Young Adult Leaders Share Their Vision for the Adventist Church
by Monte Sahlin
By Adventist Today News Team, November 30, 2013
An official voice for the views of young adults from the Millennial Generation emerged for the first time at the 2013 annual meeting of the governing body for the Seventh-day Adventist Church in North America. The meeting of the North American Division (NAD) executive committee was held earlier this month and the NAD communication department has now released a document put together by the 12 invited student delegates who attended.
The young adults who put together this statement are elected study body officers from Adventist colleges and universities, and therefore more likely to be representative of the attitudes of their generational peers than delegates selected by others. The NAD Working Policy directs each of the union conferences to include young adults among the members appointed to the committee, but in recent years this provision has not been given much attention. The Adventist Intercollegiate Association (AIA), which is made up of the student body officers elected on each campus, negotiated the arrangements for an additional group to be invited by the NAD officers. Student leaders participated from eight of the 13 institutions affiliated with the denomination.
"We appreciate being the first delegation of student representatives invited … and warmly acknowledge the inclusive vision of the NAD leadership in inviting us," the statement said. "We … therefore feel inspired to share our collective vision on behalf of our generation." The document includes 15 specific bullet points begins with an introduction that acknowledges "increasing disaffection and disillusionment with Adventism in our generation."
The theme in all of the points made is simply "we wish to move from … a church too often focused inward to one passionately focused outward." The document calls for a missional church instead of one focused on defending the defensive stance of a withdrawing sect.
The document clearly states a wholistic understanding of the mission of Christ, urging that Adventists "live and teach our doctrines from a Jesus-centered perspective without compromising our distinctive message, … effectively communicate and demonstrate the ultimate purpose of our many doctrines: living a life of freedom, abundance, and joy [and] ensure that we not only preach the gospel but practice it as well by actively engaging in the real problems of the world: loneliness, illness, addiction, poverty, and environmental degradation."
These young adult leaders want a church that is "a safe place for the community in times of hunger, homelessness, injury, and distress." And the perception is that this is not the character of many if not most local Adventist congregations at present.
The new media opened up the Internet are important to young adults. The document recommends that the NAD "build an engine for cultural change through a web presence that integrates education, evangelism, and practical spirituality." Instead of an institutional presence in the social media such as Facebook and Twitter, the document recommends that the denomination "actively encourage qualified lay members of the church to assume leadership at the grass root level."
The document speaks to the role of women in the church, recommending that the NAD "move forward with policies that encourage women to pursue ministry and leadership of all kinds within the church; encourage young women to follow God’s calling to pastoral ministry without concern for gender discrimination in future church employment opportunities; [and] acknowledge the diversity of conviction within the world church on the ordination of women with both moral courage and cultural sensitivity."
Specifically on the topic of engaging new generations with the Adventist faith and community, the document urges the denomination to "empower young people through offering significant positions in church leadership; challenge them by casting a bold vision with high expectations; make use of their talent and skill; make them feel needed and relevant." There was also a specific recommendation that Adventist leaders "foster opportunities for mentorship in mission and evangelism that will lead to a lifetime of dedication to the church."
"In some ways this document is not much different from what has been expressed by several younger generations over the past four decade," Monte Sahlin, who monitors research on the changing generations for the Center for Creative Ministry, told Adventist Today. "Unfortunately the work necessary to engage new generations in the Church has usually been given less priority than immediate organizational issues and the ongoing tug-of-war between warring viewpoints among Adventists."
A good start. Strongly recommend this statement as well as followup from this small 12 person group, as well as petitions circulated amonst the youth of the church at large, from now til GC/2015, be presented to the GC Constitutuancy on first day of meetings.
Right away one can see that culture rather than Scripture has entered into this statement. Calling distinctive functions for men and women *gender discrimination* bespeaks the insidious inroads the feminist movement has made into the thinking of our young people and older ones as well.
Do Sahlin's observations indicate that those who have convictions about various matters should throw in the towel and let the liberals take over?
Does this constant emphasis on *empowerment* really reflect the humble Savior Who gave His life for all of us? I frequently see this word with respect to the young and women. "Seek ye first the kingdom of heaven" is enjoined without the slightest suggestion one should aspire to *empowerment*.
"acknowledge the diversity of conviction" What really does that mean? I'd like to see an elaboration on this phrase from one of the attendees.
Do we see the seeds of a split in our beloved church if this represents a document approved by the leaders of NAD? Why not allow the representatives of GYC to present their agenda?
Maranatha
The term so often used by some: "feminist movement" as insidious is to completely overlook that for the past recorded history this world has operated as a "masculinist movemen" with all things done by men have been faithfully recorded and praised (or condemned) while women were largely only mentioned as mothers giving birth to sons, even daughters were seldom mentioned. Male children were the progenitors of a generation as women were unknown as continuing the heritage, also.
This scientific ignorance caused men to be the architects of all great events. Not until Mendel was it known than women were equally represented genetically in all humans since the beginning of time.
So to call anything that includes women "insidiuous" is to denigrate the half of the human race who gave birth to every man and woman who ever populated this earth. But just as men were more than mere impregnators of children, women were much more than the impregnated and contributed to the learning thousands of years before formal education was established. These ideas should be buried along with all traditions that are worshiped merely for their age.
You're so small minded and petty a baby could offer up his lollipop and you'd still more validation for your political views! Your political views are of an age, they are not objective truths. Ellen White might think its revolutionary or apocalyptic to have drumset in a sanctuary. Or men or people were desecrating themselves by coming to church w/ earrings, jeans, tattoos etc. It might have been shocking to see women w/ short haircuts or men w/ long.
Today kids and people have totally different context! Morality is set up by liberal or conservative conventions that derive economic classes and opportunities- but is based on cultural context. It's immoral to demand people subscribe to calling an earthly nation as being under the same universal God- yes, kids are different than kids past.
And despite political vultures w/ designs on hijacking Young Republicans or Democrats etc. The youth are not driven by politicized differences. Youths more than ever are too busy trying to be people and being shaken into personhood and personal meaning of their individual lives to worry about societal divisions! So youths are just youths, people before being conservaTIZED or liberaLIZED by the future.
Youths are NOT tied to their parents' work or farm life. Certainly NOT saved or bound to their parents' faith. Youths marrying later and later, starting families older and older, earning more and more education are NOT bound to their parents' politicized outlook.
SO HOW DOES THE SAME STRAIN of thought, politics, and traditions survive?!!!
They don't. Generations EVOLVE OR DEVOLVE OR SIMPLY REDEFINE their own perspective and moral truths. ConservatISM and LiberalISM is all relative instead of us being related to our beloved saint Ellen White. We make our own definitions of the past and the youth even more so! Stop IMPRESSING YOUR POLITICAL VIEWS on the youth who will enjoy or be tortured in a far different world.
I commend these youth and the NAD leadership. The challenge now is to take action reflecting the concerns of the youth because they are the church of tomorrow. If we do not listen to them, they won't stay in the church and the church will decline as a result.
Did the statement provide any expanded description on the points listed? My particular question is about the inward/outward focus of the church because my perception has been the opposite of what was described. My observation has been that the church has been so outward-focused that the community of the church has suffered from such neglect that a large portion of the people we bring in soon leave because what they find is of so little benefit to them. Is this difference one of different observation, contrasting description, or both?
The survival of the church is totally dependent on our youth. Ignore them and the future of this church is in dire peril. Listen to what they are informing you of. The message is knowledge and "empathy with the Signs Of The Times". Dinosaurs are dead. The traditional fundamental errors are sinking the ship in North America, Europe, Australia etc. The remaining dinosaurs will die, and the closed minded with it.
"Signs of the Times?" Are you telling me that Adventist dinosaur/magazine is still alive? (Written with tongue firmly planted in my cheek, but this illustrates the magnitude of the challenges facing the church as our youth move into leadership.)
"If we do not listen to them, they won't stay in the church and the church will decline as a result."
Some will contend that the church is already in decline because of the tendency to pander to some of the areas for which *some* of the youth have shown a preference. Remaining a member of the SDA church should not be dependent on whether it listens to a particular group and gives them preferential treatment. If this is the case some middle age SDAS could get together and set forth what issues concern them and one could conjecture if the church doesn't accede to their wishes they will also leave. Such a position about any group is untenable.
Maranatha
Why would a young person want to remain in the church if adults are expressing doubts and suspicions about them as you wrote?
Truth Seeker there some eternal line of conservatism that never transforms and the youth will somehow get out of the liberal cocoon and become conservative butterflies….
The only self-deluded conservative is Truth Seeker "knowing" his views are eternally lasting- instead of being HIMSELF being a man shaped by his own times. Conservativism is relative to the time not founded on some eternally driven fascist absolutism! The youth will inherit new ways of thinking because the dead are not alive to force PAST CONVENTIONS upon people.
The youth will different views of conservatism and there are no absolutes to sociological change unless you're a fascist that forces the truth of "the ages" and individual or subjective interpretations.
Truth Seeker ERRONEOUSLY believes there is some line or strain of conservatism that never changes. That is not true. His political truths and reality WILL NOT be the same reality 50 years from now or in 200 years. But the Bible will still be the best seller for kids to PERSONALIZED, instead of being saved by traditions or by their parents' sake.
Christ lives, the youth live on, and people don't. The youth will be their own people someday.
Why do SDA sermons all have to be doctrine related? We leave the church every week gaining really nothing. Must we watch good Christian sermons on TV and not hear them in our own church?
I have attended Satruday church at the Christian church several times. The sermons appeal to all to live better Christian lives. I have never counted people present but surely there is always over 1000. Perhaps we should consider some changes in this area as most of the time we just watch a recorded sermon and we may have a dozen or less in attendence. We have tried to fix things but we just can not get it done. No one wants to leave an active church and join a dead one regardless of what is being taught.
Their sermons are on line http://www.ccc.org
Steve,
A week ago I spoke at one of our pastor's other churches on the topic of following the ministry model Jesus gave us where He ministered the love and power of God first and taught last. I illustrated with my ministry experience showing how lives have been changed and people drawn to God by loving them first and foremost. The service was barely over before I saw a man making a beeline toward me. The first words out of his mouth were: "How do I find my gift-based ministry?" He was a former pastor who attended church only occasionally, but attended a Sunday church often with his wife. The pastor at that church taught about ministering in the power of the Holy Spirit and the results were obvious because the church was full and overflowing with love. Then the man declared to me, "I never thought I would ever hear that message preached in an Adventist church!"
The church grows when we love people first. Don't worry, they'll start asking about the reasons for what they see in how people live their faith. They'll do that when they're motivated to become like the people who are reflecting God's love to them. That's when those who are gifted by God to be teachers get to perform their role.
Just wondering how many of these youth are associated with the oneProject and opposed to GYC. My guess is that it is the former group. Also curious as to why none of their names or the colleges they attend were mentioned .
… should say AS opposed to GYC, not AND opposed to GYC.
Tony-
Looks like it's as transparent as rock. No details as to the identity of the writers. etc. Is this the way NAD should be operating? Is there something to hide?
Maranatha
The majority of all those who call themselves "Christian" inherited that religion at birth. They did not join because of doctrine, or friends, or any of the many reasons often discussed, but by a fate of birth.
Those who choose a church to join, do so for many reasons, but I daresay that the majority who joined the Adventist church as adults did so because of its doctrines: that it was the "true" church represented in the Bible.
If that is a correct premise, doctrines have little affect on the sustaining reason for young people. It is mostly because of their friends made from birth in the SDA sub-culture of camp, schools, etc., and while their parents may discuss doctrines and even argue about them, how many young people are on these sites? They are far too active to become in their parents and grandparents games of discussing doctrine, they have far too many interests while their parents are retired and have the time for such.
The litany of "the future of the church depends on the young people" was a tedious chorus sung in my ears fifty years ago by the old moss covered fossils mired in tedium. It was a version of some parents bringing their kid to the academy where I was teacher and saying, "I can't seem to do anything with him/her, let's see what you can do."
So the song endlessly repeats, I guess, like row, row your boat.
My criticism is that it is a ploy without substance. The leaders should be leaders, providing meaningful direction to the young. There's little the young can do to adjust the course of the church.
Maybe there is no harm to this song sung black and blue, but not much can come out of it.
My suggestion is for the "fossils" to concentrate on promoting the love resident in the teachings of Christ to their members and some of that will seep into the kids and positively steer their lives.
As I have recounted on another forum: Years ago, as an Academy Bible teacher, I was describing this God of Love, when it got so quiet, something that virtually never happens in a classroom, that I became aware of only the wind blowing across the window sills, and a whisper from a girl in the back row wafted to me, "I could almost love a God like that."
I am glad you have not forgotten your most important Bible lesson.
Now, if you could just remember where you learnt it 8-)?
Like your own family, the future of My (I wish I could say Our to Larry) church family does indeed depend on its young people. Every family is always a generation away from extinction. Parents instinctively sense this and will go to extreme (possibly irrational) lengths to help and protect their children and later their grand-children. Too much help and protection can smother, but too much neglect is devastating. Not always easy to decide where and how to draw these boundaries.
An interesting question for the indigenous SDA church in Western Europe is whether they are reaping the results of too much (spiritual) neglect? (This is a question – I do not know the answer.) Among North America SDAs of my generation there is a strong back-lash against too much (spiritual) protection in our formative years. For many among my generation this has led to too much (spiritual) neglect of our children and grand-children. If the answer to my question re Western Europe is Yes, then what does this say for the future of the indigenous church in North America?
When I arrive at the Pearly Gate, to the utter shock of many, and I am asked to show my Adventist membership card (baptismal certificate), I'm not going to tell a fib and pretend that my old one is valid, at that late stage. But I am going to say I know Hamstra (kind of) and that he wanted to include me in his church family. And I fully expect to be given a provisional pass based on the use of the Hamstra name! I would be prepared to be escorted on a long journey to the well isolated SDA section, where Jim can sit down with me and tell me, "I told you so." Then after a few million years, if my demeanor was proper and my retro rockets were cleaned, I would be issued a provisional/permanent visa, eventually getting a line by a proper angel, maybe Michael, drawn through the provisional word, but left forever on the pass as a constant reminder of how I managed to get there. Is this a version of purgatory? No, no no no no, to the hundredth power.
Not very wise for you to try name-dropping mine. Better to say "I'm not sure where I am, how I got here or even why. Mind if I take a look around inside before I decide whether to stay?" After you look-around and decide to stay, if you happen to stumble across me, and after you blurt-out "What the #### are you doing here?", then maybe you and I can explore a bit together, look the place over, see what makes it tick, try to find the Source of that Tractor Beam called Love. Then we can laugh and cry about all the things we thought we knew or didn't know in our prior lives.
Gumby-Larry,
If this fable of the future ever comes to pass, then we ended-up in Purgatory rather than Heaven.
Didn't you learn that only Catholics ever go through Purgatory after they die? Some Adventists go through Purgatory before they die. For may part I think Purgatory is best avoided altogether. Serious navigational error if we get there. Elevator definitely went the wrong way or we took a wrong turn when the doors opened.
Your response shows you took my silliness in the spirit given. Thanks for a good laugh!
Many feel they've already endured purgatory trying to live by all the SDA standards 😉
Once they've been largely rejected, the time is spent "making up" for all the pleasures given up to conform.
From my student days in SDA schools I was always interested in noting which of my Bible teachers and Pastors were Lovers and which were Indoctrinators. There always seemed to be some sub-surface tension between these two personality types which I never totally resolved in my own mind.
Eventually I concluded that every doctrine of the Christain faith must be rooted in the love of Christ. If we cannot explain how a doctrine derives from the love of Christ we are teaching a false doctrine or teaching a doctrine that we do not ourselves understand. How can we expect to explain to students what we ourselves do not actually understand? Hence the sub-surface tension between the Lovers and the Indoctrinators. Neither knew how to bridge the gap. For myself I have spent most of my adult life trying to understand and bridge that gap, both in my personal devotional life and as a parent and a lay teacher. I am not "there" yet but I have made major progress 8-).
Over 40 years ago a wave of religious fervor swept through the students of several North America SDA colleges and universities. Two of my long-time "buddies" got a transformational vision of the love of Jesus. They dedicated themselves to sharing that vision with Academy students (something they missed at the Academy they had attended). For a number of years they taught together at a SDA Academy. Being of the Lover persuasion they were hugely popular with the students and positively impacted many young lives for Christ.
During the Ford purges myy buddies were called on the carpet by the conference president. I suspect that being of the Lover persuasion they had no strong personal opinions or interest regarding the IJ. The conference president replaced them with Indoctrinators. They and their students were devastated. Having long since lost touch with that particular Academy, I am not sure when or whether the morale of the school ever recovered. I do wonder if whatever was gained in the exchange was worth the collateral damage? I can tell you that whenever key personnel changes are made, the managers may think they know what they are "fixing" but they often do not know what they are "breaking". And yes I would maintain that Bible teachers are key personnel at an SDA Academy which is why the conference president chose to personally invove himself.
There is no right or wrong way to be person of your respective time. There isn't a right and wrong existence. Well, maybe Judas is viewed as somehow who never should have been born- but even Judas was victim to the times as well. A person being a person is simply reality, regardless of preconceived good or bad.
The Church should always been sensitive in administering judgments because people come and go but, the Church bears consequences for inflexibility. The Church should only adopt literal biblical truths rather than be trapped w/ in modern conservatism or politics that is destined only to change like people do over time.
Fortunately, the Bible is a spiritually based text that is built-in for sinners, oathbreakers, and desecration- so the youth only fear should be of the creeping ideas there is a limit to forgiveness, spirituality. And face angry backlash that perfection is by human impossible obedience. Instead of finding transcendent peace through the freedoms and faith won by spiritual promises. That is the lasting impression of Christian simplicity in "seek the kingdom" while the rest of our time and context are just empty additions. The Bible is meaningful because it's says people can find their own personal meaning. The Bible is for freedom because people can hold on to free and open views as all beings are children w/ one Godhead.
The youth will be ok because they will decide what "ok" means in their own time. And have plenty of time to discover that do have be "ok" and just be in the here and now. And kids will be kids. People are people.
Right or wrong, Adventists should make know that nothing is objective apart from the truthful concern- we all die. And we should find time together w/ a collective will since it is Christ who once died and always lives.
Typo- youth discover THAT THEY do NOT have to be "ok" and just be in the here and now. Maybe when the entire world is finally present in their time- here and now, and the people's will is not for earthly matters but just to "be" people- Christ will lead our true awakening.
Oops – this was meant to be a reply to Larry's previous comment 8-(.
Why can't a church be open to everyone? Those who wish to worship should be welcomed. Why would anyone want to go to a church that had so many qualifications to worship together? Why is church membership made so important, when it should mean simply a gathering of like minds who wish to worship and study together? Exclusivism is contrary to Christ's open welcome: "Come unto me all you that labor and I will give you rest."
Elaine,
Your observations echo what is documented in the book "Unchristian?" If you have not read it, I would like to suggest that you do.
Yes church should echo how we want life to be. Open, free, and meaningful w/o an opposing and ambiguously dark force or vain superficial goodness in relation to said darkness. I believe there is NO absolute evil or an objective darkness other than the terrifying and lying suggestion, earth is an absolute body w/ objective minds living in a universal reality.
And goodness is so absolute it's can absolve the greatest evil of being lukewarm. And goodness renders objectivity to be a myth is brought by those refusing to acknowledge their own perpetual subjective form of reality and being personally alive in relationships not, forced existence according to whatever universal code we impose. It's really good to want to be talking about this, because our will calls us to rest someday and there is plenty of time to be dead.
Lynn,
What you wrote appears to be a tiny snapshot of a larger view of life that I am not able to identify clearly. Would you mind clarifying a bit to help my understanding? Are you saying that the church should reflect the varied concepts of reality that people see? If so, how should or could it do that? Or, am I not understanding?
The church should reflect things as they are and not in absolutist categories that only exist in myths and fables. Darkness is ambiguous and varies according to absence of light. But the light is absolute, pure, and reconcile those in THE RELATIVE darkness. Absolutism is not the power of condemnation or earthly infallibility but, absolution.
Is man absolutely evil, no. But evil doesn't need an absolute definition- ambiguity is the fitting disguise. Does man live in constant moral ambiguity, yes. And that's evil.
But can man absolutely and definitively see death as a universal reality, yes.
The church should use its values to reflect the INEVITABLE DARKNESS of the human condition by using humility, compassion for what unavoidably human fate of death. That our humanity amongst death should what unites sinners in the reality of darkness. A darkness- we are apart of, live in, die alongside of and rely upon for our ambiguous disguise. And that Christ's divine light is meant to absolve enough as we don't have immortal capacity to reflect such eternally bright goodness.
Rather than appoint the church- morality, righteousness under its absolutist control. That there is no ambiguity or nuances only more battles for them defined under its absolutist control. That there is universal truths which compel everyone to be dominated by these absolutes in order to enjoy a mythical righteousness- or a type of sainthood or VIP heavenly access.
The myth is these absolutes of morality have meaning of earning life w/o death. That is NOT a human reality and any "light" is artificial. Instead, darkness and evil are always relative and at varying levels and our plight is to ACKNOWLEDGE this inescapable reality as a sign of our spiritual need of absolution. This realized "need" in a confused world or mythical goodness/absolute right is what keeps the church grounded in real problems not, lost in myths.
"Why can't a church be open to everyone?"
This is indeed the ultimate goal. Unfortunately in this sinful world we need to establish boundaries. Let me suggest two boundaries regarding Elaine's question.
1) Church Participation should be open to everyone who wishes to participate. However if someone is actively engaging in activity that constitutes a reasonable threat of physical, emotional or spiritual harm to other Participants, or of physical damge or loss to the property of the Church or the Participants, they need to be excluded. For example if someone tries to steal your computers or your offerings (I have seen both of these happen), or if someone is taking sexual advantage of vulnerable members (I have seen this happen). Likewise if someone is engaging in activity that clearly undermines the mission of the church, to the detriment of the other Particpants, they need to be excluded. Success tends to attract predators of various varieties. If you are unwilling to protect any social endeavor from predatory practices it will not be able to function for long.
2) Church Membership should be open to Participants not excluded by (1) who actively subscribe to and support the mission and objectives of the Church. Leadership must be drawn from among active members in order for the Church to prevail in pursuing its mission.
The above does not presume what is the mission of any particular Church, but it does presume that a Church has some level of agreement on what is its mission. Participation does not require assent to the mission, but does exclude active opposition. Membership does require assent to the mission and active support.
Right now SDA membership criteria are somehwere in between (1) and (2). In practice this creates a third category.
3) A Church Adherent is someone who generally assents with its mission and may or may not be an active Participant or Member. Some would prefer to broaden this category to include those who generally identify with its Participants but may not currently assent with its mission.
And Church leadership itself is another level. For example, if a deacon must be the husband of one wife and not be a drunken, does the NT suggest a mere member doesn't have to fulfill those requirements?
Your objection to thieves should not only apply to church but to business or any association. These are criminal activities, and really have no need of mentioning in this discussion. It's like writing that convicted murderers or rapists should also not be admitted to one's home.
But this discussion is about who should be welcome to attend church. It is interesting that in qualifiying for church attendance these situations should ever be raised. Thieves are often discovered to have stolen from the church while holding office giving them access to funds; IOW it is AFTER the crime that someone may no longer be welcomed.
But it begs the question: how many know criminals have asked to be members of your church? The
"sins" which are usually condemned or being gay, adulterous, or even divorced.
If your see the church as a club, it has the right and responsibility to set rules for membership. When joining, a prospective member is presented with rules and regulations that must be followed. Dismissal is the consequence of disobedience. And people who don't agree with the "rules" don't have to join or are free to move on.
Adventism does not want to allow the legitimacy of other church options because of its inbred, exclusive, theology. For members, it promotes a kind of post hypnotic suggestion that you will know you are really bad, lost, when you consider you opting out of it. Guilt. That is the subtle, operative impediment, the mental prison, designed to maintain membership.
It is difficult for "conservative" Adventist to accept that the road map to "salvation" shows countless routes to a heavenly destination. You can join other "clubs."
“It is difficult for "conservative" Adventist to accept that the road map to "salvation" shows countless routes to a heavenly destination.”
Tell me Larry, how do you, or most Christians, interpret Romans 6:23 and Acts 4:12?
It is fairly clear by now that, for you, this is about more than just Seventh-day Adventism, or “conservative” Adventism.
Granted, Adventism, like Catholicism, Judaism and Islam, makes those who leave their ranks feel “lost;” but would you characterize those faith communities as also having “inbred, excusive” theologies? (If so, then what is the difference?)
The SDA church doesn't own the interpretation of the texts you quote. The "remnant" church, the "three Angels messages" the Sabbath, etc., are not mentioned once in these verses. So there isn't an exclusive Adventist road on the map, therefore there are countless channels to "salvation." One has to be a total ego maniac to think the knows the ultimate truth of all truths for ever and ever amen.
And, are you going to tell me a native person in the jungles of Brazil, or anywhere at anytime, can't go to "heaven" because of his misfortune of never hearing of Jesus? Now we are back to Super Guy, the human creation, a partisan God, who punishes the innocent for not being at right place at the right time.
You had better find a larger interpretation (I don't share yours) of those scriptures, or reinvent a nicer, kinder, more loving Super Guy, because if that is what God is, fear, that is fear of crossing him, teeing him off, or being ignorant of him, is the motivating factor of being his "Disciple." Can't imagine eternity with that character!
Yes, each of the faith communities you reference, have inbred, exclusive, theologies, just like Adventism. Each has their version of Super Guy each equally human manufactured. None are eligible for deity.
Christianity, and by extension, Adventism, has such an opportunity to scuttle Super Guy in lieu of a God of Love, who is inclusive, available to all, impossible to anthropomorphize. No, I'm not crazy enough to assume any current system, including Adventism, is ever going to surrender their rascally, quick to anger, manufactured to human specification, "god" in favor of a non personified God of Love. But there might be few people in the world who would like to entertain a concept of God that encounters mankind beyond the feeble Super Guy.
Wouldn't an Adventist church with the God that Jesus recommended be a powerful magnet? Maybe pejorative, divisive labels of conservative, ultraconservative, liberal, and the rest, would be homeless there? I'm probably just dreaming, (or "digging," according to one of my critics)!
Well perhaps you were dreaming (and there’s certainly nothing wrong with that)—until you picked up your Super Guy shovel again.
The point is that Adventism isn’t the only denomination who interprets those texts as meaning that there actually aren’t “countless ways to a heavenly destination;” as you claim.
Larry, lighten up dude, I am not "one of [your] critics;" just of some of your arguments and declarations, that’s all. (Besides, you wanted your ideas challenged anyway.)
Firstly, it is possible for the absolute Christian to never be in darkness spiritually.
By accepting the Light of the world, Jesus the Christ, the absolute Christian is assured of eternal light.
Scripture tells us there is only one Way to salvation, "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and ye shall be saved". Paul tells us "by their fruit ye shall know them".
Man looks on the outward form, but God knows the heart of man.
Agree that outright scoundrels should not be permitted amonst God's children. The good shepard protects his flock from ravenous wolves.
All who are seeking to associate with Christians should be welcomed into God's community of sinners, with no vetting, and as long as they participate in the church as responsible members of congregational worship and social activities, without flagrant or disruptive practices, their individual sins are their business.
i believe as long as the current FB's of SDA stand, there is a strong possibility of a schism that will shake the foundations of SDA. Perhaps this is the point made here at Atoday, by some, that, to paraphase, "if you don't accept our fundamental beliefs, go form your own church, and leave us alone". It may be a prothetic omen
of "let the skaking begin".
Mr Hamstra provides a good example of a biased hijacked understanding of Love when he says: "From my student days in SDA schools I was always interested in noting which of my Bible teachers and Pastors were Lovers and which were Indoctrinators."
An adult who pampers and allows youth to indulge in things the church cautions against and often what parents don't approve of will undoubtedly be popular among youth – and that goes without saying. This leniency and compromise of our standards and belief is translated as a display of love.
Will a teacher who loves his students (as opposed to an indoctrinator) pass a student that fails an examination as a result of being rebellious, lazy, uncommitted, pays no attention to lessons and who skips class regularly? Shouldn't the student be forgiven and shown love and compasion and pushed through to receive his or her qualification. Isn't that showing love?
Well, Mr Hammond has conclusively proven he does not have the gift of mind-reading. I have never on this web site advocated pampering students or anyone else.
Unlike many SDA academy Bible teachers, my 9th grade Bible teacher taught us about the unconditional love of God. She did NOT pamper us or allow us to indulge in things the church cautions against. She did NOT pass students who failed examinations. She DID confront us queitly and privately when she saw us acting in an un-Christlike manner. She did NOT belittle us in front of our fellow students or the other teachers. Her personal conduct matched her message. (Yes Trevor, SHE was allowed to instruct young men and God blessed her ministry richly.)
Also unlike many SDA academy Bible teachers, my 10th grade Bible teacher taught us how to study the Bible for ourselves, as opposed to simply memorizing and reciting the answers. He did NOT pamper us or allow us to indulge in things the church cautions against. He did NOT pass students who failed examinations. He DID confront us queitly and privately when she saw us acting in an un-Christlike manner. He did NOT belittle us in front of our fellow students or the other teachers. His personal conduct matched his message.
When the only pedagogical tool one knows is indoctrination, love looks the same as indulgence. To him who has only a hammer everything looks like a nail.
I guess we both have something in common. We don't have the gift of mind-reading. Please explain what your 'indoctrinators' were like since you clearly contrast them with the others whom you perceive were the 'lovers.'
The indoctrinators were focused on having us memorize "proof texts" and lists of facts and similar things so we could pass the tests. There is a huge difference between knowing about God and knowing God. To the extent that studying the Bible (or Ellen) helps us to know God, they are a blessing. To the extent that we are required to study these things outside of the context of knowing God they are not a blessing and can even become a curse. Sort of like studying secular history by memorizing lists of names and dates of rulers and battles.