| Author |
Message |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 24
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 9:44 am: |     |
Doug,
Thank you for your comments. Our grandchildren learn these "prooftext" memory verses largely in the SDA elementary school that they attend. Furthermore, we have the suspicion that their great-grandmother is "covertly" financing their SDA education. Our daughter and son-in-law do not have the financial resources nor the dedication to pay church school bills for two children. With sometimes a six-day-a-week formal endoctrination (when also attending Sabbath School), this amounts to an intense denominational identity (outright deception).
There is, of course, a strong social and/or cultural element when children are together in group settings--especially this often. Even though the SDA Church heavily finances and targets SDA education as their primary, effective, evangelistic tool, the facts are that about 50 percent will eventually leave Adventism. Consequently, the SDA hierarchy is taking bold steps to root out any teachers that are not totally committed to Adventism. For example, SDA college teachers are not supposed to even mention any doctrinal views or doubts that are not officially held. Ideally, one's journey in Adventism is to be only a one-way street--no turning around for any reason. Anything less than this ideal will result in the loss one's salvation. Scary stuff for the deceived!
Dennis J. Fischer |
Leigh
Registered user
Username: Leigh
Post Number: 59
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 10:20 am: | |
Dennis,
My children love to recite (to an audience) what they have memorized whether it be a memory verse, history song, or grammar jingle. Maybe the next time they recite one of the "prooftext" verses, praise them for good memorization, then ask them what their favorite text is. Pray for the Lord to guide your speech, then share one of your favorite texts about salvation by faith,grace, assurance of salvation, etc. and tell them why it is your favorite and how much it means to you.
I found that when I was using the SDA homeschool curriculum (which is also used in many sda schools across the country) that not only are they exposed to doctrine in Bible class, but also in other subjects. The reading books and workbooks have stories about EGW and the adventist pioneers. The science and health books quote from EGW's writings frequently. The oneway street of adventism is scary stuff indeed.
Leigh |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 73
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 11:01 pm: | |
Wow, Dennis and Sylvia, that's a tough situation. I believe that Doug is right about needing to respect the parents' desires in general, but I love Leigh's idea about sharing texts. How do your children feel about your leaving? Are they open to discussion or to reading material? I think you can always talk about Jesus, and you can also keep reminding them that the Bible is full of answers for life's questions. Sometimes I do think that grandparents have a uniquely powerful place in influencing their grandkids. God will guide and sometimes even orchestrate your conversations with them.
Adventism truly is scary, and it's such a subtle deception. I talked with a former Adventist today who said what so many of us have found: the farther away from it you get, the more cultic it looks. I am so grateful to be out, and so thankful that God pulled me away and to himself!
Colleen |
Flyinglady
Registered user
Username: Flyinglady
Post Number: 15
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 11:49 am: | |
I have not been in the same situation but I listen to Dr Laura Schlessinger a lot. What I have heard her say is talk to the grandparents and tell the grandparents that you love them, but your childs upbringing is your responsiblity. If they are going to tell the kids something behind your back that undermines your teachings then they can only see the kids when you are with them. Then tell them that if they still feel they have to say something that undermines you then you cannot visit them at all. It is hard but maybe the grandparents will learn to keep their mouth shut. If they want to see the grandchildren, they cannot undermine the parents.
I did something similar with my MIL. It was not about religious beliefs. I just did not let her have my son to herself ( she lived in CA and we lived in VA). So it was a lot easier for me.
God Bless you as you protect and raise your children.
Diana |
Flyinglady
Registered user
Username: Flyinglady
Post Number: 18
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, April 18, 2004 - 2:20 pm: | |
Dennis & Sylvia,
WOW, that is a problem. Pray about it a lot, which I am sure you are doing. God can work miracles.
I just became a grandmother this past June 7. I was concerned at first, because I had not found out about EGW at that time, because my son and his wife go to church, on Sunday, on the Air Force base where he is stationed. They do not like the SDA church in the town where he is stationed. I am no longer concerned about that. I just pray that my son leaves the SDA church completely. He has some doctrinal differences with the SDAs. I have sent him the urls of the various web sites such as this one and all the others written by former SDAs. I pray for him and ask you prayers also.
God bless each of you with you children and grand children. God does work miracles. |
Susan_2
Registered user
Username: Susan_2
Post Number: 507
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 11:10 am: | |
Dear Dennis and Sylvia, your comment that it is mostly cultural caught my eye. My mom keeps heaping the greif on my because she tells mr to attend a Synday-keeping church, especially the denomination of choice for me, Lutheran is total sin because the Bible says very strongly we are to avoid the traditiona of man. Well, yes, the Lutheran denomination is rich in tradition. I tried telling her these traditions go back to the very beginnings of Christianity whereas the SDA denomination ios based mostly on traditions, too only the SDA traditions go back only to the mid-1800"s and are solely based on totally made-up traditions by EGW. She got really mad at me and walked out of the room saying something about all the money her and Daddy spent on me to attend church schools so I owed it to them to stay in the truth. It made my stomach upset. I had always thought the money issue was somehow behind it. I think my mom looks at the money they spend on my going to SDA schools as an investment and the interest she earned from that investment should be me being a loyal Adventist. Well, tuff, the investment went bankrupt. |
Ladylittle
Registered user
Username: Ladylittle
Post Number: 1
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 1:30 pm: | |
 The fact that most of life is not governed by God's dictating every movement we make (take this step, look over there, lift your arm and drink this water), leaves much room for us to devlop traditions of our own. It is tradition that guides what colors we match together in our clothes. It is tradition that guides whether we sit on the floor, recline, or sit on chairs for eating. It is tradition that guides what style of house we live in.
It seems to me the problem with tradition comes when it contraticts what God has ordained, when it is relied on for selvation, when it is used in place of a living relationship with God, or when it is used to create false distinctions (this person is good because he does this and this while that person is bad because she does things differently), or even worse when we carry the distinctions out to that person is bad so we have to punish them, . . .
Ladylittle (Mary)
|
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 194
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 3:36 pm: | |
Hi, Mary--I think you're new, right? It's good to see you here! Welcome to the forum!
Colleen |
Ladylittle
Registered user
Username: Ladylittle
Post Number: 2
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 3:41 pm: | |
Yes I'm new here. Thank you for the welcome! |
Loneviking
Registered user
Username: Loneviking
Post Number: 238
Registered: 7-2000
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 5:25 pm: | |
Yeah, traditions can be a problem. Welcome to the forum!
One of the SDA traditions that really bugs me is the sanctity of the sanctuary. Many SDA's believe, and many of us were taught as to how the sanctuary is a special place of reverance, dedicated to God. In this SDA church across from me there have been a couple of angry blowups recently over what has been allowed to be done in the sanctuary. One controversy was a rather exuberant choir from a nearby town which was part of a youth program. The religious music, some conservatives claimed, wasn't fit to be used in the sanctuary.
My wife (who is still SDA)has also been shocked over the years of uses to which churches I've belonged to used the church. At Trinity, the main church building is used for Sunday services and parties for several reasons. My wife was just about speechless when she found out that the same building was used for both events!
Anyway, a SDA pastor friend of mine who lives nearby, got to talking about this issue. He had just moved to a new pastorate and a couple of members had been taking him to task for whistling in the sanctuary. This was not done during normal church times, this was during the week when hardly anyone was around. So, he asked me for some help in coming to a conclusion about what the Bible says about the sacredness of the sanctuary.
I looked up a few texts and realized that there was no way that any argument I could come up with would convince conservative SDA's--especially with the way they study the Bible. I told him that, and that it was probably best to let sleeping dogs lie.
I was over at his house this last Saturday, and imagine my surprise to find out that he is going ahead with a sermon putting forth the idea that there is nothing inherently sacred about a building.
The argument that he is using is that the reason for the Old Testament temple was so that God could dwell among man. Under the New Testament, God dwells within and what makes a gathering sacred is the gathering of his people and NOT the location or the building.
I told him I liked his argument, but that since God dwells within, there is also no reason to have a special day to meet with God since He can meet with us daily. There is also no need to wear any special clothes to church (as some SDA's claim) since the clothes are nothing but filthy rags, at best.
He didn't like the Sabbath and clothes argument, but he does see how it ties into the the question of what is sacred. Traditions! What fun to tear down the really useless and hurtful ones! And maybe, in the process, I'll make a 'former' out of this pastor friend of mine. |
Ladylittle
Registered user
Username: Ladylittle
Post Number: 4
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 5:41 pm: | |
Reminds me of an experience I had when my husband was working as an assistant pastor in Canada. It was in the SDA Reform Movement, an offshoot? of SDAism. Most of the members were from eastern Europe, and the idea that the sanctuary was holy was very strong. But the reason they gave was that the Cathedrals of the Orthodox church were kept very quiet, and that anything less than utmost solemnity was terrible.
Was once told that if my kids were restless they must either be bribed (with candy or whatever) or not brought to church till they behaved. |
Praisegod
Registered user
Username: Praisegod
Post Number: 40
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 6:10 pm: | |
A couple of weeks ago I attended a conference at a United Methodist Church. This church goes out of its way to serve the community. A local high school had their biggest stage production of the year scheduled the week previously and a few days before the school auditorium flooded. The UMC found out and offered their sanctuary for the free use of the local high school so they wouldnít have to cancel the production.
I was talking with an associate pastor and he said people were so shocked to find the church so willing to open their doors to the community. They broke down the walls between the church and the community. Many, many unbelievers came to the church and got to interact with the members. Iím sure God will bless their caring spirit. The group that Iím with used their facilities because they willingly offered it to us. Then they contacted our leadership team and asked for specific prayer requests to be praying for before our meeting. When attendees arrived at the conference they were handed a slip of paper when they walked in that said they had been prayed for by name. They could also write out a specific prayer request and the church would pray for it for the next 90 days. Our only connection with this church is that one of our leadership is a church member. Yet they bent over backwards to serve. I also found that they lent out some of their musicians to help a nearby Lutheran Church get a contemporary service going.
It seems that if we are good stewards with our churches, we should be keeping them busy seven days of the week. The walls of the Adventist churches I have attended were like fortresses to keep people out until they were cleaned up enough to be able to attend. Iím so thankful to see barriers coming down in some places.
Praise GodÖ
|
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 296
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 6:51 am: | |
Loneviking, I identify with what you are saying, but hadn't thought much about it until you mentioned it. I was raised in a little SDA church where the sanctuary was considered sacred at all time whether church was going on or not. I went to a one room school house attached to the church M-F and if we ever had to go through the sanctuary we were to whisper an be reverent even though it was empty. The dais was the especillay Holy Place, kind of the Most Holy Place you might say. We kids were not to even put our feet on the first step of the dais.
After reading your post I contrasted this to our current church. We have a small church without many rooms. If we ever have a potluck or something like that, as soon as the service is over, we move the chairs, setup tables, and eat right there. In Adventism this would have been sacriledge. For us, it's just a continuation of Christian Fellowship in a different context, another aspect of the life of THE CHURCH.
Chris |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 199
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 10:57 am: | |
The whole procedure of "dedicating" the sanctuary when the mortgage is finally paid is completely unbiblical and particularly non-New Testament. Solomon's temple was dedicated to the Lord, and He came and put his Presence in it.
As your pastor friend said, Loneviking, God now puts his presence in us. We are the temple of the Holy Spirit. When the Samaritan woman talked to Jesus about appropriate worship venues (Jerusalem was the only authentic place to celebrate the festivals, but Samaritans were not allowed to worship there and worshiped instead in the north), Jesus said, The time is coming and is now here when men will worship me in spirit and in truth.
By that statement, Jesus completely redefined the concept of where and how to worship. Place was no longer significant. True worship happens in a person's spirit which now (post-cross) can be connected with God. We don't have to go somewhere to meet Him. His presence is not in buildings or places in the new covenant. His presence is in us!
Meeting together is for the purpose of fellowship and building each other in the Lord. Corporate worship has much deeper meaning in the new covenant even than it did in the old. Now we meet together, and the presence of Christ in us ministers to each other through the spiritual gifts He gives us.
The whole idea of sacred places detracts from the reality that God now tabernacles IN us, not merely AMONG us.
Colleen |
Doc
Registered user
Username: Doc
Post Number: 73
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 10:15 pm: | |
Absolutely Colleen!
When the church was growing at its most dynamic rate, in the first century, Christians did not even have their own church buildings - read the book of Acts and the epistles. They met in the temple for a short while, otherwise in hired premises or private homes. Church buildings only date from about the 3rd century, and particularly the 4th, after the Roman empire legalised the faith, and it consequently rapidly became corrupted.
I have to say as a outsider, the more I hear about Adventism, the worse it sounds.
God bless,
Adrian
|
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 205
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 12:50 pm: | |
Adrian, I'm glad you said that. You are experiencing what all of us who've been steeped in Adventism know, but which the Christian community just does not understand--usually: Adventism is deeply and subtly dark and twisted, controlling even its most "enlightened" members with almost preconscious fear and habits and rules which are completely unbiblical. Those internal realities which all Adventists (or most of them, anyway) know are never talked about outside. They sound petty and insignificant individually, yet they are all powerful strands in a tight but nearly invisible web that holds its victims (yes, I said victims) tightly inside. It's gratifying to know that a non-Adventist (and Adrian, you have more exposure than most!) can begin to understand the cultic, twisted nature of the church.
I know that some of our forum members have not been Adventist but have been married to or closely associated with Adventists; they get a quicker inside understanding than most. Your perception, though, is accurate, Adrian; Adventism is truly twisted, and in spite of their words, it is based on almost no understanding of the new birth, the completed atonement, and the grace of God through Jesus. It is a deep, paralyzing bondage that keeps people from experiencing freedom in Christ while simultaneously preaching the very freedom which it denies its members. It is confusing and subtle, and it's spiritually dangerous.
Praise God that he is a God of truth!
Colleen |
Doc
Registered user
Username: Doc
Post Number: 74
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 3:52 am: | |
Thanks Colleen,
I think "victims" is right, I actually used the label myself when I was particularly angry with SDAs.
When Gyula was still trying to convince myself and his wife that we ought to take SDA teaching seriously, he got really irrational and even suicidal (someone mentioned in a recent post about becoming suicidal, sorry, I can't remember who). We were on our way to an SDA Bible study, and he said the best thing he could think of doing at that moment was to get on his motor bike and drive it into a tree as fast as possible. We really got quite worried.
I think if a religion does that to someone, then surely there has to be something wrong with it?
Jesus gives us peace and joy instead!
Adrian |
Flyinglady
Registered user
Username: Flyinglady
Post Number: 28
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 10:04 pm: | |
About what goes on inside SDA churches during the week, I have to tell you about my Mother's memorial service at the local SDA church. Mom wanted a grave side service with Mariachi music.
At the memorial service in the SDA church afterward all her kids and grandkids said a few words. Then the Mariaci band played the same songs they played at the grave site. Very definitely lively, non SDA songs. I am very thankful to the pastor for letting this take place. I do not know if he got in trouble for this or not. But he did let us give our mother the memorial service she wanted.
I have to tell you that none of my family or my mother attended this church. One of my older sisters knew the pastor. That is how we got to use the SDA church. |
|
