Bringing Home Our Adventist Prodigals, I wonder if he included in his disserttion the conversion of the elder brothers? In the Parable that was the only one who remained "Lost"! The Lost Sheep was found, The Lost Coin was found, and the wayward son was found. It was the elder brother, the self-righteous Jew that were lost.

The seeking of the wayward son was solely by the Father. The churched son had no part in it, in fact he resented it deeply.

Tom

I appreciate your comments, Tom, except that the Father did not seek out the prodigal son. He welcomed him back home but did not seek him.

One Race, Indivisible.

statrei

You are correct, He constantly looked for him and ran out to meet him. The Father was proactive in the reunion was my point poorly made. Tom

Weird how quickly this blog gets off-topic! I would say congrats to Newbold and may the college long continue to truly educate for truth in a responsible and balanced way. No prizes for guessing my alma mater...

Jonathan

Jonathan

Calling young people who leave the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Prodigals, is an ad hominem and needs to be called.
The ego centricity of the dissertation title demonstrates exactly what it is self-approval. Institutional affiliation has absolutely nothing to do with Salvation. Jesus spent over three years trying to get that point across to His Jewish antogonists. Paul spent the better part of his ministry in the same effort--both paid with their lives.

Young people leave the Church of their childhood for many reasons not least of which is the hypocrisy and the out right theological error that dominate the culture.

As the father of three, uncle of 11, and grandfather of three I can tell you all 17 have removed their names from the Church books, yet maintain a Christian ethic, live within the ethos of Western Christian life, and look to Jesus Christ as their persnal Savior, plus nothing. I would venture to say that Paul Tompkins, by the time he is 55, will have rethought his premise and regret at least his title.

No sir, this blog is on target--sorry if it hurts. But Newbold should be ashamed to highlight and to send out into a sick world bigots. Certainly Jan Paulsen doesn't come across that way. He once was President of that institution. So they should know better.

Prodigal means recklessly extravagant. It should apply to those who spent the best part of their lives in a false cause. Raymand F. Cottrell would tell you as much.
Tom

Tom:

I am not an especially enthusiastic advocate of Newbold College, but it is possible that I might even end up studying there myself. These two things have nothing to do with my response to your comments, which I found somewhat underwhelming.

Language is not perfect, as those of us who work with it professionally recognise (this may well include you, Tom, for all I know). However, if a book, article or - in this case - doctoral thesis is about a specific subject, then it is pointless to begin a debate about why the work in question is not about something else. The parable is about a 'prodigal' son who came home and was in fact welcomed. What would have happened if the prodigal had returned and not been welcomed? So while you acknowledge that this first point was poorly made, we might go further and say that your first point in its entirety is in fact a non sequitur (given that you seem to like a Latin phrase or two).

You ask, disparagingly, if Paul Tompkins mentions the conversion of the elder brother. As I am sure you know, we are not told anything about what happened with the elder brother after the Father told him that he was always with him and whatever he had was his. This sounds to me like the elder brother experienced short-scale jealousy of the fuss made of the younger brother, and he was gently put into his place by the father. Now, you puport to be some kind of knowledgeable person, yet you say that the elder brother 'remained lost.' How do you prove that fact from the Word? If there is no statement regarding how the elder brother responded, what are the grounds for this statement?

Do you really expect to be taken seriously when you vilify a thesis based on its title in such an unpleasant way? Casting aspersions on both the person and on the integrity of their work which yoy make no claim to have read? This thesis was submitted for examination by a Seventh-Day Adventist to an SDA institution for a DMin degree (not the same as PhD) and was specifically about 'reclaiming' youth. That clearly indicates that the focus of the research is specific to the SDA denomination. Now, just because a person decides to do some research into the matter of how the SDA church can reclaim young people who were once part of it and have now left does not mean that the person is saying that only SDAs will be saved. Who is and is not saved and the role of denomination in that equation is an entirely separate question!

Now, you seem to have an axe to grind, and a very big chip on your shoulder. Just because all 17 of your children and grandchildren have removed their names from the church books does not mean ANYTHING regarding whether or not they are or are not saved. If these kids and grandkids of yours are really looking to Jesus as their Saviour, then they will be Biblically aware and they will recognise that one of the names of Jesus is the "Word of God." They will need to prove from the Word that leaving the SDA church is in fact in harmony with God's Word - and with His will.

Even if you disagree with the SDA church, it is reasonable that a minister in that church would be concerned about people who have left the church, having once been part of it. You are saying that in your opinion, Paul Tompkins should not do what he is doing, because people not in the SDA church are not prodigals.

That is a singularly biased point of view, but you are entitled to it. You have failed to prove that your point is in any way valid, so if you had been more respectful, I'd have taken you more seriously. But to attack a man and his work in such a way shows me more about you than it does about him. If you have 17 kids and grandkids, I beg you not to raise them to be as superficially judgemental and speciously narrow-minded as you appear to be. If you aren't what I describe, then please reply and show yourself to be more than what we've seen evidenced here so far.

Alex

You misread me, big time. The parables in Luke are a triligy. The Lost Sheep, The Lost Coin, and the Lost Son.
The sheep knew it was lost but couldn't find the way home, so the shepard went looking for the sheep and found the sheep and returned the sheep to the fold. The coin was lost but didn't even know it was lost, but the house wife looked until she found it and rejoiced over her good fortune throughout the neighborhood. The lost son knew he was lost and also knew the way home and took it. The Father welcomed him afar off and put his fine robe over the pig soiled
garments of his boy. He then arranged a celebration.

The older boy was lost but didn't even know it.

The point of the story is that the Jewish nation was the elder son.

For some reason or other the word prodigal became attached to the younger son, since he squandered his entire inheritance.

I objected to the title of the dissertation not out of anger, hate, or hurt. I objected because it just doesn't fit.
A person who leaves the Seventh-day Adventist church has no part in that triligy of Jesus. Coming back to the Seventh-day Adventist Church has no part in that triligy of Jesus. The return is to the Father not the Church.

The entire thesis is contrived out of some triumphalistic
pomposity.

If the boy's title is misplaced, then his entire thesis is
off the mark. There is a difference between evangelism and proselytizing. I refer you to Matt 23: 15 "Woe unto you, scribes and Prasisees, hypocrites for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves."

I object to the characterization of former Adventists as prodegals. They may be closer to the Lord than the writer.

I object to setting ones mind to intice someone into a sectarian mould from which they had been freed.

Why not a dissertation on The Reasons that Young People leave their church home of their family and youth? It might be some simple church corrective might be uncovered that would make the Adventist brand of Christianity a warm, loving, home from which to evangelize.

Finding the reason a child of God left the church home of their youth would be a major contribution to the church.
To label a child of God as a backslider or prodegal is to libel by label. The truth of the matter, that child may have truly found the Lord and is worshiping within another community--after all isn't that what Christ did? He formed His Church--of course He invited the Jewish leaders to follow--we know of only a few. Nicodemus, Jossph of Armatha, Paul and a few others including the 12 in the upper room on the day of Pentacost. 3000 were converted by Peter on that day--and a church was born out of Judaism into Israel--the Prince that had prevailed with God!

Certainly, the student's chief advisor was asleep at the switch when it came to chosing a title or a topic.

Could it be that young people leave the SDA Church in order to find the Truth in Christ alone, without all the O.T. baddage of Judiaism?

The fact is lots of people stay because of family and cultural reasons than for doctrine. Others stay because of fear. Some stay because they are quite comfortable with the assurannce the Church provides. Others would trade that assurance for the one Christ provides. Tom

The term "prodigal" means spendthrift, wasteful, extravagant. That has nothing to do with one's religious belief whatsoever. Just on correct English usage it is a misnomer. Even in the Bible story this is how the boy's life was lived: extravagant and wastefully.

To use it in describing someone who has walked away from a religious denomination (how else could it have been used?) is a derogatory misnomer.

Tom:

To my mind, you have amply demonstrated why a person should say less rather than more about things which they do not know about. The heart of my original response to your post was that your attack of a thesis that you have not bothered to read is not an advisable mode of behaviour for anyone. You have a very specific sense of the meaning of the word 'prodigal' that is fixed in your own head, and as far as you are concerned, if anyone uses that word in a way that you disapprove of - such as Paul Tompkins has done - then you are ready to accuse that person of libel.

I do not disagree with every word that you have said. But I do believe that the good points that you have to offer have been seriously undermined by your less-than-specific use of language and your own biases that mean that you have less regard for the Seventh-Day Adventist church as an institution than some of us.

It is of course the case that salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ - and this must involve repentance. Belief in Jesus Christ in and of itself is not enough. So yes, membership of the SDA church is not a prerequisite for salvation. Matt 23:15 is a text I know very well - and it is interesting that you mention that, given your interpretation of the parable.

You say that the elder brother was the 'Jewish nation.' Hmm. How about understanding the 'elder brother' as the scribes and Pharisees? That would me much more congruent with the beginning of the chapter, and also much more specific. Was it the whole Israelite race who rejected Jesus? No. Many people accepted John the Baptist's teaching. Many accepted Jesus' teaching. But the Scribes and Pharisees were the hypocrites to which Jesus directed much of His righteous anger - and they were the ones who took Him down in the end.Look again at Matt 23:15. Who is Jesus addresing in that verse? Yes, that's right - the scribes and Pharisees!

Now, it is true that there are many in the SDA church who are lost - and many outside who will be in heaven. But we now come to the important question of how one regards the SDA church and its mission.

Hypocrisy and outright theologcal error are found in every church - propagated by members and clergy. From what you have said, I cannot see that you are a Seventh-Day Adventist in the serious sense of the word. You are obviously happy that your kids and grandkids are no longer members of the SDA church, and you seem certain that spiritually they are better off than they were.

You know what, Tom? For all I know, that might be true for them. But I am a Seventh-Day Adventist. I am a member of that church because it is the only one that possesses a set of doctrines that are totally compatible with God's Word. I have huge problems with the way in which many of the members that I have met in several countries behave. I have huge issues with many of the pastors that I have met and listened to. But the fundamental beliefs of the SDA church remain, even if many of the church members (and clergy) appear to have rejected them.

I do not know what your denominational views or affiliations are, but I am more than happy to demonstrate my reasons for believing in the Adventist message (for want of a better phrase) using the Word. I believe that it is the true church, and if someone leaves it, then that is a serious concern for me, because it is not the church that saves - you are right - but it is the TRUTH that saves. And despite the many deficiencies in Adventism, it is still the only place to get accurate Bible teaching that provides a true picture of the personhood of God and of His saving work in the world.

You seem to believe that a prodigal is only a person who wastes their substance through reckless extravagance. That is reasonable. But by such a narrow lens, it is possible to miss the point that by rejecting a church because of the behaviour of some of its members, one can reject opportunities to grow Biblically and spiritually that would really become important in the end time. That is a tragic 'waste!' Revelation is a very serious book, and when one considers the importance of the three angels messages, and the techical meaning of all of those images in both Daniel and Revelation, then for an Adventist pastor to regard those who leave the SDA church as prodigals is not completely unreasonable. I might have preferred a less controversial word - but as a member of the same church and as someone increasingly serious about ministry, I understand why he has used that word. Paul did not write a book, or even a PhD thesis - he wrote a DMin thesis. Very different! He is not writing to people like you, Tom, who clearly don't care for the Adventist message. He is writing to those who believe as he does! So he is within his rights. There are many dangerous heresies in the Christian world, and I would be glad to see as many people as possible accept the Adventist message. That makes sense - I am an Adventist!

If you don't believe that the SDA is the true church, then of course you will be angry with such a thesis title. But then, you can only say that his title is egocentric from your own position. It is subjective. We can assume that from his efforts, he believes that he is a minister in the true church and he wants to see youth who have left come back into the church. Until we read it for ourselves, we cannot know more than that. I have friends in other denominations and they are worried for their own lost youth. They want them to 'come home' too! Now, just because I believe that the SDA church is the true church does not mean that I will accuse a Baptist who writes a book about how to reclaim former Baptist church members to the Baptist church as an egotist - even if they used the word 'prodigal.' Prodigal and lost are synonymous - literally - as different Bible translations make clear. A person can live a seemingly good life outside of the church - and if they never had the chance to know the gospel, then God will judge them according to what they did know. But God did not call us to stay in church only if we 'like it' or we find it 'convenient.' He called us to take up our cross. He designed us to live in community - otherwise we would not need a church at all! And if we love others, we are to feed the sheep. Tom, you have complained about the bad things in the SDA church. If you are not a member of the church, then I guess that makes sense. But why are you even bothering to read this blog and post anything? No one is going to change their minds about anything based on anything that you have said - because of the way you have said it!

I am not a pastor. But I spend more time than I have ever done before making contact with fellow church members - especially the newly baptised - encouraging them, studying the Bible with them, praying with them. Many have come from other faiths. I am glad that they have become members of the church. But I recognise that it is only the start. The prodigal did not make the decision to come home because he actually recognised that he had been selfish and wasteful. He made the decision because he had nothing left but the memories of home and he wanted a better brand of diet. He went home expecting to be a servant. Instead, he was restored as a son. It is rare that Adventists leave the church to discover more about God. Sometimes they may SAY that, but it is rare. They leave because their needs are not being met. But when they find little comfort elsewhere, by returning to church they give themselves a chance to returning to God Himself. So Paul is quite justified to use the word 'prodigal' in his thesis title as it is consistent with what he believes - such as we are able to ascertain from the outside.

By 'venturing to suggest that by the time he is 55 Paul Tompkins will have regretted his title' you seem to be very sure of things that you have no capacity to even know. Why call him a 'boy'? He may be the same age as you!

Tom, you say some good things, but I did not misread you - I read you correctly the first time. Even if you say that you only object to the thesis title because you do not think he should have used the word 'prodigal' to describe those who leave the Adventist church - and I would say that there is SOME merit in your argument - you could have found a more gentle way to make this point without casting aspersions on Paul's character when you do not know the man. How have you shown yourself to be a less egocentric and more loving Christian by writing and accusing him in this way?

Alex.

Alex

I am happy for you that you can be so simple minded and seem to enjoy it.

I am sad that you feel it is your duty to denegrate anyone who doesn't believe as you do. That is typical of the triumphalism of self righteousness of little minds.

The title alone is enough to pass judgment--since it was/is a derogatory labeling of anyone who is no longer a registered member of the SDA Church.

You should be ashamed of yourself. Even Jesus said, " Other sheep have I!"

You are wordy but carry little weight in the explanation of Scripture or academics. To allow a kid to attempt a disseration by labeling his subjects as prodigal is bias from the get go--certainly not academic caliber.

The question should have been:
Title:
The principal reasons young people leave the SDA Church.

Subtitle:
Several suggestions on how to bring them back, not as sheep without a shepard, but as Christians whose shepard is the Lord.

Let the labeling to the bloggers like you. Tom

Wow. I've just realised that I've seen your names (Tom Zwemmer & Elaine) elsewhere on blog responses. And there are some recurring themes for you, Elaine - you are consistently anti-Adventist. That is absolutely your prerogative, but quite why you spend so much time up here on Spectrum when you never seem to ever say anything positive is a mystery to me. It is not an important mystery - you just keep on.

Elaine, if you are seriously expecting anyone who has actually read the Bible and takes it seriously to believe that the sole reason for the word 'prodigal' being used is to talk about the wasteful extravagance of the younger son - and nothing more - then I struggle to take what you say seriously. What would be the point of the parable?

If the only problem with the son was that he wasted his inheritance, then that would be a lesson in stewardship. The younger son recklessly abused the love of the father and demonstrated great selfishness in the process. Sounds like the fifth commandment hasn't exactly been kept there either!

I have given too much time to this as it is. You guys enjoy yourselves. I need to get back to my own priorities and leave this kind of debate alone. Have a nice day!

Alexander
I appreciate how you are able to lay your points out in a thoughtful way.
Bloviating seems to be part of the retirement program here.
Sorry you were unaware.

Alex

Ido have a couple of suggestions for the graduate student:

!. If you want to bring young people back into the Church avoid Alexander Douglass and Michael and their ilk.

2. Read everything you can get your hands on by Dr. Edward Heppenstall, A. Graham Maxwell, and Alden Thompson. Read everything yu can written by Dr. John R. W. Stott. Don't read any compliations of E.G.White prepared by the White Estate. If you must: read Desire of Ages
and the last chapter of Steps to Christ on prayer--the rest is do it yourself bunk. Christ took the steps toward you--accept Him right where you are!! Read the Hound of Heaven by Francis Thompson--the endless effort of God to reach man.

By all means read Romans, Ephesians, Galatians, and Hebrews

Alex: I don't hate Adventists. I just dispise Adventist apologists with pens of acid. If you represent Christ--I can understand the wholesale stampede away from Chrstianity by young folks. Thet aren't prodigal they are just too smart to be taken in by the sophistry of Revelation Seminars and the tirades of the self righteous.

Believe it or not, there are real Christians out there--happy to accept even you and Michael as brands saved from the burnings. Just put down your sandbox sanctuary and bury all your Red Books. Walk outside, Breath the fresh air, and Thank God for His Son and your Redeemer. Remember in that day there will be only sheep and goats--God makes that choice not some graduate student with a poor excuse for a mentor. Tom
Tom

I am embarrassed for you Tom,
Much you write smacks of arrogance anyone reading this blog will surely identify which posts are truely the tirades of the self righteous.
Your comments on this topic especially are a new low for you.

Please respond in your typical pot calling the kettle black style and prove my point.

Michael

I feel very sorry for you. Tom