Jesus: The Center of it All
by Dean Waterman
By Dean Waterman, October 20, 2013
I am not sure why we as Adventists have such a difficult time putting Jesus where He belongs, but we do. Admission to the Adventist Church requires baptismal candidates to answer “yes” to a baptismal oath, when the Bible states unequivocally the only requirement to be saved, and baptized, is belief in Jesus, not an adherence to doctrines. Our evangelism methods are based on the transmitting of information, while Christ’s methods were love transformation. We wonder why churches of other denominations (in particular non-denominational churches) continue to grow, while the Adventist Church in the United States grows more slowly than does the general population. Furthermore, our young people are leaving the church they grew up in, seeking a relationship with God, not just rules for behavior. You might think this is a new problem for the Adventist Church, but a reflection on our history shows it is not.
On October 17, 1888, the delegates of the then twenty-five year old Seventh-day Adventist Church met together in Minneapolis for what would be a defining moment in church history. Until that moment much had been debated about the law and the remnant people adhering strictly to obedience of the law, and not much about the Jesus who embodied the law. E.J. Waggoner and A.T. Jones, editors for the Signs of the Times magazine, had been building to this confrontation for several years, as they declared the merits of righteousness by faith and putting Jesus at the center of our faith and existence as a people of God. George Butler, then General Conference president, was not thrilled with these men coming to the GC Session, much less letting them speak their thoughts on Christ as our righteousness, as it went against the grain for the traditionalists who made up most of the delegates and leadership of the Adventist church at the time. Ellen White spoke in favor of Waggoner and Jones, and more importantly took a stand in uplifting Jesus as central to our faith. She wrote only a few weeks after the session ended: “My burden during the meeting was to present Jesus and His love before my brethren, for I saw marked evidence that many had not the spirit of Christ.”[1]
The desire for Jones, Waggoner, White, and others who embraced the message of righteousness by faith was to point listeners to Christ’s merit over our works. To this point, most of what Adventists had embraced centered around the law and other Biblical truths, requiring a person to be obedient to the law, and accept the doctrines which were Adventist unique. Waggoner and Jones didn’t suggest the law was dead, but rather a person’s works would never save them; it was the merits of Christ’s death and a person’s belief in Christ’s sacrifice which made the difference. Furthermore, putting Christ as center put the law and Biblical truths in a very different light. This perspective provided by Waggoner and Jones was not new to Christians, but certainly felt new to Adventist Christians who seemed to have placed their entire Adventist beliefs on the Third Angel’s message of a remnant people who would adhere to God’s commandments. Lost in Revelation 14:12 through four decades of preaching was the statement of “faith in Jesus”, which points to salvation in Christ alone, not only obedience to the law and compliance to information and doctrine.
Adventist author George Knight says, “The significance of the 1888 meetings is they baptized Adventism anew in Christianity… From that point on, they could preach a full message that taught the distinctively Adventist doctrines within the context of the saving work of Christ.”[2] Indeed, for those who embraced this radically new perspective, it allowed them to see in a new way how Christ as center to their beliefs and obedience took the weight off of what they could be in their own works, and put the emphasis squarely on Christ, which in turn led to joyful obedience and belief of Biblical truths. The Adventist message took on a different feel, and those who preached did so with a new freedom and vigor, pointing people to a life transformation through Christ.
125 years later it feels as if it’s 1888 all over again. We have a contingency in the church who would side with then-president George Butler and the majority of delegates who preached strict obedience to the law, and those today who would embrace the message of amazing salvation and grace through Christ alone, preached with hope and vigor by A.T. Jones and E.J. Waggoner. The difference between the two viewpoints is how we interact with other members, and how we share our message with those in the world around us. For some, what you know is the most important part of becoming an Adventist, while for others it is simply Who you know in following Him as a disciple and a taking the name of Christian.
I have experienced it both ways. I grew up in a legalistic home, which preached obedience and belief first, Jesus accidentally second. As I have grown in my personal walk with God and in my pastoral ministry, I have learned that while the law and my belief of Biblical views held by Adventists is important, my trust and love for Jesus is even more so. Without the one—love and faith in Jesus—the other seems useless and often hopeless. However, as I have grown to love and place my faith in Jesus, my obedience is organic, and my appreciation of the Biblical truths as a reflection of God’s character has taken hold.
As we reflect on this anniversary of 1888, may our attention once again turn to Christ as the center of our beliefs and actions, trusting in His grace and love to change us. The difference in our evangelistic and outreach efforts will bear the fruit, for one relies on the transfer and acceptance of information, which can often be disputed, while the other relies on a life transformation through Christ, a testimony to love which cannot be doubted.
[1] 1888 Materials, p. 210.
[2] A Brief History of Seventh-day Adventists, pp. 92-93.
Dean,
Welcome aboard!
I think you're exactly on-target. We need Christ and His incredible love for us to be the all-encompassing focus of and basis for our faith. We need to let His amazing love wash over us and transform us so His immense power can flow through us and repeat that action in others. Yet we have allowed the concept to grow that teaching people strict obedience to God's law is proof of our love for Him instead of first letting Him teach us what love really is so that our natural response is to obey the One who loves us so greatly.
Our challenge is not to focus on 1888. There is exceedingly great danger in paying attention to more than the simple lesson from that period, which is to let God's immense love for us reign supreme as the basis for our faith. I have seen many a person's faith come to ruin by getting lost in debate about who said what and other dissecting details. Doing that takes our eyes off Christ. It inevitably leads not to a greater love for God, but a deeper devotion to the deception of works as the basis for salvation.
This past Sabbath, I spoke at a church an hour's drive from my home and was sharing about God's immense love for us. For illustration I drew from the miracles of Jesus and how in a number of the stories there is no indication that the recipient of the miracle knew who He was before the event (the widow at Nain, the paralytic at Bethesda, the demoniac at Gadara, etc.). Because of His great love for them, Jesus gave them what they needed. That great love changed them and their natural response to it was obedience. Yet after the service one of the elders came to me in full attack mode. His concept of sharing God's love was to decry specific popular evils and telling people they had to keep the Ten Commandments. Apparently he had no experience with God's love transforming him so he had no basis for obeying the law other than mechanical obedience in the hope God might approve of him. I left both encouraged by the number of people who responded to the invitation to get involved in ministries that are guided and empowered by the Holy Spirit and very concerned for them with someone like him as a leader in the church.
Dean
I am a young adventist from Africa and I would like to say I agree with some of what you say. There are however some concerns that I have with your views . Whilst I agree that we should always lift up Christ, I feel you make a false dichotomy between Christ and belief. I believe it is not Christ vs Doctrine but Christ in the doctrine. Without Doctrine how will we know which Christ we are uplifting? Should we uplift him if we are not sure if he was the Son of God? Or should we preach Christ without letting people know if he ressurected? Without Doctrine we are preaching a christ but if we preach him through the doctrine we are preaching the Christ!!
By the way God's love for mankind is also a doctrine, his death and ressurection are also doctrines so how do we uplift Christ without those key doctrines. You see without doctrine, Christ becomes anything and everything. If you had said that as adventists, we should be loving and start with the core doctrines about Jesus I would agree with you but to do away with doctrines completely is a logical fallacy.
Finally, I noted that you believe that other churches are growing faster than our church. May you please furnish us with any stats to corraborate that claim, I always thought the SDA church was the fastest Growing church (or the slowest declining whichever) in the USA. In my country and in my region, we are the fastest growing church by a long shot and we never downplayed doctrine. So maybe you should come over and see how the Lord is leading us. Growth in and of itself is not an indicator of God's favour or leading. Sometimes people on the narrow path should not be concerned with why the wide road keeps growing at a faster rate!
Dean: 'Admission to the Adventist Church requires baptismal candidates to answer “yes” to a baptismal oath, when the Bible states unequivocally the only requirement to be saved, and baptized, is belief in Jesus, not an adherence to doctrines.'
Tapiwa: 'Whilst I agree that we should always lift up Christ, I feel you make a false dichotomy between Christ and belief. I believe it is not Christ vs Doctrine but Christ in the doctrine.'
I agree with Dean's overall intent (which seems to be concerned with legalism) and I reflect on Karl Barth's saying, 'Everything in Christianity is Christology.' However, I share some of the concerns of Tapiwa, in suggesting a false dichotomy between Christ and doctrine.
Jesus didn't just ask us in the Great Commission to baptize – He also asked us to teach. So teach what exactly? What is 'doctrine' anyway?
I get the impression that Dean is saying we should rather preach the Gospel rather than the 28 FBs. However, my view is the 28 FBs are our community of faith's understanding about what the Gospel is.
Is not 'doctrine' effectively to believe in the incarnation, life, death, resurrection and hoped Second Coming? Is this not this Gospel?
Stephen,
To teach what? Jesus answered that question in Luke 8:38-40, Matthew 10:7-8, and John 14:12-15. The apostle Paul's answer can be found in 1 Cor. 2:1-2.
Isn't that what I said?
No. But I agree with you Steven. I think William is emphasising the positive side of the exciting and celebration side of the Gospel acts of Jesus. There is the other side of the Gospel as well – the instructional, the prophetic – the judgement. Not exactly glowing with celebratory feelings but the Gospel none the less.
Tapiwa,
Would you please explain a bit further about what you meant when you spoke about the balance between preaching Christ and doctrine? The reason I ask is that I've heard descriptions such as what you wrote to support a wide range of concepts from doctrine being everything with Jesus a convenience among them, Jesus being defined by the doctrines, and the teachings and life of Jesus defining some of the doctrines. I meet Adventists all the time for whom their spiritual life is adherence to doctrines where Christ is a window-dressing to make the 28 FBs look pretty.
Is not Jesus the sum and totality of our doctrines? Should not the life and teachings of Jesus provide the highest and greatest definition for our doctrines?
Tapiwa can answer for himself, but I don't recall him saying he is seeking a 'balance' between Christ and doctrine; rather, he is saying such a dichtonomy is false. And I agree with him.
I agree with you all doctrines should be Christ-centred and I agree with sentiments that often Adventists do not act that way. However, the doctrines themselves are Christ-centred if you understand (and in turn teach them) correctly.
The best example is eschatology of End Time events. The book of Revelation is the Revelation about Jesus Christ. Everything in Revelation relates to Jesus Christ and His mission in some way. However, some (or perhaps many) Adventists would rather get caught up in conspiracy theories. But again, that is not the problems with the 'doctrines' of the Church re the parousia but rather how certain individuals approach the issue.
It appears we are in full agreement about the primacy of Jeus in our faith.
The presentation of doctrines on which I was raised paid very little or no attention to Him and I still encounter it in a surprising number of places. A popular form of it I have encountered recently is: That (whatever the speaker has selected to decry) is evil and will put you under the control of Satan. Stay away from Satan because he is evil and following him will cause God to destroy you in the end. To keep God from destroying you, you must keep all His commandments perfectly.
I praise God that He has delivered me from such views and shown me His great love. Still, with such attitudes persisting, why is anyone surprised by our large membership losses?
Tapiwa,
In 2012 a USA Today article (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2011-03-18-Adventists_17_ST_N.htm) found the Adventist church was growing at a rate of 2.5% in North America (while the population of the United States alone grew by 2.3 million in the same year). Please keep in mind this stated growth is considering membership on the books of the Adventist Church, and not the attendees and participants on Sabbath and throughout the week. As I look at church growth, I am less likely to consider hard numbers on the role of membership, and look more to the actual attendees to the services, and their participation in the church programs.
As I observe our churches, and look also to other churches in the areas I have pastored in, I am led to observe some churches are growing phenomenly in their attendance and participation. I see much of this growth taking place in non-denominational churches, which in my experience put their primary focus on Christ alone, and not so much the belief structure that a denomination would tend to focus on. Please note I am NOT saying we neglect our "doctrines", just observing trends.
Dean I think the problem is not the doctrines per se, but rather the focus of them when they are presented. Every doctrine should have Christ as its centre – and often this is not the case.
But to say we can have Christ without doctrine is equally nonsensical, because 'doctrine' is (or should be) nothing more than our understanding of our shared consensus of beliefs in the mission of Jesus (His incarnation, life, death, resurrection and Second Coming) and Jesus' teachings (His expansion of the Law for a better relationship with God and our neighbours).
Dean,
I saw the same article. It left me wondering where all that growth is happening. I live in the Southern Union which, according to church membership records, has the most members, fastest growth, etc. What puzzles me is what I see within a 100-mile radius of where I live. Most Adventist churches are struggling to survive as they slowly shrink while some are ageing into the grave at surprising rates. For example, the church where I spoke this past Sabbath has a membership of about 100 but only about 45 were there (some were at a Pathfinder Camporee), but 20 years ago the church had a membership of more than 150. The few churches I see growing (mine, in particular) don't appear to be making enough of a numeric difference to come close to that news report.
Welcome Dean! I hope the editors post this article, as new, once a month!
You've started a wonderful circular conversation that many of us have been poking at from different sides.
Tapiwa's question is crucial, because the answer to it DETERMINES who is at the center, as you so elegantly declare.
Are we worshiping the Son of God, as described in the Bible (Creator, immaculately conceived, and supernaturally resurrected), or do we admire and imitate the hero of an epic allegory?
Past that, I warmly embrace your point. Thank you, for it.
We fail to see that the problem now expressed, is that the entire foundation upon which the Adventist church was built was not belief in Jesus but belief in His soon coming ONLY for those who observed the Fourth Commandment (eliminating all other Christians) and believed in the Investigative Judgment and the SDA's unique interpretation of the cleansing of the sanctuary based on exact dates and times.
The SDA church was not founded only on belief in Jesus' saving power. That power was only extended and available to a very few devout, observant believers in those unique doctrines. Now, nearly 200 years later to wish to recognize that Jesus is the only one that saves us, not belief in doctrines, is a little late in the program. Adventists proseletyzed other Christians, but offered additional doctrines necessary for salvation.
With the recent administration's emphasis on SDA unique doctrines, this proposal has a long voyage ahead. Good luck in turning around the large corporate ship that is Adventism today.
Elaine,
I'm going to partly agree with you. My study of church history shows that it was founded with a primary focus on Jesus, but that over time the teaching of particular doctrines became primary. I am thankful to see people embracing Jesus as their Lord and Savior clearly and without compromise and returning doctrines to their secondary role.
You are correct that turning the church around will not be easy. I see it happening, though against great resistance.
This began with the younger generation's "Jesus Movement." If that could be much more emphasized, maywe could retain our young people. Otherwise, all the esoteric doctrines turn them completely "off."
Brother Dean has hit the center of the target "JESUS CHRIST". In 20 years of sermons in the SDA church, i rarely heard a Christ centered sermon. Most were of the input of EGW"s wisdom and visions, on every area of her influence. Often when the congregation thought Pastors were about to end their delivery, they would state i have a few more quotations of Sister White we need to think about. And of course the often stewartship presentations. The doctrines were constantly drummed on, the Sabbath, IJ, Tithe, Missions, Works, etc.
Interesting isn't it, God on the mountain gave Moses TEN (10) Commandants, now the SDA Church has TWENTY EIGHT (28) beliefs that must be agreed to.
John 3:14 "the SON of man must be lifted up"; vr.15 That whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life; vr.16 For GOD so loved the world, that HE gave HIS only begotten SON, that whosoever believeth in HIM should not perish, but have everlasting life. This is the heart of the Gospel, believe on the LORD JESUS and you will be saved. Note verse 15 was so important, it was again recorded in verse 16.
Take no thought for tomorrow, what you eat, drink, wear, your GOD JESUS supplies your every need; totally believe and accept the LORD JESUS CHRIST into your heart, live HIM every day, and trust HIM when He avers HE will restore your soul. Follow God the HOLY SPIRIT'S daily urging guidance, of knowledge, understanding. wisdom, truth, and take no thought for tomorrow. Praise our GOD.
This discussion is great… I don't want it to be thought, however, that I dismiss Biblical beliefs off-hand as not important to our relationship with God. I simply believe our comprehensive view of Biblical beliefs gives a complete picture of God's character of love, and therefore the puzzle should be assembled with a desire to see Christ's love manifested through Biblical beliefs that are open to all, not just Adventists…
Here is a better explanation:http://the2020church.wordpress.com/2013/06/25/ownership-of-the-truth/
Hi all
Sorry for the late responses, internet connectivity is a luxury from where I come from. Let me say that this is a good discussion and the tone is very civil.
I believe sometimes though when we say lets preach Christ, we mean the “good” side of Jesus. We often preach the Jesus who resonates with our personal worldviews and preconceived ideologies. I rarwly hear people talk about Christ cleansing the temple or cursing the fig tree. When asked to preach Christ very few will touch on Christ rejecting the Jews or calling some select individuals snakes,blind, hypocrites etc. We often want a teddy bear Christ which is sometimes nothing more than emotional sentimentalism.
The question is how do we present The Christ who was not only loving but was just, fair, sometimes stern etc. I feel that we may present a Christ many might like, but will not respect or fear him. We sometimes forget that Christ is also to be revered, respected and appreciated for his grandeur not just to be liked like some celeb who sign autograghs.
Tapiwa,
You're right. Most people want the Jesus who doesn't push them outside their comfort zone. They don't want the Jesus who told them to actually do things for Him because that means going out and helping someone for a few hours instead of sitting in front of their TV and watching their football game on Sunday. Yet getting outside that comfort zone is where we find the Jesus who is real, who is intimate and loving.
As for me, I've come to live for those times outside my comfort zone. That's where the Gospel becomes real and I see the power of God at work. That's where I find the hightest joys, the greatest rewards, the most amazing adventures in loving and being loved.
We have a new member in our church who was raised in the Jehovah's Witness faith and her entire family are still members. When she left the church they refused to have any contact with her because, to them, she had become an unbeliever. She is battling a disabling illness that doctors have not been able to diagnose. The illness keeps her from working, so she is having to move out of her rental house. Her daughter saw her mother's need, broke with the church and decided to invite her to live with her family. On Sunday we were helping with the move. The daughter was there and worked with us. She expressed surprise that such a number of people would come to help. I could feel the closeness of God as we worked. But when we joined together for prayer before driving to the daughter's house, she instead went to her car to keep her faith separate. At the daughter's house we met the husband and teen-aged granddaughter. We had a very happy time together. I was wondering just how much impact our ministry that day. As I turned to leave, I overheard the granddaughter exclaiming to her parents about what a loving group of friends her grandmother had found in us.
We're going back this coming Sunday to finish the move. I'm wondering what barriers we will find God has broken-down this week.
One of the finest and most Godly men I have had the privilege of working with is JW. He and I were busines associates for many years. We have had many discussions comparing our various beliefs without rancor. I have met his family on various occasions and he has met mine. We have once lured him and his wife into our home for pie. On the other hand my wife and I have eaten many meals together with him and his wife in various venues. In our house I prayed which made them a bit uncomfortable. At reastaurants we have offered our individual prayers silently.
Each religion has its own idosyncracies including (surprise!) the SDA church. I have found it best to live according to my own beliefs while trying to minimally impose on those of others.
When I visited the home of a Jewish colleague I gladly donned a yarmulka while he prayed in Hebrew.
Helping this unfortunate woman speaks more than any differences in prayer customs. You are wise to let God break-down barriers in His own time and His own way.
Jim,
Thanks for sharing that. Curiously, this past Sabbath, I was speaking at an area Adventist church where the presiding elder mentioned about having vigorous discussions about scripture with a JW co-worker. Apparently there has been some rancor in their exchanges and their work relationship has become strained. I reminded him that, according to Jesus, the two greatest commandments are to love God and our fellow man. So I asked him, "When are you going to start loving (the co-worker)?" He couldn't imagine how it would ever happen. I think he just needs to have a fresh encounter with God's love to teach him how to love someone who is hard to love.
William,
Is this the same elder who was offended by your sermon?
In any case I have found that often (regardles of the topic and the venue) people who are convinced they know the answer often get frustrated or even angry when they encounter others who do not agree with them. Even when you are right it can be very difficult to "prove" it. I would advise this brother to limit himself to explaining what he believes, showing the same consideration by calmly listening to what his JW colleague believes, and especially not to think it is his job to convince his colleague of the truth. That is the job of the Holy Spirit.
One more thought re your particular situation. I would suggest that the next time SDA friends visit your new sister's JW family, they might suggest that everyone simply pray together silently. That way each person can pray in their own way without offense and without breaking fellowship.
The JW belief system is strongly based upon the notion of spiritual authority (remind you of Performance Adventism?). You cannot expect an adherent to accept any form of spiritual authority from outside their own faith community (prayer, Bible reading, worship, etc). That is why they find it necessary to shun those who will not to submit to their recognized authority structure. The way to reach them which you already seem to have discovered, is by humble acts of service rather than by challenging their spiritual authority. It is amazing how this can break down barriers.
Isn't it strange that a few pastors seem to believe that they are always to be in "preaching mode" and have forgotten how to listen? This should be the No. 1 qualifications for pastor wanna-be's.
No matter how eloquent a sermon, if in one-on-one conversations there is no ready ear to listen, it can prove to eliminate all the beautiful sermons in an instant.
Different pastors have different gifts. I have been living with and working with SDA pastors all my life. Some of the best speakers (gift of exhortation) are some of the worst visitors (gift of encouragement) and vice versa. It is not fair to insist that one person have all these gifts, nor to restrict the pastorate to those with your favorite gift. Let each man and woman do whatever it is that God has called and gifted them to do. And hopefully let others learn to step-in where the pastor is not well-gifted.
Jim,
One and the same.
Thanks for your suggestion. I'm enjoying watching God at work. I've been utterly amazed by how many people I've seen God bring into the church after I quit trying to convince them and started loving them.
Seven months after Hurricane Katrina laid waste to large areas of the Gulf Coast, I took a team of five from our church to the coast of Mississippi and the town of Waveland to help with home rebuilding. Nine feet of sea water had washed through the first house we worked on. In three days we removed the old wiring and completely rewired it. The electrician who was our technical leader told us the crew he worked on would normally require two weeks to do what we had done. The home owner was a broken man who had lost his family due to alcoholism and part of his mobility to accidents. I remember the second day when I was digging in my tool box in the living room and heard hist footsteps and the tapping of his cane stop behind me. I turned around to see him leaning on the cane with tears tracing his cheeks and dripping onto the floor. "You have to be angels," he declared, "because no human would come as far as you said you did to work on my house, bring the materials with you and not charge me." Adventists had brought him hot meals each day for months. Adventists had cleared the fallen trees from his yard and gutted his house. They had invited him to church multiple times, but he declined. But he went when we invited him. What made the difference? My daughter, who was 18 at the time, paid him special attention. She would take long breaks sitting with him on the porch and listening to his stories. We were not just removing the damage, we were taking visible action starting his path back to having a house in which he could live again. That gave him hope for improving his physical existence, so his heart was opened to the spiritual.
That's also where we got the first hint of a good name for what became my ministry: The Angel Team.
William,
Go Angels ! (the God kind – I am neither for nor against the MLB kind)
It is interesting how much Performance Adventism and JW have in common. No wonder they can't stop butting heads! If they could listen to each other they would probably find they agree on at least 80% of their beliefs. But they will never agree on who are the legitimate spiritual authorities. This is a dangerous line of reasoning that can lead to spiritual abuse if one is not careful. (Please note that I am not saying that all or most are spiritual abusers – only noting the danger.)
In Oregon the unions have such a grip on things that volunteers are not allowed to do power wiring even under the supervision of a licensed master electician. Too bad because as an engineer by profession I love to do wiring. I suppose I could move to your end of the US of A but I can't take the heat and humidity. Here I mostly stick to low voltage wiring – just finished a major volunteer project where I engineered and installed the voice, data, sound, video and surveillance systems for a school addition/renovation. I pulled several miles of wiring and did over a thousand terminations. Not something your typical homeowner needs but it helps a lot of kids and I love kids.
Thanks for the cheer! Maybe we can meet someday on a Maranatha project somewhere here in North America.
Tapiwa,
As far as I know, the ONLY people Christ called names (i.e., "vipers" and other choice epithets) were the teachers of the law — the Pharisees (Matthew 23:2-33). They were the adversaries (those in the temple, judging others' adherence to the law) Christ was most assertive with and the target of His condemnation. What would happen if we modeled that feature of His example?
Do I understand correctly that Mr. Musaninga and Foster are suggesting that they have the insights of Jesus to be able to pick out who are "adversaries?." Very interesting.
It is indeed very interesting (to me at least) to see an occasion where Dr Taylor mentions the name of Jesus. Indeed interesting…
I have no doubt that Dr Taylor is aware of the fact that most 'christians' believe and accept that Jesus is God (a doctrine of course) and that he died to redeem mankind from the curse of sin (another doctrine) and that Jesus rose again from the dead (doctrine) for which the Plan of Salvation (doctrine) and the Promise of Messiah (doctrine) came into effect after The Fall of man all because of Adam and Eve disobeyed God's Law (yet another doctrine).
Dr Taylor uses the term co-religionists, a term which I am not familiar with, however, I think it broadly refers to those subscribing to some sort of religious belief. Does Dr Tayor's co-religionist concept include his belief in any of the 'doctrines' mentioned in my previous paragraph?
Regards
Trevor D. Hammond
Erv,
I read Matthew 23: 2-33 and draw the conclusion that the Pharisees were Christ's adversaries (I don't believe this is news).
What do you see?
Do you have any thoughts on Dean's larger point?
Several commentators are beginning to sound like there is becoming sufficient reasons for a board of inquiry, if not inquisition. Who feels sufficiently omniscient to determine who is not only a Christian, but a bona fide one who has the necessary and required beliefs in order to be a Christian.
Is this what the Adventist church is becoming–at least in certain areas or with those members who feel fuly qualified to make such determinations? Do they not have that privilege in their own congregation to question memberships? Is the SDA church not sufficiently exclusive yet? Have members been designated to make those determinations here?
It appears that Elaine and I share the view that our tradionalist/conservative friends seem to have a need to make sure that other individuals "measure up" to certain criteria about who is and who is not an Adventist or Christian and they, of courase, want to be the ones who make up the list. However, all progressive/liberals that I know have no such need to make up such lists. I wonder why? If Mr.Oct wishes to make a list of things that he believes that "most" Christians believe, he certainly has that right to do that. Whether his list is any better than any other list is, of course, debateable.
Anyone who would like to answer this please help me out here. I do not understand why individuals who believe that Jesus of The Gospels is a complete fake, wish to call themselves christians and be recognized as christians?
Is there a reason?
Probably several reasons some of which I partly understand.
At or near the top of the list would be the appeal of His ethical teachings and His rebuke of those who abuse their authority.
I know many people who admire some of the Teachings even if they do not accept the Teacher. Maybe I can empathize because I had a lot of teachers that I didn't like and some that were downright abusive. Do not under-estimate the damage that can be done by spiritual (and other) abuse. It can really mess-up your relationship with God. Some people never recover.
Man looks on the outward appearance but God looks on the heart.
Darrel,
Fake? I think you need to be careful with terminology. To me the idea of "fake" being applied to Jesus of the Gospels is misleading.
In my search to try to put this into words, I did a google search, and Google offered me some suggestions on real vs fake. It came up with the option of "fake vs real breasts". I did not follow the link to the if it offered me some good examples of either, but it makes my point.
Fake is something setting out to deliberately give an impression or belief that is not true or real. I do not see Jesus's story in this way. It seems to me it is, was, began, and was ever only intended to be A STORY! A story with lessons/a point. It is a story about a person challenging the status quo. It is a person prepared to stand up for principles that were revolutionary for the context and culture. It is a vehicle to make a point. Its a story about a person standing up to fundamentalism!
As such, I have no problem with subscribing to any values, principles, light etc that can further the cause of good in this world.
It is Religion, and in particular religious people who have, and continue to make the FAKE claims. First that He is, was or had to be a real person. Second to that are all the false claims now made about him. that He was God etc.
Do some research on the Jewish Talmud and "Jesus" being Ben Pandera. Very interesting stuff.
Anyway, my point: Jesus was not a fake in the sense your terms imply. It is a story. A great story. It is when we make of it what it is not that we set it up for such charges.
I've just found the word I would use, "fictitious". I know "fake" can be a synonym of this, but the essence of deception or intent to pretent to be other, is absent.
Every reader of the story, when it first came to be, knew it was a work of fiction, or at least contained fiction within it.
Again, I think "we" make the fake/false/wrong claims for it.
I continue to wonder why it is so vitally important that anyone claiming to be a Christian–a follower of Jesus–is expected to accept a face value all the miracles and sayings that much later writers penned. Are his miracles and sayings more important than the principles he taught and lived? For some, it appears so.
A Christian should be one who desires to follow the principles He gave us, not specifics as they had meaning to His contemporaries and little value today other than examples we may apply to our lives today. Was Christ ever meant to be an idol? Which is more important: an individual's life or the principles left us?
The more you try to explain Chris; the more I think: "fake."
Sorry Elaine I commented to Chris under yourself here. "Face value." Yes, I think there were some embellishments and Redactions. We see evidence of as much in the manuscript history(Alexandrian and Byzantine) but the core of the Gospel material is truly remarkable in its self authinticating consistancy. The Gospel is remarkable early in it written and oral tradition–we see the Apostle Paul quoting it in First Corinthians Eleven. The Power of it, is the Resurrection of Jesus. Because of this disciples were transformed to fearless witnesses. Nothing matter anymore-death, torture or imprisonment. Because the knew it was true, and that Jesus was authentically who He had claimed to be.
Historically, we know there was not body of Jesus to be found. The many enemies of The Way would have quickly produced the body. The followers of Jesus took the body and hide it? And then they made up a story of His resurrection, first witnessed by a group of women? Women? People will often die for what they believe is true, even if it is false {fake} but they will not go out of their way to be tortured and killed for what they know is not true.
Besides the historical evidence we have the prophetic evidence in Daniel Nine for example where God prepares us to expect not just a story but a Saviour.
The principles Jesus gave us are grounded on the reality of His personhood and His self-proclaimed identity.
Elaine,
"Was Christ ever meant to be an idol?" If by Idol you mean an object of worship the the answer is Yes. If by Idol you mean a counterfeit object of worship the answer is No.
Christ of the NT claimed to be Yahweh (I AM) of the OT (John 8:58). If you accept His claim then He is certainly the true object of worship as our Redeemer (Exodus 20:2) and the exclusive object of worship (Exodus 20:3-6). If you do not accept His claim then He is certainly one of the most outrageous liars and blasphemers of all time and there is absolutely no reason to worship Him or even bother to listen to anything else He said.
… oh dear, pardon my typos… in both.:(
Sometimes being agnostic is the result of heavy-handed religion.
Precisely!
Damage by abusers can drive victims to despair. One way to cope is to emotionally distance oneself from the abuser. In the case of spiritual abuse this leads to Agnosticism. Agnosticism can be a coping machanism for spiritual abuse.
Another method of coping is to assimilate the response of Jesus to His abusers – "Father forgive them, for they do not understand what they are doing". I came to understand that my abusers were themselves abuse victims and did not know a better way. Then I came to understand the love of Jesus for the victims of abuse. After I accepted His forgiveness for my own abusive acts I was able to begin forgiving those who had abused me.
The attitude I have adopted is simply just to move on. I hold no animosity to any individual but I cannot respect those in authority who abused their power over innocent childhood actions in the name of religion. This has helped me both in raising my own children and in all children: never expect perfection only teach respect by your own actions, which is the only way to break the cycle.
But I will continue to speak out whenever these tactics are used as they do nothing but continue the cycle, or break one's spirit.
It is quite apparent to me that many individuals who left Adventism after Dr Ford's run-in with the church some years ago see themselves as victims. To accuse the Adventist Church of being 'abusive' is a gross exaggeration and misrepresentation, as Adventists are generally a kind and warmhearted people. We certainly wouldn't have such large numbers and enjoy such phenomenal growth, especially since we have such high standards which may easily deter some people, yet, many still join and have joined – and choose to remain with us for the rest of their lives.
Christ has always been the central focus of the Adventist Church even on issues of church standards and doctrine. Many may have their own perspective and frame of reference regarding just what this means interms of Christ being the centre of our church and doctrinal beliefs, including who we are as a people; however, Christ is the golden thread binding us together as His body – His bride – the Church. It is Christ who has purposed to reveal himself as head of the church and therefore direct us to him as the central figure of our belief and doctrinal positions. Even when in our lukewarm self-righteous condition we are ultimately pointed to Christ as the remedy for all our spiritual maladies – And that's as centre as it gets I would say.
Well brother,
I knew abuse when I saw it even as a child, and also as a church elder having to deal with the consequences. I do not accuse the church at-large of being abusive, but there are unfortunately enough abusers within our ranks to do a lot of damage. Not only has there been damage to individuals but also in more recent times serious insurance payouts to victims. To claim this is not a serious problem is not credible. Nor is this a recent problem. I would urge you to go read what Jesus said about those who cause children to stumble. And since you believe Ellen White to be a prophet you might also look at what she has to say about those in positions of responsibility withion the church who abuse their trust.
Denial of a problem will not make it go away. Deniers (perhaps unintentionally) aid and abet the perpretators. Those who take the name of the Lord in vain (by claiming spiritutal authority) and then do not act like the God of love, do Him and His church a great dis-service. And those who look the other way as happens all too often, because they want to preserve the "reputation" of the institutions, are seriously mistaken. Be sure your sins will find you out.
Let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall or cause another to stumble.
(I did not leave Adventism – I am still here and still standing for what I know to be truth.)
I think it dangerous to generalize about why people have chosen to leave the SDA church. People leave for as many or more reasons as they join.
I have good friends who I think were victims of over-zealous "purges" in some conferences in the wake of Ford, but I could also point to other "purges" both before and since (remember when Pierson denounced wedding rings? or when some were deemed too close to Brinsmead? or to Andreasen? or to QOD?). I could mention more recent examples but that would be meddling. Some administrators use these disputes as opportunities to get rid of people they do not like or trust for other reasons. When this happens then for each victim you have many others who are sympathetic and may leave or may stay but harbor resentment.
And there are people who would have left anyway but use sympathy for the victims as an explanation for their own choices.
Not to mention a host of other grievances and disappointments.
Disclaimer – I am not saying that anybody who practices or teaches anything they wish should be allowed to stay around indefinitely. Every tent large or small has its boundaries. I am saying that the real reasons why some people are terminated or reassigned or pressured to leave or choose to leave are not always known. And I am also saying that almost anybody who works in a large organization long enough will have their grievances.
It is dangerous to generalize about other people's motives or even one's own. Man looks on the outward appearance but God looks on the heart. I thank God for His great mercy because I for one certainly need it.
i don't wish to say this, but i can't agree that in practice Jesus Christ Is the centralfocus of SDA church. Obviously there are many JESUS loving souls praising Him, and with His indwelling they have confidence in living now, and rest in the knowledge of His Almighty power and trust in His plans for them. The central focus is Doctrines, and exclusions for those who believe differently.Jesus wants every sinner in His fold, and the SDA church must have acknowledgement to non Scriptural doctrines, to preserve their stated reasons to be the remant church of belivers. And of course all must accept their Prophetess, EGW, as the final source of orthrodoxy. They have traded on this special talented saintly woman, elevating her beyond that which she denied. Jesus comes in third place.
I know SDA people and SDA congregations for whom Jesus is the central focus.
I know SDA people and SDA congregations for whom Doctrines are the central focus.
I know SDA people and SDA congregations for whom Obedience is the central focus.
I know SDA people and SDA congregations for whom Service to others is the central focus.
All of the above have some Biblical basis, depending on your favorite Bible verses.
Which SDA church you "see" depends to some degree on where you happen to touch the elephant.
Jim: Perfectly stated.
The origin of the SDA church did not emphasize Jesus but the differences they had with other Christian churches. Had they simply claimed Jesus they would not have needed to separate from the other churches of which they were members and initiate a new movement. By emphasizing the Investigative Judgment as a "revised" position of 1844, and the Sabbath, they were sufficiently set apart as no longer with the mainstream Christianity.
The SDA church still emphasizes its unique doctrines; else why exist?
Well the Millerite movement was very much focused on Jesus and specifically His soon return. It started out being about Jesus but lost that focus when He did not return.
I submit that genuine Adventism is always focused on Jesus – what other reason is there for taking this name?
There's always the caveat: "genuine Adventist" "true Adventist" "Adventist is name only."
Will someone please identify the "genuine, true Adventist"? Do you know any or is it an unattainable idea? Maybe someone who has achieved LGT?
Well I offered a definiton (pretty much straight from the dictionary) on Atoday that many did not like. An Adventist believes that in the past God came to earth, and/or in the future God will come to earth.
If you call the God who comes to earth Jesus, then it is hard for me to understand how one can claim to be an Adventist and not believe in Jesus as God Incarnate. Other names used are Messiah and Christ which are transliterations of Anointed One from Hebrew and Greek.
Of course many men in recorded history have claimed to be God on earth. But for my part I will admit to being focused on only one – Jeshuah Messhiah or Jesus Christ.
Having defined Adventist, I will go out on a limb and clearly say what I consider to be a "genuine Adventist" which is a term I used in my previous comment.
I believe that Jesus Christ is the unique (monogenes) God Incarnate. According to His teachings anyone else who claims to be God on earth is a counterfeit christ. So my definition of a genuine Adventist is one who believes in Jesus Christ as God on earth.
believing in Jesus alone apparently threatens the church, its distinctive doctrines, and its authority over its members. seems an authoritaian church needs a laundy list of beliefs to control what its members believe and do. all fundamentalist churches find this their 'm. o.' and when Jesus said 'go and teach,' perhaps He was suggesting we teach people to love otheres as He did. 'truth' is who we are more than what we believe, though i understand a connection between the two. maybe our lord was asking us to love unconditionally, to teach others to be unselfish, to welcome ALL walks of life into our ranks, to cease judging and start embracing humanity. could it be that was what He meant by 'go and teach…?' but a church obsessed with its identity finds such a notion too simple, too threatening, and not conforming to their presentation of God- in- our- box theology.
Jesus placed us here to learn to love as He did/does. the bible says, God is love,' but we say, 'yes, but…' as we add our required beliefs and exclude those who don't agree. 'God is love,' period. and we should be just like Him, love as He loves us, as Jesus walked the earth. if that was our doctrine and our lifestyle, perchance adventism might be a 'light unto the world' instead of a flashlight whose batteries are running low.
Greg,
Performance Adventists (in common with other religious fundamentalists) are very much concerned with spritual authority and control. However I do not buy your assertion that they speak for the majority of the church.
thanks jim, for your reply. like you, i am not sure they speak for the majority of believers either, but they certainly speak for the gc leadership as i see it. i stand by my point.
Doubtless there is such a contingent aboard the Mother Ship in Silver Spring MD. How strong they are in that building I cannot say. Nor can I say exactly where Ted W's personal beliefs lie on the continuum between Performance Adventism and Anything Goes Adventism. But it appears that he is certainly cognizant of the contingent that voted him into office and his actions do not defy them. He is clearly trying to contract the boundaries of Jan P's bigger tent. But even Jan P was a long way from Anything Goes. Most of these gentlemen (and a few token women) have similar beliefs albeit different approaches in how they operate.
I think performance adventists are being overshadowed by the new breed – self righteous adventists. There seems to be a swing away from the old right to now a focus on being good rather than doing good. Self help devotionals focussing intently on the internal conquest rather than the Gospel going to the world is a big shift I see now as our danger. Not sure if I am explaining it right but there is as I see it a large portion of our churches heading into a kind of internalised christianity where the biggest issues are purification by devotion.
Greg,
You make a point. I wish more people would consider and take to heart the declaration about the greatest commandments that Jesus gives in Matthew 22:36-40.
Those who have met God can't stop talking about Him and the greatness of His love. Show me a person whose primary focus is on keeping the law and I'll show you someone who has a form of godliness but none of the power. Jesus told us to stay away from them.
greg,
There are so many exceptions to Adventism that it is difficult to find one.
elaine,
how does that happen to 'the Truth?' how does that happen to God's chosen church for earth's last days? how does that happen to 'the Remnant, to the church who proclaims the sabbath and the investigative judment?' i think it occurs because all the foregoing is not true. sda's are good people, the sabbath is a blessing, living healthfully is wise, and the church does good works, but it is no more special or 'called' than any other organized church. we've been sold a phoney bill of goods, a laundry list of do's and don't's of a church filled with with self-importance reeking of fundamentalism. i was raised in this 'misguided truth' but fortunately, life taught me a better way.
i have discovered the God who includes all, the God who trully loves people, the God who sees my heart through the cracks in my character. the adventist church never showed me that kind of God. their God is picky, quick to find fault, afraid of culture, intolerant of searching questions; who portrays the Father needing His Son's blood to love us, and fast to ex-communicate if one sees their faith differently. i am now a sociological adventist, not a theological one. i am free.
one fundamental belief. Believe and accept the LORD GOD JESUS CHRIST into the deepest recesses of your soul. All of your knowledge & the continual arguments don't change this, the only WAY, the only LIGHT, to light our way into the Earth made new.
Welcome Dean. Thank you for your Christ centered reminders. I am sorry for the untidy unedited battleground that comments sadly become. Please keep writing for those wise enough to read and think about the content of the blog. The comments are only a small fraction of your reading audience.
dear dean,
thank you for your wonderful post for it awakened a lively discussion within a community of caring THINKING people who were stimulated to ponder and resond to your thoughts. this small fraction of commenters are children of God who appreciate a good discussion, wherever it may lead, and whose ideas and comments, i'm sure you would agree, are just as valid as the wonderful post you left us. none of us are too haughty not appreciate your thoughts and to reply as the Spirit moves us. we make no apologies for our comments. keep up the good work, dean, for where Christ is are those who love to talk about him, however humble their response might be. i am sorry some feel they are too holy, too refined, to engage the rest of us who dwell humbly beneath them. thank you again.
greg
I have enjoyed the conversation, and certainly appreciate the kind words of affirmation. My goal in sharing isn't to have everyone agree with what I say, but stimulate a conversation we ALL can gain something from. I have gained insight by reading all the comments. Hopefully those sharing (and reading also) have gained insight also.
My next post is already being written. Hope to share soon. If you liked the Andy Griffith Show, then you may appreciate what I share next.
Welcome aboard Dean. You have opened up a can of worms it seems.
If U have a "relationship" with God…U will of course follow His "rules". That is the dividing line between His people and those of the world.
And true righteousness by faith is both courts of the Sanctuary summed up by the woman taken in adultery & thrown at His feet (outer court/NEITHER DO I CONDEMN YOU) & (inner court/GO & SIN NO MORE).
Dear brother, you seem confused as a "minister" as to the Biblical doctrines of the Church. Spent a little too much time on "Adventist" Today or Spectrum?