Leaderboard

I left the Adventist Church because of legalism, unkindness, and constant criticism of its members. The last day I went to my regular church, the old guard were berating another teenager about the song she sang and using a guitar. This was around 20 years ago. I much prefer to worship God in my own way in my own home with my family. My husband had quit going a year before me because when he had cancer and was in the hospital, some Adventist couples came to visit him and told him he got cancer because he ate meat and he was going to hell. That was just the last straw for him. I could write a book on the meanness of Seventh-Day-Adventists. When I decided I couldn't in good conscience bring a visitor to my church, that was the day I said to myself, "What am I doing here?" What the church needs is love, love, love. Mrs. White says the church will be good when thousands leave in the shaking and thousands from outside come in. That will be a good day.

I am concerned about where The One Project is going with our church. When Wilson, Wolberg, Kirkpatrick, and Bohr are concerned along with others, you have to carefully consider what is the issue. So, included are a couple of links to some articles that identify serious problems with the TOP: http://advindicate.com/articles/2014/3/4/one-project-present-or-emergent-truth http://thegreatcontroversy.info/the-one-project-analyzed.html I would suggest one print it out and read it carefully. If I was to run into someone with questions on the TOP, I would recommend they stay far away.

When people wonder why church growth is slow and no one is seems to be joining the church, I just note that they are being carefully protected out in the other churches. I see many people all the time that will tell me that the Sabbath of the Bible is the seventh day and they remain in their first day church.

(Thread drift ... [sort of!]) WE have a Baptist preacher who was preaching at a funeral in our town who was talking about Eve at the Tree of Knowledge and the statement that they would die if they ate of the tree. The preacher declared that God was a liar and Satan was right and you never die. This does fit in well with the belief in eternal hell at death. I even saw a YouTube video of someone who seems to have matching beliefs to this preacher who promoted the idea that during the time when Jesus died and was resurrected, he went to hell! Sometimes, it seems, you can easily see where someone has gone "off the tracks" in their beliefs regarding what the Bible actually says. Often you cannot see where a belief set has diverged. Reality is, in the end times, many even in the SDA church will diverge and follow unsafe beliefs. Which suggests that lots of prayer, careful study of scripture, and abiding in Jesus are absolutely essentials for salvation.

I am sorry for the pain that you have experienced at the hands of Adventism. I wish that I had a magic wand and could wave it and make it right, but I can not. I have no idea as to where you live. In some places, there is only one SDA congregation to which one can attend. In other places there may be many. Congregations have personalities, so to speak. Whether or not there is a nearby congregation to which you could receive spiritual nurture, I Do not know. I can only say: May God bless and lead you in you spiritual journey. Yes, there are some congregations to which I would not take some visitors.

Hi Belle! Nice to meet you! There is a growing movement that you are a part of I see emerging. I myself growing up SDA (more or less) church witnessed my tiny rural conservative church do what you described ad naseum. We were right in the middle of independent ministries and self supporting lil companies of people here and there. I heard it all and saw it all. People either confronting others are talking about others. What was worn at church. What they ate at church. What was in their grocery carts in the small town stores. I thought that was Christianity! I became just like them. And boy was I in trouble thinking that is how god is toward me as well UGH!. There was no safe place. He was no safe place. You cant invite others to this and expect them to be happy ..much less Joyful Joyful We Adore Thee. You mention the shaking. Yes yes! I believe the Church will fall. Fall hard and fall big and something beautiful will come forth. A Remnant who's focus will not be on my failings or others but on Jesus and His Love for us. And His Love on others. To look upon each person as Jesus Himself no matter who or what they are! The dos and don'ts will not be on anyone's mind or breath .. but only two of the Highest Standards will drive this Remnant. Sealed that God is in absolute head over heels in love with you and everyone else. This people (church) will be a Safe Place for you to bring others into the Fold before Jesus comes to take us Home. So happy to meet you here

Not every opinion needs to be corrected or responded with a conflicting opinions.

seems that this is a case where the *letter* of the law is being obeyed, rather than the *spirit* of the law... btw, I enjoyed the included satire:

I didn't "like" this simply because of the taking aim at Rudy. The rest I liked. The fact is, Rudy is just quoting someone else's study and using it to make a potentially valuable observation. I might observe, quoting from the Bible, that the study supports the conclusion that "the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jesus was perfect. We aren't. That's the difference. That said, outrage, as Jesus exemplifies, does not have to be selfish. "Be ye angry and sin not."

I didn't see that, and I was one who stated that I believed in dressing for the occasion was a mark of respect. On the homosexuality issue, I don't think I've seen anyone here who believes God approves of it. I think one of the big problems is that some view the above topics (and others) with a mindset that they've already heard all they need to know — so they aren't open to any intellectual conversation with anyone who wants to investigate societal norms or scientific evidence. The Bible is a good Book....a GREAT Book, the BEST book on a guide for life. But it's not the only book. This thread isn't about homosexuality. It isn't even about satire.

Jesus was consumed with the desire for His father to be honored and glorified. our acts of moral outrage unless so motivated and directed will draw attentiuon to ourselves.

Buuuut it makes me feel soooo good!!!

I actually think Satan would rather *not* see The Shack story be made into a movie. Anything that grabs a person's attention, points them to the subject of God and His character, and creates a medium for conversation and exploration about Him goes against Satan's agenda. Really, he's *more* than happy when folks retreat into their comfort zones — it means that the message of God will be delayed that much longer. This is not to say that everyone should see the movie. If someone feels strongly that s/he should not view it, then by all means, do not view it. But most all religious movies have created an opening for discussion with people who are searching...

Sojourner, I am really sorry that this happened to your wife. My advice is to first take it to God in a lot of prayer. What I mean by that is keep on praying about it every day. Do not just give it a one time shot and if you do not see results from one prayer stop praying about it. Tell God exactly how you feel about the pain your wife feels and the anger you feel. Be completely real with Him. Then ask Him to work this out with all parties concerned, including yourself. After you have been praying about it for a week or so then start to act on it yourself. I would not go first to the pastor or the church board. If you can remember who was doing the greeting ask around for who made the remarks to your wife and then go to them and ask why. That is the Biblical way to go about things. Take it up with the individual first. If that does no good take it to the head elder and have him help. Then take it to the entire church if working with an elder fails. Follow the way God told us to work through things and God will honor your needs and requests for help.

? I would address the matter differently. Rather than run from the problem, face it and address it. Ask to see the pastor first. Share with him what happened. Ask him if you may present the matter to the church board. The church needs to know and to deal with the situation, and one member should not ruin church attendance for you when other members likely welcome you and would miss you if you leave. Let the church board investigate and deal with the individual and/or instruct the church membership at large in how to be hospitable and Christlike. It is the duty of the church to do this. If the pastor and/or church board is unwilling to address it, write a letter to the ministerial secretary of the conference and inform him of the situation. Something will happen. Jesus never once cast someone out for their apparel--not even naked people. The righteousness of Christ is to be our spiritual apparel, and clearly some in the church do not have it. This should be a concern of top priority for them, lest they lose their own salvation--like Jesus said to the Jewish leaders of His day: "But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in." (Matthew 23:13)

Your view of authority is far too narrow. Do you recognize EGW's authority on any level? Do you understand what she writes as being authoritative? Would you consider her to have been a God appointed leader of the Adventist Church? Did she not lead us in some important ways? Did the human appointed leaders of the Church not look to her for direction and guidance? Is that not leadership in a real sense? Or does her femaleness nullify or limit that? So many of the arguments and Biblical texts employed today to reject women in pastoral ministry and leadership are exactly the same ones employed by those in EGW's lifetime who rejected her calling, because she was a woman. Ironic isn't it? And how exactly are things different now? What has time done other than give men a chance to just change the target. Different women, different roles. Same arguments. When you say that God never put a woman in authority over his people, you also forget Deborah, a judge of Israel. That was without question a position of authority, even as you apparently limit it, among God's people. Are you saying that she was not put in that position by God? Was she self-appointed? Was her being a judge in Israel really different than the male judges in Israel during that period? The notion that a prophet is somehow different in this whole topic is such an incredibly blind false distinction. The idea that people cannot appoint a women to Church leadership, as a pastor, or responsibility of whatever type where some would draw that line is almost always claimed to be because it is not God's will, or cannot be blessed by God, or not God ordained, in some form not of God. Yet, it is precisely and only God that is the one that seems to have no issue or problem with appointing a woman as a prophet. What an unequivocal endorsement that God does not gender screen those who He deems fit to speak for him! Oddly blind to the irony of saying God would not do something that He most clearly in fact does do! The issue is not about God. So don't blame it on Him. Don't limit Him with human limitations. This is only about what people are willing to do or not. The restriction is man made. Not God made. Clearly in Paul's case, he got it. He recognize certain women as being qualified to work along side as equals, as co-laborers in God's work, working in the same way and doing the same work as Paul himself and the other men. He included them in his list in Roman's 16. And leading that list was Phoebe. So much so that he identifies her first, devotes more words of commendation and affirmation than any of the rest. And he uses words that were well understood by his audience in that time to be an endorsement of her as a leader that he was appointing to lead the believers in Rome. The first bishop of Rome, if you will. The substance of those two verses, which the article focuses on and you apparently refuse to see and address directly, very specifically identifies her as a leader, even someone that Paul himself views as a leader to himself. And who is refusing to recognize the obvious in those two verses? Is it God? Or is it man? God is not the problem here... Don't pretend it is all His doing.