C.D. Brooks Weighs In On Adventist Sunday Services

[bonnie]

C.D. BROOKS WEIGHS IN ON ADVENTIST SUNDAY SERVICES

In light of Huntsville First SDA Church's decision to hold worship meetings on Sunday mornings, some have justified this action by saying Adventist evangelists in the past have held meetings on Sunday. Elder C.D. Brooks was asked about this in what appears to be a telephone interview posted on YouTube Feb. 12, 2015. What follows is a transcription of the audio recording posted above. He had this to say:

My friends, this is CD Brooks. You all know me because I’m old. I have been a part of God’s ministry for 63 years.

And issues arise now and then, and they lack clear wisdom and experience. And I have heard [about] this Sabbath experience for Sunday keepers [referring to the Huntsville, Alabama SDA surge church Sunday worship meetings]. It hit me suddenly. And I imagine you tend to jump to some conclusion once you hear it. But the truth is—it is in my judgment, a very dangerous undertaking. In the last days, Sabbath itself will become the key to whether you will obey God and receive the seal, or whether you will obey man and receive the mark of the beast. That will be central in the last days. That’s what the church is looking to, and that’s what God is going to allow. 

You have to be easily distinguished. God has always been that way—He told the children of Israel ‘You shall be a peculiar people unto Me.’ The word peculiar means distinctive. You will be unusual. And when people look at you, and when people listen to you, they will not be lost in a mystery, they will know that these are God’s people. And the sign—the sign—is Sabbath.  That stands in distinction with the sign of disfavor with God, which is Sunday.  Man-made Sabbath.

I am not intending to condemn anybody, but I did hear that some are concerned when they heard that C.D. Brooks conducted Sunday meetings. Well, now [laughs] my dear friends, if you really have followed that closely you will know that God called me and blessed me to evangelism. I’m certainly not the only one, there are many that He chose.  And He proved the choosing by the favor of the church and the baptism of hundreds and hundreds of souls. To God be the glory for every one [souls]. As a matter of fact, I have a statement that men don’t win souls. They are won by the Holy Spirit. The man becomes a conveyor.

So...C.D. Brooks ran Sunday meetings. Of course he did! Every evangelist that I know of, began their meetings on Sunday night. But never on Sabbath at eleven o’clock!  From what I’ve heard they [Huntsville SDA] are putting the same emphasis on making Sunday morning like our Sabbath morning. Same program, same music and so forth. And then the public...or some reporter or something grabs a pen and he is given the impression that this is a duplicate of their Sabbath morning program.  If that’s true, we [evangelists] have never done one program like that, and I would not endorse it. It’s not that it’s wrong....let me tell you something. The devil is called the arch deceiver. That means the leader of deception—the worst of the bunch.

God can only use truth. Satan will use truth and error to deceive.  What appears to be good might be indeed harmless, Satan will twist and turn and smile over it until he makes a concoction that kills those who receive the mark of the beast. The last days will hide the seventh day. 

I just want to be clear about myself and I want to be clear about my brethren also. We all opened our meetings on Sunday night. In fact when I was a young man we preached every night of the week, God gave us strength to do it. To Him goes all the glory and grace.

That’s enough about it. I just want you to consider it as it was. It was true of all of us [evangelists], the best night for attendance was Sunday night, after sunset (which means you were really on Monday).

And I personally would not venture to do this [referring to the Huntsville Surge Sunday].  And I’m not taking sides and condemning somebody. Men are always trying to do things—trying their best to make something work. But believe me, a lot of confusion is following this one.  And God is not the Author of confusion. He blesses men who are innovative, he blesses men who will try new things. But, in my judgment we should probably pass a matter like this off to administration. Somebody said “they did” they asked  the president.  I’m not condemning anybody—you have to understand that. I’d rather not be saying these things.  But when I said administration I didn’t mean just a president or secretary or whatever.  It should go before a committee to be discussed, like the General conference.  And if the Brethren say let’s do it--lets do it. I’m not a contender but I don’t want to be given credit for things I didn’t do. I have never ever had one single Sabbath morning type service on Sunday morning—which would somehow elevate the whole idea that I had ever done that.

Do a lot of praying in these last days, folk. The devil is going to shake this church and God is going to allow it so He can purify. How else would it be done? And so Satan will do it.  Now Ellen White says that thousands will leave us and join the enemy. Other thousands will come in and take their places. This is the comment: ‘The ranks of the Lord’s army will not be diminished.’ So we who expect to go through the end—whether we do or not—we’ve gotta be saved by faith. Faith in what God has said. 

It is a real blessing to know that whatever God has said concerning his remnant church I believe. I believe in the SOP. I believe that Saturday is the Sabbath. I believe in an honest tithe being returned to the Lord. I believe in the idea that we are a peculiar people, and that women especially—especially—should gird themselves as women professing godliness—is what the Bible says. Which means dress reform. We had seven reforms when I was helping in evangelistic crusades, and these seven reforms had to be met in the life of every would-be baptized member. Or else we had not completed our work. That’s why we gave so many minutes to questions at the meetings. You ask and we will answer it with Scripture as our authority. And so, if you want to please God you come to church on Sabbath.  It is a sign. Church on Sunday is not a sign—and I’m not meaning to condemn anybody—we are all condemned but for the grace of God. And with that grace, God leads people into complete harmony with His will. That makes his people distinctive, or distinguishable. You look at them and can tell....it’s getting harder and harder to do that. And if you say such, you are looked at as old fashioned and ultra conservative. I don’t buy it a’tall! You are right in harmony with God’s expressed and written will.  If you have questions that you can’t answer, keep the Bible nearby! And also consider the spirit of prophecy—it is a special guide for God’s people in the last days. Ok? God bless everyone--and I mean that from the bottom of my heart.

- See more at: http://advindicate.com/articles/2015/2/14/cd-brooks-weighs-in-on-adventist-sunday-services#sthash.p9k2yEq6.uDOfcNFW.dpuf

[Gregory Matthews]

I believe the following statement by Elder Brooks to be  very interesting:

 

Every evangelist that I know of, began their meetings on Sunday night. But never on Sabbath at eleven o’clock!

 

There is a growing trend in Adventism, in the NAD, which believes that the Sabbath service can be an excellent time for evangelism.  As a matter of fact,  in some countries of the world, the Sabbath service has always been a major evangelistic source.  In those countries, one of the requirements for baptism was to had attended the Sabbath services for an extended period of time. 

 

In any case, do any of us here believe that the Bible teaches that the Sabbath service should not be a time and place for evangelism?  If one can not say that such is a Biblical teaching, then one is going beyond the Bible in suggesting that the Sabbath service should not be used for evangelism.

[Gregory Matthews]

I also find the following statement by Elder Brooks to be interesting:

 

You have to be easily distinguished. God has always been that way—He told the children of Israel ‘You shall be a peculiar people unto Me.’ The word peculiar means distinctive. You will be unusual. And when people look at you, and when people listen to you, they will not be lost in a mystery, they will know that these are God’s people. And the sign—the sign—is Sabbath.  That stands in distinction with the sign of disfavor with God, which is Sunday.

 

The central issue here is not that of being distinctive, rather it is the issue of being Biblical.

 

Certainly the Children of Israel were to be distinctive.  They lived in a totally pagan culture.  As the left Egypt and traveled to the Promised Land, they were surrounded by pagans.   They were the only worshipers of the True God.  As far as religious beliefs and practices were concerned, they were to be distinctive in every way.

 

We live in a different time and culture.  We live in a time and culture were we are surrounded by people who are worshipers of the True God--even if imperfect.  As Ellen White says God has in those non-SDA congregations true followers of Him.  We are   not called to distinguish ourselves from Him in every way. Rather, we are called to be different, only in the manner that the Bible calls for us to be different.

 

The bottom line is:  According to the Bible, the 7th day, regardless of how it is named, is to be dedicated to a time spent with God, a very special day.  As long as the Sabbath is kept in that manner, there is nothing wrong in worshiping God on any of the other six days of the week.  Worshiping God on the 1st day of the week, regardless of how it is named, in not keeping a Biblical Sabbath in any manner.  The Biblical Sabbath is much more than spending an hour or two in worship.  It is 24 hours, to be kept in a special manner--an entire day dedicated to God.  To suggest that a couple on hours on the 1st day of the week establishes a counterfit Sabbath is in my thinking, is to reveal a marked lack kof understanding of what the Bible teaches about the Sabbath. 

[bonnie]

I believe the following statement by Elder Brooks to be  very interesting:

 

 

 

 

There is a growing trend in Adventism, in the NAD, which believes that the Sabbath service can be an excellent time for evangelism.  As a matter of fact,  in some countries of the world, the Sabbath service has always been a major evangelistic source.  In those countries, one of the requirements for baptism was to had attended the Sabbath services for an extended period of time. 

 

In any case, do any of us here believe that the Bible teaches that the Sabbath service should not be a time and place for evangelism?  If one can not say that such is a Biblical teaching, then one is going beyond the Bible in suggesting that the Sabbath service should not be used for evangelism.

I guess that depends on what you believe he is saying. A growing trend is not necessarily biblical. Requirements for baptism in some countries or here do not include a generic church attendance of whatever is convenient and close by.

Why shouldn't SABBATH service be a good time for evangelism. Any day is a good time for evangelism. A regular ongoing church service on Sun for those that find  Sabbath inconvenient isn't quite the same. A regular scheduled bible study and fellowship  on Sunday is also a great evangelistic event

[Gregory Matthews]

I also find the following statement by Elder Brooks to be interesting:

 

. . . women especially—especially—should gird themselves as women professing godliness—is what the Bible says. Which means dress reform.

 

It is interesting in that he places a special focus on women.  I am not certain why.  The Biblical teaching on Christian dress is much more involved than a focus on skin.  E.G.  It probably involves a $6,000 watch that might be worn by a male.  Why the focus on women?  So-called "dress reform" involves everyone and not just women and not just skin.

 

One of the women who came to the church that I attended Sabbath was dressed from her shoulders to a bit above her ankles.  IOW, there was very little skin showing.  However, she was dressed in one of the fashion styles of this day.  Should she be told that she was sinful in that she did not come dressed in a manner that would distinguish her from the world?  No.  WE are not called to dress like the Mennonites.  That is not the Biblical standard.  That is not what Ellen White tells us we should do today.

 

Folks, our standard is to be Biblical.

[bonnie]

I also find the following statement by Elder Brooks to be interesting:

 

 

 

 

It is interesting in that he places a special focus on women.  I am not certain why.  The Biblical teaching on Christian dress is much more involved than a focus on skin.  E.G.  It probably involves a $6,000 watch that might be worn by a male.  Why the focus on women?  So-called "dress reform" involves everyone and not just women and not just skin.

 

One of the women who came to the church that I attended Sabbath was dressed from her shoulders to a bit above her ankles.  IOW, there was very little skin showing.  However, she was dressed in one of the fashion styles of this day.  Should she be told that she was sinful in that she did not come dressed in a manner that would distinguish her from the world?  No.  WE are not called to dress like the Mennonites.  That is not the Biblical standard.  That is not what Ellen White tells us we should do today.

 

Folks, our standard is to be Biblical.

Where did he imply you needed to dress like a Mennonite? I believe he is talking more about the immodesty of dress. And yes,immodesty is fairly easy to recognize. Of course there are cultures that have a different view but I suspect those that are converted will not have everything hanging out for inspection. Being distinguished from the world would mean to me that I can safely move without everything south of the waistline or bustline is not exposed or so skin tight as to leave nothing to the imagination. Why is it necessary to paint all in disagreement with you as some kind of religeous nutcase.

And you believe EW would advise dressing as many in the world today do as our biblical standard?

[Tom Wetmore]

I also find the following statement by Elder Brooks to be interesting:

 

 

 

 

The central issue here is not that of being distinctive, rather it is the issue of being Biblical.

 

Certainly the Children of Israel were to be distinctive.  They lived in a totally pagan culture.  As the left Egypt and traveled to the Promised Land, they were surrounded by pagans.   They were the only worshipers of the True God.  As far as religious beliefs and practices were concerned, they were to be distinctive in every way.

 

We live in a different time and culture.  We live in a time and culture were we are surrounded by people who are worshipers of the True God--even if imperfect.  As Ellen White says God has in those non-SDA congregations true followers of Him.  We are   not called to distinguish ourselves from Him in every way. Rather, we are called to be different, only in the manner that the Bible calls for us to be different.

 

* * *

One problem that has developed is the over focus on the translated English word "peculiar" from the KJV and imprinting the modern meaning on our understanding. We have developed a whole notion about ourselves that has really taken us in a wrong direction based on this one misunderstood word. We focus on the present day meaning of "different" "unusual" "atypical" even "odd". That was not the meaning of the word "peculiar" in the 15th Century when the KJV was completed. And it is not the meaning of the original Hebrew or Greek words that it was translating.

More recent translations do get the original meaning of the Hebrew and Greek. It is closer to the word special, dedicated, set aside, chosen, treasured, valued. But it really denotes the idea of possession or belonging to. And in context that would say that we belong to God as his treasured and chosen people. It is about the one to whom the object belongs and not about the the object itself. Think of it as the tremendous increase in value of something, even quite ordinary in an of itself, if it was once owned by a very famous person. The meaning of peculiar has not entirely lost that meaning, at least in British English even today. Consider a "Royal Peculiar". (See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Peculiar) A royal peculiar is something especially set aside as belonging directly to the monarch. It is a treasured and uniquely dedicated possession of the king. That is the sense of the KJV translation. And that is the real sense of the original Hebrew and Greek.

We are not called to be different, distinctive by anything in ourselves. We are special because of who has called and chosen us. We belong to the King, treasured by Him.

[Tom Wetmore]

I also find the following statement by Elder Brooks to be interesting:

 

 * * *

 

The bottom line is:  According to the Bible, the 7th day, regardless of how it is named, is to be dedicated to a time spent with God, a very special day.  As long as the Sabbath is kept in that manner, there is nothing wrong in worshiping God on any of the other six days of the week.  Worshiping God on the 1st day of the week, regardless of how it is named, in not keeping a Biblical Sabbath in any manner.  The Biblical Sabbath is much more than spending an hour or two in worship.  It is 24 hours, to be kept in a special manner--an entire day dedicated to God.  To suggest that a couple on hours on the 1st day of the week establishes a counterfit Sabbath is in my thinking, is to reveal a marked lack kof understanding of what the Bible teaches about the Sabbath.

This was a point apparently lost on some here that I was trying to make by highlighting the Saturday church services of Sunday keeping churches. (Some seem to superficially misconstrue my point to be advocating for, ironically, a superficial notion of Sabbath keeping. So very, very wrong! I think I have always pushed for a deeper, fuller meaning of Sabbath beyond the superficial notion that it is about church attendance on the correct day.) Anyway, the reaction of some here to other churches' Saturday service simply highlight that holding a church service on a day does not make it the Sabbath. And likewise for us to hold a meeting, or even a worship service on Sunday does not make it keeping Sunday as Sabbath.

[bonnie]

We are not called to be different, distinctive by anything in ourselves. We are special because of who has called and chosen us. We belong to the King, treasured by Him.

This would lead to what in our behavior,dress and worship? Please leave the extremes out of this. Most recognize what modesty means and it is not sack cloth and ashes.

I am sure most men here recognize what they would like to see in terms of modesty concerning their wives or daughters. Boys are not exempt but generally they are not dressing in a manner private parts are all but hanging out. With the ridiculous fad of wearing their pants almost around their knees there is certainly room to include males in this

[Tom Wetmore]

And let me just say this. I think it a bit disingenuous for Advindicate to have used CD Brooks to further their own anti-Adventist Church propaganda. That site and many of those intimately involved in it and financing it spend most of their time and words tearing down and criticizing the Adventist Church and Church leadership. Some of them have been for a long time on a, divisive, separationist path, dividing the Church. They are clearly ignoring the oft repeated admonition of EGW to "press together".

Perhaps I should ask CD about it tomorrow at work since his office is just round the corner from mine. In fact, our offices share a common wall.

[bonnie]

And let me just say this. I think it a bit disingenuous for Advindicate to have used CD Brooks to further their own anti-Adventist Church propaganda. That site and many of those intimately involved in it and financing it spend most of their time and words tearing down and criticizing the Adventist Church and Church leadership. Some of them have been for a long time on a, divisive, separationist path, dividing the Church. They are clearly ignoring the oft repeated admonition of EGW to "press together".

Perhaps I should ask CD about it tomorrow at work since his office is just round the corner from mine. In fact, our offices share a common wall.

The magazine it was published in is immaterial. It was not a promotion of the magazine. I simply found his comments,if his,interesting. I have seen articles posted here by another magazine that is very critical of the denomination,yet no objection. Is the objection only when you disagree with what is said

[Tom Wetmore]

You could say the same thing about the whole ordination of women movement.

You could, but it wouldn't make it true. If the WO movement was a destructive idea within the Church, the Church would never have gotten off the ground and the Adventist movement would have disintegrated long ago. It has been a matter of discussion since the very beginning of the denomination. But beyond discussion, in our earliest days women in leadership and clergy positions were more common than they are now. It is ironic that so many of those trying to claim the so called "historic Adventist" position seem to either fail to understand our history or simply try to ignore such inconvenient truths of our history.

[Gregory Matthews]

Lyndon, post # 12, said:

 

The problem here is modesty gets defined in how much skin is showing. I suspect there are others ways of defining modesty. I would consider someone who has to drive the most expensive showy cars, fancy watches, expensive houses, the latest toys (he who dies with the most toys wins!), and on and on to be living just as immodestly as those who claim women to be dressed immodestly. It is also funny that immodest is a term that is most frequently is applied to women.

 

Lyndon is on target.

 

I once did some research into the meaning of the word "modesty" in the time of Ellen White.  It meant much more than skin.  Ellen White used the term in the manner that Lyndon has mentioned in the above post.  We are short-sighted to limit that word to the amount of skin that is showing.  He is also on target in his point that most of the time, in our SDA culture, men use the term to tell women what they should do--yes, I have expanded beyond what Lyndon said.

[bonnie]

I also find the following statement by Elder Brooks to be interesting:

 

 

 

 

It is interesting in that he places a special focus on women.  I am not certain why.  The Biblical teaching on Christian dress is much more involved than a focus on skin.  E.G.  It probably involves a $6,000 watch that might be worn by a male.  Why the focus on women?  So-called "dress reform" involves everyone and not just women and not just skin.

 

One of the women who came to the church that I attended Sabbath was dressed from her shoulders to a bit above her ankles.  IOW, there was very little skin showing.  However, she was dressed in one of the fashion styles of this day.  Should she be told that she was sinful in that she did not come dressed in a manner that would distinguish her from the world?  No.  WE are not called to dress like the Mennonites.  That is not the Biblical standard.  That is not what Ellen White tells us we should do today.

 

Folks, our standard is to be Biblical.

Do you believe that he covered the scope of modesty in one breath and he sees it only as how women dress?  Like it or not the impact of women scantily clad leaves a different impression than the way most men dress.