DISQUS

gwalter · 3 months ago

Great post Steve. Though there are some who may misunderstand what you're trying to say; what I hear you saying is that we need to take a humble approach to the conversation we have with others.

I hear you saying that we can speak into other people's lives, without turning them into Seventh-day Adventists. But by contributing to the conversation, we are still representing Jesus Christ.

Am I close?

steveinadelaide · 3 months ago

Thanks. Yes... you have it right. The older I get the more irrelevant a de-NOMINATION identity gets for me. The way people communicate nowadays is conversational rather than argumentative. Arguments (in the technical sense), as good as they might be, rarely convince anyone. But living in conversation can be quite persuasive - both ways!

BTW -- thanks for the work you are doing on the site! Great stuff. Although all the choices to communicate is a bit confusing! ;-)

gwalter · 3 months ago

Thanks Steve - I appreciate you looking past the confusion and jumping in! ;)

And thanks for the clarity. When we started the church in Colorado, I used a conversational/discussion format, rather than preaching. It worked great - and very attractive to the unchurched. But upon moving into a traditional church setting, they interpreted it as me not being prepared. <smile>

On the contrary, it takes more preparation to have an intelligent discussion than it does to dominate the discussion with one's one point of view.

Ellamae · 3 months ago

I couldn't agree more. In the beginning of the denomination we tried to persuade other Christians of our "unique perspective" and I think that was our purpose for being. We did have some "new light" to share.

I sometimes wonder if we hadn't organized so exclusively, if the Sabbath doctrine, importance of the ten commandments, death as a sleep, and especially no eternally-burning hell--if those things would have been dispersed among the Christains as did some other ideas (not always biblical-- as the dispensations) there would have been more openness.
Now there is a whole nonChristian world to reach, and yes we should be working with others. But there is a lot of prejudice out there against us and part of it caused by ourselves.

I have worked for the organization 20 years, and this has always bothered me. The word "Adventist" has almost become a cliche. It has often been said that our movement was something like John the Baptist, but we have not acted like him who said he must decrease and Jesus increase.

We are very much Laodicean, yet blindly believe that we must make everything happen. It is not even logistically possible for everyone to come into our church and be on membership roles somewhere. This is not equal to being in Christ as we have made it. I also strongly believe that God is more open in His salvation than we can possibly imagine. We go out to spread His gospel to those who are on the edge of choosing which side in battle between good and evil they will be on. I think that actually many more make the choice for good in their diverse settings.

steveinadelaide · 3 months ago

Hi Ellamae

Enjoyed your comments and totally agree with you about God's inclusiveness. I don't believe it is our job to save anyone. The gospel is about informing people of the fact of their reconciliation with God from God's side and inviting them to live in that reality. Even if they never hear of the Christian God or Jesus, I think God's grace saves unless a person persistently, consistently, and for their entire life, reject God however God might be revealed to them -- whether in conscience, explicit declaration of the gospel, or whatever.

Just wondering how your inclusive approach has worked in real life if you have worked in the denomination for so long!

Steve

Ellamae · 1 month ago

I am so glad to hear you saying what I have been trying to communicate for years. I have generally been fortunate to work with people who (at least when they are pinned down with logic on this salvation point)tend to agree as well. However, I don't get the idea this is the feeling in the smaller local churches that are not connected with an institution. And it is certainly not the concept held by most Christian evangelicals. There is much proof-texting on the subject. Actually I don't see how Adventism can use proof-texting very well in its theology (though it certainly does) as it takes comparing many texts and the taking the Bible as a whole to find what makes sense. And this is how I come to the inclusiveness of salvation as revealed in the entire Bible.
My personal way of evangelizing is through writing or in discussions. Thus I see many Adventists as needing evangelizing and being persuaded that God is fair. I usually do not try to "convert" my Christian friends of other faiths if they are involved in their churches. I don't think they need converting though we might discuss ideas. We need to connect with secular people through joining organizations, community work, etc.

Glenn · 2 months ago

"The reason any denomination should ultimately exist is solely because it wants to bring people to Christ — not to itself."

Thanks for this post. I'm not opposed to the idea that evangelism is about bringing people to the SDA church (or any specific church). In practical terms, Christ is the church (SDA and non-SDA).

What I do think needs some work in the SDA mind is what exactly they want to bring people into. What are they offering people? What sort of Kingdom is it Adventists want and promote? Is the Kingdom of God now or is it not yet?

gwalter · 2 months ago

Thanks for your perspective Glenn. You're right, there is nothing wrong with bringing people to the church - but the attitude of why. That is a really good question to ask.

I might add however, that Christ asked us to take His good news, the Gospel, to people, not people to Him or the church. "Go!" He said - not bring. (Matthew 28) It's a subtle difference, but one we, as the Church, have not fully grasped.

Thanks again for your thoughtful reply!