My response to the Joe Crews question

[NightEternal]

This question was asked in the D&D section:

Joe Crews

What do you know about him? Is he a highly respected teacher by most Adventists?

Thanks!

Since I am still chained to this subforum like a dog, I will post my own personal response to it.

Joe Crews was a legalistic, dangerous man who proffered the false, bankrupt sinless pefection theology like it was going out of style. He also deified EGW. He was the cause of many shipwrecks of faith in people I personally knew who left the SDA church in discouragement years ago, unable to live up to his hyper-conservative dogma. He, like his successor Doug Batchelor, was able to present his spiritually lethal teachings in such a user-friendly and non-threatening way that people who were not discerning could not detect it's danger, much like cyanide in Kool-Aid.

He was not and is not respected by a large segment of Adventism, especially those who categorically reject his ultra-conservative propaganda. You will never, ever find any of his pamphlets in the literature racks of non-Traditional SDA churches. In fact, I knew of a few liberal SDA churches who will take disciplinary action against any who try to leave his literature or books anywhere in the foyer.

I, personally, was so repulsed by his soul-destroying books Reaping The Whirlwind and Creeping Compromise I had to throw them in the trash where they belonged. They were nothing but guilt-ridden, fear-mongering tirades against non-essential, non-salvational issues such as jewelry, wedding rings, meat-eating, sports, CCM, dancing, movies, etc. Crews majored in minors and always made it abundantly clear where those Adventists who disagreed with his rhetoric were headed.

He left a legacy of ruined souls and an army of legalistic, right-wing fundamentalist terminator Adventists who, long after his death, are carrying forward the work of corrupting and destroying the joy and assurance we are meant to enjoy as heirs to the promise. Most of those TSDA's who specialize in camp-cleansing and detecting (who they percieve to be) tares who are to be torn out of the church will cite Crews as a major influence in thier gestapo-style Adventism. How many SDA's have been psychologically damaged by his propaganda we will never know until all is revealed.

His influence in the church is proving next to impossible to uproot from the church in the 21st century, especially with the older membership who virtually idolize the man.

This post will, of course, be reported. I shall report one of thier own in response when it happens.

I don't care what the Trads say or think about my thoughts. This is the Prog subforum. I can speak freely and this is my personal opinion of then man only. No one has to agree with me.

 

[Sophia7]

I first read something by Joe Crews in college because a friend highly recommended one of his books. I didn't like it at all. I thought he presented a very legalistic view of things. I've since read several other things by him, and I still think that. One thing in particular that bothered me was his attitude toward wedding rings. He would put major guilt trips on people who were preparing for baptism to convince them to take off their wedding rings. That used to be common for Adventist pastors but not so much anymore.

With that kind of attitude, I wonder how many marriages have been damaged and how many peoples' witnesses for Christ have been compromised because their spouses didn't want anything to do with a religion that would make something like that a test of loyalty to God.

 

[JonMiller]

Not wearing a wedding ring is asking for temptation and is being a stumbling block for others. At least in today's culture, forcing people to not wear them is doing the work of the devil.

JM

 

[Sophia7]

Not wearing a wedding ring is asking for temptation and is being a stumbling block for others. At least in today's culture, forcing people to not wear them is doing the work of the devil.

JM

My sister said that where her husband works, it's common for married guys to take off their wedding rings when they're looking for an affair. So even though she's a very conservative Adventist on most other issues, she and her husband do wear wedding rings. I don't think it's a good idea either in today's world to not wear one if you're married.

 

[OntheDL]

I first read something by Joe Crews in college because a friend highly recommended one of his books. I didn't like it at all. I thought he presented a very legalistic view of things. I've since read several other things by him, and I still think that. One thing in particular that bothered me was his attitude toward wedding rings. He would put major guilt trips on people who were preparing for baptism to convince them to take off their wedding rings. That used to be common for Adventist pastors but not so much anymore.

With that kind of attitude, I wonder how many marriages have been damaged and how many peoples' witnesses for Christ have been compromised because their spouses didn't want anything to do with a religion that would make something like that a test of loyalty to God.

A ring is a symbol of an imortal serpent with its tail in its mouth.

Before Jacob crossed over, didn't they put away the strange gods from among them?


Gen 35
2 Then Jacob said unto his household, and to all that were with him, Put away the strange gods that are among you, and be clean, and change your garments:
3 And let us arise, and go up to Bethel; and I will make there an altar unto God, who answered me in the day of my distress, and was with me in the way which I went.
4 And they gave unto Jacob all the strange gods which were in their hand, and all their earrings which were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which was by Shechem.
So before someone crosses over (be baptized), shouldn't they put away the pagan symbols, and be clean?

Furthermore, does a member need to wear a wedding ring inside the church to let people know he/she is married???

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

On the Discussion and Debate forum we had a long debate on the idea of sinless perfection. We can likely thank Joe Crews for some of the poorly reasoned material that the proponents of sinless perfection presented. For instance Crews says:

It is probably safe to say that the majority of Christians today are resigned to falling short of the moral law. In fact, they are quite satisfied that God doesn’t even expect them to fulfill that law completely, either in the flesh or in the spirit.
The effect of such a teaching is exactly what one would expect—multitudes of emotionally happy, but disobedient, church members who feel that any concern about keeping the commandments is nitpicking and legalistic.
What a delusive strategy of Satan! As the inventor of the doctrine, the evil one is simply supporting his ancient accusation that God was asking too much. He accused God of being unfair by requiring something that was impossible.
http://www.amazingfacts.org/FreeStu...spx?7=Is-it-Possible-to-Live-Without-Sinning?

Hardly what Paul presented in Romans 7 but then Crews is not dealing from a Biblical perspective. Where did he get the idea that Satan accused God of requiring something that was impossible?

God will test all, even as He tested Adam and Eve, to see whether they will be obedient. Our loyalty or disloyalty will decide our destiny. Since the fall of Adam, men in every age have excused themselves for sinning, charging God with their sin, saying that they could not keep His commandments. This is the insinuation Satan cast at God in heaven. But the plea, "I cannot keep the commandments," need never be presented to God; for before Him stands the Saviour, the marks of the crucifixion upon His body, a living witness that the law can be kept. It is not that men cannot keep the law, but that they will not. Review and Herald 1901
RH.1901-05-28.009

It becomes a complex situation because Ellen White proposed a very intricate supposition of activities in Heaven, with little Biblical backing.

So instead of "emotionally happy, but disobedient, church members" we have emotionally crippled unhappy and disobedient church members. But maybe someday they will arrive at their goal, at least those who have not deluded themselves into thinking they have already arrived at sinless perfection.

 

[JonMiller]

Furthermore, does a member need to wear a wedding ring inside the church to let people know he/she is married???

Most of us work and live outside of the church, so I don't see how that is pertinant? And not wearing a wedding ring is asking for people to hit on you or to think that you are out looking for sex/relationships. It causes people to desire married people who might not if they had seen the ring, and to people who don't know us well causes them to think that we are unfaithful or swingers.

JM

 

[OntheDL]

Most of us work and live outside of the church, so I don't see how that is pertinant? And not wearing a wedding ring is asking for people to hit on you or to think that you are out looking for sex/relationships. It causes people to desire married people who might not if they had seen the ring, and to people who don't know us well causes them to think that we are unfaithful or swingers.

JM

If what you wrote describes how your church looks like, by all means, wear the ring.

 

[JonMiller]

If what you wrote describes how your church looks like, by all means, wear the ring.

How does your post make any sense at all? I know you are able to read, please make use of that skill.

JM

 

[moicherie]

The importance of a wedding ring as being detrimental to one's salvation is about as important as the colour of one's underwear to one's salvation. The sooner the Adventist self appointed Godstapo realise this the better.
Their motto seems to be ' so many beams to pick out and so little time'. They do a lot of damage to especially new converts who are vulnerable to members who think longevity as a member automatically = more spiritual wisdom. I grew up in a church similar to that and thank God the church grew out of it.

Add in things lilke, bathing on Sabbath, ladies wearing hats to the mix.....

 

[StormyOne]

I first read something by Joe Crews in college because a friend highly recommended one of his books. I didn't like it at all. I thought he presented a very legalistic view of things. I've since read several other things by him, and I still think that. One thing in particular that bothered me was his attitude toward wedding rings. He would put major guilt trips on people who were preparing for baptism to convince them to take off their wedding rings. That used to be common for Adventist pastors but not so much anymore.

With that kind of attitude, I wonder how many marriages have been damaged and how many peoples' witnesses for Christ have been compromised because their spouses didn't want anything to do with a religion that would make something like that a test of loyalty to God.

that about sums up my opinion on Crews... when I read Creeping Compromise and his other stuff and observed that he did not consider the context of the texts he cited, then I realized he was not interested in truth but propaganda.... He was extreme right field....

 

[StormyOne]

My sister said that where her husband works, it's common for married guys to take off their wedding rings when they're looking for an affair. So even though she's a very conservative Adventist on most other issues, she and her husband do wear wedding rings. I don't think it's a good idea either in today's world to not wear one if you're married.

in most places where there are lots of non-adventists that is the case... a person who is married but not wearing a ring says one thing, they are available....

The irony is for adventists to be so into symbolism, the one significant symbol in most cultures today, the wedding ring, some have spoken out against.....

Will a ring keep a spouse from an affair, no, however wearing a ring does let people know that they are married..... of course not wearing a ring and being adventist hasn't kept people from having an affair either....

 

[DrStupid_Ben]

A ring is a symbol of an imortal serpent with its tail in its mouth.

I'll go take the washers of my tap fixtures. Maybe I will have to do something about my keys as well.

 

[StormyOne]

I'll go take the washers of my tap fixtures. Maybe I will have to do something about my keys as well.

hmmm there are rings in the engines of our cars.... wait... car tires are rings.... doesn't a belt ring around one's body when you put it on? how about a necktie? following this logic we are gonna be in trouble....

 

[Dizahab]

Most of us work and live outside of the church, so I don't see how that is pertinant? And not wearing a wedding ring is asking for people to hit on you or to think that you are out looking for sex/relationships. It causes people to desire married people who might not if they had seen the ring, and to people who don't know us well causes them to think that we are unfaithful or swingers.

JM

My spouse and I have been married 21 years now and we have not wore our rings for 19 of those years. We also do not get 'hit on'.

A cheap piece of metal on ones hand does not dissuade a potential admirer. It is the energy that one puts out that tells the opposite sex if you are available or not. Besides, is the sin in the 'hit' or the acceptance of that invitation?

So the poor excuse to wear this symbol of idolatry and slavery so one will not be 'hit on' is ridiculous and shows the extreme lack of understanding of marital integrity. This lame excuse is just that. A lame excuse to decorate ones body.

 

[StormyOne]

My spouse and I have been married 21 years now and we have not wore our rings for 19 of those years. We also do not get 'hit on'.

A cheap piece of metal on ones hand does not dissuade a potential admirer. It is the energy that one puts out that tells the opposite sex if you are available or not. Besides, is the sin in the 'hit' or the acceptance of that invitation?

So the poor excuse to wear this symbol of idolatry and slavery so one will not be 'hit on' is ridiculous and shows the extreme lack of understanding of marital integrity. This lame excuse is just that. A lame excuse to decorate ones body.

in your opinion.... thanks for sharing it..... those who have not been tempted in this area can't really relate.... likewise if you worked in an environment where not wearing a wedding band meant you were open to a tryst, you have said alot without even saying anything.... if fact there might be those who looked at you and your lack of a wedding band and thought the worse.... but to each his own....

 

[freeindeed2]

My spouse and I have been married 21 years now and we have not wore our rings for 19 of those years. We also do not get 'hit on'.

A cheap piece of metal on ones hand does not dissuade a potential admirer. It is the energy that one puts out that tells the opposite sex if you are available or not. Besides, is the sin in the 'hit' or the acceptance of that invitation?

So the poor excuse to wear this symbol of idolatry and slavery so one will not be 'hit on' is ridiculous and shows the extreme lack of understanding of marital integrity. This lame excuse is just that. A lame excuse to decorate ones body.

One of the churches I worked at required that my wife and I take off our rings. I was much younger then and did get hit on several times. When I told them I was married the first question out of their mouths "why aren't you wearing a wedding ring?". Then you get to tell them they 'why', which sounds like a lame excuse to them after they've extended themselves and been rejected. They're embarrassed, and nothing you can say will remedy it. To them, by not wearing the ring you're saying you're available, but by 'rejecting' them you're telling them they're not good enough.

And don't even get me started on how many times my good-looking wife was hit on. And it has nothing to do with marital integrity. We have enjoyed a faithful relationship for a long time. It's simply a symbol of marriage. Nothing more, nothing less.

You know, at the meeting where they asked me to take off my little inexpensive wedding band I was wearing an $800 suite and a $200 pair of shoes, a $75 shirt and a $60 tie, and had a $150 leather planner. I drove there in a rather expensive car. But their legalism caused them to only notice the cheap wedding band on my finger that symbolized the union between my wife and me. Pretty sad!

 

[tall73]

. doesn't a belt ring around one's body when you put it on? ..

You do know that historics wear suspenders, right? Belts can hamper circulation.

 

[StormyOne]

You do know that historics wear suspenders, right? Belts can hamper circulation.

ahhhh ok... and do they wear socks? underwear?

 

[mva1985]

First, in my work environment it is common for people to NOT wear their wedding rings because they can be easily damaged.

Secondly, I am not married, I don't wear a wedding ring and I don't get hit on - So what is wrong with me!?!? I must suck!!!