Post Number: 306
|Posted on Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - 9:59 pm: || |
I've been out of Seventh-Day Adventism for almost 3 1/2 years. These days my exposure to what goes on behind those sanctuary doors is becoming more and more faded and frankly I prefer to keep it that way as I have no current calling to go back.
I also receive, mesages or irritated comments from SDA "fren-emies" and family responding to my blog or fB posts that tell me things are now different. The Church or their specific local church or leader doesn't teach this, or doesn't preach that, and that they no longer do this or "crusade" about that. In fact 4 years ago my last SDA pastor from "Frisco Crosswalk Fellowship" (note the absence of SDA in the common name") also tried to tell me before I left, he never preached EGW from the pulpit because he didn't preach what he didn't believe so stick around because soon I will see a change.
Frankly when I hear SDAs tell me they're progressive, or evangelical because of what they don't do or have started doing is proof that it's the same old spirit possesses the institution. The focus is simply on different “Do’s” but it is “Do’s” all the same.
Sadly, our friends and families who also do not understand it is about ONLY Jesus and His finished work will buy into the new spiritual "upholstery and drapery" and think that is sufficient to have "Seventh-Day" Adventism considered as Christian.
SDAism as been and probably always will be focused on the DO's, believing a simple change in the worship style, or no longer Revelation Crusading about that, or using different terminology is what makes all the difference. It doesn't. It is Jesus Christ, His Gospel and His finished work that breaks the bonds of sin. "Seventh-Day" Adventism in its core has never understood that and until it does it will continue to focus on changing the wrong things, changing its make-up and not its heart.
Post Number: 2826
|Posted on Thursday, February 07, 2013 - 8:01 am: || |
I’m in total agreement with you. Important as doctrine is it is not about the doctrines so much as the relationship we have with the Savior. Even if we hear ‘the right words’ being preached it is not about which church we attend or what denomination we choose to join so much as being ‘born again’ by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit through the benefits of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the work he performed on the cross.
To summarize: It is all about our relationship with our Savior and the work he performed.
Post Number: 294
|Posted on Thursday, February 07, 2013 - 1:20 pm: || |
Doesn't matter how much the local church allows its people to do this or that, the money still goes to the General Conference and the church is still officially under the 28 Fundamentals.
Post Number: 14279
|Posted on Thursday, February 07, 2013 - 10:41 pm: || |
Wiredog, YES. I agree.
Adventism is Adventism. The personal and regional differences are merely window dressing. The worldview behind the specifics is all the same. And the Adventist worldview, no matter how "evangelical" they claim to be, has a different gospel, a fallible Jesus, and a spirit-less humanity. The biblical gospel is not part of Adventism.
Post Number: 671
|Posted on Saturday, February 09, 2013 - 4:00 pm: || |
And the glue that holds the whole unscriptural mess together is the infallible Ellen.
Post Number: 304
|Posted on Sunday, February 10, 2013 - 4:42 pm: || |
Seems to me like Colleen and I said about the same thing only using different words. Follow the money. It all goes to the General Conference which is beholden to the official 28 fundamentals. A rose by any other name is still a rose.
Post Number: 1267
|Posted on Tuesday, February 12, 2013 - 6:32 pm: || |
You guys all realize that when we were out on those cold nights collecting cash "for the poor & needy" (Ingathering), that it really didn't actually go to the "poor & needy", at least most of it if anyway.
Post Number: 873
|Posted on Tuesday, February 12, 2013 - 10:22 pm: || |
Well, when me and my partner had collected our Ingathering quota for the night, the next $20 always went to the nearest Pizza Hut (cheese pizza only of course).
Stealing from the Ingathering can was wrong. At the same time we were cold and hungry and already had our free-week-at-Adventist-summer-camp Jasper Wayne award "in the can" so to speak...
We were quite effective Ingatherers. We quickly realized that the Adventist angle was like selling ice to Eskimos so we ditched the literature and started collecting in the name of the Johnstown Flood Relief Fund and poor Soviet kids. We got 3 weeks at summer camp and probably a dozen pizzas over a couple of campaigns.
Does Ingathering still go on? It must be quite dangerous these days, you know.
Post Number: 807
|Posted on Sunday, February 17, 2013 - 2:34 pm: || |
Interesting how many adventist churches actually say that they don't preach EGW and that they are non-denominational adventists and they can disobey the GC and ordain women..and on and on.
Hello? At that point, they are not Seventh-day Adventists any more. They are living in open rebellion to their church. They put up with it because they have to have a church that "keeps" the Sabbath and the GC puts up with it because they would lose at least half their membership if they didn't.
"Hello. My name is Fred and I'm a Seventh-day Adventist but I don't believe in most of their teachings."
I don't get it. That's the point when I got out.
Post Number: 954
|Posted on Monday, February 18, 2013 - 10:43 am: || |
Does the "bottom-line" = $$$ resonate with
At the risk of sounding cynical, IMO, this is where
much of problem lies! As with many other things
in life~ the adventist need for ~ $$$~ both the
"GC" and the "non-denominational adventsits" !
Post Number: 1746
|Posted on Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - 8:11 am: || |
There are a handful of "progressive" SDA congregations that seem to get away with not towing the organizational line on some issues. I would argue that most of these still very much have a SDA worldview underneath all their claims to liberalism or evangelicalism. So I think that underlying worldview is one thing that keeps them in the organization. The other thing is how money and property are structured in the SDA system.
In Adventism, most of the money that goes in the plate doesn't go to support the operations of the local church; it goes to the general conference who then allocates some of that money back to pay ministers' salaries and such. To have any chance at going non-denominational the local church would first have to get all its members to redirect tithes to the local church budget. Down deep, I think many SDAs, even progressive ones, would have an attack of conscience as they have been conditioned to believe that the only valid tithing is that which goes to an authoritative body of some sort.
Still, there have been a couple of cases I can think of where a local congregation has started to keep its tithes, which then triggers another crisis. In Adventism, the local congregation typically raises the money to build a church building, donates more money for up keep and expansion, but they don't own it. In order to be SDA they are required to sign over the fruits of their labors to the organization. If they leave Adventism or go head to head with the organization over tithes, the organization can and will take their property.
So there are a lot of powerful reasons why so called progressive congregations don't leave Adventism.
Post Number: 2033
|Posted on Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - 8:49 pm: || |
Yes... many years ago there were several families that lived in our (at that time )area of the Sierra mountains who had to drive down to a small town (30+ miles away) to attend a SDA church. We decided there were enough of us up there along with the hope of course to get more 'locals' to join... that we decided to build a church up there. We saved, donated money,, bought a piece of property with several acres on the main highway going up to the National parks... cleared a spot for a building, put in a well, ran electricity.... and then.... one of the families moved away, the main elder passed away... and everything came to a standstill for a few months while those of us who were left tried to decide what to do.
Before we could do anything... the General Conference stepped in and decided we did not need a church there .... they sold the property, kept all the money and made a nice profit selling to the parks department who built a ranger station where the church was supposed to be. The dozen or so families who had put in ALL of the money to buy the property and put in improvements did not get back one cent.
Post Number: 147
|Posted on Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - 8:58 pm: || |
Skeeter, that's a horrible story. The ugly underbelly...
Post Number: 961
|Posted on Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - 10:11 pm: || |
I agree~ a horrible story !
However, perhaps, just perhaps, in hindsight, all the things that happened, were a "Blessing" in disguise?
I have a similar story~ my husband and I freely contributed $350.00 a month for three
years (in the 1980's) which really stretched our
budget, to an adventist church building project, along
with many other members, just to have it go down
similar to yours~
I am NOT an adventist any longer; GOD used many things in
my life to "bring me out"!
The General Conference, does not like individuals
to take things into their own hands!
Who would have thought?!
Post Number: 14294
|Posted on Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - 11:16 pm: || |
Skeeter, unbelievable! Uh--no, on second thought--completely believable. I am so sorry!
I'm convinced that at the core, Adventism is about power and money. The veil of "spirituality" and remnant doctrine is the way the organization keeps the members "sedated" and supporting the machine.
At the top, however, the leaders have all sorts of political and financial connections. The whole story that began to be revealed when Robert Folkenberg was sued in 1999 by his Catholic business partner who was a fund raiser for the pope's charity, Vicariatus Urbis, was my first significant peek into the rather dark, money-driven nature of Adventist politics.
The organization is the same as it's always been. It's only the public presentation that changes.
Post Number: 316
|Posted on Saturday, February 23, 2013 - 4:27 pm: || |
Can any of you file suit to get your money back since the money was ment for one purpose and was taken and used for something else without your approval?
Post Number: 969
|Posted on Sunday, February 24, 2013 - 12:59 pm: || |
I suppose a person could find an attorney that would be willing to take
a case like this~
However, this is not a course I choose to take~
Post Number: 315
|Posted on Sunday, February 24, 2013 - 10:55 pm: || |
I spoke with an attorney when I left the SDA Institution about just such a thing. I was told by an attorney in San Bernardino County, that no court would take that claim as I would not have "standing" in this type of case. Go figure. . .
"Standing" is the right to bring a lawsuit. There are many factors that affect whether or not a party has standing to sue, but the general concept is that if a lawsuit is pursued in court, the court wants to be sure that the right party is pursuing it. Often this means that a party must show that it has a strong enough connection to the lawsuit to bring it." (http://voices.yahoo.com/what-does-mean-standing-lawsuit-6241732.html)
Post Number: 151
|Posted on Saturday, March 23, 2013 - 11:23 am: || |
Like someone once told me in regard to SDA schools and churches:
The Church gets the assets, the congregation gets the liabilities.