Omelas

[tall73]

You are right it was not all thealogical its like they were out of touch with reality there were times when people would say well Sister White says this or that and come to find out after some research She may not of said what she supposedily said or well the Bible says and I couldn't find it anywhere I felt like I was being decieved about a lot of things.I'm still a Chirstian, but I use the Bible as my guide not some book written by some professor by someone else . All I know is the Lord takes care of me I communicate with him on a daily basis and I try to be kind to other people and try to encourage people and tell them how I love the LORD and how the LORD loves them. When I was a child I was taught a very simple song JESUS LOVES ME think about the words. Jesus loves me thats what its all about. Its not about doctrine or Ij If you have apersonal relationship with Jesus then what are people afaid of if you are one with the Lord nothing else matters

We certainly have complicated things.

The interest in the IJ for me is simply that it was the first thing I saw problems in. It is for many.

 

[JonMiller]

I haven't read most of this thread. But the biggest difference Tall is that people in the SDA church who see the problem often try to do something about it. It isn't SDA church for it to work has to have IJ. Therefore the metaphor/etc doesn't work.

JM

 

[tall73]

I haven't read most of this thread. But the biggest difference Tall is that people in the SDA church who see the problem often try to do something about it. It isn't SDA church for it to work has to have IJ. Therefore the metaphor/etc doesn't work.

JM

A. All attempts to do something about it have been largely rebuffed.

B. You don't seem to understand the pivotal role of 1844 in the Adventist identity and claim to the remnant status. No, the organization does not need the IJ. But what comprises Adventism does for its claims.

 

[JonMiller]

I don't think adventists understand what remnant means. I reject the notion that the SDA chruch is a special remnant church.

A lot of other adventists do also, including elders/etc.

Once more, I think that you have some serious issues with traditional interpretation. Which you held as a lot more important in your position as representing the church body (Which is what the pastor does, as someone directly employed by the conference).

You haven't been someone in the pews for a long time, I think.

Finally, you have to show that for adventism (in specific, what I and others claim it does well) to hold that it has to have IJ in order for your story to be a proper metaphor. The glass that you are holding up to gain insight into the SDA church is very bent and doesn't work in this application.

JM

 

[JonMiller]

And I agree with Night on many things (he is jsut a bit dramatic), and also that Tall (and others) do seem to be trying to get people to leave adventism. This is obvious if Tall (for example) thinks what is posted in the first post in this thread.

I personally am similar to Night. I see a lot wrong, but I see a lot of good also. And I see a lot wrong with every church institution, and I thinkt hat that is something that is true with institutions in general. While at times I have leaned towards Christian Anarchy, right now I am completely opposed to that as I think it keeps Christianity from doing a lot of the good that it should.

But I don't try and get everyone to become adventist. In fact, I mostly just try to get people to become Christian, and if they desire to hear what I think about the Sabbath or State of the Dead, I tell them.

And some, for example the homosexuals I know, I purposefully point them to churchs that aren't adventist... as we are generally not very freindly to them to be honest.

JM

 

[tall73]

I don't think adventists understand what remnant means. I reject the notion that the SDA chruch is a special remnant church.

A lot of other adventists do also, including elders/etc.

Once more, I think that you have some serious issues with traditional interpretation. Which you held as a lot more important in your position as representing the church body (Which is what the pastor does, as someone directly employed by the conference).

You haven't been someone in the pews for a long time, I think.

Finally, you have to show that for adventism (in specific, what I and others claim it does well) to hold that it has to have IJ in order for your story to be a proper metaphor. The glass that you are holding up to gain insight into the SDA church is very bent and doesn't work in this application.

JM

Ie...my view doesn't count because I was a pastor. Alrighty.

What you personally reject does not change the problem. If after all these people's efforts to change things it has not changed the legalism , then it is still doing damage. Whether you and folks like you personally accept the IJ does not prevent the harm that comes from flawed theology promoted widely in the church. Nor is the IJ the only issue. Understanding of EGW, understanding of perfection, lack of assurance etc., are all things that come from the historical DNA of the SDA church.

Whether you and your friends try to reform the church the church has not stopped putting out the same info, redoubling its efforts and impacting more people.

 

[JonMiller]

Once more, I think that all churchs have serious problems. I guess I don't view the adventist church having more serious problems than any other.. which is where we differ.

I am saying that as a pastor you are going to view things a lot differently because of your position then the majority of members of the church (who aren't pastors).

JM

 

[tall73]

And I agree with Night on many things (he is jsut a bit dramatic), and also that Tall (and others) do seem to be trying to get people to leave adventism. This is obvious if Tall (for example) thinks what is posted in the first post in this thread.

I think that if Adventism really is doing spiritual harm and will not change then people should consider leaving.

The question in this thread is how people make decisions on whether to leave or stay, and whether there is any hope for reform.

I obviously found it more personally consistent to leave or I would not have done so. But I am interested in the other side's take.

 

[JonMiller]

I think someone like Senti is a lot further from traditional adventism than you are.

JM

 

[tall73]

Once more, I think that all churchs have serious problems. I guess I don't view the adventist church having more serious problems than any other.. which is where we differ.

I am saying that as a pastor you are going to view things a lot differently because of your position then the majority of members of the church (who aren't pastors).

JM

I was a member before I was a pastor. And if anything being a pastor just exposed me to more people's experiences IN THE AREAS I WAS AT. And as a pastor I saw more directly the damage done by legalism to my members, some of whom had little hope at all, and some who had a misplaced hope in their own efforts.

Now I don't doubt that other churches have problems. And I don't doubt that other churches have legalists. But I do doubt that ALL other churches have such ingrained problems with institutionalized legalism throughout their history.

 

[tall73]

I think someone like Senti is a lot further from traditional adventism than you are.

JM

I agree. Where are you going with that piece of information?

 

[tall73]

We all suffer from limited perspective of a world-wide movement. If you think I come from a different perspective it is because I do. Not because I was a pastor. But because I was active in churches that were not de-constructing and re-constructing Adventist theology or changing their outlook or rejecting remnant status or anything of the like. These changes are not happening in all of the churches. They are likely more prominent in the big cities. But if anything some parts of the field are digging in and resisting all change as an attack on their faith. Many in these churches think that the GC is responsible for some change and resents it.

And in the world field it is doubtless different again.

 

[JonMiller]

My statement is that Adventism, despite how the trads here would like it, is big tent. There are a lot of different groups, people, ideas, etc within adventism.

To say that adventism is all about IJ, or 1844, or the remnant, etc isn't correct as a practical definition.

JM

 

[Tempest7]

I think someone like Senti is a lot further from traditional adventism than you are.

JM

You are probably correct. It would be good to know the thinking behind that conclusion.

 

[sentipente]

Now, y'all have me interested. Proceed.

 

[JonMiller]

I am not sure if adventism can be uniquely defined down to a single sentence.

JM

 

[sentipente]

And that's the way it is supposed to be.

 

[StormyOne]

I am not sure if adventism can be uniquely defined down to a single sentence.

JM

only anal retentive, obsessive compulsive people would want that anyway....

 

[tall73]

My statement is that Adventism, despite how the trads here would like it, is big tent. There are a lot of different groups, people, ideas, etc within adventism.

To say that adventism is all about IJ, or 1844, or the remnant, etc isn't correct as a practical definition.

JM

If an organization is founded with certain ideas and the majority still hold those ideas then they do characterize the system .

I wish we had statistics on how many members are really delving into progressive theology. I doubt it is the majority. I think there is a larger number in the camp that RC mentioned who just don't read any EGW. But that does not mean that they are uninfluenced by her views. Some of my members didn't read much of EGW or the Bible but still knew the party line on various topics.

 

[tall73]

I am not sure if adventism can be uniquely defined down to a single sentence.

JM

Was that a goal?