When Did It Become Acceptable?

[B/W Photodude]

When Did It Become Acceptable?

The church of today is not the church I grew up in.  In some cases that is a good thing, in other cases it is definitely not good.  

http://www.fulcrum7.com/blog/2020/2/7/when-did-it-become-acceptable

[BlessedMan]

1 hour ago, B/W Photodude said:

When Did It Become Acceptable?

The church of today is not the church I grew up in.  In some cases that is a good thing, in other cases it is definitely not good.  

http://www.fulcrum7.com/blog/2020/2/7/when-did-it-become-acceptable

Well; IF it was EXACTLY like the one you grew up in my friend; THAT might not be so good either? (2 Pet 3:18).

[Gregory Matthews]

The author of that article has listed more than 50, if my count is correct,  issues that he implies are present in the SDA Church today.  I wonder, how many of those has he investigated to see if they are actually true.  I wonder, how many has he studied in an attempt to determine the actual facts of the individual case.  I ask this due to the fact that as I have often studied charges against the SDA Church, I have often found them to be based on falsehoods, at least in part.  Yes, in some cased, I have found them to be true, and that the SDA denomination took appropriate action.  As an example, the following quote is one of the charges that the author makes.  Let us look at it to se what is true and what is false. 

What is true:  A SDA School (Walla Walla University) did participate in a sporting event, during a time period that SDAs consider to be the Sabbath.  But, that time period was NOT the Sabbath in the geographic location where the sporting event was played.  Rather, it was the Sabbath in another part of the world where the person making the charge first lived.

Quote

When did it become acceptable to sanction sporting events for Seventh-day Adventist schools on Sabbath?

[Gregory Matthews]

Let me address another complaint, that I quote below:

1)  I attend a large SDA congregation.   The pastoral staff sometimes preaches in jeans, and sometimes not.  There is a reason for doing so.  The pastoral staff is attempting to use the Sabbath services an evangelistic tool to reach the community that is living next door to the church building.  In fact, one of the pastors has the specific job description of reaching out to that community.  The Sr. pastor wants the person leaving the coffee shop next to the church building to be able to walk into the Sabbath services, wearing jeans and a plaid shirt, and feel welcomed.   NOTE:  Wake up and smell the roses folks.  Some people just do not have "proper" clothing to wear.  I once baptized a woman who had been wearing a dress to church that certain of my members found offensive, due to the length of the dress.  [NOTE:  It actually was not that short.]  I informed them that it was the only dress she owned and she would attend church in jeans and a plaid shirt if she wore anything else.  [NOTE:  They took her shopping and purchased additional dresses for her.]

2)  Today is Sabbath.  I will wear a suit and a tie to church today.  Two weeks ago, I wore jeans and a plaid shirt to church.  I did so as part of my witness for Christ.  You may not understand.  You do not have to understand.  If I had been on the platform that day, I would hae worn the jeans and plaid shirt.   My wife wore similar attire to church that day.  It was part of her witness for Christ.  She gave a partial explaination to some people that day.  The bottom line is:  We ought to be more concerned about what happens on Sabbath morning than on what the pastor is wearing.  If you attend a SDA Church than usually never has a community visitor attending, you should worry about that.

 

Quote

When did it become acceptable to preach on Sabbath in blue jeans, sneakers, and a plaid shirt?

[Gregory Matthews]

I understand that there are examples  in the article that actually happened.

1)  I am aware of some in which the SDA Church took action, even to the extent of a pastor either resigning or being fired.  But, the critics do not tell us that.  Or they may say that such did not happen as quickly as it should have happened.  Well, in many cases the critics simply do not know all of the facts.  Folks, they do not need to know all.

2)  If an unmarried woman become pregnant, we do not  need to publish to the world that she was raped.  I am aware of such.  She should have the privacy that she needs.

3)  If the charge is false, as I have seen, the Church may not be able to tell the true facts.  Folks, the SDA Community at large, worldwide, does not have to know everything. 

4)  I am thinking of a scandal that has gone around the world.  Action was not taken quickly.   An investigation occurred.    What is not known is that two (2) people were found to have culpability.  Action occurred for both, commensurate to their individual responsibility.  But, the critics only had it partly correct.  

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

One last (?) comment:

1)  The SDA denomination is a world-wide church.  but, standards differ from place to place.  The standards are not the same as to dress, food and Sabbath observance.

2)  When people move to the United states from other countries, they bring with them the standards of their own country.  "So, you will see flesh foods served at potlucks, typically identified as such.  You will see different standards of Sabbath observance and different standards of dress.

 

[BlessedMan]

THIS is nothing personal to anyone; but Id say all this "became acceptable" while the dude was looking the other way for another complaint to add to his list! lol

"Problem" solved.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

One big problem I have with the article is that no footnotes were given to point to the source of allegations.  The end result makes the whole article come across as rather histrionic, and reminds me of how anyone can proffer any sort of accusations about anyone (or any institution), and get away with it in communities of readers who subscribe to the same beliefs.... much like the Salem Witch Trials.

Bottom line (for me):  give extant proof of the allegations — otherwise, don't bother me with insinuations and innuendos.  

 

[BlessedMan]

Pam; I appreciate what you said, not trying to add or subtract from it; but the part I disagreed with is the first paragraph, before the "problems list"

Quote

 

Revelation 2:5 states,

“So remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the first works, or else I shall come to you speedily and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.”

The following list is meant to simply remind us from where we have fallen and to encourage us to renew our commitment to the culture of heaven.

 

IF the succeeding list is actually "from where we have fallen" then Ill eat my skullcap. For me, this is a poor "interpretation" of Rev 2:5

I cannot wear a tie around my neck because of burn scar contractures. I literally feel like I am suffocating if I try to wear a tie. YET, there are churches where I could never stand up front and even just read a Bible verse, let alone preach, and why? Because I don't want to wear something that makes me feel like that. I tried to appease the "leaders" in one church and wore a tie to preach there. I saw stars and passed out. Its a good thing two elders were sitting behind me watching for mistakes, because they caught me before my head hit the floor. I asked for a glass of water, took my tie off and preached the sermon...it was something to do with "be sure your sins will find you out..."

[pierrepaul]

14 hours ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

One big problem I have with the article is that no footnotes were given to point to the source of allegations.  The end result makes the whole article come across as rather histrionic, and reminds me of how anyone can proffer any sort of accusations about anyone (or any institution), and get away with it in communities of readers who subscribe to the same beliefs.... much like the Salem Witch Trials.

Bottom line (for me):  give extant proof of the allegations — otherwise, don't bother me with insinuations and innuendos.  

 

From what I’ve seen, “Fulcrum7” doesn’t place a high priority on truth or accuracy. They’re trying to emulate the worldly “outrage” media where half-truths and falsehoods are acceptable as long as it promotes their agenda and elicits outrage from their readership.

[phkrause]

3 hours ago, pierrepaul said:

From what I’ve seen, “Fulcrum7” doesn’t place a high priority on truth or accuracy. They’re trying to emulate the worldly “outrage” media where half-truths and falsehoods are acceptable as long as it promotes their agenda and elicits outrage from their readership.

Not sure I agree totally with you. Other magazines also have some iffy articles!! I'm more inclined to agree with Pam's assessment of the article!!

[B/W Photodude]

So, I have read thru the comments to follow the OP of this article and find them interesting, not right, but interesting. Individual items get pulled out and worked on such as sports, unwed mothers, clothing, etc., but the fact is the whole "forest" still remains. A couple of points could be debated, but a very large number cannot be debated. So, by focusing on this "tree" or that "tree", we are not seeing the "forest". So, "You can't see the forest for the trees" lives again. The point of this authors article is that there is a serious decline in the condition of the church, especially in the way of forgetting "old paths" and trying to justify following the world. 

To be crystal clear here, this author stepped on a couple of my toes also. So, it is a call for sober self examination, not that anything was new, but the whole picture of the decline of the church is so much more visible. And as already quoted, “So remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the first works, or else I shall come to you speedily and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.” Revelation 2:5 So, there is in this verse a clear call for people to examine themselves and desist from following the world.

A couple comments on specific trees that were named are:

Sporting events

Seems that Advent Health is promoting sporting events that some would call violent and in which many injuries and fights occur in. They also have begun giving tickets to events being held on the Sabbath. There is much to say in SOP regarding sporting events and competitions for supremacy.

http://adventmessenger.org/adventhealth-is-a-championship-partner-in-the-violent-sport-of-professional-hockey/

http://adventmessenger.org/adventhealth-is-offering-racing-tickets-to-sporting-events-that-are-scheduled-on-the-sabbath/

While not mentioned in comments, Advent Health is now funding LGBT+ programs. While this may not directly be funded by member donations, it is taking resources that should be used for broader segments of the population for the health message, not building museums to promote the lifestyle of these various alphabet letters.

http://adventmessenger.org/seventh-day-adventists-give-1-million-dollars-to-fund-lgbt-programs/

Dress

A number of reasons were given to justify someone preaching from the "desk" wearing jeans, flannel shirts, and tennis shoes. And there are a couple of misconceptions.

Speaking from my experience in Adventist Community Services where we gave away clothing, or couldn't even give it away, the financial reasons do not justify a pastor on the platform preaching as a matter of routine dressed as such. Most churches of any size have an ACS where clothing can be given away. With the possible exception of "NotGoodwill", most thrift shops would probably give someone clothing if they showed up and explained they needed clothing for church but had no money. Many will give such clothing to someone needing clothing for a job interview. 

While people would show up for church "dressed down", they probably would never do such if going out for a job interview in a high level job. I tend to think you should wear your best to church short of tuxedo, etc., as being over dressed is condemned as being slovenly dressed is. None of the above applies to visitors.

Some would argue that culture dictates whether something is positive or negative and whether it is acceptable.  If culture is indeed the determining factor, there can be only one culture that defines good and bad, and that is the culture of heaven.  If anything conflicts with the heavenly culture, it must cease to be a part of our lives—if we are preparing for heaven.

When it became clear to us, that even in a very poor part of the country, people did not really need clothing on a giveaway basis, we closed down our Community Services program. So, what to do with the clothing we had? We almost couldn't give it away. The children's clothing we gave to a nearby clothing giveaway. The thrift store refused as they had clothing stacked to their ceilings. Finally, it all went to a chain giveaway that probably recycled the material. Even organizations that shipped overseas no longer take clothing, including ADRA. It is easier for them to just take money. So, lack of clothing cannot really be used as a reason. 

Understandably, in foreign countries they dress different. However, most of the mission highlight videos I see, no matter where in the world, the leaders and much of the congregations are in suits/ties. 

When I was much younger, as much as I may have complained about the strictness of the leaders in adhering to church practices, it always disappointed me when they actually caved and began following worldly ways. And I wonder sometimes, did anyone ever really come to the truth because someone was in blue jeans rather than being more dressed up?

Who is to be warned about their sins, the world?  God’s people are the ones to be warned.  They say they worship God, but only to make themselves feel good.  Is that discouraging to you?

[BlessedMan]

1 hour ago, B/W Photodude said:

When I was much younger, as much as I may have complained about the strictness of the leaders in adhering to church practices, it always disappointed me when they actually caved and began following worldly ways. And I wonder sometimes, did anyone ever really come to the truth because someone was in blue jeans rather than being more dressed up?

Who is to be warned about their sins, the world?  God’s people are the ones to be warned.  They say they worship God, but only to make themselves feel good.  Is that discouraging to you?

I think your OP here makes perfect sense.  People seem to count it as some sort of "virtue" when they don't have any standards to go by.

The clothing thing can get pretty ugly. I once had a much "beloved church leader" come to my apartment (at the time) and take a 3 inch framing nail, and nailed a page to my wooden door there from SM about "proper dress." He didn't like the clothes I wore to church.  I dont think its hard to imagine how driving a 3 inch spike into a guy's door might have affected me over the years.

At that church, I thought the "dress code" was basically to have a special outfit that you just used for church, generally expected to be a little nicer than "just jeans," and so I was actually using what I considered "my very best out fit." 

I guess some people did notice my bright-red pants, tight at the ankles, baggy at the top...but I was a new member, and I was 110% sincere in wanting to look my best for church attendance on Sabbath. To me, that was my very best; it got shot down so fast and hard that I just stayed away for a month until I could recover. That was just the first of many "offences."  Even a good thing gets over-done, or done wrong.

I have no problem with dressing nice, even "respectable" whatever that is; but I wont wear a suit for no one. I am really uncomfortable in them, and its just never going to happen again.

Then there is the problem of "enforcement."  For said "standards."  I mean, what are we to do? Stand a deacon at the door with a big sign saying "no suits" no admission?  An unwelcoming atmosphere often presents as THAT "sign."

One thing is certain. "Standards" vary widely from one church to the next. There is no way to keep track of it all. I found that the way the Rabbi in a Jewish temple I once attended was going with the right idea. He was very welcoming and cordial as he explained how/why they would like me to wear one of those beanies they wear. (Sorry; I don't know what they are actually called). It was easy and painless to go along with because of the way he approached me with the idea. In fact, I felt like because I respected them; they also respected me; I felt very welcome there.

 

[BlessedMan]

1 minute ago, BlessedMan said:

Then there is the problem of "enforcement."  For said "standards."  I mean, what are we to do? Stand a deacon at the door with a big sign saying "no suits" no admission?  An unwelcoming atmosphere often presents as THAT "sign."

I have some unsavory comments about this for another post

[Gregory Matthews]

In many places, today, driving a nail into the door would violate the fire code and it would require that he entire door be replaced.

If that were to happen to me, I would notify the police and ask that they document and investigate.  I would replace the door, as would be required if I were ever to sell the home, and I would sue the person who did it, if the evidence could be developed.

 

Quote

I once had a much "beloved church leader" come to my apartment (at the time) and take a 3 inch framing nail, and nailed a page to my wooden door there from SM about "proper dress." He didn't like the clothes I wore to church.  I dont think its hard to imagine how driving a 3 inch spike into a guy's door might have affected me over the years.

[BlessedMan]

4 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

If that were to happen to me, I would notify the police and ask that they document and investigate.  I would replace the door, as would be required if I were evere to sell the home

I was in a rental unit, and it was an old wooden door. It was actually in a "lower income" neighborhood; and to be honest, at the time; it felt like a statement about "those poor people" and how maybe they shouldn't be a part of "the remnant." No one wanted to do anything about it "because he was old," and I thought to myself, that it would be impossible to address the matter. It was just one of those things where if I wanted to be in that church; Id have to just let it go. I never should have let that go like that; it would have saved a lot of headaches in succeeding years. A new member does not usually want to call the police on fellow members,  know what I mean?

[B/W Photodude]

45 minutes ago, BlessedMan said:

The clothing thing can get pretty ugly. I once had a much "beloved church leader" come to my apartment (at the time) and take a 3 inch framing nail, and nailed a page to my wooden door there from SM about "proper dress." He didn't like the clothes I wore to church. 

I think it is one thing to have discussions regarding dress, and quite another thing to start harassing specific individuals regarding how they showed up to church. I recall one "dress cop" who made it a point to skewer the ladies for how much cleavage might be showing or how high their skirts were. That really is unacceptable behavior. And putting a nail into someone's door?! yeah, you don't want to call police on fellow members, but principle does get a bit protective of people doing wrong.

FWIW, SOP spends far more time on criticizing and judging fellow church goers than it does on dress. And we do need to grow right along with the tares in the church. We are all wheat here, right?!

[B/W Photodude]

On 2/8/2020 at 12:56 PM, BlessedMan said:

I cannot wear a tie around my neck because of burn scar contractures. I literally feel like I am suffocating if I try to wear a tie. 

Ties are one thing I wish would pass from the Western style of dress. I do not wear ties usually (due to neck surgery) although I have many. Being a neuroscience nurse, I can't help but wonder sometimes how many men have dislodged plaque and had strokes trying to get their ties on with a buttoned top button! I don't button top buttons when I do wear a tie and keep it very loose, which does look a bit disheveled after a bit. But hey! At least it is on!

[BlessedMan]

Now, if someone has the courage to say anything about my dress; especially at church, I just smile sweetly and ask: "why do you want me to wear a rope around my neck and a rug on my back." Wonderful conversation stopper. lol

[Gregory Matthews]

One does not document a charge by simply citing a source that has repested a charge that is several times removed.  That is gossip.  It takes work to verify and identify truth.  Many are not interested in ecpending that amount of effort.

 

[Gustave]

When did it become permitted to bring "flesh meats" to Church??  That's quite the tautology there LOL! The better question to ask is when did it become forbidden to bring meat to a breakfast, lunch or dinner?  Is there a difference between meat and meat meat? Something has soared over my head here.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

In some parts of the world, probably,  flesh meats have always been brought to church for potluck.

[BlessedMan]

40 minutes ago, Gustave said:

When did it become permitted to bring "flesh meats" to Church??  That's quite the tautology there LOL! The better question to ask is when did it become forbidden to bring meat to a breakfast, lunch or dinner?  Is there a difference between meat and meat meat? Something has soared over my head here.

 

says the MEAT EATER lol There is actually a show called that! If you want to get grossed out watch. I know its on Netflix. No I dont watch it; except for a one time viewing at a friend's place.

[Gustave]

4 hours ago, BlessedMan said:

says the MEAT EATER lol There is actually a show called that! If you want to get grossed out watch. I know its on Netflix. No I dont watch it; except for a one time viewing at a friend's place.

Says Jesus:

Luke 24, 41-43

 

 

 

[Kevin H]

My church brings in a lot of children from the city, often from poor homes where their only real meals are what they get at school and at our church. We serve what they will eat and give them nourishment (and not be unclean meats) and let them wear what they have. 

Also, having dairy allergies, I've seen many church potlucks where there is no meat but where nothing is considered edible without cheese.  

Also, many of the ideas are things that we have had different views in our history. It appears to be written by someone who takes one application and understanding of Adventism and want to force those views on the rest of the church even thought our history does not support it, and they can avoid evidence against them with the phrase about us changing our history.