Thank you for this post. As you say, assuming the facts are accurate, it is very disturbing to see the lengths that people will go to mislead. I understand the idea of avoiding building unnecessary barriers before a person is able to make an intelligent decision about the content (thus keeping the name Seventh-day Adventist out of advertisements), but this is too far.

One might expect a commercial advertisment to use the "bait-and-switch" technique, but when a religion resorts to such ulterior means to reach its objective (more people dunked), it becomes a religious scam and should be exposed.

Evidently, these guys are taught this method either in SDA colleges, the Seminary, or simply just following the lead set by all the evangelists before them. To be ashamed of one's faith, is to lack integrity, and when one has no integrity, he has absolutely nothing worthwhile left.

That is only one, but a major reason, that many of us who have chosen to sever our relationship with the Adventist church is because of their very devious methods of winning new members.

A disclaimer of "if the Hearlds coverage is accurate.." and a web statement from the Rev. saying, "it was obvious that Steve hated him" is not the best and most complete version of this story.
Did you contact Steve and get the other side before drawing your conclusions and posting this?
This artical is full of assumptions and hearsay from the 60 some people baptized to whatever this Steve might be doing. The assumptions may in fact turn out to be true but it definitly has the flavor of rushing into print.

I believe the concept could be addressed without the speculation.

Elaine,

As the final quarter of my seminary experience, I took a course at the Lake Union's center for evangelism in Chicago. There we studied with Mark Finley, and worked with him through a series of meetings. I never heard Mark say that you should deny your denominational affiliation when asked, and claim to be interdenominational instead. As Shawn said, perhaps not naming the church in the advertising can be excused (though I question that, too). But what this man is doing goes beyond anything I learned in evangelism class.

It would be interesting to hear from a professional evangelist on Mr. DeLong.

I'm thinking that he'd better come clean before the rooster crows a second time!

Loren

Is it possible that one reason Steven DeLong is does not admit that he is a Seventh-day Adventist evangelist is that in fact he isn't one?

Has anyone looked in the current Seventh-day Adventist Yearbook to see if he is an official commissioned, liscensed or ordained minister in our denomination?

Is it possible that we should take seriously the Pastor of the local SDA church who reportedly says he knew nothing about this evangelist before he was contacted by him?

Should we give any credence to this evangelist when he reportedly says that he used to be a Seventh-day Adventist?

Should we give any consideration to the fact that the term "Seventh-day Adventist" is an official trademark that the denomination's lawyers protect in order to distinguish it in situation's like this?

Is there any reason to suppose that this evangelist knows that the minute he wrongly uses the term "Seventh-day Adventist" he will be sued by the denomination?

I don't know the answer to these questions; however, I think it might be helpful to clarify these things before we draw our conclusions.

One other thing: Might we not want to hesitate before stating or implying that the evangelist who held meetings in that area thirty years ago is representatative of all SDAs evangelists?

As a son of a long time SDA evangelist I can tell you that he wasn't.

My father never baptized one person who came to his meetings. He left that wholly to the discretion of the pastor who baptized each candidate himself. He was not alone in this.

Many thanks!

Dave

My questions exactally David.
Ron Gladden and company is an example of this possibly.

Should not one preach Jesus Christ and Him Crucified rather than trying to define the anti-christ?

Spending all one's time on who the devil is, while all the world wonders, who the devil the evangelist thinks he is: is not evangelism or truth.

There is no there there, that is for sure! Maybe he is a dunkard--at least he appears all wet if the press has him pegged.

Wish the story was an exception rather than the rule. It certainly is the rule in these parts. Tom

P. S. Many years ago, we had an visiting evangelist in our home for Sabbath dinner. Following dinner, he and I took a walk around our 6 acre horse farm. In the course of conversation, I asked a few questions regarding his presentations. His response was: "Tom it is best not to ask too many questions. At the end of the series, he ran off with one of his converts leaving a wife and children to the conference, a conference that sent most of its reserve funds to Davenport. Then we spend our time trying to define the beast and his mark! Even Jesus is known to have wept. Tom

This is a shoddily produced article. It has raised more questions than answers in the various assumptions which have been allowed to give the story substance. Why has the author not checked with the SDA yearbook - that would be the easiest and most sensible thing to do? quite candidly the article would never pass as newscript on either the BBC or channel 4 in the UK - and I am no defender of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

It's always good to try to verify with the individual, and I agree that there is a bit more conjecture than necessary in this piece. Unfortunately, I suspect that it's still true.

The yearbook site seems to be down at the moment, but a quick Google search turned up an article in a 2005 Pacific Union Recorder about a Steve Delong evangelistic series for Native Americans (uses the same picture as Delong's website does):
http://www.pacificunionrecorder.com/105/5/25763.html

Evangelist Steve DeLong Brings Christ to the Navajo Nation
By Bob Parrish

Until the beginning of January, Leo and Leoleen Yazzi knew nothing about the Seventh-day Adventist Church. They live in a remote Navajo town in northeast Arizona called Mexican Water, about 90 minutes from the nearest church.

During the month of February, they received a handbill in the mail for a prophecy seminar in Chinle, Ariz., with evangelist Steve DeLong.

"We felt that our church wasn’t teaching us the right way from God’s Word," they recalled.

"We have tried other churches, but didn’t feel that we were learning the Bible like we should. When the prophecy seminar brochure came in the mail, we decided to check it out."

The young family drove three hours, round-trip, with their four children to attend the meetings each evening and only missed three of the 21 nights. At the end of the Chinle series, they were baptized along with 33 other Native Americans who accepted Christ as their personal Savior and followed His example in baptism.

We are convinced that right now there is an immediate harvest just waiting for us on each of Arizona’s reservations. We are helping them become grounded in the truth by providing each new group with a DVD player and the "New Beginnings" evangelistic programs.
As they read the scripts and show the pictures on their own TVs to their family and neighbors, they will grow spiritually and will be reaching out to their fields of harvest in a way that possibly nobody else could.

With God’s blessing, we are looking forward to the possibility of building three new churches among our Native Americans in Arizona.
..................end article.

Hi Tom!

Although it is always good to read what you write, I benefited more from your post at 1:56 than the one at 2:03!

Your story about the SDA evangelist who ran off with one of his converts is as colorful as all your others. But I'm not certain how far to generalize it.

I am unable to determine this because I don't know if this evangelist is the only member of your sample. Neither do I know how large your population is. So I'm left a little perplexed.

Meanwhile, move over Elmer Gantry! Hit the road "Leap of Faith!"

All the best!

Dave

DeLong came to this city about 3 years ago with the same approach reported in the article.

The process was repeated practice for practice with another local, credentialed minister last year. The local minister began the seminar in the name of his own "independent ministry" -- that is, until halfway through the meetings when all attendees and "friends of the church" received a letter on denominational letterhead inviting them to continue the sessions at the church compound. Regional college theology and evangelism students assisted pre- and post-series. The operation is much more accepted and institutionally integrated than we may wish it to be.

I, like thousands of my neighbors, received a pretty, glossy handbill in my mailbox, saw the familiar Daniel statue on the front, looked in vain for the church logo, name, or affiliation, and felt torn.
Helped for one night off-site but found the ethical issues insurmountable, not least when I was told not to say which church I was affiliated with, and to direct all answers to one person, the speaker. I will never do it again.

Disgusting?

Yes

Suprising?

Not if you have been invovled with one of the traveling prophecy shows.

Dave

To the best of my recollection during the 20 plus years at the Augusta SDA church (counting pastors, evangelists, and Week of Prayer guest ministers) four out of about 30 left under a cloud of sexual impropriety. During that same period 3 of my graduate students out of about 30 had their marriages end because of sexual improprieties, two of which were SDA's.

Now the good news. We lived in Columbia County about 11 miles from the University. Rick Rice's parents lives three houses from ours. The rural postoffice was about 600 sq feet. My wife and Rick's mother would often go to the postoffice to pick up mail, send registered mail etc. Both families subscribed to the Review, Southern Tidings, Ministry, Life and Health, Liberty mag. The postmaster was so impressed with the friendly, civil encounters with both women that he began to read the mag. that each family received. He was an elder in the local Methodist church. He liked what he read and he was impressed with the Christian manner of the two women.

The Augusta Church had a evangelistic series, in which they sent a mailer to each SDA family and others. The post master read the flyer. He asked Mrs Rice where the SDA church was located. He and his wife attended every service and were baptized along with their older children. Unfortunately the postmaster died early in life. However, 36 years later the wife is still a very active member in the Augusta SDA church.

Edgar Guest said it best: "I'd rather see a sermon than hear one any day!" Tom

Obviously not every SDA evangelist has shed their deceptive mantle of denominational independence. Take a look at Kenneth Cox's home page:

http://www.kennethcoxministries.org/

It is obvious that one of the main objectives of his web page is to conceal his Adventist identity (unless, of course, he is the Gantry character of Tom's story and really is independent).

Deception seems to have been Cox's m.o. from the beginning. I ran into his show in the spring of 1982 when his campaign came to Chattanooga, Tenn. The town was blanketed by flyers advertizing the ringmaster himself and his traveling theological circus--all endorsed by four individuals labelled "Catholic", "Baptist" etc.

Young and impetuous as I was, I dashed off a letter to the Chattanooga Times in which I exposed the entire operation as a covert proselytizing campaign paid for by the SDA church. The letter, framed on Op-Ed page, was published on the Friday before the campaign was kicked off, and predictably it set off a firestorm of anguish in local SDA churches assisting the Cox machine. (As always, the innocent are the ones who suffer.)

It got worse. A friend of mine, with more intestinal fortitude than I had, organized a group of picketing protesters in front of the
theater on the opening night, advising people that "This is a covert Adventist recruitment campaign" or words to that effect.

The campaign was no great success, to put it mildly. Cox baptized the local children and headed for Albaquerque with his apocalyptic freak-show.

I don't understand why the SDA church apparently still puts up with these Gantry characters and tactics. Deception is another word for "lie" and I don't quite undestand why it is admissible to lie to promote the truth.

The classic SDA slur against the Catholic church was that it believed the ends justified the means. Today we might call that "projection".

It's sad when bitter people feel the personal need to "save" the public from the horrors of an evangelistic series by writing the newspaper and picketing. Like they wont be told about the denomination sooner or later.
There is no lie or deception about it. There is so much information to cover with someone with a non church background, you cant just give them a phonebooks worth in the advertizement or on opening night.
Even in the case of Steve DeLong here, people raise the red herring of full disclosure on the print media. A denomination is only a label for a set of beliefs. If you look on Steves web page there is a set of beliefs.

An example that Spectrumites might grasp would be;
Elaine not being able to talk to anyone about Christ because she doesnt have a denomination she can tell them she adheres to the belief set up front.

Tom

Thanks for the numbers! Looks like the SDA minsters had a sexual integrity failure rate of 13% while that of the graduate students was 10%.

I wonder how these numbers compare with the population as a whole. I'm not trying to give you a hard time, just curious. Someone out there must have the numbers!

Aage

Thank you for exposing the true nature of the Kenneth Cox crusade in Chattangooga in 1982. If more of us did that it might stop.

So far I've tried without succcess to figure out who this Steve DeLong is. I hope that those who have the facts--and they have to be facts--will inform the newspaper in Grand Fork because its people rightly seem to want to know.

In addition, I hope that someone(s) will follow the evangelistic trail of Kenneth Cox and company and inform the media--newspapers, radio talk shows, etc--whereever he goes of his true identity, unless he does so at the outset.

Once again, we can spend our lives moaning and groaning about such things or we can do something about them. I say get busy!

Thank you!

Dave

Hi!

I just emailed the following to Kenneth Cox Ministries from its web site:

"Greetings!

So far on this web site I have found no explanation of the relationships between Kenneth Cox ministries and the Seventh-day Adventist denomination. As a SDA who hopes that my church's representatives will not conceal their true identies from the public, I would appreciate any information you can share. Thank you!

David R. Larson
Loma Linda, California"

I'm doing my part, I hope you do yours!

Thanks!

Dave

I just left a telephone message about Loren's column and thread for Stephen J. Lee at the Grand Forks Herald.

I don't know if next week he will take an interest in what we are discussing; however, I thought I'd give it a try.

We have more levers than we sometimnes think. It's better to pull them than to complain and do nothing.

Many thanks!

Dave

Dave

The sample size would not be statistically significant. I bet both sets represent the population as a whole but that would be a guess. My point was these evangelists and their sponsors present themselves as of a higher breed and their message as straight from God. While their use of Daniel and Revelation comes from an untutored New England mind set.

Their style is 99.44% fear mongering and .56 % Christianity. Tom

It's sad when bitter people feel the personal need to "save" the public from the horrors of an evangelistic series by writing the newspaper and picketing. Like they wont be told about the denomination sooner or later.
There is no lie or deception about it. There is so much information to cover with someone with a non church background, you cant just give them a phonebooks worth in the advertizement or on opening night.
Even in the case of Steve DeLong here, people raise the red herring of full disclosure on the print media. A denomination is only a label for a set of beliefs. If you look on Steves web page there is a set of beliefs.

An example that Spectrumites might grasp would be;
Elaine not being able to talk to anyone about Christ because she doesnt have a denomination she can tell them she adheres to the belief set up front.

Posted by: Michael | 23 August 2008 at 9:38

*******
Michael. Seriously?

Yes, seriously.
An account discribed as "the ringmaster and his traveling theological circus" shows a certain amount of bias wouldnt any sensable person agree?

I am sure the newspaper was shocked that Christians "proselytize". WHODA THUNKIT?

Someone should really look up the definition of disciple.

dis·ci·ple (d-spl)
n.
1.
a. One who embraces and assists in spreading the teachings of another.
b. An active adherent, as of a movement or philosophy.
2. often Disciple One of the original followers of Jesus.
3. Disciple A member of the Disciples of Christ.

Thanks for bringing this interesting story to light, Loren.

This is certainly a familiar scenario. I resist the urge to relate some of the hilarious/deplorable gimmicks we experienced in our local church a few years ago. What is of relevance is that otherwise intelligent church members who I respect had no qualms about going along with the plan to disguise our church building (which was called a "prophecy auditorium"). They covered up the church sign and removed the hymnals from the pews.

It's hard to blame one particular person. The conference has a mandate to evangelize. This pastor was following orders. Good church members want to be helpful. I believe that this these sort of things represent the failure of church members to show the courage of Aage and help career churchmen stay honest. David's right, we do have work to do.

I looked up David's reference to Elmer Gantry--looks like good reading for the next time this problem flares up.

Blake Laing

Also, how strange that our culture does not naturally question using deceptive methods and the language of domination ("winning souls") to share the evangel message of freedom and communion?

Before the Grand Forks, North Dakota crusade began, the local newspaper advertised the toll-free phone number to reserve a seat. I dialed the number and the guy answering the phone wanted to know if he could reserve a seat for me. I asked him if the speaker was a Seventh-day Adventist minister. He said it appeared that the speaker is interdenominational according to his information.

I accused him of outright lying to me (thinking he was perhaps the local Adventist pastor or a zealous lay member). However, he then explained to me that he was merely an employee of a professional answering service based in Oregon. Wow, I then felt bad and apologized to him. I told him how the Seventh-day Adventist Church was using him to deceive the public. He was most grateful for my informing him of the true nature of these meetings. He had no idea that he was being manipulated to hide the truth about Adventism.

Dennis Fischer
E-mail: dfministries@gmail.com

Michael, you said, "A denomination is only a label for a set of beliefs," and further described "full disclosure" as a red herring. Are you also serious about that?

If so, do you discourage the GC from suing other Christian groups who wish to use the label "Seventh-day Adventist"?
And when people at your workplace inquire which denomination you're affiliated with and where you attend church, do you provide a clear and unambiguous answer, or do you say, "Never you never mind: I'm a disciple"?

How do you understand the instruction to "Let your 'No' mean 'No' and your 'Yes' mean 'Yes'"? Do you see any conflict between teaching about the validity of the entire 10 commandments and the well-intentioned undermining of the fourth -- while using tactics that, though well-intentioned, undermine the ninth? When the name of the church was selected precisely so that it would articulate the denomination's "distinctive message," what do you perceive as the gain in dissembling about it?

And finally, how do you customarily respond to prospective members who have been attending, so they think, a neutral and non-denominational meeting for an entire week, but are suddenly find that that is not the case, and the nice, smiling non-denominational people do in fact belong to a denomination but would not tell them so when they asked?

The Georgia-Cumberland Conference evangelism website lists Pastor DeLong as a "Contract Evangelist." http://www.gccsda.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=637

The Georgia-Cumberland Conference website states that:

"The mission of our church within this conference is to proclaim the gospel of salvation in the context of Revelation 14:6-12. Every church, every school, and every conference ministry plays a role in accomplishing that end. Consequently, evangelism is at the root of all we do."

If that is the "Good News" to proclaim "All those who worship the beast ....will be tortured in the presence of the holy angels and the Lamd and the smoke of their torture will go up for ever and ever. There will be no respite, night or day

then please spare me, that good news is definitely "Not Good." John 3:16 WOULD be Good News.

KM,
The part I discribe as a red herring is the assertion that someone is being sold a bill of goods as if they would go to all the meetings, be baptized and not told into what. And that this is all made possible just because we dont put SDA all over the flyers.
I think we all agree that the INTENT is ONLY to remove intital preconceptions someone might have against the Adventist church.
Therefore the "saviour" personalities who rush out and write the newspapers and picket are saving people from what?
Their preconceptions the first few nights?
They act like people are being invited to a dinner party on a boat when actually they are being Shanghi'd into slavery against their will with no hope of escape.

You ask many good questions and make good points. I am only asking for a little dose of reality.

I have done literally dozens of public evangelism campaigns and the situation comes up. We will try to give general answers on the first few nights but even then if someone is "on a mission" to determine your label before even hearing the first word, we tell them, sort of seperating the trivially curious from the crusading zealots.
Does this sound like something requiring air raid sirens and demonstrations in the street?
As to the worksite interations you mention. Since they are personal conversations made on a level of friendship and religious conversation I always say I am an Adventist.
This also goes for everyone personally invited to a series. They know it is Adventist because their adventist friends have told them about it and invited them. Their preconceptions are already favorable since the personal evangelism has already been done.
Therefore, the only ones affected by the practice are the ones who have no background or Adventist friends and they come from the radio spots or print media.

I find it wildly ironic that the same people who decry the SCC evangelism efforts, citing the fact that no one comes from the mass mailings and radio spots anyway, think they need to write the papers and "save" them from the horrible fate of their preconceptions for a couple nights.

If they really believed that no one came from the mass media anyway who do they think they are saving?

I find this whole article incredible. You claim to be an SDA pastor and add weight of possible impropriety claimed by a Catholic priest who naturally would not be happy about an evangelistic series by relating an even more incredible series of events that you supposedly witnessed thirty years ago? You add more fodder on a public forum so that people who already have a prejudice against the SDA church can use to bolster the idea that it is something to avoid at all costs.Don't you have anything better to do?

Michael -- this isn't the first time I've sensed you and Elaine battle it out through the back door; and while I understand we're all family here and siblings are allowed to butt heads, it does overflow and occasionally detracts from the substance of the discussion. Clearly you also object to Aage's approach; all well and good. Perhaps you might also clarify your degree of comfort with the issue of institutional deception even if you can't consent to how she handled the situation in her area several years ago. For it's the twinned question of endorsed deception and credibility today that we're looking at here, isn't it?

You've said you don't obscure your identity as an individual Adventist Christian, and you raised "preconceptions" as a rationale so let's look at that. Remember that we're not talking about national meetings. We're talking about local meetings in somebody's neighborhood, the area around the church compound. What should be happening in that area is that the church should know its neighbors and our neighbors should know us. Not because we park in their driveways without permission or because our PA systems are overly loud on Wednesdays, Saturdays, and the occasional Friday and Sunday night, but because we're those nice people who hand out food on Tuesdays, will watch the kids on Thursdays, support the elderly as needed, clean yards on Sundays, help someone stop smoking, be available to talk and pray, refer folks to a good counselor, crisis shelter, doctor, and dentist...

Hang me for my idealism. Perhaps we are not communally engaged, and people don't know us. Perhaps they do know of David Koresh and Strong City and a few rabid vegans. Perhaps they have seen the amusingly closeted Adventist character on Gilmore Girls, have heard of a B-list musician's long-abandoned Adventist heritage, or have had run-ins with a few extremists who don't look or sound as normal as you or me. Those are the people who help to form negative public prejudgments if there are any. If the name "Seventh-day Adventist" is mud, what are we doing to clean it?

Even your explanation of why you personally don't obscure your identity suggests the flaw in the institutional practice: you don't even think of hiding your name or affiliation when people know who you are. You don't do it because they know who you are. That we feel we have to hide suggests we have significant f2f issues to address in our local communities -- and no amount of public relations occlusion will help us correct that. It only makes it worse.

I don't want to use the "c-word" -- but that's the very word nonAdventist ministers use when counseling their congregants about the tactics of grievous wolves... tactics inclusive of this one. I really wish we would rethink this.

Dan

Thanks for the link to the Georgia-Cumberland Conference. I just emailed the following:

"Greetings GCC!

I understand that from this web site that Steve DeLong is a "contract evangelist" with the Georgia-Cumberland Conference.

Yet it is reported that he is less than candid with the public regarding his relationships with your conference. Also, so far I have not been able to find his name in the Seventh-day Adventist Yearbook as a minister in good and regular standing.

I will be grateful for anything you can share with me and my colleagues that will reduce our perplexity about these two matters. Thank you!

David R. Larson
Loma Linda, California

We all have a responsibility to guard the good reputation of our denomination. Thanks for making this easier!

Dave

Tom, whatever the deficiencies of Seibold's article, no-naming is an endorsed practice in several NAD conferences including one of my local ones.

KM,
I dont know what your talking about with Elaine. She was not in any of my thoughts in any of this discussion except for when I was looking for a example of someone not being allowed to talk about Jesus without declaring themselves by belief in a denominational label first just like some were suggesting Steve DeLong shouldnt. I dont agree with either premise.

When you state,"you don't even think of hiding your name or affiliation when people know who you are. You don't do it because they know who you are."

I percieve it more in terms of the media. Letting others define you. Whether by preconception, former experience with 1 grumpy member, or by a disgruntled former member with other issues.

Timespan is part of the formula isnt it? We are only talking about the first couple of meetings in my experience. Usually the Sabbath is approached first around meeting 4 or so.
When the disciples asked Christ who he was, his answer was evasive. "Who do men say that I am?" Does that mean he was deceptive and a liar?

To often I have heard this subject framed in caricture on this thread.
Here is an example:
"I accused him of outright lying to me (thinking he was perhaps the local Adventist pastor or a zealous lay member). However, he then explained to me that he was merely an employee of a professional answering service based in Oregon. Wow, I then felt bad and apologized to him. I told him how the Seventh-day Adventist Church was using him to deceive the public. He was most grateful for my informing him of the true nature of these meetings. He had no idea that he was being manipulated to hide the truth about Adventism."

What are the unfounded assertions here?
"I told him how the Seventh-day Adventist Church was using him to deceive the public."
To what end? How were they "using him"? Taking reservations is now a complicit event in some supposed crime?
"He had no idea that he was being manipulated to hide the truth about Adventism."
Really? The "truth" of Adventism is the use of labeling in print media?

Most of this stuff is right out of urban legends and conspiracy theory's.

Again, I'm just looking for a little reality here and I am not saying there arent Evangelists out there who go to far with the practice IMO.
I am just saying that the retoric and whistle blowing is not in proportion to the "danger".

Do you have a problem with the practice as I described how I have used it in my last post? Both the how and the why?

Thanks

I am a convert from the Baptist Church, and I find this deceptive method of hiding the identity of the sponsoring organization to be offensive. I was well aware of the basic Adventist teachings well before I made the change, but I delayed it because as a Christian I could not identify myself with an organization which resorted to such unethical practices. It wasn't until I came across an Adventist congregation which eschewed such practices that I felt comfortable joining.

The argument is used that we must hide our identity at the beginning because prejucice aginst our church would keep people from coming to the meetings. Did you ever consider the possibility that it is these very same practices which build up there "preconcieved notions" about our church? I know several anti-Adventists who started attending such series, and then were turned off when they found out the denomination of the sponsoring group.

And, yes, this still happens today. Recently the local Adventist church near where I live sponsored such a series, and the evangelist strictly instructed the church volunteers to refuse to identify their denominational affiliataion.

Why can't we be open and above board and state our denominationasl affiliation? Yes, I am sure some people will not come if they know in advance that is being sponsored by Seventh-day Adventists, but we will hold on to a larger percentage of those who do attend, plus there won't be as many people who have negative views of the Adventist Church.

Henry

I believe the term for this method is chicanery.

It is a very fascinating phenomena indeed while under a conviction to bring truth to the less enlightened it becomes ethical to deceive or at least cloak the blatant.

"I know several anti-Adventists who started attending such series, and then were turned off when they found out the denomination of the sponsoring group."

Henry,
It sounds like they were Anti even before the meetings. If so, at least they had a chance to hear a couple meetings before their preconceptions were activated. And isnt that the point?

"Recently the local Adventist church near where I live sponsored such a series, and the evangelist strictly instructed the church volunteers to refuse to identify their denominational affiliataion."

How long Henry? The first night? The whole series? I think it makes a difference.

"Did you ever consider the possibility that it is these very same practices which build up there "preconcieved notions" about our church?"

Is it your contention that these preconcieved notions are birthed from a lack of the SDA logo on mass mailings?

In my experience these preconceptions are made up from experiences with particular individuals and the SDA attack sites on the web. I have had many people tell me how hesitant they were about interacting with Adventists because when they went online to find out about them the Ex Adventist websites outnumbered the others 10-1 or, how they had met a joyless Bible thumping one and they measured all others the same. They were glad to find out that was not the case.

Type in Ex Methodist or Ex Lutheran in google and see what you find.
I only found 1 on the first page. In the artical he ask's; "Something that I would really like to know is, are there others who went through Wesley College or its predecessor, Westminster College, who have cast off the chains of religious belief?"

Not so with Ex SDA's. The first page is full of them.
Whats the difference?

Michael, maybe the answer is chicanery.

Michael,

The denominational identity wasn't revealed until about the eighth meeting. In my experiences, many of the people who have developed negative feelings towards the Adventist Church after attending these meetings where the denominational identity was not revealed until part way through the series knew nothing about Adventism before that time. In fact, some of these people never heard of the Adventist Church before they started attending. Much of this activity occured before the prolifferation of anti-anykind of websites.

More than one person has linked these evangelistic methods to Amway's technique in recruiting home marketing sales personnel.

Henry

Michael says, "he Ex Adventist websites outnumbered the others 10-1"

I don't see that. Here are some Google results:

"ex-Lutheran": 1,780
"ex-Methodist": 2,720
"ex-Orthodox": 3,230
"ex-Adventist": 6,390
"ex-Baptist": 25,300
"ex-Catholic": 71,900
"ex-Mormon": 161,000

On the other hand, if you change the terminology to "former" you get this with Google:

"former Adventist" 3,900
"former Orthodox" 9,200
"former Lutheran" 14,400
"former Methodist" 32,600
"former Mormon" 33,900
"former Baptist" 56,200
"former Catholic" 151,000

It seems to me that these misinformative PR schemes are an attempt to shortcut the long, hard work of gaining the goodwill of a community. In fact, they only serve to reinforce the stereotype of Adventists as a dangerous, cultic sect with something to hide. It can take years of community service to undo the damage done by this type of evangelism.

Those of us claim to heed the Spirit of Prophecy must follow "Christ's method" or we will loose credibility. Do we remember it? Hint: Step 1 is not, "Obfuscate your identity so they'll give you a fair hearing."

"Christ's method alone will give true success in reaching the people. The Savior mingled with men as one who desired their good. He showed his sympathy for them, ministered to their needs, and won their confidence. Then He bade them, 'Follow Me.' (Ministry of Healing 143)"

David Hamstra
apokalupto

Sorry Bill.
I didnt mean to infer the ratios of Ex Adventist to other religions when I wrote that part.
I was intending to covey Ex-Adventist to positive Adventist websites when one was searching for info on Adventists.
Type in Seventh Day Adventist in google and then go through and see which are anti or ex and which are positive.

Henry,
Ive heard the Amway thing too and it really does bother me that it is true to a point. I think the 8th meeting is way too long for someone dying to know. We tell the very insistant when they ask.

"Christ's method alone will give true success in reaching the people. The Savior mingled with men as one who desired their good. He showed his sympathy for them, ministered to their needs, and won their confidence. Then He bade them, 'Follow Me.' (Ministry of Healing 143)"

David Hamstra
apokalupto

Posted by: David Hamstra | 24 August 2008 at 7:21

You discribe personal evangelism beautifully. We are talking about Public evangelism and specifically those who come from mass media.

Michael:

It's Ellen's description, and if public evangelism isn't built on personal evangelism, the best advertising there is, it won't bring "true success". Her words, not mine.

David Hamstra
apokalupto

"You describe personal evangelism beautifully. We are talking about Public evangelism and specifically those who come from mass media."

Classic double talk.

At issue is still cloaking the blatant or at the least, a slick sales gimmick . I would encourage anyone to walk away from such tactics. In fact if the local church here launches an endeavor with these tactics again I will walk out the door. It is not a good situation to be asked by acquaintances why my church isn't up front about seminars we put on. How does one explain we're actually really good people but we have to trick others into hearing us.

Above there was given a definition of a disciple. I recall a story about Peter when he was reticent to reveal his association. It is always related as a negative.

KM

The Tom you address is not this Tom. My post always carrymy full name. Tom

Loren, I hope you'll carry on this discussion in your Best Practices newsletter. This is an important discussion that I think needs to take place in a forum where we can keep the medium (unethical practices) separate from the message.

I believe we need to do public evangelism--it goes back to Jesus, Peter, and Paul, after all. But we need to be upfront from the start; and I think that if we believe what we're saying, we won't play any games. We aren’t selling used cars or brushes or home cleaning supplies–we’re sharing the good news of Jesus Christ, and the truth of his word.

Now, does this mean we put the most controversial teachings up front? No. We start where we have common ground, in both public and personal evangelism. With other Christians, our witness should start with Jesus Christ, and our common hope. With non-Christians, I think we can start with the human longing for relationships that last, for meaning, for spirituality. That's what I like about Mike Tucker's "HeartQuest" series.

I suspect the nameless approach goes back in the days when the hardest opposition to SDA evangelism came from groups like the Church of Christ, and the evangelist might find himself preached against, picketed, run out of town, or the like.

We can learn from the experience of other denominations. When Catholicism was new in this country, "parish missions" were insider affairs, focused on stirring up the faithful; they used lots of Catholic insider language, ceremonies, ritual, etc. When the first Catholic evangelists started public evangelism of non-Catholics, they put this aside. Isaac Hecker, founder of the Paulists, took off his collar, held meetings in theaters instead of churches, gave lectures about "questions of the soul," and presented unique Catholic teachings late in the program. See my article, The History of the Parish Mission.

Michael:

It's Ellen's description, and if public evangelism isn't built on personal evangelism, the best advertising there is, it won't bring "true success". Her words, not mine.

David Hamstra
apokalupto

Posted by: David Hamstra | 24 August 2008 at 7:43

You get 1000% agreement from me on that! Not only that but those attending a seminar from a personal invitation already know its an Adventist message.

Bill,
Enjoyed your comments and perspective.
HeartQuest is a great program.
I also was blessed by your webpage.

I'm certainly late to this interesting discussion!

This article describes the same manner, tactics, and problems that I personally encountered when my local church sponsored a public evangelism series given by Steve DeLong almost nine years ago. At the time, he was still with Amazing Facts.

We were of course told to obfuscate our denominational identity, something that was very distasteful for many members. At the time, we went along for the "greater good." In hindsight, we should have stood our ground and demanded a change of tactics.

Also, the same abrupt, impersonal, insensitive manner that is described by the Catholic priset in his encounter with said evangelist, describes what questioners, fellow workers, and even local pastors experienced with him nine years earlier. Apparently, not much has changed.

By the third night, the pope was identified as the Beast of Revelation. Before salvation by faith through grace was even on the horizon. Before Christ, and his death and resurrection were ever focused on. In fact, I only remember the good news of forgiveness of sins and salvation as a free gift being central at the end of one meeting. Once in five weeks!

A close aunt, who is Catholic, attended the third meeting, and came away shaking her head with what she felt was the negativity of the message. Needless to say, she wasn't darkening the door after that, as was the case with a good portion of the audience.

I'm not saying that there is not the time or place to focus on difficult aspects of truth. But the third meeting?? What ever happened to the idea of first building bridges, or sharing common ground? The local church could not cover that type of work in such a short alloted prep time, and over the vast amount of area codes to which the publicity mailings went.

From my other experiences with Adventist pulic evangelism, and from what many here are describing, this doesn't seem to be an isolated phenomenon (minus the negative personality issues). For me, the whole idea of the traveling professional coming to town and "pitching a tent" for 3-5 weeks, speaks of a bygone era. Most people in this day and age are naturally suspicious of such Amway like methods, and from my own personal experience, I think with good reason. Nor do most people have or are willing to give the time to go to such extended events. The method itself seems to create its own narrow limits of effectiveness.

Thus, this puts the evangelistic ball back where it belongs, into our laps, the local churches and its members. We can't keep looking at evangelism as the job of the traveling "specialist," who has no real connection or personal relationship to the people he/she is attempting to persuade.

If Christianity is about building authentic relationships with God and with others, then that's what Christian evangelism needs to be about. It needs to stem organically from authentic connection and relationships. If we were to be the church like this, then I'd venture that this topic would even begin to fade into the background. Why would the evangelistic "specialist" need to be brought into an already healthy, growing, relational, and community connected local church?

Thanks...

Frank

Michael wrote: "Not only that but those attending a seminar from a personal invitation already know its an Adventist message."

I agree 100%! Now let's broaden that to a corporate level. If an Adventist church has generated goodwill in the community through disinterested service, when it invites people to its meetings it will want them to know they're coming to hear an Adventist message. The problem is that few Adventist churches have been willing to do the kind of work it takes to get that kind of cache, but most are willing to shortcut that process in order to achieve evangelistic 'results'.

David Hamstra
apokalupto

A very interesting and timely discussion.

Last fall, one of the Amazing Facts boys was hired by the valley churches in my community to present the usual Revelation seminar. Every home got the fancy colorful 2-fold flyer in the mail, along with significant newspaper ads, and radio spots.

No where on the flyer, nor on the evangelist's website was the name Seventh-Day Adventist found.

The meetings were held however at the local Academy Gym.

I corresponded with this evangelist regarding the lack of affiliation identification on his pamphlets, and he gave the seemingly typical response, about not wanting to scare away those with preconceived opinions, and he also provided me a quote from Ellen White, in I believe Evangelism, where she said that sometimes it is best to get them in the door before you full identify yourselves. He said he had no problem prostletizing Christians from other churches. He also noted that the brochure had been fully approved by the 6 area churches who were funding the crusade.

I was dismayed at that response. In my 45 years in Adventism, I had seen this type of thing far to often, and it made me sick.

In the weeks leading up to the crusade, a handout was placed in the bulletins of the local SDA churches with instructions on how to behave at the meetings......How to warmly greet visitors.....where to park so the visitors could have easy access.....to give hearty 'Amens" when the evangelist made significant comments.....to mingle and be friendly after the meetings.

I found it amazing that a handout was needed to be provided to the local church members on how to be friendly.....but in hindsight....when you rarely interact with "non-Adventists" and have been taught all your life that "non-SDAs" are to be viewed with suspicion and caution, no doubt it was a neccessary bit of information.

I decided to contact about 30 of the local evangelical pastors in the community to let them know, that people in their churches were going to be targets for this evangelistic series. I provided them with info on what Adventist's believe, and how that differs with mainstream Christianity.

I received many emails of thanks, along with requests for additional material, as they felt ill equipt in dealing with the techniques and chicanery.

Many of the larger churches asked for additional material as they wanted to provide background information on SDA beliefs for their younger and newer staff members.

I asked this evangelist if any of the local SDA pastors, had been sharing "the Adventist Truth" with the local pastors of the other denominations.....like if it was so clear, and was the truth, surely these pastors, trained in theology and biblical studies, should be the first people approached.

I asked him if HE had spoken to any of the local Christian pastors about his upcoming crusade. Of course the answer was negative in both instances.

Bill Cork made the comment a few posts back, about the need for public evangelism going all the way back to Jesus, Peter, and Paul. I fully concur with this statement. But I have to say......what Jesus, Peter, and Paul were preaching wasn't the Seventh day Adventist message. They taught follow me, they taught love your neighbor as yourself, they taught the fulfillment of the Mosaic covenant and the Law, and the total sufficiency of Christ sacrifice on the cross as a complete atonement for our sins. They taught the joy and freedom of being a Christian. They taught that diet and days, did not determine one's worthiness for the kingdom. They did not teaches that the Sabbath would be that which separated the saved from the unsaved in the last days. They did not teach that a what we eat or drink has anything to do with our being fit for salvation. They did no teach that our salvation was in anyway dependent on what church we are affiliated with. They did not teach an Investigative judgment. Read John 3:16.

If you want to retain members, and attract new ones, my suggestion would be, dispense with the beasts, the endtime paranoia, the ill conceived, and contrived Investigative judgment, the use and misuse of Ellen White as a "continuing and authoritative source of truth", and the whole idea that the SDA church is the Last day Remnant....This is not the Good News of Jesus, Peter, or Paul. This is sadly, an ongoing confusion of what the true Gospel is. Adventism isn't the Gospel, or the Good News. Sadly many in the inside do not understand the difference.

As I have reflected on this thread, I just have to shake my head, in bewilderment and sadness, that there are some who still try and justify this type theatrical shannangans all in the name of evangelism.

I have also concluded that these types of series are really aimed more at the local SDA church members than anyone who might be coming in from the outside. Somehow the yearly dose of Adventist prooftexting regarding the Adventist distinctives seems to be neccessary to keep the offerings flowing in, and to slow the members from flowing out....

Randy

So the solution to chicanery in Adventist evangelism is...to stop being Adventist? It recall Dave Larson mentioning his father proclaiming (what I presume were) the traditional doctrines and having success while upholding a high ethical standard. I'm not saying Adventist doctrines are never in need of modification, but I don't one can conclude a need to change those doctrines, which assert a high moral standard, based on a method which has been devised to sell them.

David Hamstra
apokalupto

I agreed to assist in our local church’s Cox series about 12 years ago. Maybe I missed the meeting, but I don’t remember receiving any instruction on denominational identification. The first several evenings felt like a Bible Docs refresher course and I enjoyed them. After several evenings though, a familiar anxiety began to settle in as he started matching dates and events from history to prophecy. The whole 2300 days/years/weeks timeline gave me the same case of tired head I remembered from academy. On the evening when he identified the papacy as the Antichrist, I noticed 8 or 10 visitors leave shaking their heads and found my own head shaking as well. I fulfilled my commitment, finished the series and afterwards put most of it back up in the attic where it had been safely stored for years. Kind of a theological version of don’t ask, don’t tell.

As I followed this thread last night, I felt embarrassed and disappointed at the deceptive practices that our travelin salvation shows (apologies to Neil Diamond) would actually script into their business plan. However after sleeping on it, I wondered whether my negative emotion was aimed at the deception of the messengers or at parts of the message itself. Practically every topic and thread on this website eventually comes down to the acceptance or denial of a direct and literal approach to scripture. While I’m in the latter camp and am unable to embrace several of the 28, I still find community with the more strident ones and have enjoyed worshiping with them over the past 50 odd years. Hopefully there will continue to be enough room in the church for everyone, even those of us in the skeptic’s corner.

Frank,
Thanks for the personal insight into this particular evangelist. From your discription it sounds like a poor series based on any number of criteria. I agree most about the carelessly early diving into sensitive areas on the 3rd meeting.
Sort of makes the case for preconception moot if your not going to put your best foot forward anyway.
Thanks again

Here are two more examples of this sort of thing:

1. When I was first a student literature evangelist, which I landed up doing for four summers and one school year, I was taught to introduce myself at the door as from the "Home Health Education Service."

I couldn't do it so I introduced my self as selling Christian books, especially the Bible Story set. I thought it worked well because I did not waste the time of those who weren't interested and they did not waste mine.

2. Some of our current missioners infiltrate other worlds religions, presenting themselves as disciples or even leaders in those other faiths. Then, from those inside and incognito positions, they share the good news as we SDAs understand it.

I often wonder what is going to happen when these people discover who our people really are, as they certainly will.

Dave

I was a member of the Board of the local United Way. The Chair suggested that the Board needed a Chaplain. We all agreed. He then suggested his pastor from Reid Memorial Presbyterian Church. We again agreed. So Dan McCall joined us.
I was very impressed with his open fellowship and deep appreciation of Scripture and its application to philanthropy.

Betty and I had often attended their organ concerts but never a church service. At our first service we found the pattern to his homilies. He would open with a test followed by a prayer for guidance. He would then in three to five points build his case. In closing he would say, this is what I believe. I hope you do also. However, if you don't I still love you and I can assure you so does our Lord. Amen.

After a few months, he invited us to join. We said, of course, with one provision. He asked what could that be? I replied you asked three questions: 1. Do you believe that you are a sinner? 2. Do you believe that Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior? 3. Do you pledge to be obedient to the Elders of the Church? I said the first two, I will answer yes on the third--I have had "elders" up to my eyebrows. He said that will be no problem. I said. Dan just don't spring a fast one because I will say no in public if asked the third question.

The next Sunday we came forward. He asked the junior pastor to preside. The junior pastor asked the first two questions and overlooked the third. We were welcomed into fellowship and soon, I had a Sunday School class that included some of the movers and shakers of Augusta, Ga.

What a joyous fellowship we have had. No slight of hand, no double talk, no put downs of other belief systems, no demands, only invitations. We now have a new pastor Dr. Leslie Holmes a frequent guest and consultant in G.C. circles. One of my physician friends told me: "We've got ourselves a keeper! Worship is a joy. If you are ever in Augusta please join us at Reid Memorial Presbyterian Church for the time of your life. Tom

Very interesting. But let's ask why evangelists tend to operate this way? Is it because it is their preference? Or is it because any other approach will not be funded?

I suspect that the root of this problem is the organization's obsession with "noses and nickels." How many people did they bring in? How much money are they contributing? If they can show the "fruit of their calling" then no one is going to ask further questions.

Until the church organization makes spreading the Good News its first and only priority this isn't going to change.

Or so it seems to me,

Mark

Don't forget who is paying for this type of evangelism: its members who continue to pay tithe without knowing exactly how it is to be used. If sufficient numbers of members strenuously objected to this chicanery and deception, who should we blame? People and $$ still talk.

Mark,
You took the words right out of my fingers.
As long as the goal of evangelism in the Adventist church, is to make more Adventists....this is what we will see.

Rarely do people in these types of meetings convert to Adventism because of the freedom Christianity brings, but rather due to the fear mongering and end time paranoia the evangelist stresses. That is why the retention rate is so low. There is little joy in being an Adventist, compared to the joy found in being a Christian.

If they joined based on the study of Romans and Galatians, instead of Daniel and Revelation.....there would be far more retained to savour fellowship in the gift and freedom of salvation in Christ.

If ever there came a time, when the goal was solely to share the Good News of Jesus, instead of increasing numbers to support a monolithic franchise, we would see a wonderful thing happening in the Adventist Church.

Randy

KM

The Tom you address is not this Tom. My post always carrymy full name. Tom

Posted by: Tom Zwemer | 24 August 2008 at 12:49

*******
No problem, Tom. I've come to recognize your "voice" and I realized it wasn't you. (Plus, you're 'verified'! :))

*******

Michael -- there are bits in your 12:24 post that I confess to not understanding; forgive me. Nevertheless... in citing Christ a la Matt 16, I wonder if you're confusing the Eastern/Socratic method of teaching via questioning and confirming a correct conclusion -- with plain ol' obfuscatin'? When Christ asked for a regional headline report, Andrew had already called Him the Messiah, Nathanael had already called Him the Son of God (John 1), and the rest of the disciples had all followed suit and worshipped Him as such by Matthew 14. They knew who He was. He was not a tourist, consultant, specialist, or passer-by. He was present and engaged, and His reputation with the general public preceded Him.

For now, bro, skip over the descriptions of DeLongian evangelism that you think are extreme and unrealistic, and review instead experiences like mine and Randy's. We've told you how the process works. I find it difficult to accept this distinction between "personal" and "public" evangelism -- it really is new to me! If the standards for theft don't vary for an individual vs. a collective, and if in fact they may be higher because the stakes are higher and the capacity for abuse is higher (viz. Enron), I'm struggling to see why the standards for honesty should vary for individuals vs. collectives of said individuals.

As I said earlier, and others have said since, if we approached our routine ministry differently, special occasions wouldn't require such gymnastics. Come to think of it, Christ told us to go... not set up camp and call folks to come. He casts us as salt and light: both salt and light diffuse if they're doing what they were made to do. And in Revelation, He reserves the "calling" for Himself. Might we have misapplied our instructions? If we have, that might be why we're now using marketplace methods to help us get our homework done.

Paul had similar challenges at Mars Hill where he was building a really airtight case but couldn't make it past the word "resurrection" before he ran into a roadblock. At the end of the day, the gospel is not dialectic, rhetoric, or debate. It is God healing creation, often through creation... Perhaps the best way to "advertise" is to go around doing what it says on the tin.

I suppose at the root of it we're working with very different paradigms and so whereas I'm hugely uncomfortable with this way of dealing with people on my own or as a representative of an .org, you seem to be able to justify it for yourself. That's not possible for me, and that is why I'd strongly discourage any of my local churches from pursuing the approach again. Of course, the church that continues to do it continues to see the same results: the attrition between the offsite "nondenominationalism" and the onsite unveiling is significant, and the retention rate for those who do stay is low.

I'm sure we have alternatives. Alternatives that are less ethically ambiguous and much more effective.

This is a stimulating discussion, and thank you all for participating - even those who swam against the current. Some haven't been happy with Michael, but I've learned that we need dissenters. It is in the process of this kind of discussion that our thinking is deepened, and our practices improved. "As iron sharpens iron…"

I want to make clear that my criticism here wasn't against the Adventist message, or against the dear people of the Grand Forks church, some of whom I know and love. Nor do I object to Steve DeLong preaching our message in an attempt to win people to the church. As I said, I believe he is well-intentioned. My criticism was pointed at one thing in particular: his refusal to admit he is an Adventist when asked directly, claiming instead that he is interdenominational, which led to a public questioning in the media of Adventists' integrity. I understand the intention in concealing the church identity is to prevent prejudicing anyone unnecessarily before they hear the message. But when he was directly asked, and his honesty was being called into doubt in the newspaper, to stubbornly continue on the same tack was foolish.

Which then begs the question of whether we should reveal up front who we are, which you have discussed here. Not being a professional, full-time crusade evangelist, I don't know all the subtleties of doing that kind of work. But full disclosure is my preference. We parish pastors generally don't try to conceal our identities. We can't. I have a church with a sign in front of it setting in my city, and if I want to be trusted in the local community at all, and be involved in the community in pastors' groups, inter-church helping ministries, etc. I wouldn't get very far if I were being cagey about who I really am.

Finally, the only comment that really quite offends me, above, is a person who identifies himself only as Tom, who suggests (in the midst of several more personal insults) that I am foolish for taking seriously the claims of a Catholic priest. I have Roman Catholic religious and clergy friends. Those whom I know are good, thoughtful people. I don't think of them as enemies. Whatever the deficiencies some may find in their beliefs, they are fellow Christians. As a believer in our message, my desire is that they accept it, too, and I don't think putting them in the position where they feel unwelcome, brushed off, and the subjects of underhanded tactics will impress them that we have the truth. Do you?

KM
I do like your mind and the way you debate. Many times I have the feeling we are not so dissimilar. The way you have the ability to express yourself in writing far exceeds mine.

In my mind this issue becomes a matter of degree where it is a tool to be used sparingly with those who are just curious not with the Zelots or crusaders.
As I hear Frank recount first hand experiences with this particular Evangelist I see he went far beyond the scope where the technique would be benaficial.

Loren makes reference to the subject of degree in his last post as well. Clearly this practice, done wrong, has the potential for harm. I think that is what most of the commenters were refering to when they related their experiences.

I myself have never experienced working with an Evangelist who does anything like what Steve Delong evidently practices.
And just for a point of reference I have worked with 3 of the Amazing Facts Evangelists so I think its important for everyone to know that Steves methods do not come from there.

One thing both KM and David Hamstra point out, was also my point in the SCC Evangelism thread. Properly done, personal evangelism makes public evangelism redundant.

I suggest the more effecient use of our time and energy would be to make those relationships and contacts in our communities. If we did, I doubt we would have the time, or feel the need to run around picketing, writing letters or attacking people on the phone.

When I read this article, I immediately contacted the Evangelist, Steve DeLong, to hear any clarification he might give. Here is his response to me, which he asked me to relay to the magazine and to the author:

"Thank you for forwarding this to me, although I am not surprised
at all, as most evangelists OFTEN get misquoted my "Newspaper
reporters" I remember when Mark Finley & Kenneth Cox & HMS
Richards Sr got misquoted. Even Ellen White got misquoted by
the public, & sometimes by members.

I did not say what was reported! When the reporter showed up at
my meeting hall, he asked me what faith I am, & I simply told him
that I am a 100% Bible believing Christian, & "If it's in the Bible,
we believe it, if it's not, we don't" as far as any salvational issues
are concerned. He asked me again, what faith are you? I said sir,
respectfully, I never run ahead of my subjects, as I will totally
cover that in the Seminar. He asked me again. I then said, "I
noticed that when I was working in the Baptist church, & they
held a public meeting, almost all the people attending were
Baptists, same thing when I worked in the Methodist Church, &
same thing in the Catholic church where my wife grew up as a
young person. So, obviously when you advertise what faith you
are, the general perception is that you are going to teach what
that particular faith believes. Therefore, we at Sure Word Ministries
want people from all faiths to be able to come to a neutral setting
where they can feel comfortable & be assured that we do not
identify with Cults & are going to teach only complete Bible truth,
because that's what America wants-the truth! Therefore we
attempt to operate our meetings with as much as an
interdenominational approach as possible so that Christian families
from all faiths, regardless of what church they may personally
choose to attend, will come and be blessed with pure Bible truths!
That is what I would like you to print!" He then asked me the
same question again!! So I kindly asked him, "Who is pressing
you to find out what Church I am from?? He refused to answer. I
then said, It's the Ministerial Alliance, isn't it?? He then said so
what??
I then told him to have a nice evening, & the conversation ended.

PS; When I am asked in the meetings by sincere visitors, (Not
reporters!) what Church invited us to come, I always tell them)

Blessings,
Steve

In the interest of accuracy, I must say that I forgot (it was nine years ago) that Mr. DeLong did conduct one full meeting in his campaign that focused on the need for cleansing and forgiveness of sin. I was not present that night, but was told about it.

This meeting was in addition to what I had already described above. That amounts to one and one seventh worth of meetings out of 20-25 that highlighted the grace that Christ offers us. When compared with expositions of the good news found in letters such as Romans, Galatians and Ephesians, I have issue with the proportionality of the message being given. Combine this with the final message of the series, "The Sin Against the Holy Spirit," or some such title, in which the audience was basically being told that if you didn't accept and act on what was being preached the Spirit would leave you, and you had one big, warm welcome to the family of God!

To me, this makes the issue not only about the ethics of the methods employed. It also becomes an issue of the message being given. Could the justification of a less than honest approach somehow be tied to a twisted view of the person of God in Christ?

Just wondering...and open to any and all of your thoughts.

Thanks...

Frank

"Therefore we attempt to operate our meetings with as much as an
interdenominational approach as possible so that Christian families
from all faiths, regardless of what church they may personally
choose to attend, will come and be blessed with pure Bible truths!"

I appreciate the overall clarification from Steve, but the above portion just seems to me like more obfuscation. It is not an inter-denominational approach that he takes. It is an SDA approach through and through...just made to look like an inter-denominational approach!! I personally experienced it from the inside looking out.

If he lives easily with this, more power to him. For my consciense, I would have to work out a different arrangement.

Thanks...

Frank

Obfuscation is a lie dressed up in fancy clothes.
But still a lie.

To call such meetings "interdenominational" is nothing but a lie, as the focus is on a few verses in Revelation, at best an esoteric and puzzling NT book which has been interpreted in many and various ways since it was first incorporated into the NT. It's easy to agree with those who feel it has no salvational message as without it, we would still have Romans and Galatians, as well as the Gospels as more than sufficient for one's eternal destiny.

These evangelists, whoever and wherever they may be, try to imitate Billy Graham's message which is non-denominational and Christian to the core in that he invites all the area churches to participate and bring their friends, and if converted, become a member of the friend's church or any of those they choose. When Adventists can do that, and only then, will they be truly "interdenominational." They do not now, nor have ever, maintained that all Christian churches offer true salvation: otherwise, why would Adventism exist if it is not thought to be superior to all others?

I taught at Marquette University for eight years prior to accepting a "call" to the College of Medical Evangelists.

Prior to leaving, I paid a visit to the Vice President for Academic Affairs, a scholarly Jesuit priest. I explained my reasons for leaving and thanked him and the university for the kind manner in which they accepted me and promoted me.

He replied: "Tom, you have done a great job here. I know you will do well out West. Be assured that if you ever wish to return, we will have a red carpet out for you.

Men and institutions like that don't need to have the mill stone hung around their neck in SDA Revelation Seminars!

Just a little aside. At Marquette Honor dinners they serve red wine. My Catholic friends always wanted to sit beside me.
They would urge me to take the wine, take the wine, which I did. They would finish their glass with gusto and then they sipped mine in great enjoyment. It is great to have and be a friend wine or no wine. I was never afraid to let the world know I was a Seventh-day Adventist. I am now not afraid to tell my Adventist friends that I am more comfortable worshipping in another community, which doesn't mean I reject them or Christians in any community.

Evangelism is the Good News about the Finished Work of Jesus Christ plus nothing. I have seen more zeal in the Rotory Club
than any SDA evangelist in the Southern Union has shown in proclaiming Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. It is always: "With every eye closed and every head bowed, come forward and beat the heat!" Tom

I am the priest referred to in the article. It is accurate. I asked Mr. DeLong repeatedly to identify his denomination and to state whether or not he was teaching the Pope is the anti-Christ. He adamantly refused to answer the questions, even though he had earlier promised to answer all questions honestly. He was indeed hostile. Given that he thinks I work for Satan I guess that's natural.

I called the number listed for his ministry and they did not know his affiliation. I called the group he had worked with before and they refused to answer. Don't you think that seems suspicious? How can you trust such a preacher?

I read Mr. DeLong's response above. I don't know what he told the reporter, but I know what he told (rather didn't tell) me. He used the same excuse of "not getting ahead of himself" to not answer my questions. He refused to say, just as he still does, what church affiliation he does have. He told me he had spoken at a Catholic church 18 years ago. When I asked, "did you tell them who you were first?" He refused to answer. In other words he deceived them into think he was just doing a Bible seminar. I am sure he got a kick out of it. He certainly does not teach only the Bible, but rather uses the Adventist tradition. Again he is being disingenuous. You might note that one thing cults also do is conceal who they are. He seems afraid of the ministerial alliance. He seems to expect them to oppose him. Why? If he is "interdenominational" what does he have to fear? Read what he says carefully. It is bland goo that says nothing. It calls to mind an unscrupulous salesman.

I have seen this before from Amazing Facts seminars. It's like pulling teeth to get them to confess they are Adventists. Also they doctor quotes from Popes using the ellipse and then refuse to correct the record. I showed them the full quotes and they just shrugged. Likewise at World Youth Day and the recent visit of Pope Benedict their were Adventists on the streets handing out literature that looked Catholic, but wasn't. They even invaded the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception and put literature on the cars in the parking lot. I have found Adventist literature on my car in the church parking lot. Such disrespect is almost pathological.

On top of all of this there was the usual anti-Catholic bigoted rant. Vicarious Filii Dei is NOT an official Papal title and never has been. Is it any wonder that we regard Seventh Day Adventists in a negative light? Does he think that this will make Catholics "comfortable" to use his term? Is this "neutral?" Most other Protestants have consigned such polemics to the history bin. They recognize that it is a misuse of scripture. Most Adventists know that Ellen White's name adds up to 666. The irony is palpable. Adventists need to take a hard look at their theology.

Do you really need to lie to get people to listen to you? Are you surprised when they find out they don't like it? Do you think recycling old falsehoods about Catholicism will win you friends? Of course I was unhappy about it. It's like having the Klan come to town. What if I had done a seminar that portrayed Adventists as minions of Satan and did it using falsehoods? What if I concealed my own church affiliation and lied about it? You would not be happy either and would consider it papist perfidy.

I am not the one that caused Mr. DeLong his troubles. He was deceptive and did the damage himself. It's called shooting yourself in the foot. He needs to be upfront about himself and his agenda. Rev. Siebold is quite right about the need for honesty in the Adventist church, including Amazing Facts and every other affiliated ministry, I applaud him for it. Let's see that happen. Bring it up at your next church convention. Make it the official policy of the Seventh Day Adventist Church. Then something good will come from this sorry affair.

Dear Fr. Jim,

Thank you so much for your comments and for stopping by this site. Your concerns are very legitimate, and you're very right that "most other Protestants have consigned such polemics to the history bin. They recognize that it is a misuse of scripture." Most Adventists have too, but I'm afraid not all, especially not in the self-supporting genre of "ministries." I'm just sorry on behalf of the Adventist Church that this affair happened--as you note, it certainly has done nothing to help heal and repair past misconduct and has only deepened rifts and suspicions. We have much to learn from each other, and, I'm quite convinced that we have much more in common than not. I can guarantee you that there are many Adventists in your town who are just as appalled as you are at these disingenuous tactics. I hope they'll take the time to contact you. Thanks again for stopping by! Your thoughts are much appreciated.

"I can guarantee you that there are many Adventists in your town who are just as appalled as you are at these disingenuous tactics."

Daneen, I would hope so but I wouldn't gaurantee it.

Fr. Jim has labeled this right as when he says, "It calls to mind an unscrupulous salesman." I also agree that our leadership has to be pushed to not allow deception as part of the SDA form of evangelism.

Fr. Jim
I am curious if the newspaper, or was it the other website quoted you right.
Did you say, "I found him to be hostile. It was obvious he hated me and wanted me out of there.…"

What gave you the impression he hated you? Or did he tell you?
Thanks

Mr Seibold: I appreciate this column and the comments it generated: it's enlightening to me. I'm the Grand Forks Herald reporter who wrote the two stories (so far) on DeLong.
I feel compelled to say DeLong's own account above of our conversation at the Alerus Center is very inaccurate. He may have been conflating my short and unhappy conversation with him there and that of Father Goodwin, from what the priest has told me.
DeLong said very little to me in person, except that he would not say anything to me. He appeared very angry and hostile and after a few curt words, he walked off. Some people I was interviewing appeared rather embarrassed at his attitude. He did accuse me of misquoting him in a previous article, based in part on a fairly short telephone conversation with him. I stand behind what we published. He did tell me he "used" to be Adventist, as well as Baptist and other things, and that is wife "is" a Roman Catholic.
I have no doubt she is a former Catholic, but that he misspoke, purposefully or unintentionally. He also made some vague claim, as part of his argument about his interdenominational nature, of sharing a venue with "Billy Graham," in San Francisco... He gave no details and for all I know he meant to refer to the name of a venue, with the Graham name there.
He speaks very fast, and, frankly, appears to be careless with his facts and phrasing, I say with humility and as a way of trying to understand him and give him the benefit of the doubt. I concluded that after our two brief conversations and from listening to his public talking and preaching during the three sessions I attended.
He never mentioned the local ministerial alliance to me, never suggested that I was "sent" from someone else. As I said, I have no doubt he is confusing his conversation with Goodwin and with me.
For what it's worth, Goodwin seems rather well-informed on these matters for a Catholic priest, and told me days before it happened, that the pattern of such (apparent) Adventist evangelists was to switch venues from a large, expensive one, halfway through, to the local Adventist congregation. Which is what happened.
While the people I interviewed at the seminar seemed sincere and open for the most part, DeLong gave a very strange sense of being, well, not forthright and straight forward. And quite angry.
For what it's worth, I also heard him say one night at the end of the session, to make checks out, not to Sure Word Ministries, but to the Revelation Seminar.
At the Herald, we try to cover religion much like we cover many things that are important to people and part of their lives. His seminar struck us as news.
I didn't try to portray DeLong in an unfairly negative light. The kind of seminar he advertised is unusual, in length, style, and a basic fact - who is he and who is he "with", - which I always try to provide in stories on religious speakers, made it a story for us. His attitude to a local reporter also was unusually hostile. I've been doing this for two decades and rarely have seen this sort of hostility.
The local Adventist pastor was very civil when I asked him about the seminar.
And for what it's worth, since Mr Seibold understandably mentioned the seeming "Jeapordy" nature of DeLong's mentiong of not being associated with cults: believe it or not, I never broached the subject, he brought it up out of the blue, after I simply asked him what organization or denomination he was affiliated with... I thought it was sort of a "well, who asked," sort of moment that was perhaps telling....
Stephen Lee

Wow, this really has been a very interesting conversation to follow. I'm glad that several of the individuals involved have been able to comment here. Sadly, it seems to confirm that these "evangelistic" series were undertaken without much integrity. The sad truth is that these evangelists (and most of them are not officially affiliated with the Adventist church but off-shoot ministries) don't advertise their Adventist identity because people wouldn't come. (First off, shouldn't that tell us something? If people won't come if they know it's "Adventist" maybe we should spend more time mending our reputation than trying to woo new converts, especially when series like this always focus on converting other Christians to switch denominations.)

The long-term effect of a series like this is very detrimental to the local community--witness what's happened here? The local SDA church has further isolated itself from other Christian churches, and very likely the "evangelist" will baptize a dozen or so people (many probably children of the congregation who would have been baptized anyway, most likely) but after about six months, most will be gone because this hasn't been authentic growth through relationships (that takes mutual respect, which includes truth-telling).

Frank is also right that the type of message presented at these sorts of venues (not just the medium of deception witnessed in this instance) needs addressing. This is old theology that just doesn't stand up. For example, 666 isn't even likely the "real" number given in Revelations. I remember seeing this on a TV special a while back--archeologists have found older manuscripts that have a different number (more than one, but 616 is common). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_the_Beast.

What would it take to institute some sort of code of ethics for seminars like this?

In my recent talk given to the LA Forum I make this point about "cheating" to achieve externalized ends (production of baptisms, new converts, whatever). This is a prime example of what I was talking about. This idea is not orginal with me. I picked it up from Bryan Stone (Evangelism After Christendon) who refers extensively to Alasdair MacIntyre (After Virtue). You can download my comments at http://www.ryanjbell.net

Fr. Jim

Calvin and Luther were as bloody as the popes of their day.
Centuries later the Mathers werre not any better.

What the world needs to hear is the life story of Pope John XXIII and a host of other truly Christian men and women of the Catholic faith.

There is another thread on this site on labeling. I think God looks on the heart not the label.

I recall reading Scripture and praying with my aunt who was
a Nun teaching English in a Catholic School of Nursing. I could tell she was talking to the same God I was. She was a lot more experienced at it than I.

Bless be the tie that binds us, Jesus Christ our Lord. Tom

Ryan,

Thanks for your comments. I read the article, and it really hits the mark beautifully! A positive ray of light!!

Thanks...

Frank

Michael,
He was indeed hostile and became so as soon as I identified myself. He was very short with me. I will grant that he had a smile pasted on his face, but his whole body attitude was one of hatred. Believe me, I can tell when someone is hostile. I am sure you can too. My experience was very similar to that of Mr. Lee, so if you doubt me then read what he says.

Everyone,
For those who decry this kind of deception I see that as a good sign. However, if you believe that the Catholic Church is in any way the Beast or that the Papacy is the anti-Christ or any permutation of those ideas then how can you say you want friendship? To call my Church the Whore of Babylon is like calling my mother a whore. How can I be friends with someone who believes that? Adventism can and needs to put such things behind it and realize that those notions are based solely on speculation not the Bible. Other churches have done this and kept their identities intact. They move away from defining themselves against us and begin to be for something. Adventism needs a "purification of memory" where Ellen White and the Great Controversy are recognized as being bound by the culture of their time and their mistakes are acknowledged. They can be retired and Adventism can move on and focus on its own unique qualities. To lay aside past errors and hatreds can only be a good thing. I do not say this will be easy and it will require some theological growth and courage. You can still believe the anti-Christ will come, but will have to admit that it won't be the Pope. By jettisoning such baggage you will open yourselves to truths you may have been overlooking.

This should be