Landmark Surveys Reveal Beliefs and Perceptions of Seventh-day Adventist Church Members
by Monte Sahlin
Based on a Report from Adventist News Network, October 22, 2013
The most extensive research ever conducted on the attitudes, beliefs, experiences and spiritual practices of the members of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination reinforced some long-held assumptions about the denominational loyalty of members, yet revealed an emerging trend toward secularization that is worrisome for some church leaders. The findings were released last week at the annual meeting of the General Conference executive committee.
The research comes from five separate studies with more than 41,000 respondents around the world, including 4,260 pastors, nearly 26,000 church members, 1,200 college students and recent graduates, and 900 former Adventists. Research teams from Adventist universities on several continents were involved in the unprecedented effort commissioned by the Office of Archives, Statistics and Research over the past three years.
Among the most significant findings, according to Dr. David Tim, director of the office:
• Sabbath School teachers were ranked higher than pastors and elders when church members were asked who had a positive effect on their spiritual lives.
• About three-fourths of Adventists strongly embrace the prophetic ministry of church co-founder Ellen G. White.
• Only about one in three families worldwide conduct daily worship. Previous studies have shown a higher percentage in North America.
• Almost half of college students and recent college graduates said they would accept practicing homosexuals as church members in good and regular standing.
• About 9 in 10 people who left the Adventist church were never contacted by their pastor after they stopped attending.
“In terms of both the breadth and depth,” said Trim, “this is the best snapshot we’ve ever had of the worldwide church.” As he introduced the report to hundreds of church administrators, Trim warned the group to not be quick to judge. “Data is what it is,” Trim said. “What it means, is something else.”
The findings debunked long held assumptions about the denomination’s gender makeup. The church is 57 percent female, and 43 percent male, quite a ways off from the belief that 65 percent of worshipers were female and 35 percent were male.
The findings also showed a denomination that is young. A total of 54 percent of the members worldwide are between the ages of 16 and 40. This has two disadvantages, according to Trim. For one, young members may be called too quickly into leadership positions without sufficient experience. In addition, older leaders may need training to learn how to understand and work effectively with the younger generation.
Only 10 percent of church members globally are older than 60, and the largest proportion of aging congregants are in North America, Europe and Japan. Research done for the North American Division put the median age there at 51. In contrast, Trim said, “Our church in Latin America and Africa in particular is an extremely youthful church.”
The findings contained several bright spots, Trim said, including a statistic that shows that 53 percent of respondents stated that the Sabbath School adult Bible study guide helped “very much” to develop their religious life. The study guide is least popular with worshipers in North America, parts of Europe, Australia and New Zealand. “As someone who is both from Australia and Europe, and married to an American,” Trim said jokingly, “I will accept the blame for all those things. We are very cynical people in America, Australia and Europe.”
Another “success story,” Trim said, was that 92 percent of Adventists have an overwhelming conviction that the Seventh-day Sabbath is the true Sabbath, and only 3 percent disagree. Because that particular survey’s margin of error was 3 percent actual disagreement could be nearly zero.
The findings also pointed to several areas deemed problematic, such as people leaving the church unnoticed, and the seeping influence of secular values, Trim said. Interestingly, the vast majority of inactive and former members do not reject the message and mission of the Adventist church. “They are moving with the strong dynamics of contemporary society away from established forms of religious activity,” Trim said. “The fabric of most Adventist local churches is not sufficient to stem this tide.” He then told the committee, “Brothers and sisters, I think this is a real challenge to us.”
While only 9 percent of these inactive and former members were contacted by their pastor after they stopped attending church, a larger number said they had been visited by elders or other church members. However, the findings show that 4 out of 10 inactive and former Adventists slipped out of the church without ever being contacted by anyone. The fact that members leave unnoticed is a “tragedy,” Trim said.
From 2000 to 2012, more than 13.6 million people joined the church, mostly through baptism. But during the same time, 5.9 million Adventists were lost (and that doesn’t include those who died). That’s a loss rate of nearly 43.4 per 100 new converts. “That is too high,” Trim said.
Approximately 90 percent of respondents strongly agreed that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is God’s true last-day church with a message to prepare the world for the Second Coming of Christ. When asked if they expect the world to end within the next 20 years, just 22 percent of respondents strongly agreed, and 45 percent strongly disagreed, Trim said. “It’s not that people don’t believe that Jesus is coming, but there does seem to be some kind of skepticism about Him coming soon.”
The report concluded that secularization is no longer limited to America, Europe and Australia. “It’s a globalized society,” Trim said. “People are watching the same television programs, reading the same apps and websites on their phones and computers, and secularization is a problem.”
Pastor Benjamin Schoun, the General Conference vice president in the chair at the time of the report, acknowledged the challenges facing the denomination. “We have much to learn and we probably need to incorporate these results into our strategic planning,” he stated, “because it is a very sobering picture in some cases, even though we have our strengths as well.”
This report is based on a bulletin from the Adventist News Network, the official news service of the denomination.
Sometimes the need to condense a body of data into a report causes golden nuggets to become lost, so I would like to see the study results published where they can be reviewed by those who are interested in looking more deeply into them.
The tidbits we were given illustrate some real challenge areas for the church.
I was not surprised that Sabbath School teachers were ranked more highly than pastors and elders for their positive impact on the spiritual lives of members. After all, who has more "face time" with them than the teacher? How many elders do more than sit on the platform on Sabbath and perform ritual roles? How many people really pay attention to the sermon or remember it for any length of time? (Extremely few.)
How were the questions about Ellen White worded? What criteria were used to produce the "strongly embrace" conclusion relating to the prophetic ministry of Ellen White?
Then we get into questions about how to apply the data. Does only 9% of former members being visited by a pastor after they left the church reveal a problem with how pastors work? Or, that members have generally become pastor-dependant instead of growing into their own ministry roles in the church? I happen to believe the latter is a direct result of the former. But, do church leaders see enough of a problem to cause redefinition of the role of a pastor? Or, will they just increase the pressure on pastors to identify and visit the missing and thus increase their professional frustration, leading to more of them leaving?
Then there's that finding about the Sabbath School quarterly. If any result shows a need for change, that one should post a flashing neon sign saying "major change required" over the quarterly editorial offices. Clearly, the old concept of the same quarterly being used worldwide is no longer culturally effective. The quarterly needs to respect the cultural diversity and intelligence of the users and be flexible enough to address social issues from a scriptural foundation. The quarterly lesson for a particular week may need to illustrate the topic from a different cultural setting than the one used in East Asia or Australia. Most of all, we need to heed Ellen White's counsel to use the Bible and the Bible only. This means using the Bible as the exclusive basis for all of our teachings, getting away from using (sometimes multiple) quotes from her in each day's lesson and considering using comments from others when their words contribute to understanding.
On a whole, I am somewhat encouraged by the results of this survey, at least as reported in this condensed format. We are apparently baptizing more people elsewhere in the world than I had imagined. The church is younger than I had perceived and more adherent to the historical foundations than I had perceived as well.
That can be understood when one realizes that the major growth areas of the church are in the same as Pentecostal ones or those with lower income and educational levels. The NAD has become jaded as the same ideas that built the SDA church in the past 150 years is now "burned over" and with the increasing education and lifestyles they are not the same that converts were seeking at that time. All religions are losing membership, including Adventist for the very reasons it was once attractive: urgency of the Second Coming; preparing one's life to be ready by giving up all "worldly" amusements; strict observance of Sabbath and other external symbols prevent association with non-SDAs and making true friends.
Questions to ponder: If you had never heard of Adventists and were approached by someone, friend or pastor, what could be said or done that would pique your interest to learn more? Which of the 28 FBs would you choose to follow and would you consider becoming a member of this organization based on one or all of those doctrines?
The utter ignorance/arrogance of even suggesting for a second that “those with lower income and educational levels” are somehow of less value—at all—than those of higher income and educational levels is actually laughable.
It’s a repeated refrain from some; and would be nauseating if it weren’t laughable. I will call this out every time. (I’d love to be challenged on this.) If those with lower incomes and educational levels are most ‘susceptible’ to spiritual things, then they are actually the advantaged ones.
The friends I’ve made in my “association” in a ‘worldly’ corporation are as valued and strong as those made with SDAs. I cannot be alone in that experience.
As to Elaine’s "questions to ponder," the distinguishing tenets that would most likely pique my interest, and those that appear to pique the most interest in others, are the Sabbath and the health-motivated lifestyle. But to be perfectly candid, I doubt that I would actually convert given my mindset. (That’s why I marvel at the grace…or at least one reason why I marvel.)
Stephen, your accusations are without evidence. Nowhere have is written, or suggested that those wih lower income or educational level are of less value. That is your erroneous assumption. I wrote that those in those categories usually have a lower level of history, especially of the Bible so that when a group–it could be Pentecostal JWs or Mormons as well as Adventists, who seek to convince them of having the true religions and beliefs, there is often inability for evaluation what is being preached or taught.
This is evidened by the areas of fastest growth within the church: immigrant groups in most nations. They have equal value, but do not always have equal historical or intellectual ability to discern about what is being taught. The success, or lack of, within the NAD with SDA evangelical campaigns among native U.S. citizens is well known. Do you have evidence to dispute?
The "susceptibility to spiritual things" is insufficient to accept Adventism as there are many more doctrines that must be accepted before one can join that church. The "susceptibility to spiritual things" leads more to joint with the Pentecostal groups as there is far less doctrinal requirements and they feature the demonstrations of the spirit in their meetings.
You appear to agree that the Sabbath and health message would be insufficient to "convert" to which demonstrates my premise: There is a world of difference between wishing to be a Christian than becoming an Adventist. Perhaps we are each considering two different positions: becoming Christian, or becoming Adventist. They are not the same.
“Equal value” wasn’t the most accurate description of the assumption; but “equal…intellectual ability” is; which is just as ignorant and arrogant.
It's ignorant and arrogant to assume that one is smarter than those with less income and/or lower levels of educational achievement. That’s what a 'limousine liberal' might think. (Please tell me that you are not of this opinion and/or of this mindset.)
Those who are most susceptible to spiritual things, which a belief in a God who created, commanded, and died would include, are candidates to become Christians and/or Adventists.
In my opinion I probably would be less likely to convert than most because I am more risk averse than most. Becoming an Adventist would represent some risk.
How many times must I say that I am not claiming income equals intelligence.
You state your position as being risk averse, which is similar to skepicism in not being eager to adopt new positions easily. Adventism is not a religion to simply join without great thought as do some other religions. Adventism requires thorough study and acceptance of unusual doctrines, which is why I emphasized that it takes more careful and intelligent cogitation to truly accept some of them.
People have joined that do not truly understand and accept them as any questionnaire requiring explanations would reveal. This is not arrogance but long observation of what it means to be Adventist. One can answer an altar call at a Billy Graham-type revival and become a church member. That is not the method in Adventism which requires a course of studies to even be a baptismal candidatel.
One well-studied reason why there are more conversions o Adventism among lower soci-economic groups is that our strong emphases on healthful lifestyle, financial responsibility, obedience to laws, and education, result in upward mobility. These advantages of the SDA "system" have less of an advantage for those in higher socio-economic strata.
Another reason is that those in lower socio-economic strata have less to lose from the social disadvantages the some in higer strata associate with our faith.
Another reason is that a local church comprised primarily of people of similar ethnic and cultural backgrounds provides a sense of community for people who might otherwise feel like strangers in a strange land.
I am not questioning the motives of believers. I am saying that people tend to make rational choices within their own contexts. This is not a sign of intellectual weakness but of intellectutal strength. People generally emigrate to better themselves or their children.
Finally I might add that when I was a child similar arguments were advanced regarding the "foreign" SDA churches established in the Midwest for persons who had immigrated from Germany, Romania, Poland, etc. This is not a new argument.
Thank you Jim, these are well-reasoned explanations. I’m glad that they are well-studied too.
Elaine – Your implicit indictment of intellectual superiority, wisdom and understanding – at least as the world measures those qualities – is quite valid. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. The siren calls of materialism and methodological naturalism are blindly pursued in the halls of Western higher education. Their seductive beauty and utopian abstractions promise power, wealth, and moral thrills to those fortunate few who can "safely" navigate the shallows and shoals to reach the rocky shores of Sirenusas, and pursue the "good life." It matters little, to those who haughtily insist that the waters are navigable, that most folks who try to follow the maps of the wise and learned end up shipwrecked.
The truly wise and discerning, who seek deeper waters, are very often – probably most often – found among "immigrant groups," among unsophisticated laborers – the meek, the poor. Even humble fishermen have been known to leave their nets to seek those deeper waters.
I think you are also correct, Elaine, in questioning the reliability and attractiveness of Adventist maps. Spiritually speaking, when we choose to sail toward deep waters, we need to be prepared for the reality that the positions of the stars change, as do sailing conditions. 28 F.B.s is just too much ballast. And amazingly, in the middle of the storm, when the ballast is causing you to sink, you never know when Someone might come walking toward you on the water. And your life will never be the same.
How can Adventists seek to bring Christ's message? How can we reconcile the Adventist message and Christ's?
When more than half of "young people," who will more than likely become disheartened w/ the church- would deny a sinner in "good standing" membership because of sin.
If we want to ask why young people fall out of love it is because the church teaches them not to love sinners. And when the bitterness of wisdom and living an earth-bound life take root, they can no longer reconcile a loveless church w/ a loving God.
If we want to know why such a virulent strain of reactionary ex-Adventists exist, it is because they have lost sight of grace and unconditional love. And our church was too willing to have them be lost in hate and sin. While such a church proclaims itself as the righteous remnant as others are unforgivingly discarded like "weeds amongst the wheat".
Christ's message calls for laborers to bring in the harvest to vast for us to imagine. And trust the Holy Spirit to bring in the rest.
It is not biblical Christianity to deny sinners "homosexuals" because of their open sin. It takes more faith and courage to sin openly and seek out God's love- than to condemn stiffnecked and sin within our hearts and hidden rooms.
Lynn,
When Jesus returns, will He be apologizing for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah?
When Jesus addresses the woman caught in adultery, after writing the sins of her accusers (Pharisees and Scribes) in the dirt, does he say to the woman, “your accusers have sinned, go and sin some more?”
No, Jesus says in John 8:11 (NKJV) “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”
Christ himself says, “I accept you in your sin, but not your sin, the sin that I will die for,” and in our case the sin that He has died for.
The fact that, “almost half of college students and recent college graduates said they would accept practicing homosexuals as church members in good and regular standing” is alarming!
The fact that our SDA church, in an attempt to become more relevant has become more secular and thus more irrelevant in North America is a shame.
Practising homosexual couples, as in other denominations, do not seek inclusion as openly “sinning members” but inclusion as heterosexual couples, which my dear friend is unbiblical.
Practising homosexual couples are not merely struggling in sin, or missing the mark but are openly defiant as in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah and seek inclusion as an acceptance of their behaviour.
Homosexuality is no greater than any other sin, but the SDA church does not have to embrace and condone the practice as the secular world does. If truth be told, we could actually admit that our SDA church is just taking our cues from the world, because God’s grace is nothing new and our church could have been more accepting of homosexual behaviour sixty or eighty years ago, which would have not been popular with secular world at that time.
May we look to Christ only as our example and His word as our guide, for if not, secularism thought will run amok!
Gene,
Jesus will not be apologizing for the Old Testament because that is what He died for. He died to create a spiritual covenant because we, our blood ancestors, and future generations could not come to know the Lord w/ sin. Yes, sin is sin. I am not suggesting Jesus rewrote the law because the law is meant to convict, in order, to have all mankind (Jew and Gentile) brought before the Lord and His sacrifice.
God executed Israelites for idolatry. Struck people for touching the Ark. It was God's example, Jews were following when they accused and sought to stone the adulteress. Yet, Brother Gene, Jesus came to say sin was spiritual not physical epidemic. When the woman brings herself before it is Jesus that has the power to "say sin no more". The Adventist church surely does not intend to do the same and tell people to "sin no more".
Sin is not an action, but begins in the heart- murder, adultery, covetousness, lying, stealing and idolatry begin in heart. Jesus, first elaborate on the inevitability and dominance of sin in mankind Matt 5:17-48. "whoever (merely) looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart"
Sin is so utterly profound and dominant, a believer is too lost in continual prostration to dare judge others. But Jesus consoles us "And if you only greet your brothers what more do you do? Even Gentiles do the same, don't they? So then be perfect, as your Heavenly Father is perfect". Christ convicts us all because our hearts continually sin in anger, coveting, envying, and lying etc. But love all of mankind is our redemption. Because Christ was perfect and loved all mankind that He might save us- He did the most perfect thing a man could ever do, He died for man and his sinful heart. Jesus dies knowing sin abides continually but, that faith in His saving power and Spirit enables to love all of humanity as He perfectly did. All of us, no matter how righteous and glorious, are convicted by law to die. And those who are not gracefully spared and whisked away like Elijah will die because of sin. Only faith and love w/ all our heart towards God and all of humanity (especially the least of us, who represent Christ) can return us not from sin but, death as result of sin.
Ask the Essenes about how secular Hellenized Jerusalem was in the time of Christ. Jews had a legally recognized priestly establishment to lead all of the citizenry directly adhering to biblical standards. Surely Sadduccees and Pharisees were less secular than we are today. But, it was Christ who rebuked them and convicted them of continual sin that they could stop following laws in which are meant to convict and kill but, bring the gospel to the world. Christ died for sin that we could perfectly love mankind as He is amongst the least of them. The Essenes are faded voice asking for less secularism but, Christianity is merely gathering in the harvest and the Essenes would say none of us are worthy of the Temple, worthy to judge, and worthy of the Spirit- but that's precisely the point. The king has pushed away the invited dinner guests and brought people from street to don clothes of righteousness by His grace despite being unworthy. To the righteous Essenes, we are laborers of the 12th hour.
Our Orthodox brethren would say our secular sabbath w/cars, light switching, and microwave ovens is a sham. And finally, God commanded an army of Israelites to sift thru Israel and her enemies like a righteous sword. But Gene, Jesus wields the sword of grace/glory not for Israel but brother against father all over etc. We are not an army of righteous seeking the promised land, paying blood debt in the Temple, righteously vanquishing enemies. We have a greater call of salvation not vindication, debt has been paid, love our enemies unto death, and love sinners as we love ourselves. Leave the rest and the glory to Jesus to sort out.
I liked your comment that homsexuals want to be view as heterosexuals but they are no different and reacting to Christians would dare to be viewed as saints denying others, instead of being sinners Christ specifically died for. We all are tempted to ignore our sin especially when the church liberally persecutes and is filled w/ vain righteous of the worst kind.
Stephen,
I don't think anyone is judging the value of a person by their income or education. Rather, when you measure the rate at which people of various cultures accept the Gospel you typically find that the rate at which they embrace the gospel decreases as they become better educated and more prosperous. We find confirmation of at least the prosperity aspect of this in Ezekiel 16:48-50, which identifies their prosperity as the root cause of the sin God found in Sodom and "her sisters." While education typically makes a person more capable of becoming more prosperous and prosperity allows them to enjoy more of the luxuries and leisures of life, it also presents them with more distractions capable of diverting their attention away from God.
I do not disagree with this analysis.
Stephen,
In Elaine's first post regarding lower income and educated SDA's being "less" valued was purely an assumption by you. I did not glean that conclusion from her post. She is correct though, people with lower socioeconimic status and education are more suseptible to strange beliefs. Micheal Shermer points this out in his seminal book "Why People Believe in Weird Things." In North America our education system has done a fine job of educating our youth. When one engages in the basic sciences and understands the scientific method, theological tenents of the 28 FB come under scrutiny and many do not accept or agree with them.
Anecdotal experiences of SDA's posting here about what their religion means or does for them personally are not necessarily transferrable to others. The immanent return of Jesus should be regarded skeptically. Hellooo 2000+ yrs and counting and not a shred of evidence that this is going to come to pass. The return of Christ is nothing more than a "hope illusion." After all of us here are gone to the grave others will take our place and discuss the "why not" of Christs return. Certainly as time goes on anyone with a bit of reasoning power left would begin to cast doubt on such a concept.
On the topic of the "true" sabbath. What does that mean? The article states, "another “success story,” Trim said, was that 92 percent of Adventists have an overwhelming conviction that the Seventh-day Sabbath is the true Sabbath, and only 3 percent disagree."
Who cares? Truth by consensus? Give me a break. The sabbath rest day in the creation story was placed there long after the story was written. While I have no quarrel with a "rest day" if one can take advantage of such, I find it incredulous that God is sitting around documenting what people are doing or not doing on the "sabbath." The "sabbath" doctrine is conjured based upon a view or perception of God and what we need to do to "please" or "appease" said God.
Like any statistical study certainly ones at the GC who are concerend about such things are able to both be encouraged and discouraged at the same time. I think Adventism like many relgions is here to stay. However, what the rank and file believe and do not believe will always be in a state of flux, like most views of politics and religion.
Elaine,
I don't think the problem is with the 28 FBs, but with the generalized attitude that we know better than everyone else, that we're right so they have to be wrong, and that our mission is to convince them of how wrong they are so they will want to adopt what we believe. Along the way we've forgotten that Jesus told us the greatest commandments were to love God first and our neighbor as ourselves. Loving others has been trampled by preaching.
I doubt, Elaine, that you have a knowledge base from which to authoritatively presume the generalized attitude that you ascribe uniquely to SDAs. I suspect that SDAs are in general neither more, nor less, dogmatic and evangelistic about their opinions and beliefs than non-SDAs are about their opinions and beliefs.
Besides, Elaine, I have never sensed that you personally have any substantial doubts about whether you are right, or about whether you know better than everyone else. Surely your mission seems to be to convince others that they are wrong so that they will want to adopt what you believe…no? Since I assume you don't feel you have forgotten the greatest commandments in the process of cultivating, growing, and preaching your beliefs (which are at least 28), why do you assume that SDAs, who subscribe to the 28 F.B.s can't walk (love God and their neighbors) and chew gum (hold to traditional SDA doctrine) at the same time?
Nathan,
Adventists can certainly hold on to the 28 FB while loving God w/ all their heart and their neighbors as themselves. But Adventists behave casually unaware of temptation to indulge in righteousness, vanity, and being a divinely appointed remnant. They forget the church is for sinners and sinners belong in the church.
When a survey of young people (the most humble group and accepting of grace) shows them to be so out of touch w/ their own sinfulness that more than half would deny homosexuals membership in the church- its disheartening. I shudder to think how much fewer of the elderly would dare to reject a sinner because of sin. It is so ludicrous, I can't begin to rant how non-biblical it is for a follower of Christ to reject a sinner because they … openly sin.
If the church is being driven to indulge in righteousness, judge fellow sinners and deny them membership like vain Sadduccees celebrating Levi's blood as some revere James White's wife and descendants. If so, then we are not convicted of our own sin and can no longer accept the power of grace and the Spirit. Love sinners and trust in Spirit because it seems our own hearts are becoming resistant to both of them. We can only expect young people to leave the church when they are told- grace is not for all of God's little children, especially the uninvited. We shouldn't be worried about people leaving or not joining. But rather worry how we can expect anyone to reconcile a loveless church w/ a loving God? Or vice-versa, a loving remnant church where outside there are gays, prostitutes, addicts, murderers etc. that are orphans w/o a god to love them? I pray nobody feels this way but, I'm sure there are many who do when a church doesn't want them to be members and share as brothers/sisters.
Suggestion to our venerated 28 beliefs:
Love God w/ all our hearts and love sinners as much as we love ourselves.
Lynn, how can Adventists hold to the 28 FBs and welcome practicing homosexuals as members in "good and regular standing?" You even stated below that you are fine with banning them from church leadership positions. That doesn't sound like you are prepared to accept them as members in "good and regular standing." That sounds like a "separate but equal" kind of Christianity.
From your comments, you seem to see the SDA Church as The Remnant Church. That exalted, self-righteous view of the body of Christ, of which I believe SDA are mere members, forces you into a kind of strange theology, where SDA Church membership is a sort of seal of salvation that must be open to all, because after all, God's forgiveness, love, and salvation are open to all. I have news for you, Lynn. Neither he SDA Church nor SDAs have the authority or power to stand in the place of God when it comes to matters of ultimate destiny.
I think if you took a more humble view of Adventism, and its place in the Christian family of churches, it would be easier for you to accept that it is reasonable and necessary for faith communities to set boundaries for themselves, and that the process of doing so may have nothing to do with a determination that those who are excluded by the boundaries are somehow more sinful or less morally worthy than those within the faith community who define the boundaries.
I said I can understand why the Adventist church could be so hard as to deny sinners (homosexuals) leadership position. Even Jesus understood that men could put away their wives, but did not mean He accepted or encouraged it.But it is the worst of sins and most illogical of sins, to turn away a sinner because they sin. In fact, if we consider them to beyond Christ's death, mercy, forgiveness, and spiritual covenant than it is an unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit.
And remember, it's those same Adventists that deny a sinner, that would be as vain and righteous to call themselves a "divine remnant".
I don't consider our church to be the only remnant. Whom am I to judge what is remnant? I should only be a servant and by His grace I am saved as we all are. Adventists who lose sight of this simple yet, divine truth are confused if they call themselves His remnant.
And full disclosure- I happen to see no difference between Ellen Gould and sinners in Christ. Let us be like children and not to turn any away, in case we turn our own hearts to darkness and hardness
It would be most interesting to see the results for the NAD broken out from this study, and even more interesting to see the regional and demographic breakdown for the NAD. Presumably, this survey contains a gold mine of data. Is it accessible to lay researchers?
The greater the level of education, the greater the ability to ask questions and critically analyze new ideas.
This is a well known fact: the gullibility level declines as education rises.
The question not asked on a survey: How many graduate level new converts have joined Adventism in the past five years not having been acquainted previously with Adventists?
"How can this man be so educated when he has never gone to school?" (John 7:15)
Couldn't disagree more, Elaine – at least with your conclusion. I do agree that education increases one's ability to think critically. But the notion that critical thinking skills somehow immunize one from the emotions and ego needs that underlie rationalization (self-induced gullibility) strikes me as nonsense. Arrogant confidence in the rationalized self-deceptions of critical thinking and "higher" education is much more difficult to dislodge than the gullibility that comes from ignorance. The few "graduate level new converts," like the probable few uber wealthy new converts, is an indictment of wealth and education – not the church.
I disagree with the notion “that [formal] education increases one’s ability to think critically.”
Education, as it occurs in the United States, clearly exposes one to more information; but where is the evidence that more information, and/or the regurgitation of more information, and/or the reprocessing of it via research papers, increases one’s ability to think critically?
Well Stephen, I think there is an abundance of evidence that formal education – even mediocre education – consists of far more than merely regurgitating information. Of course, if you define education as consisting of nothing more than memorization, then your conclusions are true by definition. But why do you assume that when I used the term "education" I had in mind your private definition? I did not. But if I did, I would agree with you that education, as the mere assimilation and regurgitation of information, does not do much for critical thinking skills.
Understanding, as I suspect you did, that I was using education in a broader sense than you define it, I don't see how you can contend that education as it is commonly understood -particular higher education – does not develop information processing and critical thinking skills. There are many categories on standardized tests that measure critical thinking skills, and it is no surprise that performance on those tests closely correlates with educational achievements.
I would think that unless critical thinking skills improvement is intentionally and officially part of the educational curriculum that—it’s not.
I’m not an educator by profession so perhaps I should defer to an educator. My opinions are primarily from observation and anecdote. I’d be interested to hear some opinions from higher education professionals about this. I’d be more interested to see evidence.
The description of true teaching in the book "Education" includes teaching a person to think critically, to reason from cause to effect, to test contrasting thoughts and philosophies and to seek the guidance of God through it so we can find true knowledge. Unfortunately, public education does not teach students to think critically, to measure and test. Instead it fills them with philosophies and ideas without benefit of testing so they have no idea how desperately they have been deceived. By removing God from the classroom the greatest opportunity to test and measure what is presented has been removed. This leaves Satan free to fill young minds with the false philosophies of evolution and liberal-socialism.
Like you, William – and Stephen as well – I take a dim view of public education, and its interest in teaching critical thinking skills, the most important of which, in my opinion, is the capacity and willingness to have one's own beliefs challenged. The fact that the education curriculum is ideologically pre-loaded with value-laden presuppositions, which can only be challenged by the bravest of students, does not mean that within the confines of that materialistic, pagan world view, critical thinking skills are not honed. Clearly, the exploration of cause and effect relationships, both historically and scientifically, becomes increasingly important, the higher you go in education.
I may think, for example, that global warming alarmism is a fraud, built on cooked data and scientific evasion. But I surely would not argue that its promoters, because of their education, do not have better critical thinking skills, at least within their disciplines, than those without the education.
This issue – whether those with education are more likely to have critical thinking skills – is probably a matter of semantics for us. I attach no value to the product of critical thinking, and readily concede the problem of faulty inputs. But just because highly educated people are no more likely to be right about moral issues than those who are less educated doesn't mean that they are not much better equipped to think critically about really important stuff, like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
If I didn’t know, I would ask “How on earth can a discussion/question about whether there is relationship between formal higher education and critical thinking skills become political; or what on earth does this topic have to do with liberalism or conservatism?”
How can one conceive the notion that the test of critical thinking is where one’s ideology falls on the political spectrum?
In more cases than not, political ideology is determined by one’s perceived self interests.
Critical thinking invites evaluation and testing. That process gives us clear distinction between truth and falsehood, reality and illusion. Public education does not allow it because every subject taught is infused with liberal-socialist philosophy that wilts and dies under scrutiny. Those who dare to question and test it are ridiculed as stupid, promoters of political philosophy instead of facts, lacking compassion for the poor, promoting inequality, subverting of civil rights, etc.
One’s personal perception, or broad stroke talking points criticism of “public education” is interesting, but has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not those who have more formal education have, as a result, enhanced critical thinking skills; and are therefore less amenable to religion than are those with less formal education, for that specific reason.
Besides, there actually are stupid promoters of political philosophy instead of facts, who lack compassion for the poor, and who promote inequality, and subvert civil rights, etc. In other words, such people do exist. There are those who will always call such ‘out,’ and there are those who will always defend such; irrespective of “public education.”
As I said, in most cases, one’s political ideology and philosophy is merely a reflection of one’s perceived personal self interest.
If the purpose of "higher" or "post-graduate" education is to teach people to think for themselves, then what does that say about "lower" or "pre-graduate" education? Probably that for 12 to 16 years one is rewarded for giving the "right" answer rather than for learning how to find multiple answers and then evaluate them?
Very few teachers from grade school though college are prepared to handle a student who comes up with a different answer. It is much easier to tell people what is right and wrong than to explain to them why something is right or wrong, or how to find information and evaluate it and decide what to believe. Ignorance and superstition and and prejudice are not left in the hallway when either the teacher or the students enter the classroom.
There are stages of development, Jim, that are more appropriate for the development of critical thinking skills than others. I happen to think that most of grade school and high school – a good deal of undergraduate schooling as well – should be devoted to learning facts and information. I don't think that 12-16 year-olds – or even 18-20 year-olds – have the life experience or the maturity to "find multiple answers and evlauate them." I know I didn't when I was that age, even though I thought I did. I was taught that children are made to be seen and not heard, and I believe I am the better for it, even though it didn't do a lot for my self-esteem. The "greatest generation" did not devote their time in elementary and secondary school to self-esteem building and getting in touch with its feelings and thoughts about the materials they were reading.
Postmodernism teaches that knowledge is not objective – that the learner, the observer is the most important part of the education process. Therefore, how kids feel and think about what they are learning is just as important as the information itself. I think this is eeucational malpractice, and is one of the reasons American kids lag so far behind other developed countries which recognize the value of directed, authoritarian education.
Every generation thinks it knows why right is right and wrong is wrong. And both the reasons and the conclusions often turn out to be wrong. Ignorance and superstition are part of the human condition. And they are quite rampant among the highly educated. Just read Al Gore's wildly popular Earth in the Balance, followed by Bjorn Lomborg's Skeptical Environmentalist, to see dramatic evidence of what I am talking about. As long as religion and politics are central to human life, there will always be a steady suppoly of authority figures, most of them highly educated, who have a vested interest in preying on superstition and ignorance.
Well I just recently spent four years teaching Jr High SS class (an age group that frightens many adults). Yes many of the students are shallow and immature. But I can tell that I have been pleasantly surprised by very good questions and answers from some of them. You might be amazed what young people are capable of given the right opportunites and encouragement.
Many on this web site hold the founders of the SDA church in low regard, but in my oiniopn that group of young people msotly in their late teens and early twenties did some amazing things. Not thing that earned them scholarly respect in this world but amazing things nevertheless. I think we expect too little of young people and they seldom exceed our expectations (at least when we are around).
Disclaimer – I an NOT post-modern in my theories of education. I am a strong believer that children (and adults) can and should be encouraged to take in information from every available source (teachers and textbooks being two but only two sources). And I certainly do not regard all ideas as equally valid. I asked of my own children when they had an idea or a question, what information they could offer to back it up. From an early age they were immersed in a home library of literally thosuands of books on a variety of topics. Not to mention frequent trips to public libraries, travel to a wide variety of places and interacting with a wide variety of different people from all over the world.
We can welcome children into the world of adults or we can shut them out. The sooner we welcome them in the faster they will mature. The more we try to shut them out the more we will alienate them. Of course I have no illusion that children are adults, but it is amazing how the mind can expand given opportunity and encouragement.
Isn't it intereating how some are able to instantly classify those who do not completely agree wtih them?
I should also point-out that the in the world some of you "elders" grew up in there were not very many sources of information available to children and they were mostly under the control of the nearby adult authority figures.
The world of today offers a super-abundance of information to people of all ages. My pre-school grandsons can tell you things about the oceans that your college science professor did not know. Thinking we can hide information from children in this era is futile. Your grand-children may know more about how to use your smart phone than you do. There are five-year-olds who are reading their parents' text messages. My wife teaches Kindergarten – every year some of her students are already computer-literate before they walk into the classroom.
The best defense is a good offense – immerse them in positive sources of information. And encourage them to evaluate what they see and hear as early as possible. If you try to wait until they are in their late teens or in their twenties you will be way too late. Most of them have been exposed to far more information before they start college than you were when you left.
Coping with the growing avalanche of information is one the greatest challenges adults face in the "information age". One of the things I taught in Jr High SS is how to be safe in cyber space. To a group of 6th to 8th graders all of whom will happily sit there and text each other and their friends elsewhere. Try teaching any subject to a group of high school or college students who can and will instantly Google everything the teacher says that they wonder about in the least. You can take away their smart phones and note pads and laptops, or you can encourage them to explore the wide world of information that is at their fingertips.
Or might you prefer to resort to bee-keeping in Cornwall? (oops- wrong thread 😎
Even among the Adventist-encultured who are now quite critical of their Alma Mater, there is a quaint assumption that "people join a religious persuasion because the teachings are factually true." To some degree this may be but far more important in my discussions with highly informed and intelligent non-Adventists is the following question: How does this faith help me be a better person, more at ease with life, more at ease with others, more tolerant, more understanding of the human condition, better able to cope?"
Yes, Ed. I think you're right. So many highly informed and intelligent former Adventists and non-Adventists look at the church like a drug. It's fine for those who need it to cope. But in the end, it's just an opiate.
When the majority of Adventists, even including some here, are unable to explain in plain language the meaning and how the Investigative Judgment and 2300 days are computed, then it will be believeable*; or the "Law" as interpreted by Adventists and the meaning and authority of Ellen White, then your analysis will be correct.
*Many SDA theologians are not even in agreement on this.
Elaine,
Faith and hope do not obligate us to some monolithic human agreement on IJ, 2300 years/days, and the reverence of Ellen Gould the White.
Matt 6- "seek the kingdom of righteous and all things will be added to it"
Too many claim to have found righteous when they should be continually seeking by the grace of God. And disagreement is inherent to the human experience but, accepting grace and seeking God in all men defies all trivial experiences and matters.
The article states "Interestingly, the vast majority of inactive and former members do not reject the message and mission of the Adventist church. “They are moving with the strong dynamics of contemporary society away from established forms of religious activity.”
This may be true of inactive members but former members usually cite religious differences/interpretations as the reason for leaving.
It has long been my strong suspicion that many former members cite religious or interpretation differences publicly, yet privately still believe. Some individuals are convinced/convicted against their will; so they lash out, especially if traumatized.
If you would like to look more deeply into the dynamics of former believers, I suggest that you read two books by David Kinnaman, president of the Barna Group, the leading organization currently studying trends and demographics in Christianity. The titles are "Unchristian?" and "You Lost Me." A considerable number of people, myself included, found them to be real eye-openers.
My experience overwhelmingly, especially among young people, is that they leave the Church because it doesn't fit their lifestyle or speak to their needs. Older friends have left for the same reasons. They've got more enjoyable things to do on Friday night and Sabbath than sit around meditating or going to church; they enjoy drinking; and they're just not interested in a religious club anymore, now that their kids are out of the academy and no longer attending church.
The litmus test for me, when someone claims they are no longer church attenders because of theological or doctrinal issues, is whether they have found, or are looking for, a new church home that shares their theological perspectives. Most often, the answer is no. Somehow, claiming they left for theological or intellectual reasons makes older former Adventists feel better about themselves. I agree with Stephen that many of them rationalize their emotional reasons for leaving the church to assuage feeling of guilt.
People are leaving, especially young people and those naive enough to believe in grace, because the church belongs to the righteous and is not shared by sinners. A revival begins when people, God's children, are invited to share and partake w/ brothers and sisters. While decay festers behind whitewashed tomb of righteousness and the vain empowered to deny and emboldened to administer a non-biblical Christianity. Serve as slaves to Christ those who have been denied. Liberate stumbling blocks instead administering judgment
When the lowest are invited to be amongst the highest and give glory to Him. And the highest have their proud and righteous vanities brought low to share. In spite of the holy church and the message and blessings, we inevitably fall to sin against ourselves, brother, and Creator. Pray to the Lord of the Bible.
If you haven't already read David Kinnaman's book "You Lost Me," I recommend it. He has done considerable research into the reasons why people, youth in particular, leave the church. Often the causes strike so deeply into the character of a person that they become unrecoverable by traditional church outreach methods. The conclusion he states is that the church is not only failing to win the hearts of the youth, it is immunizing them against Jesus on such a large scale that we are not harvesting souls for the Kingdom of God, but disaster.
It's disheartening to realize how warped Christ's message has been by trivial matters that young people can no longer find the unyielding, forgiving and Pauline love in God's church as they would w/ God.
Where is the idea derived that when someone leaves a church which was their home church all their life, must find another church to belong to? Is it impossible to live without formal religion and yet have a rich spiritual life? Philip Yancey wrote the took telling how he had to leave the church to find faith.
Where is the idea derived that when someone leaves a church which was their home church all their life, must find another church to belong to? Is it impossible to live without formal religion and yet have a rich spiritual life? Philip Yancey wrote the took telling how he had to leave the church to find faith.
Unfortunately, leaving the formal church can be one of the most Christ-like acts a young person can do for themselves and mankind. Too often, it is the church that interferes w/ the healing power of the spirit.
It is tragic but true that that sometimes people must leave the church to survive spiritually. That is basically what I had to do, except I was part of a group who felt in similar ways and we were given the opportunity to plant a new congregation. We are amazed by the miracle God performed and celebrate the love He has showered on us.
Just yesterday I met a family visiting our church for the first time after recently moving to the area. How did they decide to visit at Grace Fellowship? They found our website, but what really convinced them was a recommendation from a Methodist co-worker who had heard about our church! I had to ask them to repeat the story because I wasn't sure what I'd heard the first time.
It's not tragic if it is a personal decision to seek out God outside your comfort zone. When the church becomes this exclusive and indulgent sect of deluded righteousness, than that's way too comfortable for a follower of a deity that was executed like a common criminal.
It is tragic when a person, today, is treated like our Christian ancestors being forced out and persecuted by their Jewish brothers such as Saul. They are persecuted because, even in sin, they believe God loves them unconditionally and has real power to save them. When the self-righteous and vain use the church as their ehicle to impose conditions and attempt to disconnect God's love and grace towards children- that's a tragedy.
The persecuted are promised the kingdom of Heaven. And we know the lowest will be highest one day. The real tragedy affects earthly powers w/ in the church that established and risen themselves up the ranks. That's is tragedy, because they doubt the saving power and grace by trying to act righteous enough to be worthy, while others are unworthy. It is a tragedy because whatever they do will not be enough. And we keep ignoring the peasant carpenter who wants to relieve the burden of our own mortality and gracefully promise salvation and eternal life. The tragedy is we do not deserve it and w/ savage joy, we tell others they don't either.
He didn't give up on Saul and he will not give up on us either.
i can't speak for those who have guilt for leaving. moving several times in a small time frame, i didn't develop the close social contacts had previously for 15 years with one church family. i remained in contact with the close friends of before, but only a handful are still living, over a hundred have left for happy hunting grounds. Although the church family, outside of church business assignments, was a great enjoyable privilege for me, my spiritual journey is a personal quest, and i bring no one with me, and no one can bring me with them. It is a deLIGHTful daily pursuit and i love every minute, and i am greatly rewarded. Fears are gone, stress is gone, i know my redeemer lives. Praise God the Father, Praise God the Son Jesus, Praise God the Holy Spirit. Nothing can seperate us from God. He said "I will never leave you, I will never forsake you".
Earl,
That's a wonderful testimony of why it is a spiritual journey we experience and not an anecdote. Or measured w/ approval ratings and evaluated by questionnaire. It is a personal journey and is the most intimate experience we have by examining ourselves in the light of the Creator.
Almost half… would accept "sinners" as members.
Surely this must be a misprint or data from Puritanical New England or a debate amongst Sadducees and Pharisees. Maybe an Inquisitor would ask me "whether a sinner can a member of the church?"
It's petty to ask for human votes on new membership for divine matters. But barbarically vain to suggest a sinner cannot be a member because of sin!
This is not a political stance but question of humanity and divinity and sin shared by all.
If one group is told their sin will disfellowship them from the holy church then, one has to frightfully infer, the church lost faith in the abundant grace of the Father of all walks of humanity.
I can reconcile barring this group from political leadership w/in the church w/ biblical Christianity but, to deny membership all together mocks the grace and glory of the One who died for all. The church is for sinners, sinners belong as her members, and it is the worst of evils to even begin pondering whether to accept a sinner.
Our remnant should be wary of persecuting sinners instead of loving them as they love themselves, each other and God. By persecuting and denying them dignity, the church hardens their hearts and acts as stumbling block to sinners, who sin as openly as we do. Instead of debates: legalism, righteous by faith, faith w/o works, spiritualism, mysticism, new/old covenants, liberal/conservative and secular vanities- do we believe in the power of the spirit to change sinners of all walks, orientations, and maladies is the question.
To stop God's children from being members and freely seeking Him like a newborn yearning for milk- is akin to the unforgivable denial of the Holy Spirit. Has Pastor Wilson succeeding where Pope Francis failed in judging homosexuals? Should members expect a purge of our sinners? Is the General Conference only for those of the priestly tribe? Do gays have to find another willing die for their sins because other sinners don't want to share?
Gays/sinners, sinners/gays are members of God's church. Are we that church?
Homosexuals are sinners and the Lady of Advent, Ellen Gould the White is a human sinner all the same in spite of her gift of divine prophecy. Love because we loved Him. Bring peace because we inherit the kingdom of heaven. Forgive because of grace and unyielding love. Obey because the glory is His and peace unto all, especially the weary and least of us. He is risen so hope and faith do not need/want reason.
Pray for sinners that do their deeds in the dark and cast stones in the light. A tomb is a filthy thing whether whitewashed or rotted wood, so accept grace and give up vain glory, let our homosexual brethren, lustful and sinful since the fall of Adam and for the rest of their weary days, worship in the lowest church of the worst sinners-our beloved SDA
I don't know what churches you have in mind when you talk about self-righteousness and rejection of "sinners," Lynn. Where I live, in Southern California, most churches are very welcoming of diverse beliefs and lifestyle choices. As I have said many times, most Southern California Adventists – at least in institutional centers – seem to practice and preach a very tolerant, don't-ask-don't-tell brand of Adventism. Do you know Lynn, of any Adventist churches where LGBTs are being persecuted? I don't. And if there are, it would certainly be a worthy story for the AToday news team.
Those I know who have left the church or are on the margins don't feel like sinners, and haven't been made to feel like sinners. The Adventist "book club" just doesn't meet their needs any more. I am quite confident that LGBT Christians aren't interested in churches where they will be welcomed by folks like you despite their "sinful" lifestyle choices. They seek recognition that their sexual attraction, and what they do about it is no more the business of the church than is the sexuality of heterosexual Adventists. The fact that you seem to put their sexual choices in the category of sin, and that you are okay with denying them church offices, feels to them like the very condemnation you exhort the church to eschew. It's "barbarically vain to suggest that a sinner cannot be a member because of sin." But it's fine, since we know that the lives of church leaders are pretty much above reproach, to bar "sinners" from political leadership??? I'm afraid you wouldn't find many Adventists homosexuals very eager to join your "forgiving," "sinner embracing" church.
My "forgiving, sinner-embracing church"? I would not dare take credit for what has been in place for over 2,000 years.
Nathan,
Brother in Christ, there is good news in the gospel- He died that we can be spiritual children of a new covenant. None of justified by actions, righteousness, and the law before. The law was meant to kill us. And the blood of sacrifices would save us in the old covenant. Israelites needed to be righteous and had to proclaim our bloodline in the tribes of Ancient Israel.
The temple is gone.
Righteous are WHITEWASHED TOMBS.
Blood is for the vain and non-Christians.
Yet, the death and return of Christ has made Israelites of all humanity.
And our only need is faith and hope in the risen temple of Jesus Christ. All else will be added and are trivial matters. None of us are justified by the law and none can claim the blood of Abraham, David, Solomon w/o coming through The Lord, because sin has condemned us all.
So yes, all churches founded by Christ are "forgiving and sinner-embracing". Or else they have not kept faith and hope in Him. Forgive and love sinners as we would love ourselves is one of the greatest of commandments.
My "forgiving, sinner-embracing church"? I would not dare take credit for what has been in place for over 2,000 years.
Nathan,
Brother in Christ, there is good news in the gospel- He died that we can be spiritual children of a new covenant. None of justified by actions, righteousness, and the law before. The law was meant to kill us. And the blood of sacrifices would save us in the old covenant. Israelites needed to be righteous and had to proclaim our bloodline in the tribes of Ancient Israel.
The temple is gone.
Righteous are WHITEWASHED TOMBS.
Blood is for the vain and non-Christians.
Yet, the death and return of Christ has made Israelites of all humanity.
And our only need is faith and hope in the risen temple of Jesus Christ. All else will be added and are trivial matters. None of us are justified by the law and none can claim the blood of Abraham, David, Solomon w/o coming through The Lord, because sin has condemned us all.
So yes, all churches founded by Christ are "forgiving and sinner-embracing". Or else they have not kept faith and hope in Him. Forgive and love sinners as we would love ourselves is one of the greatest of commandments.
Your comments illustrate why I would like to see the set of survey questions and the raw data.
One item critical to any study is making the questions as non-prejudicial as possible. If the results being described are from the study to which I responded some time back, some number of the questions were worded in a way that appeared to reveal the prejudices of the questioner. I'd like to be able to compare the questions with the answers and see if the results were skewed as a result of how the questions were worded, or the method given for providing answers. I've requested to see the raw data but so far have not received an answer.
Yes, this must be a misunderstanding where many could deny a sinner because they happen to … sin. Otherwise many God-fearing have terribly misunderstood why the Son of Man had to die and be resurrected for everybody.
Reading the diversity comments brought back some memories of being raised in a small SDA church in Pueblo, CO, sixty years ago, long before the term "diversity" was commonly applied. A church of approximately eighty members had six or seven gay members, a white lady with a white preteen daughter, married to a black man (their attendance bounced back and forth between a black-member SDA church in town). Our church also had some shared events with the black church. I was only a kid then, but never heard any prejudicial talk from my mother or anyone else about the social aberrations. (There was probably some murmuring among the adults).
Point is, our church was diversified before it was popular! Wonderful people, wonderful memories.
Bugs-Larry,
Our church that I attend still is diversified. Maybe you should come here, meet some more wonderful people, make some more wonderful memories.
(Off now to teach my SS class re the Sanctuary – using my own syllabus and not the Quarterly.)
You rebel you!
I'll show up if you will let me be teacher!!
Well there is another class that you might enjoy more than mine – you would find other kindred spirits there.
You can sub for me when I'm gone if you will use my syllabus 8-).
Lynn, AMEN…..AMEN…..and AMEN. Please be the invited Keynote speakerat the next General Conference session, in the ELIJAH tradition.
1 Corinthians 5 (a little leaven leavens the whole lump)
9 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 10 Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.
12 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? 13 But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.”
1 Cor. 5:5-6
1 Cor. 5:11
Whomever calls themselves a "Christian" and sins (sexual immortality, covet, greed, and idolatry) do not accept such a person.
Paul is speaking to Early Christians of Corinth who have been boasting. But even Corinth Christians were more spiritual and caring of their fellow man- than our current generation.
Imagine us committing to Christ-like humility as they did in Corinth. If we did so, then, of course we should put away anyone boasting they are a "true Christian" and then are "sexually immoral, greed, idolatry, coveting)
To understand how spiritual and communal they are read 1 Cor. 4
Imagine a church where there is no boasting and people verbally castigating and verbally abusing each other.
That is a church where they CANNOT accept sinners being proud and calling themselves true follower. Paul expects us to follow according to the grace that was given to us (Rom. 12:6) and show grace upon other- not w/ boasting or judgment
Instead sinners w/ impure hearts, forgetting about grace, boasting thru power and leadership- these sinners are proud enough to condemn sinners that are already ashamed. If sinner is convicted of their sin, no Bible verse would command a Christian to turn convicted sinners away. And if a sinner is proud and boastful then, yes, they should be confronted.
1 Cor. 4
2-7
2 Now what is sought in stewards is that one be found faithful.
3 So for me, it is a minor matter that I am judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself.
4 For I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not acquitted because of this. The one who judges me is the Lord.
5 So then, do not judge anything before the time. Wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the motives of hearts. Then each will receive recognition from God.
6 I have applied these things to myself and Apollos because of you, brothers and sisters, so that through us you may learn "not to go beyond what is written," so that none of you will be puffed up in favor of the one against the other.
7 For who concedes you any superiority? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you received it, why do you boast as though you did not?
Look at the content of the sin that the Corinthians were boasting about. The problem wasn’t that they were being judgmental, the problem was that they were not judging blatant sin. Instead of rebuking the flagrant sin in their presence they boasted about how tolerant they were of sinners.
1 Corinthians chapter 5:
(1-2) It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst.
(6) Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened.
(12-13) Do you not judge those who are within the church? Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.”
Boasting about being tolerant is an oxymoron. That is like boasting about humble. Boasting is a prideful act that's avoids self-examination and acceptance of sin.
By boasting they are not acknowledging eir sins. Your point says they are tolerating sin- that's a problem of a complacent church not a prideful church. Anyone that's boast about Christian and falsely boast to be sinless is PUNISHED by Paul. And gracefully only punished not executed as Jews did at the time.
But people that humbly acknowledge they are sinners, and unworthy of God's powerful grace but claim the death of Christ as their salvation from death are always embraced no matter what, this is the heart of Christianity.
1 Cor. 5
They are not tolerating sin, men of Corinth are not even acknowledging it. The man openly cavort w/ one of his father's wives. According to your idea of righteousness- Jewish law would sentence the son to death.
Paul only wants to remove the boy, until he accepts his actions are illegal, wrong, sinful. The old Paul (Saul) would have the son executed for his sin. Paul is merciful as Christ was merciful to him, he wants to give instruction not permanent removal. If the boy accepts he has sinned and seeks forgiveness from God- he is back in good terms w/ the church. And also stop boasting when they are still sinners but, should boast in the saving power of God from their shame.
Take Nathan-David to see tolerance over acknowledgment. Nathan can accept and forgive David's sin quietly. But he rebukes the King of Israel, an offense Saul would kill him for, when David doesn't acknowledge his sin. David behaves like nothing is wrong w/ killing Uriah and sleeping w/ his wife. And David is so confused, he doesn't even notice the character in Nathan's analogy revealing his sin- until Nathan slaps an explanation on his prideful face.
David humble himself and accepts the sin. Saul never did anything as bad as what David did, but he never acknowledged and atoned for his sin. Saul claimed to be sinless and righteous when he wasn't.
David is humble and most beloved king. I would never suggest to for gays to not acknowledge their sin. But Gays that know they are sinners, and are humbly seeking God- must be tolerated and accepted by sinners.
TAKE:
Alcoholics Anonymous turns away a drunk that is loud and obnoxious w/o any regard to the group. Drunks that can't accept they have a problem- always fail and by interrupting meetings w/ stubborn defiance- they should kicked out.
But A.A will not turn away a heroin addict if he wants earnest help and prayer. If the addict acknowledges he has a problem and is respectful to the group- he will not be denied. And alcoholic s won't judge him b/c he uses heroin. A sinner is a sinner and addict is an addict
All of us are addicted to sinning and if we acknowledge our sins- WE ALWAYS HAVE A HOME AT GOD'S CHURCH. Always. Gay or straight, if they need help and humbly seek it- come on in and be full time members.
But anyone that's CLAIMS TO BE SINLESS AND BOAST while having affairs w/ the stepmom and being totally impervious to pleas and council- then claiming that immoral acts are righteous. That sin is not only tolerated but sinning is Christ-like. That they are above sin and mortality- REMOVE THEM for their own sake, they don't want the message.
HEY READ CONTEXT
1 Cor 5:11
Anyone calls (BOAST) themselves a Christian and sins is not supposed to be at a humble church of quietly repenting sinners. Gay or straight, the repenting sinner the most beautiful thing and essence of Christianity.
Lynn,
You wrote "Saul never did anything as bad as what David did…"
I disagree. Look at how many times Saul pursued David for the purpose of killing him. The sinful nature in each caused them to do some very bad things. The difference was David repented.
David actually killed Uriah. Saul was punished for NOT killing enough of the Amalekites. David was a successful warrior for God b/c he humbled himself continually. And when God humbled David even more, he still rejoiced.
David kills a man and takes his wife is a terrible sin and murderously evil especially when as the king he could find many other fish in the sea to make legal wives. And kills someone so innocent, Uriah willingly obeys unto his planned death. Would David be as loyal of soldier to evil Saul? God would protect David but poor Uriah did not have such a purpose.
The difference between Saul and David can be captured by Jonathan and Absalom. Jonathan was loyal, intelligent, diligent and loving son. And if Saul had not been so prideful and stubborn at the end of his life, it would be clear to see how Jonathan learned to be so gentle. So as Saul descended into his madness, Jonathan still has love from him as his father. Jonathan can remember when his father was a good man. While Absalom is vain, handsome, charming, brave and skilled warrior like his dad. But Absalom has even more rage and David is responsible for how he turned to be b/c he killed Uriah and was cursed. David's sons despise him- one rapes his half-sister and the other kills the rapist when disgracefully rejects marrying her. David's family totally want to remove their father's place in their lives. But Saul has a decent enough family life that Jonathan is willing to die alongside the father who has gone mad. Luckily for David and Israel- God gives a son (Solomon) uncorrupted and who did not know David as a bad father. If David had raised Solomon into manhood, he was sure to fail, by the grace of God-Solomon grew into manhood as king w/o his earthly father.
Indirectly David's soldiers lead Uriah to die and then execute his own son after the final battle. Saul may have threaten to kill Jonathan once or twice- but he did not have to face the guilt of burying his own son w/ blood on his hands. That's was David's tragic fate.
But God is merciful to those who seek Him and David did just that.
Like I said, David repented.
Yes but on the face of it, combined w/ personal tragedy and moral weakness- David did worse acts. How many of us will have concubines, plot to kill innocent men, lose several sons to beheading, be an author of divine scripture, be so spiritually discipline w/ castings etc and so carnally minded Bathsheba etc. and be at the top of our professional field in a loveless family.
The Christian may not commit these sins but, may never have a faith like David did. David is such an amazing story b/c he closely walks w/ God, keeps his story w/ Him, and represent everything that is noble, celebrated, and utterly evil in man. David is so utterly human and so essentially a believer.
If we chose to list all the sins of church members, it would be endless. But what purpose is achieved by such effort?
It puts the spotlight on all of us who are sinners but we should be putting the spotlight on Christ. No one is sinless, nor will be until they reach heaven or death, whichever comes sooner.
Well said, Elaine. I can only believe the Spirit and message of Christ is so absolutely powerful that instead of persecuting sinners and banning ourselves or them or gays- by focusing on Christ, He can change our sinful hearts. The only cure for sin is Christ. And the flesh, whether LGBT flesh, or red-blooded American flesh, must die. The carnal flesh dies and we become spiritual through Christ's death.
Focus on Christ, all things will be added.
Lynn,
You are absolutely on-target. Why is it so many people are dedicated to exposing the sins in others and decrying the evils they see instead of advocating for Jesus? Because they have not experienced the immense, overpowering and cleansing love of God and let it possess them. That's like jumping into a lake to save a drowning person but leaving the life ring locked in the trunk of your car somewhere ashore.
I am happy for what came at the top of the survey results, having presented both sermons and sabbath school lessons for a few decades. I would consider the result a support for the following SOP quotes:
"The ministers must be converted before they can strengthen their brethren. They should not preach themselves, but Christ and His righteousness. A REFORMATION is needed among the people, but it should first BEGIN its purifying work with the MINISTERS"
1T 469
"It has often been presented to me that there should be less SERMONIZING by ministers acting merely as local pastors of churches, and that greater personal efforts should be put forth. Our people should not be made to think that they need to listen to a sermon every Sabbath. Many who listen frequently to sermons, even though the truth be presented in clear lines, LEARN BUT LITTLE. Often it would be more profitable if the Sabbath meetings were of the nature of a Bible class study. Bible truth should be presented in such a simple, interesting manner that all can easily understand and grasp the principles of salvation." EV 348
"The best help that ministers can give the members of our churches is not SERMONIZING but planning work for them. Give each one something to do for others…. If set to work, the despondent will soon forget their despondency; the weak will become strong; the ignorant, intelligent; and all will be prepared to present the truth as it is in Jesus."—Testimonies for the Church 9:82.
50 years ago the GC ministerial secretary made a push for expository preaching to a large froup of ministers. Here are sermon clues:
Nehemiah 8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.
Isaiah 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Ephesians 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
I would be interested in the % statistics about why 43% leave.