Dancing on Shifting Sands

May 20, 2005

Dear individuals,

Mrs. Gray is starting to feel a bit like Rip Van Winkle. In fact, she wonders if one who passed away 30 years ago would recognize the church of today. This is not an attempt to be judgmental, or anything else, but after thinking about the Restaurants on Sabbath thread, Mrs. Gray has realized that most Adventists no longer think what they used to on a number of subjects.

It's kind of like coming home after being away for a while and finding out that while you changed, everybody else has as well.

Here are some of the things that most Adventists used to think but no longer seem to think:

1. You shouldn't go out to eat on Sabbath.

2. You shouldn't go to movies.

3. You shouldn't wear jewelry other than a watch or maybe a simple wedding band.

4. Rock music is bad.

5. You should dress up for church, not wear jeans.

These used to be the unquestionables where Mrs. Gray grew up in the MidWest. Recently, on a trip to the West Coast, Mrs. Gray came to a realization that these "pillars" have all but disappeared. The theory is apparently that without these things people can focus their energy on their relationship with God. But that isn't happening either as is evidenced by the numbers of divorces, etc.

So has anybody else felt these changes, or is it just Mrs. Gray? Is it a good thing, a bad thing, or does it simply not matter?

Sincerely,

Mrs. Gray

May 21, 2005

When I first joined the SDA church at the age of 16 (that's 24 years ago), those "pillars" were still very much in place. It was my understanding that the reason for eliminating such things as jewelry, movies, pop music, etc. from one's lifestyle was to be free of time-, money-, and attention-consuming distractions -- and/or idols -- that would interfere with one's relationship with Christ. It was a way of keeping life simplified so there would be plenty of room to focus on the essentials of a Christian life.

For various reasons, it seems people came to feel these choices were legalistic or burdensome and therefore themselves an interference, or inconvenience. Some, I think, felt it made us too separate from or out of touch with the larger world around us where these elements of culture were ubiquitous and taken for granted. Others maybe felt under a yoke of bondage trying to live out these choices and opted for choices that seemed easier or more fitting to them.

Yes, I have felt the changes. No, I am not happy with them -- am I in the minority there? HOWEVER ... regardless of which way the majority in the church goes, any individual who still feels that way may certainly maintain that lifestyle, and (1) refrain from eating out on Sabbath; (2) stay away from movies; (3) eschew jewelry; (4) shut out rock music; and (5) dress up nice for church. These are all choices that one may still make if one is so inclined. Who knows ... maybe if enough loving, joyful, contagious Christians did so, it would start a trend.

May 21, 2005

I suspect the church goes through continous change. C.S. Lewis taught the way not to be "culturized" by one's culture is to read books written from other centuries. The SOP obviously qualifies. However I also like to read the works of Charles G. Finney and Martin Luther.

(1) Of course I don't believe eating out on Sabbath is an approproate way to celebrate the Earth's creation or Christ's completion of our salvation. (2) I believe that if a movie is bad we shouldn't watch it on TV or in the theater and if it is acceptable for the TV it is acceptable in the theater. (3) I see jewelry as a threat to one's spiritual life in the same way that fine clothing and fancy cars are. I don't see a Biblical prohibition on jewerly but see significant caution given about its use. (4) The only issue I have with rock music is the words. Newsboys totally rock and I have no objections to their music. (5) I think we should wear our best to church and that it is respectful to have a couple sets of clothing that are used only for church if one can afford such. However I see no Biblical instruction in the matter, other than that we fear and respect the Lord.

May 21, 2005

Really sad people, to see things deteriorate and the only attitudes we bear are ones of apathy and resignation. What hope do you have of surviving the shaking or time of trouble?

May 21, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

When I first joined the SDA church at the age of 16 (that's 24 years ago), those "pillars" were still very much in place. It was my understanding that the reason for eliminating such things as jewelry, movies, pop music, etc. from one's lifestyle was to be free of time-, money-, and attention-consuming distractions -- and/or idols -- that would interfere with one's relationship with Christ. It was a way of keeping life simplified so there would be plenty of room to focus on the essentials of a Christian life.

For various reasons, it seems people came to feel these choices were legalistic or burdensome and therefore themselves an interference, or inconvenience. Some, I think, felt it made us too separate from or out of touch with the larger world around us where these elements of culture were ubiquitous and taken for granted. Others maybe felt under a yoke of bondage trying to live out these choices and opted for choices that seemed easier or more fitting to them.

Yes, I have felt the changes. No, I am not happy with them -- am I in the minority there? HOWEVER ... regardless of which way the majority in the church goes, any individual who still feels that way may certainly maintain that lifestyle, and (1) refrain from eating out on Sabbath; (2) stay away from movies; (3) eschew jewelry; (4) shut out rock music; and (5) dress up nice for church. These are all choices that one may still make if one is so inclined. Who knows ... maybe if enough loving, joyful, contagious Christians did so, it would start a trend. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/soapbox.gif" alt="" /> here goes...

When I was a teenager, these "pillars", like you say, were very much in place...but I never heard anything like your explanation at the time (that the reason was to avoid distractions/idols that would take our focus off Christ, etc.) They were simply rules that were there to be obeyed, period. Why? Because we're Adventists, and that's what Adventists do (or don't do).

And the rules were enforced very selectively. One of my Sabbath School classmates at the age of about 15-16 came to church with clip-on earrings - of course she got the usual lecture about "standards". The following Sabbath, she wore the exact same earrings, but clipped them together and pinned them to her dress to make a tasteful "brooch". Everybody complimented her on her pretty accessory. (No, she does not attend church any more. Not saying that particular incident had anything to do with it, but it was just the way it turned out.)

I think every person has to rediscover the principles behind the "standards" for themselves. Just for the record, I don't wear makeup, or any jewelry except my wedding ring, but neither do I feel comfortable wearing expensive designer clothes or anything too "fine" to church.

(Whereas in my youth, the makeup-free, jewelry-free designer "fashion parade" at church was so intimidating to some of the poorer sisters that they simply stayed away because they could not hope to compete. Not to mention elaborate hair-do's, expensive and impractical stiletto shoes, overpowering French perfume which cost $50 or more for an ounce and could be smelled at 50 yards...but hey, Ellen White never mentioned that stuff, so it doesn't count.)

While we're on the subject, how many Adventist sisters get the third degree about their $2 neck chain while their brothers are gathered around someone's fancy car after church, with the hood up, admiring the chrome bits and super-charged turbo whatsit? It is only some distractions/ idols that are frowned upon in the Adventist search for "simplicity of lifestyle."

(clambering down off <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/soapbox.gif" alt="" /> )

aldona

May 21, 2005

Quote:

These are all choices that one may still make if one is so inclined. Who knows ... maybe if enough loving, joyful, contagious Christians did so, it would start a trend.

Sounds and awful lot like freedom of choice to me. I'm for that. And I believe that (freedom of choice) is a pillar.

[:"red"] "So if the Son sets you free, you will indeed be free" [/] John 8:36 NLT

to you, Nico

May 21, 2005

Quote:

here goes...

While we're on the subject, how many Adventist sisters get the third degree about their $2 neck chain while their brothers are gathered around someone's fancy car after church, with the hood up, admiring the chrome bits and super-charged turbo whatsit? It is only some distractions/ idols that are frowned upon in the Adventist search for "simplicity of lifestyle."

(

)

aldona

Just a little edit.

[:"red"] "Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free." [/] Ephesians 6:8 KJV

May 21, 2005

This probably does not belong in here - but maybe not too far off topic. Our church service today was taken by Pr Ian Howie, ex-education director in various places and now pastor of one of the churches in the Avondale College area. Before he preached we had some wonderful music from the young people of the Avondale Contemporary Singers. (And I wont mention that a number of the girls had chains round their necks or were wearing ear rings will I?)

Ian preached on "What is Church". He used a defintion from a book called "Jesus with dirty feet" or something like that - I have not seen it.

But the definition was "Church is the plural of follower of Jesus".

Ian opened by describing how in his youth he had often used the excuse "My church wont allow it" when asked to dances and similar off limits entertainment for the time. He recognises that as a cop out now... but it reflects those growing up years, similar to the issues Aldona is describing, when church was mostly a list of dos and donts.

The sermon continued using the story of a momentous day in the life of Jesus, mostly from Matthew 14 - and showing how the reactions of Jesus followers then bear a lot of similarity to the church today.

We continue on in our blundering ways, as the disciples and followers did. Jesus wanted some time out to deal with His grief at the death of John the Baptist, but He was not granted any. And when confronted with the multitude with many sick people, He put their needs ahead of His own and "healed all their sick". Then He fed them before sending them home, again not what the disciples advised Him to do.

Would your church qualify for that definition? Or is your church a one word excuse or justification for things you think you should not do?

May 21, 2005

What is upsetting to me is that there are members today that use their past experiences to attack the church. While the church, in many areas, has moved on, these disgruntled members have not. It seems their criticisms tell us more about them than the church.

As I have mentioned before, it seems the church goes to extreames. 50 years ago it was to the extreame of preaching "dos and don'ts" and enforcing such rules with cold hearts. Today the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction to the point where nearly anything goes and no one is disciplined for anything. Is not that just as disturbing?

I know the church in Latin America is still in the "dos & don'ts" extreame. I suspect the church in Africa is too. Those two areas make up 2/3 of our church. So both extreames are still alive and well. Isn't there a middle ground that is safe and sure?

May 21, 2005

Quote:

Dear individuals,

Mrs. Gray is starting to feel a bit like Rip Van Winkle. In fact, she wonders if one who passed away 30 years ago would recognize the church of today. This is not an attempt to be judgmental, or anything else, but after thinking about the Restaurants on Sabbath thread, Mrs. Gray has realized that most Adventists no longer think what they used to on a number of subjects.

It's kind of like coming home after being away for a while and finding out that while you changed, everybody else has as well.

Here are some of the things that most Adventists used to think but no longer seem to think:

1. You shouldn't go out to eat on Sabbath.

2. You shouldn't go to movies.

3. You shouldn't wear jewelry other than a watch or maybe a simple wedding band.

4. Rock music is bad.

5. You should dress up for church, not wear jeans.

These used to be the unquestionables where Mrs. Gray grew up in the MidWest. Recently, on a trip to the West Coast, Mrs. Gray came to a realization that these "pillars" have all but disappeared. The theory is apparently that without these things people can focus their energy on their relationship with God. But that isn't happening either as is evidenced by the numbers of divorces, etc.

So has anybody else felt these changes, or is it just Mrs. Gray? Is it a good thing, a bad thing, or does it simply not matter?

Sincerely,

Mrs. Gray

[:"blue"]Should we be like the Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, etc. whose pioneers had their "truths" & attitudes set in concrete by their followers never to be tampered with? I believe one of the genius of the Advent Movement is the attitude that, "the way of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, which shines ever brighter until the full light of day." Prov 4:18 NLT. IOW, we are not afraid to shed previously held truths that turn out to be erroneous and accept additional truths.

We would be no better than the Jews of old if, like them, we codify every known situation with its corresponding proper decision response as people in the church think they should be. The Bible gives us principles and their application may vary according to circumstances. There is no character growth when all decisions are made for someone. For ANYONE to make a blanket rule that eating out on Sabbath is wrong & therefore sinful is absolutely wrong! There ARE wholesome movies. There is NO absolute prohibition of jewelry in the Bible. NOT ALL rock music is bad. When it comes down to music, much of it depends on what one is raised up with. While I personally dress up for church, I would rather see someone in casual attire in church than see them absent. Hopefully, at some point, they will see that it doesn't make sense to dress up for a job interview, or dress up to meet the President or the Queen of England and only dress casually to meet the King of the Universe.

Circumstances like shifting sands change; principles remain. [/]

Gerry

May 21, 2005

I would also suggest that each of those 'pillars' is actually a culturally-specific *application* of a particular principle. In other cultural contexts, the same principles apply, but in different ways.

Given the changes in Western culture in the period under discussion (say the 1960s-early 2000s), it's actually not at all surprising that the applications have changed, and this really shouldn't be seen as some kind of 'falling away'. (Except, of course, in the cases where the *principles* themselves have fallen by the wayside: as sometimes happens when the applications are inappropriate and people 'throw out the baby with the bathwater'.)

So let me try to run it down for you:

1. You shouldn't go out to eat on Sabbath. (Principle: honour the Sabbath, and don't have your 'servants' work on Sabbath) This one is still in play, so see the thread on this very topic here on CA. Different people have come to different places on this issue.

2. You shouldn't go to movies. (Principle: What goes into our minds is important) As Shane noted, the venue is not the key, the content is: whether a movie is on a big screen at a cinema, on a TV screen, ona computer, on a portable DVD player in the car - the 'whatsoever things' principle applies to the content. The prohibition on movies was about content, it's just that at the time of its proclamation there weren't all these other choices in media. Of course, some take it further and eschew all fiction in all media.

3. You shouldn't wear jewelry other than a watch or maybe a simple wedding band. (Principles: (a) avoid display that's intended to draw attention and admiration to the individual and ( stewardship of money) As has been noted in this thread, there used to be a weird double standard between rings and earrings on the one side and watches and brooches on the other (not to mention cars and houses) that really didn't fully embody these principles. I think we're in a healthier place now, but could still work on both of these principles.

4. Rock music is bad. (Principle: as for movies) Again, this was something in a particular cultural context, and one that's been gone for a while now. So we attend to the 'whatsoever things' principle and to the lyrical content of the music, rather than to the style: when Don Giovanni boasts of seducing 3000 women in opera, does the musical style sanctify the content? Or conversely, as Shane noted, when the Newsboys rap about the goodness of God, do the drums vitiate the power of the gospel?

5. You should dress up for church, not wear jeans. (Principle: honour and respect God, including in your dress) The change here is largely in what constitutes 'dressing up': it's a cultural change that jeans are often considered relatively well dressed, and hardly anyone wears suits. There's probably still scope for growth in this area - we're on a pendulum swing in reaction to the earlier over-formality - but at least now if someone owns no formal clothes they can still feel comfortable coming to church...

May 21, 2005

I think Bravus is substantially correct.

May 21, 2005

What was considered wrong 30 years ago is no longer the case. In Europe they play organized soccer at our colleges with referees etc on Saturday afternoon. That is unheard of even today at our own colleges in the USA. They serve meat at our colleges in Europe but not at our colleges in the USA.

Are we more rightous than our European brothers or do we just have different cultural values?

In Africa and South American they will not have woman pastors. They do not even allow them to preach from the pulpit. When our pastors including women go to africa to preach they have a hard time with women preaching to them. But they do admit they get a wonderful blessing from the insights the american woman pastors teach.

Again this is cultural values. Who is right and who is wrong?

I suspect that many of the cultural values are nothing more than many of the pharisee rules we have set up for ourselves.

God set up the sabbath for men to worship God and to associate with family and friends on that day. God made us to be social creatures. He did not intend for us to sleep away the sabbath hours. Gods command to rest on the sabbath day was to be a rest from our labors not to sleep away the sabbath hours. God is honored when we have lunch with friends and relatives and socialize with them. It tightens the bond of family which is Good. As Christ said "It is well to do good on the sabbath day".

I think at times we get a little to rigid in our rules from 30 or so years ago. Lighten up folks.

May 21, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

For ANYONE to make a blanket rule that eating out on Sabbath is wrong & therefore sinful is absolutely wrong!

If that is all they did, I would agree with you. However if they shared the Bible texts that support that belief, they would be letting the Holy Spirit show that it is wrong and sinful.

The idea that Sabbath is a day for us to rest but our servants to work and serve us is part of this extreamism I speak about. The Israelites collected a double portion of manna on Friday, the day or preperation. They did not send out their servants to collect the manna on Sabbath. Manna did not fall on Sabbath. If they did not use the day of preperation as they were commanded, they went hungry on Sabbath. They didn't go to the local KFC or Burger King.

There are some jobs that someone must work on the Sabbath. Hospitals, police, firemen, bus drivers, powerplant workers, etc. But even those in such occupations do not need to work every Sabbath. Most of these workers can have every other Sabbath off and of those they must work they can work every other one in the afternoon or evening. Yet restaraunt workers are not one of the jobs required on the Sabbath.

May 21, 2005

IMO, this thread centers around WHAT TO DO and WHY WE SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT DO IT. Then there is the WHEN. When can I know that Jesus' coming is near so that I can take the last trolly out? Others worry that the when will catch up with them before they figure out HOW to do the WHAT.

If you grew up on WHAT and WHY and WHEN, the next logical quetion is HOW. It's a practical question, and it can lead you into the THEORY of righteousness by faith. If you don't understand HOW, THE REST WILL ONLY FRUSTRATE YOU. But even knowing HOW is not enough because righteousness by faith is more than a theory. It is an experience. And HOW become a most exciting question when you understand that the answer to HOW is WHO!

JESUS is the basis of Christianity. It is true the Bible talks about seeking righteouness. Zephaniah 2:3 says it is so many words:"Seek righteousness." And some of us have thought that the way to seek Jesus was to seek righteousness. But we missed the HOW. Since Righteousness = Jesus, the way to seek righteousness is to seek Jesus. The righteousness of God is embodied in Christ, We receuve righteousness by receiving Him.

As long as we talk about that is right and wrong to do, wear, or go, we all will miss the boat completely. If my only aim in life is to get acquainted with Christ, I will let Him into my heart when I finally hear the knock on my door. Then the what and the why and the when will take care of themselves. We are trying to do the Holy Spirit's work in telling each other WHAT and WHY we should do this or that. Once Jesus has control of the heart, the Jesus lifestyle will naturally follow.

Your friend,

Dave M

May 21, 2005

Very astute observations, Dave. I find that focusing on the WHAT and WHY is a lot like trying to become a car by standing around in a garage making vroom vroom noises. Knowing Jesus IS the only thing that matters and everything else is either an outgrowth of that or an inadequate attempt to substitute for it. If it's a genuine outgrowth, the focus will remain on knowing Jesus. If it's an inadequate substitute, the focus will go to all the WHATs and WHYs. And yes, knowing all the WHATs and WHYs without knowing HOW is, indeed, extremely frustrating.

Now let's ask the real question: HOW do we come to know Jesus? How do we know Him more completely, more intimately? How do we KNOW that we know Him? And if we go to spend time with Him and find ourselves frustratingly alone ... does that mean He has decided to reject us from having a relationship with Him? If not, then how do you come to know someone who isn't there?

May 22, 2005

I think what God expects of us is summed up in this text in Micah 6:8.

"He have shewed thee, Oh man what is good: and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God."

Micah 6:8

May 22, 2005

Quote:

"He have shewed thee, Oh man what is good: and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God." Micah 6:8

I'm assuming that would include this.

[:"red"] "Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you. And be sure of this: I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

" [/] Matt 28:19,20 NLT

May 22, 2005

If you are married what do you think your wife would say if someone were to ask her how she knows you love her? She would most likely rattle off a list of works.

Our works are done because we love God. They are our natural response to His love for us. They are not so we can gain favor in His sight but rather because we have already gained favor in His sight.

Now if I am going to buy flowers for my wife, is it important for me to try and find out what kind of flowers she likes? If I really love her it is.

Now if I am going to render obedience unto God is it really important to try and find out what kind of obedience He wants? If I really love Him it is.

May 22, 2005

Quote:

And if we go to spend time with Him and find ourselves frustratingly alone ... does that mean He has decided to reject us from having a relationship with Him? If not, then how do you come to know someone who isn't there?

[:"red"] "I [:"blue"](Jesus) [/] have made Your Name [:"blue"](our Father) [/] known to them [:"blue"](us) [/] and revealed Your character and Your very Self, and I will continue to make [You] known, that the love which You [:"blue"](our Father) [/] have bestowed upon Me [:"blue"] (Jesus) [/] may be in them [:"blue"] (us) [/] [felt in their [:"blue"](our) [/] hearts] and that I [:"blue"] (Jesus) [/] [Myself] may be in them. [:"blue"] (us) [/] " [/] John 17:26 AMP

blue compliments of LHC

[:"red"] "Then these righteous ones will reply, `Lord, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink? Or a stranger and show you hospitality? Or naked and give you clothing? When did we ever see you sick or in prison, and visit you?' And the King will tell them, `I assure you, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!'[/] Matt 25:37-40 NLT

[:"red"] Dear brothers and sisters, if another Christian is overcome by some sin, you who are godly should gently and humbly help that person back onto the right path. And be careful not to fall into the same temptation yourself. Share each other's troubles and problems, and in this way obey the law of Christ. If you think you are too important to help someone in need, you are only fooling yourself. You are really a nobody.

Be sure to do what you should, for then you will enjoy the personal satisfaction of having done your work well, and you won't need to compare yourself to anyone else. For we are each responsible for our own conduct." [/]Galatians 6:1-5 NLT

Blessings!

May 22, 2005

Quote:

I would also suggest

And I thought those suggestions were well put, well worded, and easy to understand. And I agree whole heartedly!

[:"red"] "For Christ (the Messiah) sent me out not to baptize but [to evangelize by] preaching the glad tidings (the Gospel), and that not with verbal eloquence, lest the cross of Christ should be deprived of force and emptied of its power and rendered vain (fruitless, void of value, and of no effect). " [/] 1 Corinthians 1:17 AMP

May 22, 2005

Bravo to Bravus for bringing out those principles.

Thanks!

Gerry

Sign In

Dancing on Shifting Sands

Recommended Posts

Paul Beach

Nicodema

Dr. Shane

wicklunds

aldona

LifeHiscost

LifeHiscost

Nan

Dr. Shane

Gerr

Bravus

there buster

Peter

Dr. Shane

DaveM1936

Nicodema

Peter

LifeHiscost

Dr. Shane

LifeHiscost

LifeHiscost

Gerr

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity