I am reminded of Phillip Yancey's book on leaving the church to find his faith.

This quotation leapt at me from the review:

“We proclaim the priesthood of all believers while we continue living with hierarchical clergy, liturgy, and architecture. We follow a Lord who challenged the religious and political institutions of his time while we fund and defend our own."

How can the hierarchical clergy possibly inspire the members when they are much too busy with administrative, clerical duties and traveling, traveling, traveling?

Shouldn't the church have separate classifications for full-time pastors and employ successful business-trained experts to manage the affairs of church? How many former pastors have been "promoted" into administrative, qualifications be damned, because they were "due" a promotion? Our church has paid a terrible price in loss of members and tithe by following this practice.

Does anyone believe they will live long enough to see substantial changes in the administrative functions of the church?

Thanks for a beautiful review of a beautiful book, Lainey. I started this book on a plane trip which I had planned to sleep on, but I couldn't stop reading, and I even kept finding passages (even whole chapters) that I had to share with my husband. She is a powerful writer with a profound message.

I too was struck by the same quote you and Elaine both mentioned, how the way we do church is often incongruous with the message of the church. And I too found it a bit disturbing that she had to leave her role as a member of the clergy in order to renew her relationship with God again. I'm not a clergy member, but I still identified with that challenge. It's still a challenge for me to understand my relationship with Adventism--although her thoughts about how she'll never "really" be able to leave church, even if she's camped out now in the yard of Mother Church's house, did ring quite true.

I also really identified with some of her reasons for why she ended up leaving her role. She's very sensitive to her former parishioners, but it sounds like her church, like the rest of the Anglican church, got caught up in a war of Biblical proof-texting over a very small number of of incendiary and polarizing issues (the ordination of gay clergy was one).

She talks about how she had fallen in love with the "beholding" not necessarily the "believing" parts of the church. I'm paraphrasing, since I loaned my book to a friend, but she talks about loving things like:
- Behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy.
- Behold, the lamb of God.
- Behold, I stand at the door and knock.

She observed that when we get into the "believing" bits at the expense of the "beholding" parts and start making people prove their orthodoxy based on ancient words, we end up stuck in the words and forgetting the people right next to us. She says that in her experience God cares more for right relationships than right beliefs.

As a writer, I really resonated with her description of the tendency/temptation to get stuck in the words because they are safe--real life and the stories of the lives of the people around us aren't finished yet, so they are inherently messier and riskier. We have to remember that the words are the field guide, never meant to take the place of real experience in the actual field. I left this book feeling called to do more to see what God is doing in the lives of people around me instead of getting tempted by words (whether they be in a sacred book or on a favorite website)!

Loved the book...love everything Barbara Brown Taylor writes.

As a clergy person I deeply identified with many of her experiences and disappointments, and applaud her decision to walk a different path. Admittedly I've often considered other directions in times of stress or malaise, and even wished for them, but ultimately staying with "the" as well as "church" seems to be the best track for me.

I would caution readers to understand what she means by leaving church. She doesn't mean "the" church, for she is still a strong contributor to "the" church. She writes for mainline magazines, teaches religion at a college, lectures across the country, and apparently still identifies with the body of Christ.

As I understand it she defines "church" as that portion of her identity that is consistently professional (perhaps vocational/clerical) rather than spontaneous or free. In leaving the paid professional vocation, she found a more authentic sense of personal piety as well as church. The story of the Native American event on her property seemed to illustrate that for me. Perhaps in the future she'll return to parish priesthood. It's not necessary, but it's possible, and acceptable. And she might enter in with a deeper sense of freedom if she were to do it. Who knows. I would like us to see her transition as normal, with a thinner membrane (what's the biological term?) that allows us to exist more healthfully/authentically in both worlds. Sometimes it's either/or. But it doesn't have to be.

But that's just me.

-- Tim

Has anyone read "When Religion Becomes Toxic"?

Some denominations and churches have that insensitivity and drive people away. Would it were not so, but we all should listen to those who felt poisoned by such an atmosphere.

"Has anyone read "When Religion Becomes Toxic"?

Some denominations and churches have that insensitivity and drive people away. Would it were not so, but we all should listen to those who felt poisoned by such an atmosphere."

One of the biggest misnomers.

It's not "religion" that becomes toxic, its individual people.
Individual people can group together like a particular church or (infinitly more likely) a part of a church, but still, its not the religion its the people.

"It's not "religion" that becomes toxic, its individual people.
Individual people can group together like a particular church or (infinitly more likely) a part of a church, but still, its not the religion its the people."

How do you define religion without people? If any religion has no followers how does it operate?

The official church doctrine and over-emphasis on some of those doctrines has been very toxic to many. Shall I cite some? If members adhere to that doctrine why are they the culprits and not the official church?

I've read too many former members relate how their religious beliefs, promulgated by the church's OFFICIAL teachings, have almost destroyed them, as well as some who have committed suicide because of them.

"I've read too many former members relate how their religious beliefs, promulgated by the church's OFFICIAL teachings, have almost destroyed them, as well as some who have committed suicide because of them."

Thats the Elaine I know, always a ray of sunshine.
Almost destroyed them? The Official teachings? Really.
Please do elaborate.

And Religion or more correctly "Organized religion" refers to an organization of people supporting the exercise of a particular prescribed set of beliefs.

Beliefs. No one can make you believe something you dont want to can they? If someone doesnt want to believe, they dont have to do they?

By the dictonary (or any other kind of) definition, a person is not a belief.

Michael, I will not use names, but if you go to
Atomorrow, you will find a host of folks who had trouble with the DOCTRINES officially taught. Now, you could blame their pastor, their parents and teachers, all people; but they were teaching the doctrines (as in Fundamental Beliefs). Why is that so hard to believe? Books have been written about this. Ever hear of Jerry Gladson?
Or, Des Ford, who dared question church doctrine?

A mother, who posts regularly on ATomorrow, told how she had tried desperately to live by the "books" and had an emotional breakdown because of the impossibility. Her son committed suicide, saying in a note that he felt he could never be ready when his name was called up.

I do not know your age, but these and other stories are true. Having been born into Adventism, I do know something of its history as prevailed here in the U.S. Since living on the West Coast, it's most refreshing to see that there is much more acceptance of differences, as there should be. Conformity of behavior was the paramount tests of members. Graham Maxwell, while a child living in England, told of how when ladies came to church (they all wore hats in church then) with a hat with a flower on it, they watched to see if it wilted during the long service. If it did, it was "natural" and O.K.; but if it didn't, it meant that it was artificial and that was a sin.

Some of oldies also remember when the dean of women at college told the girls as she inspected them at the door going to an event, as to whether they had lipstick on. If they did, she made them go back to their room and wash it off!
This, while she always had her cheeks glowing with rouge!

People ARE the church. If the only "church" you see are the people, then to say " its not the religion its the people" removes all humans from the equation. No humans; no religion. All religions are man-made.

Thanks for the review. As someone who has long struggled with my relationship to the church/Church, I found the book poignant and relevant, as well. There is consolation for me in Barbara Brown Taylor's conclusion that it is more than enough that we are called to be our truest selves. Getting there is still a painful and difficult process--with or without the collar. Personally, I have found great freedom and spiritual renewal outside "the church" but believe that we each must find our own unique way to resolve our individual needs, spiritual yearnings, and community responsibilities. For some, that journey will take place within the church. For others, they will need to go outside. I respect and appreciate the transparency with which Barbara Brown Taylor shared her journey.

Religion is not only toxic. It is deadly! It even Killed the Christ! The milllions killed in the name of someone's god is astronomical: even in America both before and after Columbus.

Today, dispensationalists and Adventists alike gloat over the fate of the "left behind or the ourside of the "ark of safety".

Adventists for years endorsed a "closed door" doctrine.

In school I was chosen first for the debate team and last for the baseball team. Last isn't nice--it is equated with loser and therefore fair game for abuse. Religion plays that game to the hilt. Yes religion is more than toxic it is down right sickening. Now on the other hand, the Gospel of Jesus Christ in its pure form is the Balm of Gilead.

1. Admit being the chief of losers.
2. Accept Jesus Christ as the Chief of Winners.
3. Accept the healing guiding influence of the Holly Spirit.
4. Live in gratitude and generosity full of praise and thanksgiving.
5. Introduce losers to the Chief of Winners.

You might find a Church even you wouldn't want to leave. Tom

"Beliefs. No one can make you believe something you dont want to can they? If someone doesnt want to believe, they dont have to do they?"

You have a very strange idea of "belief." Most people consider their beliefs the end product of logic and evidence, not something you can "will" away if you don't like it.

Some beliefs truly are destructive. They may be based in faulty logic and manufactured evidence but as long as the individual thinks these are legitimate they will continue to follow the belief even if it tears them apart. You can't just "choose" to stop believing something because you don't like the implications, you stop believing something if you loose faith in the validity of it's derivations.

"Maxwell, while a child living in England, told of how when ladies came to church (they all wore hats in church then) with a hat with a flower on it, they watched to see if it wilted during the long service. If it did, it was "natural" and O.K.; but if it didn't, it meant that it was artificial and that was a sin."

Again my point, people, or do you believe the wilting flower "rule" is one of the fundamental beliefs?

"some of oldies also remember when the dean of women at college told the girls as she inspected them at the door going to an event, as to whether they had lipstick on. If they did, she made them go back to their room and wash it off!
This, while she always had her cheeks glowing with rouge!"

You make my points to easy or is it your position that the lipstick "rule" is one of the fundamentals too?

Your position does not hold water since only Christ ever represented the church without flaw. If you are looking for excuses or someone to blame then by all means look to other human beings as your indicators of "religion".

As to the son who committed suicide because he felt he could never be ready...Its not the first time someone made a bad decision by going on what they felt/percieved is it? Depression and other medical/mental issues play large parts in suicides.

Elaine, I've read _When Religion Becomes Evil_ by Charles Kimball - is that the one you mean? He offers five signs: 1) the claim of absolute truth, 2) blind obedience to authority figures, 3) determination to establish a perceived ideal time, 4) belief that the end justifies any means, and 5) declaration of a holy war.

I read _Leaving Church_ a couple of years ago and was blessed by her insights, On the issue of "staying in" a church that we love but believe needs to correct its course, I am convinced that if we are spiritually healthy we can do the most good from inside. But at the leadership level it would take tremendous courage to try to make bold changes. I wonder if it's even possible. I think, instead, that change toward a better way has to start on an individual level, which I think is what Barbara Taylor decided.

Michael, why do you find such relish in contradicting and arguing with others? This is supposed to be a constructive discussion. Can you say things in a cooperative and positive spirit, even when you disagree?

Thanks Carrol for your gentle reminder to Michael. A community like this works best when the individual members hold each other accountable to the spirt of the mission (not to mention the comment guidelines). It's always good to keep in mind that this is a place for thoughtful conversation and not rants or combative attitudes. That doesn't mean we can't disagree, but the spirit and manner in which we disagree is typically far more memorable than our actual points.

Chapter and verse would be helpful Carrol. I have no way of knowing which part you took as "relish".
Its your perception so you'll have to tell me.

I dont see how you could know if I relished something or not so I will have to say, be of good cheer, I dont relish.

I know I'm not very eloquent. I guess I could have quoted Elaine.

Both of those comments are totally out of place as speculative and not based on your personal knowledge. When were you endowed with omniscence?
Posted by: Elaine Nelson (not verified) | 28 July 2008 at 2:47
From
Accused Tennessee Gunman Hated Liberals, Gays

Personal encounter by Alden Thompson:

Alden Thompson tells a touching, humorous story which illustrates a different way of relating to Ellen White and people.

"Ellen White's statement seems so categorical, so absolute: "Never let a morsel pass your lips between your regular meals." T3 373 (1870)

"The trouble is that in Scotland, a visit to anyone's home at any hour of the day or night is a call for food. It may be just a snack, but it is always at least a morsel! We could politely refuse, of course (and sometimes did), but it felt very awkward to do so.

"For us, the crucible that brought the issue from simmer to boil was the Friday night youth fellowship in Edinburgh. With so few Adventists in Scotland, the Sabbath hours together were especially precious. The church families agreed to open their homes to the young people on Friday evenings during the dark winter months. We developed a rotation, car pooling it to a different home each week and starting over again after we had made the rounds. Right at the beginning, we agreed that we would finish about 9:00 P.M. with something to drink. After all, we already would have had our supper. "Fine," said our Scottish hostesses. "Something to drink." (Note: In very conservative Adventist circles, juice is also off-limits betweeen meals, for juice is simply a liquified morsel. A morsel is a morsel is a morsel. Always.)

"I well remember that first fellowship at the Gulland home. Sister Ann Gulland owned and operatd a thriving health food shop adjacent to the Adventist church in downtown Ediburgh. When we finished our discussion at 9:00 P.M., she invited us into the dining room for "a little somethig to drink." Indeed. Here was "something to drink," all right--- and fruit, nuts, soups, sandwiches, coookies, cakes. It was a stunning spread. You can easiy imagine the tears streaming down the faces of the univrsity stuudents who had survived on their own coooking Everyone had a good time, as I recall. We didn't make any comments, didn't raise any waves at that point. The others ate. We had something to drink...

"(He goes on to describe an intense struggle which ended in a determination to help the group be more consistent on the matter.)

"... The turning point came one Friday night at the home of Sister Lean, a new Adventist who ran a small guest house in Edinburgh. Out of love, she had prepared a heaping tray of sandwiches for us. But that evening appetites were restrained: a wee nibble here, a small bite there. I vividly remember the puzzled look on her face and the touch of hurt in her voice as she commented, "Nobody must be very hungry tonight."

"It was like a dagger to my soul. This precious child of God had opened up her home, her kitchen, and her heart to us, and we were turning away. I sensed that we could cause eternal damage to this soul for whom Christ died.

"The time had come. I'd done my homework, in my Bible, on my knees; I knew Romans 14 through and through by now. And I knew what I had to do. So I led the charge, and we polished of the sandwiches---all of them. It was the right thing to do. I knew it then without a doubt, and I know it still."

Thompson (2005). Escape from the Flames, pp. 109-110.

Perhaps some here have never know Adventist fanatics (usually on one topic which becomes an obsession), but here's a teacher of religion who was (he thought) obeying the "prophet of the Lord" and in so doing he created a religious restriction completely without merit: worse, it could have been much worse--souls turning away from such a fanatical belief.

If you haven't known such people, you're far too limited in life's experiences in the SDA church. And, sad to say, most of those were NOT from the Bible, but (as the "Fundamentals" state) from the "authoritative source of truth" contained in EGW's writings.

I know there is a generally accepted idea that people leave church because of personal hurts and interpersonal problems with other members. I have heard this especially from leaders in the denomination as a means of explain declining membership. There may be a good chunk of people for which this is true, but we should not discount the number of people who leave because of doctrinal differences.

I am one. My partner and I were attending a very nice, very accepting and supportive congregation. We have nothing but good things to say about the members, the pastor and especially his wonderful wife.

In the end, it was not healthy for us to continue to support a church (corporate church) that does not allow for GBLT people to live fully, honestly, within the church. There are some GBLT Adventists who find a way to do it, any many who do not. These are examples of real people who are hurt by the church, not necessarily the local members of their congregation, but by the leaders who set the denominational agenda.

So Michael, if you are really interested in knowing people the church has destroyed, look no further than thousands of GLBT Adventists who have been marginalized, officially condemned and singled out with official statements, documents and proclamations from the church's highest leadership.

Carlitas, that is an easy way out for leaders to automatically assume that the reason members who left the church were interpersonal. But, I don't believe they have ever taken a survey to ask those of us who left, exactly why we chose to do so. Perhaps it would cause them to honestly confront doctrinal questions that they do not want to deal with.

For the reason you give, and for the discimination of women for ordination, is only one of many reasons I cannot be an SDA. For one: they do not believe in "The Priesthood of All Believers" but that the leaders will define what we should do and think.

I think our problem is that we have allowed a single book to have such an influence over our lives as if it were the very voice of God, while we ignore the true voice of God which can be heard in the things that He made.

It is interesting to just now enter this dialogue when it has meandered extensively, as these blogs tend to do (which is wonderful, and sometimes amusing!).

So instead of trying to address specifics, I’m pondering how Taylor’s work might comment on the direction of this discussion in general. What would she say about our relationship to church and faith, as demonstrated in this blog here?

What I think her book might address is this: We (as participants in an Adventist community) are still young at the method of living WITH the church without being run BY the church.

While a clergy, Taylor’s life was run by the church. The church was the structure that defined everything from how she related to God to how she interacted with neighbors. When she “left,” she did not cease to live in the church; she simply ceased to be defined entirely by it. “Living in the backyard” meant that the church was still a part of her faith, but no longer the entirety of her existence.

As I read the dialogue here, it seems that we’re still dialoging as if the church runs (or tries to run) our lives. Whether we’ve left it, feel stuck in it, stay in it in hopes of bettering it, or never entered it, we’re working from the premise that the church is Very Very Big.

Perhaps what Taylor would suggest is that we step back and work on living in the backyard, where we might be able to see the faults and failings of the church – whether it’s her fallible doctrines, her fallible leaders, or her fallible members – and yet not be devastated by it. Roughly speaking, it’s like how I continue to shop at Safeway even though it doesn’t always have tomatoes on sale and sometimes takes fifteen minutes in line when all I’m buying is milk. It’s okay. I don’t have to be devastated if Safeway does not live up to all my hopes and dreams. And the church, something we need (as we need groceries), will not live up to all our hopes and dreams. But hopefully we can each keep writing our own quiet (or not so quiet) memoirs of faith, where the chief character is not the Adventist church, but God.

"So Michael, if you are really interested in knowing people the church has destroyed, look no further than thousands of GLBT Adventists who have been marginalized, officially condemned and singled out with official statements, documents and proclamations from the church's highest leadership."

Posted by: Carlitas | 30 July 2008 at 1:43

So you say the position of the Church on homosexuality destroyed homosexuals lives?

I only ask the question, are you accusing them of a bait and switch? Did they, at your baptism give you any reason to believe that homosexuality is sanctioned or reccommended?
If they had, I could understand how if something changed 180 degrees you could claim "destroyed lives".
But if it has not been, never has been, and one joined anyway, one should not be suprised....or destroyed.
Further, one could not claim the Adventist church doctrines destroyed lives either since Christianity still does not approve of homosexuality either, save for Unitarians and a few offshoots who split off of their churches.
That is why claiming "Adventist" Doctrine destroyed lives is quite a stretch. You would recieve no different treatment on that issue if you were Baptist, Methodist or Roman Catholic.

The same holds true for Elaines reasons and womens ordination. Never was their a time where the church accepted, or promoted womens ordination in Elaines lifetime, and then suddenly shut off, disallowed or taken away. Yet it is one of her reasons she can no longer be an SDA.

Its kind of like someone saying, "your not in China anymore" as a case against something, to which one relplies, "yes, thats true, in fact I have never been to China, have no plans to go to China, or will ever go to China.

"The same holds true for Elaines reasons and womens ordination. Never was their a time where the church accepted, or promoted womens ordination in Elaines lifetime, and then suddenly shut off, disallowed or taken away. Yet it is one of her reasons she can no longer be an SDA."

There was also a time when there never was an Adventist church, or even a single Christian church. That proves that time marches on and when the church stays far behind in it approach and not only does not lead in giving rights to all its members but limits their possibilities and potentials, it has become outdated and arachaic. All things either change and grow, or else stagnate and die. What other insitution, except a church can so discriminate solely on one's sex? The church that constantly preaches "religious liberty" offers none to its own members.

To repeat what was said on another thread:

"People don't change when they see the light; they change when they feel the heat." In all the work places (church excepted), the same practices of the church would be grounds for lawsuits for discrimination by sex. A church who claims to be law-abiding while enjoying the privileges of freedom offered by the U.S., and yet not offering the same privilege to its members (simply because it can) is offensive and unChristian!

It seems that the essence of this discussion boils down to a dislike for the corporate church, namely the SDA church. One can only wonder why certain participants seem to delight in impugning beliefs and practices of the SDA church. Love it or leave it!

How about something constructive that has transpired within the SDA church.

Love it or leave it! Fall in line with me or go away! Nice.

To me, the idea that criticism of the church is tantamount to disloyalty is way off base. In fact, a discouragement of such is one of the hallmarks of a dysfunctional family system..."don't ask, don't tell." The person in this type of family who starts to talk and confront the real problems is often scapegoated, and looked upon as the disloyal member.

Yes, if one is so fundamentally opposed to the core values of a family, organization, or religious body, a parting of ways might be the most healthy choice for all concerned, especially if no change occurs and no ground for reconciliation can be found. And yes, some who post here have made that choice. And some who post seem to do so in anger and hurt over a church by which they have felt disillusioned and burned. Maybe this is a safe place for catharsis, because such feelings cannot often be expressed safely in many "official church circles." Our history has born this out over and over again. Again, "don't ask, don't tell."

But many of us express criticism and raise pointed questions precisely for the reason that we love the church rather than want to leave it! Many want to see the church grow and prosper, but for this to happen, their needs to be the acknowledgement of the need for a rethinking and reformulation of things on a variety of issues. How could this ever happen without the process of internal debate and critique?

While this is not always neat and tidy, it can be healthy. In fact, this whole process of internal critique is within the biblical spirit. The prophets were sent by God in the OT as an internal critique against an Israel that had gone off the path. The Judaism of Jesus' day was well familiar with a climate of internal critique... it was a practice of the rabbis, and Jesus' own rebukes to the organized religion of his time, even though he spoke as Lord, were still delivered within that recognizable tradition.

This is not comfortable. It's easier to just lable the sheep as Laodicea and lump all our problems under that spiritual catch-all. It's also easy just to tell people who raise disconcerting points about church polity, practice and belief to just go away.

But, a healthy family values open communication, and takes seriously real questioning and criticism. It's how growth happens. And it has to begin with real dialogue...even if it starts with only one party doing the talking, and even if it seems disloyal and messy to some.

Thanks...

Frank

So you say the position of the Church on homosexuality destroyed homosexuals lives?

Yes, absolutly. Beyond the few who's lives were outright destroyed are the thousands upon thousands who have been alienated from family, friends and spiritual support. It cannot be stressed enough that the subject some discuss in the abstract affects others at their core. Sexual orientation is not like favoring ice tea over lemonade. It goes to the very essense of your being, when the church denounces some people's sexual orientation they denounce people.

Did they, at your baptism give you any reason to believe that homosexuality is sanctioned or reccommended?

I grew up an adventist, and was baptized before I even understood what sexuality was. At that age I really didn't care, nor should I have. None of my baptismal training had anything to do with the church's position on the subject. Not everything that is biblical is part of the Church's theology.

When people leave a church to find humanity, peace, forgiveness and wholeness something is wrong with the church.

Anyone who says: "Love it or leave it!" should be afraid to give a real name. Instead, "Your Friend" with that insensitivity is surely no friend at all. With friends like that, who needs enemies?

That is a favorite bumper sticker of those who believe that in the U.S. no criticism should be allowed: you ethier go along with what your leaders do, or you leave.

I challenge "Your Friend" to prove he or she is worthy of our friendship by giving a real name.

I challenge Elaine to *not* be the first or second to make a comment when the church is demeaned!

Elaine: Let's not start this discussion again. I personally find Your Friend's comments to be utterly unhelpful, but I see no reason for why anyone on here should assert a "real" name. They know who they are, and I don't really see how their ident affects the rest of us one whit.

Happy Tuesday.

Your Friend: Which part of the church is being impugned? Which faction is being insulted? Which group constitutes the "real" church? I read a very good article in Adventist Today (don't remember which issue/author/etc., unfortunately) wherein the author made an appeal for Adventists to be capable of holding widely varying opinions without splitting (i.e., does one really have to hold to all 28 fundies in order to consider oneself and be considered an Adventist?). Many disagree with the church, but they like it/grew up in it/etc., so, rather than leave it, they try to be what they consider to be a positive influence on the church (E.g., Council of Trent, as opposed to the schismatic efforts of Luther, et al). Others of us, of course, decided to simply leave, but we often remain interested in what the church is doing, and for some strange reason, still desire what we believe to be its good. No. The greatness of an organization (in my opinion) is measured at least partly by how much diversity (especially intellectual) it can contain without collapsing or splitting or starting an Inquisition.

Niemand, please explain the anonymity. If the moderators allowed everyone to post pseudonymously or otherwise, would that be acceptable? Then, why the request for anyone's name?

Those who are afraid of using their real name can "shadow box" and indicate either fear of retribution or a need to be unidentified. Which is it?

The registration requires a name. Do they have special permission to post without a proper name?

Elaine: As jemand pointed out elsewhere, it may be a generational difference. On most of the forums I frequent, almost nobody ever uses a "real" name. Everyone has a consistently used avatar. As long as it's consistent, it's cool. And that's what the moderators are for, right? So, yeah, if it came out that Cliff or whoever (don't mean to pick on you particularly, Cliff. You just came to mind when I was searching for a name) was actually "Your Friend", then I might be somewhat put out. Until then. . .

A "real" name tells me next to nothing about a person.

Happy Tuesday.

And Elaine Nelson shows as not verified.

"Please sign your post. Consistently used pseudonyms are acceptable, but "anonymous" is not."

Just in case Elaine never read the paragraph above where she writes her post.

Elaine said,"All things either change and grow, or else stagnate and die."

This is of course a false choice. In your case I am led to believe that a third option is in play.

The church changes and grows, except its not in a way that agrees with you. If the church doesnt agree with you is not the same as it stagnating and dying.

Niemand-
And is your last name Nichts? Just jesting. I see no reasonable basis for pluralism in the SDA church; in fact, I believe it to be destructive. Someone may ask for proof but I think it is a basic assumption that when an organization, be it ecclesiastical or business, goes off into different directions at once confusion and disunity result.

It has been a puzzle to me for a long time why persons who have left the church, as you so indicate, continue to take such an interest in it. That in itself is nothing to fault. I do fault, (and hasn't Cliff touched on this?), those who come to destroy it as it is now constituted.

I simply do not agree that much intellectual diversity contributes to a healthy growth of the church. Maybe you can show me how that can be done, Niemand.

Jemand wrote: You can't just "choose" to stop believing something because you don't like the implications, you stop believing something if you loose faith in the validity of it's derivations.
Adventism resulted from reinterpretations of Miller's false time-setting theory. All its "exclusive doctrines" are reinterpretations of Millerism's false 1844 time-setting theology. Time-setting has always resulted in Great Disappointments, confusion, and continued "fudging" by a small diehard minority. How can true faith rest on invalid foundations and fudging reinterpretations? Is Adventism based on Christ and His Word or on false 1844 time-setting theology? Are Adventists really Christians or continuing apologists for false time-setting? This issue has never been faced squarely and honestly or resolved effectively. (The 1919 Bible Conference and the 1980 "Dallas Creed" are examples.) As long as Adventist foundations are invalid and uncorrected, the current "Adventist Identity Crisis" and its resulting confusion will continue and grow more acute over time.

AMEN, Arlin!

Could it also be that in our individual spiritual journeys, we need to leave the church in order to grow spiritually? Let's face it, churchiness is quite parochial - someone with or without a collar presumes to have something to say that I should want to spend my time listening to. If, then, you go away frustrated because there was no way to dialogue, church becomes an exercise in frustration; SS is usually a yawn (evidenced by the glazed over expressions) depending how far from an SDA center one lives. But I don't think Barbara Brown Taylor had this precise problem. Church in her corner of Christendom has a different function than it does for SDAs. Hers seems to be a call to an inclusive experience, while SDA theology focuses on exclusions.

Personally, I really do appreciate the SDA cultural background that is mine. I wouldn't have it any other way; but the theology really has to get revamped before I can respect the organization again.

Sirje said:

"Hers seems to be a call to an inclusive experience, while SDA theology focuses on exclusions."

---------------------------------------------------

"Inclusiveness" or excessive navel-gazing and self-absorption?
If the purpose of Christianity is to help re-make us; then we should try not to run amok with sensory spirituality.
We cannot run all day on "I feel..."
At some point we have to rein in the horses to get home.

(On another note, many people in developing countries marvel at how westerners cannot make the connection between postmodern-inspired self-worship and the "breakdown in community" that they so lament.")

Instead of another "personal truth" about how somebody escaped "structure" once again; it would be nice to read about how structure forced someone to move beyond themselves into some much-needed character development.

[Love it or leave it! Fall in line with me or go away!]
"Love" me or I'll leave. Fall in line with me or I'll go away.
Flip a coin.
All four are false choices. (What do you call a four-way dichotomy?)
Posted by: Anonymous@11 (not verified) | 01 August 2008 at 10:55
*******
"A four-way dichotomy."
Which is why one wonders at Your Friend's statement that pluralism is destructive, results in confusion, and does not contribute to health.
If only a rose garden could talk. The red roses and the orange ones would be infighting.

Anonymous,

A lesson in definitions:

INCLUSION = "Whosoever may come, come" (John 3:15, 16.)
EXCLUSION = "Love it or leave it."

NAVAL-GAZING = (a)preparation for an INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT;
(b) character development
SENSORY SPIRITUALITY = "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is is born of the Spirit is spirit." (John 3)

REINING IN THE HORSES = left brain Christianity

"If only a rose garden could talk. The red roses and the orange ones would be infighting."

An obviously inappropriate metaphor for pluralism; they are all roses (SDAS) and are recognized as such. Variegated colors is a more apt metaphor for a variety of gifts and abilities.

A lesson in definitions:

INCLUSION = "Whosoever may come, come" (John 3:15, 16.)
EXCLUSION = "Love it or leave it."

Posted by: Sirje | 02 August 2008 at 2:15

In order to not be proof text simplistic, I would ask you how this text and concept applies in your rather loose definition if inclusiveness.

Matthew 7:13,14

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.
But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

Anonymous11: Please note the comment guidelines. Consistently used pseudonyms are acceptable, but "anonymous" is not, mainly because, as your frequent posts illustrate, it seems that we are all more respectful and courteous to our fellow commentors when we use a name, even an assumed name. This is also a space for thoughtful conversation on the posted topic, not tirades or attacks. You past anonymous comments will be removed, but you are welcome to re-comment following the guidelines. Thanks!

Spectrum Editors

Tom,

I just finished reading for the second time the following comment you posted on 30 July 2008 at 11:15:

*********
"Religion is not only toxic. It is deadly! It even Killed the Christ! ... Yes religion is more than toxic it is down right sickening. Now on the other hand, the Gospel of Jesus Christ in its pure form is the Balm of Gilead."

*********
I have some questions for you: If religion is toxic, then where can I find spiritual nourishment for my soul? Your answer seems to be: The pure Gospel of Jesus Christ. Where can I find said pure Gospel of Jesus Christ? You might suggest that I go to the Bible, or the four New Testament Gospels.

Well, the four Gospels and the entire Bible are available to me thanks to organized religion, which according to you is "toxic." How can a toxic organization be the channel of the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ? If you run crystal-clear water through a toxic and polluted channel, wouldn't said water become polluted? So how can I secure said pure Gospel?

I have been receiving lately a magazine entitled "The Voice of the Martyrs." It contains the stories of Christians around the world who are persecuted for their faith. They are right now imprisoned, interrogated, beaten, maimed, and killed for owning religious "toxic" material that is sent to them on a regular basis. They belong to all kinds of denominations, Evangelical, Catholic, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, Mormon, and many more. The toxic religious material is provided to them by this "toxic" religious organization calle "Voice of the Martys."

Would you suggest that the governmental agents who persecute these Christians for possessing said Christian toxic material are doing God's work, because they are confiscating said books and magazines from them and thus protecting them from being poisoned by toxic organized religion?

I know that you have done a lot of good throughout your life, and I trust that you must have a good answer for me. My comments are not designed to annoy you, but rather to give you a chance to explain you religious philosophy.

Those persecuted Christians I described above need a source of spititual nourishment, and I need the same too. Where can we find the pure Gospel of Christ you have referred to in your posting?

http://www.sdaforum.com Editor

Carrol,

I am in full agreement with the following statement you made on 30 July 2008 at 12:19:

*********
On the issue of "staying in" a church that we love but believe needs to correct its course, I am convinced that if we are spiritually healthy we can do the most good from inside. But at the leadership level it would take tremendous courage to try to make bold changes. I wonder if it's even possible. I think, instead, that change toward a better way has to start on an individual level.

*********
What you stated resonates with an experience I had a few years ago. I was writing my doctoral dissertation [ http://www.sdaforum.com/page13 ] dealing with the altered Seventh-day Adventist attitude towards abortion, and had some doubts about my ability to continue worshipping with Christians whose hands were stained with the blood of innocent unborn babies.

For three months, I attended the Riverside Seventh-day Baptist Church. I met there a former Adventist who is a pro-life actvist and has an organization where women can go for counselling and assistance for those who opt for keeping the unborn baby they have been blessed with.

This is what he told me: "I started my organization 'Adventist for Life' some years ago, I encountered an almost complete apathy from my fellow Adventist members in Loma Linda. I confided this with Elder Richards, from the Voice of Prophecy, and he told me that the most effective way of cleaning a church is from the inside."

These comments from a man of God who ignored Richards' advice made me reconsider my decision to continue with the Baptist organization. I suddenly realized that there was a lot of good being done through the Adventist Church, and that my humble imput could perhaps spark a desire to change some things for the better.

Of course, had I been part of the Adventist leadership, I would probably have looked the other way while millions of innocent babies were sacrificed on the altar of convenience. When your bread and butter comes from the church coffers, and when your future retirement is at stake, it is more difficult to have a 20/20, clear vision of what is taking place!

Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com

Elaine,

Thanks for the comments you posted on 30 July 2008 at 3:12. I love anecdotes, and the one you cited described my world. From the time I was a child, I grew up nourished by Ellen G. White spiritual milk, which might have contained small amounts of toxic substances. This should alarm nobody. Research has discovered the mother's milk usually does contain minuscule amount of toxic substances. Does this mean that we should discard mother's milk and substitute it with soy milk, of cows milk, which are also quite often contaminated with undesirable elements.

Even water is not 100 percent pure. I recently received a water report from the City of Loma Linda, and was surprised to discover the large variety of toxic substances that I ingest on a daily basis by drinking this liquid. Should I stop drinking this beverage? Should I perhaps follow the example of the man who said: "Water is contaminated, therefore I drink only wine and beer?"

Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com

It would depend on the concentration, wouldn't it? If a minuscle amount of ricin is added to water it becomes deadly poison, whereas other poisons, in minute amounts may cause little harm.

Likewise, it one's religious upbringing is permeated with heavy concentrations of EGW's adivce, it can prove to have a most undesirable affect on one's religious experience, as well as the personality of the individual. What is desired is not often what become the results.

Carlitas,

I read your comments posted on 30 July 2008 at 3:43 but could not figure the meaning of the expression "GLBT Adventists." Just wondering.

Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com

Elaine,

You posted the following comments on 01 August 2008 at 8:11:

*********

"That proves that time marches on and when the church stays far behind in it approach and not only does not lead in giving rights to all its members but limits their possibilities and potentials, it has become outdated and arachaic. All things either change and grow, or else stagnate and die."

*********

Is this true about the Catholic Church? If it is, then the church of Rome should have become extinct a long time ago. I believe in change, but a church that adapts to every whim of its members lacks a backbone, and no vertebrate can survive without a backbone. Church organizations are not prone to adopting new set of dogmas for every new generation.

This is why, when people are disatisfied with their church, they start a new one. Someone said that we already have 25,000 of them, and a new one is created every few decades or so. Some of them manage to survive, while others either die a natural death or become the victims of abortion.

Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com

Carlitas,

I have a question for you in response to the following statement you posted on 01 August 2008 at 10:28:

*********

"I grew up an adventist, and was baptized before I even understood what sexuality was. At that age I really didn't care, nor should I have. None of my baptismal training had anything to do with the church's position on the subject."

*********
Should your unhappiness be directed perhaps at Moses and Saint Paul instead of the church? They are the ones who disapproved homosexuality with such strong words. Moses said that homosexuals should be stoned, and Paul argued that such will not inherit eternal life.

I do not recall having ever heard a SDA sermon condemning homosexuality, and the church is not demanding that homosexuals be stoned. I know no Adventist ever claiming that homosexuals will be banned from heaven. Does the church really deserve such hostility?

The term leaving the church is improperly stated. Disassociation for a church organization would be the proper term. The Church was established and built upon Jesus Christ.
He is its Head and Bridgroom.

I recall the story of the middle aged couple driving through the country side enjoying the fall leaves. The wife spoke up and said: "Why don't we sit close together like we used to?
The husband quietly replied: "Well, I haven't moved!"

Even denominations that decry creeds, have stated fundamental beliefs. To disagree with the most cherished of those beliefs is, in effect, is to formally disassociation oneself from the
the organization. Some do so openly, others prefer to be quiet pew sitting dissenters. There is no perfect "church" this side of heaven. Church going has many motives: To be seen, to have voice, to gain power, to enjoy fellowship, to enjoy music and or the word, to praise God.

To give voice to differing view points of key beliefs automatically places one in a discordant relationship with the body. Far better to disassociate that to dissemble.

In a mega church, one can disagree without being disagreeable, enjoy the music and the word and praise God.

Not so in a small self absorbed company of self proclaimed saints.

No! people disassociate they don't leave. Generally it is the church body that initiates the disassociation--to maintain purity. I feel sorry for the church, not the disassociated one. Jesus Christ is still Lord. Praise be to God.

To deny Christ as Lord and Savior is an entirely different matter
Tom

Michael,
You posted: "In order to not be proof text simplistic, I would ask you how this text and concept applies in your rather loose definition if inclusiveness."

Well, Michael, what the text (Jn 3: 14 -16ff) means is that anyone who feels drawn to the Gospel as declared by Jesus, is welcomed. Does that invitation also include a change? - most definitely but not as a condition of coming to God's presence.

You also quoted: "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.
But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

I assume by this you meant to indicate that acceptance by God means only a few will qualify - I don't know, I'm guessing. As for Matt.7:13 - this statement comes at the end of the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus had said things like, "go the extra mile; cut off you arm if it offends you; don't judge others; don't worry about tomorrow - you know, all the stuff we do in the opposite. As Jesus said to Nicodemus, the things of the spirit come undetected. They are a gift to a pure heart. That is probably gobbledygook for a pragmatist.

The reason I even mentioned it at all is that the SDA idea of rebirth is giving up your job in order to keep the Sabbath; not mixing sugar and milk; and paying a double tithe - all things that can be easily observed; not to mention the various dress codes and other dietary restrictions. That is not a religion of inclusion, where anyone can feel comfortable in coming.

When altar calls are made, we sing "Just as I am"
and "Take me as I am." But, do we really mean that? Or is it more: I come, but scrub me clean and show me how to eat and dress right and keep the "correct" day, and give up my work and many former activities and THEN, I can become just like the rest of you?

AMEN, Elaine! A good example of why baptism should be the response of a heart that has turned to Christ and why church membership should come after studying and accepting what our particular church believes!!

P.S. For many of us those songs have been so misused, the playing of them is enough to make us want to get up and leave.

"If only a rose garden could talk. The red roses and the orange ones would be infighting."

An obviously inappropriate metaphor for pluralism; they are all roses (SDAS) and are recognized as such. Variegated colors is a more apt metaphor for a variety of gifts and abilities.

Posted by: Your Friend | 02 August 2008 at 7:39

*******
All humans are humans. I can't ignore the conflicts about American ethnicity-based conferences ("regional" is such a deflection), the tussles about organizational gender roles, or any other current, vibrant site of infighting within the Adventist denomination. I'm aware some don't like the idea that identity should not affect value or function, perhaps feeling that another's identity has any bearing on one's own. Yet the majority of our conflicts show a deep disrespect for the preset and God-set value of others. As such, it's rare that those others get the chance to fully apply their gifts or abilities. We fail to accommodate them because we are too busy trying to assimilate or quarantine them.

Whether within the church or out on the street, pluralism is intra-species variety without intimidation or assimilation, and that is why I think the rose garden metaphor stands. It figures the essence of communion... and communion trumps association. Enter grace, stage left.

The reason I even mentioned it at all is that the SDA idea of rebirth is giving up your job in order to keep the Sabbath; not mixing sugar and milk; and paying a double tithe - all things that can be easily observed; not to mention the various dress codes and other dietary restrictions. That is not a religion of inclusion, where anyone can feel comfortable in coming.

Posted by: Sirje | 02 August 2008 at 4:54

I see better where you are coming from Sirje. Those 2 texts have to "triangulate" the correct path. IOW they have to agree with each other since they are both true.

Your paragraph above gets us back to seperating people and their personal bents from the churches fundamental beliefs. Keeping the Sabbath and mixing sugar and milk are not of the same cloth. People confuse those when they cant seperate the two.
Dress code in an overstatement since only modest has ever been suggested. Dont even bother saying, "Emma Jean down at the local church told me we had to wear pants under our long dresses to be Adventists." because Emma Jean isnt in charge of dress standards for the General conference.

I have no idea of where you got a double tithe from. I have never done it. Are you saying I'm not a good SDA? Doesnt matter, since I have the ability to realize that Sirje is not the tithe police.
I am just using that as an example of the difference of someone saying something that they have no basis for stating.

We need to not mix the important with the trivial.

The songs like "just as I am." are about the starting point of our conversion, not the finished product.
To suggest that just like we are is fine with no need to ever improve or change is feeble.

Whereas your average church member may never see a General Conference official but will ever have to squeeze past Gatekeeper Emma Jean, Emma Jean's ground-level foolishness is a lot more significant than the GC's ethereal rationality.

Nice as it is that the GC sometimes publishes official statements on thorny issues, when members are face-to-face with each other and seeking Jesus in the midst of the company, it's those locals who make the difference. I can't think of a system or society in which people didn't supercede policy. Perhaps you can think of one, Michael; do share so I can consider it.

Sirge,

"Well, Michael, what the text (Jn 3: 14 -16ff) means is that anyone who feels drawn to the Gospel as declared by Jesus, is welcomed. Does that invitation also include a change? - most definitely but not as a condition of coming to God's presence.

You also quoted: "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.
But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

I assume by this you meant to indicate that acceptance by God means only a few will qualify - I don't know, I'm guessing."

I am reinterating how I agree with what you wrote here.
Could it also be that the few that find the smaller gate are those who did as you wrote at the end of the first paragraph above?
"Does that invitation also include a change? - most definitely..."

IOW, the narrow gate speaks less to the difficulty of the requirements and more to the willingness to not stay "Just as you are"?

KM
Nice as it is that the GC sometimes publishes official statements on thorny issues, when members are face-to-face with each other and seeking Jesus in the midst of the company, it's those locals who make the difference. I can't think of a system or society in which people didn't supercede policy. Perhaps you can think of one, Michael; do share so I can consider it.

Posted by: KM | 02 August 2008 at 7:40

I agree with your general thought here. It is difficult to get Emma Jean to not impose her personal bents on people who dont know any better.
In my experience the ease or success of skirting this problem is practically gentic. Some people can seperate the message from the messanger, as they say. Unfortunately, some cant. They blame the entire church for the actions of some they have interacted with.
It has always amazed me that people say things like you can come to Gods presence Just as you are, which is true and by saying it they know that the "church" is filled with sinful people in need of a Savior. Yet, somehow they are suprised when Emma Jean spouts her personal bents on dress codes and blame the entire denomination for Emma Jean destroying the life of someone.

Michael,

You included the following question in your last posting:

*********

"I have no idea of where you got a double tithe from. I have never done it. Are you saying I'm not a good SDA? Doesnt matter, since I have the ability to realize that Sirje is not the tithe police."

*********
I think that you can trace the double tithe idea to Ellen White. I do recall having read in one of the red books that, according to her, many Israelites of old were contributing apprximately 30 percent of their income as tithes and offerings. Of course, at that time there was no income tax, sales tax, gasoline tax, property tax, and do on, which accounts close to fifty percent of our U.S. income today.

Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com

Why are Adventists leaving the church? Let me use an illustration here: When I was a young boy, we were living in a rather primitive spot of a South American country, and the only source of drinking water was a short distance from our home. Everybody in our neighborhood was forced to go to said well in order to secure the drinking water needs of their family.

So why are Adventists leaving the church today? Many are doing so because they can find spiritual nourishment elsewhere. There was a time when spiritual food could be found mainly inside the church. Not anymore. Now anyone can be spiritually fed through a plethora of religious books and magazines, through radio and television, through tapes, DVD's and many other electronic means.

Plus, there is a variety of Christians churches in almost every city, town, and village. I remember that, while doing colporteur work in order to pay for my college tuition, one summer we were assigned a town without any Adventist presence. We ended worshipping among Mormons. It was quite an experience for us, and we discovered that they went overboard in their determination to treat us like kings.

Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com

Michael, you might get a chuckle out of the following quote a friend sent me tonight from C.S. Lewis' essay "God in the Dock":

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

And something I read this spring on the issue and ironies of reforming other people is Marilynn Robinson's essay "Puritans and Prigs." Perhaps you can track it down (I read it in the collection The Death of Adam).

Michael,
You said, "The songs like "just as I am." are about the starting point of our conversion, not the finished product.
To suggest that just like we are is fine with no need to ever improve or change is feeble."

You must have missed where I also said, "Does that invitation also include a change? - most definitely but not as a condition of coming to God's presence." AS it is now, acceptance is based on having gone through a process of "education". When that's done, and you can raise your hand to a list of questions, you're in. If you can't agree to all 28 in a nutshell, you're an outsider, and not a part of the "family of God".

Who is to say at what stage of conversion anyone is at? (excuse the grammar) The point is that a church, representing the call of God, should be inclusive to any and all. If then, you want to sift out the rif raf when it comes to who gets to climb the platform - well, that's another story (and that, too, is a maybe).

Michael,
You said:
"Your paragraph above gets us back to seperating people and their personal bents from the churches fundamental beliefs. Keeping the Sabbath and mixing sugar and milk are not of the same cloth. People confuse those when they cant seperate the two.
Dress code in an overstatement since only modest has ever been suggested. Dont even bother saying, "Emma Jean down at the local church told me we had to wear pants under our long dresses to be Adventists." because Emma Jean isnt in charge of dress standards for the General conference. ...

We need to not mix the important with the trivial."

When the baptismal candidate pledges allegiance to Ellen White, as the prophetic voice of the church, any standards uttered by the prophet are part and parcel of the church's requirements, especially when the authority is declared as follows: "In ancient times God spoke through the mouths of prophets and apostles. In these days he speaks to them by the Testimonies of his Spirit." (Test. Vol4 p.148; Vol.5, p. 661) (By the way, this, as opposed to: GOD, AFTER HE SPOKE LONG AGO TO THE FATHERS IN THE PROPHETS IN MANY PORTIONS AND IN MANY WAYS, IN THESER LAST DAYS HAS SPOKEN TO US IN HIS SON..." Heb.1:1,2)

You tell me, which is the "important" and which is the "trivial?"

Sirje,

You sound like a fundamentalist. I am currently reading the inspired book of Psalms, and today I encountered several imprecatory verses where David curses his enemies. Do you consider this as fundamental or rather trivial? Should I imitate David in this respect, or should I rather do what Jesus said when he stated: "Love your enemies"?

Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com

Sirje: How is what you wrote any different from "In those days we had prophets. Now God speaks through His Holiness, the Pope."? Anyway, last I knew, baptismal candidates were NOT required to pledge allegiance to EGW. They were merely required to affirm the possibility of the existence of spiritual gifts. Maybe things have changed. But, thanks for pointing out that particular little gem of a text (Test. Vol4 p.148; Vol.5, p. 661). Now I know even more why I don't take the dear girl as seriously as I used to. It takes a lot of gall to set oneself up as the instrument by which God speaks. As I said before, no real difference between that and "Oh. Were you talking to God? You don't need to bother. I can do that for you. And much better." Basically, "Prair. ur doin it rong." Again, to my knowledge, EGW has NEVER been a test of faith, nor has she (technically) been the deciding factor as far as doctrine. A significant influence, yes. But The Repository of God's Testament in These Latter Days, no. But, I've been out of the loop for a while. Maybe that changed when the blessed fathers of the church decided it needed another fundamental belief.

Happy Tuesday.

Nic,
"You sound like a fundamentalist." No, my friend, that is the church speaking.

The problem seems to be that the church is fundamentalist but it's members, today, and especially in the west, are not; but the church still speaks with authority. There is a tremendous gap between Silver Springs, including the SS branch, and the ivory towers of Andrews (and other places).

Nimand is correct.
Never is a candidate asked if they accept anymore than that the gift of prophecy is still one of the gifts of God and is still given today.
The church goes to great lengths to state that the Bible is the rule and standard. EGW never supercedes the bible, except where KM so aptly reminds us, "... It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies." Again people and not the church.

It is my opinion that those who are the most unhappy with EGW are the same ones that have the most difficulty seperating what "Emma Jean" says (or does)from the real churches standards. Hence all the ancient anecdotes one reads on spectrum.
Thats why instead of hearing about real issues (church standards) we hear about Dean "Emma Jean" and her crusade against lipstick as proof of church doctrine destroying lives.
One carry's real "baggage" if one goes that far to accuse the church.

In my experience, it seems that Adventism itself has helped foster a climate where the "Emma Jeans" can take root, flourish and wield influence over weaker and more impressionable people. This probably happens more frequently in smaller churches where such types seem to cast a longer shadow. They are the types that act as the doctrinal and life-style police, make noise about the "straight testimony" being preached, etc., etc. While I'm fully aware that much more severe abuse happens in all churches (i.e. the RCC scandal over the past several years), I just don't picture this particular type of abusive behavior (and that's what it is) happening in a local Methodist or Presbyterian church. But maybe I'm wrong.

Perhaps it is simply encoded into the DNA of conservative to ultra-conservative churches like ours. Adventism and other conservative Protestant denominations look at the world and its encroachment into the ranks as a threat, view history and/or current events as indicative of a mushrooming religio/political conspiracy leading to Armegeddon, and view themselves as the only pure, safe haven from the storm.

It's easy for me to see how some very imbalanced individuals can take this and really run with it into all kinds of wild places. The shame is when such people are given positions of responsibility, or are allowed to set themselves up as visible and vocal influencers within a local church.

The real challenge is when those individuals are pastors, elders, or board members. Such a situation can set up a truly toxic environment. I have seen this happen, and witnessed too many people driven from the church as a result. They are often left embittered towards Adventism. They are not to be blamed.

In fact, maybe it is God just leading people so wounded to "the still waters" that they need elsewhere, so that He can "restore their souls." That restoration can lead to the ability to forgive. Meanwhile, those of us who are grounded enough to deal with "Emma Jean" need to call her and her abusive behavior to account.

Thanks...

Frank

Sirge

Sorry, By addressing the first part of one of my posts to you I may have inadvertantly given the impression that the whole post was in reference to one of your posts.

For the record I agree with your position on "Does that invitation also include a change? - most definitely but not as a condition of coming to God's presence."

In my conference, we operate on a line of thought that is best discribed as Belong, Believe, Become.

People have a need to Belong. Anyone who comes to one of our churches is welcome to belong in our company and in Gods presence. Our hope is that through continued study interaction and time they will come to believe. When and if that happens we encouage them to "Become" active church "members". This is not really that new of an idea and it speaks to your position where you relate:

"AS it is now, acceptance is based on having gone through a process of "education"."

"There is a tremendous gap between Silver Springs, including the SS branch, and the ivory towers of Andrews (and other places)."

I find your concept of "acceptance" less desireable than the one I stated above because you evidently think that one has (or should) be a member before one can have a sense of belonging.
It begs the question why would someone even want to Become a member BEFORE they believe?

I'm a little bit surprised by the Ministry of Truth reinterpreting we seem to be doing here. It is only formally true that people are not asked about "Ellen White" during their public examination before baptism. What they are asked is "8. Do you accept the biblical teaching of spiritual gifts and believe that the gift of prophecy is one of the identifying marks of the remnant church?" and "11. Do you know and understand the fundamental Bible principles as taught by the Seventh-day Adventist Church? Do you purpose, by the grace of God, to fulfill His will by ordering your life in harmony with these principles?"

The "fundamental Bible principles as taught by the Seventh-day Adventist Church" include "18. Gift of Prophecy
One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White. As the Lord’s messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.)"

Truly surprising we're saying that when people are asked to publicly consent to Vows 8 and 11, we're saying they don't
also consent to Fundamental 18.

Edit: The three-item alternative only makes the relationship between the public examination and the official fundamentals more obvious. Number 2 is "Do you accept the teachings of the Bible as expressed in the Statement of Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and do you pledge by God’s grace to live your life in harmony with these teachings?" As I recall, it was a thoroughly argued condition for the GC vote in 2005 that the alternative formulation wouldn't contradict the longer traditional one.

I see I'm in alien territory and need to spell things out better. When I posted earlier the difference between what EGW stated in Testimonies and what Heb.1 says, I did not mean to imply that Ellen White had the authority or even the slightest right to change that statement and insert herself as the voice of God in the last days. My entire previous post has been misunderstood. For the record, and as plainly as I can, I must say I was appalled when I read this statement from the Testimonies.

I have read a couple of Barbara Brown Taylor's books including this one and was very much identifying with her sentiments. I find that the liturgical churches have a more accepting attitude; and the SDA church, on the other hand, stands out as an exclusive group, with numerous prohibitions.

The the church officials in Silver Springs are mired down within a system that is based on 19th century cultural theology, while the rest of the church has moved on. The disconnect between the those in authority and the scholarship of the church was, of courser, graphically demonstrated back in the early 80's. At present, there is a whole array of church attitudes depending on what part of the globe one lives, and the practices of the individual churches varies.

Michael, you said,

"Never is a candidate asked if they accept anymore than that the gift of prophecy is still one of the gifts of God and is still given today."

That is playing word games. Nobody has a any doubt that by answering affirmatively to this question, that they are accepting Ellen White as that prophet and thereby, everything she says. For the record - I do not accept that. The only issue baptism should deal with is the person's relationship to Christ.

KM
"As the Lord’s messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.)"

Truly surprising we're saying that when people are asked to publicly consent to Vows 8 and 11, we're saying they don't
also consent to Fundamental 18."

I see you addressed in your edit the writings of EGW are subbordinate to the scripture.
One could say that one aknowledges EGW as authoritative, but since it states that principal only goes as far as the bible says, does it really matter? A possible paraphrase or example might be, "KM is authoritative except where he disagrees with the bible."
I'm fairly comfortable with that. Sounds like a discription of a disciple to me. What have we ever all gotten right? Who has attained perfection in relating or discribing the character of God?

I guess this illustrates something I've always maintained based on my professional background: policy documents are designed to be fluidly read. The terminology and language in a policy document like the Manual, the vows, and the FBs is deliberately developed to satisfy various groups, who, despite reading different ideas out of the texts, can nevertheless rally round those texts.
That's the only reason that votes can pass in a heterogeneous group, and that's what is happening here.

Where Michael sees "the teachings of the Bible," Sirje and I both see "the teachings of the Bible as expressed in the Statement of Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church." I would submit those are not the same thing by any means. But the text is designed to be multivalent.

The information I added on the alternative vow does not subordinate EGW to the Bible. It simply shows that the FBs represent the interpretation of scripture that the candidate confesses so as to become part of the SDA organization. If we wanted to hash out whether EGW or Scripture are dominant, we'd have to look outside the alternative vow. But that was not the initial question in any case. The original question was "are people required to confess acceptance in EGW as prophet before baptism." I think I've shown that they are.

Oh, and KM is female. :)

KM: Very interesting. So, would you give significant authority to tradition and the church-in-committee? I really think that's almost necessary for a Christian theology to be workable. Or, am I predicting views in completely the wrong direction?

KM
Thanks for letting me know you are female. I will get my pronouns correct from now on.

I can see where if one veiwed the question as you do, one might be able to make the assumptions you have. So, I agree with your last post too about groups agreeing on particular legal or discriptive text.
However, as to the overall context of this thread. If we reasonable people agree that a committee document can vary its meaning according to perception and not the text in the document itself, as you have correctly called our attention too, we can also agree that people are not destroyed by the text in the document (ie, the 28 fundamentals as was asserted earlier in this thread) but by their perceptions of it.
This principal also palys into the subject of acceptance as you put it. Perception having the larger voice (as it were) in some peoples minds.

KM
Upon further reflection on this passage;
"Where Michael sees "the teachings of the Bible," Sirje and I both see "the teachings of the Bible as expressed in the Statement of Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church." I would submit those are not the same thing by any means. But the text is designed to be multivalent.

Would you agree that;

If one percieved the Fb's as in addition to the bible your perceptions of "the teachings of the Bible as expressed in the Statement of Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church" would be in play and open for criticism for making extrabiblical demands on practicing christians.

If one were to view the Fb's as an outline or condensation of essential biblical principals, it would not be adding anything and therefore of no consequence according to even your perceptions of "the teachings of the Bible as expressed in the Statement of Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church"?

Yes, words on a page have no power to destroy anyone.

However, the way some of the stated 28 have often been interpreted and implemented in local situations within Adventism, have caused many people unessasary angst and pain. This is getting back to our friend "Emma Jean," whom we were earlier speaking about.

And as I stated in an earlier post and I'll say again, Adventism has often been a breeding ground for "Emma Jeans":

In my experience, it seems that Adventism itself has helped foster a climate where the "Emma Jeans" can take root, flourish and wield influence over weaker and more impressionable people. This probably happens more frequently in smaller churches where such types seem to cast a longer shadow. They are the types that act as the doctrinal and life-style police, make noise about the "straight testimony" being preached, etc., etc. While I'm fully aware that much more severe abuse happens in all churches (i.e. the RCC scandal over the past several years), I just don't picture this particular type of abusive behavior (and that's what it is) happening in a local Methodist or Presbyterian church. But maybe I'm wrong.

Perhaps it is simply encoded into the DNA of conservative to ultra-conservative churches like ours. Adventism and other conservative Protestant denominations look at the world and its encroachment into the ranks as a threat, view history and/or current events as indicative of a mushrooming religio/political conspiracy leading to Armegeddon, and view themselves as the only pure, safe haven from the storm.

It's easy for me to see how some very imbalanced individuals can take this and really run with it into all kinds of wild places. The shame is when such people are given positions of responsibility, or are allowed to set themselves up as visible and vocal influencers within a local church.

The real challenge is when those individuals are pastors, elders, or board members. Such a situation can set up a truly toxic environment. I have seen this happen, and witnessed too many people driven from the church as a result. They are often left embittered towards Adventism. They are not to be blamed.

In fact, maybe it is God just leading people so wounded to "the still waters" that they need elsewhere, so that He can "restore their souls." That restoration can lead to the ability to forgive. Meanwhile, those of us who are grounded enough to deal with "Emma Jean" need to call her and her abusive behavior to account.

Thanks...

Frank

It's about people and what they do with our documents.

Frank,
I had a mini ephiphany in the other thread about how your last post concerning "Emma Jean" would play out if the context were not Adventist community but web based community or Spectrum community.

In real life I get the feeling you agree with me that we need to work with the Emma Jeans and encourage improvement at best or buffer at worst for their personal crusades.

If the concept of community was over the web I've seen examples where the plan for dealing with them is to just block their IP address. I asked in the other thread what the real world equivilent would be to blocking someones IP address. Would it be locked church doors or passwords and secret handshakes?

How would that affect the concept of acceptance were are discussing here?

Nic

Read Fox's Book of Martyrs, Great Controvery, What the Spanish did in South America, What we did in North America, The Middle East at anytime. Toxic absolutely. Christianity is Christ centered. Religion is self centered.

Even the SDA church doesn't merely disagree it attempts to discredit to the extent of the law. To that degree it is a religion not a part of the Evangel.

While at Loma Linda during the Brinsmead excitement, several faculty would quietly come to me and ask who I had entertained in my home, knowing that members of my family were interested in Bob's message. My reply was: Scores of Seventh-day Adventists, A large number of Baptist relatives and friends, an equal number of Roman Catholic relatives and friends, A number of Latter Day Saints graduate students, a few hot and thirsty Jehovah Witnesses, and oh yes, I think a couple of Christians! Read Paul, Christianity isn't a religion it is a citizenship. It was the Judizers who would keep trying to reform it into a religion.

Paul implied, and correctly so, they were straight out of hell. Toxic in the extreme. Tom

Nic

Google Canright and learn how toxic even E.G.White was with a Christian gentleman who had the courage to challenge her views. Read her claims of his end and then compare with his contemporaries views of his life and character. Toxic is pervasive, even among the saints. Tom

KM: Very interesting. So, would you give significant authority to tradition and the church-in-committee? I really think that's almost necessary for a Christian theology to be workable. Or, am I predicting views in completely the wrong direction?

Posted by: Niemand (not verified) | 04 August 2008 at 3:51
*******

Yes, I would recognize the role and unfolding of church tradition via committees, key scholars, major books, major crises, public position statements, GC and midterm votes, mass publications like the SS Lessons, and mouthpieces like the Review. I don't see that as "giving authority"; just as recognizing authority where it already seems to operate. I think the day-to-day processes for a church's organization are or have become similar to those worked out in organizations that don't have an explicitly spiritual objective. (And this does not mean I'm ignoring the possibility of Divine Fiat, so let me assuage that worry before it appears!)

I was fascinated by the so-called Wesleyan Quad that (I think) Tom Zwemer posted the other day: scripture + tradition + reason + experience. My impressions are that in Adventism, in terms of our finished doctrinal product, we tend to overestimate the role of scripture, softpeddle the role of tradition, minimize the operation of reason, and underestimate the value of experience. The result might be that what we perceive as "[What] Seventh-day Adventists Believe" is less scripture unfiltered and more scripture filtered through 140 years of tradition, a sprinkling of reasoning, and a twist of experience. The quad is not a be-all model, of course, but I had fun thinking about it.