Great Disappointments
Guest Blog by Ronald Coleman
Ron is a Seventh-day Adventist commercial airline pilot who also plays a very good clarinet. He is a friend of Jack Hoehn and has given Jack permission to repost Ron’s recent opinion piece on the Post-GC 2015 Disappointment of many Seventh-day Adventists.
(Original on Ron Coleman’s blog.)
How do we respond when the leadership of an organization which has long had our loyalties decides to take that organization in a direction that we cannot in all honesty support? That is no doubt the question in the minds of many Seventh-day Adventist church members after the recent proceedings of the General Conference gathering.
Those who value the company of fellow believers know the importance a church family can have in their lives. And those who have enjoyed long association with a particular church family feel the strongest ties. But the stronger the ties the more devastating it can be when the organizational “rules of membership” are tampered with in a manner that seems to demand intellectual compromise as a requirement of continued membership.
Of course, this is not a new dilemma. The large numbers of “ex” members bear this out. But when one is personally confronted with what feels like a “compromise or leave decision,” the issue (whatever it is) suddenly looms so much larger than any which drove others away before us.
Perhaps this is a good time to remind ourselves of this: A man-made religious organization is not the Church. They are two different things. The universal Church includes any and all who celebrate the Good News of deliverance which is the core of the message of the Galilean. It is by far the more important to one’s spiritual journey (and sanity). When this Galilean spoke of two or three gathering together he was almost certainly referring to this universal Fellowship (Church) of Believers – not a religious organization of policy makers. In fact it is probably true to say that no organization can ever fill the role of the Church in anyone’s life (though some may live for years with the impression that it can).
It is important here to ask ourselves what fundamental belief we are talking about that is universal enough to eventually unite atheists, agnostics, scientists, philosophers, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Catholics, Baptists, Mormons, Adventists, terrorists, pagans, politicians, Dalits and countless others from every corner of our planet.
When the broad perspective is taken, it becomes apparent that the only belief fundamental enough to do that is the Good News that One came to live among us with a message of deliverance and eternal life – and that while here demonstrated in First Person the peaceful nature of a God who is the source of all Life. All other “fundamentals” are not really fundamental no matter how strenuously they may be promoted.
Does this mean that the Bible does not contain much perspective that is useful? Not at all. There is much useful in learning and contemplating the history of our ancestors and the record of God’s dealings with the many and varied situations recorded. But all must be viewed and understood in the context of the Great Light – and questions which we are keen to have answers to but which are not really answered by the Bible writers must be allowed to remain unanswered for now. Intellectual honesty requires that.
So go ahead and enjoy the fellowship of believers. Don’t be unduly concerned with the meanderings of an organization that promotes unnecessary (and probably often incorrect) statements of policy or creed. An organization and a Church are entirely different things.
“ …But when one is personally confronted with what feels like a “compromise or leave decision” the issue, (whatever it is) suddenly looms so much larger than any which drove others away before us.”
Ronald Coleman has given us a partial answer after the San Antonio meetings. But there is a third alternative (another choice), to offer a fundamental alternative to the status quo that he has not considered. The common causes of our failure as a community of faith, can teach us lessons for today in creating this fundamental alternative:
1- The people tried to do it their way.
2- The people of Israel had leaders who made bad decisions and used flawed reasoning. Following bad leaders almost always leads to failure. Incompetent leaders don’t make good choices!
3- The Israelites refused to deal with bad leadership.
4- The true cause of their failure eluded them. Blaming others causes us to not learn valuable lessons.
As Seventh-day Adventists we can learn from our past disappointments and do much better for our future. I propose three basic ways to get out of this “mess” and offer a way out.
1- Making sure we are following God’s plans and not our own. The church is a business organization. We can vote as individuals with our feet and our wallet and purse.
2- We need to be careful who we follow. When it comes time to choosing leaders we need to be diligent and cautious. “An organization and a Church are entirely different things.”
3- We need to hold our leaders…
accountable.
It is our choice to compromise, leave, or offer a fundamental alternative to the status quo. It is easier for some to get caught up in our failure and want to give up. If we do we may miss out on what God has in store.
The “leaders” have their heads in the sand. When they give even more reasons for people to turn their backs on the organized church, those people will also take their tithe dollars with them. Whose money will then pay the salaries? The overseas mission expenses?
Think back, folks: Now it’s no longer a sin to wear a wedding ring – but it used to be. Ditto women wearing lipstick. Jewelry is OK now but it used to be a sin.
Playing to the various cultures & the older generations will have consequences……..
Yes, its true. the peace, comfort, and fellowship we share within the Christian setting is a great joy. We draw courage and feed on each others presence, as a result of Jesus Christ asking us, each one, to feed on Him, and His constant presence in our life. The church organization cannot save even one soul. Our life is individually, totally, in the power of our Almighty Creator God. And Christians of every ethnic grouping and color will be resurrected to everlasting life in the last day. The resurrected from every land will see the CHRIST. These are HIS CHURCH, HIS BRIDE. Who am i to say no,no,no, to my brother.
To leave the Church (organization) is exactly the goal of creators of fundamntals. They like to speak about shaking and sifting.
That’s why there should be a mighty movement among all of them who are disappointed with the outcome of the GC in SA to stay. Neither Martin Luther or Ellen White did leave their organizations. They were excommunicated.
Not one should erase their membership from the organization they cherish and love. Let those who made those fundamental changes show their real face and act in a way of their choosing.
My son is a commercial airline pilot with Alaska Airlines. When I left Adventism four decades ago I delivered him from the potential intellectual dilemma Ron describes here as well as that of how a pilot reaches a commercial position while being a serious Sabbath keeper. Flight training, simulator testing, FAA exams, work scheduling, annual schooling and sim testing, layovers, most, if not all, all require Saturday work.
Ron’s solution is practiced widely, it appears, by a large body of intellectually unrestricted thinkers who accommodate their attachment to a moribund church by his device. I confess, even with the evidence of the social attachment that is the “gorilla glue” that makes this type of compromise functional, I don’t understand how anyone can stay connected to this organization.
Ron is an “odd ball” in the airline pilots world and in the Adventist world. You can’t get to the pilot world as a “good” Adventist and you can’t be an Adventist without being a “good” one. How many members are in the Adventist Commercial Airlines Pilots Association (ACAPA)?
My critique isn’t of Ron. There ought to be thousands, or more, in the ACAPA. It’s the willingness of sane people to restrict themselves to insane precepts that stand in the way of total participation in healthy human endeavors that puzzles me.
Are Adventist adherents forever determined to be the blind Chicago Cubs fans of the religious world?
How can there ever be an interest in Adventism when so few professionals, other than in the health areas that are in close contact with others in their chosen field?
Too many vocations are impossible to combine with Sabbath observance as taught in the Hebrew Bible, not the NT.
Sabbath has been the central defining doctrine in Adventism that precludes such influence. This is why the healing professionals today are second and third generation members. New converts in most professions are rare. Higher education teaches critical thinking skills that cannot easily survive such fundamental beliefs as in Adventism. That is why many former members could not retain membership after studying and examining the church’s doctrines.
Without the permission quirk of allowable Sabbath-breaking in the health field, the Adventist church would be half, or less, its present size and a have a fourth, or less, of its present income. There would be no hospitals and few doctors. It would be interesting to know the percentage of income MD’s and DD’s supply, and have supplied, to the church.
Think what this church might have been had the permissive “quirk” of Sabbath-breaking been extended to other fields!
Evangelism has always appealed to the dummies (less educated). And that, overall, is who they have attracted. For the most part, moneyed and intellectual people, see or hear nothing of interest in the catatonic “Advent Movement”. To them JW, LDS, SDA, are all the same, don’t entertain critical thinking, don’t eat meat, pound on my door, won’t give blood, or won’t fight for their country, or whatever.
The irony is that Adventism does harbor many critical thinkers. And that is the dilemma for which Ron posits a wobbly solution, a kind of pretending that one fits in, all is well, a form of “mental reservation,” where one can be part of a church but not an organization. Or is it the other way around? Why bother? Why not just move on with your money and to where you will find new friends?
Your statement is not accurate, maybe you live in a small rural community but
I’m a member of little church in south Florida (less than 30 families), but in this church are only two Drs in medicine the rest are lawyers, one vice-president of big oil company, an engineer who is senior in a mayor airline, a PhD that works in a university and other experts in other fields, successful business man, a vice president of bank, a professional federal translator, Psychologists, architects. And all of them keep the Sabbath. None of them work in a SDA institution.
Neo, you actually confirm my point. I said: “The irony is that Adventism does harbor many critical thinkers.” I also said in the post above it: “I don’t understand how anyone can stay connected to this organization.” And I added a parting shot: “Are Adventist adherents forever determined to be the blind Chicago Cubs fans of the religious world?”
Bugs my comment was for Elaine:
Here in Miami we do not have any SDA institutions nevertheless in my little church is concentration a very accomplished professionals that graduated from well know universities like Columbia University, Vanderbilt University, Georgetown University, University of Miami, Florida University, Florida International University, Cornell University, Andrews University, Etc. For you surprise we keep the Sabbath and we consider a great blessing for our families. We are very satisfied with the SDA Church.
Cheers
“Perhaps this is a good time to remind ourselves of this: A man-made religious organization is not the Church.”
The SDA church is not a man made religious organization. So your evaluation of the SDA church is faulty from the start.
God created and ordained the SDA church for a specific purpose and reason. Just as He did the Jewish nation and the early church. If and when people rise to high levels of influence and authority and do not advocate and support the ordained purpose, then instrumentality and means of grace can become useless and even antagonistic to the original purpose and goal.
Many deny the original purpose, and others have turned away from it who still claim loyalty to the church and its mission. Not the mention the thousands who still don’t understand what it is and can’t really define and identify either the mission or purpose. Others claim they know, but simply misrepresent the truth of the matter.
But all of us can see total confusion on every level. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see that.
Total confusion is Satan’s goal. In which case, the RCC can come in and claim to establish stability on every level from civil government, finances, and religion. If we don’t see it happening, it may be because we don’t want to. For some, it is obvious and fits bible prophecy. Mr. “Nice Guy” is all over the world with a political agenda. Exactly how soon, we don’t know. But soon, none the less.
Adventist apologists are not the only ones to use the “Brahmin” argument, (We receive our Authority straight from heaven) to justify claims of religious supremacy. It is up to each of us to compare/contrast those claims with the simple message of the Gospel.
The concept of Authority straight from heaven, including the Adventist version of it, is wishful thinking since it is exists only in the mind and is therefore unverifiable. And problematically, if it was somehow verified as true, it would illustrate God to be a miserable leader based on the folly of Adventist prophetical and existential history. Judaism’s staggering past illustrates the same ineptness on His part if it was indeed actually “chosen” by God as the tradition claims.
True believers of Adventism enjoy the mantel of this myth and it shapes their view of their church to this day as illustrated by events at the past GC.
I don’t believe denominations were God’s plan or idea. It’s a man-made invention, if not the invention of the devil himself.
We the people are the church, the Body of Christ. The church isn’t a building.
The collective members constitute the SDA Church–not the organization.
The organization was created by the church to serve the church–the collective membership.
Since the church created the organization then it remains impossible for the organization to be the church. The created can not become the creator.
But…if the collective members forget they are the church, and no one is educating them to know they are the church, then the created organization can pretend it is the church with relative impunity.
Authority was and is invested in the collective membership of the SDA Church–not in its leaders. The legitimate power of leaders in the church is limited by time (term of service between sessions) and by scope (the organization territory to which they are assigned). Our organization was originally designed to support this model. Nevertheless the human tendency to consolidate authority in a few and abandon the authority of the collective has taken a toll on our church. We must rediscover the “organic” church and shake off the notion of the “organized” church.
Stanley, you have just being a part of the “invisible” church, which has a long conceptual history as a way authentic followers of Christ indentify thenselves untainted by external markings and unaffected by whims of authorities. At the core of it is peaceful belief that Christ knows who they are and that all is well.
Should have said “Stanley, you just described” . . .
It seems to be the intent of some leaders to foster the impression that the church is administrators, i.e., the GC. It is up to the pastors, local and union conferences to educate members that all church authority rests with them and never to abdicate their responsibility to leaders.
Agreed. The GC is the tail wagging the dog.
The congregation should have only God as the Chief.
Please let me make a few statements and then use them to make my point.
I’m an adventist. Dyed in the wool.
I’m a member of the church.
I’m a sabbath keeper.
I have the spirit of prophecy.
If I had spoken those sentences, the following analysis would be a bit more difficult but not impossible. Did you notice that the word, “adventst”, “church”, “spirit” and “prophecy” are lowercase?
Let’s start with the word, “church”. The church consists of all true believers, regardless of our denominational affiliation. “True believers” doesn’t mean just the people who agree with my theology and whose religious practices are the same as mine. To use a phrase my mother used a lot, the church consists of those who are “honest in heart”.
The problem is that when I use the phrase, “the church”, protestants tend to think I am speaking of the believers who constitute the Christians church. If I used the phrase, “the church” in Massachusetts, adherents of the Roman Church would be inclined to think I am speaking about an organization. I don’t have to speak hypothetically with regard what members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints understood me to mean when I used the phrase, “the church” in 1982. That’s when Sally and I moved to Utah.
I’m a protestant. When I use the phrase, “the church”, I mean what any protestant does. My religion is personal, not institutional. When a member of a religious organization promotes the organization, protestants see that as spiritual pride. That was not as clear to me before
we moved to Utah as it became almost immediately after we moved there.
Don’t get me wrong. I think the church should be organized. But an organization is a tool of the church. Believers ARE the church. I am a member of such an organization but it has been several decades since I was last tempted to refer to the organization as “the church”. How decidedly unattractive that is was not as clear to me until I heard the LDS (Mormons) in Utah using that phrase that way. That cured me of that bad habit almost immediately!
I’m an adventist. I’m no more inclined to use the dictionary definition of “Adventist” than I am inclined to use the definition of “sabbath” that most professed Christians think is “traditional”. (Our collegiate dictionary doesn’t have a listing for “adventist” with a lowercase “a”.) An adventist is someone the Lord has called to promote a special emphasis among the many truths about himself. But that’s the key, see. It’s all about him. It’s not about us.
I’m a sabbath keeper. The word, “sabbath”, means rest. The biblical sabbath is the rest we enter as we learn to trust the Lord. In the book of Hebrews, it’s called, “entering into his rest”. The seventh day of the week is the day the Lord rested–both in creation and in redemption. Rest on the day the Lord rested is a way to worship the creator AS creator. Rest on that day is a symbol of the rest we enter as we learn to trust the Lord.
The ancient Hebrews perverted the sign of circumcision. See Romans 4:11. They came to think of the symbol as more important than the truth the symbol was intended to illustrate–the truth of human impotence to earn or deserve the Lord’s approbation. How sad is it that, in our day, rest on the day the Lord rested has been similarly perverted! How sad when the symbol is considered to be more important than the truth it was designed to symbolize!
When I was a boy, adventists made much of the doctrine that other Christians were too much inclined to depend on their traditions.
Guess what.? Adventists have developed some traditions too.
The spirit of prophecy was the spirit of prophecy long before Ellen White was born.
Did she have the spirit of prophecy?
I think so.
Over a period of fourteen years (1870 – 1884), four volumes of her writing were published under the title, Spirit of Prophecy. For many years, most adventists could scarcely afford to buy those four volumes, let alone additional books by Ellen White. When some of them became affluent enough to buy more of her books, they were so accustomed to referring to the Ellen White books they already had as “Spirit of Prophecy”, they continued to refer to her other books as “Spirit of Prophecy”.
Much the same thing happened with regard to the word, “jeep” as a nickname for a WWII 4-wheel-drive light reconnaissance vehicle. Later, the owners of the Jeep trademark successfully sued a rival manufacturer for using the Jeep name–with a capital “J”–in their advertizing of another brand of 4-wheel-drive vehicles.
I worked for an upholsterer in Salt Lake City for about three years. I teased him about whether, when his was one of several upholstery shops in the metropolitan area, it was arrogant of him to advertise his shop as “The Upholstery Shop”.
I’m willing to admit that that probably wasn’t his intention when he chose that name for his shop. I’m equally willing to admit that it may not have been Ellen White’s intention when she, presumably, agreed to the use of the name, Spirit of Prophecy, to apply to the books that were published under that name. But because the Bible is part of the larger definition of “spirit of prophecy” (lowercase), the phrase “the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy” sounds absurd to the uninitiated. Is that part of the charm? If you become one of us we can initiate you so you won’t feel like an outsider.
If a person capitalized the phrase, “Spirit of Prophecy”, there is a technical sense in which the Bible isn’t the “Spirit of Prophecy”. Spirit of Prophecy is the proper name of a four-volume set of books by Ellen White. Over time, however, the tradition developed of confusing the biblical “spirit of prophecy” with the name of those books. So much for not following traditions!