Five Uncomfortable Issues For The Church

[Dr. Shane]

I read a link by this title on a friend's Facebook page.

• Addiction
• Sexuality
• Sincere doubt
• Mental illness
• Loneliness

Over the years I have seen most of those discussed here on this forum. I am not sure how many are being discussed on the local church level.

[ClubV12]

Four out of five, leaving out loneliness. Hmmmm, thanks for reminding me.

At prayer meeting tonight we will likely touch on the other four, it's a fairly common conversation. We have two individuals that attend every once in awhile, not always, that are mentally ill and it's very difficult to help them in any way. Food, housing, car repair, spiritually. Heart breaking really...

Sincere doubt is another HUGE topic at my Church, a number of precious souls searching, trying to figure it out.

Addiction, had to ask the Dorcas leader to step down, he refused to give up his medical mary jane. There are others in the same boat, were struggling to deal with it.

Sexuality, we see an abuse of internet and TV as the main problem here. My local Church is very strong on throw the tube out, disconnect entirely if need be. Get help, do it NOW.

I know a few lonely people, I think I will bring that up tonight at prayer meeting. What can we do? How should we do it? Who should do it? So we will be organized.

[Textus Receptus]

Unfortunately, these topics are really never addressed in my church. Very sad actually considering we have Physcians, PHD's who are more than capable of addressing these issues on a professional level.

[BattleAxe]

The Marketing of Madness on YouTube is the best thing that I have found concerning mental "illness." Its accurate too. I've studied psychology and wrote a book on psychological healing and restoration. These guys are right so far as mental "illnesses" go.

The Marketing of Madness:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgCpa1RlSdQ

I have written three articles on sexuality according to the Bible and Ellen White, in case anyone is interested. I find that it is a taboo topic and it shouldn't be. If the youth don't get their questions answered from decent sources, typing "sex" into the Google search bar is very tempting. You might be surprised how many people have found my website by typing 'sex' and "sda" or "Ellen White" into the Google search bar.

#1 - Sexuality - Single and Married Life:

http://answersforadventists.wordpress.com/resources/articles-2/sexuality-single-and-married/

#2 - Marriage Bed - Lawful Bounds:

http://answersforadventists.wordpress.com/resources/articles-2/1633-2/

#3 - Is it Really Fornication?

http://answersforadventists.wordpress.com/resources/articles-2/is-it-really-fornication/

Oh... and I've written about sincere doubt too, but not under that title. Anyways... I do wish these issues were more properly addressed.

[Stan]

so the first one is my the Occult Network.... kinda lost credibility for anything else you post.

[BattleAxe]

Stan, I think that the principle contained in this statement from Ellen White well applies to my "credibility" in terms of how people will henceforth view what I say.

"Those who allow prejudice to bar the mind against the reception of truth cannot receive the divine enlightenment. Yet, when a view of Scripture is presented, many do not ask, Is it True,—in harmony with God's word? but, By whom is it advocated? and unless it comes through the very channel that pleases them, they do not accept it. So thoroughly satisfied are they with their own ideas, that they will not examine the Scripture evidence, with a desire to learn, but refuse to be interested, merely because of their prejudices." {Gospel Workers, 1892, 125.3}

And this is exactly what people do. They do not ask, "Is it true?" but, "By whom is it advocated?" How would Adventists respond if every Baptist and Methodist out there refused to listen to the health message on the grounds that it is promoted by Adventists... you know... us "cult" people? We wouldn't like that would we? In fact, we would encourage them to do otherwise. So why would we turn around and do the same thing that we wouldn't want others doing? That is hypocrisy. To reject a message because we don't like the messenger is out of harmony with God's way of doing things.

Next paragraph:

"The Lord often works where we least expect him; he surprises us by revealing his power through instruments of his own choice, while he passes by the men to whom we have looked as those through whom light should come. God desires us to receive the truth upon its own merits,—because it is truth." {GW92 126.1}

So the issue is not, "Who promotes it?" But, "Is it true?" God wants us to receive the truth upon its own merits, because it is true, not because it is advocated by a group that pleases us. The entire of Christendom is like this, and on this grounds alone rejects the 3 angels messages. Shall we be just like them? Certainly not.

Yes I know that the topic here mentioned is different, but the principle that we are dealing with here is same as it relates to "What is true?" I'm not concerned about my "credibility." I'm concerned about the truth.

Credibility is generally based on the "respect to persons" system. This the apostle James has a word to say about.

[Stan]

you aren't getting it.

you have not been here long enough to give unsolicited advice to this audience.

[CoAspen]

I'm with you stan, it looks to be an anti-SDA blog site and if the picture is accurate, I have doubts about the ability of the writer. Secondly, mostly cut paste from EGW with editorial comment and not sources. Not really very interesting or thought provoking, just a lot of words.

see ya'

[Green Cochoa]

Stan, I think that the principle contained in this statement from Ellen White well applies to my "credibility" in terms of how people will henceforth view what I say.

"Those who allow prejudice to bar the mind against the reception of truth cannot receive the divine enlightenment. Yet, when a view of Scripture is presented, many do not ask, Is it True,—in harmony with God's word? but, By whom is it advocated? and unless it comes through the very channel that pleases them, they do not accept it. So thoroughly satisfied are they with their own ideas, that they will not examine the Scripture evidence, with a desire to learn, but refuse to be interested, merely because of their prejudices." {Gospel Workers, 1892, 125.3}

And this is exactly what people do. They do not ask, "Is it true?" but, "By whom is it advocated?" How would Adventists respond if every Baptist and Methodist out there refused to listen to the health message on the grounds that it is promoted by Adventists... you know... us "cult" people? We wouldn't like that would we? In fact, we would encourage them to do otherwise. So why would we turn around and do the same thing that we wouldn't want others doing? That is hypocrisy. To reject a message because we don't like the messenger is out of harmony with God's way of doing things.

Next paragraph:

"The Lord often works where we least expect him; he surprises us by revealing his power through instruments of his own choice, while he passes by the men to whom we have looked as those through whom light should come. God desires us to receive the truth upon its own merits,—because it is truth." {GW92 126.1}

So the issue is not, "Who promotes it?" But, "Is it true?" God wants us to receive the truth upon its own merits, because it is true, not because it is advocated by a group that pleases us. The entire of Christendom is like this, and on this grounds alone rejects the 3 angels messages. Shall we be just like them? Certainly not.

Yes I know that the topic here mentioned is different, but the principle that we are dealing with here is same as it relates to "What is true?" I'm not concerned about my "credibility." I'm concerned about the truth.

Credibility is generally based on the "respect to persons" system. This the apostle James has a word to say about.

I hope I'm not "disfellowshiped" from this forum for saying so, but thank you for this post, BattleAxe. I appreciate the focus on truth. Those who prize truth will appreciate it, regardless of what others say about it.

God bless,

Green Cochoa.

[M. T. Cross]

Stan, I think that the principle contained in this statement from Ellen White well applies to my "credibility" in terms of how people will henceforth view what I say.

Can I give you a little advice friend?

First, I am sure you are an intelligent, well read and much studied fellow. I'm sure you are on fire for the message you want to spread and all but.....

You signed up here and right off the bat started linking to a book you wrote. You did not take any time to get to know any of the posters here, the "climate of the community" so to speak.

Its generally a pretty welcoming bunch. For example there are a few total atheists, an agnostic and me the pagan that post here. While there are probably a couple people that wish we would just go away, overall we are treated with dignity and respect. But we understand the community that we are in here. We are honest about what we believe and as most of us are former SDA's we know what the majority of the community here believes (outside of the millions of things they fight about)

Which leads me to my next point.

You posted the above post as an SDA. You seem to be posting as an SDA author and then you link a video that turns out to be from The Occult Network. I think the reason that it brings your credibility into question is that the way you did that is deceptive and comes across as sneaky. (If you want a link to a message board that would probably enjoy a conversation about that send me a pm, I can give you the link).

I agree that we should not judge truth based totally on where it originates, I mean hey, I have learned things from Christians....... but when the origin tries to bring you truth in a seemingly deceptive way - kinda leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

[BattleAxe]

Green

All praise to the Lord. I get the same thing from people all over the world. Its okay. Not that its good, but... Just pray for God's people. Pray for us, pray for me. Not one of us doesn't need help.

[BattleAxe]

CoAspen

Its not an anti-SDA website, and there are a great many pictures on it (around 80), so I am lost for which one you could be referring to. I am a Seventh-Day Adventist, but if my works seem non-Adventist, its probably because I'm not trying to please my audience, but discover the truth #1 for my own sake, and #2 to provide a small research library of stuff for browsers to use as a research tool. My stuff is certainly not infallible, but does reflect my tentative beliefs.

[BattleAxe]

M.T. Cross

Looking at if from that perspective, I can see where some people may be coming from. I do agree that it is a welcoming bunch, at least seeing what I have to compare it to. I am an Seventh Day Adventist, and I have written about 7 or 8 books (only three of them in print) and around 80 articles. Honestly, I didn't know that The Marketing of Madness link was from the occult, nor do I really care. To this moment, I still don't even care enough to go find out and verify that that is correct. I still believe that The Marketing of Madness is accurate on the topic of the DSM and the psychiatric drugging industry. My concern is the truth. So long as their message is true, then I am under obligation to give and make way for the truth.

I've seen so many people refuse to be interested in or consider a message or bit of information, merely because the messenger doesn't meet their fancy. While I know where they are coming from, there is too much warning against doing this. Example in The Great Controversy:

"For seven years a man continued to go up and down the streets of Jerusalem, declaring the woes that were to come upon the city. By day and by night he chanted the wild dirge, 'A voice from the east; a voice from the west; a voice from the four winds; a voice against Jerusalem and the temple; a voice against the bridegroom and the bride; and a voice against all the people.' This strange being was imprisoned and scourged; but no complaint escaped his lips. To insult and abuse he answered only, 'Woe to Jerusalem! woe, woe to the inhabitants thereof!' His warning cry ceased not until he was slain in the siege he had foretold." {The Great Controversy, (1888 edition) 30.3}

Now I never met this guy, but according to this paragraph, the guy seems to have been a fanatical freak. But regardless, that fanatical freak was right. The next paragraph indicates that he wasn't a Christian either. But you know what? He was right. Had the Jews listened to him, the lives of hundreds of thousands of Jews might have been spared. Was the freak guy right about everything, probably not, but he was right about this, and it would do us well to learn from the Jew's mistake. Jesus was rejected, largely on account that He was poor, and that the elders didn't really see anything in him to be desired.

I could go on for a while, but that should suffice. Thanks for your advice though.

[debbym]

i think few members are prepared or equipped or qualified to speak about these issues, even those experiencing them.

we have a Celebrate Recovery Group in a local sda church and one in a local non sda church, plus other Recovery Sabbath School classes. In these groups any and every issue is brought up by those struggling, in a framework of the faith and hope in the promises of the Word of God.

in these places these needs are not denied voice, and existence, and they are brought up and shared in the context of spiritual support, compassion and the sufficiency of the grace of God.

would that every church member who has needs could be lovingly ministered to by prayer, kindness and support, trusting the power of God sent to us by the Spirit in the promises of God.

[BattleAxe]

I believe that cause and effect is real. I believe that there are real problems that exist and change people's lives. What I don't believe is that they are "illnesses" that need drugs. I've studied psychology. I've had my own issues, and come out of them. And I've helped other people out of their "illnesses" by merely helping them sort out the information already contained in their own minds so that everything is in the right place. That alone, in many cases, will solve the problem. It will be difficult to convince me otherwise, as I've seen life after life change in front of my very eyes.

What happens is that the human mind responds to emotional pain much like our bodies respond when we touch a hot burner. There is an instant, subconscious removal of our finger from the heat. The mind, in dealing with emotional pain, does its own things so that the individual can live through life without being in continual pain. But while the short term pain may be killed, the long term pain is enabled. Many of the mental "illnesses" are the result of emotional pain.

Others, such as ADHD, is simply what happens when you load up an energetic kid (they are all that way) with sugar producing foods and tell him to sit still and listen to boring stuff all day in school class. That's not a chemical imbalance, that is a kid loaded with energy. There are other factors, but I don't see any evidence that it is an "illness," but merely an abuse and misinterpretation of nature. Sure... take the kid of the drugs, and there will be adverse affects. Why? Because they are drugs; that is their nature. They are addictive. Withdrawal has affects on the individual coming off of drugs. But that is no evidence of mental "illness," but only evidence that the drug is a drug.

[OzarkWoman]

Are you now a doctor?

[CoAspen]

Quote:

Others, such as ADHD, is simply what happens when you load up an energetic kid (they are all that way) with sugar producing foods and tell him to sit still and listen to boring stuff all day in school class. That's not a chemical imbalance, that is a kid loaded with energy. There are other factors, but I don't see any evidence that it is an "illness," but merely an abuse and misinterpretation of nature.

Another statement that shows your lack of knowledge of the subject you speak of. You can say 'in my opinion', then people would understand you better. As it is, you try to come across on many subjects as having much knowledge of what you post about.....no evidence, just opinion.

[M. T. Cross]

So then what is your take on autism and asbergers then Battle Axe?

[BattleAxe]

Like I said, there are real problems, with real causes, and real effects, they are just not 'illnesses' that need drug treatment. As for Autism, there is sufficient evidence to indicate that it is a result of something in the shots that they give to newborns. Probably the mercury. Their brains are literally damaged.

Many of the "illnesses" listed in the DSM, let us ask some questions about them. How do they test you for split personality disorder for instance? Do they do a blood test, X-ray your head, take your temperature? Nope, all they do is ask you questions. How does this confirm a you have a "disease" of the brain? What does the germ/bacteria/virus for split personality disorder look like? Well... it doesn't look like anything, because their is none, and they know that, so instead they call it a "chemical imbalance" in the brain. And how do they verify this "chemical imbalance" in your brain before offering you drugs to "help" you? Do they do a surgery, take a sample of brain fluid? What do they do? Well, they don't. Everything is based off of how you answer questions. You can go online yourself and do self tests to see if you need psychotropic drug treatment. But you'll quickly notice that it is based on how you answer questions, not off of science (something that is studied, observed, and tested).

And again, there are real problems, with real causes, and real effects. But they are not "illnesses" needing drugs. Some is literal brain damage, others are the result of the minds coping mechanism to deal with life. But they are not "illnesses." If someone has brain cancer, it can be scientifically verified. I can be studied, observed, and tested. They can even show you a picture of the problem. But what does bi-polor disorder look like? How do they observe, test, and study bi-polar? They don't, because it isn't. You answer questions, and based on how you answer those questions, they determine whether or not you are bi-polar.

And some of their questions are so constructed that EVERYONE is going to end up with bipolar. I remember one question like, "Do you often have periods when your mind is more active than others? Sometimes less creative, sometimes more creative?" You are supposed to answer the question 1-5, 1 being 'sort of,' and 5 being 'most definitely'. Well... I have times when my mind is much more active and then much less active everyday. I wake up in the morning and am fired and ready to go, but after a 10 hour day, my mind is less active and more dull because I'm tired as all get out. So I put number 5. Number 5 indicates an extreme case of bi-polar. Now granted, there are 24 other questions that you answer that may bring your average score down. But think about it for a minute, how does me answering that question confirm that I need drugs or have ANY sort of mental problem? It doesn't, yet that is how you are tested. This is not science.

[Gregory Matthews]

There is a dictum that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Our friend Mr. Battle Axe has demonstrated the truth of that. He may have studied psychology, whether independently or formally with others, I do not know. I do know that his half-truths are mixed with error. NOTE: I do not accuse him of intentional error. I simply say that he is often wrong, but, not entirely.

There are two accepted classifications of illness that are used in the U.S. They are the DSM and the ICD. Yes, there are also some highly specialized sub-sets. E.G. Specialists in sleep disorders have manuals that go beyond either of the above.

Certainly I am aware of a psychological test that asks a person to respond to questions as our friend has said. But, a diagnosis of bi-polar will never be made on the basis of those questions. It is much more involved that he has suggested.

He comments on the DSM. That publication is soundly based upon research. That does not mean that it cannot be challenged. It can and appropriately is challenged. He could probably cite some appropriate challenges to it.

But, he cannot tritely dismiss something that the DSM has called an illness and say that it is not an illness.

Even when he makes some trite statements about some etiology which may have a bit of truth, one cannot conclude that such a person should not be diagnosed and involved in a clinical treatment program.

To those who ask:

1) No, I am not a physician.

2) Yes, I have formally taught the DSM to graduate students in a formally accredited educational institution.

3) Yes, I have had "admitting privleges" in accredited hospitals.

4) No, I do not have such at the hospital where I presently work as my duties do not require for me to have them.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

You can go online yourself and do self tests to see if you need psychotropic drug treatment. But you'll quickly notice that it is based on how you answer questions, not off of science (something that is studied, observed, and tested).

Mr. Battle Axe, You have simply misunderstood. Diagnosis of the DSM listings are based upon study observation and testing.

Yes, sometimes one aspect cannot be done with a live patient. Don't put me out on a limb where I have not gone.

But, all of the DSM is based upon valid science. No, that does not make it 100% correct. As I said earlier, the DSM can be challenged and is challenged.

[Gregory Matthews]

Let us talk a bit more about issues that he has surfaced.

The latest edition of the DSM is the DSM-5, which was published in May, 2013. One of the changes that it made was to drop Asperger Syndrome as a specific classification. Some will agree. Some will not agree and many will not understand why. I only mention this to illustrate my comments to the effect that the DSM is not always perfect and the DSM changes.

One may say that the DSM in discussing the etiology of its included illnesses fails to consider the effect of religion and spirituality on the illness.

I have a book in my library, which I have read, published by the American Psychiatric Association of 377 pages which discusses the effect of religion and spirituality on one very small sub-set of the illnesses considered by the DSM-5. You will note that every statement in that book is documented by research. Again, people will in some aspects come to different conclusions. Science is progressive. The DSM is not locked in concrete. The next edition of the DSM will probably have some different conclusions from the DSM-5.

In short this 377 page book clearly states that there may be a powerful association between illness and religion and spirituality.

[BattleAxe]

You are well spoken Matthews. I still disagree on the things that I said. It doesn't matter to me which text book it comes from (unless it is the infallible word of God), or what school it is taught in, or what doctor promotes it as truth, it is not scientific until in can be observed, studied, and tested in nature or a lab. Studying and observing a persons responses to questions while they are in a lab, doesn't count. Why, because that is not verifying a chemical imbalance in one's brain. That is only viewing how someone responds to questions. But anyways... anyone who is interested can research the matter out themselves.

"Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."

[Windsor]

Oh, boy. Even with all the vast evidence against her, the disciples of Jenny McCarthy keep multiplying.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

Studying and observing a persons responses to questions while they are in a lab, doesn't count.

Exactly and that is not what has been done. If you think that is the basis of the DSM, you simply do not understand the basis of the DSM.

Again, there are valid points that can be made against the DSM, you are clearly not making them.