What are the golden opportunities?

[Byfaithalone1]

Perhaps this is a great moment to regroup and discuss SDAism from a couple of different perspectives: (i) what is already working within SDAism, and (ii) what are the opportunities for improvement within SDAism?

We've all admitted in this forum that there is no perfect church and that this includes SDAism. So, let's use this thread to our explore our wish list. If you were able to create positive change within SDAism, what opportunities would you seize upon first?

Anyone is welcome in this thread! Traditional SDAs. Moderate SDAs. Progressive SDAs. Former SDAs. Never-been-SDAs.

BFA

 

[Laodicean]

Perhaps this is a great moment to regroup and discuss SDAism from a couple of different perspectives: (i) what is already working within SDAism, and (ii) what are the opportunities for improvement within SDAism?

BFA, to be honest, I don't know what is working within SDAism. It saddens me to be so ambivalent about my church. I can't put my finger on it exactly, but there just seems to be no blazing fire of enthusiam for anything, no real warmth and/or growth, at least not in my little corner of the world. And I don't know what it will take to make us come alive...well, okay, I know what it will take -- more of the Holy Spirit's presence. But how to make that happen?

Opportunities for improvement? Open, genuine discussion on issues that seem to be outdated or misunderstood might help. I don't think the solution is to go into criticism mode with no alternatives offered. I came to this progressive/moderate forum, hoping to find that kind of discussion, but unfortunately, most of the discussion is by those who seem to want to villify the church rather than clarify and refine its beliefs. To be considered progressive, one must disagree with one or more of the doctrines. If a poster appears to support the doctrines, then they are automatically considered to be outsiders, traditional SDAs, and really not welcome here. This is not what I was looking for, even though I've stayed ... (and maybe outstayed my welcome).

We've all admitted in this forum that there is no perfect church and that this includes SDAism. So, let's use this thread to our explore our wish list. If you were able to create positive change within SDAism, what opportunities would you seize upon first?

I don't know where the opportunities lie, but my wish list would have as its number one priority that we members be warm and loving and accepting of others. That we be known as people who really care about what happens to the environment and about what happens to our fellow man. True, our church is known for its programs that officially help others, like ADRA and our various other community services. But these are just programs. What is it that makes most of our people so ...... well ... lukewarm? I feel that we need to wake up from our stupor, and maybe merely discussing doctrine and the law and the law and the law, until our souls are dry and parched, doesn't seem to be the solution.

Yet, it is in the doctrine that we find truth and truth is Jesus, for He said, "I am the ... Truth." So maybe we do need to discuss the doctrine after all?

Sigh....I don't have the answers. How about you?

Anyone is welcome in this thread! Traditional SDAs. Moderate SDAs. Progressive SDAs. Former SDAs. Never-been-SDAs.

BFA

Another thing that saddens me is the number of "views' there are of the threads, but so few new posters to a thread. Is there a reason why there can be something like 6,000 views of a thread, and yet only three or four people are posting repeatedly? What about all those onlookers who remain silent and have nothing to say? I mean, what are they thinking?

Okay, I guess this post has not helped with a regrouping, has it? Anybody with any bright ideas? Must BFA soldier on alone?

 

[Kira Light]

I think the reality is that the church can't outgrow any of its beliefs and still have any purpose. If EGW, the investigative judgment, and the "Sabbath truth" are all abandoned, why not just join the local Calvary Chapel and call it a day?

The church is an END TIMES church. It is the remnant for cryin out loud! It has already been over 150 YEARS of last DAYS. As time goes by it can't help but seem more and more laughable. I'm sorry if I come off as too harsh, but I don't see a happy way to portray the future of the SDA church.

 

[Laodicean]

I think the reality is that the church can't outgrow any of its beliefs and still have any purpose. If EGW, the investigative judgment, and the "Sabbath truth" are all abandoned, why not just join the local Calvary Chapel and call it a day?

I agree.

The church is an END TIMES church. It is the remnant for cryin out loud! It has already been over 150 YEARS of last DAYS. As time goes by it can't help but seem more and more laughable. I'm sorry if I come off as too harsh, but I don't see a happy way to portray the future of the SDA church.

But there is no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. I do believe that SDAs have valuable insights to contribute to the Christian church, and those include a living, dynamic, growing understanding of EGW, the "investigative judgment" and the Sabbath concept, among others.

I've been pondering my last post since last night and I think our problem may be a reliance on programs, a dependence on being rich and increased in goods when, in fact, we are wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked, according to Revelation 3:17. One might ask, well, in what way are we so destitute? One possible answer might be that there is a lack of a living relationship with Jesus?

If, as the SDA church believes, the seven churches of Revelation depict the Christian church throughout the time since John the Revelator wrote, until the present, and that Laodicea is the seventh and last church in time, and probably describes the remnant (which SDAs believe they are a part of), then it would be revealing to note that Jesus stands on the outside of the SDA church, not on the inside. "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." Revelation 3:20.

Of course, that is one interpretation of the seven churches. It might be wrong, but it could also be quite correct. Input?

Which brings me to another thought. Having a discussion on the 28 fundamental beliefs is not particularly productive if it is done from an esoteric and/or philosophical point of view. Dry argumentum. Maybe each belief should be tested as to whether or how they reveal Jesus and whether they contribute to a relationship with Jesus, otherwise, they are just so many words and nothing more, and should be dispensed with.

Thoughts?

 

[Laodicean]

I've been reading The Shack again, by William Young. Not recommended to be read if it makes a traditionalist get up in arms over some of the concepts that are unAdventist. But if one can get past the "stumbling blocks," there are some really great insights. Here are a couple:

Mack is afraid of his emotions and tells the Holy Spirit so. The answer comes, "Emotions are the colors of the soul; they are spectacular and incredible. When you don't feel, the world becomes dull and colorless..."

Mack pleads for understanding of his emotions. The answer is, "They are neither bad nor good; they just exist." He is told that "Paradigms power perception and perceptions power emotions." A compelling explanation is given next: "Most emotions are responses to perception -- what you think is true about a given situation. If your perception is false, then your emotional response to it will be false too. So check your perceptions, and beyond that check the truthfulness of your paradigms -- what you believe. Just because you believe something firmly doesn't make it true. Be willing to reexamine what you believe. The more you live in the truth, the more your emotions will help you see clearly. But even then, you don't want to trust them more than me."

The "me" refers to the Trinity, to the Father, to Jesus, and to God's Holy Spirit.

I think that's a safe place to start searching for truth, don't you think?

 

[Laodicean]

here's another valuable insight from The Shack. I don't know how much I can literally quote from a copyrighted book, but here is a paraphrase.

Sarayu (representing the Holy Spirit) says to Mack, "Why do you think we came up with the Ten Commandments?"

Mack guesses that it is just a set of rules that humans are expected to obey in order to live righteous lives in God's good graces.

Sarayu disagrees. "If that were true, which it is not ... then how many do you think lived righteously enough to enter our good graces?"

Mack says "not very many."

Sarayu says, "Actually, only one succeeded -- Jesus." And to do that, she says, Jesus had to rest fully and dependently upon her, the Holy Spirit.

Mack next demands, "Then why did you give us those commandments?"

Sarayu says it is because "we wanted you to give up trying to be righteous on your own. It was a mirror to reveal just how filthy your face gets when you live independently."

Mack counters that he is sure they (the Trinity) know that there are many who think they are made righteous by following the rules.

Sarayu: "But can you clean your face with the same mirror that shows you how dirty you are? There is no mercy or grace in rules, not even for one mistake." She says that that is the reason why Jesus fulfilled all of the law for you, "so that it no longer has jurisdiction over you. And the Law that once contained impossible demands -- Thou Shalt Not ... -- actually becomes a promise we fulfill in you."

Sarayu continues with what, to me, seems an especially important truth, "But keep in mind," she says, "that if you live your life alone and independently, the promise is empty. Jesus laid the demand of the law to rest; it no longer has any power to accuse or command. Jesus is both the promise and its fulfillment."

Mack is astounded. "Are you saying I don't have to follow the rules?"

And here is where Galatians and the SDA church parted ways. The answer is yes, in Jesus, you are not under any law. "All things are lawful." This is the same concept found in "The Glad Tiding" by Waggoner. And the SDA church was aghast at the thought.

Mack's mind is also reeling. He moans, "You can't be serious! You're messing with me again."

"Child," interrupts Papa (God the Father), "you ain't heard nuthin' yet."

Sarayu continues, "those who are afraid of freedom are those who cannot trust us to live in them. Trying to keep the law is actually a declaration of independence, a way of keeping control."

Mack wants to know if that is why we like the law so much -- to give us some control.

Sarayu says that it is much worse than that. "It grants you the power," she says, "to judge others and feel superior to them. You believe you are living to a higher standard than those you judge. Enforcing rules, especially in its more subtle expressions like responsibility and expectation, is a vain attempt to create certainty out of uncertainty. And contrary to what you might think, I have a great fondness for uncertainty," she says. "Rules cannot bring freedom; they only have the power to accuse."

The conversation goes deeper, but when you get to the end of it, you realize that the law is not being done away with. It has its purpose and thus cannot be done away with. But when we stop living independent of a relationship with Jesus, then there is no need to worry about lawkeeping. You are safe if Jesus is living in you, for He kept the law and will keep it in you, for you.

Another interesting thought. Mack asks, "But don't you want us to set priorities? You know: God first, then whatever, followed by whatever?"

Sarayu says that the trouble with living by priorities is that it sees everything as a hierarchy, a pyramid, and if you put God at the top, what that really means is that God is only a part of your day. "How much time do you give me before you can go on about the rest of your day, the part that interests you so much more?" She asks.

Here Papa (God) interrupts and says, "You see, Mackenzie, I don't just want a piece of you and a piece of your life. Even if you were able, which you are not, to give me the biggest piece, that is not what I want. I want all of you and all of every part of you and your day."

Jesus chimes in with, "Mack, I don't want to be first among a list of values; I want to be at the center of everything...."

And the conversation goes on with more thought-provoking insights.

A really good read, this book....

 

[Joe67]

All institutions begin, in the spirit of cynicism. Consider the 12 tribes and their state of heart and mind at Mt. Sinai.

All institutions end, in the spirit of skepticism. Consider Jerusalem and their status of heart and mind as the Babylonians took them captive.

There remains no sacrifice for the sin of skepticism, for skepticism is the sow returning to her wallowing in her mire and the dog returning to its vomit.

This warning is for all of us.

Rom 12:16
Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits. KJV

Let us believe all that God has promised. Let us not deny our present evil status in our flesh and be led into the delusion which claims more than the Lord has given unto us in our present evil status, lest we be exalted beyond measure and trod underfoot the herb eaters, who serve the Lord in childish innocence.

Let us beware of selling our Lord for a mess of pottage when we are hungry or selling him for 30 pieces of silver when we are full.

Joe

 

[Byfaithalone1]

BFA, to be honest, I don't know what is working within SDAism. It saddens me to be so ambivalent about my church. I can't put my finger on it exactly, but there just seems to be no blazing fire of enthusiam for anything, no real warmth and/or growth, at least not in my little corner of the world. And I don't know what it will take to make us come alive...well, okay, I know what it will take -- more of the Holy Spirit's presence. But how to make that happen?

I'll be honest with you. I'm becoming increasingly concerned about a similar spirit within the church I currently attend. I came into my current church on fire for the gospel and passionate about the great commission. What I've found is a lot of apathy (keep in mind this is a generalization that doesn't fit every member). Like you, I don't know what to do about it.

Opportunities for improvement? Open, genuine discussion on issues that seem to be outdated or misunderstood might help.

I agree. At least in my corner of the world, SDAs feel very wary about sharing viewpoints that differ from the party line. Folks who do are quickly labeled as troublemakers. I realize that this likely isn't true in every SDA church.

I don't know where the opportunities lie, but my wish list would have as its number one priority that we members be warm and loving and accepting of others. That we be known as people who really care about what happens to the environment and about what happens to our fellow man.

I have a similar wish for my current church.

True, our church is known for its programs that officially help others, like ADRA and our various other community services. But these are just programs. What is it that makes most of our people so ...... well ... lukewarm? I feel that we need to wake up from our stupor, and maybe merely discussing doctrine and the law and the law and the law, until our souls are dry and parched, doesn't seem to be the solution.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Yet, it is in the doctrine that we find truth and truth is Jesus, for He said, "I am the ... Truth." So maybe we do need to discuss the doctrine after all?

Sigh....I don't have the answers. How about you?

Nope. Just lots of questions.

Anybody with any bright ideas? Must BFA soldier on alone?

Gosh, I hope not.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I don't think the solution is to go into criticism mode with no alternatives offered.

I would agree that there can sometimes be criticism for the sake of criticism. I do see that there are alternatives to some of the unique SDA doctrines, but I also understand that it can be challenging for certain SDAs to explore them. I understand this because I once had a very difficult time seeing such alternatives myself.

I came to this progressive/moderate forum, hoping to find that kind of discussion, but unfortunately, most of the discussion is by those who seem to want to villify the church rather than clarify and refine its beliefs

I'm sorry that this has been your impression. I don't read every post, so I'm not sure exactly what has been happening from your perspective. However, I can speak for myself by saying that I don't wish to villify the SDA church. It is filled with countless, sincere people who are trying to live according what they understand to be true. I love SDAs; I have no desire to villify them.

With that said, the denomination has done some things that concern me.

To be considered progressive, one must disagree with one or more of the doctrines.

Honestly, I'm not sure that this makes a person progressive. Often, folks disagree with SDAism, but continue to follow a similar black-and-white perspective that simply includes new and different conclusions. I wouldn't call that "progressive."

If a poster appears to support the doctrines, then they are automatically considered to be outsiders, traditional SDAs, and really not welcome here.

I submit that, if anyone is an outside here, it is me. It has been made very clear to me that I don't qualify as a member of this forum and that I am posting here at the mercy of SDAs. That hasn't been lost on me over the years. As far I as I'm concerned, you're immensely welcome and wanted here and I've ALWAYS felt that way --- from your very first post.

BFA

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I think the reality is that the church can't outgrow any of its beliefs and still have any purpose. If EGW, the investigative judgment, and the "Sabbath truth" are all abandoned, why not just join the local Calvary Chapel and call it a day?

The church is an END TIMES church. It is the remnant for cryin out loud! It has already been over 150 YEARS of last DAYS. As time goes by it can't help but seem more and more laughable. I'm sorry if I come off as too harsh, but I don't see a happy way to portray the future of the SDA church.

This is an interesting perspective and I'd love to explore it a bit.

All of us, including the leadership of the SDA denomination, have seen what has happened with Herbert Armstrong's denomination. Although I personally believe that they did the right thing, they do seem to be struggling with their identity now that they have set aside their distinctive doctrines. This does pose a question in my mind. Would SDAism meet a similar fate.

There may be some folks posting in this forum who better understand what is happening in Herbert Armstrong's denomination. If so, I'll certainly defer to them.

BFA

 

[Byfaithalone1]

here's another valuable insight from The Shack. I don't know how much I can literally quote from a copyrighted book, but here is a paraphrase.

Sarayu (representing the Holy Spirit) says to Mack, "Why do you think we came up with the Ten Commandments?"

Mack guesses that it is just a set of rules that humans are expected to obey in order to live righteous lives in God's good graces.

Sarayu disagrees. "If that were true, which it is not ... then how many do you think lived righteously enough to enter our good graces?"

Mack says "not very many."

Sarayu says, "Actually, only one succeeded -- Jesus." And to do that, she says, Jesus had to rest fully and dependently upon her, the Holy Spirit.

Mack next demands, "Then why did you give us those commandments?"

Sarayu says it is because "we wanted you to give up trying to be righteous on your own. It was a mirror to reveal just how filthy your face gets when you live independently."

Mack counters that he is sure they (the Trinity) know that there are many who think they are made righteous by following the rules.

Sarayu: "But can you clean your face with the same mirror that shows you how dirty you are? There is no mercy or grace in rules, not even for one mistake." She says that that is the reason why Jesus fulfilled all of the law for you, "so that it no longer has jurisdiction over you. And the Law that once contained impossible demands -- Thou Shalt Not ... -- actually becomes a promise we fulfill in you."

Sarayu continues with what, to me, seems an especially important truth, "But keep in mind," she says, "that if you live your life alone and independently, the promise is empty. Jesus laid the demand of the law to rest; it no longer has any power to accuse or command. Jesus is both the promise and its fulfillment."

Mack is astounded. "Are you saying I don't have to follow the rules?"

And here is where Galatians and the SDA church parted ways. The answer is yes, in Jesus, you are not under any law. "All things are lawful." This is the same concept found in "The Glad Tiding" by Waggoner. And the SDA church was aghast at the thought.

Mack's mind is also reeling. He moans, "You can't be serious! You're messing with me again."

"Child," interrupts Papa (God the Father), "you ain't heard nuthin' yet."

Sarayu continues, "those who are afraid of freedom are those who cannot trust us to live in them. Trying to keep the law is actually a declaration of independence, a way of keeping control."

Mack wants to know if that is why we like the law so much -- to give us some control.

Sarayu says that it is much worse than that. "It grants you the power," she says, "to judge others and feel superior to them. You believe you are living to a higher standard than those you judge. Enforcing rules, especially in its more subtle expressions like responsibility and expectation, is a vain attempt to create certainty out of uncertainty. And contrary to what you might think, I have a great fondness for uncertainty," she says. "Rules cannot bring freedom; they only have the power to accuse."

The conversation goes deeper, but when you get to the end of it, you realize that the law is not being done away with. It has its purpose and thus cannot be done away with. But when we stop living independent of a relationship with Jesus, then there is no need to worry about lawkeeping. You are safe if Jesus is living in you, for He kept the law and will keep it in you, for you.

Another interesting thought. Mack asks, "But don't you want us to set priorities? You know: God first, then whatever, followed by whatever?"

Sarayu says that the trouble with living by priorities is that it sees everything as a hierarchy, a pyramid, and if you put God at the top, what that really means is that God is only a part of your day. "How much time do you give me before you can go on about the rest of your day, the part that interests you so much more?" She asks.

Here Papa (God) interrupts and says, "You see, Mackenzie, I don't just want a piece of you and a piece of your life. Even if you were able, which you are not, to give me the biggest piece, that is not what I want. I want all of you and all of every part of you and your day."

Jesus chimes in with, "Mack, I don't want to be first among a list of values; I want to be at the center of everything...."

And the conversation goes on with more thought-provoking insights.

A really good read, this book....

A thought provoking post. Thanks for sharing it!

BFA

 

[Laodicean]

I submit that, if anyone is an outside here, it is me. It has been made very clear to me that I don't qualify as a member of this forum and that I am posting here at the mercy of SDAs. That hasn't been lost on me over the years. As far I as I'm concerned, you're immensely welcome and wanted here and I've ALWAYS felt that way --- from your very first post.

BFA

really? Other than k4c and a rare post by a couple other traditionalists, I thought this forum was pretty much run by AzA, Avonia, Stormy, Sophia, Ricker, Victor, and a few others who seem to be great supporters of you. Who are these SDAs that claim that you don't qualify as a member of this forum? I haven't seen any. Have they all fled because of a coup?

 

[ricker]

I think the reality is that the church can't outgrow any of its beliefs and still have any purpose. If EGW, the investigative judgment, and the "Sabbath truth" are all abandoned, why not just join the local Calvary Chapel and call it a day?

The church is an END TIMES church. It is the remnant for cryin out loud! It has already been over 150 YEARS of last DAYS. As time goes by it can't help but seem more and more laughable. I'm sorry if I come off as too harsh, but I don't see a happy way to portray the future of the SDA church.

I think the Adventist church could just say they believe that the Sabbath is the day we feel most comfortable worshipping on, but Sunday or other days are fine, too. They could say that EGW was an inspired writer on the level of maybe Luther, or C. S. Lewis, or whoever, but some things she said can be disregarded as influenced by her times. I'm not sure what to do about the IJ. I think that these changes would still keep Adventism distinctive, but not heretical.

Just my two cents.....

 

[k4c]

I think it's the little fox that spoils the whole vine. In other words, there are little beliefs within the whole system that act as a computer virus and slows the whole system down. Jesus tells us that a little leven, levens the whole lump.

I believe there are little beliefs within the whole that choke the freedom to express praise. Beliefs that speak against a celebration church. Beliefs that say standing, praising, clapping, dancing and lifting hands during church service are the first step to becoming a celebration church. These acts of expressing praise is what allows the Spirit to move freely within the people and the church. The problem only comes when these things become the foundation in place of the truth. I believe we can and should have both.

We need to get away from the, frozen chosen, mindset.

 

[Joe67]

The truth that our Lord Jesus told the penitent thief on the cross is our only golden opportunity.

Luke 23:43
43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. KJV

John 17:24
24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. KJV

Heb 3:13-15
13 But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.

14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;

15 While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation. KJV

Joe

 

[Byfaithalone1]

really? Other than k4c and a rare post by a couple other traditionalists, I thought this forum was pretty much run by AzA, Avonia, Stormy, Sophia, Ricker, Victor, and a few others who seem to be great supporters of you.

No. This forum is run by the administrators of Christian Forums. Victor, Sophia and others (like me) are not members of this forum because they are not Seventh-day Adventist. We post here because SDAs like AzA, Avonia and Stormy have supported our participation.

Who are these SDAs that claim that you don't qualify as a member of this forum?

They aren't SDAs. They're administrators of this forum. From their perspective, I am an outsider here.

BFA

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I think it's the little fox that spoils the whole vine. In other words, there are little beliefs within the whole system that act as a computer virus and slows the whole system down. Jesus tells us that a little leven, levens the whole lump.

I believe there are little beliefs within the whole that choke the freedom to express praise. Beliefs that speak against a celebration church. Beliefs that say standing, praising, clapping, dancing and lifting hands during church service are the first step to becoming a celebration church. These acts of expressing praise is what allows the Spirit to move freely within the people and the church. The problem only comes when these things become the foundation in place of the truth. I believe we can and should have both.

We need to get away from the, frozen chosen, mindset.

So is the opposition to the celebration movement your primary concern?

BFA

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I think the Adventist church could just say they believe that the Sabbath is the day we feel most comfortable worshipping on, but Sunday or other days are fine, too. They could say that EGW was an inspired writer on the level of maybe Luther, or C. S. Lewis, or whoever, but some things she said can be disregarded as influenced by her times. I'm not sure what to do about the IJ. I think that these changes would still keep Adventism distinctive, but not heretical.

Just my two cents.....

These are good suggestions. If SDAism were to move in the direction you've suggested, what would this do to the way the denomination views itself? The way individual SDAs view themselves? What would they lose?

BFA

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I've been reading The Shack again, by William Young. Not recommended to be read if it makes a traditionalist get up in arms over some of the concepts that are unAdventist. But if one can get past the "stumbling blocks," there are some really great insights. Here are a couple:

Mack is afraid of his emotions and tells the Holy Spirit so. The answer comes, "Emotions are the colors of the soul; they are spectacular and incredible. When you don't feel, the world becomes dull and colorless..."

Mack pleads for understanding of his emotions. The answer is, "They are neither bad nor good; they just exist." He is told that "Paradigms power perception and perceptions power emotions." A compelling explanation is given next: "Most emotions are responses to perception -- what you think is true about a given situation. If your perception is false, then your emotional response to it will be false too. So check your perceptions, and beyond that check the truthfulness of your paradigms -- what you believe. Just because you believe something firmly doesn't make it true. Be willing to reexamine what you believe. The more you live in the truth, the more your emotions will help you see clearly. But even then, you don't want to trust them more than me."

The "me" refers to the Trinity, to the Father, to Jesus, and to God's Holy Spirit.

I think that's a safe place to start searching for truth, don't you think?

Yup. Sounds like a good place to start. I wonder how many folks will experience a tinge of fear when first allowing themselves to ask the honest, open questions they may have been repressing. Will they have the courage to evaluate their sacred cows, or will they retreat to dogma? I certainly can't cast judgment. I chose dogma for a really long time.

BFA