Should Adventist become Isolationists?

[Stan]

Well, Should Adventist become Isolationists? I am hearing more and more of this attitute.

Thoughts?

[teresaq]

You mean like the Jewish church at Christ's advent? Or in a different sense? Does the term have different meanings per individual or mindsets?

[Gail]

What is the reasoning behind this thinking?

[John317]

Not "isolationsits," absolutely not.

[phkrause]

Well, Should Adventist become Isolationists? I am hearing more and more of this attitute.

Thoughts?

Interesting thought, but I think not.

[abelisle]

I don't think the problem is isolationism but rather provincialism. The mentality that we need to separate from the world (be in the world but not part of it), calling ourselves the "remnant church", believing that we and only we have the truth. This surely doesn't help our standing in the secular community.

We have no problem reaching out to our communities to proselytize but rarely reach out to them simply to lend a helping hand. One of the problems is that the demographics of most of our churches do not reflect the demographics of the community the church is in.

And lastly, we pride ourselves in calling ourselves a "peculiar people" - that's a sure-fire way to isolate oneself, isn't it?

Alex

[John317]

I never talk to non-SDAs about "the Remnant Church" or our being God's "peculiar people."

It would be the same as talking about having "the truth," which doesn't mean much to people who are unfamiliar with the the history and theology of the SDA church. It would only give people the wrong impression of us.

However, we should be able to use that kind of language with other SDAs, because when one knows what those words mean, they are true and highly significant expressions.

Of course, being God's "peculiar people" means being a people of God's own possession, but almost nobody recognizes this except SDAs. The same with the use of "Remnant."

Some SDAs may ndeed take "pride" in calling themselves "God's peculiar treasure," but people who use it with understanding and appreciation for what it means, know that it is no reason for thinking one is superior to non-SDAs.

Using those words around other members of the church doesn't make SDAs provincial or isolationists. If they are used with awareness of what they mean, they actually serve an important purpose. They help us not to lose sight of our responsibilities to our neighbors and to the world at large.

Should we use them around non-SDAs, or with people who don't know their meaning? I think that using them that way would be a terrible mistake because, as you rightly point out, it would only make it difficult for us to communciate the Good News effectively.

[Gerr]

Yes, and, No.

[Tom Wetmore]

I think being authentic would suggest that we not be all that different among non-SDA's than we are among SDA's. Using words amongst ourselves to describe and distinguish ourselves from non-members simple reinforces the "insider" vs. "outsider", an us against them, dichotomy. It isolates us in our own minds in the way we perceive ourselves in relationship to others and will inevitably color how we interact with them. It sort of strikes me as being two-faced, hypocritical even. We want to distinguish ourselves, but don't want outsiders to know this and being put-off by our differentness, so that we can get them to join us, so they can be different just like us. Sort of a bait and switch routine. Why else do we speak and act differently amongst outsiders? Cultivating different vocabulary unique to the in-group is a hallmark of cultism.

But it is more basic than that for me. It's about effective communication. Words change meaning and words have currency that comes and goes over time. If we continue to use words from a bygone era that have little or no current use or words that no longer mean the same thing, we lose relevancy and seem out of touch with what others are experiencing and what's important to them. We need to update our religious vocabulary and use it amongst ourselves, so that when we speak to others, it just naturally allows us to speak their language.

Words are important. Use them carefully.

[CoAspen]

Yes, I have often wondered about 'dual languages' being perpetuated. As you said, our words should be the same so it is a natural 'speak' rather than a quarded 'speak' when talking to others outside the church. I really don't see Christ, in the NT, useing two styles of communication. It is something we, as a church, have developed over time, perhaps not realizing the 'cultish' aspects of doing so.

[Tom Wetmore]

That is precisely the use of language as used in the NT. It was not a special religious vocabulary using terms unique to Christians of the 1st century. It was the common language of the people for the most part using common terms to describe things pertaining to religion, church, or the sacred.

[John317]

Paul himself talked in a way to the Athenians on Mars Hill that was different from the way He spoke to fellow believers.

Your argument would mean Christ Himself was hypocritical or two-faced, since he frequently talked differently to his disciples than he did to "non-believers." Christ is our role-model in the way he taught the people.

Ellen White also spoke differently to non-SDAs than she did to SDAs, and she recommended that we not say some things to non-SDAs that are perfectly legimately to say to fellow SDAs. In fact, she wrote some books specifically for non-SDAs because she realized that they would not understand the other writings.

Your kind of reasoning would also mean that we wouldn't want to talk about the "Investigative Judgment" around other SDAs since we don't use the term with non-SDAs, who have no understanding of it. It would also mean we don't talk to each other about Ellen White's writings, since we don't talk about her statements to non-SDAs.

This kind of reasoning is attractive to people who dislike referring to the SDA church as "the Remnant church," but by making such an argument, they would have us believe Ellen White was mistaken to use the expression-- as well as others-- in reference to the SDA church.

[phkrause]

Paul himself talked in a way to the Athenians on Mars Hill that was different from the way He spoke to fellow believers.

Your argument would mean Christ Himself was hypocritical or two-faced, since he frequently talked differently to his disciples than he did to "non-believers." Christ is our role-model in the way he taught the people.

Ellen White also spoke differently to non-SDAs than she did to SDAs, and she recommended that we not say some things to non-SDAs that are perfectly legimately to say to fellow SDAs. In fact, she wrote some books specifically for non-SDAs because she realized that they would not understand the other writings.

Your kind of reasoning would also mean that we wouldn't want to talk about the "Investigative Judgment" around other SDAs since we don't use the term with non-SDAs, who have no understanding of it. It would also mean we don't talk to each other about Ellen White's writings, since we don't talk about her statements to non-SDAs.

This kind of reasoning is attractive to people who dislike referring to the SDA church as "the Remnant church," but by making such an argument, they would have us believe Ellen White was mistaken to use the expression-- as well as others-- in reference to the SDA church.

[John317]

That is precisely the use of language as used in the NT. It was not a special religious vocabulary using terms unique to Christians of the 1st century. It was the common language of the people for the most part using common terms to describe things pertaining to religion, church, or the sacred.

Let's not forget that the books of Daniel and Revelation themselves were written the way they are for the very purpose of speaking solely to the community of the people of God. That is to say, God had the information put in symbolic language-- "sign-i-fied"-- so that the "wicked" would not understand what was being said. See Daniel 12: 10; Rev. 1: 1.

That is why it's important for Christians who have studied these things to explain it to others in language they can understand.

So the Bible itself uses "special language."

Paul uses some words that have never been found outside the NT. He apparently was inspired to create new and unique words for the purpose of communciating his gospel.

Obviously, then, Christ and God have no problem with the use of "special language".

[abelisle]

I think you're reading too much into this.

It's the parochial and provincial mindset that the use of Adventist terms/cliches creates, which in turn may unknowingly put some Adventists into an isolationist position vis-a-vis the secular world.

Language is very powerful and when used in social contexts that separates and/or elevates one group from another, it doesn't lend itself to making non-members comfortable with the "insiders" group.

For example, when the GC did its survey of Adventists (forgot the name of the survey), one outstanding negative feature was that most churches do nothing to reach out to their communities. Is this a result of a "we're different than you" or "better than you" mindset? I don't know. But it surely has the earmarks of being isolationist.

Alex

[CoAspen]

Agree. It is not about 'what' we talk about, but 'how' we talk about the subject matter. Explaining salvation should be the same inside and outside the church. The same with sabbath keeping or any other subject.

[fccool]

The question is rather " Should Adventists stop being isolationists" :)

[John317]

There's no doubt that some and perhaps many SDAs are isolationsists, but that is not an accurate description the SDAs I've known or of the SDA church as a whole.

If anything, I'm isolated from SDAs. Virtually everyone I talk to outside of my family and outside of the Adventist Forum are non-SDAs and even non-Christians.

I would like to spend more time with SDAs but I live some distance from my SDA friends and have medical problems currently that keep me from getting out to other SDAs very often except for occasional visits to Loma Linda, about 35 miles from us.

My parents purposely left Loma Linda in order to move to a county in Tennessee that had no SDAs. I myself live in an area where there are very few SDAs. I simply don't know of any SDAs who fit your description, although I am sure they do exist.

[fccool]

John, I think there are two faces of SDA Church. There's a public one. The one that does not make any controversial remarks and statements, and that makes sure that such statements are properly handled. And the one that keeps E.G. White as far from public eye as possible.

Then there's a private one, that does not want non-SDA church speakers behind the pulpit. Looks down on marriage of SDA and non-SDA Christians (even if Non-SDA do keep the Sabbath). And essentially hold the view that the rest of the Churches are Babylon that will eventually persecute them for worshiping on Sabbath.

I don't think that either side is negative or "evil" in itself. There's a need for some of the isolation to maintain the purity of the perspective. But, I think we should look and discuss it with certain degree of honesty.

[BobRyan]

Well, Should Adventist become Isolationists? I am hearing more and more of this attitute.

Thoughts?

[Gail]

Hmmm...

How about taking on the label but not living up to all it entails?

[John317]

John, I think there are two faces of SDA Church. There's a public one. The one that does not make any controversial remarks and statements, and that makes sure that such statements are properly handled.

The New Testament teaches us that the church should speak with one voice to the world. For instance, it wouldn't help if some SDAs taught that the dead go directly to heaven, while some other SDAs taught that the dead are unconscious in their graves until Jesus comes to wake them up.

Is there a need to air out all of the "dirty laundry" to the world that the church is working to bring to Christ and to accept the Three Angels Messages?

Do you do that with your family's "dirty laundry"?

While I myself am not afraid of, and don't seek to avoid, controversal statements or subjects, I do believe it's important that the world see the truth and not merely see the kinds of statements found on anti-SDA and anti-EGW web-sites, etc.

Originally Posted By: fccool

And the one that keeps E.G. White as far from public eye as possible.

Who does this? You're not describing here any institutions of the church, nor any individuals, that I know of. That would probably apply to some SDAs who don't believe in her prophetic ministry and are embarrassed by her. That describes a small minority of the church.

The church itself is delighted to have the world know Ellen White's life and writings. It's unfortunate for the world that so few people outside the SDA Church are acquainted with her. There's certainly nothing about her that SDAs should be ashamed or embarrassed about. She was a great and wonderful person, and she wrote beautiful, truth-filled books that I wish more people would read and put into practice.

Originally Posted By: fccool

Then there's a private one, that does not want non-SDA church speakers behind the pulpit.

And why is this?

Originally Posted By: fccool

Looks down on marriage of SDA and non-SDA Christians (even if Non-SDA do keep the Sabbath).

Again, why is this? Is there biblical support for it? Doesn't marrying within the church make sense?

If your church is important to you, wouldn't you want there to be harmony in the home? Marrying someone who has a different religion or different views concerning worship, etc., is likely to add problems or stress to the family relationship.

I personally married a Catholic woman,(who became an SDA about 4 years after our wedding), but at the time we got married, I was not a practicing SDA.

Originally Posted By: fccool

And essentially hold the view that the rest of the Churches are Babylon that will eventually persecute them for worshiping on Sabbath.

Why do we as SDAs hold this belief?

What is spiritual Babylon?

Does this belief mean that all the people in the Babylonian churches are evil or will be lost? NO.

Does it mean that God doesn't love those people? NO.

Does it mean that God has given up on them and that those people don't love Jesus? Again, NO.

Originally Posted By: fccool

I don't think that either side is negative or "evil" in itself. There's a need for some of the isolation to maintain the purity of the perspective. But, I think we should look and discuss it with certain degree of honesty.

OK, let's discuss it here completely honestly. I think we have a pretty good start. :-)

[John317]

Hmmm...

How about taking on the label but not living up to all it entails?

Unfortunately this often happens. For one thing, many people coming into the church aren't very well prepared. That is to say, many have a superficial understanding of the Bible and of what the SDA church believes or represents. Many are unconverted. They were "buried alive," never having really died with Christ.

Both Ellen White and the Bible show that God is not the only One who is trying to bring people into the church. The Devil also tries to get people to join the church in order to work for him.

So we have both wheat and tares in the church, just like Jesus said we would. It'll remain this way until Jesus Himself purifies His church, which He will do just before His return.

While the church needs to separate itself from members who live in open sin and are unrepentant and make no change, the church has to leave up to God the job of purifying the church. If we did it, we would pull up the wheat along with the weeds.

Some wheat eventually turns out to be weeds, and some weeds turn out eventually to be wheat. Our eye-sight is very poor when it comes to judging character, which is why we have to leave it up to Christ to judge people's characters and salvation.

[BobRyan]

When the Christian church began it was composed of Jews - claiming that the Jews had "Missed the Messiah".

It was not the start of a "new religion".

It was not the worship of "a new god".

They did not even have "their own Bible".

It was the same God, the Same bible and same message about the Messiah as is contained in the Bible - but the message was that the mainline church - the Jewish Church made a mistake, missed the Messiah, needed to reconsider the path they were choosing.

The same thing happened "again" in 1844.

in Christ,

Bob

[John317]

Interesting and important point there.

It seems to me that this is what causes some SDAs to want to jettison 1844, so they can feel a full part of the rest of the Christian churches. It is the reason that some churches actually give up the Sabbath and return to keeping Sunday.

I live just down the freeway from a church that consists of ex-SDAs that now meet on Sunday for worship.

They decide to get rid of the idea of "the Remnant," the Investigative Judgment, the Spirit of prophecy, and finally, the Sabbath.

Recently, as I was reading through the statements by Ellen White regarding the atonement, I was struck by the contrast between the Seventh-day Adventist teaching and the view that is held by the rest of the Christian churches.

The big difference between ourselves and the other Christian churches is that we teach that we are living in the Antitypical Day of Atonement, and that the Atonement was not completed at the cross; whereas the rest of the Christian Churches teach that the Atonement was all finished when Jesus died.

Is the difference really all that big?

What's the result of understanding and fully accepting what happened in 1844?