How do Progressive Adventists handle the baptismal vows?

[AzA]

We're presently structured around reaching the community and reaching displaced Adventists (those who feel they don't fit in elsewhere).

To reach the community members and displaced Adventists -- and then what? What do you all expect them to become?

 

[M-Class]

To reach the community members and displaced Adventists -- and then what? What do you all expect them to become?

That is exactly my point... I no longer agree with the end result (making them Adventists) since I could not take the vows if I were asked to do so today.

I guess I should clarify... we started our church plant without going through the official channels (long story, but we were essentially just given a church building if we would start meeting there immediately). It has been nearly a year of navigating the politics... we are not technically officially part of the denomination yet.

 

[M-Class]

It's pretty common, even among those who consider themselves traditional Adventists, to pick and choose from her writings. Not many Adventists that I know follow all of her dietary counsels or all of her instructions for Sabbath-keeping, for example. Most of the time, I just ignored what I didn't agree with in her writings. However, I finally came to the point where I couldn't keep trying to explain away her contradictions to the Bible and to history and even to herself by using the standard excuses about taking all of her writings in context and considering the time period in which she lived. She was wrong about so many things that I could no longer consider her inspired. And she herself warned people against the pick-and-choose approach to her writings.

The strange thing is that as I was studying her, I would encounter really wild quotes that I had never heard in church before. Every week, without fail, the bizarre quote would wind up being used in church that next Sabbath. Once I restudied a topic and that week our speaker accidentally re-preached the same sermon (including the same quotes) which he had preached the first time I had studied it (he forgot that he had already preached it to us). That of course only made my next study even more intense.

 

[StormyOne]

The strange thing is that as I was studying her, I would encounter really wild quotes that I had never heard in church before. Every week, without fail, the bizarre quote would wind up being used in church that next Sabbath. Once I restudied a topic and that week our speaker accidentally re-preached the same sermon (including the same quotes) which he had preached the first time I had studied it (he forgot that he had already preached it to us). That of course only made my next study even more intense.

The problem with the use of her writings is the assumption that somehow in vision she was looking into the future, into our time and giving advice for us here and now... she wrote for her times, she was influenced by the events and theories of her time.... read collateral material from that era, there were many bizarre beliefs that were held.... so then if her writings are kept in the context of her time, its more understandable... She believed, as did those whose material we find in the bible, that Christ was returning in her lifetime... While this does not excuse some of the info, it does give it context.... and yes I have read some of the wild stuff she wrote, and also realize that someone in the White Estates has engaged in editing out some of the more controversial stuff... There is a reason why some appeal to her as a authoritative voice in the church.....

 

[AzA]

That is exactly my point... I no longer agree with the end result (making them Adventists) since I could not take the vows if I were asked to do so today.

I guess I should clarify... we started our church plant without going through the official channels (long story, but we were essentially just given a church building if we would start meeting there immediately). It has been nearly a year of navigating the politics... we are not technically officially part of the denomination yet.

Ok, thanks. The fact that you all are not under the umbrella of this or any other denomination or any other isn't necessarily a weakness unless you are financially or otherwise dependent on the org, or unless everybody but you is gunning for Adventistizing the new people.
Do you think your peers are open to reviewing that goal?

 

[M-Class]

Ok, thanks. The fact that you all are not under the umbrella of this or any other denomination or any other isn't necessarily a weakness unless you are financially or otherwise dependent on the org, or unless everybody but you is gunning for Adventistizing the new people.
Do you think your peers are open to reviewing that goal?

The spectrum varies with the rest of the group. Most see individual issues of their own with the fundamentals but do not see how they all interconnect (how an issue with one puts another point on the line). The larger picture is not there. As a result there are a lot of inconsistencies in belief and action that are evident, but don't register. Likewise, the fact that the beliefs have to be imposed on others for the sake of baptism/membership doesn't seem to register... partly because the majority of the group is from a generation which didn't have to take that vow themselves and have never taken the time to consider everything that it contains (nor do they understand the issues I am raising because they don't really understand the doctrine in the first place ).

There are a lot of similarities in questioning the beliefs, but the biggest difference is that I (and my wife) are alone in questioning "the prophet." The others will not even look into the issue but instead repeat back the same tired arguments in her defense. Even where their interpretation of scripture runs completely contrary to EGW they will not look into it.

I feel like my issues are being listened to (and we have delayed actually signing with a sponsoring church for a couple months now as a result), but unfortunately exactly what I am saying does not ever seem to be heard for what I intend. My words always seem to get magically transformed into something else and the impact is entierly lost every time. The only person who understands what I say is my wife most of the time, and her attempts at "re-translation" almost always fail as well. As a result, the gunning is indeed for Adventistizing the people despite doctrinal differences (because the significance of those differences is not understood).

 

[VictorC]

My words always seem to get magically transformed into something else and the impact is entierly lost every time. The only person who understands what I say is my wife most of the time, and her attempts at "re-translation" almost always fail as well.

Not true. Some of us understand what you're writing very well. Many have engaged in the process of examining the doctrines, and determined there are areas where they don't align with Scripture. You're tired of the worn-out mantra that appeals to EGW as the support for doctrines that you can't reconcile with Scripture. And I believe an apparent commitment to personal integrity demands reconciliation or rejection of those questionable doctrines needs to take place. Naturally the disposition of those doctrines will determine the disposition of EGW, as the link between the two is inseparable.

I'm lurking in a mode content to listen for a while. The concerns that you write about are very familiar to those in a wide variety of disciplines, and they are healthy concerns that I perceive an intent to devote attention to. I don't see a need to comment on what you write, other than a encouragement to continue in the path you're on.

 

[M-Class]

Not true. Some of us understand what you're writing very well.

VictorC,

The "group" I was referring to was in response to AzA's inquiry about the intent of others in our church's core group. I was not referring to anyone here. Sorry about the confusion... I should have been more specific.

I can't help but notice the irony in the necessity of this post though... saying that you didn't understand that I knew you understood.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I said I would share more light on my question at some point.

I still can't give the complete story... but I will share what I can without compromising the identity of those involved.

I'm involved in a church planting. Through the process of being involved with a church planting, some events have occurred which have caused me to re-evaluate exactly what it is that we will be teaching newcomers. After careful study I have concluded that I no longer believe several of our fundamentals and our baptismal vows (which reference the 28 fundamentals), nor can I honestly teach others to believe them either. I've been completely open with our core group about this, and a few others in the group also openly admit issues with some of the fundamentals (although not nearly as strongly as I do).

The question about what progressives do keeps coming up in our group, thus the original question of how progressives (and progressive churches) handle the vows.

The question is more for the sake of group research than for myself personally. I already feel a leading on the matter (which does not include the denomination). I fully expect that the remainder of our group will in the end not share in the same. I fully expect to be resigning from leadership at any moment. Honestly, I'm surprised the dialog and my role has gone on as long as it has now (several months). I'm led to keep sharing my voice until my integrity is put on the line while not causing infighting, so that is what I am presently doing. If infighting begins or my integrity is put at stake then I know I am finished.

Prayers are appreciated.

Wow! Thanks for sharing your story, M-Class. Many aspects of your story resonate with me. As a former conference employee, there were many choices to make and not all of the answers were as clear to me then as they are today. That's what faith is all about -- it's stepping off the plank without seeing what's under you. We serve a good and faithful God!

May God richly bless you!
BFA

 

[VictorC]

VictorC,

The "group" I was referring to was in response to AzA's inquiry about the intent of others in our church's core group. I was not referring to anyone here. Sorry about the confusion... I should have been more specific.

I can't help but notice the irony in the necessity of this post though... saying that you didn't understand that I knew you understood.

I understood Aza's question concerning acceptance of your peers regarding your questions on doctrines you can't reconcile with Scripture, and saw your response mentioning that only your wife understood you - and didn't associate this with the peers you are engaged in. I saw the reference to the worn-out appeal to EGW and placed my focus there.

You need answers, and those peers aren't engaged in the process you're embarked on. Is that a fair assessment? Do you believe there is an association between their attitude and a commitment to personal integrity in the overall formula? This last question is larger than it may appear at first glance, as it took me years and multiple conversations with Father to arrive at an answer to it.

 

[AzA]

The spectrum varies with the rest of the group. Most see individual issues of their own with the fundamentals but do not see how they all interconnect (how an issue with one puts another point on the line). The larger picture is not there. As a result there are a lot of inconsistencies in belief and action that are evident, but don't register. Likewise, the fact that the beliefs have to be imposed on others for the sake of baptism/membership doesn't seem to register... partly because the majority of the group is from a generation which didn't have to take that vow themselves and have never taken the time to consider everything that it contains (nor do they understand the issues I am raising because they don't really understand the doctrine in the first place ).

There are a lot of similarities in questioning the beliefs, but the biggest difference is that I (and my wife) are alone in questioning "the prophet." The others will not even look into the issue but instead repeat back the same tired arguments in her defense. Even where their interpretation of scripture runs completely contrary to EGW they will not look into it.

I feel like my issues are being listened to (and we have delayed actually signing with a sponsoring church for a couple months now as a result), but unfortunately exactly what I am saying does not ever seem to be heard for what I intend. My words always seem to get magically transformed into something else and the impact is entierly lost every time. The only person who understands what I say is my wife most of the time, and her attempts at "re-translation" almost always fail as well. As a result, the gunning is indeed for Adventistizing the people despite doctrinal differences (because the significance of those differences is not understood).

Ouch and ok, I get you, and can understand why you're frustrated.
Do you and your wife think that even if you withdrew from the groups as leaders you could still support them in fellowship?

 

[AzA]

Another question: what kind of support do you two think you have for nurturing your own development?

 

[M-Class]

You need answers, and those peers aren't engaged in the process you're embarked on. Is that a fair assessment?

Partially.

I believe I already have my own personal answers, but I've also already encountered a statement from our core group like "there are several churches out in California who don't believe the fundamentals and they are part of the denomination." This disconnect between the 28 fundamentals and the existence of "progressive churches" has led me to investigate exactly how those churches can exist/grow under those circumstances (and thus this thread on how progressives handle the vows).

Since then I've expanded the thread into sharing more of the circumstances... which does include the fact that the other members are not involved in the level of study that I am.

Do you believe there is an association between their attitude and a commitment to personal integrity in the overall formula?

I believe they are people of good integrity with their hearts in the right place, but at the same time they are unable to see where their integrity is being challenged.

 

[M-Class]

Do you and your wife think that even if you withdrew from the groups as leaders you could still support them in fellowship?

Somewhat...

I do believe that having a place to worship/fellowship is important to spiritual growth, so we would (at least initially) remain attending even if we withdrew from leadership.

At the same time, that would relegate us to being no more than spectators since it would be difficult to invite someone to our church saying "follow our example, but don't follow our church's beliefs... find another church instead." That's not exactly being the best witness.

 

[VictorC]

Partially.

I believe I already have my own personal answers, but I've also already encountered a statement from our core group like "there are several churches out in California who don't believe the fundamentals and they are part of the denomination." This disconnect between the 28 fundamentals and the existence of "progressive churches" has led me to investigate exactly how those churches can exist/grow under those circumstances (and thus this thread on how progressives handle the vows).

Maybe another question should arise whether new members should be baptized into the Body of Christ or into a church that values doctrines that are distinctive and foster a remnant mentality.

Since then I've expanded the thread into sharing more of the circumstances... which does include the fact that the other members are not involved in the level of study that I am.

I have noted your view concerning the Investigative Judgment. Ellen White referred to this explanation for Daniel 8:14 as "the foundation and central pillar of the Advent faith", and so it remains defined as a distinctive no one else accepts. And yet if you were to follow the writings of Ellen White, you will find that the IJ was the replacement for the Shut Door that was itself endorsed by a claim of divine inspiration during the 1850's. The level of study you're devoted to is one that can lead you into all sorts of places some of your peers have not gone to.

I believe they are people of good integrity with their hearts in the right place, but at the same time they are unable to see where their integrity is being challenged.

Perhaps I didn't phrase my question quite as I should have. Do they feel their integrity is threatened rather than Scripture's by the questions you pose?

 

[M-Class]

Somewhat...

I do believe that having a place to worship/fellowship is important to spiritual growth, so we would (at least initially) remain attending even if we withdrew from leadership.

At the same time, that would relegate us to being no more than spectators since it would be difficult to invite someone to our church saying "follow our example, but don't follow our church's beliefs... find another church instead." That's not exactly being the best witness.

I should also add that sorting out EGW from the Bible is fatiguing, so the motivation will exist to "move on" to somewhere more Biblical.

 

[AzA]

Partially.

I believe I already have my own personal answers, but I've also already encountered a statement from our core group like "there are several churches out in California who don't believe the fundamentals and they are part of the denomination." This disconnect between the 28 fundamentals and the existence of "progressive churches" has led me to investigate exactly how those churches can exist/grow under those circumstances (and thus this thread on how progressives handle the vows).

M-Class, if I PMed you with some real life contacts, people who are handling this sort of thing, would you be interested in talking to them?

 

[M-Class]

Maybe another question should arise whether new members should be baptized into the Body of Christ or into a church that values doctrines that are distinctive and foster a remnant mentality.

That is just it... quoting from an email from a member regarding my doctrinal objections:

"I feel certain that you believe Jesus is returning to earth soon to take to heaven those who have accepted the saving grace of Jesus' death in payment for their sins....and, that your desire is to help as many others as possible to know and understand this so they can choose Jesus as their Savior. That is our mission"

If that were all that Adventism teaches regarding salvation, then I wouldn't hesitate. What I have been unable to convey is that the 28 fundamentals go way beyond this.

Perhaps I didn't phrase my question quite as I should have. Do they feel their integrity is threatened rather than Scripture's by the questions you pose?

Some of them I have known for 10 yeas now, so I doubt they feel I am questioning their integrity. Others I just met last year, so I don't know for sure. I don't think anyone feels threatened. This is a good point and an area for prayer.

 

[M-Class]

M-Class, if I PMed you with some real life contacts, people who are handling this sort of thing, would you be interested in talking to them?

Feel free to carry this conversation into PM.

 

[VictorC]

Maybe another question should arise whether new members should be baptized into the Body of Christ or into a church that values doctrines that are distinctive and foster a remnant mentality.

That is just it... quoting from an email from a member regarding my doctrinal objections:

"I feel certain that you believe Jesus is returning to earth soon to take to heaven those who have accepted the saving grace of Jesus' death in payment for their sins....and, that your desire is to help as many others as possible to know and understand this so they can choose Jesus as their Savior. That is our mission"

If that were all that Adventism teaches regarding salvation, then I wouldn't hesitate. What I have been unable to convey is that the 28 fundamentals go way beyond this.

The 28 FB's contain language that define what makes Adventism "distinctive". If the sole emphasis of Adventism was to lead people to Jesus Christ and His redemption, then there would be no need for the baptismal certificate. I believe on Jesus Christ, I am washed in His Blood, and I am His purchased possession sealed with a guarantee of my joint inheritance with the Heir. That is all I look for to as a prerequisite for baptism, which is a confession of faith in Him. Baptism isn't about being "distinctive", as it describes insertion into the Body of Christ, and not a "distinctive" subset of that Body.

Some of them I have known for 10 yeas now, so I doubt they feel I am questioning their integrity. Others I just met last year, so I don't know for sure. I don't think anyone feels threatened. This is a good point and an area for prayer.

People are interesting to watch. In doctrinal matters, some consider it more important to have Scripture vindicated rather than what they have been taught, and some are the very reverse of this. It is a trait illustrating to watch for in conversations, and this is what I'm hinting at when I mention integrity.