| Author | Message | ||
| Debbie Registered user Username: Debbie Post Number: 16 Registered: 7-2000 |
This song, written by Madonna over ten years ago, has always haunted me. However, this morning the Lord brought it to mind, so I felt the need to share. I think it is especially fitting to the former adventist (or the transitioning adventist) dilemma. Here it is Live to Tell (Written by Madonna) I have a tale to tell Sometimes it gets so hard to hide it well I was not ready for the fall Too blind to see the writing on the wall A man can tell a thousand lies Iíve learned my lesson well Hope I live to tell The secret I have learned, ëtill then It will burn inside of me. I know where beauty lives Iíve seen it once, I know the warmth she gives The light that you could never see It shines inside, you canít take that from me. A man can tell a thousand lies Iíve learned my lesson well Hope I live to tell The secret I have learned, ëtill then It will burn inside of me. | ||
| Cindy Registered user Username: Cindy Post Number: 540 Registered: 7-2000 |
Although I'm not a fan of Madonna's, I also can relate to the words, "a man can tell a thousand lies; I've learned my lesson well." Living in the cognitive dissonance of believing one way and trying to teach another is NOT a good place to be. I am so grateful to live honestly and free! And still...one big QUESTION to anyone here!!! Would you go with your elderly parents to an Adventist worship service (their Sabbath/Saturday) to just keep the peace...to respect and honor them? (This would be in visiting their home out-of-state over an extended weekend.) I have real misgivings about going back into that environment after nearly 3 years. Advice would be appreciated! :-) grace always, cindy | ||
| Jerry Registered user Username: Jerry Post Number: 391 Registered: 6-2002 |
Hi Cindy, Although I have never been an Adventist, I have confronted an issue similar to this recently. You should look as my decision as right for me whether or not it is right for you. I have no time to review any of your prior posts, so please forgive me if I jump to incorrect conclusions. My wife (second generation SDA) has asked me to attend her church in the past. I have done so on special occasions. My experiences there had been fine, on the surface. However, spiritually, those services have been very disturbing. It is very hard for me to listen to the very subtle twisting of the Gospel that occurred there. Keep in mind that I am talking about an extremely ěnon-historic, evangelicalî congregation. As a result, I have decided to go only once or twice (at the most) per year and only in the case of a special service in which my wife has specially contributed to the service. If I had my way (without considering my wife) I would never attend. I do the few times in order to honor her interest. She knows, however, that I completely disagree with the theological and political aspects of the SDA church. I suspect she thinks that I am ěin rebellion against God.î She cannot fathom that I am in opposition to heresy. Therefore, with respect to your issue, I would suggest you consider going. By that I mean weigh the ěpros and consî fairly with a clear understanding that, no matter how friendly and ěGospel relatedî the experience is, you may still find it very disturbing. Whatever you choose, my prayers (and I suspect, those of others) will have you in them. God Bless, Jerry | ||
| Doug222 Registered user Username: Doug222 Post Number: 432 Registered: 3-2001 |
Cindy, Given the scenario that you described, I would attend with them. I would place the relationship first, however, I would also want to make sure that I was not giving them false hope (that I was contemplating returning). If you have not been to a SDA service since you left, it will probably be an eye opening experience. You will walk away amazed that you actually believed this stuff. For me, returning to the church (maybe six times in the last three years) has actually confirmed my decision to leave. Just don't expect a reciprocal response if they come to visit you. Doug | ||
| Violet Registered user Username: Violet Post Number: 227 Registered: 2-2001 |
When I took care of my sister's kids while she had surgery I had to take them to church as it happened their dad was speaking that day. While they were in SS I took the opportunity to attend an adult SS class. I dropped questions that really got them going such as "you mean you can loose your salvation?" This really side tracked them and gave me an opportunity to tell the "non-SDA" view. God can use any situation to bring Him glory just submit yourself to Him and He will provide the opportunity. Remember Jesus spent most of His time among the tramps, lost and the lonely. God Bless | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 11 Registered: 12-2003 |
Cindy, My initial response is that you could go for the sake of the relationship as described so well above. On the other hand, I believe you should pray and ask God to really convict you one way or the other. Here's my reason for some caution: If you (or your husband) are still vulnerable to Adventism and its spirit of deception, it may be better not to go. It could be a case like Paul discussed in 1 Corinthians re: the new converts not eating meat offered to idols because the idols were still too real to them. Second, the nature of your relationship to your family may determine how beneficial or detrimental your attendance may be. I remember about three years ago sitting in a women's Bible study leader's briefing before our weekly study, and we were in the book of 1 Corinthians. The issue of not doing things that could be stumbling blocks to weaker brothers came up. I can't remember the exact situation that prompted my saying something, but I brought up the "problem" of some of my family's extreme displeasure that we baked turkey for Thanksgiving when they attended. Some of my colleagues present said that perhaps I should refrain from making meat in deference to them, but Elizabeth Inrig, who knew some of the dynamics behind the scenes, spoke up and said, "No, this is an issue of doing in your own house what you believe in doing." In other words, don't compromise in response to spite or manipulation. If they truly care about you and your beliefs and your feelings, attending church with them may be an act of love. If they are merely attempting to pretend nothing is wrong, that might be a different situation. Jesus did not always do the most altruistic thing. For example, when Lazarus was sick, he did not immediately go and heal him. He deliberately waited for four days, then raised him from death. Jesus did the things that would lead people closer to Jesus. He didn't merely do things because the other person "needed" or wanted it. In short, I really can't answer your question, Cindy, because I really don't know the situation. God does, however, and I'll join you in praying that you will know his will about going with your family. Colleen | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 184 Registered: 7-2003 |
Colleen, I think your advice has great wisdom. For these types of situations, there isn't one correct answer that covers all situations and all families. When we first left Adventism I felt STRONGLY covicted that we had to refuse my in-laws attempts to get us back inside the College View SDA church. In those early days there was much manipulation that ranged from guilt tactics to outright anger. There seemed to be a large number of manufactured events that either we or our children just had to be at and if we didn't go we were abandoning our extended family and friends. I just had to say "no" becasue it was obvious manipulation for the purpose of keeping us (and perhaps especially our kids) connected to the SDA community. Having said all this, now that things are finally beginning to improve in our relationships, I feel very differently. My in-laws certainly still strongly disagree with us, but they seem to now be accepting life as it is to some degree. They have also attended our church on a few occasions. I consider this to be very much an act of love on their part. Given the change in circmstances, I now have no problem with occasionally attending with them for special occasions as an act of love. I agree completely that you really have to evaluate the big picture and pray about this. It's not always a cut and dried decision. Chris | ||
| Doug222 Registered user Username: Doug222 Post Number: 435 Registered: 3-2001 |
Coleen and Chris, You have given very sound counsel. When my fiance's family invites her to come to church with them, there is almost always a hidden agenda--which is why I said it is important that Cindy is not giving false hope. Colleen, I also like your counsel about evaluating where you are spritually. I can attend a SDA service with no problem. For the first year after my fiance left, she had much more difficulty. It wasn't necessarily a concern that she would be "sucked back in," but it was more an issue of opening a fresh wound that had not had time to heal. The badgering from her family certainly didn't help matters any. Now, she can attend without any problem. The question one must always ask is, "why am I attending? What are the potential costs and benefits to all involved" In His Grace Doug | ||
| Cindy Registered user Username: Cindy Post Number: 541 Registered: 7-2000 |
Thank-you all for you words of wisdom! My computer went down just after I posted, so I came to the libray today to read the above. It is a hard thing to decide on... loving and relating to them, but not giving them any "false hope". Fortunately, I have no doubts about my leaving Adventism...:-) grace always, cindy | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 467 Registered: 11-2002 |
Cindy, I attend the SDA worship service nearly every week with my elderly mother. I'm not about to sit outside in a cold car and besides after the service is the fellowship which I truly enjoy because I honestly do like my mothers friends who attend there. Sadly though because of my attending weekly with her it seems to give her hope that I will renounce my waywardness and becaome a truly bonified Commandment Keeper. My mom does not refer to herself as SDA but rather if asked her religion she will reply, "Commandment Keeper". Shw will be o.k. with me and not mention religion for a while and then I guess it gets to irritating her and then I sure do get an earful. I sometimes think the only text she has memorized is the one that says, "Here are they that keep the commandments", and this is all of that text and passage that she knows. All of you out there, what can I say in a polite and considerate way when she tells me that text? If I tell her the two greatest commandments are love God and love your fellow man as yourself I get the reply that one does not love God unless he/she obeys the commandments. It always goes back to that. I'm getting weary of it. Just several days ago I was told that Jesus very strongly taught strict Sabbath keeping but I was not given any texts or told where this is in the Bible, my mom just told me that He taught it. I sometimes feel like pulling my hair out! | ||
| Loneviking Registered user Username: Loneviking Post Number: 212 Registered: 7-2000 |
Susan2-- Tell mom that 'yes, commandments means all of the commands given under the new covenant. These commands don't include sabbath keeping or dietary rules that were part of the old Jewish law'. | ||
| Debbie Registered user Username: Debbie Post Number: 17 Registered: 7-2000 |
Hi Susan_2 You wrote: ěJust several days ago I was told that Jesus very strongly taught strict Sabbath keeping but I was not given any texts or told where this is in the Bible, my mom just told me that He taught it. I sometimes feel like pulling my hair out!î This is an interesting claim in light of the fact that Jesus took so much slack regarding the Sabbath. In fact, in all four gospels he is criticized in one form or another regarding his supposed ěincorrectî or ěoutright breakingî of the Sabbath. For example, in Matthew 12:2, the Pharisees got upset with Jesus and his disciples because they were picking grain on the Sabbath. Jesusí response to the Pharisees in verse 5-8 is to say: ěOr havenít you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. If you had known what these words mean, ëI desire mercy, not sacrifice,í you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.î Prior to Chapter 12 of Matthew Jesus states in Matthew 11:28-30: ěCome to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.î I donít think it is a coincidence that Jesus makes this statement JUST BEFORE he is confronted by the teachers of the law regarding the Sabbath. In the gospel of Mark, in Chapter 2, the disciplesí picking grain on the Sabbath is also mentioned in vs. 23. The Phariseesí reaction is mentioned in vs. 24. Jesusí response pretty much mimics his response in Matthew. In vv 25-28 of Mark 2, Jesus states: ěHave you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions. ěThen he said to them, ëThe Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.íî In Luke chapter 6:1, once again it is discussed that Jesus and his disciples were picking grain on the Sabbath. In verse 2, some of the Pharisees asked, ěWhy are you doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.î Jesus responded in verses 3-5: ěHave you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and taking the consecrated bread, he ate what is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.î Then Jesus said to them, ěThe Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.î John 5 really gets messy for those who believe Jesus taught and kept the Sabbath strictly. In this chapter, to summarize, Jesus healed a man who had been an invalid for thirty-eight years at the pool of Bethesda. The day on which he did this was the Sabbath, of course (verse 9). In verse 8, Jesus commanded the man to ěGet up! Pick up your mat and walk.î In verse 16-17 of John 5 it states: ěSo, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him. Jesus said to them, ëMy Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working.íî Note especially the following verse(18): ěFor this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he BREAKING THE SABBATH, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.î Hope this helps. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 16 Registered: 12-2003 |
Great texts, Debbie. Your post reminds me of a lesson I heard Dale Ratzlaff teach about two or three years ago where he showed that Jesus deliberately broke the ritual law throughout his ministry. He touched lepers and healed them without going through ritutal purification afterwards; he touched dead people and restored them to life; he and his disciples did not wash their hands before eating if they were not near water; etc. Throughout his life Jesus was showing that He was the fulfillment of the law; in him was life and cleanness and righteousness and purity. All those rituals had been pointing to him; he fulfilled them. Colleen | ||
| Jerry Registered user Username: Jerry Post Number: 394 Registered: 6-2002 |
Debbie said: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.î A little double meaning is in this passage. Did you know that Hebrew/Aramaic has an idiom for "any man" or "some man" or "that fellow?" It is ben adam you can still hear that phrase in Israel. Literally, it means "Son of Adam" or "Son of Man" (since Adam means "man"). So you might hear, in Hebrew, "Do you see that ben adam over there? He . . ." which means "Do you see that fellow over there? He . . ." Of course, in this case, Son of Man means Jesus, but it also relates to the prior sentence. Try it this way: "The Sabbath was made for any person, any person was not made for the Sabbath. Therefore, I (Jesus) and any person are Lords (rulers, have dominion) even over the Sabbath day." Makes more sense in terms of the "conclusion," does it not? | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 142 Registered: 7-2003 |
I have always wondered about that passage in a different slant. SDAs claim that the 10 commandments are moral and "eternal" right? B says the sabbath will be celebrated through eternity (though can't explain how since there will be no more night, therefore rotation of days...) They also claim the 10 are God's character. God's character has always existed, so it would somehow seem that the Sabbath has to have always existed if it is part of God's character. Which would mean the Sabbath would be before man, but this passage makes it clear the sabbath was after man. Or at least that's how I read it. I get so confused how SDAs process this passage into a characteristic of an eternal God that will eternally require sabbath-observation. Does that make any sense ... or does it just highlight my confusion....? | ||
| Doug222 Registered user Username: Doug222 Post Number: 437 Registered: 3-2001 |
Great point Melissa. I never thought of that before. All of the commandments are "consistent" with God's character; however, they are not a "transcript" of his character. As such, the Sabbath, represents the peace that is found in God, but is not an eternal institution (any more than marriage--which by the way was ordained at creation but ends at Jesus' return). If the Sabbath continues into eternity, it no longer points to Christ, but transcends Him. Excuse the ramblings. Doug | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 143 Registered: 7-2003 |
And on your point that the commandments are consistent with his character... B says God takes people where they are (as do most), so that's why so many christians can write great Godly things and have great Godly testimonies but not keep the Sabbath. But when I make the sin adultery, God just eats at you until you clean up your life. or he sends people in your life to challenge you, etc. Either way, God is not content to leave you in your sin. But when it comes to worshipping on the "right" day, many (and I'd say most) Christians have no whispers in their heart about the wrongness of "when" they are worshipping. The specific thing we were talking about was the study called "Experiencing God". He did that with a small group from my church and he had said his uncle (who is pastor of the larger SDA church in berrien springs michigan) endorsed the Bible study as a great one. (so it was okay for him to do) And I kept pointing out that the author pointed to all of these non-SDA, Sunday service churches that God lead him start. How can he hold to the sinfulness of Sunday worship and that the only "true" church is the SDA church, yet believe God lead this guy to start churches with services on Sunday? God would not lead him to "commit adultery", so how could they think God would lead them to create churches that worshipped at the wrong time? All he could ever say was God takes you where you are. If God used this man and lead this man, as he believes (or Billy Graham, or Michael W Smith, or Chuck Swindoll...), why would he lead them to non-SDA churches? It does not compute. I'm still trying to figure out how he can sleep at night? My head swims trying to make east meet west. | ||
| Doug222 Registered user Username: Doug222 Post Number: 439 Registered: 3-2001 |
...and we all know that Billy Graham fully believes in the Sabbath, but refuses to embrace it because he would lose his following (said with tongue planted firmly in cheek). Don't try to make sense out of it Melissa, you'll drive yourself crazy trying. Only when God removes the veil can one see the convoluted (sp) Adventist logic for what it is. Until then, B will continue to vehemently defend the undefensible. In His Grace Doug | ||
| Jerry Registered user Username: Jerry Post Number: 395 Registered: 6-2002 |
ěThey also claim the 10 are God's character.î You realize, of course, that this concept is one hundred percent Ellen and zero percent Scriptural. This is a case of ěIf a statement supports (worship of, not just on) the Sabbath, it must be true, no matter what.î Which leads to this sort of logic: ěWe must worship God. The Sabbath is the same as God. Therefore, we must worship the Sabbath. Further, the Sabbath is God!î Would any Adventist ever say or admit that? Of course not! It would not enter the mind of the most extreme Sabbatarian to make a statement like the above. Many, if not most ěrank and fileî Adventists could not fathom that the first sentence is a path to idolatry and blasphemy. Unfortunately, the first quote is like the crumbling edge of a bottomless chasm: You may never want to jump. However, if you take one step closer to the edge to look, you may find yourself watching the walls fly past at amazing speed no matter how far you think you are from the edge. | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 193 Registered: 7-2003 |
B is Dwight Nelson's nephew!!! Mr. Net 'XX himself! (In case you didn't know, Dwight's broadcasts have gone all over the world. It's real historic Adventists Revelation seminar kind of stuff). Wow, no wonder you're struggling with B. I attended Dwight's church (PMC) for 3 years. At least during that time it was VERY end time focused (with the particular emphasis being on the SDA understanding of end time events and SDA distinctives). Chris |
