SDAs & Military Service

[Gregory Matthews]

From President Ted Wilson, as published, online, by the REVIEW:

I would also like to tell you about a very important meeting taking place here at the world headquarters on April 10 and 11,* just after the Spring Meeting. That is The State of Military Service in the Seventh-day Adventist Church Conference: Combatants, Non-Combatants, Conscientious Objectors.

During this important conference, church leaders from around the world, along with Division and Union Adventist Chaplaincy Ministries directors, Public Affairs and Religious Liberty and Youth Ministries directors, will meet together to consider the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s relationship to military service.

You know, the question of military service arose early in the history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The church, officially organized in 1863 during the height of the United States’ Civil War, had to almost immediately wrestle with how members would respond to the call of arms.

[Gregory Matthews]

For the full article on the above see:

https://www.adventistreview.org/church-news/story13565-a-message-to-the-seventh-day-adventist-church-from-the-president

 

[Gregory Matthews]

There are some Adventists who believe that we should not serve in the military.  Period.  No exceptions.

[Kevin H]

I read about this conference in "For God and Country". Sadly with work and helping to take care of my mom I don't feel I should go, but I really want to go and it's only like about 6 to 7 hours away. 

This is important from many different perspectives, from us as a church, from us as a country, from us as an international church from different countries, from us as individuals,  from the inter relationships between people who serve, from how military interacts with the people in the area they are occupying, and how military members from different sides treat each other.

How Mrs. White was critical of the hypocrisy behind the Civil war that she felt Adventists could not participate in, yet a more open and accepting attitude towards what could have happened had John Brown's attempt been successful. As well as the issue that the Whites were friends of Fredrick Douglas, who was a friend of Abraham Lincolns. Both Mrs. White and Mr. Douglas believed that events and the ending of the Civil war would finally end if they stopped all those other issues and focused on ending slavery,  and sure enough when that change came the war ended and slavery ended.  Mrs. White wrote a lot about the Civil war. Her two different attitudes towards what could have happened had John Brown been successful as opposed to the hypocrisy she saw in the war may have shaped in different ways our attitudes towards war. And with her having the ear of Mr. Douglas and he having the ear of Abraham Lincoln, did Mrs. White indirectly have Lincoln's ear?

Christians through history have had questions, very complicated questions as to serving God and country. The Hussite wars, remember our hero Zwingli died in battle. Are we to only let the vicious ungodly people fight? Look at the French Revolution and reign of terror and the world war 2 concentration camps and holocaust or Stalin. 

On the other hand look at people such as the German air aces Manfred Von Richthofen (the Red Baron) and even more so his mentor, Oswald Boelcke (who at age 17 joined a church who's motto was "for I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ..." and he made that verse his the motto of his life as well). These two men refused to let the killing cause them to hate. Von Richthofen was critical that too many French just wanted to kill in the war and respected that the British were more like him who saw the killing as necessary but did not want to kill beyond what they believed was necessary for their mission. The first time Von Richthofen shot down a plane with survivors his heart grieved in the thought that his wounding instead of killing would cause the man he wounded years of physical pain (His own plane then fell apart and he had a worst landing than the plane he shot down. On the ground he was glad to lean that the wounded man was not badly wounded and they had a good laugh at how he had the rougher landing and as they waited to be picked up they were no longer enemies but just three pioneers of aviation talking shop.)

Stories of Oswald Boelcke's kindness brought hope that there was some humanity to this horrible war to soldiers in both sides of the trench. These men, despite killing would tip their wings in a solute, and give their victims a military funeral with photos to let their loved ones know that they were burred with dignity and where they could either visit the grave or recover the body after the war. And for their survivors they would visit them in the hospitals and find out if there was anything they could do for them. (Boelcke would even risk his life being shot at with anti-aircraft guns to deliver messages to the allies that the crews of the planes he shot down were alive and safe, and he would send care packages to them in the POW camps that they could use and share with their fellow POWs.) When Boelcke died there was genuine whole hearted grief on both sides.
 

Do we need more men of quality among combatants  such as these two German fighters to help fight the ugliness of war or do we just want cold blooded killers? Should all Christians serve like Desmond Doss and Franz Hasel? Should Seventh-day Adventists supply the Doss and Hasels and have the Lutherans supply the Boelckes and Von Richthofens? Could Seventh-day Adventists have room for Boelckes and Von Richthofens as well the Doss and Hasels?

What about the end of the war? What would have become of Boelcke or Von Richthofen had they survived the war? With the events in Germany many of the war heroes were persecuted by the people. One German air ace was choked to death by their Pour le Mérite  (Blue Max). How would they have responded to the Nazi hatred? How would they have dealt with being incredibly successful in a field where they did not want to be successful but where doing their duty of integrity first, service before self and excellence in all they did? 

These are all very complicated questions. We need this conference. 

[Kevin H]

I don't know if we have young people reading here, but if you or anyone you know are looking for a project to study for say a mixture of history and religion, or for the air war college, probably a fascinating would be to look at the lives of strong Christians such as Zwingli, Boelcke, Doss, Hasel and others of faith in dealing with war, whether they were like Zwingli and Boelcke combatants and takers of life or like Doss and Hasel who refused to take life. While this study is beyond my current scope, I would love to hear CD or DVD of lectures on something like "The Great Courses"  looking at this study. Also these men of quality should not be forgotten. Even if we think they made the wrong combat choices, they are still true heroes who's acts of kindness, integrity and quality are examples to people of all nations, faiths and creeds. Our young people need to know the stories of these men.  

I've written to "Your Story Hour" and hope that they will make a radio program, and that someone of faith make a film about Oswald Boelcke. I don't know much about Von Richthofen's spiritual faith (I read that he was Lutheran and that when the Allies gave him his funeral, and read on the internet but I don't know how accurate it is, but where he apparently once wrote something like "I don't think I'd be able to handle all this death and killing if I did not believe that when all is said and done that God is in ultimate control") He too was a man of quality. (he was the perfect foil for Snoopy in the Peanut's comic strip. First Sopwith Camel is a funny name for a plane, and while the Red Baron always shoots down Snoopy, you don't have some horrible bully who is always winning but a decent human being, a person of quality who in stories would deserve to have been the hero, had he only been on the right side.)

Maybe some of you who are parents can use Peanut's Snoopy and the Red Baron or even the songs (Snoopy and the Red Baron and Snoopy's Christmas) to lead into deeper talks about these men, integrity, competency and the complexities of war and how to apply the same qualities to things that can bring about life rather than death. 

[APL]

5 hours ago, Kevin H said:

These are all very complicated questions. We need this conference. 

Thou shalt not kill is not complicated.

[Gregory Matthews]

*  In my 20+ years of military service, to include combat, I was always been listed in  the records as a conscientious objector.  

 *  The commandment, "Thou shalt not kill.," Is better translated as Thou shalt not murder.

*  It is commonly believed that a death that occurs in a law enforcement action may not be a violation of that commandment.

*  I can respect a person who makes a personal decision not to be involved with the military.

*  I have never encouraged a "traditional Adventist" to join the military, with the possible exceptions of chaplain and medical positions.

*  I support the present SDA position to provide spiritual support to SDAs who find themselves    in the military.

*  I hope that we do not change our present position.

 

[Kevin H]

Indeed Greg. I believe that at least with joining the military Seventh-day Adventists should limit ourselves to chaplaincy and medical. For us to as I mentioned above, provide the Desmond Doss type and let say the Lutherans provide the Oswald Boelcke type. But it gets more complicated for those who are already in a military career and join the church, or recommit to the church. 

Then of course there is the policies of other nations. 

[Gregory Matthews]

In my experience as a U.S. Army Chaplain:

*  In every major troop assignment that I had, I found 100+ military members who had formally told the Army that the SDA Church was their church of preference.   That did not mean that they were formal members.  But, it alerted me to a group of people, often unknown to the SDA Church, to whom I could attempt to build a relationship.

*  I served for three (3) years on the teaching faculty of the Army Chaplain School which was formally accredited by the regional accrediting agency.  During that time, I had as many as 155 clergy in my classes.    Some of those had never experienced a SDA clergyperson before.

*  During my time teaching in that school, one of the chaplains converted to the SDA denomination and became a SDA Army chaplain.

*  With the help of the Lord, of course, I have intervened in situations in a manner that stopped a SDA from going to prison on the basis of their beliefs.  [NOTE:  I also was able to do that for people who were not SDA.]

*  The bottom line is:  We in the U.S. have SDA members of the military on all levels.  Right now, there are SDA students attending U.S. Military Academies.  Folks, we need to provide spiritual support for these people, whether or not we agree with their personal position on military service. 

*  If you actually knew the historical background of this denomination, you would know that there were early leaders who supported military service.    Yes, I am well aware of the early denominational positions that the Church in general took.

*  It may be of interest to you to know that the SDA denomination first allowed SDA clergy to become military chaplains due to the intervention of high level Army chaplains  who pled with the General Conference to endorse SDA military chaplains in an attempt to keep SDAs out of prison.  A long time ago, in another life I once wrote  on this.

[Gregory Matthews]

As to the policies of other nations:

In another assignment, as a chaplain, and in another nation, I visited with a SDA member of that nations Army.  during the visit, he took off his shirt and showed me the scars on his back, where he had been beaten for a position that he had taken related to his religious beliefs and military service.

Recently, that nation has become more accommodating to SDAs in the military.  So, I will not name it.

 

 

 

[Gustave]

Example of Cognitive Dissonance. 

"I wouldn't join the Army because the Commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' is not complicated. 

 

"When you go forth to war against your enemies, and see horses and chariots and an army larger than your own, you shall not be afraid of them; for the Lord your God is with you, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt.  And when you draw near to the battle, the priest shall come forward and speak to the people,  and shall say to them, ‘Hear, O Israel, you draw near this day to battle against your enemies: let not your heart faint; do not fear, or tremble, or be in dread of them;" Deuteronomy 20,1

“When a man is newly married, he shall not go out with the army or be charged with any business; he shall be free at home one year, to be happy with his wife whom he has taken." Deut 24,5

"These are the numbers of the divisions of the armed troops, who came to David in Hebron, to turn the kingdom of Saul over to him, according to the word of the Lord". 1 Chronicles 12, 21

 

These texts and a literal slew of others make it difficult to understand how one could claim being in an Army is contrary to the teaching of Scripture. Sure, MANY people have MANY reasons (that are valid) for not wanting to join an Armed Service but using Scripture as one of them is laughable. 

[APL]

9 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

  The commandment, "Thou shalt not kill.," Is better translated as Thou shalt not murder.

War is murder.  And it is a matter of debate if it is better translated murder. 

[APL]

3 hours ago, Gustave said:

Example of Cognitive Dissonance. 

"I wouldn't join the Army because the Commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' is not complicated. 

 

"When you go forth to war against your enemies, and see horses and chariots and an army larger than your own, you shall not be afraid of them; for the Lord your God is with you, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt.  And when you draw near to the battle, the priest shall come forward and speak to the people,  and shall say to them, ‘Hear, O Israel, you draw near this day to battle against your enemies: let not your heart faint; do not fear, or tremble, or be in dread of them;" Deuteronomy 20,1

“When a man is newly married, he shall not go out with the army or be charged with any business; he shall be free at home one year, to be happy with his wife whom he has taken." Deut 24,5

"These are the numbers of the divisions of the armed troops, who came to David in Hebron, to turn the kingdom of Saul over to him, according to the word of the Lord". 1 Chronicles 12, 21

 

These texts and a literal slew of others make it difficult to understand how one could claim being in an Army is contrary to the teaching of Scripture. Sure, MANY people have MANY reasons (that are valid) for not wanting to join an Armed Service but using Scripture as one of them is laughable. 

Israel never needed to fight. But fight they did.  Why?  Because their minds were blinded by transgression.  And in all their fighting, did Israel achieve their goal of possessing the land?  NO. 

EJ Waggoner on fighting:

"But the children of Israel did fight throughout all their natural existence, and under God's direction, too," it will be urged. That is very true, but it does not at all prove that it was God's purpose that they should fight. We must not forget that "their minds were blinded" by unbelief, so that they could not perceive the purpose of God for them. They did not grasp the spiritual realities of the kingdom of God, but were content with shadows instead; and the same God who bore with their hardness of heart in the beginning, and strove to teach them by shadows, when they would not have the substance, still remained with them, compassionately considerate of their infirmities. God himself suffered them, because of the hardness of their hearts, to have a plurality of wives, and even laid down rules regulating polygamy, in order to diminish as far as possible the resulting evils, but that does not prove that He designed it for them. We well know that "from the beginning it was not so." So when Jesus forbade His followers to fight in any cause whatever, He introduced nothing new, any more than when He taught that a man should have but one wife, and should cleave to her as long as he lived. He was simply enunciating first principles--preaching a thorough reformation. {1900 EJW, EVCO 385.2}

[Gregory Matthews]

APL:  As I  stated:

*  I would never encourage a traditional SDA to join the military.  They will have problems with their beliefs.  The exception to this involved military chaplains and medical positions.

*  I spent 20+ years in the U.S. Army, the National Guard and an Army Reserve unit.  This involved service in an enlisted position (I came in under the draft.) and service as a Commissioned Officer (a chaplain).  During all of  those years, I was formally listed in my military records as a conscientious objector.

There are SDA members who do not agree with the positions that I took.  Some think that I should never have served.  Others do not agree with my conscientious objector position.  As SDA clergy, I and others should respect their position and provide spiritual support to them.

I respect your position and if I had met you while I was an Army Chaplain,  and if you had wanted out, on the basis of your religious beliefs, I would probably have been able to  get you an honorable discharge as part of my support to you.

NOTE:  With the help of the Lord, I was able to get honorable discharges for a number of people based upon their religious convictions.   One was a JW, whom the 2-star Commanding General, said, "not on my watch.'    Well, I got it for that JW.

 

[APL]

16 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

As I  stated

Are you taking my comments personally?  I'm glad you helped people. The pay is better in the army too.  I know many SDAs that serve in the US military, even family members.  It is their choice to do so.  Out peace and safety come from God, not the US Military or any other military.  There are only 2 kingdoms on earth, and only one if of God. One prevails by use of force. 

What is bothersome to me is that we have church services honoring veterans as if this is a badge of honor to the church and God. I personally also think there is no place for a national flag inside an SDA church. 

The germ in the seed grows by the unfolding of the life-principle which God has implanted. Its development depends upon no human power. So it is with the kingdom of Christ. It is a new creation. Its principles of development are the opposite of those that rule the kingdoms of this world. Earthly governments prevail by physical force; they maintain their dominion by war; but the founder of the new kingdom is the Prince of Peace. The Holy Spirit represents worldly kingdoms under the symbol of fierce beasts of prey; but Christ is "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." John 1:29. In His plan of government there is no employment of brute force to compel the conscience. The Jews looked for the kingdom of God to be established in the same way as the kingdoms of the world. To promote righteousness they resorted to external measures. They devised methods and plans. But Christ implants a principle. By implanting truth and righteousness, He counterworks error and sin. {COL 77.1}

[Gregory Matthews]

APL:  No, I am not taking your comments personally.

However, I have personal involvement and therefore, I have some personal connection to the discussion as well as the decisions that the Church makes on this issue.  As I have studied, and written, in a former life a long time ago, on the history of certain aspects of the denominational relationship to this issue. I have knowledge that many who discuss this issue today do not understand.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

As to military pay being better than SDA clergy pay, on some levels that is true.  However, some SDA clergy who become military chaplains, in their early years will earn less in pay than they received as SDA clergy.  I began my active Army chaplain experience with the rank of Captain, which is somewhat unusual.  If I had not began active duty with that rank, I would have taken a cut in pay.

 

[Gustave]

4 hours ago, APL said:

Israel never needed to fight. But fight they did.  Why?  Because their minds were blinded by transgression.  And in all their fighting, did Israel achieve their goal of possessing the land?  NO. 

EJ Waggoner on fighting:

"But the children of Israel did fight throughout all their natural existence, and under God's direction, too," it will be urged. That is very true, but it does not at all prove that it was God's purpose that they should fight. We must not forget that "their minds were blinded" by unbelief, so that they could not perceive the purpose of God for them. They did not grasp the spiritual realities of the kingdom of God, but were content with shadows instead; and the same God who bore with their hardness of heart in the beginning, and strove to teach them by shadows, when they would not have the substance, still remained with them, compassionately considerate of their infirmities. God himself suffered them, because of the hardness of their hearts, to have a plurality of wives, and even laid down rules regulating polygamy, in order to diminish as far as possible the resulting evils, but that does not prove that He designed it for them. We well know that "from the beginning it was not so." So when Jesus forbade His followers to fight in any cause whatever, He introduced nothing new, any more than when He taught that a man should have but one wife, and should cleave to her as long as he lived. He was simply enunciating first principles--preaching a thorough reformation. {1900 EJW, EVCO 385.2}

EJ Waggoner was a vocal anti-Trinitarian and he came by this notion by his 'diligent study of the Bible'. I'm sorry it's difficult for me to accept him as an authority on any subject pertaining to Scripture as it would be difficult for me to accept L. Ron Hubbard or Joseph Smith and any of their musings as they both claimed to be scholars. 

If our 1st Parents had not been expelled from Eden you would have a point but as it is the human body does not manufacture it's own B12 and carnivores have big teeth and they eat meat. War is an unfortunate condition of original sin and like death and the other bad things we are most certainly stuck with it. 

[APL]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

EJ Waggoner was a vocal anti-Trinitarian and he came by this notion by his 'diligent study of the Bible'. I'm sorry it's difficult for me to accept him as an authority on any subject pertaining to Scripture as it would be difficult for me to accept L. Ron Hubbard or Joseph Smith and any of their musings as they both claimed to be scholars. 

If our 1st Parents had not been expelled from Eden you would have a point but as it is the human body does not manufacture it's own B12 and carnivores have big teeth and they eat meat. War is an unfortunate condition of original sin and like death and the other bad things we are most certainly stuck with it.

Yes, he was a NON-trinitarian, as were all the adventist pioneers.  Waggoner's views on the covenants, which the book I quoted was from was strongly supported by a woman named Ellen White, so I guess you have a problem with her also.  Yes, death and bad things happen since the fall, does that give us then permission to act like the devil?  No.  i

[Gustave]

Just now, APL said:

Yes, he was a NON-trinitarian, as were all the adventist pioneers.  Waggoner's views on the covenants, which the book I quoted was from was strongly supported by a woman named Ellen White, so I guess you have a problem with her also.  Yes, death and bad things happen since the fall, does that give us then permission to act like the devil?  No.  i

I do have a problem with her in that she was also an anti-Trinitarian. 

I acknowledge that there are many valid and fine reasons why someone wouldn't join an armed service, not wanting to take another persons life is certainly a valid reason. While it's morally praiseworthy for reasons of peace it isn't obligatory according to the Scriptures. Had you done this in ancient Israel they would have carved you up like a Christmas ham with the approval of Moses.

[Kevin H]

I wish that life was easy that we would not need to discuss these questions. One of my favorite songs is "Study war no more" and I long for that day. 

Don't forget when the Hebrews were attacked in the wideness God had Joshua raise up and army and Moses raised his hands to pray. This showed God working with the army, the natural and supernatural working together. 

The Bible also indicates the difference between Asahel being killed by Abner in battle and the murder of Abner by Joab. And the whole Bible story of Joab (and the Absalom rebellion) is such a sad but powerful message. We try to see things too much in simple black and white. People are complicated. Joab can only have two good things and one dubious advantage said about him. Joab could have taken power from David or pushed for Judah/Israel to worship idols. But he was dedicated to  David and spreading the kingdom of God. The problem is that he was willing to do anything for this even if it meant breaking the other 9 commandments in the process.  And he was willing to do David's dirty work to make David look good. Even at the end when he was to be killed he clung to the horns of the alter, which represented Yahweh's power, authority and mercy. Yes, this was used to claim "sanctuary" but he was told that he was not finding sanctuary, he could either come out and be killed or stay where he was and be killed there. He choose to die there, he refused to let go of the symbol of God's authority and mercy for even a man like him. While this indicates that he will be saved, what a miserable record he left, what a miserable life he lived. Too many people are just focusing on what they need to get into heaven and down playing things like the Sabbath and foods we eat saying that you can still get in. Joab shows that ok, they have a point. But do you really want your life and reputation be be known as miserable?

Even as a man of war how different could Israel's history have been if he choose to serve with integrity and honor During the thousand years as we have our questions answered, I think that Jesus would invite Joab to sit down and have lunch with Oswald Boelcke, and Jesus wiping away his last tears as he sees how he could have served differently, how different his life could have been. And both Joab and Boelcke could have quite a talk with Desmond Doss and Franz Hasel. 

The middle east use to be full of Christian and Jewish communities They were passive when attacked and these communities were killed off. Mrs. White praised how Sweden was the only country to send her armies to help in the 30 years war and that act saved Protestantism. 

When it comes to war of course the true heroes are someone like Desmond Doss who would be willing to go into the hell of war to heal and not kill. But of the combatants, again do we want them to only be like so many wicked men that we have found fighting with no regard to human life?   Do we want faithful but miserable people like Joab, who is willing to bend morality to meet the objective, or do we want people like Oswald Boelcke, who would go after the objective but avoid what they (correctly or incorrectly) see as unnecessary suffering and death, to still love their enemies no matter what

We need to let our young people know that types of choices are possible, even if we see people like faithful but miserable Joab, or even kind and competent Boelcke having to have made the wrong choices when it comes to war.  

[Gregory Matthews]

The Federal Government rightly recognizes that a person's religious rights are not determined by the teachings of the denomination to which the person belongs.  Rather, they are determined by the beliefs of the individual.

When I entered military service under the provision of the Draft, and in which I had given up my exemption of a clergy exemption and I had volunteered to immediately be drafted, I went through a Basic Training for conscientious objectors.  One of the   others being trained with  me was a Roman Catholic.  Now, the Roman Catholic Church is not a conscientious objector church.  But, he was, as an individual.  The government rightly recognized his religious rights, regardless of the position of the denomination to which he belonged and granted him his rights.  The RC Church also continued to offer him spiritual nurture.  He did not have to agree with the RC position on military service.

An example of  my main statement here is that of the JW that I mentioned.  When he arrived for his interview with me,  he carried a number of books published by the JW  denomination.  I immediately informed him that I already know what the JWs taught and I was not interested in him telling me what I already knew.  I wanted to have a conversation with him.  For two (2) hours we talked without one reference to what was in his books.  With my determination of his sincerity, the Hearing Officer recommended that his request for a CO discharge be approved.  The Commanding General simply said:  "Not on my watch."

The CGs wish was granted and the soldier was given his honorable discharge, but not on the watch of the General.  [NOTE:  I do not claim to have had any influence on the change in assignment of the General.  Changes in assignment regularly take place for all officers.]  At that time I soon became known as the expert on CO Discharges and I was generally asked to evaluate such requests.  My status was also influenced that in talking to the person requesting such a discharge, I was, at times, able to obtain a statement from the soldier that they were not sincere and simply wanting to scam the system.  Such a statement, of course, ended their request for a CO discharge.  

My point:  In actual fact, the military has a process by which it is determined whether or not a military member should be granted a CO discharge.  It is not automatic to grant such.  A person can fail the process.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

On another point, in which I previously mentioned a clergy person student at the  Army Chaplain School who became a SDA Army chaplain:

It is not unknown, for clergy of one denomination to     change their denomination.  Recently,, in the area where I live, a SDA clergy person has become a pastor in another denomination.

We have had Roman Catholic priests who have become SDAs and we have had SDA clergy who have joined the RC Church.  I suspect that Gustave is aware of some of these.

When a clergyperson from another denomination decides to join the SDA denomination, there is an immediate question:  Does that person want to become a SDA pastor, or does  that person simply want to become a SDA member.  The answer is simple if they only want to become a SDA member.

However, if they want to transition to that of a SDA pastor, there is a complex process that is immediately put into place that is designed to prepare that person to successfully become a SDA  pastor.  That process  involves SDA organizational levels all of the way up to the General Conference.  This process is well developed and it works.

When the student at the Army Chaplain School decided to become a SDA, a problem arose as this was a first.  We had never had this happen before.  Due to the fact that he was a military chaplain, the standard process that we had in place  of civilian clergy could not be put in place for this student.  In some ways, we failed him.  As a denomination, we learned lessons from that experience that will guide us in the future.   I hope that in the future, we will do better.

I will also say, as I am aware of some of the actual situations in which a clergyperson has switched denominations, such decisions are typically complex and there are often issues that affect that decision that may not be clear in the beginning.

 

 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

The bottom line is that we as a SDA denomination teach that one should follow what they believe to be the calling of God. On rare occasions, and in very specific circumstances, I have said that in order to find Christ, a specific individual might need to leave the SDA denomination!

Probably, many posting in this forum know the story of one of our members who posts here.  As a SDA clergy person he became a Lutheran pastor.  From that position, he converted to that of a Roman Catholic and worked for many years for a Roman Catholic Bishop.  Then he converted back to the SDA faith.  At that time, he started again at the bottom of the process to determine whether or not he should become ordained SDA Clergy.  After a process that took some time, and he had demonstrated  his calling,  he again became SDA clergy.  Today, as he posts in this forum, he does so as high level official in the SDA Church.  By the way, he has told his story in this forum.

On a personal note:  He was a Lutheran pastor, as a student of mine at the Army Chaplain School.  At that time, there were four (4) SDA Students at that school.  I  included this Lutheran in all of the activities that I had for the SDA Students.  He participated and was welcomed by all.  That inclusion and acceptance, made a positive impression on him.

 

 

[APL]

3 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

It is not unknown, for clergy of one denomination to     change their denomination.  Recently,, in the area where I live, a SDA clergy person has become a pastor in another denomination.

SDA clergy - - another term that should pass from the SDA church, for all are to be part of the priesthood of all believers.