Post Number: 726
|Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 9:41 am: || |
I'd like you to check out this website:
This is a new organization--some say denomination, but they deny it's truly a denomination and call it a network--of Adventists who are tired of the SDA church's tithing policy and cumbersome structure who are organizing to plant churches which will be strictly congregational. They claim to be loyal to all 27 Fundamentals, and they say they will oly accept pastors who are loyal to the 27Fundamentals, but they require that member churches will promise to teach the doctrines as stated in their own doctrinal statement.
Their own doctrinal statement does not include mention of EGW, although they quote her and use/explain her writings to justify this move. Their doctrinal statement does not mention the Investigative Judgment (although, again, they say their pastors will have to sign a loyalty statement to the official SDA doctrines yearly).
The first item on their 10-item "Commitment to Mission" is this: "The Bible is the source of knoweldge about God and salvation. It is our ultimate rule of faith and practice." Unlike the SDA statement, it does not even call the Bible "infallible", let alone "innerant".
The statement includes soul-sleep and the law, especially the Sabbath. It also includes caring for the body and mind because they are God's dwelling--but it doesn't mention abstinence from any of the typical SDA prohibitions.
The purpose of this organization seems to be church planting and winning the lost. Pastors will be employed by the churches, not the organization. Member churches must agree to give 10% of their donations to the Mission Catalyst Network for further funding for future church plants.
I am struck my several things about this movement. First, there is great unrest in North American Adventism. People know the church is sick. Second, they believe they can build vital, growing, vibrant churches by changing the operational structure. Congregational emphasis seems to be their main focus. Third, they want to be accepted by the SDA organization. They met with GC reps this summer, presented their plan, and asked that they accept and support them. What the GC's response was, they did not say.
Fourth, while there is a lot of energy and "vision" expressed on this website (including a resource page where people can order books on church planting, etc.), the focus is mainly organizational. Nowhere is the emphasis making Jesus central. there's talk of the gospel and being able to reach people with the gospel. They even have divided the USA into 318 "Metropolitan Statistical Areas", figured the projected populations of each as of 2005 and again in 2025, and have set a goal to reach and win at least 1% from each statistical area. They are asking people to consider planting churches in these areas.
I don't think that people who come to these churches and join them will really understand that they are becoming Adventists--and I suppose they technically aren't, yet they will be bound by Adventist doctrines and deception. In fact, I also suspect that some of the people who plant these churches may eventually leave Adventism altogether, if they are really looking for truth.
I believe this is one more attempt to reconfigure Adventism for the modern world. One of the documents on this site mentioned that the SDA church was founded in the days of the Pony Express, and times and methods have changed--hence this movement. I wanted to say, the Christian church was founded in the days of Rome before the Pony Express, and the essence of the church and how to preach and nurture disciples has not changed since then.
Once again, it's about a program, not about really surrendering to Jesus and accepting the Bible as His truly reliable word to us. And once again, here's a distraction that will make Adventism look as if it's "changing".
I'd love to read your impressions of this movement.
I am praying that God will expose and break the spirit of Adventism and set people free to experience the true gospel of Jesus Christ.
Post Number: 15
|Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 10:10 am: || |
I got an email about this group (a long article by a much more conservative adventist) this morning and was thinking to post it here for comment. Looks like you beat me to it!
The conservative adventist was bemoaning the 'watering down' of the 'essensials' and very concerned about all the 'offshoots' from 'our precious church'.
I pray that all who truely seek will find. I think it was CS Lewis who said "All will find what they truely seek". May God help each of us to truely seek HIM!
Post Number: 733
|Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 10:34 am: || |
helovesme2--I think we got that same email forwarded to us! That's what directed me to the website.
While I have deep disagreements with the conservative SDA who wrote the original email, I do agree with his point that this group really cannot honestly claim to be Adventist and not honor Adventism--except they say they do. It's all double-speak.
Bottom line--they're Adventist!
Post Number: 147
|Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 10:48 am: || |
I guess it was only a matter of time before this came to be. I cringe at the fact that they will dominate the airwaves and deceive people with their teachings. Regardless of how many fundementals they proclaim they endorse, it's still Adventist dogma.
Post Number: 196
|Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 5:50 pm: || |
Like the web page says: "Same cart new wheels"
All I can figure is they want to be independent of the conference.
Maybe that will at least make them more open-minded. I dunno
Post Number: 637
|Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 7:13 am: || |
Actually guys, since the SDA church has trademarked the name SDA, there is no way they will be able to be SDA. So I think they are in for a rude awakening.
Post Number: 591
|Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 8:32 am: || |
The SDA church has trademarked the SDA name??? I learn more things about the church, now that I am no longer a part of it.
I am going to check out this site.
Post Number: 279
|Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 8:46 am: || |
Diana, the church trademarked the name years ago. There were quite a few 'trademark' lawsuits against various congregational 'SDA' churches in the late 80's/early 90's. The church won all of these lawsuits, although in a couple of cases the church won by having more resources than the other side. So, I can't see these churches being allowed to use the name 'SDA'---and any pastor would lose his health and retirement benefits.
My bet is that the whole thing will crash and burn. There are already plenty of 'stealth' SDA churches which have a name without 'SDA' in it. Riverside Community Church in Riverside, CA is just one example of many.
Post Number: 124
|Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 9:15 am: || |
This is a very interesting concept and I can see where it would appeal to people who have been unable to break away from the doctrines but want to fool themselves that they are more grace-based. My concern is that they will do exactly what Loneviking saysóbe stealth organizations fooling visitors about their true beliefs.
It does suggest that the denomination is being attacked from various angles. This group seems to have some money behind it ($15,000 church planter match) and they arenít afraid to confront the organization. Perhaps God is going to use this group to expose the real beliefs behind Adventismóno matter what they call themselves.
This group will only attract people who are willing to drop their official church membership. If they have come to that point in defying traditionalism, perhaps they will then be more open to transitioning out all the way as they learn the true Gospel.
Post Number: 281
|Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 9:35 am: || |
The problem though is that they aren't going to learn the true gospel. They are going to learn an even more warped version of the gospel than what is currently taught in SDA circles. How?
Well, the folks behind this movement think you can be SDA and grace based. But that is impossible! For the two to even appear to mix some very bad scripture twisting, rationalization and cafeteria style 'picking and choosing' has to go on. This, in turn, affects everything about a person and a church. The way they act towards others, evangelism methods--it's all tied together.
I also see that they know they will not be able to use the 'SDA' term in their church names. What confusion that will cause! Can you imagine being on vacation, looking in the yellow pages for an SDA church and finding these folks? We're SDA, but we're not part of the official organization! Say what? That will go over like a lead balloon!
Or, having a church planter in the same area as another, conventional SDA church? I don't think the denominational pastor is going to be too happy having competition in town!
It will be interesting to see how this shapes up. My prediction is that the whole thing will be down in flames in five years..............
Post Number: 593
|Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 9:38 am: || |
The bottom line is that they still will believe the 27 fundamental beliefs. I just went to the web site and read much of their stuff. Hopefully, the people involved in this work will be more open minded and will carefully study the Bible, but with EGW and the 27 Fun beliefs as filters, it will be difficult. Thank God we can pray for them at our Sat afternoon time.
I too am concerned about the deceitful way and stealth used to attract members to the SDA church and its beliefs.
Thank God I know differently now and I can acknowledge Jesus as all that I need. He is awesome.
Post Number: 44
|Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 9:48 am: || |
Since there is no difference in beliefs, the only "difference" seem to be where the money goes. If it has any success the GC will be fighting because it is "draining" tithes away from them.
A fresh coat of paint doesn't change whether the 27 fundamentals are fundamentally wrong. The 27 are devoid of a true understanding of grace. Any attempt to base a faith on these is doomed to a false understanding of grace. The word will be used, but it won't mean a free, forever unwarranted gift standing in our place.
Post Number: 937
|Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 11:30 am: || |
Explain to me how they do not use egw or teach the ij but still hold to the sda's 27 fundamentals. If memory serves me correctly around a half-dozen of those 27 fundamentals are about the diety of egw. O.K., maybe diety was a poor choice of words. Let's sayinspiration of ew, that's maybe a better word.
Post Number: 390
|Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 12:02 pm: || |
Susan_2, I have some aquaintances involved in this little break away coalition. My understanding is that they believe, support, and promote ALL the 27 fundamentals. They have not discarded EGW or the IJ. They affirm it all. The only dispute here is how tithe money should be distributed, to the local church or to the conference. It's purely about money, not about doctrine. As the motto on their website says, "Same cart, different wheels." ....... I couldn't have said it better myself.......
Post Number: 939
|Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 1:55 pm: || |
I don't get the point. Everyone can request their money be spent for the needs of the local church. Right on the SDA pew envlopes is a list of choices to check for where one wants his/her money to go and these choices are; 1: tithe, 2: missions, 3: dorcus, 4: localm church expense, 5: te local sda school, at the church went to way out in the jugle the church envelopes even had a space to check for Andrews University and for Loma Linda University. I sent you one, remember, Colleen? That really upset me because nearly all the adults in that congreation are illerate and most the congreation are very poor, many living without indoor electrisity or indoor plumbing and not even having enough money for lifes basic necessities. I have kin who haven't given their money to the GC for years and years already. They send their money directly to The $10.00 Church, Faith For Today, The Quiet Hour, etc. These SDA kin of mine insist that each idependent SDA ministry keeps the money it gets just for itself. I say, "I don't believe it. What's to keep these independent ministries from sharing with the other independent ministres or even with the GC?" I tell them to write to those organizations and ask for a detaled summary of where the money goes but then the conversation switches to talking about the weather or some other topic that we can all mutually agree on.
Post Number: 941
|Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 6:13 pm: || |
I remember someone once telling me, "If it looks like a rose and it smells like a rose then it must be a rose".
Post Number: 20
|Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 10:48 am: || |
I say Ditto to the Cart and the Roses, in a funeral as most would attest that have been to one, they have a flower cart to take the flowers to the cemetery and at most funerals the popular flowers are roses.
Just my personal opinion on this.
Post Number: 1
|Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 9:17 am: || |
It sounds like it is just another version of the SDA and not worth even setting themselves apart. If they continue to think Ellen is a prophetess, there isn't enough difference to justify making a separate group in my opinion. The E.G. White writings and legalism is what makes the SDA faith cultish and uninviting to many people seeking a church home.
Post Number: 214
|Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 9:44 am: || |
You can't polish a turd...
Post Number: 879
|Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 9:45 am: || |
Mitsy, welcome to the forum! We're glad you're here, and we look forward to hearing more about your story and more of your observations!
Post Number: 208
|Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 8:45 pm: || |
A hearty FAF welcome! This is a great forum for learning, sharing, and becoming all that God intended for you.
Dennis J. Fischer
Post Number: 27
|Posted on Friday, December 24, 2004 - 9:29 am: || |
Realizing this is an old thread, but colleen some of the people affiliated with this outreach were asked to leave the traditional church. Terry Pooler was the very popular pastor of the Forest Lake church in orlando. 3 services on sabbath, different worship styles. Then poof gone. Ron Gladden was responsible for church planting in the North Pacific Union. There is trouble in "paradise".