to say "No."
Richard Rice was doing wishful thinking when he wrote his book, hoping that it would raise our collective consciences to our true attitudes, but for most new SDAs (2nd, 3rd, and 4th generations exempt) the beliefs are what convinces; and beliefs must come before behavior. Belonging, for most people, follows the first two.
Elaine,
Unfortunately, you are correct that the majority of people joining the Adventist church do so because they are convinced to believe the doctrines. However, belonging to the loving body of Christ draws people into a nurturing fellowship where they grow into far greater belief as a natural result of their relationships with other believers and God. That is the model God gave us for winning souls: friendship and demonstrating the power of God always preceeds teaching. Build their relationship with God first and the doctrines will follow much more easily.
That's the way my church operates. We used to hold public crusades, pass out literature, etc. All the traditional "evangelism" stuff. Our church has never grown faster than since we quit doing them (more than 50% in three years). God has blessed us with a loving community where people first become part of the family, then grow spiritually at amazing speeds. We don't have to go looking for people to ask if they want to study the Bible because they ask to join study groups and classes.
Elaine
says "Erv is also right: In a very few areas like LLU, there is very open discussions and an attitude that welcomes differences"
I doubt you have been around to many diverse churches and/or Sabbath schools in recent years. I really don't think this describes my church and Sabbath school, and I am thousands of miles from LLU. SDA people are more open than one would expect these days, even and especially many working at the headquarters. (Of course, this depends on how far out you want to go or if it is expressed in a critcal manner.)
Sometimes in reading the posts here, I get the idea many are remembering a generation or more in the past. Randy Roberts is good, but no more controversial or progressive than most other pastors in this area.
Perhaps BOTH cultural ties and belief ties—like shoelaces—bind us to the twin foundations of Adventism: Love for God and the Truth He represents, and love for His family (our neighbors in the Faith). Perhaps for illustration we can call the left foot the "Cultural Foot" and the right the "Truth Foot," and much as the majority of us were born with a preference for the right hand and foot, so by far the majority of converts traditionally break the threshold of Adventism with the right foot (Truth). But a significant minority crosses that threshold with the left—have no doubt about it.
I have presented a number of series of outreach presentations and revivals internationally and am told that results from those series have been above average, especially among the educated crowd. In those meetings, I present a history of Adventist beliefs, how they came to be believed, the Scriptural foundations, etc., but a co-equal emphasis is on the joy of following Jesus and the uplifting experience with those who share our joy in the Lord. I never present the church as stationary in its search for truth, or our fundamentals as unalterable—only that they’re the best we can do at this time, and we’re still searching! Those baptized express their faith in Jesus and belief in the mission of His fellowship—the Church.
I have yet to be accosted by anyone who confrontationally condemns this approach, once they’ve seen it in action, and those baptized seem very firm in their commitment to the Adventist Church. If we give new members only one leg to stand on as they cross our threshold, they will tend to be tentative in their walk—if they walk at all—and our churches will be populated with members of radical instability. Better to acknowledge the self-evident and accept that BOTH belief AND cultural are part of the divine equation for our Christian walk.
Edwin A Schwisow
It's sounds like you have a great approach, and it is too bad it's not used everywhere. It's honest, upfront, and nonthreatening. Have you shared this with the right people? What about writing a book on it?
Let me respond briefly on the issue of (homo)sexuality, simply because it has been raised and not really addressed. The discussion of believing and belonging is more on topic for Erv's point and I'll return to it in a moment.
So let me be as brief as I can: it's necessary to understand my beliefs as a coherent framework, not in isolation. I've said, in regard to the Bible, that it contains something of Eden and something of the Fall. It reveals God in his great goodness, and it reveals fallible, fallen man too.
My belief is that the texts used to establish the doctrine that homosexual acts are wrong (a) mostly apply to specific practices such as temple prostitution dedicated to other gods, and condemn them on that basis, and (b) represent human prejudices of the time rather than God's revealed will.
That belief certainly relates to the belief that homosexual people are born the way they are, and that belief is bolstered both by growing up with people who later came out and by the best research evidence available.
I have seen the terrible consequences for both husband and wife when a gay man is forced by church pressure to marry a woman to whom he is not attracted (no more than a straight man would be attracted if he was forced to marry a man).
So my stance on this is related to experience, evidence, research and justice: the presumption that homosexual behaviour is sinful, and then a range of different approaches to 'managing' that sin, is (to me) fatally flawed. Recognising, rather, that people have a particular sexual orientation and ought to simply be loved like every other person is a more humane approach. Loved, and given the opportunity to love: as I've said, it's my marriage and family that gives my life meaning, and to deny that to another person based on the way they were born and some ancient prejudices is abhorrent.
And yeah, that does not fit with certain interpretations of a few certain Bible verses. I'm afraid that my response to that is 'so much the worse for those inhumane interpretations'.
On believing and belonging, I haven't read Dr Rice's book, and probably should. I think those in this thread who have said that people are typically 'argued in' to Adventism are probably correct: 'The Truth' with a big T and being more doctrinally correct on a propositional basis are typically the reasons given by converts to Adventism. I think in a way that has self-selected for a certain personality type in at least first-generation Adventism.
I think many are now n-th generation Adventists, and perhaps more postmodern in view as well in relation to big-T Truth, so believing a particular set of propositions is no longer central to the experience of Adventism.
There are also sociological issues in play in belonging and church membership, and I think the fact that we have moved cities about every 5-7 years throughout our married life has meant that we have not established deep relational roots with a particular congregation and community. I don't deny that that, as much as some of the beliefs and cultural issues, may have contributed to my drift out of Adventism.
And it was a drift, not a sharp break. It's really only quite recently that I've begun to identify as 'ex-Adventist', and if it came down to propositional truth and lining up with the Bible I'd probably still pick Adventism over other Christian denominations.
Thing is, it doesn't.
An important experience for me as a young SDA Christian was going door-to-door as a "literature evangelist." I understood my role to be sharing the good news of salvation, and I had learned that listening was as important to communication as talking. So, rather than strictly following the script provided by my trainers, I used the opportunity as a means of getting to know people from traditions other than mine. I met many wonderfully honest and sincere people. I met some people who were interested only in arguing. I met people who were indifferent. I met atheists and agnostics. I met believers and doubters and skeptics. I met wealthy people and desperately poor people and some middle-class people. Converts from Christianity to Judaism, a former nun who had married and divorced a former priest, had coverted to LDS, and wanted to teach me about the Book of Mormon and recruit me to be her daughter's new Dad. A tragically tortured young man whose Pentacostal preacher father berated him because he would not, and could not honestly, speak in tongues. An Ellen White like holy woman who was a Pentacostal evangelist. A combination of Elmer Gantry and Elvis Pressley who preached for donations of canned goods and jewelry, and drove away in his new Caddy convertable. There were wonderful warm people, among them atheists and agnostics. To me, the warmth and joy of knowing and loving Jesus superceded doctrinal correctness as the meaning of Christianity. I experienced, I believe(d), the truth of Christianity, based mainly in the advice to treat others as one would wish to be treated. But it also became clear that The Golden Rule was the fundamental life principle of many non-SDA Christians and many non-Christians, as well. I think I became disappointed in the church in part because I expected more of SDAs than non-SDAs. I now realize that people are people, regardless of their religion, and that individual differences in experience and disposition probably account for more of the variability than does religious affiliation. But, anyway, being a "colporteur" was a terrifically valuable experience for me.
Other important experiences included teaching for a year in a one-room SDA school in Arizona, and becoming immersed in the small church with its members. They were mostly wonderful people who treated me well, and it was a growth experience for me. There was some destructive pettiness, but I was not harmed by it. Then I went in the army for a couple of years and was stationed in Europe, where I attended several different adventist churches, most of which seemed to be warmer and less petty than SDAs in the USA. It seemed that way to me. Maybe I had a biased sample…. I also met a lot of non-adventists, both
military and civilian. Lots of straight people, some gay people, some of each were warm and considerate, some were inclined to be exploitive, and some were deeply disturbed people.
Somewhere along the line my tendency to stereotype and overgeneralize about people waned. I found that I could be aware of group tendencies without making judgements about individuals on the basis of groups with which they were identified.
I have to admit that I am very put off by what I came to believe about the SDA church and many of the people in it–the belief that adventists are the most special and unique people/church on earth. Rearing children to associate only with members of their own group, and to regard everyone else as inferior, leads to a wierd kind of xenophobia, that very much resembles a tribal and cult-like perspective. Personally, I think it is deeply flawed and destructive. I'm pleased to have survived the experience.
Joe Irwin,
Why do the last two paragraphs seem to contradict each other?
Brother Onjukka – God Bless you too Brother. With my myopia and all which you have so kindly diagnosed I was able to faintly see the good in your exemplary comments you have made to me. Why, thanks again Sir!
♥T
A fundamental cultural claim of Adventism is that it must reach out, beyond itself, to the non-Adventist community; but a paradox raises its head, as an almost equal and opposite impulse calls on us to "be separate from the world, and to be a peculiar people." Generally we compromise by creating institutions that isolate us in compounds separate from, but adjacent to, those we claim to serve. Yet decades may go by without hospital personnel (for example) ever meeting non-Adventists living just a few yards away from the institution, on the same street. This creates all kinds of internal contradictions, particularly in the Adventist church's relationship with larger cities. Our current General President, Ted Wilson, is expressing his lifelong desire to reach America's cities with the gospel, by inaugurating a plan based on avenues suggested in the writings of Ellen G. White.
Certainly the Adventist presence in America's cities is already exceedingly low, and is said to be diminishing. One problem is perhaps the fact that "reaching the cities" is offset by a cultural taboo in Adventism against living in cities, plus the reality that adopting Adventism tends to raise one's standard of living, which in turn encourages buying acreage in the suburbs, from which "reaching the city" is done very simply and laboriously—by driving one's car up to two hours a day, round trip.
Pastor Wilson and the Advent flock have many cultural windmills with which to joust, if we are to turn around the aversion to the cities inherent in our Adventist culture. As in courtship, rarely do we "win over" anyone we don't really love. So it is with the multi-layered dismissal of cities inherent in our Adventist culture. We do not love the cities, we see them as feedlots for sinners, and ourselves as peculiar people perfectible only in the provinces. Something fundamental must change in that cultural equation if Adventism is to become a prominent spiritual player in the cities of North America.
Call it what you want, but history is on the side of Ellen White and her counsel not to live in the cities. We should have learned that by studying the experience of Lot. The corrupting influence found in the cities is reason enough to live elsewhere. But Enoch provides us with an example of how to evangelize the cities. He lived in the country, but entered the cities periodically for purposes of evangelism. I don't know how far he lived from the cities, but I bet it was more than a two hour walk. And I suspect he spent enough time there to preach the gospel, which would have meant staying there for several days or weeks. Those who feel called to evangelize today's cities can do the same.
I remember a story told of a battle for one Middle Eastern city—Beirut, if memory serves—in which the combatants would advance deeply during daylight, then retreat at night to their own lines, on the premise that it was too dangerous to hold the dearly won territory through the night. But each night the territory was reoccupied, and the battle would have to be fought again and again, over and over. Finally the invaders concluded that they would have to "occupy" the land they won, and though casualties increased for a few nights, finally the foe was vanquished and the territory secured. Gospel-guerilla incursions into the cities can accomplish some good, but to really win and hold territory, there needs to be a consistent, constant socially based presence.
I remember speaking to some missionaries in Alaska who told me it was absolutely, positively impossible to minister to the Alaska Natives through visits alone. The only approach that worked involved missionaries actually moving to the villages and living with the people. Dare I say this called for a less-than-vegetarian diet for the missionaries during the winter, and partaking of some fish and meat that fell well short of Levitical cleanliness standards. The question we discussed was whether the Lord could ultimately bless that which in execution fell in any way short of full compliance with the Health Message and called for close association with people who failed (by their own admission) to live resolute Christian lives and more often than not were chemically dependent.
The missionaries in Alaska concluded that they must, like Elijah by the brook in Samaria and David eating tabernacle showbread in extremis, accept less-than-ideal living and eating arrangements as part of the price of "winning" the northerners to the gospel. Certainly in all we do we want to take the High Road. But sometimes our lesser ideals may need to be sacrificed, at least temporarily, in the best interests of the higher calling to minister more assertively to people in need.
It is certainly a paradox that Adventists have always been taught to avoid the cities and avoid "outsiders." It is impossible to have an influence on people whom you seldom meet and never become better acquainted. After all, they may smoke, drink, eat meat, all of which precludes meeting in their homes, plus the instructions that our children should also be isolated by attending all SDA schools K-16 which limits becoming friends through our children–one of the best ways with mutual concerns about them.
Trying to make headway by a mass targeting of people with a book that is distorting history and upholds the "honest" Christians who fought against the "church of Babylon, i.e. Roman Catholicism,will be found by most Catholics as repulsive and the rest as a "throw-away" mailing. If 1out of 100 who receive the book will read it, is that the best use of tithe money?
I keep wondering which SDA Church you're talking about. Your description is at odds with the church I grew up in (I use the term "church" collectively to include the church at large). We were not taught to avoid outsiders, but we were taught not to "follow a multitude to do evil," not to take part in the frivolity of worldly minded people. We were not taught to avoid cities, only to avoid living in them. It was always understood that they needed to be evangelized. Whether you realize it or not, there is a rather large segment of the SDA Church for whom the idea of leaving the cities is not welcome.
And what is wrong with putting our kids in SDA schools? Have you checked out the local government schools recently? Our local small town high school is not much different from those in the cities. It has all the problems of teen pregnancy, drug abuse, bullying; not to mention the fact that atheistic evolution is taught as fact. And then there is the politically correct drivel that is promoted by the "progressive" school system. Why would anyone want to throw their kids to the wolves? I've seen what happens when SDA's send their kids to government schools. The vast majority leave the church. It's very hard to counteract 5 days of government brainwashing in a short weekend. That's one reason why we homeschooled our kids.
Horace, it would be good to recognize that there is no one SDA church; there are different geographical areas of this world where Adventism is both taught and experienced quite differently from other sections. There is also a difference in time when one first became acquainted with Adventism. Not realizing this often is surprising for those who know only their own Adventist upbringing, or what is in a certain area of the world.
Not taking part "in the frivolity of the world" is interpreted differently: in times past even considering going to a movie was the height of sin; drinking coffee or meat, ditto. The "best Adventists" who were able, chose to live out in the country, and never was it considered a good SDA would go to "worldly public schools." Even Graham Maxwell
was condemned for going to an "outside" school for his doctorate–although none were being offered in Adventism at that time. Still, the majority of advanced ministerial and doctoral degrees in theology are sought at Andrews and those ministerial graduates of other schools are somehow suspect because they did not attend Andrews, it's called "inbreeding" and protects students from being "confused" by non-SDA teachers.
Elaine,
Many of the LLU theologians must be on the "suspect" list. Many of those including the Dean of the LLU School of Religion received their Doctorates at non-SDA schools of theology.
Horace
As you mention, local small town schools have all the same problems as city schools. And, having lived for a considerable part of my life in small to medium sized towns, I would argue that there is no sin found in large cities that is not also found in small towns. In some cases, the percentage of citizens engaged in these sins is likely higher than in large cities. So, what advantage do we gain by living in small towns rather than in large cities?
Timo,
Upon your return from your prodigal walk did you reaffirm that SDA doctrine is truth? Do you affirm the 28 fundamental beliefs? From reading your posts I posit that your view of "truth" is a bit more flexible?
I am often intrigued by the SDA or few Mormon prodigals I have met over time. In both cases they claim that they once again became "convinced" that the teachings of their mother church was "truth." I have often heard an SDA tell me with passion the "KNOW" they have the truth. In the same way a Mormon tells me that they became convinced of Mormon truth when they felt the "burning" in their heart. I often wonder if they are experiecing gastric acid reflux to which a rolaids would end their conviction of truth.
Be it a Catholic, Muslim, SDA, Mormon etc this view that they "have the truth" is most amusing to me. I remain skeptical.
Timo, that would be an informative discussion of why, after 16 years, you returned to the SDA church, convinced that it has the "truth."
What was the "truth" that you formerly had overlooked or dismissed? Was it much more clearly revealed by such a passing of time? Did you leave when young and then in maturity "came to your senses" that, after all, Adventism was the one true religion?
Can you explain your actions?
My comments were directed toward Elaine's post just above mine.
This is an important issue that you bring up. I have often been puzzled by why we have Seventh-day Adventists who reject Seventh – day Adventism. What puzzles me more is that they call for the church to also reject Adventism. I'm curious as to Richard's Rice's explanation of this. Belonging is no doubt important to the Christian experience, but why would one choose to belong to an organization with core beliefs counter to your own? I'm not saying there should be no diversity in the church (I have a heterodox viewpoint or two of my own) , but it certainly seems like there's some points of Seventh-day Adventism that the individual would want to agree on if they are going to be a Seventh-day Adventist.
Timo Onjukka,
I'm not saying that identity is of utmost importance, simply that I don't understand why one would choose the Adventist identity if they are not indeed Adventists.
Perhaps because 'the Adventist identity' is defined in many ways by different people, of which doctrinal orthodoxy is only one way. Perhaps it is why our spiritual ancestors chose to insist on being 'Christian' while arguing that those around them who also claimed to be 'Christians' were in fact wrong in some of their beliefs and practices. Any church, unless it is sure it is completely right in all it teaches and does, is treading dangerous ground when it decides all who are not in agreement should leave. It is always difficult for any organisation to laud its radical founders who were willing to question every belief and practice, while trying to ensure its present members do not follow their example too closely.
Like I said Riley I think theological diversity in the church is acceptable and I would add that it's desirable. However, that doesn't mean anything goes. There comes a point when it simply does not make sense to be an Adventist. You say that Adventist identity is defined in different ways. This is true no doubt, but what other ways make sense? Some have argued that the identity is cultural. However, I'm with Clifford Goldstein that if you want culture there's a lot better places then the Seventh-day Adventist church. My father certainly would have not left the Roman Catholic Church with it's two thouand year old rich culture, for the Seventh-day Adventist culture.
For someone who is fifth or sixth generation SDA, adventism is their family culture. And you don't have to agree with all, or even most, of the doctrines to see there are good things about the SDA culture. I agree that it is not a case of 'anything goes', but if people are happy being SDAs without accepting some or even most of our doctrines, do they really do that much harm? I have found those who are pushing most for change (in the real world, not here) are people who disagree only on a couple of doctrines. They are often people who do want the church to be defined by doctrine, they just want to replace one or two we now have with others they find more believable. Most cultural SDAs I know are happy to leave arguing over doctrine to others. Why would they argue over things they believe to be unimportant? They are simply along to enjoy the company of family and friends who happen to be SDA.
Kevin I am a sixth generation Adventist on my mother's side so I can appreciate that to an extent. Still I think I would find richer cultures, but that's a subjective judgment. If children of Seventh-day Adventists are nurtured by communing with the church, I have no problem with it. I may not fully understand it, but they should go wherever they can be most blessed. What I don't understand is the Adventists who seem intent on changing core doctrines that make us Seventh-day Adventists.
I agree. But it seems we don't all agree on what the core doctrines are. I find Ellen White's list of 'pillar doctrines' acceptable – Sabbath, sanctuary, nature of man, second coming, etc. Others seem to want to include creation in 6 literal days 6000 literal years ago, human nature of Christ, vegetarianism, veganism, avoidance of medical help, etc, etc. The problem with Christians of any sort is always that of deciding what is indeed 'central' or 'core'.
I would dare ask "Why be an Adventist"? What about Adventism makes us one whit better than anyone else, even non-Christians? If we are unable to demonstrate it, it matters not one whit what doctrines we proclaim they are chaff blowing in the wind.
"What you do rings so loud in my ear I can't hear what you say."
The SDA Church does not teach, and has never taught that being a SDA (I don't like the term "Adventism") makes one any better than anyone else. A wise preacher I know once said something to the effect that any good Christian preacher can lead one to Christ and salvation–if they die before the time of trouble; but the SDA message was designed to prepare a people to survive the time of trouble; to avoid the deceptions that are so strong that if it were possible they would deceive even the elect; and to be ready for translation. That's a rather compelling reason to be a Seventh-day Adventist; that and the fact that all of our doctrines are based on solid Biblical evidence.
The fact that some folks who claim to be SDA's behave like unbelievers is not the fault either of the church or its doctrines. The truth is still the truth.
Elaine, indeed for you I see no reason why you should be an Adventist. If, on the other hand, one believes the message and believes it is important, there is plenty of reason. Just like there's no reason for me to be a Catholic, but for those who believe in Catholic dogma, there's plenty of reason.
So not until that purported "time of trouble" will other Christians not be lost? Only after that fateful event (will it occur simultaneously around the entire world?) will those who don't accept the SDA doctrines, including all the Muslims, Hindus, Confucians, Daoists and others, be forever lost? IOW, being Adventist is a wonderful insurance policy?
That could prove to be mass conversions.
I hate to be the one to break it to you Elaine, but it is not our place to identify who will be saved and who will not.
Adventists believe only God is qualified, that is worthy, to make that particular call.
No need for me to try to explain this. It is spelled out pretty clearly in Great Controversy. Everyone will have the chance to make an intelligent choice. No mass conversions. By the time probation closes, everyone will have made their choice. By the time they realize they've been duped by the false doctrines of Babylon it will be too late. They had their opportunity to learn the truth but they rejected it. I realize that Elaine doesn't accept the GC, so nothing any of us may say is likely to change her view of this subject.
Stephen, no need to "break it" to me. Better tell Horace that, since he infers that only Adventists will be those who withstand the "time of trouble" which entitles them to salvation. If you are contending this is not what Adventists have taught from the beginning, then you are, effectively, discarding EGW's G.C. theme, aren't you? What are you suggesting? That this is not SDA teaching?
Timo Onjukka,
I never claimed one has to be a Seventh-day Adventist in order to be saved. That is mostly a strawman argument used by the progressives in the church, I really haven't heard that many people who take this position anymore. If we should not divide the believers, as you seem to suggest, then the whole idea of denominations is bad. That's a fine viewpoint, but I don't know why one would persue it through a denomination, especially the Seventh-day Adventist one.
How appropiate. There is a song from way back in the day called 'break it to them gently' – about a renegade who was running from the law as a fugitive but yet 'wishes he was home'. ex-Adventists have always been most welcome to come back home…
We used to have a BOMB squad some years back (some still do) which stood for BRING OUR MEMBERS BACK. With much prayer, love, long suffering and tireless effort this team together with the support of the local Church used work towards maintaining contact and friendship with ex-members/backsliders and those who had drifted away. Many did/do come back. Yeah 'break it to them gently' would surely fit in well…
♥T
I read the commenstsfrom those who once were SDA and now no longer consider themselves to be such with what I consider to be some understanding. I once went through a period of time when I asked myself: Am I a Seventh-day Adventist? I recognized the culture into which I had immersed myself. I understood that if I were to decide that I was no longer a Seventh-day Adventist I would likely remain a part of that culture. I had been born, bred and married into it. It was a fundamental part of my life that had brought me much satisfaction. I knew that if I were to throw all of that out the window, so to speak, it would bring me great pain. Yet, I knew that I still had to answer the fundamental question: Am I truthfully a Seventh-day Adventist?
In my search for an asnwer, I decided that I first had to answer a secondary question: What is a Seventh-day Adventist? It was a time when divergent voices were establishing boundaries. Those who came within their walls were declared to be SDA, while those outside those stated lines were declared to be outside the SDA Church. Those strident voices claimed the authority and often the mission to establish the boundaries within which others must live.
In my search to decide whether of not I was a Seventh-day Adventist I considered that a small sub-set of official statements of SDA doctrine, as opposed to the strident voices around me that claimed to articulate with specificity what composed Seventh-day Adventist believe. I focused on the 13 Baptisimal Covenents which are the common standard for entry into the SDA Church as opposed to the so-called 28 which are not intended to draw denominational boundaries. I understood that it is local congregations that decide on entry into the denomination rather than either elected officials or self-appointed heralds of their own agenda.
My conclusion was: If I am to decide whether or not I am a Seventh-day Adventist, I must decide for myself what constitutes the core of Seventh-day Adventistm. Once I had decided that itssue, it was up to me to decide whether or not I was SDA and to what exent I would remain associated with that culture.
As I looked at what some people claimed was the SDA Church, I concluded I could not continue to call myself a Seventh-day Adventist, if I considered their claim to be true. But, I concluded that it was their claim that was false. I came to accept a construct of the Seventh-day Advenntist Church that I could accept in its core fundamentals. Yet, it allowed for me to remain within a group that included people who held to a construct of Adventism that I rejected. I came to the place where I realized that I could no more judge them personally than I would want to be judged by them.
Comming out of this intensive struggle to find meaning and purpose, I fellowship today largely with congregational groups that seek to reach a diverse body of believers. Some are more liberal, so to speak, than am I while others are more conservative. But, I look for people who "get along."
I consider my relstionship with the SDA Church to be such that people would have to work very hard to drive me out. But, I recognize that it is possible that they could do so.
This is my personal journey that I have decided to share as a result of reading what others have said about theirs. It is a journey that belongs to me and I would not intend to describe it as that path that anyone else should follow. But, it is one that has led me to where I am today.
Gregory,
We each must be honest with ourselves and find the spiritual fellowship where we can grow in God's love. My wish is that you could find that fellowship in an Adventist church where the members are true believers from having actually been changed by the Gospel instead of just talking about it.
I know also some ex Adventist left the church no for doctrine or what was say or not say in the pulpit, they left because they were treated unkindly by their brother, or they uncomfortable in a church were nobody was interested personally in them, and also the one who were more attracted by the “lights and sins of this world” . To all of the goes my prays: hold in Christ do not give up, nothing is better that the love of GOD.
Once it is realized that loving God and seeking to live by the PRINCIPLES given us by Christ, there will be no reason that one Christian church is superior to another. The only difference is in having certain very different doctrines found in such denominations that make them the essential reason for that church's being.
If one decides that those very unique doctrines are what makes one church so superior to others, then that is the basis for how such a choice for membership is made. The one overriding factor for most church members today: it was the church that their parents belonged to and it was part of the "glue" that held them with their family and community. Probably the largest number of Adventists today are in that group. For those who are new converts, they likely joined because they were convinced of the doctrines taught by Adventists. For young people born in, schooled in, and raised in an all-SDA community, there needn't be another reason–that's the only sense of community they know and why leave the compound?
Elaine,
What you say is logical except for one glaring reality: modern Christianity has generally become so powerless that there is little reason for people of any age to remain in any church. That is why all denominations are having difficulty retaining more than a fraction of their youth. We take note of our youth leaving because they represent the future of our church. Plus, it is easier to claim they have made a bad decision rather than their natural and logical response to anti-spiritual conditions created by the older generations.
It is interesting that recent studies show that Christianity is growing on both edges, but not in the centre. It seems the conservative growth of a few decades ago was primarily from 'refugees' who didn't like where teh larger culture was going. That no longer applies. It seems that people are now looking for commitment to a cause – and, unfortunately, almost any cause will do. What attracts is not what you say, but how confidently you both say and do what you say. I see our youth attracted to both ultra-conservative and liberal churches while the majority of 'balanced' churches lose members of all ages. What they have in common is that they call for commitment to a cause and to action. The centre may have the cause and the commitment (and I would argue also a more reliable 'truth), but we seem to be missing both passion and action. I believe the success of both extremes in Adventism owes far more to the failure of the centre than to the correctness of the views of either extreme. The truth may be essential, but it has never been sufficient on its own to gain results. Somewhere along the way the truth has to be translated into life, and also communicated in a way that explains that life. If we (the church) have not done that, the failure to attract and hold people is mostly ours, not theirs. The truth is always the truth, but the responsibilty to both live it and communicate it is ours. I do not see any indication in Scripture that God will observe our failure and say "never mind, at least you had the truth". Unless I mis-remember Scripture, his question is "where are the ones I sent you?"
The churches experiencing the largest growth are the Pentecostals and the members are often immigrants here in this nation, or in others, the native populations. This does not apply to either western Europe or perhaps, Australia. Someone in Australia can give us the information.
William, as you point out it is not just Adventists, but fewer people report they are active church goers, especially the younger ones. It is a phenomena of the times and no amount of preaching or enticement provided will lure them back to regular church attendance.
Elaine,
Whatever Horace is talking about (and I suspect that he is talking about those who are alive at the very end of time) I seriously doubt that he would disagree with my assertion that it is not for us to judge whether someone will be saved or not.
If this is not a universal Adventist belief, then I don’t know what is. You have a curious penchant for assuming the worst when it comes to Adventism. Of course, this doesn’t deter you from worshipping and associating mostly with Adventists; because you seem to be on a mission (?).
Those who become Adventists because they are “convinced of the doctrines taught by Adventists,” and those Adventists who stay because they are likewise convinced, represent the backbone of the church; it would seem to me.
Should your first sentence in an above posting (regarding loving God and living Jesus’ “PRINCIPLES”) say “is all that matters” or “is the most important thing”? Doesn’t loving God mean, or include, trusting God?
Again, I hate to be the one to break it to you (not really), but Jesus gave us more to live by than “PRINCIPLES.” He gave us a reason to trust—and, by faith—obey.
I agree Brother Foster. None of us have the right to judge who will or will not be saved. I was speaking of those alive after the close of probabtion. There will be only 2 groups: the people of God, and His enemies. From Revelation 22, it is clear that those who are righteous will remain so, and those who are wicked will do likewise.
Why the concern over "the close of probation"? That time is very nebulous and for most of us it will be when we take our last breath. Injecting some future time when suddenly, the majority of the world will be lost who do not observe sabbath is a hellish and most discouraging doctrine. How many Adventists today are firmly convinced that it is of such importance in their lives? How does it change one's day-to-day living? What should be done that is not already done? How should on live to be ready for the close of probation anymore than being ready for we know not when our last breath will be? Walk out the door, get killed by a speeding car–probation ends.
Elaine,
Here's a thought. You may determine that the doctrine believed by Adventists concerning "close of probation" as being very "nebulus." But bear in mind that the concept of probation closing upon folks before the end of time it written throughout the Bible. (The fulfillment of this principle in the Old Testament is a major gripe of yours as you try to seperate Old Testament religion from the New Testament.)
It possible for probation to close on an individual due to the fact that they've gone to the point in their lives by which there is no return… the dreaded unpardonable sin. The close of probation at the end of time is simply this principle worked out as the result of every human being living having decided for or against Christ for their salvation by faith or unbelief. Revelation 22:11 Be careful… scoffing is not a profitable venture by any means.
Laffal, if by refusing to fear the concept of probation closing is scoffing, then that's my position. The idea that God at any time might decide that someone has committed the unpardonable sin and has lost out on eternal life is foreign to my idea of God. A god that says, "Sorry, too late you've done it" is not one I worship or admire. God is forgiveness, period, no strings attached. If that's the god you worship, sell it to someone else.
Elaine,
Would you continue to embrace someone who constantly rejects / rebuffs your entries of love? Would there not be a point by which you would conclude that there is just no more use in trying? Or is your concept of love, especially as it relates to your idea of God, unconditional / unquenceable / undeniable?
You have presented a concept of God that can be found thru all world religions, along with eternal life, as opposed to Jesus being the only way. Just for the sake of this point, in which one of these religions that you have studied (embraced), is God not judge at some point in time in terms of eternity? Or will everybody be there?
The concept of probation closing and the unpardonable sin, whether it relates to an individual or the world, is not based on God's choosing, it's based on mankind's choosing. All God is doing is giving them up to their choices… He knows if one if / has gone to the point by which love / forgiveness will be a waste of time because there will bring about the desired effect… love / gratitude / appreciation / worship in return. It never has been / never will be "sorry, too late you've done it" now, but rather it's about, "it's too bad that they've gone to the point that I can't help them now / ever more.
As it has been said in this post before, God alone is judge and will be the one to determine who's saved / lost. As I said before, scoffing is never a good idea, whether you agree with the concept being scoffed at or not. I never said you had to agree with it, just be wise enough to keep an open mind about it. None of us know everything… only God does.
All religions do not present God as judge. The very idea that if one doesn't accept Jesus leaves out all the millions of Jews, Muslims (he is deemed a prophet), and the far larger number who may not have a religion.
Yes, universalism is an open door eliminating few, if any. It is such air-tight beliefs as Jesus the only way that has made more atheists and agnostics than any other reason. The more rules for heaven is a design to keep most of the riff-raff out and those who are certain they have kept all those rules can call themselves the remnant. Remember: Millions are born into Christianity; atheists have studied their way out. Agnostics admit that they do not know.
And truthfully, no one knows about the other side of death; either hope, or be surprised.
Elaine,
It's not the "riff-raft" that will be kept out of heaven… it's sin that will not be found there. If that were not the case, then heaven would not be paradise, it would just like it is here. That would make heaven / paradise a pointless endeavor / destination.
Jesus knows the other side of death, and He's promised / given eternal life to all would believe in / follow Him. I don't need to be surprised, I've got hope.
Timo,
As I read each new posting from you I am again impressed with what insight God has given you. I appreciate your descriptive skill and your willingness to directly address the contrasts with what God has taught you through your spiritual experience. We need more like you who proclaim the truth of Jesus instead of the claims made about Him to preserve misconceptions and false teachings.
Kevin,
An excerpt from an earlier column ("Adventist Extremes") speaks to your point:
"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."
As in American politics, the polarization within the church causes those who desire leadership positions to cater to extremes on either side, exacerbating the problem and making moderation a dirty word.
I am not sure about the US, but I think you will find outside the US, at least in western countries, the moderates have traditionally formed the largest block in the church. If you look at the article in the last AToday issue, what I am defining as the centre are the Conservative and Evangelical Adventists. Theologically they occupy much the same part of the spectrum, but differ on their undertanding of a couple of central doctrines. Are you saying that liberal and fundamentalist (or traditional) SDAs are the majority in the US? Or are you perhaps designating Conservative SDAs as 'right wing'. I see them as occupying the space either side of the centre, as do Evangelical SDAs. I questioned your statement before, and I have to confess I remain unconvinced.
Kevin,
My perspective is that, the traditionalists are the vast majority, the liberals are a vocal, well-educated and wealthy minority, and the conservatives (the moderates of this group) a quiet and relatively un-influential set.
The traditionalists, in America, are blacks and older whites — the controlling majority (for now, at least) in North America. Traditionalism is one of the few traits they hold in common (in contrast to their differing political views, for example), but it is enough to constitute a coalition that defines the direction of the denomination. The views of the liberals serve to galvanize the traditionalists to hold the fort. The concerns of conservatives are, for the most part, over-ridden by the fight on the "main card" between the traditionalists and the liberals. After defending creation and the authority of the Bible, there is little energy and trust left in the room for conservative issues (i.e., the application of sola scriptura vis a vis the role of EGW, the Ford interpretation of the IJ).
Leadership has (necessarily) been defined by its ability to protect the doctrines from attacks from within — particularly from liberals. Success in that assignment, by definition, leaves those conservative issues wanting.
Timo, Ella, Elaine, DrF, Erv, Greg, et al., thank you all for interesting perspectives. I always enjoy hearing from people I really know from my time as an adventist. Greg was my room mate at PUC those many long years ago, and he was–and clearly still is–a very serious and considerate person. It is wonderful to see such a clear and thoughtful and honest exposition of life history and thought.
Ella, first, I should answer your question. You asked about why there seemed to be a contradiction between the last two paragraphs of my note. I hope this was only a superficial contradiction, but I should clarify that I came to recognize the importance of not stereotyping people because of their membership in a group or overgeneralizing impressions of some members of the group to the entire group. Well, just because I try to follow this practice does not mean that I always succeed : ) ; I often don't and try to catch myself and qualify what I have said. But I thought I had done that when I mentioned my impression that "many" SDAs seemed to have a characteristic, rather than generalizing to all. So, anyway, I apologize for not being clearer about that. There clearly is a tendency, however, for adventists to protect their young from interacting with and being exposed to ideas and information that do not conform with adventist dogma/teachings.
And what is wrong with SDAs having their own schools or home schooling their children? As one who was homeschooled mostly through elementary school (in an officially SDA home school) and educated exclusively within the adventist educational system until I went into the army and turned 21 years of age, I think I am entitled to an opinion on this topic–not that anyone said I wasn't, so don't be offended. To the extent that one is taught to think critically, evaluate evidence, etc., I'm not concerned about where one learns that. BUT to claim that the government is "brainwashing" students in public schools because science is taught in accordance with curriculum, standards, and content developed through AAAS, NSF, National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Teachers Association, etc., only confirms how deeply engrained is the attitude (among some in the church–though certainly not unique to adventists) that children must be protected from worldly ideas and information. Not fully informing students and teaching them critical thinking does them no service. And, ultimately, for those who sincerely seek truth and evaluate evidence, that "protection" leaves a very bad taste in one's mouth. In the name of truth, we have been protected from truth, to the point that we either can't handle the truth, or we are bitter against those who shielded us.
You who are in the church need not take advice from me, a non-member, but it seems to me that the best course is to teach children to seek truth and learn to think critically and evaluate evidence. Then they would not be so vulnerable to misinformation or "brainwashing."
I agree that many public schools are deeply flawed. There are such difficult problems of discipline, etc., that it is a wonder anyone has a chance to teach or learn anything. On the other hand, some schools and some teachers are really outstanding, and sometimes the range of available coursework is much greater than can be offered in SDA academies. I was fortunate in academy to have an excellent science and math teacher, who taught all the science and math courses–but, sadly for me, when I went to PUC to be a math-physics major, I found that I was at least a year behind where I should have been in math, just because the coursework had not been offered (I had taken and excelled in all that was available). But, oh well, I like the way my life progressed anyway, but, at least when I was in school, the SDA system was not so great.
I think many children would benefit from at least SOME homeschooling regardless of school availability and quality, and it might not hurt the parents either.
As I just replied to Ella, in response to her first excellent comment several days ago, I am puzzled at how so many highly intelligent people seem to think they have escaped the bonds of authoritarianism by casting off religion – particularly the SDA faith – as if their caricature of that faith was adequate or unique to Adventism.
Does anyone seriously contend that children are less "brainwashed" in public education than they are in religious education? I fail to understand how anyone with a passing knowledge of history, or an acquaintance with the gods of contemporary culture, can believe that the secular intelligentsia have a corner on critical thinking and truth seeking. Have we forgotten how the intellectuals of the Twentieth Century were in thrall to communism and fascism? What country produced the greatest minds of the early Twentieth Century? Was it not progressive intellectuals, like the still revered Margaret Sanger, that paved the way for eugenics?
There is little in history to feed the notion that great intellect freed from religious authority produces happier, more prosperous, or more productive humans. There is abundant, accumulating evidence that great intellect, detached from its Judeo-Christian roots, squanders and perverts the treasures passed on by religious culture; and then despises those treasures as it discovers, and then angrily tries to hide the truth, that the values which make them possible cannot be produced without religion, and cannot be surgically excised from Judeo-Christian faith.
Non-religious politics, culture, and education are infused with no less guilt-inducing dogma than religion. Like the gods of ancient paganism, they are absolute in their intolerance for the God who exposes the folly and fultility of their mocking, crumbling towers of Babel.
My oh my, Nathan! You have a wonderful way with words. Your assertions are not very convincing to me.
Your characterization of what history teaches is quite selective, and to me, it does not seem valid. Much of what you write seems to simply be intellectualized rationalization that does not suggest that you are open minded. For you, it seems, believing something is true is enough, and your impressive intellect is used to rationalize what you already accept by reference to authority. You seem utterly bound up in authoritarian dogma. I hope I am wrong about that. I hope you really are an honest and sincere seeker of truth and understanding, and just aren't letting on, so no one will know otherwise.
Yes, it certainly seems to me that children in religious schools get more than their fair share of indoctrination, whether it rises to the level of "brainwashing," or not. I do not wish to idealize public schools, but it is not their GOAL to indoctrinate students. It seems to me that you are mischaracterizing education, especially science education, as some great conspiracy against God and His ways. When you do that, you erect a scaffold for paranoid patterns of thinking, rather than critical evaluation of evidence, and you aren't doing anyone any favors by substituting ignorance for genuine truth seeking. Assertions such as "Non-religious politics, culture, and education are infused with no less guilt-inducing dogma than religion," are just unbelievable. At the same time, I appreciate that there are people who idealize the secular and are also authoritarian and intolerant in their approaches to politics and education. What I advocate for both secular and religious politics and education as an evidence-based approach. Learn how to obtain objective evidence and how to evaluate it. Then follow where it leads.
But, I should add, when I say "follow where it leads" that I do not mean that there is a point where one takes the body of evidence that one has and then suspends seeking or considering new evidence. The premature application of available evidence to practice has consequences–sometimes, very destructive consequences. I agree that political solutions based on "social Darwinism," along with human eugenics initiatives, were very destructive, and it is surprizing how much the principles of this kind of thinking persists. Surely you know, Nathan, that "eugenics" is anathema to modern "liberals" and "progressives." Not so much, however, to the most extreme people on the "right wing" who oppose education and health care and immigration and social welfare for the poorest among us.
We probably should keep in mind that the eugenics movement began (Francis Galton, 1883) with a "positive" selection notion intended to encourage the "fittest" to have lots of children, rather than "negative" selection by prevention of reproduction of the "unfit" (or even eliminating the unfit by killing them). There were, of course, intellectuals who opposed even the earliest applications of eugenics to humans (e.g., William Bateson and Thomas Hunt Morgan). Applications of eugenics to agriculture were very successful, and the consequences have often been quite positive and valuable–and even negative impacts have not had the unthinkable consequences of human eugenics programs (e.g., those in Nazi Germany). In thinking about Margaret Sanger, it seems to me that one must consider the times in which she lived, and really carefully examine what she advocated for and what she advocated against. I do not worship her or Darwin or Ronald Fisher, or any of those people. They were just people. They were correct about some things, wrong about somethings, and in between on a lot of things. Many problems came from people mindlessly or prematurely applying philosophical concepts to real world problems without adequate empirical evidence or appreciation of the potential consequences. It is not uncommon for people to get some things right and some things wrong. I think we need to work hard to try to base policies and actions on reliable and objective evidence.
My burden, Joe, was not to idealize religious belief or authoritarian dogmas, but to argue that the pathologies of religious belief are the pathologies of human nature, which infuse non-religious, as well as religious thinking. Humans are by nature true believers, moralists, and authoritarians. We all arrive at conclusions through critical methodologies built on a priori assumptions, and we too often try and propagate those conclusions through fallacious reasoning and groupthink bullying tactics. You illustrated this phenomenon by identifying "extreme people on the 'right wing' who oppose education and health care and immigration and social welfare for the poorest among us" with eugenics. It would be at least as reasonable for me to suggest that extremists on the "left wing" who want to kill human fetuses and indoctrinate my children to accept GLBT lifestyles as moral norms, are thereby promoting eugenics. Such ad hominem politicization of the arguments on either side of an issue demonstrates how authoritarian, herd thinking tends to serve as a proxy for critical thinking and responsible argument no matter the level of one's intelligence.
You fail to see and acknowledge what you do not experience and what you have no empathy for. If you were objective, I think it would be overwhelmingly apparent to you that Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck provide the same type of shaming, guilt-inducing targets for academic and media bien pensants that Elvis and the Beatles provided for Adventists in the 60's. Add on environmental agendas, GLTB rights, redistrubution of wealth, etc., etc., and you've almost got your own religion that you can worship while smugly claiming to have risen above religious sentiments. And if you don't think these agendas are part of public education indoctrination…well, what can I say? Public education has always sought to shape culture by imparting values and attitudes of the education establishment to the next generation. Who can deny that deconstructionist methodologies and postmodern assumptions have planted their flags in public education, politics, entertyainment, and the media during the past half century? The shift from the viewpoint that religious education was an essential part of a good education to the viewpoint that religious education has no place in the public school curriculum, is only one of many dogmas that permeate public education.
I wholeheartedly endorse the value of knowledge and evidence-based critical thinking skills. But they are no insurance against the ubiquitous corruptibility that insidiously seeps into every human endeavor and system to inhibit and discourage self-criticism. The lure of wealth and power exerts a gravitational pull on every human being, no matter their intelligence or education. The unintended consequences of our most noble undertakings (c.f., The Great Society and atomic energy) can be far-reaching and terrible. Should that not make us reluctant to bray that human intelligence has arrived at any sort of pinnacle, or that it is even on an upward moral path that warrants the jettisoning of traditional values and religion?
Yes, Nathan, I agree with you that we should be "reluctant to bray" regarding supposed advances in human intelligence and morality. It was not my intention to "bray." But, let me assert that everyone deserves fairness and due consideration, regardless of any group membership or orientation. I support due consideration for Rush and Glenn and for people who choose to listen to them and those like them (and for the rest of us). I support evidence-based policies regarding environmental issues (for those who have read National Academy of Science reviews, but do not trust them, read Maple & Gingerich A Contract with the Earth Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 2007). If one wishes for his/her own religion to be taught in the public schools, where does that leave all those of other religions who want their version of religion taught as the truth? You seem to want us to accept that science is really nothing more than another religion, but that is simply nonsense. Even so, I am aware that for some people, those who choose to let someone else do their thinking, rather than thinking critically themselves, are content to embrace "science" in the same way as some others unthinkingly embrace religion. I think there are people involved with public education (as well as all private educational systems) who have policy agendas, but there is a committed effort to evidence-based curriculum standards in public schools. I realize that this presents a challenge to those who are not fully committed to endorsement of the value of knowledge and evidence-based critical thinking skills if the evidence does not lead to what they believe is true.
So, do you not take seriously that stewardship of the earth and environment is a human duty?
Do you not believe that all people should be treated fairly?
Do you not believe that those who have more should generously share with those in need?
WWJD?
Hi Joe!
Thanks so much for posting. I appreciate your ability to discuss issues and to disagree without setting off limbic system reflexes. I confess, I was constructing a response with a fair number of scatological references. I'm glad it didn't get sent. I'm glad for your response to the comments made. Cheers.
Hi Dr. Dave L.! It is always good to hear from you. I hope all is well with you up there in the great northwest.
I had noticed a little while ago a comment on this thread that was attributed to "doctorF." It seems not to have actually gotten posted, or maybe it was withdrawn. I was anxious to see it.
Joe,
It was freezing over the weekend, now the jet stream has shifted and we're getting a "Pineapple Express"- warm heavy rain off the Pacific from the direction of Hawaii. I love the temperate rain forest climate and it's flora. Bryophyta and Pteridophyta are among my favorites.
I saw that Doctor F posted earlier today. It was a response/ reply to Elaine up above. I only noticed recently this happens. For a long time I'd see someone posted but not be able to find their comment.
Have a righteous Thanksgiving. dl 🙂
An amazing list of opinions here, but too much to absorb without study. I have mixed feelings about my former life as an SDA…some good…some dreadful. The 19th Century was unique for having spawned so many 'remnant churches'….SDA, LDS, JW, etc. To which one does the Lord belong?
BTW, I understand some bloggers may have been offended by my use of BOLD letters in former posts. I typed thus simply because I'm visually challenged by old age, and catatracts. My former postings have been intended to encourage original thought…something very few religions support. I accept the banning of BOLD, but my speelingg wiiil shuerly supher.
A couple of suggestions to help visual challenges.
Use <ctrl> + to make the font size larger. This works in most browsers. (I think it is apple + on the Mac)
Use a text editor or word processor that you find easy to type up your post. Then cut and past the post into your web browser.
We are all God's children. The challenge to to come together dispite our vast differences.
I'm impressed by the many interesting comments expressed so far on this thread. There are a couple of them to which I'd like to respond after Thanksgiving. Just one for now: Mr. Wagner comments: "The 19th Century was unique for having spawned so many 'remnant churches' . . . SDA, LSD, JW, etc. To which one does the Lord belong?" I would suggest that the possible answers to that question are (1) just one of them (2) none of them since there is no such thing as a 'remnant' institutional church, and (3) all of them. My own personal favorate answer is (2) since I would submit that the whole idea of an institutionalized, visible 'remnant' church is one of those 19th century myths (in this case, an erronous myth) that our church fathers and mothers came up with to help them feel that they are a part of a special church..
The concept of American Exceptionalism dovetails perfectly with the philosophy of a remnant denomination—and I think they definitely spring from the same psychological real estate. As a fourth-generation Adventist child, I initially accepted the twin views that America was the greatest nation the world has ever known, and that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is the sine qua non of all religions for all time.
In fact, I felt guilty for having had the good fortune of being born into these twin valhallas, and as a second-grader, I quizzed my Mom on the highly unlikely mathematical probability that of the billions on earth, I should happen to have been born BOTH a U.S. citizen AND an SDA. I think we figured it was kind of a one-in-a-million proposition, and I felt even WORSE because of my unmerited grace in attaining these twin birthrights.
Today I recognize the exceptional nature of both the American nation and the Adventist Church, and expect neither to be perfect—but I honor both and live within their twin cultures comfortably, but perhaps more dispassionately than I did as a kid.
Irv,
I agree with your choice of #2, but think your judgement of why our early members had the idea is just that–a judgement that isn't warrented. It wasn't an institution at the beginning but only a movement and will be again–a more inclusive discription. A question: If people don't believe they are right, why would they be part of such a movement? Don't you think you are right about your opinions?
I am an American. Even so, I do not always agree with national policies or directions. I am not seriously tempted to move elsewhere permanently, except when I think of the cost of healthcare here. I guess the USA is stuck with me and I with it. But I have been in plenty of other countries, and there have been some interesting strengths in all of them. I did not expect to like China as much as I did when I visited there a couple of summers ago. I'm pretty glad I did not accept an invitation to go to Novosibirsk for graduate school in the late 1960s. I am glad that I've been able to experience life in many other places and see it through the eyes of my friends who live there. Yes, every country has its strengths and flaws. It is quite clear that the US does not always come out first in direct objective comparisons. We should be grown up enough to recognize where we fall short.
What about churches? Hmmm…. The fragmentation and competition and antipathy among Christian sects seems directly contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ as expounded in the New Testament. Which one is right? It seems highly improbable that one got it right and everyone else got it wrong. Even a little kid can recognize that something is wrong with this concept. I could generously say that perhaps an ecumenical Christian perspective could be valid–and yet, that is also hard to believe. If I were going to actually be a Christian, though, that is probably what I would choose to believe. But many other non-Christian religions also have fractionated, and it is quite common that remote little tribal populations of humans exhibit similarly fractionated social structures. So maybe that is just "human nature." That is a conclusion that appeals to me. So, like other cults and tribes, SDAs can think they are special and chosen. Is there anything wrong with that if it is just an expression of human nature, even if it is not valid?
" Is there anything wrong with that if it is just an expression of human nature, even if it is not valid?"
Maybe there isn't, but I still find this as the most difficult part of the church's belief system. It sounds quite arrogant, and it fits well with the Laodician Church in Revelation. I can understand the church as part of a "movement" led by God, but not as an institution. Maybe it is the way it is expressed by most members; but it seems uncalled for considering all the extraordinarily loving deeds and lives of so many outside this "fold." Nor can I understand the portrayal of God as one who is so unfair as to destroy those who have not had the opportunity to know what He is like.
As an outsider (non-SDA, but former SDA), it seems like adventist "exceptionalism" and uniqueness really comes back to the old investigative judgement notion, with many of its implications about perfectionism, sinfulness, salvation, versus the "rightiousness by faith" concept. I'm way out of my league and territory here, because I have had very little contact with adventists for more than 40 years, but, by more than 50 years ago, as a young man, I had clearly come down on the side of good-news-of-salvation, righteousness-by-faith, Christianity. All that time ago, I had the impression that fine-grain details about what happened in 1844 with regard to the sanctuary, etc., were really just rationalizations over the excessive time-setting in prophetic interpretation–especially since it so clear from scripture that no one was to know when the 2nd advent would occur (the point was, you gotta be ready all the time, because you'll never now when the master will return). So why was so much effort put into predicting what was to be a surprise? And, looking back more than 150 years from now, why the continuing defensive position regarding the 1844 farce? The "human nature" part is, I think, finding some way to be different from, and believe one's self and one's group to be different from and better than other people–to be specially blessed and to be chosen.
So, anyway, it doesn't matter to me, because I don't believe any of it. I suppose someone might have predicted that I might eventually be outside the church when I presented my satirical essay at PUC (in Paul Stauffer's course in advanced composition) in which I wrote the story of Charley Brown and the Great Pumpkin as a satire on the Great Disappointment. I imagined then that Charles Schulz might have intended exactly that.
So, I understand that after much more hand-wringing and desperate rationalization, the church officially chose to go with the "investigative judgement" hypothesis, which, among other things, resulted in many people being thrown out of or voluntarily leaving the church. Ella, I think you are correct in finding this aspect of the SDA belief system very troubling. It has the appearance of being contrived, trivial, irrelevant, and entirely unnecessary to "the good news of salvation."
Joe: Do you still have a copy of your "Great Pumpkin/Great Disappointment essay? If so, could an editor at Adventist Today take a look at it for possible publication in print or on line?.
In my earlier comments, I was addressing "American Exceptionalism" as a cultural philosophy of the American people and the emergence of Adventism within that culture as a religious echo, in kind. Among other things, this was a time in which productivity was highly prized and promoted; when America was seen as a most productive of nations, the people driven to achieve the American dream in a remarkably energetic way. Out of this environment Adventism was born, and "traditional Adventism" holds on to these attributes quite tightly, even today, while also acknowledging (more and more) that the softer and gentler gospel must go out before Jesus comes in the clouds.
Nineteenth centruy America was also highly perfectionistic. Not just in religion, but there was also a belief that social perfection was possible. We have had a tendency to hold on tightly to that also.
Would love to read the essay on Charley Brown satirizing the Great Disappointment. It is truly a laughable "doctrine" deserving of good satire. You described it perfectly: "trivial, irrelevant, and entirely unnecesssary then and even more today.
It seems clear to me that many leave the Seventh-day Adventist Church for a variety of non-specific reasons rather than only the popular stuff like embracing government court ordered thought engineered faith based non-empirical evolution ‘theory’ schooling (and so forth). Yet not all are bent on vehemently trying to ‘diss’ their FORMER Church. Some claim to have found ‘light’ (or ‘truth’) with regards to an ostensible higher level of Christianity (or self-diagnosed maturity) which unfortunately won’t be accessible to the majority on our planet, many of whom live in abject poverty. This ‘enlightenment’ is therefore limited as it moves the goalposts further away for many seeking salvation and an understanding of the in Gospel of Jesus Christ based on simple teachings found in scripture, as opposed to ‘hip’ university doctorates (or papers) in order to ascertain true Biblical/non-Biblical Christian/non-Christian belief.
This leaves us with the ’86 punch line which Huey Lewis (secular preacher?) got famous for: 1] “Hip to be Square” which represent one group (Traditional Adventists in my opinion) and 2] the “TOO Hip to be Square” cultural ex-Traditional SDA’s and the traditional cultural ex-SDA’s (in my opinion of course). Other variants of ex-SDA’s can slot themselves in somewhere too – sincere apologies if I left you out. So, based on certain schools of thought and/or ‘paper chase’ criteria, which ‘some’ ‘chosen’ participants will ‘see the light’ and therefore ‘emerge’ from the cocoon of Traditional Adventism to either become 1] cultural progressives or ex-Traditional SDA’s – OR 2] those who abandon their faith altogether in varying degrees, the ex-Adventists, if you please (pardon the rhyme/rap ♫♪).
So, in order for one to procure and hence secure such a privileged state of discernment and enlightenment as eloquently articulated by honourable subscribers of this school of thought and belief, one has to reject the ‘hip to be square’ mindset of Traditional Adventism in order to live up to the ‘TOO hip to be square’ Christianity/non-Christianity that is so dear to them. I understand, after all, it does cost an ‘arm and a leg’ to acquire such privileged enlightenment, although discriminately by default this mindset would exclude those who just can’t ‘afford’ to be ‘hip’. Yet somehow, this ‘TOO hip’ worldview would most definitely then put a high price tag on words like John 3:16, which only the enlightened ones on our planet are exclusively privy to. To think that this would further pose that even God the Holy Spirit can’t enlighten us as much as secular knowledge and (arrogant?) intellectualism so ably offers. Not So?
♥T
Nice (?) category system, Trevor. But what it basically does is allow you to look down on anyone who is not you or like you.
Not sure that's what Jesus was about. In fact, pretty sure it's the opposite.
Strange, isn't it, the under-current of not very thinly disguised hostility expressed by some here toward those of us who moved beyond the boundaries of our natal sect, studied in SDA or non-SDA universities, and (in some cases) got those "hip doctorates." Perhaps it is a matter of perspective, but I have found many of my colleagues with those doctorates not to be at all elitist. Most who have become close friends are quite the opposite, in fact. They are quite down-to-earth, quite humble, not elitist nor dogmatic, and are exceptionally open-minded. On the other hand, I have also known some pompous rumps whose pomposity was bolstered by some really "hip" ivy league (or other) doctorates, as if obtaining a degree or diploma somehow conveyed on them special insights into the nature of the universe, rather than merely demonstrating that at some point in their lives they had completed some scholarly work at a level that satisfied their academic advisors at the time. Assertions that graduate study means nothing are usually made by people who did not do it or did not succeed at it. Assertions that degrees mean more than they do, are mostly made by people who finished the degree, but did not find ways of succeeding in academia or otherwise applying what they learned as they studied. Anyway, it is quite clear that Trevor does intend to insult those of us with the "hip doctorates," for whatever reason. It is too easy to point out that this is an example of "tearing down others," a common psychological "defense mechanism." There is something constructive to take from this, and that is the recognition that those of us with the "hip doctorates" should strive to ensure that allegations of elitism are not accurate.
Some might wish to suggest that Mr. Hammond has a case of "thesis envy." However, this suggestion is really too base to be posted as a serious suggestion on the AT web site. So I will not do it.
Many have laid claim that the road to Christian ‘maturity’ can only be truly reached by ‘paper chases’ at tertiary places where they reach some perceived enlightenment which grants them the ability to ‘discern’ spiritual matters based on secular principles and models. Spiritual discernment among these ‘superior’ ones is well advanced so much so that even the Holy Spirit’s working in the lives of the ‘inferior’ one’s (like those from the third world) is just not enough to enable such to reach this level of great enlightenment and maturity of their first world counterparts. How preposterous! My post above, therefore, was not to try and debunk the importance of academic achievement at places of higher learning nor to belittle it – but just to show the extent of such arrogance by some who have made it out to be like this. I only posit that some partisans will let this education thing go to their head and therefore embolden them to attack Traditional Adventist belief based solely on a secular school of thought: not just to genuinely question and find answers but rather to stockpile ammunition for attacking fundamental teachings and baptize their presumptuous sinning and worldliness. Whether it is done to just be popular or to use Adventism as a soft target to practice on, in order to enhance their egos and earn them brownie points, I wouldn’t know. Who am I to judge?
♥T
Wait a minute! I was (too) an ex-Adventist for a number of years who left the Church and Jesus Christ – who fortunately never left me, (nor does he leave anyone else for that matter). But… my walking away from God was a result of me getting messed up in sin rather than supposing some great source of tertiary enlightenment gave me license to reject our core doctrines as a Church and use it as marching orders to leave. Even though I left the SDA Church for a number of years and was also a baptized member at that time, I never once thought of reasons to 'diss' or attack the SDA Church, its doctrine's, wonderful people and Loving Saviour. I knew I was wrong and what I was doing was wrong but satan’s grip on me was strong and I was powerless to resist his wily attacks.
Thus this represents another group of ex-Adventists who don't use intellectual arrogance to excuse themselves from Adventism by furnishing/brandishing 'strange new theories' and beliefs largely based on secular views and premise and use them to 'attack' the fundamental teachings of the SDA Church. Yes, this group that I speak of here, of which I was a card carrying t-shirt wearing member, sinful, rebellious, ungodly, wayward and consumed in worldly living, smoking, drinking, dope, etc., were all part of this experience just the same; but I didn't use 'paper chase' excuses to legitimize my wrong doing and rebellion, nor did I 'diss' the SDA Church. Yeah, I would admit I was a disgrace to Christianity and disobedient to God's word – BUT I knew I was wrong and was unable to get myself out of the miry clay – until Jesus lifted me up and turned my wayward life around through the study of His word, prayer, conviction and the encouragement from the books of Ellen White and other inspirational writers. Again the fundamental difference in such experience is that some use their intellectual arrogant prowess to defend and excuse their wrong doing and/or their unbelief/disbelief.
This isn't something I take lightly, as many never come back: not just to the SDA Church (which I very well know cannot save us), but even never come back to Christ. I have experienced the loss of many Church friends (and family) and other Christian friends who died while living in sin. That is my primary concern with ex-Adventists who have left Jesus Christ and will never again surrender their lives to Him just because ‘they know better’. I thought I did too. Although they never made it back yet still they didn't attack the Church like some of those self righteous individuals so often do. Crafty arguments and convenient pacifier logic are used by so many today who question and deride the fundamental doctrines of the SDA Church. Those who leave as I did are better off I would say as they are either 'hot or cold' rather than the in-between self-righteous conceited intellectually arrogant lukewarm-ers, who from the sidelines heckle their glorious overtures in open defiance to God and His remnant church. I’m not ashamed to say that I’ve been there, done that – and got the fed the pigs T-Shirt too!
ex-ex-Adventist ♥T
Trevor, be happy that your choices have been to your benefit. But you cannot know why others make different choices; nor that your choice to leave the church is the same as others who have left. It is not defiance of God to reject the "remnant" church as there is no such church–it is the church of all who have accepted Christ, and is not the SDA church. When the idea is fostered that those who disagree with many church doctrines are in open definace of God and His remnant church it is those who dare make this judgment who are sitting in God's seat of judgment that is His alone. FYI: we are not feeding pigs! Let God be God.
The primary difference I have found in interviewing highly educated, vs. more conventionally educated Adventists is what I would call the degree of synthesis and prioritization that comes with higher learning. It tends to encourage systematic simplification of the observable into theories, postulates, theorems, and eventually "laws" as in the case of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity.
Christians who do well in higher academia have a tendency to employ these same skills in reviewing their beliefs. Unfortunately, we have today what I would call "classroom warfare" between the educational haves and the have-nots, with a deep canyon of mutual distrust down the middle. It would seem that a major contribution the General Conference office could make toward the unity of the church would be to facilitate through church publications, seminars, video programs, and the like, opportunities for these two groups to sit down and share. I do not believe the gully is impossibly deep, and building bridges of understanding between the 1 percent (supremely educated) and the other 99 percent (the rest) should not be particularly difficult, nor does it need to entail Occupy Church Street confrontations.
Past General President Jan Paulsen to his credit initiated this kind of dialogue regarding science and faith, and I commend his initiatives and do hope something like them continues under current administration.
I think I agree with Trevor about something. It seems to me that scripture teaches that the "good news of salvation" is available and accessible to everyone. Being more or less educated or more or less intelligent should not make any difference with regard to the accessibility of salvation through faith.
I very much disagree with Trevor, and some other commenters, about what they see as a government and science and secular education conspiracy to brainwash children and misinform everyone else, apparently, about the age of the earth, evidence of evolution, human origins, etc. Belief in conspiracy theories is one aspect of paranoid delusional thinking, and it seems to me that when rational, sane people, such as yourselves, resort to embracing conspiracy theories in preference to open-minded examination of evidence, you are putting your mental health at risk.
Trevor, our experiences were very different. I was not defiant of the church or God, seeking a hedonistic life of drunken doped up promiscuity, as you seem to portray your rebelious phase. My journey away from the church mainly resulted from a series of life experiences that were at odds with the indoctrination I was subjected to in SDA schools and a multigenerational SDA family. I found that I could not honestly continue to hold the beliefs I had formerly embraced genuinely and wholeheartedly. Considering evidence critically, but with an open mind, resulted in my rejection of such concepts as young earth human origins. My studies of nonhuman and human primates were never motivated by a wish to become an elite authority or to challenge religion. My scholarly activities have been aimed at solving practical problems and contributing to knowledge and understanding. I think you do not understand–or probably want to understand–what scientists do or why they do what they do.
Dialogue between scientific and faith communities seems like it could be productive, and I would welcome participating in such. It is not my intention to disrespect people of faith. I have no interest in turning the SDA church upside down or persuading people to reject or leave it. I do think honest people would find value in being more open minded than people were encouraged to be while I was in the church.
I should not be commenting so much here, because I am not an adventist and do not anticipate that I will ever be again. Thanks to those of you who have made me feel welcome, whether or not we agreed on anything.
What I am trying to figure is how it is possible for me to agree with both Joe Erwin and Trevor Hammond so often, while they are simultaneously so clearly in contradiction with each other.
While I was born into the SDA church/culture/community/belief system, I did not embrace it until my mid-20’s; perhaps not having done so earlier for some of the reasons that both Joe and Trevor (initially) left.
For me "intervention" came/comes through intercessory prayer. Love had/has everything to do with it.
I agree with Stephen that it's all about love. "God is love" pretty much sums up the good news orientation and the message attributed to Jesus. How this gets translated into a tradition of judgemental gossip and endless legalistic angst, I don't quite get.
But please permit me to change the subject a little. I enrolled at PUC in 1958. There I was immersed in a new general education curriculum devised by faculty that included Paul Stauffer, Graham Maxwell, Walter Utt, Kathleen McMurphy, and a number of others. This was the same curriculum that Erv was exposed to. It emphasized learning to think critically and develop and express one's views clearly. According to Paul Stauffer, this curriculum was devised specifically in response to thoughts expressed by Ellen White about what constituted true education. By the early 1960s, many (maybe MOST) of the faculty members involved in developing the curriculum were forced out or left of their own accord–partly as a result of complaints by some parents and board members that PUC was failing to appropriately indoctrinate its students, and partly over allegations of inappropriate behavior of some sort by some of these faculty members. It is not my intention to open old wounds, but perhaps some here would be willing to describe what happened and why and what connection this had with the effort to develop a curriculum that would equip adventist young people to be able to think independently. Remember the courses? Communication Skills, Biblical Philosophy, Western Arts, Foundations of Natural Science, and others….
Interesting history, Joe. Assuming that you and Erv are ideal representatives of the outcomes of critical thinking skills you attribute to your PUC mentors, and assuming that had been the norm for Adventist higher education, what do you think Adventist higher education would look like today, and who would support it? Without in any way discounting the flaws and weaknesses in my quite traditional Adventist education, it was adequate to get me admitted to a top law school. More importantly, it preserved an abiding faith in the transcendent personal God revealed in scripture, incarnate in Christ, who both confounds and enlightens my understandings. It also instilled in me a conviction that my church as it is, with all its flaws and weaknesses – not simply as I wish it to be – is worthy of my affection, gratitude, and loyalty.
Those who seem to value Adventist higher education primarily as a halfway house, for what they assume have been spiritually abused and intellectually stunted SDA youth, are in essence sounding the death knell for a system of education that has been built on a foundation of self-sacrificing financial commitments by the true believers that snarky progressives condescendingly taunt.
BTW, Joe, your comments are not snarky, nor do you "bray." While I disagree with your conclusions, I find you to most always be respectful and thoughtful toward those with whom you disagree. You challenge me to be honest in looking at Christianity and my church, though I'm sure you would like to see me doing a better job of rising to the challenge. I do think your perceptions of religion in general – Adventism in particular – are somewhat frozen in a past era, and fail to adequately appreciate the unique, positive qualities of Christian religion that cannot survive in secular, materialistic soil.
Thanks for your note, Nathan. I doubt that either Erv or I would claim to be ideal representatives of the PUC curriculum experiment. I certainly would not claim that–even though I think the concept was excellent, and it was clearly and consciously based on the advice of EGW in the first chapter of her landmark book, Education.
"Every human being, created in the image of God, is endowed with a power akin to that of the creator–individuality, power to think…. It is the work of true education to develop this power, to train the youth to be thinkers, and not mere reflectors of other men's thoughts."
I'm sure we read somewhat different meanings into these words. While I do not see EGW as conveying a message direct from God, as you might (or might not), I think her vision of value for education in critical thinking is unmistakable.
If careful scholarship and objective consideration of evidence has a consequence of people abandoning the church, doesn't it seem like that might be based, at least in part, on some flaws in the church and even its message? But, some people, like Erv, did not leave the church, attempting, instead, I think, to follow through on the vision EGW had for "true education."
Excellence in education is not indoctrination. If an educational system is based on a goal of indroctrination, it probably should die of its own irrelevance. SDA children, like all children, deserve a chance to learn how to think critically and objectively, and if the church cannot survive exposure to knowledge, it is not worth saving. I think the church COULD survive exposure to the full spectrum of information. What it cannot do is insist that its members cling to incredible concepts. As long as that continues, most honest people will exit the church. Had the PUC curriculum continued, I suspect that the church would be the better for it.
But, I think you have a point when you say that my perceptions are somewhat frozen in a past era. I certainly have the impression that much of fundamentalist Christian religion is frozen in the past and is clinging desperately to ignorance of current and emerging evidence. To the extent that is not true, please accept my sincere apologies for offending. I am confident that people can maintain vital personal faith and exemplary Christianity without denying the validity of scientific processes, secular information, or objective reality.
Sorry if all this sounds "snarky," "condescending," or obnoxiously "progressive." I don't even know what "snarky" means (I remember going "snark hunting" as a kid–does that have anything to do with it?). I am all too often pedantic and condescending. I used to claim to be "progressive" and "constructive," but somewhere along the line "progressive" was revived from a long time ago and was equated with "liberal," which had come to mean "permissive." As you can tell, I think, I'm not too fond of labels and stereotyping and overgeneralization. I still like to be "constructive" and "positive" rather than negative and destructive, though do not always succeed.
Obviously, Joe, I wholeheartedly endorse the importance of critical thinking and objectivity. But I don't think most Adventists abandon their faith as a result of careful scholarship and objective consideration of the evidence. They abandon their faith because they either never fell in love with the object of their faith, or the relationship just required too much effort. Yes, Erv is in the Church, but not of the Church. And, but for cynical lip service to a few proof-texts from the Red Books, I am quite confident that neither he nor you would remotely subscribe to Ellen White's philosophy of education.
Adventists in the NAD are as a whole quite well educated. The critical thinking skills of Adventist educated youth are excellent. They are consistently way ahead of their public school peers in knowledge and critical thinking skills. The decision to expose college young people to the canon of Western Civilization, as representative of the highest achievements of human creativity and intellect, is to indoctrinate them, just as surely as teaching that Western Civilization is a despicable anglocentric metanarrative of bigotry, sexism, and oppression, constitutes indoctrination. The most dangerous impediment to free, critical thought is the delusion that one's moral prejudices, sanctified by a priestly cult of "experts," constitute an objective perch from which to critically and objectively survey the landscape of human affairs and authoritatively pontificate about how we should live.
It seems to me, Joe, that you fail to acknowledge some pretty persuasive evidence that JudeoChristian faith and experience was an integral part of the foundation for the enlightenment, and for the secular intellectual utopia that you believe is sustainable without the ingredients of faith. It is my conviction that intellectual life, devoid of faith in God, is too meager fare to nourish the human spirit or satisfy the soul. I fear that a "house" swept clean of Christian trappings will soon be filled with pagan religions and belief systems far more flawed and dangerous than Christianity.
I am very supportive of, and have always valued, the emphasis on education by SDAs, based largely on the urging of Ellen White. I think there is much to admire in her writings regarding education. Admiration of some of what she wrote should not imply that I would claim to "subscribe" to, or agree with, everything she ever wrote on the topic. But she certainly came down on the side of learning critical thinking skills, and that is a plus. It might, to the extent that such skills are taught and learned in SDA schools, account for some of the exodus from the church that occurs. One of the important thinking skills is looking for internal consistency. When that is found lacking, trust erodes. Another is consistency with external evidence. When one discovers the body of evidence regarding issues NOT taught, or simply avoided and rediculed, that is at least annoying, and to those who are critical thinkers, it suggests that the curriculum was deliberately designed to avoid fully informing students in SDA institutions of existing evidence.
I am a little amused by the following statement:
"The most dangerous impediment to free, critical thought is the delusion that one's moral prejudices, sanctified by a priestly cult of "experts," constitute an objective perch from which to critically and objectively survey the landscape of human affairs and authoritatively pontificate about how we should live."
I think that may well be true! Although I think you are trying to characterize scientists as a "priestly cult," or something of that sort–rather than applying your statement to religious bigotry, where it obviously is a better fit.
You are a smart guy. But your views of science and "intellectual life" are incredibly distorted and narrow. I'm not asking or urging you to change, but your notion that "secular intellectual utopia" (whatever that means) is "meager fare" is just simply laughable. There is no end of interesting challenges open to scientific study, new species to discover, new ecosystems to describe, endless complexity at every level of functional molecular and population biology. "Meager fare?" In what limited universe do you live?
And who (but you) said anything about eliminating Christian trappings or JudeoChristian contributions to history and cultural development? You are erecting "straw men" that no one else has even brought up. This is undisciplined and exceptionally grandiose argumentive discourse that has no prospect of leading to any rational conclusion. The kind of unfocused verbal grandiosity that you exhibit here is not a good sign, and that is about the kindest and most direct way I can put it. So, we have conspiracy theories, verbal grandiosity, unsubstantiated assertions, and more.
I am always intrigued when Nate exercises what appear to be his almost superhuman powers of psychological analysis to intuit the core motivations of others. For example, he says that “most Adventists . . . abandon their faith because they either never fell in love with the object of their faith, or the relationship just required too much effort.” Hmm. I don’t have a clue what he means by “never fell in love with the object of their faith” so I will let that pass. He says that Adventists abandon their faith because “the relationship just required too much effort.” Too much effort? Might I ask “too much effort” to do (or believe?) what? But his most interesting comments are that I am “in the [Adventist] Church, but not of the [Adventist] Church” and that I give “cynical lip service to a few proof-texts from the Red Books.” Again, I must marvel at his ability to get inside the head of someone else and expose their most basic motivations. I hope that Nate would tell the rest of us his secret of how he does that.
Erv, that mind-reading that Nate does is quite a neat trick, I must agree, but in my case, at least,
the attributions are not very accurate, and they are usually laced with some bizarre nonsense
about science. Even so, he may have stumbled upon an interesting point.
If one's faith is fully and firmly anchored in God, one has no reason to fear that science will
take that away. Science has no methods for proving or disproving the existence of God.
That is not what science is for. Science is a method for learning about objective material
reality.
When one anchors one's faith in scientifically falsifiable statements about reality,
that is a recipe for disappointment and disillusionment. Not surprisingly, some of those
statements about the tangible world and universe turn out not to align with reality. If the focus
of faith has been on one's understanding of statements attributed to God, but not on God,
science will often trump faith. The alternative that is often taken is denial of science as
a method or as a body of evidence or withdrawal into ignorance or convoluted rationalizations.
So, if you really believe in God, please feel free to do that. Just do not confuse faith in God
with worship of religious writings–all of which have some historical context baggage. When
one begins to worship the writings as litterally true in every detail–as sources of ultimate Truth,
despite context and source, the stage is set for unnecessary confrontation and conflict with
science and reason.
So, perhaps Nathan is correct in saying that some who leave the church do so because they
never "fell in love" sufficiently with God–in the sense that God was not really the focus of
their faith. In my opinion, many leave because their focus, or the faith focus of many people
around them, is on statements that turn out to be incredible and invalid. Or, if a religion
provides a list of principles that includes statements that have already been falsified by
science, as is the case with the SDA church, that members are expected to support, why
would one stay? One can believe in God and one can be a Christian, without being an adventist.
And one can also be an honest, productive, and happy person without being an adventist.
Well Erv and Joe, you guys are right that I have perhaps tried a bit too much mind-reading. But let's see -who first tried the neat mind reading trick by suggesting that careful scholarship and objective consideration of evidence are the reasons people leave the church? And who is it that has written blog after blog "explaining" how fundamentalist beliefs are the product of psychopathologies? Hmm… Erv once again demonstrates a glaring blind spot for his double standards.
Joe, my problem with the secular mind set is not its belief in science. I completely agree with you that God does not ask us to believe things that are scientifically falsifiable. Though as a non-scientist, I think resonable, brilliant people often disagree about what is scientifically falsifiable. I do not subscribe to the view that scientific evidence is consistent with literalistic interpretations of the creation story. My problem with the secular mind set has nothing to do with its faith in science, and everything to do with scientific imperialism – the totalistic mindset that refuses to acknowledge the epistemological limitations of the cult of experts from which academic and political power emanates.
As for why people leave the Church, my opinions are based on experience and observation. Many Adventists did leave the church 40 years ago because they and the Church had misplaced faith in the Ellen White cult. But more recently, I think most people – especially the youth – leave the SDA Church because they don't think it makes a positive difference. Some of it – like the Sabbath and abstinence – is lifestyle limiting. They can be good, moral people, treat others kindly, and find success without the wierd, cumbersome trappings of religiosity. Like psychotherapy, the church is probably a good thing for many, but they just don't need it right now.
The church has become much more secularized and, at its institutional centers, has taken on more of a therapeutic, moralistic, deistic quality that is disinclined to set boundaries or demand passion. So who needs it? I can easily be a member in good standing without believing much of anything or adopting an "Adventist" lifestyle. So why should it matter whether I agree with all or none of 28 irrelevant belief statements? I seriously doubt that many people who profess a close relationship with a living Christ leave the SDA Church at all, and if they do, it is not because of an intellectual journey.
But Nate, the experience I described of leaving the church due to careful consideration of evidence contrary to the stated dogma of the church was MY OWN experience. I only had to read my own mind! There's a difference between introspection and attribution of thoughts and motives to others. What I was guilty of was generalizing my own experience to others. I cannot be certain that my own experience was similar to that of others–except that a few other ex-adventists have told me that they left when they found the contrast between objective evidence and SDA dogma was too great to live with. But I have also known people who stayed in the church even though they could no longer believe because their social and family ties to the church were too strong. None of us wants to give a beloved grandma a stroke over leaving the church or break up an otherwise good marriage over such an issue. For me it was an issue of honesty and integrity–but I also did not have unbreakable family ties to the church.
Nathan, I cannot help but wonder what motivates your continuing "faith in science," "scientific imperialism," and "cult of experts" comments. There must be something more than meets the eye. Have you had bad experiences with the scientific establishment, or something? Or is it more general?
No, I love science. I greatly admire scientists and all that their work has achieved for humanity. And if the reality to which terms like "scientific imperialism" and "cult of experts" point is not intuitively apparent to you, then probably explaining it will do no good.
We often indulge the fantasy that there must be some psychosocial explanation below the surface for the firmly held beliefs and convictions of those with whom we differ. It is a trope that merely enables us to maintain a posture of superiority and condescending tolerance.
I have no problem with scientists or experts in general, as long as they stick to their respective disciplines and acknowledge that theories shared by highly intelligent experts do not constitute Truth. While I happen to think that many of their theories are highly probable, I wish they would frankly acknowledge the limited dimensions their methodologies access. It is politicized scientists like Steven Chu, James Hansen, John Holdren, Stephen Schneider, and the Climategate coconspirators some of whom endorse things like post normal science, and are not reined in or called out by other scientists, that make me have little respect for the scientific establishment.
But I also have little respect for the legal establishment of which I am a part. Neither more laws and regulations, nor the discoveries and insights of science can provide much help when it comes to understanding who we are as humans, the nature of ultimate reality, or our purpose in the cosmos.
So, you love science and hate the scientific establishment. Sorry, I can't read your mind about what you mean by "scientific imperialism" or "cult of experts." I guess this is your way of posturing with regard to firmly held beliefs contrary to the conclusions reached by the climate change scientists you mentioned, or someone.
For an example of the approach some scientists have made in trying to evaluate climate change, and its possible causes and consequences, just google: "Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report." This is apparently the kind of group you regard as a "cult of experts" who are "conspirators." [again, with the conspiracy theories] It is interesting that you also have little respect for your own establishment. Should others?
I'm not taking this too personally, I hope, but, as a primatologist, I feel pretty strongly that scientific studies of humans and other primates provide a great deal of help in understanding who we are as humans and why we exist. As to the nature of ultimate reality or purpose of the cosmos, maybe not so much….
Did I say I "hate the scientific establishment? I suspect I feel about it much the way you feel about established religion. You know many wonderful Christians, but don't have much use for the self-promoting organizations to which they belong. Most "establishments" should be viewed with cynicism and caution, whether they are educational, medical, legal,scientific, religious or political.
I am disappointed that you unfairly accused me of the fallacy of composition. I did not say that all who believe in catastrophic AGW were part of a conspiracy. In fact I specifically limited it to Climategate. To imply otherwise seems unworthy of you. Believing in AGW and believing in doomsday AlGorian hyperventilations are two different things. I read the Synthesis report long ago, before it''s main editor, Pachauri was discredited by facts and conflicts of interest; before the fraudulent creation and withholding of data from peer review by contributors like Phil Jones, Michael Mann, and Ken Briffa was exposed in Climategate emails. The Synthesis is a political document intended to influence policy. If you like well-footnoted secondary sources, I would suggest you read The Hockey Stick Illusion or Ian Plimer's Heaven and Earth for a different perspective than you may have gotten from the herd. They will certainly suggest some questions you probably haven't thought about asking. And after all, isn't that what critical thinking and objective analysis of the evidence is all about? BTW, what research have you looked at by climatologists, physicists, and mathematicians that is critical of the "scientific consensus?" Surely your opinions have been formed by critical examination of both sides – of all claims and objective supporting data…
Not sure what your primatology bona fides have to do with this discussion. I respect your mental acuity and opinions without knowing anything of your special training and qualifications. And, meaning no disrespect, I certainly don't believe that your expertise adds any more weight to the opinions and observations you have offered than my legal training adds to mine.
The confusion of Christianity and love of God as synonymous with Adventist is, to tell the truth, rather nauseating. It is heard and read so often that it seems many truly believe that it is impossible to be Christian and not accept and adopt Adventism. Or, even worse, that all morals derive from Christianity and without that belief, it is impossible to live a moral and productive and happy life.
Keep thinking that way. Adventism has done its work in gathering converts on that basis that they alone are the way to heaven and all who reject the "sure word of prophecy (EGW) will eventually accept the Mark of the Beast and be cast into the fire.
Now, who will dare to say that this is not what Adventism has taught and still teaches?
Elaine,
Unfortunately, your observation has a considerable foundation in reality.
Fortunately, the frustration with that viewpoint is driving a growing number of people in the church back to the Bible and the Bible only (as EGW directed us on many occasions). From that study they are discovering a new and refreshing perspective on doctrines without the overbearing baggage many have attached to their concept of the "truth."
Elaine, rather than asking others to disprove your undocumented assertions of what "Adventism' believes, why don't you cite specifically some authoritative source within the Adventist Church that says "all morals derive from Christianity and without that belief it is impossible to live a moral and productive and happy life." Who and what is Adventism? I think it is a demon of your fantasy. Why can't you be happy as a non-Adventist even if it's the greatest, best thing since sliced bread? Why do you need to despise it in order to justify who you are in relation to the Church? Doesn't that seem a bit sick to you?
I have never in my life as an Adventist heard or felt anyone say that Adventists alone are the way to Heaven, and all who reject EGW will be cast into the fire. I have often seen folks like you create that simplistic caricature in order to validate their seething resentment of thew Church. But the chapter and verse proof that this is in fact an official or majoritarian view is never produced. So now is your opportunity. Show us the beef, Elaine!
And while your at it, tell me what institution designed to promote and preserve morality do you know of that has not claimed to have special insight into the best ways to find a happy, productive and meaningful life? You may not say it. But you make most who disagree with you feel like you know the way, and if there is a Hell, Adventist loyalists will be the first to arrive.
Nathan, I did not say that these assertions were made official by Adventists. What is often commonly believed may, or may not be substaniated by official accounts.
M
any in all Christianity believe that one cannot be moral without Christianity, or at least a religious reason. Morals supercede religion and have been taught long before there was a single Christian. A moral person is not defined by his religious membership but how he relates to other people. While that may be based on a religious belief it is not necessarily a belief based on religion.
Respect for one's neighbor is based on the Golden Rule which is found in dozens of cultures, most of which are not Christian. Can one be immoral and live by that principle? It should be remembered that many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were not Christians, yet they believed in good morals, didn't they? Nor, did they declare the U.S. to be a Christian nation. Several were Deists.
For an institution designed to promote and preserve morality, I recommend the Humanist Manifesto as a detailed statment of beliefs. There is no need to introduce Hell, as if there is one, it seems that those Christians who believe in it may fear it and wish to avoid it at all costs. Can Adventist survive without a barbecue at the end? Or, do they not believe in the literal last-day events?
It appears that within Adventism it's not at all unusual for even the most devout to experience periods in which they simply "cannot believe" anymore. This happens across the range of literal/non-literal biblical mindsets. Science often seeks to simplify things by defining a person or element as "set" in a pattern. In fact, in Christianity, very few are those so inflexible and so set in their ways that they do not occasionally cry out, "Lord, help my unbelief." The decision to either stay or stray during those "testing times" will correlate closely with their comfort level and empathy with fellow church members. These observations come from a life of close study of how things generally work out in the many churches I have attended and observed.
Edwin,
During those dark times the decision of whether or not to stay in the church while the spiritual issues are resolved may depend far more on the social aspects of the church than anything doctrinal. If it were not for my wife pushing me to attend church during one of those periods I am certain that I would not be in the church today. Her role was made more significant because the social condition of the church was very negative and non-nurturing. There was no room to appear weak and the only solution offered to resolve spiritual weakness was more study to confirm doctrinal views that were based more on opinion and tradition than scripture. What amazes me looking back is how many others felt the same way and how God led us to step out and form a new congregation where we enjoy the supportive and nurturing culture that we lacked before.
I believe there are many who are attending, or involved in some way with Adventism, who may be going through, or have recently experienced, crises of faith and/or relationship. The corollary is that in some cases, others in the congregation, perceiving a spiritual weakness, set forth to "out" or "disenfranchise" that individual as a "pollutant" in the body of faith. We fail to recognize that we ALL go through crises and times of serious questioning. The BEST place (in theory) for a person with doubts to be is nestled in close and friendly with supportive brothers and sisters. Especially when belief falters, the Adventist culture is there as a safety net—and there are those who must make use of that safety net frequently. Let's make sure we keep it in repair and the level of support tuned to the human needs of those who use it.
RE: Elaine Nelson's comment: “Now, who will dare to say that this is not what Adventism has taught and still teaches?”
————–
I would like to “dare” say that THIS IS NOT what Adventism has taught and still teaches! Such unfounded allegations, yet again, hurled by (some) ex-Adventist cynics at Adventism, speak for it-self. One isn’t alarmed by the same old lame excuses and trumped-up charges of vented rhetoric which can only be but a futile attempt to denigrate our very relevant and well established Church by those who wish to score some brownie points for their feathered fan club. I think this happens when unbelievers develop a brutal animosity as a result of strange beliefs been entertained in the unconverted heart. The SDA Church didn’t choose its destiny out of convenience or in order to propagate exclusivity but (humbly) as a result of God’s leading and His all powerful providence. A one-stop-Church-shop if you please, or perhaps a Church for all seasons? An INclusive Church for the remnant who heed God’s call to COME OUT of Babylon, who keep the commandments of God and have the spirit of prophecy (Rev12:17, Rev 19:10).
Mr. Noel states: "without the overbearing baggage"
——–
Can he give an example or two perhaps of this baggage he refers to?
Trevor,
I do not know how long or extensive your connection to Adventism has been, but I have been involved with the SDA church since earliest childhood, some 85 years ago. This has been in many states, many churches, and while each individual's experience with the church may be different, to judge your own experience as the ONE is to ignore the reality that is found in various churches.
Every evangelist is there for only one purpose: to gain converts to Adventism. In this endeavor and mission, he must emphasize the "remnant" church and identify it with those "who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus," meaning Adventism and no other church. Are you contending that this is not what the evangelist does? If his mission is not to garner new members, what exactly is his goal? Or, is his goal like Billy Graham's: to lead people to Christ?
Mrs. Nelson, Billy Graham preached the gospel as he saw fit to. You seem to preach your gospel as you see fit to. Shouldn't SDA's be allowed to do the same? Preach it as they would like to!
Congratulations on your long association with SDA's Ma'am. It is with regret that one such as yourself would choose to leave Adventism in order to practice your own religion. Did this leaving of Adventism occur whilst you were at that Jesuit College perhaps? (If you don't mind my asking)
♥T
RE Mr. Erwin's comment: "There I was immersed in a new general education curriculum devised by faculty that included Paul Stauffer, Graham Maxwell, Walter Utt, Kathleen McMurphy, and a number of others. This was the same curriculum that Erv was exposed to."
———
That would explain alot!
♥T
Trevor,
I understand. Billy Graham was trying to draw people to Christ; Adventism tries to draw people to Adventism, because Christ is unsufficient without Adventism in that mentality.
Of course, Adventists should be able to preach whatever they wish, but they should honestly admit that Christ is not enough. If it were, Billy Graham's message would be sufficient.
No, the Jesuit university did not change my religion, but as a requirement, all candidates for a degree had to write a personal spiritual biography. This required their convictions for whatever philosophy they had adopted, whether atheist, agnostic, or Christianity, Judaism, or Muslim. No doctrinal beliefs were allowed, only their reasons for choosing their philosophical belief.
It was a long journey leaving Adventist, as a PK, I had been immersed in Adventism from birth, with 12 grades and more. It was only when I had time to really study SDA beliefs and their conclusions that I began to question why. Yes. Des Ford only convinced me that my previous studying was confirmed by him. Others, such as Smuts van Rooyen, and some pastors I had known convinced me that Adventism was built on very flimsy pillars.
There was no other church I had any desire to join. Belief that one MUST be a member of some religious body is rather peculiar: the premise that if one church is left there must be another that is joined. There are many, like me, and more all the time, who feel no need to be formally associated with any church. This country was founded on Free Thinkers, and I proudly wish to be associated with such folk.
I have many friends who are Adventists, and for us it makes no difference at all. Friendship that cannot survive a religious difference is a pretty shallow friendship.
Trevor,
Erv and I were not the only students exposed to the "new" curriculum at PUC. It would be interesting to know what became other people from that era. At least one of them became President of PUC. Another became Chief of Medicine at the San hospital. And one became Executive Director of the Zane Grey Foundation. One became a military and VA chaplain. One became a physics prof at Duke. One became an English prof at La Sierra. And on and on. I don't think many were harmed by efforts to teach critical thinking and interdisciplinary competence. Herb, perhaps you can enlighten us regarding what happened to the PUC curriculum of the 1950s and early 1960s.
This note is to apologize to Trevor and anyone else to whom my intemperate remarks above might appear to be directed. I think my comments were inappropriate and lacked the level of civility that is a goal for this forum. I also apologize for misspelling "glossolalia" and for using the term inappropriately. Even though the discourse I was commenting on was nonsensical and disorganized, it did not really qualify for description using that term, which is more appropriately used for the nonsense speech that occurs in "speaking in tongues." Further, I apologize for suggesting a lack of mental health on the part of the author of the writing on which I was commenting. I know better than to attempt psychological or psychiatric diagnoses on line. People can say crazy things without actually being insane. One only has to turn on the TV to know that.
I really should not really be participating in these discussions. Reading some of the comments just reinforces my impression that many people who are attracted to the SDA religion have been misled to the point of having been brainwashed into living in a fantasy world in which they are obliged to reject reasonable evidence and commit to ignorance as the alternative.
It is strangely fascinating, however, to see that some have survived SDA indoctrination and embraced an open-minded and mentally healthy level of critical thinking and examination of objective evidence. I think it is clear that one can worship God, love Jesus, embrace the "good news" of Christianity, and retain mental health–while being open minded and continuing to seek knowledge and understanding. It seems clear to me that scriptural description of the gospel message supports the concept of equal access of all to salvation and rightiousness by faith through grace.
At the same time, I do not find the stories of recent origin of earth and humans, original sin, the fall of man, the need for redemption, etc., at all compelling, especially since abundant evidence indicates a much older planet and mammalian and primate history–with the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees existing about six million years ago, and modern humans living tens of thousands of years ago.
Science will never disprove the existence of God, nor should it try. There is no need to try. Things that exist in the "spiritual" realm or the imaginations of humans do not fall within the scope of scientific investigation, which relies on objective measurement of the physical world. Accepting the use of scientific method as a means of obtaining and evaluating evidence does not require anyone to reject God. For those who choose to believe in and worship God, I have no problem at all with that. I do, however, urge you to worship God, rather than just worshiping your concept of God, or worshiping the concepts of God portrayed in the writings and sermons of humans. Don't put God in a box. Don't decide for God what he could or could not do. Do not place what you may believe is "the Word of God" above God him or herself. Are you worshipping The Bible, or are you worshipping God?
You see, I am sure, I no longer belong anywhere near adventism. But I do wish you all well.
I would respectfully disagree Sir.
Dear Dr Erwin,
Please accept my thanks and appreciation for your contributions to these several threads. I respect and admire your honesty, kindness, patience and clarity. I am happy for the opportunity to start an email friendship with you and hope it will continue. I look forward to hearing more about your decades of study on our branch on the bush of life, the primates.
Wishing for your health this winter and always, Dave L.
I am thankful to Dr Taylor for encouraging me to follow the discussion at AT. I'd like to know you better.
Thanks, Dr. Langworthy. We'll keep in touch.
I have only been an Adventist Christian for
36 years and a pastor for 32, but I believe Sister Nelson
Is right that typically years ago the ‘only Adventists are saved
In the end time’ theology was very common.
In my short time in the Adventist Church I have seen
A remarkable Gospel Centered message replace
many kinds of legalisms.
To be honest however this self-centered theology
one can not say is, uncommon.
The assertion that Adventists have taught and teach that 'only Adventists are saved In the end time' is subjective and errant to say the least (and usually taken out of context in most cases). I have not come across such a official documented Church statement with this phrase. It seems that since Glacier View (which saw many choose to become ex-Adventists), some, as in the past, have continued/or continue to trump up such charges. I have been around for a while now (on the planet), although, not for so long as many on this cyber terrain, but never have I heard sermons or seen in books nor the spirit of prophecy this particular phrase: 'only Adventists are saved In the end time'.
I 'googled' this phrase just now and the first hits were mostly from websites which attack Adventism and used maliciously to defame and discredit its position regarding end time events. There were others which are NOT official Church sites which had some 'wording' in this phrase but it is not used in the same context as this phrase implies. Even Ellen White in the GC Book chapter 'God's People Delivered', refers to those who are saved in the end times as 'The people of God'. The 'only Adventists are saved In the end time' is a gross exaggerated rhetoric used by her relentless detractors to attack and falsify Adventism, many of whom, sadly, come from the ranks of ex-Adventism.
Have a nice one (Can I say it? Sabbath)…♥T
Because someone is unfamiliar with a concept does not mean that it has not been taught.
Many of us who have been in Adventism many years (does 80 count?) know very well that while these things may not be found in official SDA publications does not mean that they were taught, even subtly. When the verse in Revelation that says "Here are they that keep the commandments of God" and identify that as the fourth commandment and that Adventists are the only ones who are keeping all the commandments; plus, they have the spirit of prophecy, which is interpreted as EGW, it certainly narrows the field. Only those who "keep the commandments of God will be saved" and this is those who keep the fourth; i.e., only Adventists will be saved."
Subtle? Depends on the recipient who hears.
The exclusive phrasing is in two parts and something along the line of "only the remenant will be saved" and "we are the remenant church." If those two ideas are emphasied along with all other churches have apostisized or are the "beast", it isn't that hard to get the impression that we believe only Adventists will be saved. Of course this would only be after "probation has closed".
The truth is that salvation is open to anyone who hears Jesus calling and follows Him. By emphasing prophetic themes without putting them in the context of the gospel, it is easy to become exclusive.
As an Adventist for 31 years and having hung out in the ultra-conservative camps of Hartland, Hohnberger, etc for several years, I will add my two cents worth. I have heard many times that the 144,000 will be a literal number, those people living when Jesus comes, (who are Adventist)… Keeping Sabbath, living without sin, without a mediator too of course…. My goodness!
Whether or not the 144,000 are literal or symbolic is really not important, since one's salvation is not dependent on whether or not they believe it to be one or the other. Since so much of Revelation is symbolic: beasts, days, etc, it seems more likely that the number, 144,000, is symbolic of the sum total of all those who will be translated when Jesus comes. It seems unlikely that God would arbitrarily set a specific number for those whom He plans to translate. Those who were "translated" at the time of the flood were only 8 individuals, but it wasn't arbitrary. They were the only ones who were willing to get on the boat. And for those who believe that the 144,000 are simply all those who are saved, whether translated or resurrected, the same principle applies.
As for the idea that Adventists teach that they're the only ones who will be saved–it's nonsense. There may be a few extremists out there who have taught that; but I've been in the church my entire life, and have never heard it preached. There will be 2 groups at the end: those who worship the beast and his image; and those who are loyal to God. The latter group will be saved; the rest will be destroyed by the brightness of His coming. Ellen White is clear that most SDA's will leave the church and join the ranks of the enemy. At the same time many will accept present truth (as spelled out in the 3 angels' messages) and endure to the end. The scenario will in some ways be similar to what happened at the first Advent: most Jews rejected the truth.
At age seventy I look back on my early life as an SDA, and there is no doubt whatsoever that we were taught that the only way to be saved and go to heaven was to be an adventist and to be free of sin, with sin broadly defined to include things like eating meat, going to movies, having "impure" thoughts, and the like. Not only was our duty defined in this way, but it was also our duty to "bring others into the fold" so they would not be lost–and, of course, so we would get more "stars in our crown."
As I grew into Christianity, I rejected the notion that only adventists would be saved. I accepted that righteousness by faith through grace was the good news of salvation and that the Christian life was a joyful lifestyle marked mostly by positive action and focusing very little on sin. I came to view Christianity as much, much more than adventism. I also concluded that living well had very little to do with heaven or hell–that living well was its own joyful reward. Then as I got out into the world and met many people, of many different "faiths," along with agnostics and atheists, I found many wonderful positive people whose emphasis in life was treating others with consideration and compassion, i.e., treating others as one would wish to be treated. For me, that is sufficient. And it is an attitude that seems to have no relationship to one's religion or lack thereof.
Apparently it is not enough for everyone, and I do not claim for an instant that the way that has worked so well for me is adequate for everyone else. But there is a kind of freedom and peace with this uncomplicated approach to life that enables me to spend much more time seeking knowledge and understanding and attempting to apply knowledge to problems in the enormously complex and wonderful tangible real world. So, if you wish to center your life on God, just trust him, and let go of all this hand-wringing about trivial specifics. Substitute positive action for worrying about sin. If you fall short of personal goals, just let go of the remorse and keep moving forward. If you hurt or harm others, make things right, and learn to do better.
Life is complicated enough without worrying endlessly about trivial matters. Live honestly and joyfully and well. Whether you do it for God or for yourself, or both, may not matter very much.
Ah…the rub, the motivation; whether to live for yourself, or to glorify your Creator. To treat others as you would have them treat you is a behavioral, social—and Scriptural—ideal; no doubt about it. But, what if they don’t treat you as they would have you treat them?
It seems that if love isn’t the driving force—for the Creator/Savior and your fellow man/creatures—the behavioral ideal is unattainable.
The new covenant approach is about motivation. Whenever love and faith are the motivations, then there is no issue with behavior.
"The new covenant approach is about motivation. Whenever love and faith are the motivations, then there is no issue with behavior."
On an intellectual level this sounds right and, for example, in a marriage works for the "big" sins. However, for the little day-to-day struggles, it doesn't. It is much more complex and includes physical and mental limitations and struggles as well. That is partly why being healthy helps.
debbf, Joe and I can testify that Adventism DID imply that salvation was only for the 144,000 who kept sabbath, didn't eat meat (EGW said meat-eaters would not be translated). For those who did not grow up or live in areas where this was the message, respect those of us who did. debbief is probably younger than most and she also has been taught this belief.
It should have been corrected decades ago, but when has the church EVER corrected a previous error? If so, please give the message, date and place where that occurred.
Elaine,
I can say based on my experience working for the church, they have rejected these fundamentalists type groups by not recognizing them or taking them seriously. Over the years I discovered many of my colleagues to be more open-minded than the church at large. One of them who came out of the rigid, commune-type group was Martin Weber who subsequently wrote about his experience. Have you read his books?
In spite of an open-minded leadership era, the ultraconservative membership group still controlled more than they should have the direction of the church; with recent changes that seems to have increased.
Thankyou Elaine and Joe for backing me. Btw Elaine, I am 43, and became an Adventist at age 12. I was mainstream Adventist for years, and at the age of 30 learned the dangers of mainstream Adventism, and got very caught up in conservative groups. Currently, I tread softly on the “poisonous” sites of atoday and spectrum, and am being healed, I do believe. 🙂
debbief,
Sometimes we learn the "hard" way, don't we? But not to keep an open mind is to be snared by "every wind that blows" and not all winds are healthy. We must study and
learn for ourselves so we can sift through what is truly important. Too many minor points can make one lose the big picture.
In the end, it seems to always come down to threats and fear.
Hi David Geelan!
Thank you for your courage to tell us of yourself. I appreciate your ability to stand up and say it as it is from your perspective. We've all walked down slightly different roads and climbed different ridgetops. And when we look out at the landscape, the topography is different from each of our pair of eyes. From the roads I've walked and the ridges I've climbed, naturalism is what makes a complete picture. The universe is old. Our sun and it's planets are old. The earth and life on it is old. I am fortunate to be alive and part of it and able to help it day to day on a one to one basis. If God is there, I believe along with a theologian who said, "I believe God is a great deal better than most men suppose."
Cheers. Happy Holidays. Dave L
Thanks very much for your kind words, David Langworthy.
I agree with you that the universe and all in it is old, but that doesn't *necessarily imply* naturalism/materialism: God could still have been involved in the processes, just in ways different from our traditional limited understanding.
But that's a long conversation and a little off topic for this thread, so I'll just say 'thanks'.
Trevor Hammond, you wrote this about yourself:
"Yes, this group that I speak of here, of which I was a card carrying t-shirt wearing member, sinful, rebellious, ungodly, wayward and consumed in worldly living, smoking, drinking, dope, etc., were all part of this experience just the same; but I didn't use 'paper chase' excuses to legitimize my wrong doing and rebellion, nor did I 'diss' the SDA Church. Yeah, I would admit I was a disgrace to Christianity and disobedient to God's word – BUT I knew I was wrong and was unable to get myself out of the miry clay – until Jesus lifted me up and turned my wayward life around through the study of His word, prayer, conviction and the encouragement from the books of Ellen White and other inspirational writers."
So what you're basically saying is that you are the kind of person who chose certain pleasures even though you knew they were wrong and against the truth you knew.
The problem all of us so often have is that we judge others by our knowledge of ourselves. So when you said, more recently, the following things about others, what I hear is you turning that understanding of yourself onto others.
"Some with itchy feet, itchy ears, maybe even itchy minds, will, even at the peril of their own ruin, embrace what they want to hear and believe – and eventually depart from the faith. And for what? A fleeting moment of some enjoyable thrill or sinful practice in open defiance of God Almighty and His Word? Or some school of thought which is in conflict with beliefs so much so that one choses the school of thought over the truth just 'cos it can perhaps pay more bills or that it provides secular reasoning which appeals to intellect yet arrogantly scoffs at the teachings of the Holy Bible? Or just because some agnostics, deists, pagans, athiests or run of the mill SDA critics say it's ok to do so?"
What you have failed to do, throughout this discussion, is to consider the possibility that some of us are following the truth wherever it leads. We are doing the opposite of what you suggest – turning our back on known truth for pleasure. No, we are turning our back on the pleasure of membership and fellowship and certainty because we are compelled to seek the truth, no matter where it lies.
This is what so often happens: someone "departed the way" and like the prodigal son, chose riotous living and then converted back into the SDA church. Because this was his pattern, the assumption is that all who leave the SDA church must also have followed the path he chose.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Example: I left the SDA church in my mid-sixties solely because I had read much and studied and could no longer believe the SDA explanation for everything. Nothing in my life about my behavior, church attendance, and leisure and recreation changed one whit; only my beliefs which were mostly private and unshared.
Accept this as the path of many who post here: we did not leave because we now felt we had the permission to abandon our families for "loose living" or to begin using drugs, attend movies, etc. We left because the SDA positions and doctrines we could no longer accept.
Trevor there may be more then one hundred reasons to leave a person but only one valid to stay with it… LOVE. I see that you have love for your Creator, Lord and Savior.
This is just a note of hello to Elaine, and David L., and David G., to indicate my support and admiration for your efforts as open-minded truthseekers. At the same time, this is not meant as a lack of respect for others or their views. I agree with the importance of love, especially when it generates due consideration and respect. We must, I think, learn to love ourselves, and "our neighbors as ourselves," if we are to grow and mature. I fear that some of us, in our zeal to "love God with all our hearts," developed a kind of "self loathing" that was not constructive and might have led us to act in self-destructive ways. The idea that we are naturally "bad" (as in sinful) may have been a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy if we let go and did whatever we felt like doing. Then, the perception that sinning a lot is the same as sinning a little, in terms of the ultimate outcome, has sometimes removed all barriers against going totally wild.
It is not surprising that people who experience "going wild" project their own experience onto others. "Projection" is one of the classic psychological "defense mechanisms." We see many examples on AToday of this and other defense mechanisms–of course, these are common in most human discussions. It is pretty much the way we are built, but we can become aware of the defense mechanisms and when (and why) we are using them.
A hello to you Joe. There are many types and ideas on the various forums and regardless of one's beliefs it is always disconcerting for someone to feel that they, alone, have chosen the right way and all others who have not chosen the same way or somehow not being honest or just haven't studied sufficiently.
Whether true or not, one thing is certain: most people adopt their religion by heritage: either birth or tradition, which is why the majority of people in Egypt are Muslims, and why the majority in the U.S. are Christians–it is the expected and natural way. Agnostics usually have studied much more thoroughly in order to adopt this position; it takes no study to adopt Christianity or Islam when you are surrounded in its culture–it is the default position. Agnostics usually are much more knowledgable about religions in general than are those dedicated to only one belief.
The more one knows about people, their customs, their education and family situation, the more tolerant they are of people who are different. Understanding, while not accepting other's beliefs, is giving them the respect they are due under the Golden Rule. To disparage another's religious belief is to reject that individual and the respect all should have.
Hmm, so has the Prodigal's older self righteous brother now been elevated to 'truthseeker' status, who, in the pretense of a rational discussion with the Father, judges the younger sin-worn brother and even has the audacity to 'question' the Father and justify his position? Methinks that he too was a spiritual wanderer from the Father's house and no better than the Prodigal who openly rebelled. Some use arrogant intellectuallism to mask this well, just like the older brother. Yeah, he was an 'ex' too in the Father's house! I'm glad that the Father is still in charge and NOT the older self righteous brother.
It's a PARABLE, and one of the points it makes is that the faithful and responsible who have done their duty (the older son) should not resent the return home of the rebellious, unfaithful, and irresponsible (the prodigal son). The older son is not being praised for his attitude, he is being reprimanded for it.
So, where does the reference to "arrogant intellectualism" come from? It must be just another of your projections about one of your own personal issues…. Surely you do not see the older brother as a "secular humanist," rather than a faithful member of the remnant flock….
The faith tradition I was raised in was SDA adventist protestant American Christian. Due to my immersion in it as a child and young person, and my feeling that I was seriously misled, I am probably less tolerant of SDA dogma than I am of most other faiths. Even so, what Elaine said above: "The more one knows about people,…the more tolerant they are of people who are different," is consistent with my experience.
When one has been gracefully hosted in the homes–sometimes no more than huts or shacks–of people of other traditions and faiths, who have been open and honest and fair and kind, one cannot go back to the narrow-minded belief that one's own tradition is the only valid view.
I agree with you Timo, to the extent that there may not actually be any such thing—in reality—as self-loathing.
My belief is that loving oneself is as involuntary and natural as is breathing. So the admonition to love others as we love ourselves is, I believe, given in recognition that everybody loves themselves (with possible rare exceptions that prove the rule).
Self-loathing is extreme—perhaps inverted—pride; and suicide is the ultimate act of selfishness.
It's impossible to be a right brain christian in a left brain church…
Tim, you nailed it! The entire history of Adventism and its beginning was founded on informational knowledge; facts, and if all of those somewhat isolated beliefs were accepted, then, voila! you were an Adventist. Little was said about loving other Christians when you were assured they were already lost because they did not accept the "truth." They were treated as "outsiders" who only occasionally would be contacted if a visiting evangelist needed numbers. Other than that, association with them was inappropriate.
Left brain? You betcha.
To the “EX”
If you are an ex and disliked so much the church why you are still taking or writing about? It will better use of your precious time to enjoy you new faith.
Some of us accepted the SDA church message with joy and we keep it that way. What a blessed Sabbath we have yesterday, a good SS lesson, the visiting pastor preached a vibrant last events and the second coming sermon, and today several families got together at home for a brunch just to enjoyed the company of each other while the children were playing in the garden. It was very pleasant to see new faces and some EX that were enjoying a moment of Christian gathering.
Have you read what I wrote, David? I don't dislike the church. I have found that some of its beliefs and values conflict with my own. My words were actually quoted here from another context without my knowing about it.
I appreciate your testimony about the great day you had yesterday, and can identify with it. If anything at all, I'm not here to attack the church, but to testify about my own great days. Days in which I am able to live as a good and moral person in the world in a way that became impossible for me within the church.
That is not at all to claim that others cannot live as good and moral people within the church. I am not making a universal claim that what is right for me is right for everyone. I'm simply describing what is right for me.
Read through the whole discussion again. Who has been calm, civil, thoughtful, conciliatory and positive in tone throughout. And who has launched hysterical personal attacks and tirades of condemnation?
What did Jesus say? "Out of the fullness of the heart, the mouth speaks". My heart is full of peace.