Ryan Bell leaves the SDA denomination

[BobRyan]

http://www.ryanjbell.net/

Questions

1. - how long after Ryan Bell left the SDA denomination - did the SCC finally recognize it and make it official?

2. Do we as a people agree to live in the dark ages where we simply agree with whatever wild doctrine a pastor happens to propose while standing in the pulpit - (provided the "show" is entertaining and ear-tickling enough of course).

3. If we as a people reject the dark ages model of "believe whatever you hear from the pulpit" and choose to instead apply the sola scriptural principle of Acts 17:11 - then how many people at Ryan Bell's church - "noticed" the problem - brought it to the church - and then left the congregation once it was found that the sheep would not refuse to follow their local errant shepherd?

4. If we as a people claim not to be following such a dark ages model - then how many in church today - in any of our congregations are truly ready to provide a Bible answer to any basic question that a non-SDA may ask in regard to any one of our 28 Fundamental Beliefs? I dare say that if you asked that question to the average congregation - less than 10% would raise their hands to indicate that they are ready to answer basic questions on any of the beliefs - sola scriptura that a non-SDA may happen to have.

So how is it that they do not feel confident enough to answer even a basic question on any of the beliefs a non-SDA may happen to select - and yet they do claim to be checking out the doctrines and carefully-crafted flawed ideas of any Ryan Bell, any pastor, any Administrator that might just so happen to be in the pulpit and yet have a bad idea or two for the group?

BOTH cannot be true.

in Christ,

Bob

[Gerr]

So what was Bell teaching that got him in trouble? The SCC & the SECC are pretty liberal conferences. You'd have to be way out to get the boot.

[olger]

I can't speak for Larry Caviness, but here are a couple possibilities:

Adopting the Catholic liturgical calendar for their church worship.

Pushing Social Justice to the point of picketing Bank of America in Hollywood.

Adopting all manner of goofy (see Rudy's dictionary definition) leftist ideas.

Allowing Trisha Famisaran to "preach" that we need to repent of patriarchy and heterosexism for Lent.

I really don't know what straw broke the camel's back. Perhaps more information will come out later.

g

[joeb]

I can't speak for Larry Caviness, but here are a couple possibilities:

Adopting the Catholic liturgical calendar for their church worship.

Pushing Social Justice to the point of picketing Bank of America in Hollywood.

Adopting all manner of goofy (see Rudy's dictionary definition) leftist ideas.

Allowing Trisha Famisaran to "preach" that we need to repent of patriarchy and heterosexism for Lent.

I really don't know what straw broke the camel's back. Perhaps more information will come out later.

g

How do we get from "leaving paid pastoral ministry" to "leaves the SDA denomination"? These are not equivalent statements or positions of fact.

[CoAspen]

Tis really sad how people are so able to jump up and down on people they disagree with bu th have no knowledge of specifics. You ask a good question and only get surmising. Sort of like 'gossip'!

[CoAspen]

Are you sure that you are asking questions or 'sermonizing'? It seems you ask a question and then give an answer which you believe others should agree on. Tis as old trick.....

[olger]

Originally Posted By: olger

I can't speak for Larry Caviness, but here are a couple possibilities:

Adopting the Catholic liturgical calendar for their church worship.

Pushing Social Justice to the point of picketing Bank of America in Hollywood.

Adopting all manner of goofy (see Rudy's dictionary definition) leftist ideas.

Allowing Trisha Famisaran to "preach" that we need to repent of patriarchy and heterosexism for Lent.

I really don't know what straw broke the camel's back. Perhaps more information will come out later.

g

How do we get from "leaving paid pastoral ministry" to "leaves the SDA denomination"? These are not equivalent statements or positions of fact.

True Joe.

They were having a special meeting on it tonight, I'm sure more information will emerge.

g

[joeb]

True Joe.

They were having a special meeting on it tonight, I'm sure more information will emerge.

g

LOL. I don't know how the post came to be addressed to you. It was meant for Bob Ryan as he started this thread and titled it pretty deceptively. I must have inadvertently clicked on the quote tab from your post. Sorry about that.

[ClubV12]

Hmmmm, there might be a point to that title Bob.

It could be seen as Ryan left the "Church". Unless by "denomination" you mean he left the paid Ministry of the Church? Yeah, big difference!

I have looked at Ryans theology and leadership for myself and agree with the Conference decision to remove him from a leadership position. He has different goals and other fish to fry which are not consistent with the mission of the Church. OK, that happens, I wish him the very best in his other pursuits.

[Gustave]

#1, he's not an evangelical pastor.

#2, if he supports buggerite marriage he's not "Christian".

[BobRyan]

So what was Bell teaching that got him in trouble? The SCC & the SECC are pretty liberal conferences. You'd have to be way out to get the boot.

Agreed - but I think that the SCC may be holding on to some vestige of doctrinal integrity that the SECC has long since given up. If so then it is possible that Bell crossed a line for the SCC that would not have been a line at all in the SECC.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Hmmmm, there might be a point to that title Bob.

It could be seen as Ryan left the "Church". Unless by "denomination" you mean he left the paid Ministry of the Church? Yeah, big difference!

I have looked at Ryans theology and leadership for myself and agree with the Conference decision to remove him from a leadership position. He has different goals and other fish to fry which are not consistent with the mission of the Church. OK, that happens, I wish him the very best in his other pursuits.

Turns out - his views don't fit our doctrine on marriage or God or Creation.

That is not a problem? Or are you saying that doctrinal confusion should we welcomed in the church?

If so - then you may be interested to know that based on the Adventist Review article "Beyond Belief" - doctrinal confusion is now the fastest growing AND #1 reason for leaving.

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthread...html#Post623204

A pastor sponsoring doctrinal confusion only magnifies the problem.

in Christ,

Bob

[ClubV12]

Bob, I assume he was asked to leave as an employee (Pastor on the pay roll) of the organized Church, ONLY. I assume he is still a member of the organized Church, thus has not left the denomination of Seventh-day Adventists.

Will he remain a "member in good standing" with the Seventh-day Adventist Church? I would think so, but that is really up to his local congregation, not the Conference.

A member of the organized Church who is NOT "in good standing" cannot transfer his/her membership to another congregation.

A lack of knowledge on the doctrines of the Church is rampant and extends to the highest levels of leadership within any given local Church. It's no wonder new members are ignorant of doctrine, most of the congregation are only moderately better informed. Seriously, not speculation, I KNOW this is true because I myself almost left over this issue.

These "Adventists" were either liars following cunningly devised fables OR were ignorant and confused over the details of the doctrine they were trying to teach me. And I'm talking about the highest levels of leadership at the local Church level.