A Progressive's letter to former Adventists

[NightEternal]

Sunday, December 24, 2006

A LETTER TO "FORMER ADVENTIST"


Dear Former Adventist,

Last month I wrote on the differing values and patterns of behaviors found within Adventism. I've noticed that you and transitioning Adventists, at least over the internet share your own common behavioral patterns which made me want to write you this letter. Every now and then I read about the denominational exit of another one of you "truth-seekers" caused by the usual reasons - not gelling with Adventism's more peculiar doctrines as the foundation for a works salvation and, of course, Ellen White as a "false prophet." I respect and share the integrity behind your reasons for leaving. For many of you, being set free from institutional truth via sola scripture Gospel truth, I can only imagine, resulted in a paradigm shift of, well, biblical proportions. Leaving because of convictions of conscience is admirable.

But I'm wondering about the side effects of your newfound freedom in Christ. Relax, nobody's character is in question here. I merely wonder about your intentions as seen in the postings of web forums and published testimonies by some of you former SDA's.

As I see it, much of the dialogue exchanged, if I may borrow from psychology, is what's referred to as groupthink mentality. Know what I mean, Former Adventist? Basically that the opinion expressed by a dominant small group becomes the subscribed theme of the whole group and a means to a perpetual end. Sometimes, if one if not careful, the result can be fingers pointing to heresy that is blown out of proportion, out-of-context conclusions, or black and white blanket statements alluding to Adventism being a cultic denomination deceiving 12 million members worldwide. I know for many of you, you either leave the denomination altogether to flee the IJ as the "foundation of deception," or be branded cultic.

I may be handicapped by my own perception, but a few of your notable blogs and websites dedicate their whole mission to attacking Ellen White and branding all of Adventism in the cultic sense. Hey, even I admit she's wacky with some of those historical teachings that really mean squat to my current faith as a Christian living in a Trinitarian relationship. But here's what gets me, Former Adventist. Some of you, unfortunately, go out of your way to place things out of context and, I must say, you're very effective at bashing the baby in the bathwater to a pulp before throwing it all out. I have seen in quite a few comments a sometime-arrogant superiority complex from your discovery of grace, while presupposing that the Adventists you left behind aren't capable of finding it on their own.

Former Adventist, I apologize for what may already sound like the skipping of an old scratchy record. I can't help it because it appears you only see the side of Adventism that you learned to resent, and now for various reasons, whether it be revenge, anger, or justice, you portray it as the whole.

Bear with me, but here's another sincere observation, Former Adventist. Be open to accepting this possibility, please: I wonder whether fleeing exclusivity and legalism has caused some of you to acquire, unknowingly, a behavior of "grace legalism" that may be contradicting the gospel of acceptance and inclusion (especially those of your former denomination). No, I'm not calling you grace legalists, please. I'm suggesting and asking how often in your ministries of fellowship and outreach are you legalistically anti-legalistic, self righteously anti-self righteous, and ungraciously opposed to those who don't teach grace?

It seems that by putting so much focus on battling the blasphemous historical fundamentals, I get this sense you have forgotten the rest of Adventism - the kind reflected in a Christianity that not only acknowledges all of the reasons you left, but expands on a grace filled Adventism beyond anything you grew to hate. If you paid close attention, you'd notice that the paradigms of our conversations have changed. We are deconstructing and reconstructing Adventist truth. We've moved beyond the griping and debates of historical fundamentalism, the interpretations of Daniel and Revelation, etc. Frankly, we'll leave that to you guys to debate with diehard SDA's because that stuff bores us out of our minds. We are more interested in rethinking how our faith translates into action for the common good, not just "winning souls." Our narrative is now about the social and ethical obligations of our Adventism. How to fulfill mission, not rehash 1844. How to witness for peace and social justice so we can free the marginalized from evil, not push for which day to worship on.

In your defense, I also know many of you are recovering Adventists or former truth addicts who broke the chains of legalism. Some were wronged and mistreated by the institutional church. Your heartfelt stories and testimonies have an uplifting message in them. One of those is the personal testimony of former SDA pastor Clay Peck, which is why I posted his story here a few months back. It really touched me.

Thankfully, I've escaped the atrocities that I've read about. Although there have been many frustrating moments dealing with an apathetic leadership, being told what we can and cannot do, I've never had to deal with religious abuse, like a pastor trying to "establish blame" for my divorce when I needed grace the most; I've never been alienated or disfellowshipped by my church when I didn't agree with all the pillars; I've never been manipulated into conforming to the standards of living by a self-righteous congregation; and I've never experienced severe judgment about lifestyle preferences that left psychological scars. Now that's cultic! I empathize with you and also deeply regret that you had those experiences. But these examples do not reflect Adventism as a whole anymore than Worthington food products reflect all of vegetarianism.

Here's a tip, former Adventist. There's a growing blogosphere (you know, a "web log?") which includes this very blog, Spectrum, Johnny and Friends, Ryan Bell, Monte Sahlin, Trailady, Peter Roennfeldt, Melvin Bray, Progressive Adventism and countless others who, instead of bailing ship with a flip of the finger at the institution, choose to re-define their Adventism through new expressions of faith.

Former Adventist, I hope you can conclude that the intent of this letter is to reach out to you in the spirit of brotherhood, much in the same way you practice your "outreach" ministries to former or questioning Adventists. I think you can glean many good things about your former denomination that perhaps you didn't think about before. Imagine the possibilities of including a segment of progressive Adventism on your website sidebar?

Hmmmm, something to think about.

Your friend and still Adventist,

Marcel

http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/2006/12/groupthink-of-former-sdas.html

 

[NightEternal]

LorieL said... With regard to why Adventists stay even when they may not agree 100% with everything the church teaches: From my personal experience, I have not found a better alternative. There is no church I agree with 100% on every doctrine. The closest match for me is adventism. The fact that in the 1800s there were false doctrines in the church for me is irrelevant. When Jesus came to earth, Judiasm was full of false doctrines and abominations. Jesus came to reform. Jesus never came to the conclusion that Judiasm was a false religion, despite their multiple faults and corrupt leadership. Neither did Jesus advocate abolishing organized religion. Also, in redaing the letters to the 7 churches in Revelation, we discover that all 7 churches are flawed. How does Jesus respond to their flaws? He responds the same way He did when ministering to the Jews in His earthly ministry. He explains their sin and asks them to abandon it. In essence, he's asking the churches to "go and sin no more" We are in a sinful world and our churches are run by human beings. I do not believe there is any faultless church in existance. If we make it our standard that one must leave a church if one doesn't believe 100% of everything that is taught, we will soon become frustrated and worship alone, at home. Now, that is not to say that we should stay in a church that is teaching destructive or anti-christian theology. But to nit-pick and demand perfection is not realistic. I agree that it is certainly not relevant for most adventists to rehash flaws in the early church history. Again, another example from Judiasm... The Jews taught "an eye for an eye"... Jesus taught "love your enemies" Jews taught legalistic Sabbath keeping. Jesus taught that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. Interestingly, He did not teach that the Sabbath was irrelvant or that the 4th commandment was abolished, only that their interpretation was incorrect. The point is that despite their numerous flaws and incorrect teachings Jesus acknowledged the Jewish congregation as the children of God. My adventist experience has been one of encouragement. The adventist church I know encourages above all else and as #1 priority, a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. One of the previous posts refers to an experience where the person left Adventism to find Jesus. This is not my experience. My adventist church is very Christ-centered. Even in Ellen White's day, exploring and meditating on the life of Jesus was a major focus, hence, the book Desire of Ages.. (It's all about Jesus!) Jesus said that the world will know we are His disciples by our love. If we as members of the Adventist or any other church are not demonstrating His love, than we are not His disciples, no matter what denomination we belong to.

http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/2006/12/groupthink-of-former-sdas.html

 

[NightEternal]

Ane said... Please don't go to former SDA forums if you are not the intended audience. Most are designed to help transitioning SDAs who are extremely weak in the SDA trust department. So of course you will find reason to be offended if you choose to go there. And do not take their venting and baggage so personal, instead extend them grace and compassion over how spiritually hurt and wounded they are.

Not every SDA grew up in a healthy, well balanced spiritual environment of friends, family or authority figures. Please allow them a private safe place to release their anger and work out their issues. Many transitioning out of Adventism are totally alone, shunned and have absolutely no where else to go. Hopefully the moderators of those forums will eventually help them begin to spiritually heal and mature, and will not allow them to dwell in their heart break and sorrow indefinitely.

Maybe you just never bought into the SDA belief system as deeply as some of us formers. Not all of us grew up in families that helped us recognize what areas of Adventism were misguided from what areas are on target. Those of us born into Adventism who deeply bought into the traditional, historical version of Adventism will have a stronger reaction to discovering where we have been deceived. You will see some righteous indignation in us reacting to that discovery for awhile.

Most of you who remain in Adventism are criticizing us for rejecting the very things you also have rejected about Adventism and speak out against yourselves. I just ask that in all fairness please note that there is not much difference between us, we just physically left, what you have already mentally left.

I'm thrilled for those of you who have found a way to remain in and reinvent Adventism for yourselves. I hope you eventually break through the system and make a difference. Evidently that is why God has not called you out of it. Some stay in Adventism because they have found nothing better or more Biblically accurate. But some of us have left because we have ... and because we believe we were called out. But lets just quit judging each other based on whether we stay or whether we go and instead celebrate that each has found a meaningful place to worship and grow spiritually in our Lord Jesus Christ. Lets celebrate all who are discovering the true Gospel who otherwise would've just quit Christianity all together. God's church isn't a specific denomination. God's church is ALL those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior. Truth does not come through a denomination, truth comes through our focus on Christ, John 1:17.

http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/2006/12/groupthink-of-former-sdas.html

 

[NightEternal]

Interesting exchanges...

 

[LightWorker1967]

Bear with me, but here's another sincere observation, Former Adventist. Be open to accepting this possibility, please: I wonder whether fleeing exclusivity and legalism has caused some of you to acquire, unknowingly, a behavior of "grace legalism" that may be contradicting the gospel of acceptance and inclusion (especially those of your former denomination). No, I'm not calling you grace legalists, please. I'm suggesting and asking how often in your ministries of fellowship and outreach are you legalistically anti-legalistic, self righteously anti-self righteous, and ungraciously opposed to those who don't teach grace?

Marcel

http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/2006/12/groupthink-of-former-sdas.html

I think Marcel makes a fantastic contribution to the conversation--especially his idea of grace legalists. It's just a substitute obsession to be right!

There are members of my family and extended family who are extremely traditional and quite lovely while being it! For a progressive to project "grace liberation" on them—that's disrespectful. They are where they need to be - and to assume it's ahead or behind or otherwise is quite an assumption!

 

[Sophia7]

I've talked to some former Adventists who lived in constant fear while they were Adventists because they didn't think they could ever be perfect enough to make it through the IJ. I've talked to some who used to live and breathe Ellen White's writings and who followed her every word as if it were the Bible itself, and they had quite a shock when they realized that she was wrong about some things. I've talked to some who saw their loved ones die with no assurance of salvation because of what they were taught in Adventism. Some people's experiences have left them emotionally and spiritually damaged, and I can understand why they would be bitter and resentful.

My experience wasn't like that. I heard the gospel preached in the Adventist Church (not everywhere, but in many places). I became a Christian in the Adventist Church. My husband and I devoted 10 years of our lives to working for the Adventist Church. We were happy there. We were doing something meaningful and fulfilling, serving God and teaching people about Him. My husband was good at his job. But we couldn't stay while disagreeing with Adventist doctrines. Leaving the ministry was one of the hardest things that we've ever done, and we're not through the tough times yet, but it was the right thing for us to do.

LorieL said... With regard to why Adventists stay even when they may not agree 100% with everything the church teaches: From my personal experience, I have not found a better alternative. There is no church I agree with 100% on every doctrine. The closest match for me is adventism.

I, too, used to think that Adventism was the closest match for me and that it would be hard to find somewhere else to go. I don't think that anymore. I don't think that there is any faultless church either, but I disagree with too many of the SDA fundamental beliefs at this point to feel comfortable staying in the Adventist Church. It's not at all a close match for me anymore, and I've found somewhere to go that is a better alternative for me, where I can agree with all of their core beliefs because they're basic Christian truths. They value liberty of conscience and don't spell out so many specific things.

I hold no ill will toward the Adventist Church, though, and I don't spend much time talking to formers whose only purpose is to bash Adventists and make unfair generalizations. I like to talk to people who can understand what we're going through but only if they're reasonable and not hostile. Some formers do tend to throw out everything distinctively Adventist just because they learned it in Adventism. In my studies I've had to reexamine everything that I was taught my whole life and everything that I once believed. I've found that while I now have many disagreements with Adventist doctrine, I still agree with some things. I'm assessing everything on its own biblical merits and holding to what I believe is good. And there is much good in Adventism. Leaving the Adventist Church is another one of the hardest things that I've ever done, but I'm firmly convinced that it's the right thing for me to do.

As you talk to former Adventists and read their testimonies, please remember that just as Progressive Adventism is not monolithic, neither is former Adventism.

 

[NightEternal]

This thread which I just started is relevant to what you said Sophia :

http://foru.ms/t6449043-a-journey-out-and-then-back-in-again.html

 

[tall73]

I took a while to think this over before replying.

Sunday, December 24, 2006

A LETTER TO "FORMER ADVENTIST"


Dear Former Adventist,

Last month I wrote on the differing values and patterns of behaviors found within Adventism. I've noticed that you and transitioning Adventists, at least over the internet share your own common behavioral patterns which made me want to write you this letter. Every now and then I read about the denominational exit of another one of you "truth-seekers" caused by the usual reasons - not gelling with Adventism's more peculiar doctrines as the foundation for a works salvation and, of course, Ellen White as a "false prophet." I respect and share the integrity behind your reasons for leaving. For many of you, being set free from institutional truth via sola scripture Gospel truth, I can only imagine, resulted in a paradigm shift of, well, biblical proportions. Leaving because of convictions of conscience is admirable.

But I'm wondering about the side effects of your newfound freedom in Christ. Relax, nobody's character is in question here. I merely wonder about your intentions as seen in the postings of web forums and published testimonies by some of you former SDA's.

As I see it, much of the dialogue exchanged, if I may borrow from psychology, is what's referred to as groupthink mentality. Know what I mean, Former Adventist? Basically that the opinion expressed by a dominant small group becomes the subscribed theme of the whole group and a means to a perpetual end. Sometimes, if one if not careful, the result can be fingers pointing to heresy that is blown out of proportion, out-of-context conclusions, or black and white blanket statements alluding to Adventism being a cultic denomination deceiving 12 million members worldwide. I know for many of you, you either leave the denomination altogether to flee the IJ as the "foundation of deception," or be branded cultic.

I could care less about being “cultic” as I was so labeled by some for years. To me the issue is simply this—the gospel is THE key teaching in Scripture. But Adventism has put it too often on the back burner, or confused it altogether. Why was there a need of an 1888 if there was not first a corresponding dearth of grace and preaching on the righteousness of Christ right from the start?

The Millerite movement focused on the need for Christ in light of the second coming. But what followed was a focus on understanding the disappointment—and the shut door. The shut door was not just a short little problem that went away after a few years. They figured out their mistake. But Adventist theology was SHAPED during a time when they thought their mission to the world was over. Their whole goal was to preach the message of the Sanctuary truth and the Sabbath to God’s people who were in the tarrying time. The gospel was not a “testing truth” because all of their audience already knew the gospel. Now they needed “present truth.” This has been the legacy of Adventism ever since. It became part of our DNA.

We give the gospel one night at the prophecy series, on an equal footing with the health message. Packaged Bible studies often do the same.

Is that to say that evangelists might not tie it back in to other topics? They do, and they certainly should. But what message do people get when they give minor topics the same amount of focused time as the gospel?

The Sabbath and such are the “testing” truths to Adventism. They are the key to our unique identity, and we magnify that which distinguishes.

In our testimony times during pastor’s meetings I would see the same problem. When ministers would give reports on meetings they would sometimes mention that they had 5 people accept Christ. But you could see the skepticism that at times was even spoken aloud. “But, we haven’t covered the Sabbath yet.” All would nod, knowingly. Acceptance of the Sabbath was the real critical moment for buy-in to Adventism. It was the reason to celebrate. That was the moment that administrators wanted to hear about because if they accepted the Sabbath they would likely join.

This is a total distortion of the mission of the Christian church. Accepting Christ IS the reason to celebrate. It is the testing truth. It is the message.

This too is reflected in our desire to make folks subscribe to 28 beliefs BEFORE baptism. Baptism into Christ was the entrance to the discipleship process. It was then that they were to be taught to observe the things commanded by Christ.





So if Adventism has an entrenched trend of de-emphasizing the most important thing, how can the good outweigh the bad? For me it simply cannot any longer.

I may be handicapped by my own perception, but a few of your notable blogs and websites dedicate their whole mission to attacking Ellen White and branding all of Adventism in the cultic sense. Hey, even I admit she's wacky with some of those historical teachings that really mean squat to my current faith as a Christian living in a Trinitarian relationship. But here's what gets me, Former Adventist. Some of you, unfortunately, go out of your way to place things out of context and, I must say, you're very effective at bashing the baby in the bathwater to a pulp before throwing it all out. I have seen in quite a few comments a sometime-arrogant superiority complex from your discovery of grace, while presupposing that the Adventists you left behind aren't capable of finding it on their own.

This is sometimes true. And the gospel is present in many parts in Adventism. The fact that some of these folks had nightmare experiences is part of the problem. They associate leaving Adventism with finding Christ. But even here we can see again that Adventism did not make it EASY to find Christ. It is not our main focus.

Former Adventist, I apologize for what may already sound like the skipping of an old scratchy record. I can't help it because it appears you only see the side of Adventism that you learned to resent, and now for various reasons, whether it be revenge, anger, or justice, you portray it as the whole.

Kind of like he is doing with former Adventists.

Bear with me, but here's another sincere observation, Former Adventist. Be open to accepting this possibility, please: I wonder whether fleeing exclusivity and legalism has caused some of you to acquire, unknowingly, a behavior of "grace legalism" that may be contradicting the gospel of acceptance and inclusion (especially those of your former denomination). No, I'm not calling you grace legalists, please. I'm suggesting and asking how often in your ministries of fellowship and outreach are you legalistically anti-legalistic, self righteously anti-self righteous, and ungraciously opposed to those who don't teach grace?



It seems that by putting so much focus on battling the blasphemous historical fundamentals, I get this sense you have forgotten the rest of Adventism - the kind reflected in a Christianity that not only acknowledges all of the reasons you left, but expands on a grace filled Adventism beyond anything you grew to hate. If you paid close attention, you'd notice that the paradigms of our conversations have changed. We are deconstructing and reconstructing Adventist truth. We've moved beyond the griping and debates of historical fundamentalism, the interpretations of Daniel and Revelation, etc. Frankly, we'll leave that to you guys to debate with diehard SDA's because that stuff bores us out of our minds. We are more interested in rethinking how our faith translates into action for the common good, not just "winning souls." Our narrative is now about the social and ethical obligations of our Adventism. How to fulfill mission, not rehash 1844. How to witness for peace and social justice so we can free the marginalized from evil, not push for which day to worship on.

If living out the ethical obligations of Christianity through helping others is the goal then where would it be easier to do? I don’t find it to be easier at all in Adventism. If every step of progress in the church is against a horde of contrary die-hards then the energy would be better spent elsewhere. If it takes all our efforts to keep the church’s attention on the gospel and love to others then we ought to leave so we can use that effort more efficiently.

In other words, if Adventism, in its DNA is opposed to the type of church that progressives want then why not go somewhere that is more supportive of the most important things?

The majority of churches I have visited across a number of states are NOT deconstructing and reconstructing anything. They are not emerging to wholistically reach the non-believer. They are following the same old course. And what else would we expect? It is inertia. And for those who truly hold to Adventist fundamentals it is a DESIRABLE inertia.

As to arguing the distinctive Adventist truths, if those folks who have left truly believe they are harmful then why would they not counter-act them? The issue is whether they mistake that for their mission. Some do.

In your defense, I also know many of you are recovering Adventists or former truth addicts who broke the chains of legalism. Some were wronged and mistreated by the institutional church. Your heartfelt stories and testimonies have an uplifting message in them. One of those is the personal testimony of former SDA pastor Clay Peck, which is why I posted his story here a few months back. It really touched me.

Thankfully, I've escaped the atrocities that I've read about. Although there have been many frustrating moments dealing with an apathetic leadership, being told what we can and cannot do, I've never had to deal with religious abuse, like a pastor trying to "establish blame" for my divorce when I needed grace the most; I've never been alienated or disfellowshipped by my church when I didn't agree with all the pillars; I've never been manipulated into conforming to the standards of living by a self-righteous congregation; and I've never experienced severe judgment about lifestyle preferences that left psychological scars. Now that's cultic! I empathize with you and also deeply regret that you had those experiences. But these examples do not reflect Adventism as a whole anymore than Worthington food products reflect all of vegetarianism.

A. The progressive churches are the minority.

B. Those who do frequent former-Adventist sites do often fall in the above category, and therefore do have issues to work through. I still wish they would do it a bit more constructively—but then some do.

Here's a tip, former Adventist. There's a growing blogosphere (you know, a "web log?") which includes this very blog, Spectrum, Johnny and Friends, Ryan Bell, Monte Sahlin, Trailady, Peter Roennfeldt, Melvin Bray, Progressive Adventism and countless others who, instead of bailing ship with a flip of the finger at the institution, choose to re-define their Adventism through new expressions of faith.

If I wanted to change the world would I start with 10 men who agreed with my plan or 10 who thought that my plan was an evil plot to send men to hell?

Why change Adventism? If the goal is to bring about a new Adventism then just do it. Start a NEW Adventism. Fighting all those battles over the old turf is a waste of energy. Those who oppose progressive Adventism oppose it as heresy. Trying to get them on-board is a losing battle. Now I suppose you could hi-jack the denomination over a series of decades, and there are some signs of this. But the effort to do so is staggering. Why bother? Why not go somewhere that is already doing the real mission of evangelism? Then those who are not seeing it can wonder what is going on and look into it.

Former Adventist, I hope you can conclude that the intent of this letter is to reach out to you in the spirit of brotherhood, much in the same way you practice your "outreach" ministries to former or questioning Adventists. I think you can glean many good things about your former denomination that perhaps you didn't think about before. Imagine the possibilities of including a segment of progressive Adventism on your website sidebar?

Hmmmm, something to think about.

Your friend and still Adventist,

Marcel

http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/2006/12/groupthink-of-former-sdas.html

Progressives and formers have a lot in common. But we can’t gloss over the real issue. Is it best to stay and fight a losing battle to change what doesn’t want to change? For me the answer was no. If the gospel is the most important thing then I should go somewhere that lives that thought out.

The thing I think this letter does do is remind former Adventists that Adventists are not their primary mission.

 

[LightWorker1967]

Tall, I think that's well said. But it also feels like people sometimes switch from the center being the 28 to the center being the gospel or grace or something else. And are just as restricted--just differently restricted.

I found the expression from Marcel of "grace legalists" somewhat humorous and infinitely extensible. Gospel legalists. Relationship legalists. Experience legalists. Feeling legalists. And so on.

Interesting . . .

 

[freeindeed2]

LorieL said... With regard to why Adventists stay even when they may not agree 100% with everything the church teaches: From my personal experience, I have not found a better alternative. There is no church I agree with 100% on every doctrine. The closest match for me is adventism. The fact that in the 1800s there were false doctrines in the church for me is irrelevant. When Jesus came to earth, Judiasm was full of false doctrines and abominations. Jesus came to reform. Jesus never came to the conclusion that Judiasm was a false religion, despite their multiple faults and corrupt leadership. Neither did Jesus advocate abolishing organized religion. Also, in redaing the letters to the 7 churches in Revelation, we discover that all 7 churches are flawed. How does Jesus respond to their flaws? He responds the same way He did when ministering to the Jews in His earthly ministry. He explains their sin and asks them to abandon it. In essence, he's asking the churches to "go and sin no more" We are in a sinful world and our churches are run by human beings. I do not believe there is any faultless church in existance. If we make it our standard that one must leave a church if one doesn't believe 100% of everything that is taught, we will soon become frustrated and worship alone, at home. Now, that is not to say that we should stay in a church that is teaching destructive or anti-christian theology. But to nit-pick and demand perfection is not realistic. I agree that it is certainly not relevant for most adventists to rehash flaws in the early church history. Again, another example from Judiasm... The Jews taught "an eye for an eye"... Jesus taught "love your enemies" Jews taught legalistic Sabbath keeping. Jesus taught that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. Interestingly, He did not teach that the Sabbath was irrelvant or that the 4th commandment was abolished, only that their interpretation was incorrect. The point is that despite their numerous flaws and incorrect teachings Jesus acknowledged the Jewish congregation as the children of God. My adventist experience has been one of encouragement. The adventist church I know encourages above all else and as #1 priority, a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. One of the previous posts refers to an experience where the person left Adventism to find Jesus. This is not my experience. My adventist church is very Christ-centered. Even in Ellen White's day, exploring and meditating on the life of Jesus was a major focus, hence, the book Desire of Ages.. (It's all about Jesus!) Jesus said that the world will know we are His disciples by our love. If we as members of the Adventist or any other church are not demonstrating His love, than we are not His disciples, no matter what denomination we belong to.

http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/2006/12/groupthink-of-former-sdas.html

Thanks for sharing the above Night.

For me a major shift in my thinking happened when I realized that the 'church', God's CHURCH, is not a denominational belief system. God's CHURCH is not defined by a creedal book. It's simply all who believe in Christ for salvation. So when someone leaves the SDA organization they're not leaving God's CHURCH - because God's church is not a 160 old denomination. Some in denominations are part of God's CHURCH too, but it has nothing to do with holding membership in the SDA organization/church (or any of the other several thousand denominational systems).

God's CHURCH = believers in Christ

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Why change Adventism? If the goal is to bring about a new Adventism then just do it. Start a NEW Adventism. Fighting all those battles over the old turf is a waste of energy. Those who oppose progressive Adventism oppose it as heresy. Trying to get them on-board is a losing battle. Now I suppose you could hi-jack the denomination over a series of decades, and there are some signs of this. But the effort to do so is staggering. Why bother? Why not go somewhere that is already doing the real mission of evangelism? Then those who are not seeing it can wonder what is going on and look into it.

Yes Changing Adventism is the goal. But you don't change anything unless you change the attitude of people. Yes you could get together people of like opinion and say you are starting another of the thousands of denominations in the world. Or you can work to changing the attitude of the people where you live to reflect the Christian idea as expressed by free. " God's CHURCH = believers in Christ".

Do you simply write off your family and friends or in some of our cases the whole Adventists culture? I think the real mission of evangelism begins at the local level. See my most recent blog article
http://www.cafesda.blogspot.com/

 

[tall73]

Do you simply write off your family and friends or in some of our cases the whole Adventists culture?

This could be taken more than one way. So before I answer could you simply elaborate a bit?

 

[Eila]

This is a total distortion of the mission of the Christian church. Accepting Christ IS the reason to celebrate. It is the testing truth. It is the message. ....

So if Adventism has an entrenched trend of de-emphasizing the most important thing, how can the good outweigh the bad? For me it simply cannot any longer.

Exactly. This is the reason why I left - the Adventist mission. I could no longer stay in a church where the gospel was put on the back burner and where the focus was on bringing Christians to Adventism. It was too important of an issue for me to overlook.

This is sometimes true. And the gospel is present in many parts in Adventism. The fact that some of these folks had nightmare experiences is part of the problem. They associate leaving Adventism with finding Christ. But even here we can see again that Adventism did not make it EASY to find Christ. It is not our main focus.

I discovered the gospel within Adventism, but I do know of many former Adventists who have not. It took about 16 years of being in the Adventist church, going to Adventist schools, going to countless prophecy seminars, and being a PK to discover the Gospel and I was actively seeking God during this time.

Why change Adventism? If the goal is to bring about a new Adventism then just do it. Start a NEW Adventism. Fighting all those battles over the old turf is a waste of energy. Those who oppose progressive Adventism oppose it as heresy. Trying to get them on-board is a losing battle. Now I suppose you could hi-jack the denomination over a series of decades, and there are some signs of this. But the effort to do so is staggering. Why bother? Why not go somewhere that is already doing the real mission of evangelism? Then those who are not seeing it can wonder what is going on and look into it.

I agree. While I do believe some may be impressed to stay I was not one of them. Way back about a year before I left the church I attempted to resolve some issues I was having. I was attending a church where I could not invite anyone to church with me because they would likely hear a sermon on jewelry, the Sabbath, etc. I went to the conference and brought my concerns to the administration (anonymously) and was told to grin and bear it and that nothing could be done. Again that related back to the mission. I had a big problem with that stance, but realized that I either had to overlook the issue or do something else. I didn't know where else to go so I tried to overlook it, but that didn't work very long.

Progressives and formers have a lot in common. But we can’t gloss over the real issue. Is it best to stay and fight a losing battle to change what doesn’t want to change? For me the answer was no. If the gospel is the most important thing then I should go somewhere that lives that thought out.

Exactly. Where should I expend my energy? For me the answer was on the billions in this world who have never even heard of Jesus.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I think that starting a new Denomination would be a good Idea?

The "Seventh-day Evangelical Christian Chruch" would be a good Name to use.

I think one of the Goals would be to Export The Sabbath to other Denomination, and try to create "sabbath" keeping branches in other Churchs.

Such as Seventh-day presbitarian, Seventh-day Methodist, Sevent-day Lutherns, Sevent-day Southern Baptist ....get the picture

This might be done by Creating a "Creation Creed"
It would affirms the reality of the Creation Story and the 7 day week as a memorial to creation, the male/female relationship as a remenat of Creation and the Sabbath as a statment of faith in the Creator world and desire to felloship with us. It might also include a statment about health and the envoriment. there is a need in the Christian chruch as a whole to affirm the reality of the creation event and make a clear division on this issue. eveloution has infested the chruch and it's time to take a stand against it.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I think the SDA chruch Should push for this, but there view of the Change of Sabbath to Sunday gets in the way.

 

[NightEternal]

I am just amazed at the amount of formers who have passed through here over the months I have been at this forum. I counted about 20 including the ones who post regularly. Not to mention the 5 and counting who have bailed out of the church since I have been here.

Unbelievable. :o

I wonder what the present statistics are as far as how many we are losing from the ranks on a yearly basis worldwide?

Maybe I don't want to know. It's like a bleeding hemorrhage that just cannot be stopped.

 

[LightWorker1967]

I ponder the much larger population who could contribute greatly to the church, but aren't interested. They haven't left, they haven't drifted—they live in a much different world.

This is one of the things I've found so eye-opening by immersing myself in other cultures, religions, spiritual practices, philosophies. SDAs are a tiny spec in an immense sea of people working to know God—and God working through them.

Plato's cave. Sometimes it's hard to come back.

 

[StormyOne]

I ponder the much larger population who could contribute greatly to the church, but aren't interested. They haven't left, they haven't drifted—they live in a much different world.

This is one of the things I've found so eye-opening by immersing myself in other cultures, religions, spiritual practices, philosophies. SDAs are a tiny spec in an immense sea of people working to know God—and God working through them.

Plato's cave. Sometimes it's hard to come back.

once you leave the cave and its clear that those in the cave have no desire to leave said cave, why come back?

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

This could be taken more than one way. So before I answer could you simply elaborate a bit?

I think it is related to what I said in the blog article. The problems in the SDA are not problems for only the SDA church. They are problems among most churches.

Ice states we need a new denomination that is based upon the foundation of the literal truth of a story with a talking snake. To a lot of us that is a problem not just scientifically but also linguistically not all things written are meant to be taken literally. But Ice new denomination would exclude many Progressive Adventists. Which is fine it sets up another in the 30,000 denominations and independent churches in the world, but it does not really get people together in any kind of Christian unity. It creates an artificial unity based upon an agreement upon one particular way of interpretation with everything else being heresy or apostasy etc.

Here is what my Blog Article said:

Points to ponder for the 21st Century

Mission Catalist Blog has an interesting article entitled: Which Denominations Will Thrive in the 21st Century?

The article lists 10 points, here are some of the ones I think are most important.

1.They proactively acknowledge and function with the understanding that real denominations serve congregations, and all they do points to enhancing the vitality of local congregations.

Most of us hate statements that begin with the psychobabble word “proactively” but the important point here is that a congregation needs to serve their congregations first. The vitality of the church is based upon the congregation’s attitudes and then the congregation can move outward to the community. The denomination is a conglomerate of local congregations therefore it is only as strong as the local congregations. The Denomination is a facilitator it does not serve the local congregation nor do the local congregations serve the Denomination.

2. They unite on a clear and compelling message that seeks to make a transformational difference in the world. That message is so powerful that it gives them great reason to work through issues that seek to divide them.

This becomes something that is often lacking in our churches. We don’t have a clear compelling message often in Adventist church this is because instead of the message of the Gospel revealed in the love and forgiveness and healing offered by God we focus upon the distinctives of the SDA church. As if our interpretation of Daniel and Revelation are more important then the clear and compelling love of God.

3. They develop clarity around their doctrinal values that focus on core doctrines and allow flexibility for congregations who do not agree with every non-core doctrine espoused.

Most churches do not develop clarity around their doctrinal values. Most including Adventists cling to traditional denominational beliefs, assuming that holding to the tradition is clarity. When you don’t have clarity because the doctrines are not well developed because the traditional view is only offered there is no flexibility on other so called non-core doctrines. Because traditions dictate that there are not non-core doctrines. In fact there are many non-core doctrines and in fact there are numerous interpretations on many doctrines however if the local congregation is not informed upon the different views they will act hostilely towards fellow Christian believers who hold to different beliefs.

8. They make peace with the parachurch world, and even become more parachurch in nature themselves. They partner with parachurch organizations to increase effective service to their congregations.

After skipping some which are pretty meaningless here we see something that is also frequently ignored. Local congregations should be involved with homeless rescue mission and food banks rather then try and reinvent those organizations. If there is a local congregation that has an active Adventist Community Service (formerly Dorcas) they should connect to other churches of other denominations in the area. This goes back to number 3 above however in that we have to discard the tradition that other ChristianChurches are Babylon or apostate.

The congregation is an integration of so many factors and often we assume only one point of view. As I previously related in earlier articles here, what are heard in our sermons by our pastors is often only views based upon their views and their perspectives (The Problem with Preaching). For example in the earlier instance (Clean and Unclean Meat) where the Pastor answered questions from the audience in at least 2 of the 4 questions he did not offer anything about the predominant Christian perspective. He answered with traditional SDA answers; of course he was answering off the top of his head and was presenting what he believed. However to incorporate the ideas that are proposed to insure a vibrant church in the 21st century we have to actually change our techniques as well as our expectations. We don’t teach our people to think when we don’t give them information to think with. They will therefore lack flexibility and when issues divide them they will not seek ways to remain in unity on the big picture.

 

[freeindeed2]

I think it is related to what I said in the blog article. The problems in the SDA are not problems for only the SDA church. They are problems among most churches.

The SDA church does have many problems that are unique to Adventism.

Ice states we need a new denomination that is based upon the foundation of the literal truth of a story with a talking snake. To a lot of us that is a problem not just scientifically but also linguistically not all things written are meant to be taken literally. But Ice new denomination would exclude many Progressive Adventists. Which is fine it sets up another in the 30,000 denominations and independent churches in the world, but it does not really get people together in any kind of Christian unity. It creates an artificial unity based upon an agreement upon one particular way of interpretation with everything else being heresy or apostasy etc.

The only 'true' unity in Christianity is the result of the Holy Spirit, not man-made organizations/denominations. In fact, the man-made organizations may actually be an impedence to the unity of believers that comes from the Holy Spirit alone.