.jpg)
.jpg)
|
Home
News
2012
July Headlines
|
Rumors of Legal Restrictions on the Distribution of The Great Controversy Are Evidently False
Submitted: Jul 19, 2012
By AT News Team
Readers have asked Adventist Today about a rumor that has gained wide circulation among Seventh-day Adventists regarding some kind of litigation or government regulations restricting the distribution of the book The Great Controversy by Ellen G. White. The denomination is involved in a major project to circulate millions of copies, most of these actually a revised extract from the original book entitled The Great Hope as reported by Adventist Today earlier this year.
This week the General Conference released a statement by Karnik Doukmetzian, general counsel for the denomination, challenging the accuracy of the rumors. “The General Conference is unaware of any legal actions or lawsuits having been threatened or filed in any court,” Doukmetzian said. He believes that any legal actions of this nature “would be frivolous and baseless.”
After checking with a number of readers and individuals who monitor news of religion, Adventist Today has not been able to identify any source for these rumors. The Adventist Review has reported that it came to a similar conclusion.
“It is possible that some individuals have originated this story as a way to lend urgency to the project,” one retired church administrator told Adventist Today. “Or, it may simply be an expression of the concern some church members have about how this may be received by the general public; how it may affect attitudes toward the Adventist Church.” The book was originally published in the 19th century when there were more pronounced differences between Protestants and Catholics than are generally acknowledged today.
________________________
Share your thoughts about this article:
Log In to Post a Comment. Log In | Register
On balance I have listened to fired up sermons on the evils of the Catholic church and their subterfuge. I have watched arrogant SDA's let loose volleys of SDA propaganda against poor and quiet Catholic neighbors. Never have I observed such threats by Catholics against SDA's. The humanity, dignity and silence of the Catholics I grew up with stand in direct contrast to the bellicose nonsense of E.G. White anti-Catholic propaganda.
We had Huston Smith a Catholic priest at our SS class here at LLU. We studied his book "Whatever Happened to the Soul." After the completion of the book he came here to discuss his book. We started at 10 am and did not get out until after 8 pm that evening. What I came away with is that this educated man had a deep knowledge and understanding of religion in general and the dichotomy of good and reprehensible actions that have come out of Christianity. We inundated this man with questions about controversies, history of Catholic theology enlightened by Science. The Catholics in my view are light years ahead of SDA's in terms of theological modification in the light of modern scientific revelations.
One of the most interesting parts of the day is when we discussed the paleontological record of time. He said that Christianity up until around 500-600 yrs ago had this concept a young earth. But, he then said that his Church was in part responsible for the bru ha ha over deep time. He said "after all Catholic priests and monks with nothing better to do, digging in the earth came across some of the fossil remains of fantastic creatures never contemplated before." Those discoveries change not only the scientific but theological discourse. I am not massaging the great inustices and excesses of the Catholic church but at least they are not trying to cover it up. Furthermore, we owe some debt to their preservation of knowlege.
You really believe in SDA paranoia? You actually think the Roman Catholic Church is going to get the US congress to suspend the constitution in order to enforce "Sunday laws"? By Sunday law I suspect you mean that we will be forced to observe Sunday as a day of worship. I know a few Catholic priests nearby (Jesuits) and they just shake their heads at SDA paranoia. As one said if such nonsense were to be bantered about the most resistance would come from within the clergy of the Catholic Church itself. Its Catholics that leave everyone else alone but Mormons, SDA's and Jehovah's witnesses are the annoying people that are banging on my door at 0800 on a Saturday or Sunday. Never the Catholics. In fact if the SDA church had significant political influence and an army to back it they would force their religion on everyone else. Adventists are not immune to the human proclivity for persecution. They persecuted Desmond Ford for his suggestion that the theology for the investigative judgement is poppycock. The Catholics have learned a few things over 2000 yrs of existence. Persecution did not work then and won't work today. I think some adventists see Catholic conspiracies everywhere the go.
It is a long stretch from state enacted Sunday Laws as this country has known them - a no-business day for general health and welfare - to a day prescribing Sunday worship and proscribing Saturday worship. Protestants were at the forefront of Sunday Law movements a hundred years ago because, unlike Catholics, they were obssessed with prohibition, and Sunday Laws were a good way to advance their social agenda. A large percentage of tavern owners and Sunday tavern patrons were devout Catholics. I am not aware of evidence that the Catholic Church was a vocal supporter of Sunday closing laws in the various states.
Adventists were of course caught in a bit of a conundrum as to how they could support prohibition and still avoid joining forces with protestant prohibition activists who were piggy-backing Sunday Law support onto their prohibition agendas. It was undoubtedly their puritannical support for Sunday Laws that earned Protestants a place in Ellen White's beastly triumvirate of evil. I would be most interested in documentation regarding the role of the Catholic Church in the Sunday Law movements in the U.S.
I agree with you, Doctorf. Adventists are far more moralistic about their orthopraxy than are Catholics. All one has to do is look at the history of a town like Loma Linda, run and populated by Adventists, to see that Adventists are as receptive as any religious people to legislating their religious values in the name of the general health and welfare. Adventists have been very politically active on issues like tobacco and alcohol, where religious freedom is not implicated.
It should be noted that the idea that Adventists teach that the Catholic Church will enforce Sunday observance is a canard. However that’s all it takes, a little error, to get “the point” across, right?
The fact of the matter is that the institutionalization of Sunday observance is an historical accomplishment of the Roman Catholic Church.
The enforcement of Sunday observance, which Adventist doctrinal eschatology teaches is represented in Revelation 13:15, is to be enacted and facilitated by the beast with horns like a lamb (represented in Revelation 13:11); the U.S.
The enforcement will cause an effective obeisance to the first beast via its image. In other words it will be an acknowledgement of the “legitimacy” of the institutionalization of Sunday observance that has been implemented. Nominal Protestants will have to play a key role in this because the United States is largely a nominally Protestant nation. (Religious institutions, that will have to be in alliance/coalition, will control civil institutional power.)
These are important distinctions simply because misinformation is an indispensable tool of propagandists. The subject is important because of Revelation 14:9-11.
OK, both of you represent typical SDA paranoia and ones who really believe in SDA eschatology. But, I understand people like Dr. Huston Smith came to our SS and administered the "Roman Catholic" elixr to put us under the spell of the Church. The Catholic Church is not involved in any conspiracy to force Sunday worship on anyone. How many Catholic Priests do you know? Look at the website URL I posted. They view Adventists as a bit over the edge with regards to anti-Catholic propaganda. Selling SDA eschatology in my view is a devils game. I have colleagues that are biomedical scientists and Catholics and they hold no such dour views of Adventists. These people and their Church are not our enemies. But, you are entitled to your viewpoints. I am sure good Adventists subscribing to the "army church" notion will rise up in time to "do battle" with the great satan that is the Catholic Church. Good grief.
Thank you for the history overview. Many hurtful acts against other humans can be justified by "promoting the health and welfare." I think its been said "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." I have no arguments with the healthful living espoused by Adventists. And I do try to live by the guidelines. However, SDA's have the same propensities as other humans and that is tendency to want to control others. Huston Smith gave us a 2 hr overview on the relationship of the Church to authortarian governments and the mighty mischief and disdain for human rights that was common in the first 1200 yrs of Catholic History. He commented on the wonders of the US constitution and the separation of Church and State allowing a more peaceful co-existence between the two. I do not understand the bellicose view of the early SDA's against the Catholic Church. The site I posted for Jean when one looks at it there is a lot of common ground between Catholics and other Christians including SDA's. In academy I was fed a steay diet of anti-catholic propaganda from my own religion teachers. All with "good intentions" of course. Now that I am a pharmacologist when I re-read revelation the first thing is that the "visions" look pharmacological to me. Secondly the idea that various beasts represent particular seats of power, i.e. the Catholic Church is a bit of a stretch.
Maybe a new Church being formed 150 yrs ago needed imagined "enemies" in order to spread the message?
Man, first the Avondale alum and now you; what’s a fellow like me to think of what kind of Adventist education some of my white brethren have gotten? No wonder most of you are gone!
If I were your parents/sponsors I would demand a refund of all tuition expenditure. (Please don’t take offense, I’m just kidding.)
Attending SDA schools is where the beginning of agnosticim starts for those students who are not content with programed answers, but ask questions and get unsatisfactory, unreliable, and unsubstantiated answers. This is the beginning of the search which doesn't end for those who value integrity.
So agnosticism is now the only option or landing area for “those who value integrity;” meaning that belief and (valuing) integrity are mutually exclusive. How disappointing of you!
If I have misunderstood, or misrepresented what you have written; please clarify for me.
Like John, Dave, Elaine, and others, I attended an adventist academy, and even studied at PUC for awhile. These were not terrible experiences, and, of course, I did not know what I did not know. Even so, I began to find that I had been shielded from much evidence, when I went to a community college, a Methodist college, and University of California. The dishonest part was the indoctrination that we paid so much to get. Let me know if those tuition refunds ever materialize. Or maybe we should mount a class action suit over the systematic dishonesty and witholding of evidence in what is said to be the second largest religious educational system in the world.
No intention to be condescending, but one must first be taught religion and the Bible with a definite bias. It is indisputable that an SDA school teaches its own particular spin on the Bible. This does not mean that all is untrue, but that it is always filtered through the preconceived positions.
Attending community college, and a Jesuit university, exposed me to an entirely different aspect, even of history that was not given the SDA "slant."
Once, the realization sinks in that SDA schools do NOT teach "All the truth and nothing but the truth" but "truth" as they define it, the loss of trust in the church is the results. No longer can the church be the locus of truth; and the search to discover all that was left out of what was supposed to be an education.
An education that is driven by a desire to learn the "whole story" The education that is driven by the longing and curiosity from within. All else is simply accepting what one was taught with out ever questioning.
You should work on your reading comprehension. I doubt you would agree with Elaine regardless, but you sure distorted her comment.
She had an opportunity to clarify that.
Questioning is good. Sometimes the answers satisfy.
Tuition refunde is not necessary. I received a good education overall as SDA schools. The issue is partly in the biological realm and within the theology/religion realm. Much of the bible is not literal.
Regarding Revelation 14:9-11 I will read it but I am not sure I can give the appropriate Catholic response. I imagine you could find it online. My knowledge of Catholicism is from some books we studied in our SS class here at LLU. We do not shrink from controversy and the group is secure enough to look at other perspectives.
I have read the Great Controversy and reject the applied symbolism as rendered in that book. That is that the Revelation prophecies were fingering the Catholic Church. Those prophecies were for the people of their time. Revelation to me is symbolic of a struggle between good and evil and in the end good is triumphant. The SDA spin suggesting that the beast is Catholic Rome and that this seat of power will be responsible for forcing any type of religious law on whole populations is absurd. What history has taught is that people do not do to well under a totalitarian jack boot and tend to throw off oppression. The US constitution separated religion from govt as the founding writers understood the toxic mix of religion and politics.
Catholicism has been around for just over 2000 yrs and has had centuries to deal with issues that have arisen when empirical science and theology clash. Thus, Catholic theology is years ahead of SDA theology on such matters. Catholic theologians "see" God in evolution.
I understand your comment regarding the "canard" but I was clearly taught that evil Rome would be the force behind a universal Sunday law. So you are telling me that Adventism has altered its view?
Since you are more familiar with Catholicism than I appear to be, perhaps you can tell us how Catholicism interprets Revelation 14:9-11 from a prophetic point of view.
With the RC Church today it is a pretty spent force and still pretty wounded, especially with all the sex abuses. I don't believe that it was healed of its wound in 1928 (the traditional SDA view) but is still yet to be healed in the future (I note a number of SDA preachers say the same now, including conservative ones). You can't point to the current RC Church, or the current US Gov for that matter, and use its current status as your argument as to why these powers will not fulfill Rev.
Winston Churchill was one of the first people to seriously warn about the rise of Nazi Germany. When he started making these warnings, everyone thought he was nuts. Germany was a spent forced, still wounded from the infliction of WW1. It was an economic, political and military basketcase. Yet in a short few decades, it transformed itself and nearly conquored the world.
I have nothing against the current RC church or any of its people. Part of the reason I have this view is that it isn't the current RC chuch which will be the problem - it will be the future RC that will be the problem. Again, it is not just the RC church, but some sort of new Christian conglomoration that is to watch out for. Likewise, I don't have much against the current US and you Americans - it will be the future US that will be the problem.
If you want to disbelieve then fine. I only hope that this healthy skepteticism helps you watch and prayer even the more. Again, if the experience of the Pharisees is anything to go by, even we who think we are right are likely to see prophecy fulfilled in a way we don't expect.
If you don't believe in Rev to begin with, then no doubt all this is irrelevant, and any response you give simply trolling.
Here is the plausible deniability disclaimer: The ‘future’ is tomorrow, next week, next month, next year, two years from now.
If you are mistaken, brother, about when “the deadly wound was healed,” which you may be, then anything can happen; whenever.
In order for any prophecy to ever be fulfilled, certain things have to happen. In order for anything to happen, something, someone has to cause it to happen. There is a cause to every effect.
Some things that appear to happen suddenly have had necessary predicates which caused them. Other things happen gradually, wherein the causes seem rather obvious. The same is true with the prophecies to which we refer. Whether some things happen suddenly and others more gradually; they will have had predicates. This is to say that things are happening, have happened, and will happen to facilitate the actions of ‘tomorrow’s’ prophetic players.
To this extent, tomorrow’s players are today’s.
I would heartily recommend that those who can “handle the truth,” read chapter 25, 35, and 36 of The Great Controversy. (These are the chapters that are ‘controversial.’)
Uriah Smith used to teach that the Kingdom of the North in Dan 11 was the Ottomon Empire, which when it 'came to its end and no one could help him,' it would herald the beginning of the time of trouble in Dan 12. Uriah had it all worked out. Of course, you know what happened - the Ottomon Empire collapsed and the end didn't come.
Today some conservative pastors think Uriah had the right idea, but that the prophecy will be fulfilled in a way he couldn't forsee from his persepective in time. Today, some conservative pastors think it is actually Isalm itself, not the Ottomon Empire, which is the Kingdom of the North.
Now, even assuming these conservative pastors are correct, they prove my point. Be careful when it comes to prophecy. Even if you are on the right track, like Uriah, it will like play out in a way you can't imagine.
As another example, I had a friend who attended exam prep on Saturday. I questioned him about it and he said, 'Don't worry, when Sunday law gets introduce I'll start to keep the Sabbath properly'. That is the sort of dangerous thinking being a 'chart person' rather than a 'thief watcher'.
If you are not sure whether you agree with me or not, then you very well may agree with me.
All I am saying essentially is that things do not happen in a vacuum. Current events occur because of past events. Future events will occur because of current events.
What happens tomorrow is often a result of what happens today. What happens today is to some extent a result of what happened yesterday. What happened yesterday in some measure resulted from what happened the day before yesterday. You get the picture.
It’s not so much about charts, or paranoia, as it is awareness of what is happening now—in real time.
The most important reason for the prophecies in Revelation are that those who are around at the time of the end can avoid what’s referenced in Revelation 14:10.
We don’t know that we will be around at the time of the end, which means that we don’t know that we won’t either; because “no one knows…”
We are, however, given warnings and “signs,” and are told to watch and pray.
The reason that many people leave is that they are fearful of being lost. This is because Jesus has been deemphasized. That is the work of the enemy.
In my opinion Adventism generally, and EGW and The Great Controversy particularly, are opposed for the same reason that they exist.
As I said originally, what surprises me is Adventists seem more reluctant than ever to talk about the role of the RC Church or US as the beast powers in Rev. However, with Rick Santorium as a serious candidate (and one who said they felt sickened by Kennedy's separation of Church and State speech), the signs are clearer about the RC as sea beast (in conglomoration with Protestantism) than ever before. With the growing rise of executive actions, the imperial presidency, extroidinary renditions and a whole host of distrubing things, the idea that the US may indeed be the land beast power of rev that 'speaks like a dragon' is more plausible than ever.
Why is it out pioneers were not affraid to speak publicly about those things, at a time when their views were pretty nutty. Today, far from being 'paranoid', these ideas are more supported in fact than ever before, yet we are reluctant to speak about them.
Anyway, being a little bit paranoid a not necessarily a bad thing, because paranoid people tend to keep very good watch.
The church is timid about preaching the Third Angel’s Message for fear of persecution. Persecution here could mean embarrassment or ostracization.
This is in part why I think you are mistaken about the deadly wound not being healed. The RCC is more mainstream now than it has ever been in history; certainly in the United States. Not only is it completely unremarkable now when Catholics run for the U.S. presidency; many/most of the punditry, and news anchors, and analysts are (now) of that faith. Six of the nine lifetime appointed justices to the highest court in the land (the Supreme Court) are now Roman Catholic.
Nowadays everyone is hesitant to be labeled with or to be accused of bigotry—certainly against that which is now mainstream. In fact wherein the language used by EGW and other Protestants was mainstream from a Protestant perspective, it’s now considered bigoted and anachronistic; as with certain racial language.
Why is it out pioneers were not affraid to speak publicly about those things, at a time when their views were pretty nutty. Today, far from being 'paranoid', these ideas are more supported in fact than ever before, yet we are reluctant to speak about them.
This statement seems rather presumptuous to me. I can think of a boat load of reasons why there would be reticence today vs. in pioneer times.
-
The pioneers obviously were not worried about any message they were associated with abrogating the gospel. That was pretty much a done deal. I think many people are ashamed of the backseat that Christ's salvific work has taken to other doctrinal positions and prophecy in general.
-
While a RC president may now be unremarkable, it is viewed that way in part because we have discovered that in at least one case it truly was unremarkable. So, prudent people do not treat the opportunity for a situation to occur the same as it actually occurring or that there is evidence it is about to occur.
-
We have learned that some our more simplistic assumptions about prophecy fulfillment were wrong. The pioneers (including EGW) thought that the events in the GC were imminent. You suggest if it appeared imminent then, how much more is it now. While a collaboration of the RC and Protestantism may look more plausible today in the US, the global situation has changed and must account for Islam and the non-Christian populace of China.
-
As a denomination with over a hundred years of history we can now see that institutional distortions are par for the course. Now that we must compare ourselves as a competing global institution the differences are not as compelling as they once may have been perceived.
-
Bigotry and prejudiced against groups of people was much more commonplace in the 19th century. In our day people are understandably hesitant to take positions that would appear to others and bigoted and prejudiced.
-
The pioneers believed and presented the RC, Protestant, Lamb-like beast events to be imminent. Something cannot be imminent indefinitely. Sooner or later people will not want to appear they are crying wolf.
-
The value of the foreknowledge of these events may not seem as valuable with the passage of time. In fact, many today may feel the forecast events only created prejudice and fear that has actually interfered with the heart preparation that might be warranted to deal with the prophesied events if and when they occur.
I could continue with other items, but this is sufficient to raise questions about your conclusions. In reality the situation in our country and even globally could "turn on a dime". A sudden and unexpected change is always possible. But, you were not speaking of the unexpected, but situations that currently exist and I am explaining that there are lots of very practical reasons people may not feel comfortable making the traditional applications of prophesy that Adventism has been making (and is still making in some quarters).Beware the post hoc, propter hoc fallacy.
I will say it, since no one else will. This self-righteousness is boring. All discussions on this site aren’t arguments.
We are all coming from different perspectives. There are varying roles because there are varying gifts. Our roles are varied because our gifts are varied, and vice versa.
The body of Christ has many members. Everyone does not do the same thing. You may well be the right hand. Do what you do to honor God. Do what you do to help mankind. Do not do what you do to tell me that you are doing it.
It is important to use your gifts. It’s not important to talk about them.
Your comment was crystal clear to me. Joe also pointed out that Jesus admonished us not to be concerned with "the day or the hour." We are so concerned with these archaic prophecies that we miss the boat! Here, here sir!
I also like Stephen Foster's caveat that we should not be "people of the chart." I was a "person of the chart" as I learned the SDA spin on prophecy very, very well. But, then one day at the age of 17 I started asking myself "is this true"? "Is this literal"? "Were the prophetic words necessarily for me or pointed at the time when written"? "Why does Jesus hang around in the Holy Place for over a thousand years and then get up to go to the most holy place to begin the investigative judgment"? After that question I read Dr. Ford's work and he destroys the misguided SDA theological dream world surrounding the Daniel "prophecies."
Eventually I became educated as a scientist. I am now a peer reviewer, teaching, publishing and funded in my own right. When I went out of the SDA institutional world and into secular higher education I was rubbing elbows with highly educated scientists who were also Jews, Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Hindus, Atheists etc. Some even took me to their Churches. Imagine that?!!! My perspectives changed dramatically as they became my friends. The Adventist boogeymen disappeared.
In our SS class one Sabbath Dr. Richard Rice was giving a summary of one of his books we were unpacking. I told Dr. Rice that he actually did a good job in educating me as an undergraduate. He taught me that theologians ASK questions and answers are not always so forthcoming. He was part of the process in teaching me to think for myself. My father was appalled at the change in me from age 25-35 (my PhD and Post Doc years). However, eventually through reason and discussion I lead him out of the literal wilderness of genesis and the 6000 yrs nonsense. When he saw these books as stories from the ancients many of the "logic" issues melted away.
With regards to this thread on Catholics in particular I have come to a new found respect for some of their beliefs and traditions. And never once have I had a Catholic at my door or in my face telling me that if I did not accept their teachings that I was damned to hell. I have had my share of Jehovah's witnesses, SDA's and Mormons on my porch (always in the bloody morning) suggesting that they were "bringing truth" to my home and I rejected it at my peril. Now I just smile, take the literature, consider taking up drinking in the am and then go light my barbeque with the literature.
With regards to Adventism itself I have in no way left the culture or people in my life associated with Adventism. I publish with colleagues who are Adventist. I just attend SS and Church from time to time with a completely different perspective. Also I think that the theologians within the School of Religion and Theology at LLU are in some ways developing their own theological order. Ode to the Catholics again.
Like you, I haven't had a Catholic at my door telling me I had to accept their teachings. But I do have a photo from a few years ago on a visit to New York City where a woman on Wall Street is holding a sign proclaiming "You must be Roman Catholic to be saved."
Despite the fact that according to the latest survey (from the Review online) shows that confidence in organized religion has dropped to fourth place behind the military, small business, and police.
The organizations reflect the lowest confidence is: Congress, HMOs, and banks.
Organized religions have given plenty reason to have earned the low confidence of the general public. A little internal searching might be timely.
I hate to break the news, but currently, Islamism is fast overtaking Christianity to become the world's largest regligion, and in many parts of the world, Christianity is not being persecuted by Roman Catholicism but by Muslims. As Abby used to say: "Wake up and smell the coffee!"
What I’m referring to is that there are events, and personages, and philosophies which, figuratively speaking, ‘conspire’ to cause other events.
For example, the U.S. Civil War occurred from 1861-1865; but its historically established (hindsight) causes are found in specific things (events, personages, philosophies) that preceded it, by decades.
The same holds true for prophetic events.
With regard to Catholicism, I had asked my man Doctorf, who I now know has discovered a “new found respect for some of their beliefs and traditions,” to perhaps kindly shed some light on the Roman Catholic Church’s interpretation of Revelation 14:9-11.
He opted to punt on that request. Perhaps someone else can look it up.
Since you have some Catholic education Elaine, perhaps you can be of some assistance.
Except for a few scattered denominations, JWs are one, Adventists introduced futurism in their interpretation of Revelation, many of the early predictions were inaccurate as demonstrated by history.
I don't think you are correct about futurism. It was actually invented by a Jesuit of all people. Futurism holds that all the prophecies are still to be fulfilled in the future. Thus, the beasts and anti-Christ etc can't be correlated to any existing person or institution, which is very convenient.
I believe the SDA Church actually upholds the historical approach to prophecy, which is some prophecies have been fulfilled, some may be being fulfilled now, and some will be fulfilled in the future. I believe that was the traditional Protestant approach.
The futurist approach is now the dominant school within Evangelical Christianity, with dispensationalism and Hal Lindsay's rapture and Left Behind Series. I believe it gained its greatest prominance via John Darby, and is actually a very recent school of thought.
You added some interesting observations, but I think the new information does not refute my assertion that there are many reasons very real reasons that there will be a present day reticense to present boldly some of what the pioneers present (in particular in attitudes toward the RCC).
When I was in my 30's the SDA church that I still attend was planning to build a new scanctuary. I served on the building committee and found that the folks in the 50+ age bracket were not willing to have a cross on the church or its steeple. Apparently that was a widespread attitude of Adventists (in North America at least) because they considered to be falling into the RCC use of such objects in an idolatrous fashion. Such fearful narrow thinking will inevitably exhibit itself as prejudice and bigotry. And in my lifetime I have witnessed a lot of what I would call bigotry and prejudice toward RCs in general. I wasn't debating if there are any legitmate concerns about the RCC past, present, or future. I am suggesting our past behavior and attitudes as Adventists make it difficult to present a message that does not create suspiscion. I for one think it is wise that this might make people stop and think about what message they want to present or be associated with.
I want hit every point, but I think the realization that our predecessors may have not been on target with some of the prophetic interpretations and yet had not hesitancy to be perceived as "nutty" to use your word is also a very legitmate reason to think twice. If a reasonable person could conclude that our pioneers were "nutty", somewhat mistaken in their prophetic interpretation, exhibited prejudice and bigotry because of some of those interpretations, cried wolf, and neglected the gospel af salvation, reasonable people might be cautious about how they continue that legacy.
Stephen Foster,
I understand your points about imminence, but I was making my comments based on what imminece seemed to mean to the pioneers. Stephen Ferguson seems to agree that they appeared to generally believe Christ would return in their lifetime (until their life expectancies started expiring). How could subsequent generations not consider this in how they present essentially the same message?
Since you are "watching" I will go home now and relax. Let me know when you can piece together events that suggest the "beast" is coming or is nearby.
As it relates to imminence, I must observe that we have a somewhat narcissistic approach to interpret/determine its meaning. Most often we think of a long time in relative terms to our life spans
Frankly, the longer I live, the more I realize that 100 years, or 150 years, is not a very long time.
I have retired to one of those Adventist enclaves, located near an Adventist institution, which is an unofficial longevity ‘blue zone.’ There are clearly a disproportionate number of (Adventist) people in this community generally (and in the Oakwood University Church particularly) who are well into their 90’s, including men.
There is one Adventist sister in the community who celebrated her 105th birthday today (and she is, incidentally, in splendid health).
(Elaine may even have a grudging appreciation of the point that I am making.)
I say this to say that if Jesus returns in 100 years it would not constitute a long time from now; and if 125 years ago, the pioneers believed the prophecies of Revelation would be imminently fulfilled does not make them mistaken.
Here’s a question I used to pose to some of my corporate colleagues whenever we discussed the state of the world: let’s take God out of the equation altogether, given the existence of various kinds of unprecedented WMD, and the eminently feasible potential for the proliferation of same, and the fact that mankind seems not to have learned how to avoid war, violence, terrorism, etc., what are the chances you would give for mankind to survive mankind for say, another 50 years, or more?
(Lest I be misunderstood, I do not believe that God can be taken out of the equation, nor do I believe that Jesus will not return for another 100 years; but certainly no one knows.)
How do you define 'imminent' in such a way that it remains accurate for not just 150 years, but almost 2,000 years. I'm not questioning that the Bible teaches that the 2nd Coming is imminent, or that our pioneers did so, but there is no way of making 'imminent' or any of the terms used in Greek mean anything but 'very soon'. I think it was George Knight who said that Adventism's central problem is that Jesus has not returned. That is the central problem for all Christian apocalyptic movements ever since John finished Revelation with Jesus saying 'surely I am coming soon'. We act as if 'imminent' was another way of saying 'inevitable', but it isn't. If you lose the sense of 'very soon', you lose all sense of imminence.
As to removing God from the picture, I think that creates a problem. I believe our earliest expression of the sentiment that things are getting worse and cannot continue much longer was written by an anomymous Sumerian. 4,000 years later, we're still here, and each generation believes things cannot get much worse. Strangely enough, things have been much worse, and in fact could get a whole lot worse than they are now, but still we keep saying that things are worse than they have ever been. To a world that was much worse than anything we know now, the message of Revelation was 'you ain't seen nothing yet'. Perhaps we should re-read that book before deciding that things can't get much worse. Or even just read a few history books that tell you about more than the lives of the very wealthy and powerful.
Its been over 2000 years. So your "prediction" that he will come in the next 100 or 200 falls flat. Who cares? His "coming" is not our concern or worry. The 2nd coming is worrisome to Christians thinking they have to recount their past sins and don some mantle of "perfection." I would love to be around in 5,000 yrs to listen to the future Stephen Fosters and theologians as they dream up their apologetics as to why Jesus has not come back. From all appearances we are on our own and he is never coming back.
There are occasional exceptions of course, including for purposes of setting the record straight.
For the record let’s be clear; I have made no prediction of when, or it what time frame, Jesus will return.
Since you opted to punt on the Catholic interpretation of the Third Angel’s Message, perhaps you would offer an opinion on my question regarding the odds of mankind surviving for another 50 years; given the volume, lethality, and availability of existing WMD.
Of course, I expect that you will place those odds at nearly 100%; in which case I would not hesitate to admit that you have plenty of faith.
I do not know how the Catholics interpret the 3 angels message. Much of what is in Revelation along with other parts of the bible are contextual in my view. With regards to predicting how long we are going to be here given our WMD I do not have a clue and neither do you. It is a waste of time making such predictions. Indeed we keep some frigthening weapons around and they serve a purpose. When our boomers submerge or we forward deploy stealth weapons we are saying something to our potential enemies such as nut jobs in Iran. But predicting if and when we will use such weapns is a silly proposition. Whether I die in a nuclear explosion, an earthquake brings my house down on me, or I die of a disease, one death is no less or more tragic.
When and how humans will meet their end I do not know. For certain when the sun expends its fuel and becomes a red giant then this earth will cease to exist. But, that is around 3-4 billion years away and you and I will not care.
In the meantime enjoy some mens olympic volleyball! We have some real monster hitters on the US womens and mens teams.
I do not know exactly what you mean by “much of what is in Revelation along with other parts of the bible are contextual in [your] view.” Are you saying that much of what is in Revelation and other parts of the Bible have no relevance for us?
For the record, I actually did not make a prediction about anything concerning WMD. I simply asked, and continue to ask, the question: given the amount and accessibility of WMD (nuclear, biological, chemical, conventional) and the evident continuing of failure of humanity to peacefully resolve issues which give rise to war, terrorism, and other destructive behavior, what odds would give mankind of surviving for as long as another fifty years.
Meanwhile, perhaps someone can just shed light on simply how Catholics interpret Revelation 14:12.
You don’t have to answer me, of course, but just simply consider the question.
It’s only a silly proposition for fatalists. Christianity and the book of Revelation teach that God decisively intervenes in the end.
While I’m waiting, perhaps I’ll take you up on checking out the Olympic volleyball; along with the hoops and the swimming.
Therefore imminence is emphasized for the sake of stressing urgency; as in ”…now is the accepted time; Behold now is the day of salvation” (2 Corinthians 6:2); or “…Today if ye will hear his voice, harden not your heart…” (Psalm 95:7, 8).
As for things getting worse, or being worse at a given time, all I can say is that to your point I’m sure those who witnessed and/or were victims of the holocaust or other atrocities have certainly had their time of trouble; and what is prophesied for the future is described as worse than it will have been “since there was a nation…” This clearly indicates things can/will get worse.
The point however was to consider the odds, given the availability and levels of lethality of the WMD in existence, that man could survive for another half century.
Stephen, I get the point you were making and agree. In the whole history of mankind, things have been bad and have been worse. However, only since 1945 has mankind held the power to literally destroy his own world. Even if you do remove God from the picture, that is a truly frightening and apocalyptic paradigm shift in the history of the world.
Moreover, whilst there was a lot of fear about mutually assured destruction during the God War, the truth is the world was a lot safer when there were just 2 controlled superpowers (with their allies) who controlled the weapons. Since India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea went nuclear, and Iran going for the bomb, the chances that humanity will kill ourselves has gone up, not done. Sure, it may be in 10, 100, 200 or 2,000 years time, but in the history of the world, that is a relatively short period of time.
And don't get me started on Global Warming...
Some may be interested to see how it affects some people out there. We live in an age of information. The response on this link may not be typical, but it sure should make us think twice about the effect we have on people with the garbage (yes, I mean the Great Controversy book!) we send out. Not to mention the cost. (Better, waste of money)
For those who think this is not of concern - don't underestimate the power of the internet in informing people.
https://atheistoasis.wordpress.com/2012/09/02/seventh-day-adventist-lies-coming-soon-to-a-mailbox-near-you/
Perhaps a sub-culture of Adventism, so inculcated against the church Universal, wants to believe our exclusive claims of remnancy is proven by belief in RCC "conspiracy". Funny enough the original "story" as reported claimed the bogus "catholic lawsuit" was because of pictures in the re-written "Greatest Hope"-LOL it is unillustrated! When the same subculture sees the trinity (or perhaps "ordination") also as RCC conspiracy...well, enough said.
On another note, spending several hundred million on some paperback to foist on unsuspecting heathens is perhaps big in some mens eyes, but perhaps reaches only a fraction of a percentage of the starving people of this world. it may make "sense' as far as mans plans go, but perhaps God laughs.
Have I now fairly described your perspectives?
No, Stephen my brother, unfortunately you have tried, and failed again to label me in a place where you seem to find some comfort. Seems you too hard try to define the excluding demarcations, and this, quite frankly, surprises me, coming from you. Did you not know that which unites us is far greater than that which you so doggedly measure as dividing us? Why does it seem there is so much need for you to believe I or anyone else who doesn't sing your company song in identical pitch and timbre cannot somehow also be a fellow card-bearing multi-generational weekly faithful SDA?
You have very succinctly, to the letter, narrowed further your own self-described perspective.
And, perhaps missed the spirit of what was shared.
Oh, btw, I'm NOT like Rudy, either, despite your previous inferences. And the great controversy? It's played out every day, when a created being raises self and tries take role of creator, or in judgment or division, condemnation, or pride.
And perhaps God, the ultimate profligate spender, sent his first prodigal son out into the universe with a knapsack full of his inheritance-and a science kit!-and said 'go create". How long did Daddy sit at the end of the cosmic drieveway, waiting for that beloved first (created) son Lucifer to return? I'd hazard a guess, Daddy's grace lasted, oh, perhaps 13.7 billion years ago. Then God wiped it all out, perhaps with a flood prior to Noah's, and said, "let me show you how creation is done". This sounds like a REALLY Great Controversy, does fit the literal narrative you seem espouse (and perhaps allows for the observable evidence of the Big Bang you so seem fear), and certainly ascribes alot more grace from God toward Lucifer (the REAL beast and first of many antichrists) than a mere only 4000 years would allow him chance to return. I'm not about to shorten God's grace to anyone, despite their frame of reference or worldview, deeds or doctrines. There is a third cord in God's knot upon which Royally hangs all the law and all the prophets...
hope i didn't lose you yet again .//.
To be frank, I should have either asked you what that means (instead of guessing what it meant) before asking you if you shared Chris’ apparent perspective; or I (probably) shouldn’t have asked you anything.
It appeared to me that you were being derisive of the conclusions of The Great Controversy, above, in your quoted statement. Are you suggesting that I misunderstood you?
I certainly do not follow your “And perhaps God…” paragraph; as you’ve correctly surmised.
Come to think of it, it almost seems that whenever you say "perhaps," I invariably get lost in your ensuing speculations
So then, are you saying that you are in agreement with the distinctive and distinguishing SDA conclusions in The Great Controversy? (That really was my question to you.)
Perhaps NOW I understand. I should speak in the peremptory global imperatives far too common here,
and leave no room for diverse thought.
Then again may as well tear the throat out of the sparrow
as rip the quill from the poet; it will still sing.
As far as misunderstanding the prodigal parallel behind the great controversy, won't you celebrate with us at the reunion feast? Its a wedding feast in perpetuity....when the elders refused to come, the invitation was to the cretins in the gutter. Try reread the my little parable. I believe it might be useful.
The original--and very false 'news report' claimed that the GC we were ditributing contained illustrations offensive to catholics, which purportedly was the basis of their complaint. The book is UNILLUSTRATED; the story is a far too common SDA hyperbole conspiracy theory--which, if you dare admit--we have often perpetuatred without reason or evaluation. Our past vilification of all things RCC has produced some spiritual fruit-but way more religious nuts who eschew anything hearkening back to catholicism. Witness the Creation SDA debacle-oh and at least another couple dozen stories from just the last few decades. Like"Jesuit infiltration" at Andrews, to wit a charge my friend Sam Bacchiocchi heard often. Want more examples of our anti-RCC subculture fodder? Just wait until the "contemplative prayer" and 'spiritual formation' conflicts ramp up
Stephen, I'm not going to answer your divisive letter of the law questions-although I will continue to ask you try read the spirit of mine. My position should be abundantly clear. BTW, whats your thoughts on the poetry section? Expand your hearing, to listening with your heart. Or not; your free choice. Your ears may hear but is it enough to hear only with your head?
There is a rather vocal and smug subset of Adventism (some who still believe this very false story) that seems to gain some perverse joy out of believing that any rumor the RCC is 'persecuting', specifically, SDA's-even when they are not. I know personally of a conference evangelist who has hired a full time assistant to montor all things catholic on the internet, around the clock, so he can use these snippets, usually entirely out of context, to bolster his eschatological and theological claims. It is a chilling thing to listen to his evangelism; as far as the conference goes, he does produce the "numbers"; out of near hundred-thousand hand delivered tracts, about 50 new people come to the revelation seminar in our church of 1500, and a year later, out of that 50, we might have 5 remaining new members.
This does not mean I do not believe that the church Universal has not acted in beast-like fashion; but i am not so naive to believe that our own corporate GC is also not, at times, acting out of the same script, using force, coercion, guilt, and all the things that were against Christs principles and purposes.
I do NOT believe God examines the toe-tags for the "SDA" mark-as some here seem to. And I am convinced the "seal" on the hearts of the saved is neither membership to the SDA corporate body, nor some external and arbitrary obeisance to an outward deed, "creed", or doctrine. That is too easy to fake-by the hungry masses, as well too easily counterfeited by the power behind the beast.
If a church of 1500 could teach and empower each of its members to attract just ONE person to our way of life, each year, lead by the Holy Spirit, the Kingdom would advance. Instead, even within our church-represented here on Atoday, we want to promote that we have exclusive truth, and we do not attract-instead asking more divisive clarifications to exclude. Given the cost of these series, and the paid personnel behind them, I'd suggest that even on strict tithe vs cost evaluations, we are bleeding resources foolishly-while smugly cloistered in our pews. Jeremiah 23 and Ezekiel 34 have quite a warning for these shepherds.
I'll be happy to sit in the corner or closet at the Wedding feast; i shall let the Matthew 20:21 argument be fought by others in language of their choosing. I will warn you, though; the other ten were indignant. Verse 28 asks for service throughout your life to attract more sinners and losers and outcasts and prostitutes to the feast.
Suffice me to say: The GC is theologically indefensible. The GC's divisiveness and arrogance toward other faiths, not least the RCC, is also indefensible for a Christian spirit. Therefore, it would be better relegated to the archives of history than sent out at great expense to faithful tithe payers to be used as toilet paper or firelighters. Not to mention the damage it does to the SDA image. (if you read the comments at the bottom of the linked page)
I read the link and understand why these books are being mailed annonymously:
Who would want to be identified with such scurrilous writing? Even if some simple soul had questions, who is there to answer them? "Remote evangelism" is less than worthless. Reminds me of a SDA lady I once knew who traveled through Europe leaving such SDA tracts at ever stop for sleep and eating and felt she had "witnessed" all over Europe and felt so self-righteous from that senseless act. Even left some at a B&B run by nuns!
If Adventism wishes to leave a better impression, they need to clean up their act and stop throwing hand grenades and running away. How many of those who mail these books will be available to answer "Why"?
Agreed.
I would say I have an ‘orthodox’ or traditional view of SDA eschatology. Now just suspend your disbelief for a moment (if you don’t believe) and pretend you do too.
What really concerns me is that my understanding is that at the end times, it is not merely the RC that exists in its present form that is the persecuting power, but the ‘Three Frog Conglomeration’ of Roman Catholicism, Apostate Protestantism and Spiritualism. Adventists seem to be so focused on the first, they often forget the latter two.
What concerns me is these sorts of actions can give the impression Adventists are against the nuns of America and other Catholic peoples who are so much better Christians than we are! Ironically, the nuns of America are probably more anti-Vatican and anti-Papal than most Protestants.
What I would love to see is the SDA Church, drawing on its eschatology, come out strongly challenging those such as Rick Santorum when he unites with fellow Evangelical Protestants and effectively advocates the establishment of an American theocracy. But alas, instead our theology is turned on its head, and we go about attacking nuns in B&Bs, all whilst at the same time we seek acceptance by joining our real ‘enemies’ the RC-Evangelical leaders such as Santorum, seeking to erode the separation of Church and State.
What you consider to be a divisive question, I consider to be clarifying.
It is somewhat tantamount to drive by shooting with polemical ammunition when you snipe with innuendo but won’t reveal/admit what you believe, or don’t believe; when directly asked.
We’re not running for political office Timo. White’s The Great Controversy is not the law or the letter of the law. If you don’t buy its conclusions, you won’t lose any election and you will not have broken any laws at all.
Of course, it is always your prerogative to refuse to answer a straight yes or no question in an open forum. Interestingly, you want me to reread your poetry—while refusing to answer my question. It might be a good idea if we declare a non-communication truce and/or agreement.
Thank you, Chris, for answering my question. Now, if you would simply confirm that you are actually a Seventh-day Adventist Christian.
My point precisely, Stephen. Once you "clarified" that you could draw a line dividing, you ask for a non-communication truce. Which is sort of funny, for seems we are already not communicating bilaterally. At all. There is no room in your view for minutest variance (let alone diversity), from the view you interpret and interject.
I do 'get' you, and your writing though, brother. Someone much wiser than I said when you draw ever smaller circles, you eventually preclude yourself, too. Very few 'got' Jesus' parables and stories, too, yet He did not ask for smaller circles or immediate disengagement. He drew ever wider circles.
I subscribe to core Christian principles. (principles which extrapolate on what it means to be human, and of course can be found in other places, being not the sole jurisdiction or invention of Theism.)
One day the SDA church, if it is open to ask and answer the tough questions, may have a big enough umbrella to more comfortably encompass me. Unfortunately, atm I see the church trying to shrink its umbrella. If challenge is not met with openness and integrity the resulting defensive position ends in a more rigid aproach to doctrine, and a tendency toward extremism. eg Ted Wilson/fb6/GC mailout. Makes us feel good!
I happen to believe there is a place, and need for, spirituality in the world. It just needs to be radically reshaped and trimmed of all the "fertilizer".
btw..off topic, heard this yesterday: A hierarchy is like a multi level bird feeder tower - the further down the tower one feeds the more you know what lands on you!
I for one do not believe for a millisecond that Adventism specifically, or the cause of Christ generally, are benefitted from having non-believers in the deity of Christ—and/or the Bible—numbered among Seventh-day Adventists.
The “big tent” philosophy is a canard.
That said you are certainly welcome to stay as far as I’m concerned; because I can’t read your heart or mind. As long as you have breath the Holy Spirit may be dealing with you. Besides, I am no better than you.
I’ll just be available to help resist your efforts to “radically reshape and [trim].”
Of course, incidentally SDAism is rather hierarchial is it not, so we know where the fertilizer dribbles down to. A good example is the GC distribution. An idea that I suspect is top down. It is the member of the lowest rung that will cop the flack where it turns up. Top levels sit back and pat themselves on the back.
I am not into sci-fi that doesn’t set up a totally plausible framework or isn’t based on a plausible premise. If it is based on things that I don’t see, i.e. total fantasy, then I probably won’t be attracted to it. I am to science fiction and fantasy sort of like Chris is when it comes to religion and matters of faith.
My approach to literature/cinema/theater is very similar. The only fiction that interests me is that which provides a window into an existing or current reality, or into the lives of existing people to which I can relate or I find somehow intriguing.
(My favorite fictional genre in film are organized crime—and/or law-related—and romantic comedy.)
Stephen,
If this is your position:
"that Adventism specifically, or the cause of Christ generally, are benefitted from having non-believers in the deity of Christ—and/or the Bible—numbered among Seventh-day Adventists,"
you would be a misfit in the early Christian church as there was no acceptance of the deity of Christ; nor was there anything but the Hebrew Bible for several centuries later.
Many proclaim the beauty of "primitive godliness" in the early church with little knowledge of what was professed. The divinity of Christ became part of the Nicene Creed in 325 and the NT was not canonized until late in the third century.
Maybe if the Adventist church were to return to the "primitive godliness" of the early church there would be less arguing over such peripheral things as the meaning of Daniel's prophecies; proper sabbath observance (there was no Christian sabbath in the early church); the personification of the SOP; food laws; who are the remnant, and many more.
Yes, why not bring back simplicity of the Gospel?
Stephen, despite too-thinly veiling your compliment, I am all ablush that my prosae and poetry have so impacted you! This is indeed high praise! It took you all these years to figure it out...and only a few months of reparte here. I do wonder how you, then, interpret the many poetic Hebrew passages in the OT....
By the way, I am impressed at your astute duck recognition. Canard, indeed. Larger wings might allow you to beat less frenetically. And perhaps to effortlessly glide from time to time. is this innuendo, or irony? Nevertheless, I shall put the tent stake down. But I shall not cease enlarging it. And a little riddle for fun...do you like "hematopoetes"? It is abit of a neologism, one a surgeon recently ascribed to me, after reading some of my work during my recent hospitalization.
I do agree with Chris to the extent that the SDA seems to be shrinking the tent. What concerns me most is the fixation on what I would consider ‘non-core’ beliefs. For example, whilst I probably do believe Jesus is Michael the Archangel, and is somewhat an interesting theological and academic question, I certainly don’t think it ‘essential’, nor should it be a fundamental belief or test of membership – and thank goodness it isn’t.
That said, I do agree with Stephen that there has to be a line drawn somewhere as to what it means to be a Seventh-day Adventist. Perhaps the Apostolic creeds as a basis, and then a few more key beliefs, to encompass perhaps: Bible; Trinity; Salvation by Grace Through Faith; Adult Baptism by Full Immersion; Perpetuity of the Decalogue (including Sabbath); Conditional Immortality; and Second Advent.
I agree with Stephen insofar as I would struggle to see how someone could call themselves a Seventh-day Adventist, or even a Christian, if they rejected these ‘core’ beliefs, especially the belief in God. I note within Anglicanism there is a special support group or faction for their clergy who don’t believe in God, which seems a little absurd to me – reminds me of a joke about an atheist Mormon missionary knocking on doors for absolutely no reason. As SDA membership is governed at the local level, it really isn’t for us to say who should be a member or not unless they are in our local congregations.
That all said, I think it is certainly possible for someone who doesn’t really believe in God, Jesus or the Bible to have a meaningful discussion with someone who does by ‘suspending disbelief’ and using the discourse framework of the mythical world. For example, when I discuss Star Trek or Harry Potter, obviously I don’t literally believe in those mythical worlds; however, in such as discussion about say the difference between Romulans and Vulcans, there is little point me interjecting and saying, “but Star Trek isn’t real”.
I have known people who have been regular attendees for more than 50 years, but were not members. Whether they believed the doctrines or made church contributions, made no difference.
We welcome all who wish to attend, but why then, do we place so much emphasis on joining as a full member? There are many benefits from not being a member, but what are the benefits from membership? Some people are simply not comfortable with formal membership.
In some ways that is a good thing. We have a range of non-Adventists who attend our Church, including a number of people from non-English speaking backgrounds, and a number have become so involved in our Church that they are involved in various ministries. As we practice open communion for 95% of the Church body, being a member or not is irrelevant.
In some ways it is a bad thing. Membership is becoming increasingly pointless.
Agreed.
I would hope that my Church is appealing enough that you would feel comfortable attending even if you didn’t believe in all the doctrines and didn’t want to become a member. I think Church Services in particular should be very mainstream, with wide appealing music and the sermon should be generic enough that anyone off the street could feel comfortable attending. The topic should be made but for mass appeal.
I think Church should be a place where you can invite your friends and family without fear that they will get a sermon on some ‘distinctive’ Adventist belief. To be totally honest, if I ever hear Ellen White mentioned in a Sermon, it really makes me wince, because I always think any non-Adventists in the audience won’t know who or what the preacher is talking about. If you do have Ellen White regularly mentioned in your sermons, and if everyone is wearing a suit and tie or long dress – might I question whether you are really appealing to non-Adventists at all?
Church Services should be milk. I think my own local Church does it pretty good given we do have many non-Adventists who attend and they feel pretty comfortable. If they are already Christians, the music we sing is pretty much what they find in wider Evangelical Christianity. I often wear flip-flop and jeans with a T-shirt, and non-Adventist visitors probably feel over dressed compared with what I am wearing.
I do think there is a place for discussion of more ‘meaty’ topics, including Adventist distinctive – in Sabbath School.
To use a biblical example, Jesus often told parables to the crowd. However, Jesus didn’t go into theological detail until He was alone with His disciples.
I disagree to a certain extent I believe that sometimes it is the distinct adventist beliefs that have an appeal take it from us we are the fastest growing adventist churches in the world! This generic wish washy lackadisical preaching does not force people to think and it also makes adventist just loke any other church. In my country adventist music is unique and different and even our catholic president remarked that adventist music is refreshingly different.
I feel you are taking the holy spirits place we should tell people all the truth (tactfully though) so that they can make informed decisions this is why people believe that you can be adventist and disbelieve IJ,creation and other core beliefs and still be adventist. For all intents and purposes some adventists have more in common with seventh day baptists than with adventism. Let us allow people to make informed decision about joining adventism rather than trying to bait them.
I have a friend whowas non adventist and the first sermon she ever heard was shaking and sifting!( she happened to be along the for the ride at a bible study conference) she is now adventist and practices the brand of adventism many on this forum deetest. I constantly preach against the dangers of the prosperity gospel and this deliverance ministries stuff and many non adventists actually admit that they had never aver heard such things before and many are converted. Let us not take the Holy Spirits place and dictate what should and should not be taught to non believers we should teach all tactfully so that they can make informed decisions
stay blessed
Tapiwa Mushaninga
I think people take mass-appealing to mean nothing but boring, safe cliches. I am not suggesting that. I do think one can give a very interesting, if not raddical message. After all, think of how raddical the Beautitudes were - saying you were blessed if you were poor, weak and persecuted - the opposite of what most people thought (and what most Prosperity Gospel Evangelical Churches teach today)!
I guess what I mean is in many of our Churches we tend to use Christian and Adventist jargon, about theological concepts that assume an understanding of other beliefs, and have worship and dress standards that make visitors uncomfortable. For example, if someone mentions Ellen White, I am always much more pleased when the preacher says 'SDA pioneer Ellen White said...' rather than just assuming all the audience knows who Ellen White is.
I do agree we need to be tactful, but I am not suggesting we shy away from taking the Gospel as a sword either. As a person who has been heckled several times when giving sermons, I don't think I preach cliched, safe topics. However, I always try to invite non-Adventist friends and family to my sermons (when I get to preach a handful of times a year), and it is kind of at them that my message is pitched.
And finally of course different styles work for different audiences, and you aren't going to reach anyone. Why do you think God ensured the Gospel about Jesus was covered from 4 different angles instead of just one.