| Author | Message | ||
| Chris (Chris) |
I'm curious if anyone read the article "Second-Generation Adventist" by Patty Froese on page 6 of the Sept. 4, 2003 Issue of Adventist Review (the special issue for "missing members"). In this article Ms. Froese candidly states that she doesn't know what the 27 fundamental beliefs are, but she's seen the book on her father's bookshelf. She further states that she doesn't know why Adventist do what they do, but that she assumes it comes from either the Bible or Ellen White so she has "a 50% chance of getting it right". She readily states that doctrine and theology have nothing to do with her Adventism. In fact, the best defense for her Adventism that she seems able to produce is that Special K loaf is her comfort food. Is this an example of being an approved workman, diligent in handling the word of God (2 Tim. 2:15)? This sounds like willful, intentional ignorance to me. Ironically, this is one of the starkest examples of knowingly following the traditions of man rather than the commands of God that I have ever seen. Why would you put such an intellectually and theologically vapid article in an issue for "formers". This should reinforce peoples' decision to leave, it sure won't lure them back in.........unless of course they're really dying for Special K loaf. Chris | ||
| Madelia (Madelia) |
Hi Chris, Yes, we just received that issue a couple of days ago and I read that article. I too couldn't believe that someone would admit their ignorance of the Adventist beliefs. And that statement about having a 50% chance of getting it right was choice! The other articles seem to me to have the theme of 'give us another try, we're a kinder, gentler people'. And did you read the top ten list of why you should go to church on the Sabbath? One was to eat somebody's specialty vegetarian lasagne | ||
| Chris (Chris) |
There was another short column closer to the back. The title escapes me, but it pictured a young lady standing it front of school lockers. She discusses how many of her friends "drifted away from the church" because they found the demands of Adventism to be too hard. She states that she had to decide which direction she would go in and that the decision was based in part upon wether she could successfully carry out Adventism or not. For her the answer was to focus more on salvation through faith and less on man made dictates. While agree that she is definately on the right track here, I question this idea of "Burger King Adventism" or "Have it your way" Adventism (I'm not sure who deserves credit for this phrase, but it's not me). To me this is another symptom of cultural Adventism. The idea that I may not believe in many of the tenants of Adventism, I may not practice many pieces of Adventism, but I will outwardly conform enough to blend in and I will stay in it because it's what I am. I do not understand how so many Adventist can affirm that EGW is a prophet, then feel free to ignore her counsel whereever convenient. This seems to be pervasive part of the SDA culture though. Chris | ||
| Hoytster (Hoytster) |
It's something of a non-sequitur, Chris, but your last couple of sentences put me in mind of a mystery I've been wondering about. I should qualify my question with the statement that about 95% of what I know about Adventism is from my ex and her mother, so my impressions may be way off. They may strictly reflect on those two individuals, not SDAs in general. The question involves an incredible level of hypocrisy regarding SDA teachings OTHER than Sabbath-keeping and (in the mother's case) adhering to a vegan diet. They are both terrible liars, for example. That's a commandment, as much as is "Keep the Sabbath holy." My ex had an affair with a married man. She routinely commits tax fraud, which is stealing, IMHO. I've kind of made up the idea that (for them) keeping the 4th commandment is sufficient, and the "lower order" commandments (#s 5-10) can be ignored if you keep the Sabbath. I can't imagine another explanation. And the second half of the Great Commandment, to love our neighbors as ourself: My ex found out that her next-door-neighbor's septic system was on her property, and his lot was too small to support a septic system... so she forced him to sell his house to her at a bargain price. This was a single dad raising his daughters there, in a low-grade house that the ex has never slept in -- it's just some money to her (and she makes over $300,000/annum, about twice the value of the house). I have thought that she has moved the "nots" from where God put them, placing them where she finds them convenient: Thou shalt lie. Thou shalt steal. Thou shalt commit adultry. Thou shalt not love thy neighbor. Again, I make up the SDA commandment: Thou shalt keep the Sabbath holy, and never mind all that other stuff. And I make up the theory that it's OK to screw your neighbor, if your neighbor is an INFIDEL, i.e. someone other than an SDA. I want to be charitible and think that this is the illness of my ex and her mother (who stands by as the ex does all these things). I've known on a nodding-basis a number of people from her SDA church, and my impression is that they are fine people. Very friendly, seemingly upright. Are SDAs in general hypocrites, or is this a specific feature of my ex (I'd rather the latter!). - Hoytster | ||
| Carol_2 (Carol_2) |
Hi Hoytster! Here's my opinion - and I base it on being the secretary at a large SDA church for a number of years. There are, as in all denominations, some SDAs who are very sincere Christians, and would be appalled with the conduct of your ex, BUT there are many, many SDAs who are so afraid of falling short of the Sabbath commandment, people who have no real relationship to Christ whatsoever, who do all sorts of terrible things, but still cling to the Sabbath thing, and strangely enough the dietary law stuff too. I personally know people who would swear on EGWhite and claim to never forsake the Sabbath, that are leading extremely sinful, immoral, and perverted lives. I also know SDAs that never go to church, and again, from what I can see and forgive me for judging, have no apparent relationship with Christ whatsoever, yet will refuse to eat a piece of bacon. Even while in the church, that always blew my mind! Love you all! Carol | ||
| Carol_2 (Carol_2) |
P.S. Maybe I should have said "sincere, although misguided, Christians" when referring to SDAs. | ||
| Chris (Chris) |
Hoytster, like Carol 2 I would affirm that there are many many fine loving Christians within the Adventist denomination. I would not want to paint all with a broad brush. However, having said this, I think there are 3 beliefs that exist within Adventism that tend to encourage the type of contrdictory behaviour you describe. The first is that the big 10 are the ultimate law of God and even the ultimate revelation of God. While most Christian belief that Christ is the ultimate revelation of who God is, EGW clearly said that it was the decalogue that revealed who God is. Second, Adventist have a low view of New Testament teachings. They do not see these teachings as fulfilling and surpassing the OT law, but only as reminders pointing you back to the necessity of keeping the law. So Jesus' instruction to love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and soul is seen as a direct command to keep the first 4 commandments. Jesus' further instruction to love your neighbor as yourself is seen as a direct command to keep the last 6 commandments. Rather than seeing the broader application of Jesus' teaching, many Adventist tend to think that as long as they aren't breaking the decalogue in a particularly egregious way they're doing okay with God. Under this view, forcing a family out of their house isn't really "stealing" their house, it's just exercising your legal rights. So you're still okay with God no matter how unloving your actions might be. The third belief comes directly from EGW. EGW had a vision where she saw the commandments in Heaven and the 4th (Sabbath) commandment was shining more brightly than all the rest. So you are correct. Some SDAs DO see Sabbath keeping as more important than not lying, stealing, committing adultery, or even murdering. After all, their prophet said so. So when you combine these three beliefs, you create an atmosphere where the leading of the Spirit is exchanged for 10 narrowly defined commands on stone. Is it any wonder that there are some who live their lives in bitter hateful ways, all the while feeling more righteous than those around them. Chris | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
Hoytester, in all fairness I have to say that not all Adventists are so blatantly self-serving and commandment-breaking. But the fact is that because they live under the law, sin is their master. Paul says in Romans that as Christ-followers we are no longer under the law; therefore sin is no longer our master. Although they claim to be saved by grace, they still believe the law has authority over them, and as long as the law is their authority, sin increases in their lives, because that is the purpose of the law: to convict a person of his hopeless sinfulness so he will be driven to want the healing touch of Jesus. Some SDAs have accepted Jesus and do want to know the truth, and those, I believe, God leads in his own time to a realization of the true gospel and eventually out of Adventism. Some have lived and died in Adventism as saved Christians, but I believe God is increasingly making the issues clear and is calling people to choose him rather than the traditions of men, as Chris mentioned above. That Review edition, Chris, got me going as well. The thing that most bothered me by the time I had read it all was summarized in a tiny sentence buried in one article (I can't remember the title) which in a soothing, concilliatory tone urge formers to try Adventism again. The sentence was, "We have the same message, but a better method." That sentence was the essence of the whole magazine: they believe we have left because of their METHODS, not the MESSAGE. I, however, left because of the MESSAGE. I would never have left because of hurtful treatment, rigid rules, lifestyle requirements, Sabbath, or hypocritical people if the message had been true. The editors have taken the usual Adventist rationale and created a "straw man" argument which they proceeded to try to overcome through persuasion. The problem is, their gentle urgings to "try again" might work if the reason we left was that we were treated badly or we couldn't live up to people's expectations. That gentle persuasion, however, has no power over the reality of false doctrine. They never even hint that there might be legitimate, Biblical, doctrinal reasons we left. It's true that many people leave and do not find Jesus; they adopt worldly lifestyles and suppress guilt. They often identify specific situations that hurt them, so these kinds of experiences are the ones the church addresses when it assumes formers have been hurt. That hurt is real--and in a way, we have all been hurt by the church. Yet that hurt is merely a symptom of the REAL problem: the doctrines are unbiblical and false. They obscure Jesus and the reality and power of his finished work. True Adventism offers no real hope. People who believe Adventist doctrines are truth really have no way to live joyful, forgiving, compassionate lives. They have to spend too much energy perfecting their behaviors and trying to be good. That issue of Adventist Review completely missed the point. No one will go back when they discover the "message" is false. And those who still think the message--or at least parts of it--are true may go back, but they will never find relief for their cognitive dissonance. The false nature of Adventism and its doctrines makes it "OK" to fashion one's own brand of Adventism. Since none of it can be clearly proven from Scripture, it really doesn't matter if some people believe parts of it and jettison others--as long as they stay loyal and don't leave. I realize when I read that Review that as sincere as many of those authors might be, they are completely unable to see the compromise in which they are living. They truly have no idea why many of us HAD to leave in order to live with ourselves and to hold our heads up as examples of living with integrity before our children. This issue has helped intensify my conviction that I need to keep praying that the truth about Adventism will be known, and that God will guide those with honest hearts to himself. Praise God for freedom in him! Colleen | ||
| Jerry (Jerry) |
Sabbath quiz: Question: In the very first instance recorded in the Bible where God explicitly commanded people to ìdo no workî and have a ìholy Convocation,î what day of the week was it? Question: What command from God (that the SDAís no longer require) was pronounced by Jesus and the Old Testament as more important that the Sabbath such that, in keeping this command, you could break the Sabbath day, yet not sin. Question: In the verses where we see ìFor the Son of man is lord (even) of the Sabbath day,î the term ìSon of manî refers to Jesus, but it also has another meaning in Hebrew/Aramaic. If you know the dual meaning, there is more significance to the phrase. This makes the fact that this is a conclusion derived from the facts in the previous verses even more significant. | ||
| Jerry (Jerry) |
Oops! Of course, the third question is: What does ìSon of Manî mean, besides Jesus? (and the second question should have a question mark.) | ||
| Sabra (Sabra) |
Great questions Jerry, I'll have to do some study to get those. I need a little advise here guys: I got a job offer from a dentist (I'm a dental assistant) this job is to manage the office, thing is, he is Adventist and his assistant too. Is this a bad thing to even consider or am I supposed to do this? The dentist has a struggling practice, the assistant made sure to tell me that she wasn't one of those "strict" Adventists. Whatever that means. I have been praying about it and still don't feel settled either way. It is only 3 days a week and the 3rd day is only until 2:00 so I wouldn't be away from the kids too much and my husband would be taking my son with him on those days, since he is self employeed and can do that. We are surviving on his income but we could use some help especially with Christmas coming up. HELP! | ||
| Jerry (Jerry) |
I have some thoroughly off-the-cuff advice. My opinion is that the main issue may not be "Adventist" but, instead "struggling practice." For the Adventist part, I would say you should have no trouble if you make it clear (before accepting) that this is a business situation and that religion is not part of the deal (from you or them). I would look very carefully at the struggling aspect. That said, so long as you can think of it as non-permanent (at any moment) go ahead. But don't put up with any "payroll problems" for very long. And, do not, in any case, feel obligated to stop looking for something better. They would most likely drop you in a split-second if it suits their business situation. | ||
| Cindy (Cindy) |
Chris, I read every word of that Review issue...I don't have the energy to even mention all the immense disagreements I had with the articles and their conclusions! Initially it depressed me a lot! And yet, in thinking and praying about it more, I realize how far I've left Adventism in my thinking... I am even more solidified against that cultic system of belief. I am so very grateful to God for giving me the gift of His Spirit... And the confidence of knowing I am His! He is a very good resting place... grace always, cindy | ||
| Melissa (Melissa) |
"So when you combine these three beliefs, you create an atmosphere where the leading of the Spirit is exchanged for 10 narrowly defined commands on stone." Chris's comments align with my own experience. B does not find lying to be against the 10 commandments, only bearing false witness. So, if you say something that gives a different impression than fact (aka deception), it's not a sin. As a matter of fact, he justifies sex outside of marriage because adultery is when one of the partners is married (again in his narorw definition). Furthermore, he thinks the Bible only talks about not having sex with prostitutes, so he still finds no justification for abstinence between people who know each other and like each other. (he ignores scriptures like "better to marry than burn with passion", which might contradict that) He has just recently acknowledged that going to church on Saturday "may" be a tradition just like going on Sunday is (I keep challenging him, if he is looking at the 10 alone as the standard, where in the 10 worship is required on a particular day of the week...it's not there .... only rest.) But he can still defend Adventism by saying they are the only ones going to church on God's holy day. But some day he has to question their end times scenario if he decides (as he seems to have) that it's okay to worship God on Sunday too. (again, I've been challenging him to show me scripturally where the Bible says it is ever wrong to worship God ... if it's not a sin to worship on Sunday, how can God reject people for doing so?) I would suspect that it depends upon what you want to do as to how you flex the "rules". Someone not married, but interested in a pure lifestyle, probably has a more orthodox view of those teachings. I know another couple who left the SDA church because they didn't think they taught the gospel (though there were also conflicts within the church becaused of the music style this particular person was using ... he was head elder & lay pastor). B can't accept they left because of the teachings, so he only believes they left because they were forced out because of the "contemporary" music style. As others have said regarding the magazine, B just cannot believe that anyone could ever leave because of the teachings. He is absolutely sure they are teaching the only truth and are the only church Biblically based. But he lives with some great contradictions. I tend to think he just buries his head in the sand to ignore the conflicts. He has gone so far to say even if they teach some error, there is no reason to leave the church. I don't get it, but the benefit of the doubt always sways to them. I am curious, though. I have a hard time calling them a denomination. When I think of denominations, I don't think of people who consider "us" the enemy on some level. Differences in worship styles, or baptism, or some other non-essentials (tongues, etc.) don't keep us from considering each other equal brothers. There are probably exceptions everywhere, but not this overly us/them mind-set (I've never heard of non-Baptists, non-methodists, etc... though there are baptists, methodists, catholics, etc.). I just really struggle with that. I call it a religion. I'm sure there are issues with that term as well. It's a silly struggle, I'm sure. All the comments above from those who have left were very insightful to this "outsider". I particularly found Colleen's explanation of law and sin helpful. Thanks. | ||
| Chris (Chris) |
Melissa, I don't think your struggle with the use of the word "denomination" in reference to SDA is "silly" at all. It's a very legitimate debate. Use of the term denomination implies that there are many streams within the larger river. It implies that all those denominations are really part of one universal church. They are different parts of the one body of Christ even thoguh they might have minor doctrinal variations on non-essentials. So what do you call a group that uses the name "Christian", but teaches that all other Christians are part of Babylon and will receive the mark of the beast unless they convert to a different set of beliefs or practices? What do you call a group that uses the name "Christian" yet denies several of the historic tenets of Christianity? There are many evangelical Christian apologists and theologians who would not be entirely comfortable giving the status of Christian "denomination" to Adventism. Some have applied the term "cult" to Adventism because of the wide array of abberrant doctrine and the prominence given to these abberant doctrines by church leaders. Some have very charitably labled Adventism a "sect" instead because SDAs conform to Christianity on several key doctrines (This would include Walter Martin). I think nearly all would agree that even if Adventism is merely a sect and not a cult, there are at least some very cultic elements within historic Adventism and at least one doctrine that must be described as flat out cultic (the investigative judgment). In short, I agree with you that Adventism does not meet the definition of just another Christian "denomination" and in many ways it could be considered its own religion with distinctive beliefs, rituals, customs, social structures, foods, and even holy writings. Chris | ||
| Susan_2 (Susan_2) |
Frankly, I generally think the articles in the Review are vey poor quaity and are not intended for a person who really wants a mental challange. I would like to know thye answers to the three questions jerry put above. Most SDA's I personally associate with have a religion that beginns and ends with eeping the Sabbth and reading lables so as to not get a droplet of lard in their holy temples so they won't be defiled and thus end up in the lake of fire. And, that's totally it. | ||
| Jerry (Jerry) |
Answer 2: John 7:22,23 | ||
| Melissa (Melissa) |
Is Answer 1: Exodus 12:16? | ||
| Jerry (Jerry) |
Yes, but, it does not exactly tell you the ìday of the week.î (ìfirst dayî refers to the first of seven days, not the first day of the week.) The answer is difficult and surprising. | ||
| Cindy (Cindy) |
Yes Jerry...question #2's answer: Circumcision... Seems so clear to me now...in the New Covenant the old symbols and shadows are now a reality! The "Sabbath" now being Jesus Himself! And an invitation to us to enter into, and stay...in HIS REST... And circumcision being now of our hearts... by the Holy Spirit! ...not by the written code. (Romans 2) I remember long ago realizing it would make as much sense for Adventists to say "Happy Circumcision!" each week instead of the depressing (to me, at least) "Happy Sabbath!".... grace always, cindy |
