Thank you for this post. As you say, assuming the facts are accurate, it is very disturbing to see the lengths that people will go to mislead. I understand the idea of avoiding building unnecessary barriers before a person is able to make an intelligent decision about the content (thus keeping the name Seventh-day Adventist out of advertisements), but this is too far.

One might expect a commercial advertisment to use the "bait-and-switch" technique, but when a religion resorts to such ulterior means to reach its objective (more people dunked), it becomes a religious scam and should be exposed.

Evidently, these guys are taught this method either in SDA colleges, the Seminary, or simply just following the lead set by all the evangelists before them. To be ashamed of one's faith, is to lack integrity, and when one has no integrity, he has absolutely nothing worthwhile left.

That is only one, but a major reason, that many of us who have chosen to sever our relationship with the Adventist church is because of their very devious methods of winning new members.

A disclaimer of "if the Hearlds coverage is accurate.." and a web statement from the Rev. saying, "it was obvious that Steve hated him" is not the best and most complete version of this story.
Did you contact Steve and get the other side before drawing your conclusions and posting this?
This artical is full of assumptions and hearsay from the 60 some people baptized to whatever this Steve might be doing. The assumptions may in fact turn out to be true but it definitly has the flavor of rushing into print.

I believe the concept could be addressed without the speculation.

Elaine,

As the final quarter of my seminary experience, I took a course at the Lake Union's center for evangelism in Chicago. There we studied with Mark Finley, and worked with him through a series of meetings. I never heard Mark say that you should deny your denominational affiliation when asked, and claim to be interdenominational instead. As Shawn said, perhaps not naming the church in the advertising can be excused (though I question that, too). But what this man is doing goes beyond anything I learned in evangelism class.

It would be interesting to hear from a professional evangelist on Mr. DeLong.

I'm thinking that he'd better come clean before the rooster crows a second time!

Loren

Is it possible that one reason Steven DeLong is does not admit that he is a Seventh-day Adventist evangelist is that in fact he isn't one?

Has anyone looked in the current Seventh-day Adventist Yearbook to see if he is an official commissioned, liscensed or ordained minister in our denomination?

Is it possible that we should take seriously the Pastor of the local SDA church who reportedly says he knew nothing about this evangelist before he was contacted by him?

Should we give any credence to this evangelist when he reportedly says that he used to be a Seventh-day Adventist?

Should we give any consideration to the fact that the term "Seventh-day Adventist" is an official trademark that the denomination's lawyers protect in order to distinguish it in situation's like this?

Is there any reason to suppose that this evangelist knows that the minute he wrongly uses the term "Seventh-day Adventist" he will be sued by the denomination?

I don't know the answer to these questions; however, I think it might be helpful to clarify these things before we draw our conclusions.

One other thing: Might we not want to hesitate before stating or implying that the evangelist who held meetings in that area thirty years ago is representatative of all SDAs evangelists?

As a son of a long time SDA evangelist I can tell you that he wasn't.

My father never baptized one person who came to his meetings. He left that wholly to the discretion of the pastor who baptized each candidate himself. He was not alone in this.

Many thanks!

Dave

My questions exactally David.
Ron Gladden and company is an example of this possibly.

Should not one preach Jesus Christ and Him Crucified rather than trying to define the anti-christ?

Spending all one's time on who the devil is, while all the world wonders, who the devil the evangelist thinks he is: is not evangelism or truth.

There is no there there, that is for sure! Maybe he is a dunkard--at least he appears all wet if the press has him pegged.

Wish the story was an exception rather than the rule. It certainly is the rule in these parts. Tom

P. S. Many years ago, we had an visiting evangelist in our home for Sabbath dinner. Following dinner, he and I took a walk around our 6 acre horse farm. In the course of conversation, I asked a few questions regarding his presentations. His response was: "Tom it is best not to ask too many questions. At the end of the series, he ran off with one of his converts leaving a wife and children to the conference, a conference that sent most of its reserve funds to Davenport. Then we spend our time trying to define the beast and his mark! Even Jesus is known to have wept. Tom

This is a shoddily produced article. It has raised more questions than answers in the various assumptions which have been allowed to give the story substance. Why has the author not checked with the SDA yearbook - that would be the easiest and most sensible thing to do? quite candidly the article would never pass as newscript on either the BBC or channel 4 in the UK - and I am no defender of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

It's always good to try to verify with the individual, and I agree that there is a bit more conjecture than necessary in this piece. Unfortunately, I suspect that it's still true.

The yearbook site seems to be down at the moment, but a quick Google search turned up an article in a 2005 Pacific Union Recorder about a Steve Delong evangelistic series for Native Americans (uses the same picture as Delong's website does):
http://www.pacificunionrecorder.com/105/5/25763.html

Evangelist Steve DeLong Brings Christ to the Navajo Nation
By Bob Parrish

Until the beginning of January, Leo and Leoleen Yazzi knew nothing about the Seventh-day Adventist Church. They live in a remote Navajo town in northeast Arizona called Mexican Water, about 90 minutes from the nearest church.

During the month of February, they received a handbill in the mail for a prophecy seminar in Chinle, Ariz., with evangelist Steve DeLong.

"We felt that our church wasn’t teaching us the right way from God’s Word," they recalled.

"We have tried other churches, but didn’t feel that we were learning the Bible like we should. When the prophecy seminar brochure came in the mail, we decided to check it out."

The young family drove three hours, round-trip, with their four children to attend the meetings each evening and only missed three of the 21 nights. At the end of the Chinle series, they were baptized along with 33 other Native Americans who accepted Christ as their personal Savior and followed His example in baptism.

We are convinced that right now there is an immediate harvest just waiting for us on each of Arizona’s reservations. We are helping them become grounded in the truth by providing each new group with a DVD player and the "New Beginnings" evangelistic programs.
As they read the scripts and show the pictures on their own TVs to their family and neighbors, they will grow spiritually and will be reaching out to their fields of harvest in a way that possibly nobody else could.

With God’s blessing, we are looking forward to the possibility of building three new churches among our Native Americans in Arizona.
..................end article.

Hi Tom!

Although it is always good to read what you write, I benefited more from your post at 1:56 than the one at 2:03!

Your story about the SDA evangelist who ran off with one of his converts is as colorful as all your others. But I'm not certain how far to generalize it.

I am unable to determine this because I don't know if this evangelist is the only member of your sample. Neither do I know how large your population is. So I'm left a little perplexed.

Meanwhile, move over Elmer Gantry! Hit the road "Leap of Faith!"

All the best!

Dave

DeLong came to this city about 3 years ago with the same approach reported in the article.

The process was repeated practice for practice with another local, credentialed minister last year. The local minister began the seminar in the name of his own "independent ministry" -- that is, until halfway through the meetings when all attendees and "friends of the church" received a letter on denominational letterhead inviting them to continue the sessions at the church compound. Regional college theology and evangelism students assisted pre- and post-series. The operation is much more accepted and institutionally integrated than we may wish it to be.

I, like thousands of my neighbors, received a pretty, glossy handbill in my mailbox, saw the familiar Daniel statue on the front, looked in vain for the church logo, name, or affiliation, and felt torn.
Helped for one night off-site but found the ethical issues insurmountable, not least when I was told not to say which church I was affiliated with, and to direct all answers to one person, the speaker. I will never do it again.

Disgusting?

Yes

Suprising?

Not if you have been invovled with one of the traveling prophecy shows.

Dave

To the best of my recollection during the 20 plus years at the Augusta SDA church (counting pastors, evangelists, and Week of Prayer guest ministers) four out of about 30 left under a cloud of sexual impropriety. During that same period 3 of my graduate students out of about 30 had their marriages end because of sexual improprieties, two of which were SDA's.

Now the good news. We lived in Columbia County about 11 miles from the University. Rick Rice's parents lives three houses from ours. The rural postoffice was about 600 sq feet. My wife and Rick's mother would often go to the postoffice to pick up mail, send registered mail etc. Both families subscribed to the Review, Southern Tidings, Ministry, Life and Health, Liberty mag. The postmaster was so impressed with the friendly, civil encounters with both women that he began to read the mag. that each family received. He was an elder in the local Methodist church. He liked what he read and he was impressed with the Christian manner of the two women.

The Augusta Church had a evangelistic series, in which they sent a mailer to each SDA family and others. The post master read the flyer. He asked Mrs Rice where the SDA church was located. He and his wife attended every service and were baptized along with their older children. Unfortunately the postmaster died early in life. However, 36 years later the wife is still a very active member in the Augusta SDA church.

Edgar Guest said it best: "I'd rather see a sermon than hear one any day!" Tom

Obviously not every SDA evangelist has shed their deceptive mantle of denominational independence. Take a look at Kenneth Cox's home page:

http://www.kennethcoxministries.org/

It is obvious that one of the main objectives of his web page is to conceal his Adventist identity (unless, of course, he is the Gantry character of Tom's story and really is independent).

Deception seems to have been Cox's m.o. from the beginning. I ran into his show in the spring of 1982 when his campaign came to Chattanooga, Tenn. The town was blanketed by flyers advertizing the ringmaster himself and his traveling theological circus--all endorsed by four individuals labelled "Catholic", "Baptist" etc.

Young and impetuous as I was, I dashed off a letter to the Chattanooga Times in which I exposed the entire operation as a covert proselytizing campaign paid for by the SDA church. The letter, framed on Op-Ed page, was published on the Friday before the campaign was kicked off, and predictably it set off a firestorm of anguish in local SDA churches assisting the Cox machine. (As always, the innocent are the ones who suffer.)

It got worse. A friend of mine, with more intestinal fortitude than I had, organized a group of picketing protesters in front of the
theater on the opening night, advising people that "This is a covert Adventist recruitment campaign" or words to that effect.

The campaign was no great success, to put it mildly. Cox baptized the local children and headed for Albaquerque with his apocalyptic freak-show.

I don't understand why the SDA church apparently still puts up with these Gantry characters and tactics. Deception is another word for "lie" and I don't quite undestand why it is admissible to lie to promote the truth.

The classic SDA slur against the Catholic church was that it believed the ends justified the means. Today we might call that "projection".

It's sad when bitter people feel the personal need to "save" the public from the horrors of an evangelistic series by writing the newspaper and picketing. Like they wont be told about the denomination sooner or later.
There is no lie or deception about it. There is so much information to cover with someone with a non church background, you cant just give them a phonebooks worth in the advertizement or on opening night.
Even in the case of Steve DeLong here, people raise the red herring of full disclosure on the print media. A denomination is only a label for a set of beliefs. If you look on Steves web page there is a set of beliefs.

An example that Spectrumites might grasp would be;
Elaine not being able to talk to anyone about Christ because she doesnt have a denomination she can tell them she adheres to the belief set up front.

Tom

Thanks for the numbers! Looks like the SDA minsters had a sexual integrity failure rate of 13% while that of the graduate students was 10%.

I wonder how these numbers compare with the population as a whole. I'm not trying to give you a hard time, just curious. Someone out there must have the numbers!

Aage

Thank you for exposing the true nature of the Kenneth Cox crusade in Chattangooga in 1982. If more of us did that it might stop.

So far I've tried without succcess to figure out who this Steve DeLong is. I hope that those who have the facts--and they have to be facts--will inform the newspaper in Grand Fork because its people rightly seem to want to know.

In addition, I hope that someone(s) will follow the evangelistic trail of Kenneth Cox and company and inform the media--newspapers, radio talk shows, etc--whereever he goes of his true identity, unless he does so at the outset.

Once again, we can spend our lives moaning and groaning about such things or we can do something about them. I say get busy!

Thank you!

Dave

Hi!

I just emailed the following to Kenneth Cox Ministries from its web site:

"Greetings!

So far on this web site I have found no explanation of the relationships between Kenneth Cox ministries and the Seventh-day Adventist denomination. As a SDA who hopes that my church's representatives will not conceal their true identies from the public, I would appreciate any information you can share. Thank you!

David R. Larson
Loma Linda, California"

I'm doing my part, I hope you do yours!

Thanks!

Dave

I just left a telephone message about Loren's column and thread for Stephen J. Lee at the Grand Forks Herald.

I don't know if next week he will take an interest in what we are discussing; however, I thought I'd give it a try.

We have more levers than we sometimnes think. It's better to pull them than to complain and do nothing.

Many thanks!

Dave

Dave

The sample size would not be statistically significant. I bet both sets represent the population as a whole but that would be a guess. My point was these evangelists and their sponsors present themselves as of a higher breed and their message as straight from God. While their use of Daniel and Revelation comes from an untutored New England mind set.

Their style is 99.44% fear mongering and .56 % Christianity. Tom

It's sad when bitter people feel the personal need to "save" the public from the horrors of an evangelistic series by writing the newspaper and picketing. Like they wont be told about the denomination sooner or later.
There is no lie or deception about it. There is so much information to cover with someone with a non church background, you cant just give them a phonebooks worth in the advertizement or on opening night.
Even in the case of Steve DeLong here, people raise the red herring of full disclosure on the print media. A denomination is only a label for a set of beliefs. If you look on Steves web page there is a set of beliefs.

An example that Spectrumites might grasp would be;
Elaine not being able to talk to anyone about Christ because she doesnt have a denomination she can tell them she adheres to the belief set up front.

Posted by: Michael | 23 August 2008 at 9:38

*******
Michael. Seriously?

Yes, seriously.
An account discribed as "the ringmaster and his traveling theological circus" shows a certain amount of bias wouldnt any sensable person agree?

I am sure the newspaper was shocked that Christians "proselytize". WHODA THUNKIT?

Someone should really look up the definition of disciple.

dis·ci·ple (d-spl)
n.
1.
a. One who embraces and assists in spreading the teachings of another.
b. An active adherent, as of a movement or philosophy.
2. often Disciple One of the original followers of Jesus.
3. Disciple A member of the Disciples of Christ.

Thanks for bringing this interesting story to light, Loren.

This is certainly a familiar scenario. I resist the urge to relate some of the hilarious/deplorable gimmicks we experienced in our local church a few years ago. What is of relevance is that otherwise intelligent church members who I respect had no qualms about going along with the plan to disguise our church building (which was called a "prophecy auditorium"). They covered up the church sign and removed the hymnals from the pews.

It's hard to blame one particular person. The conference has a mandate to evangelize. This pastor was following orders. Good church members want to be helpful. I believe that this these sort of things represent the failure of church members to show the courage of Aage and help career churchmen stay honest. David's right, we do have work to do.

I looked up David's reference to Elmer Gantry--looks like good reading for the next time this problem flares up.

Blake Laing

Also, how strange that our culture does not naturally question using deceptive methods and the language of domination ("winning souls") to share the evangel message of freedom and communion?

Before the Grand Forks, North Dakota crusade began, the local newspaper advertised the toll-free phone number to reserve a seat. I dialed the number and the guy answering the phone wanted to know if he could reserve a seat for me. I asked him if the speaker was a Seventh-day Adventist minister. He said it appeared that the speaker is interdenominational according to his information.

I accused him of outright lying to me (thinking he was perhaps the local Adventist pastor or a zealous lay member). However, he then explained to me that he was merely an employee of a professional answering service based in Oregon. Wow, I then felt bad and apologized to him. I told him how the Seventh-day Adventist Church was using him to deceive the public. He was most grateful for my informing him of the true nature of these meetings. He had no idea that he was being manipulated to hide the truth about Adventism.

Dennis Fischer
E-mail: dfministries@gmail.com

Michael, you said, "A denomination is only a label for a set of beliefs," and further described "full disclosure" as a red herring. Are you also serious about that?

If so, do you discourage the GC from suing other Christian groups who wish to use the label "Seventh-day Adventist"?
And when people at your workplace inquire which denomination you're affiliated with and where you attend church, do you provide a clear and unambiguous answer, or do you say, "Never you never mind: I'm a disciple"?

How do you understand the instruction to "Let your 'No' mean 'No' and your 'Yes' mean 'Yes'"? Do you see any conflict between teaching about the validity of the entire 10 commandments and the well-intentioned undermining of the fourth -- while using tactics that, though well-intentioned, undermine the ninth? When the name of the church was selected precisely so that it would articulate the denomination's "distinctive message," what do you perceive as the gain in dissembling about it?

And finally, how do you customarily respond to prospective members who have been attending, so they think, a neutral and non-denominational meeting for an entire week, but are suddenly find that that is not the case, and the nice, smiling non-denominational people do in fact belong to a denomination but would not tell them so when they asked?

The Georgia-Cumberland Conference evangelism website lists Pastor DeLong as a "Contract Evangelist." http://www.gccsda.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=637

The Georgia-Cumberland Conference website states that:

"The mission of our church within this conference is to proclaim the gospel of salvation in the context of Revelation 14:6-12. Every church, every school, and every conference ministry plays a role in accomplishing that end. Consequently, evangelism is at the root of all we do."

If that is the "Good News" to proclaim "All those who worship the beast ....will be tortured in the presence of the holy angels and the Lamd and the smoke of their torture will go up for ever and ever. There will be no respite, night or day

then please spare me, that good news is definitely "Not Good." John 3:16 WOULD be Good News.

KM,
The part I discribe as a red herring is the assertion that someone is being sold a bill of goods as if they would go to all the meetings, be baptized and not told into what. And that this is all made possible just because we dont put SDA all over the flyers.
I think we all agree that the INTENT is ONLY to remove intital preconceptions someone might have against the Adventist church.
Therefore the "saviour" personalities who rush out and write the newspapers and picket are saving people from what?
Their preconceptions the first few nights?
They act like people are being invited to a dinner party on a boat when actually they are being Shanghi'd into slavery against their will with no hope of escape.

You ask many good questions and make good points. I am only asking for a little dose of reality.

I have done literally dozens of public evangelism campaigns and the situation comes up. We will try to give general answers on the first few nights but even then if someone is "on a mission" to determine your label before even hearing the first word, we tell them, sort of seperating the trivially curious from the crusading zealots.
Does this sound like something requiring air raid sirens and demonstrations in the street?
As to the worksite interations you mention. Since they are personal conversations made on a level of friendship and religious conversation I always say I am an Adventist.
This also goes for everyone personally invited to a series. They know it is Adventist because their adventist friends have told them about it and invited them. Their preconceptions are already favorable since the personal evangelism has already been done.
Therefore, the only ones affected by the practice are the ones who have no background or Adventist friends and they come from the radio spots or print media.

I find it wildly ironic that the same people who decry the SCC evangelism efforts, citing the fact that no one comes from the mass mailings and radio spots anyway, think they need to write the papers and "save" them from the horrible fate of their preconceptions for a couple nights.

If they really believed that no one came from the mass media anyway who do they think they are saving?

I find this whole article incredible. You claim to be an SDA pastor and add weight of possible impropriety claimed by a Catholic priest who naturally would not be happy about an evangelistic series by relating an even more incredible series of events that you supposedly witnessed thirty years ago? You add more fodder on a public forum so that people who already have a prejudice against the SDA church can use to bolster the idea that it is something to avoid at all costs.Don't you have anything better to do?

Michael -- this isn't the first time I've sensed you and Elaine battle it out through the back door; and while I understand we're all family here and siblings are allowed to butt heads, it does overflow and occasionally detracts from the substance of the discussion. Clearly you also object to Aage's approach; all well and good. Perhaps you might also clarify your degree of comfort with the issue of institutional deception even if you can't consent to how she handled the situation in her area several years ago. For it's the twinned question of endorsed deception and credibility today that we're looking at here, isn't it?

You've said you don't obscure your identity as an individual Adventist Christian, and you raised "preconceptions" as a rationale so let's look at that. Remember that we're not talking about national meetings. We're talking about local meetings in somebody's neighborhood, the area around the church compound. What should be happening in that area is that the church should know its neighbors and our neighbors should know us. Not because we park in their driveways without permission or because our PA systems are overly loud on Wednesdays, Saturdays, and the occasional Friday and Sunday night, but because we're those nice people who hand out food on Tuesdays, will watch the kids on Thursdays, support the elderly as needed, clean yards on Sundays, help someone stop smoking, be available to talk and pray, refer folks to a good counselor, crisis shelter, doctor, and dentist...

Hang me for my idealism. Perhaps we are not communally engaged, and people don't know us. Perhaps they do know of David Koresh and Strong City and a few rabid vegans. Perhaps they have seen the amusingly closeted Adventist character on Gilmore Girls, have heard of a B-list musician's long-abandoned Adventist heritage, or have had run-ins with a few extremists who don't look or sound as normal as you or me. Those are the people who help to form negative public prejudgments if there are any. If the name "Seventh-day Adventist" is mud, what are we doing to clean it?

Even your explanation of why you personally don't obscure your identity suggests the flaw in the institutional practice: you don't even think of hiding your name or affiliation when people know who you are. You don't do it because they know who you are. That we feel we have to hide suggests we have significant f2f issues to address in our local communities -- and no amount of public relations occlusion will help us correct that. It only makes it worse.

I don't want to use the "c-word" -- but that's the very word nonAdventist ministers use when counseling their congregants about the tactics of grievous wolves... tactics inclusive of this one. I really wish we would rethink this.

Dan

Thanks for the link to the Georgia-Cumberland Conference. I just emailed the following:

"Greetings GCC!

I understand that from this web site that Steve DeLong is a "contract evangelist" with the Georgia-Cumberland Conference.

Yet it is reported that he is less than candid with the public regarding his relationships with your conference. Also, so far I have not been able to find his name in the Seventh-day Adventist Yearbook as a minister in good and regular standing.

I will be grateful for anything you can share with me and my colleagues that will reduce our perplexity about these two matters. Thank you!

David R. Larson
Loma Linda, California

We all have a responsibility to guard the good reputation of our denomination. Thanks for making this easier!

Dave

Tom, whatever the deficiencies of Seibold's article, no-naming is an endorsed practice in several NAD conferences including one of my local ones.

KM,
I dont know what your talking about with Elaine. She was not in any of my thoughts in any of this discussion except for when I was looking for a example of someone not being allowed to talk about Jesus without declaring themselves by belief in a denominational label first just like some were suggesting Steve DeLong shouldnt. I dont agree with either premise.

When you state,"you don't even think of hiding your name or affiliation when people know who you are. You don't do it because they know who you are."

I percieve it more in terms of the media. Letting others define you. Whether by preconception, former experience with 1 grumpy member, or by a disgruntled former member with other issues.

Timespan is part of the formula isnt it? We are only talking about the first couple of meetings in my experience. Usually the Sabbath is approached first around meeting 4 or so.
When the disciples asked Christ who he was, his answer was evasive. "Who do men say that I am?" Does that mean he was deceptive and a liar?

To often I have heard this subject framed in caricture on this thread.
Here is an example:
"I accused him of outright lying to me (thinking he was perhaps the local Adventist pastor or a zealous lay member). However, he then explained to me that he was merely an employee of a professional answering service based in Oregon. Wow, I then felt bad and apologized to him. I told him how the Seventh-day Adventist Church was using him to deceive the public. He was most grateful for my informing him of the true nature of these meetings. He had no idea that he was being manipulated to hide the truth about Adventism."

What are the unfounded assertions here?
"I told him how the Seventh-day Adventist Church was using him to deceive the public."
To what end? How were they "using him"? Taking reservations is now a complicit event in some supposed crime?
"He had no idea that he was being manipulated to hide the truth about Adventism."
Really? The "truth" of Adventism is the use of labeling in print media?

Most of this stuff is right out of urban legends and conspiracy theory's.

Again, I'm just looking for a little reality here and I am not saying there arent Evangelists out there who go to far with the practice IMO.
I am just saying that the retoric and whistle blowing is not in proportion to the "danger".

Do you have a problem with the practice as I described how I have used it in my last post? Both the how and the why?

Thanks

I am a convert from the Baptist Church, and I find this deceptive method of hiding the identity of the sponsoring organization to be offensive. I was well aware of the basic Adventist teachings well before I made the change, but I delayed it because as a Christian I could not identify myself with an organization which resorted to such unethical practices. It wasn't until I came across an Adventist congregation which eschewed such practices that I felt comfortable joining.

The argument is used that we must hide our identity at the beginning because prejucice aginst our church would keep people from coming to the meetings. Did you ever consider the possibility that it is these very same practices which build up there "preconcieved notions" about our church? I know several anti-Adventists who started attending such series, and then were turned off when they found out the denomination of the sponsoring group.

And, yes, this still happens today. Recently the local Adventist church near where I live sponsored such a series, and the evangelist strictly instructed the church volunteers to refuse to identify their denominational affiliataion.

Why can't we be open and above board and state our denominationasl affiliation? Yes, I am sure some people will not come if they know in advance that is being sponsored by Seventh-day Adventists, but we will hold on to a larger percentage of those who do attend, plus there won't be as many people who have negative views of the Adventist Church.

Henry

I believe the term for this method is chicanery.

It is a very fascinating phenomena indeed while under a conviction to bring truth to the less enlightened it becomes ethical to deceive or at least cloak the blatant.

"I know several anti-Adventists who started attending such series, and then were turned off when they found out the denomination of the sponsoring group."

Henry,
It sounds like they were Anti even before the meetings. If so, at least they had a chance to hear a couple meetings before their preconceptions were activated. And isnt that the point?

"Recently the local Adventist church near where I live sponsored such a series, and the evangelist strictly instructed the church volunteers to refuse to identify their denominational affiliataion."

How long Henry? The first night? The whole series? I think it makes a difference.

"Did you ever consider the possibility that it is these very same practices which build up there "preconcieved notions" about our church?"

Is it your contention that these preconcieved notions are birthed from a lack of the SDA logo on mass mailings?

In my experience these preconceptions are made up from experiences with particular individuals and the SDA attack sites on the web. I have had many people tell me how hesitant they were about interacting with Adventists because when they went online to find out about them the Ex Adventist websites outnumbered the others 10-1 or, how they had met a joyless Bible thumping one and they measured all others the same. They were glad to find out that was not the case.

Type in Ex Methodist or Ex Lutheran in google and see what you find.
I only found 1 on the first page. In the artical he ask's; "Something that I would really like to know is, are there others who went through Wesley College or its predecessor, Westminster College, who have cast off the chains of religious belief?"

Not so with Ex SDA's. The first page is full of them.
Whats the difference?

Michael, maybe the answer is chicanery.

Michael,

The denominational identity wasn't revealed until about the eighth meeting. In my experiences, many of the people who have developed negative feelings towards the Adventist Church after attending these meetings where the denominational identity was not revealed until part way through the series knew nothing about Adventism before that time. In fact, some of these people never heard of the Adventist Church before they started attending. Much of this activity occured before the prolifferation of anti-anykind of websites.

More than one person has linked these evangelistic methods to Amway's technique in recruiting home marketing sales personnel.

Henry

Michael says, "he Ex Adventist websites outnumbered the others 10-1"

I don't see that. Here are some Google results:

"ex-Lutheran": 1,780
"ex-Methodist": 2,720
"ex-Orthodox": 3,230
"ex-Adventist": 6,390
"ex-Baptist": 25,300
"ex-Catholic": 71,900
"ex-Mormon": 161,000

On the other hand, if you change the terminology to "former" you get this with Google:

"former Adventist" 3,900
"former Orthodox" 9,200
"former Lutheran" 14,400
"former Methodist" 32,600
"former Mormon" 33,900
"former Baptist" 56,200
"former Catholic" 151,000

It seems to me that these misinformative PR schemes are an attempt to shortcut the long, hard work of gaining the goodwill of a community. In fact, they only serve to reinforce the stereotype of Adventists as a dangerous, cultic sect with something to hide. It can take years of community service to undo the damage done by this type of evangelism.

Those of us claim to heed the Spirit of Prophecy must follow "Christ's method" or we will loose credibility. Do we remember it? Hint: Step 1 is not, "Obfuscate your identity so they'll give you a fair hearing."

"Christ's method alone will give true success in reaching the people. The Savior mingled with men as one who desired their good. He showed his sympathy for them, ministered to their needs, and won their confidence. Then He bade them, 'Follow Me.' (Ministry of Healing 143)"

David Hamstra
apokalupto

Sorry Bill.
I didnt mean to infer the ratios of Ex Adventist to other religions when I wrote that part.
I was intending to covey Ex-Adventist to positive Adventist websites when one was searching for info on Adventists.
Type in Seventh Day Adventist in google and then go through and see which are anti or ex and which are positive.

Henry,
Ive heard the Amway thing too and it really does bother me that it is true to a point. I think the 8th meeting is way too long for someone dying to know. We tell the very insistant when they ask.

"Christ's method alone will give true success in reaching the people. The Savior mingled with men as one who desired their good. He showed his sympathy for them, ministered to their needs, and won their confidence. Then He bade them, 'Follow Me.' (Ministry of Healing 143)"

David Hamstra
apokalupto

Posted by: David Hamstra | 24 August 2008 at 7:21

You discribe personal evangelism beautifully. We are talking about Public evangelism and specifically those who come from mass media.

Michael:

It's Ellen's description, and if public evangelism isn't built on personal evangelism, the best advertising there is, it won't bring "true success". Her words, not mine.

David Hamstra
apokalupto

"You describe personal evangelism beautifully. We are talking about Public evangelism and specifically those who come from mass media."

Classic double talk.

At issue is still cloaking the blatant or at the least, a slick sales gimmick . I would encourage anyone to walk away from such tactics. In fact if the local church here launches an endeavor with these tactics again I will walk out the door. It is not a good situation to be asked by acquaintances why my church isn't up front about seminars we put on. How does one explain we're actually really good people but we have to trick others into hearing us.

Above there was given a definition of a disciple. I recall a story about Peter when he was reticent to reveal his association. It is always related as a negative.

KM

The Tom you address is not this Tom. My post always carrymy full name. Tom

Loren, I hope you'll carry on this discussion in your Best Practices newsletter. This is an important discussion that I think needs to take place in a forum where we can keep the medium (unethical practices) separate from the message.

I believe we need to do public evangelism--it goes back to Jesus, Peter, and Paul, after all. But we need to be upfront from the start; and I think that if we believe what we're saying, we won't play any games. We aren’t selling used cars or brushes or home cleaning supplies–we’re sharing the good news of Jesus Christ, and the truth of his word.

Now, does this mean we put the most controversial teachings up front? No. We start where we have common ground, in both public and personal evangelism. With other Christians, our witness should start with Jesus Christ, and our common hope. With non-Christians, I think we can start with the human longing for relationships that last, for meaning, for spirituality. That's what I like about Mike Tucker's "HeartQuest" series.

I suspect the nameless approach goes back in the days when the hardest opposition to SDA evangelism came from groups like the Church of Christ, and the evangelist might find himself preached against, picketed, run out of town, or the like.

We can learn from the experience of other denominations. When Catholicism was new in this country, "parish missions" were insider affairs, focused on stirring up the faithful; they used lots of Catholic insider language, ceremonies, ritual, etc. When the first Catholic evangelists started public evangelism of non-Catholics, they put this aside. Isaac Hecker, founder of the Paulists, took off his collar, held meetings in theaters instead of churches, gave lectures about "questions of the soul," and presented unique Catholic teachings late in the program. See my article, The History of the Parish Mission.

Michael:

It's Ellen's description, and if public evangelism isn't built on personal evangelism, the best advertising there is, it won't bring "true success". Her words, not mine.

David Hamstra
apokalupto

Posted by: David Hamstra | 24 August 2008 at 7:43

You get 1000% agreement from me on that! Not only that but those attending a seminar from a personal invitation already know its an Adventist message.

Bill,
Enjoyed your comments and perspective.
HeartQuest is a great program.
I also was blessed by your webpage.

I'm certainly late to this interesting discussion!

This article describes the same manner, tactics, and problems that I personally encountered when my local church sponsored a public evangelism series given by Steve DeLong almost nine years ago. At the time, he was still with Amazing Facts.

We were of course told to obfuscate our denominational identity, something that was very distasteful for many members. At the time, we went along for the "greater good." In hindsight, we should have stood our ground and demanded a change of tactics.

Also, the same abrupt, impersonal, insensitive manner that is described by the Catholic priset in his encounter with said evangelist, describes what questioners, fellow workers, and even local pastors experienced with him nine years earlier. Apparently, not much has changed.

By the third night, the pope was identified as the Beast of Revelation. Before salvation by faith through grace was even on the horizon. Before Christ, and his death and resurrection were ever focused on. In fact, I only remember the good news of forgiveness of sins and salvation as a free gift being central at the end of one meeting. Once in five weeks!

A close aunt, who is Catholic, attended the third meeting, and came away shaking her head with what she felt was the negativity of the message. Needless to say, she wasn't darkening the door after that, as was the case with a good portion of the audience.

I'm not saying that there is not the time or place to focus on difficult aspects of truth. But the third meeting?? What ever happened to the idea of first building bridges, or sharing common ground? The local church could not cover that type of work in such a short alloted prep time, and over the vast amount of area codes to which the publicity mailings went.

From my other experiences with Adventist pulic evangelism, and from what many here are describing, this doesn't seem to be an isolated phenomenon (minus the negative personality issues). For me, the whole idea of the traveling professional coming to town and "pitching a tent" for 3-5 weeks, speaks of a bygone era. Most people in this day and age are naturally suspicious of such Amway like methods, and from my own personal experience, I think with good reason. Nor do most people have or are willing to give the time to go to such extended events. The method itself seems to create its own narrow limits of effectiveness.

Thus, this puts the evangelistic ball back where it belongs, into our laps, the local churches and its members. We can't keep looking at evangelism as the job of the traveling "specialist," who has no real connection or personal relationship to the people he/she is attempting to persuade.

If Christianity is about building authentic relationships with God and with others, then that's what Christian evangelism needs to be about. It needs to stem organically from authentic connection and relationships. If we were to be the church like this, then I'd venture that this topic would even begin to fade into the background. Why would the evangelistic "specialist" need to be brought into an already healthy, growing, relational, and community connected local church?

Thanks...

Frank

Michael wrote: "Not only that but those attending a seminar from a personal invitation already know its an Adventist message."

I agree 100%! Now let's broaden that to a corporate level. If an Adventist church has generated goodwill in the community through disinterested service, when it invites people to its meetings it will want them to know they're coming to hear an Adventist message. The problem is that few Adventist churches have been willing to do the kind of work it takes to get that kind of cache, but most are willing to shortcut that process in order to achieve evangelistic 'results'.

David Hamstra
apokalupto

A very interesting and timely discussion.

Last fall, one of the Amazing Facts boys was hired by the valley churches in my community to present the usual Revelation seminar. Every home got the fancy colorful 2-fold flyer in the mail, along with significant newspaper ads, and radio spots.

No where on the flyer, nor on the evangelist's website was the name Seventh-Day Adventist found.

The meetings were held however at the local Academy Gym.

I corresponded with this evangelist regarding the lack of affiliation identification on his pamphlets, and he gave the seemingly typical response, about not wanting to scare away those with preconceived opinions, and he also provided me a quote from Ellen White, in I believe Evangelism, where she said that sometimes it is best to get them in the door before you full identify yourselves. He said he had no problem prostletizing Christians from other churches. He also noted that the brochure had been fully approved by the 6 area churches who were funding the crusade.

I was dismayed at that response. In my 45 years in Adventism, I had seen this type of thing far to often, and it made me sick.

In the weeks leading up to the crusade, a handout was placed in the bulletins of the local SDA churches with instructions on how to behave at the meetings......How to warmly greet visitors.....where to park so the visitors could have easy access.....to give hearty 'Amens" when the evangelist made significant comments.....to mingle and be friendly after the meetings.

I found it amazing that a handout was needed to be provided to the local church members on how to be friendly.....but in hindsight....when you rarely interact with "non-Adventists" and have been taught all your life that "non-SDAs" are to be viewed with suspicion and caution, no doubt it was a neccessary bit of information.

I decided to contact about 30 of the local evangelical pastors in the community to let them know, that people in their churches were going to be targets for this evangelistic series. I provided them with info on what Adventist's believe, and how that differs with mainstream Christianity.

I received many emails of thanks, along with requests for additional material, as they felt ill equipt in dealing with the techniques and chicanery.

Many of the larger churches asked for additional material as they wanted to provide background information on SDA beliefs for their younger and newer staff members.

I asked this evangelist if any of the local SDA pastors, had been sharing "the Adventist Truth" with the local pastors of the other denominations.....like if it was so clear, and was the truth, surely these pastors, trained in theology and biblical studies, should be the first people approached.

I asked him if HE had spoken to any of the local Christian pastors about his upcoming crusade. Of course the answer was negative in both instances.

Bill Cork made the comment a few posts back, about the need for public evangelism going all the way back to Jesus, Peter, and Paul. I fully concur with this statement. But I have to say......what Jesus, Peter, and Paul were preaching wasn't the Seventh day Adventist message. They taught follow me, they taught love your neighbor as yourself, they taught the fulfillment of the Mosaic covenant and the Law, and the total sufficiency of Christ sacrifice on the cross as a complete atonement for our sins. They taught the joy and freedom of being a Christian. They taught that diet and days, did not determine one's worthiness for the kingdom. They did not teaches that the Sabbath would be that which separated the saved from the unsaved in the last days. They did not teach that a what we eat or drink has anything to do with our being fit for salvation. They did no teach that our salvation was in anyway dependent on what church we are affiliated with. They did not teach an Investigative judgment. Read John 3:16.

If you want to retain members, and attract new ones, my suggestion would be, dispense with the beasts, the endtime paranoia, the ill conceived, and contrived Investigative judgment, the use and misuse of Ellen White as a "continuing and authoritative source of truth", and the whole idea that the SDA church is the Last day Remnant....This is not the Good News of Jesus, Peter, or Paul. This is sadly, an ongoing confusion of what the true Gospel is. Adventism isn't the Gospel, or the Good News. Sadly many in the inside do not understand the difference.

As I have reflected on this thread, I just have to shake my head, in bewilderment and sadness, that there are some who still try and justify this type theatrical shannangans all in the name of evangelism.

I have also concluded that these types of series are really aimed more at the local SDA church members than anyone who might be coming in from the outside. Somehow the yearly dose of Adventist prooftexting regarding the Adventist distinctives seems to be neccessary to keep the offerings flowing in, and to slow the members from flowing out....

Randy

So the solution to chicanery in Adventist evangelism is...to stop being Adventist? It recall Dave Larson mentioning his father proclaiming (what I presume were) the traditional doctrines and having success while upholding a high ethical standard. I'm not saying Adventist doctrines are never in need of modification, but I don't one can conclude a need to change those doctrines, which assert a high moral standard, based on a method which has been devised to sell them.

David Hamstra
apokalupto

I agreed to assist in our local church’s Cox series about 12 years ago. Maybe I missed the meeting, but I don’t remember receiving any instruction on denominational identification. The first several evenings felt like a Bible Docs refresher course and I enjoyed them. After several evenings though, a familiar anxiety began to settle in as he started matching dates and events from history to prophecy. The whole 2300 days/years/weeks timeline gave me the same case of tired head I remembered from academy. On the evening when he identified the papacy as the Antichrist, I noticed 8 or 10 visitors leave shaking their heads and found my own head shaking as well. I fulfilled my commitment, finished the series and afterwards put most of it back up in the attic where it had been safely stored for years. Kind of a theological version of don’t ask, don’t tell.

As I followed this thread last night, I felt embarrassed and disappointed at the deceptive practices that our travelin salvation shows (apologies to Neil Diamond) would actually script into their business plan. However after sleeping on it, I wondered whether my negative emotion was aimed at the deception of the messengers or at parts of the message itself. Practically every topic and thread on this website eventually comes down to the acceptance or denial of a direct and literal approach to scripture. While I’m in the latter camp and am unable to embrace several of the 28, I still find community with the more strident ones and have enjoyed worshiping with them over the past 50 odd years. Hopefully there will continue to be enough room in the church for everyone, even those of us in the skeptic’s corner.

Frank,
Thanks for the personal insight into this particular evangelist. From your discription it sounds like a poor series based on any number of criteria. I agree most about the carelessly early diving into sensitive areas on the 3rd meeting.
Sort of makes the case for preconception moot if your not going to put your best foot forward anyway.
Thanks again

Here are two more examples of this sort of thing:

1. When I was first a student literature evangelist, which I landed up doing for four summers and one school year, I was taught to introduce myself at the door as from the "Home Health Education Service."

I couldn't do it so I introduced my self as selling Christian books, especially the Bible Story set. I thought it worked well because I did not waste the time of those who weren't interested and they did not waste mine.

2. Some of our current missioners infiltrate other worlds religions, presenting themselves as disciples or even leaders in those other faiths. Then, from those inside and incognito positions, they share the good news as we SDAs understand it.

I often wonder what is going to happen when these people discover who our people really are, as they certainly will.

Dave

I was a member of the Board of the local United Way. The Chair suggested that the Board needed a Chaplain. We all agreed. He then suggested his pastor from Reid Memorial Presbyterian Church. We again agreed. So Dan McCall joined us.
I was very impressed with his open fellowship and deep appreciation of Scripture and its application to philanthropy.

Betty and I had often attended their organ concerts but never a church service. At our first service we found the pattern to his homilies. He would open with a test followed by a prayer for guidance. He would then in three to five points build his case. In closing he would say, this is what I believe. I hope you do also. However, if you don't I still love you and I can assure you so does our Lord. Amen.

After a few months, he invited us to join. We said, of course, with one provision. He asked what could that be? I replied you asked three questions: 1. Do you believe that you are a sinner? 2. Do you believe that Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior? 3. Do you pledge to be obedient to the Elders of the Church? I said the first two, I will answer yes on the third--I have had "elders" up to my eyebrows. He said that will be no problem. I said. Dan just don't spring a fast one because I will say no in public if asked the third question.

The next Sunday we came forward. He asked the junior pastor to preside. The junior pastor asked the first two questions and overlooked the third. We were welcomed into fellowship and soon, I had a Sunday School class that included some of the movers and shakers of Augusta, Ga.

What a joyous fellowship we have had. No slight of hand, no double talk, no put downs of other belief systems, no demands, only invitations. We now have a new pastor Dr. Leslie Holmes a frequent guest and consultant in G.C. circles. One of my physician friends told me: "We've got ourselves a keeper! Worship is a joy. If you are ever in Augusta please join us at Reid Memorial Presbyterian Church for the time of your life. Tom

Very interesting. But let's ask why evangelists tend to operate this way? Is it because it is their preference? Or is it because any other approach will not be funded?

I suspect that the root of this problem is the organization's obsession with "noses and nickels." How many people did they bring in? How much money are they contributing? If they can show the "fruit of their calling" then no one is going to ask further questions.

Until the church organization makes spreading the Good News its first and only priority this isn't going to change.

Or so it seems to me,

Mark

Don't forget who is paying for this type of evangelism: its members who continue to pay tithe without knowing exactly how it is to be used. If sufficient numbers of members strenuously objected to this chicanery and deception, who should we blame? People and $$ still talk.

Mark,
You took the words right out of my fingers.
As long as the goal of evangelism in the Adventist church, is to make more Adventists....this is what we will see.

Rarely do people in these types of meetings convert to Adventism because of the freedom Christianity brings, but rather due to the fear mongering and end time paranoia the evangelist stresses. That is why the retention rate is so low. There is little joy in being an Adventist, compared to the joy found in being a Christian.

If they joined based on the study of Romans and Galatians, instead of Daniel and Revelation.....there would be far more retained to savour fellowship in the gift and freedom of salvation in Christ.

If ever there came a time, when the goal was solely to share the Good News of Jesus, instead of increasing numbers to support a monolithic franchise, we would see a wonderful thing happening in the Adventist Church.

Randy

KM

The Tom you address is not this Tom. My post always carrymy full name. Tom

Posted by: Tom Zwemer | 24 August 2008 at 12:49

*******
No problem, Tom. I've come to recognize your "voice" and I realized it wasn't you. (Plus, you're 'verified'! :))

*******

Michael -- there are bits in your 12:24 post that I confess to not understanding; forgive me. Nevertheless... in citing Christ a la Matt 16, I wonder if you're confusing the Eastern/Socratic method of teaching via questioning and confirming a correct conclusion -- with plain ol' obfuscatin'? When Christ asked for a regional headline report, Andrew had already called Him the Messiah, Nathanael had already called Him the Son of God (John 1), and the rest of the disciples had all followed suit and worshipped Him as such by Matthew 14. They knew who He was. He was not a tourist, consultant, specialist, or passer-by. He was present and engaged, and His reputation with the general public preceded Him.

For now, bro, skip over the descriptions of DeLongian evangelism that you think are extreme and unrealistic, and review instead experiences like mine and Randy's. We've told you how the process works. I find it difficult to accept this distinction between "personal" and "public" evangelism -- it really is new to me! If the standards for theft don't vary for an individual vs. a collective, and if in fact they may be higher because the stakes are higher and the capacity for abuse is higher (viz. Enron), I'm struggling to see why the standards for honesty should vary for individuals vs. collectives of said individuals.

As I said earlier, and others have said since, if we approached our routine ministry differently, special occasions wouldn't require such gymnastics. Come to think of it, Christ told us to go... not set up camp and call folks to come. He casts us as salt and light: both salt and light diffuse if they're doing what they were made to do. And in Revelation, He reserves the "calling" for Himself. Might we have misapplied our instructions? If we have, that might be why we're now using marketplace methods to help us get our homework done.

Paul had similar challenges at Mars Hill where he was building a really airtight case but couldn't make it past the word "resurrection" before he ran into a roadblock. At the end of the day, the gospel is not dialectic, rhetoric, or debate. It is God healing creation, often through creation... Perhaps the best way to "advertise" is to go around doing what it says on the tin.

I suppose at the root of it we're working with very different paradigms and so whereas I'm hugely uncomfortable with this way of dealing with people on my own or as a representative of an .org, you seem to be able to justify it for yourself. That's not possible for me, and that is why I'd strongly discourage any of my local churches from pursuing the approach again. Of course, the church that continues to do it continues to see the same results: the attrition between the offsite "nondenominationalism" and the onsite unveiling is significant, and the retention rate for those who do stay is low.

I'm sure we have alternatives. Alternatives that are less ethically ambiguous and much more effective.

This is a stimulating discussion, and thank you all for participating - even those who swam against the current. Some haven't been happy with Michael, but I've learned that we need dissenters. It is in the process of this kind of discussion that our thinking is deepened, and our practices improved. "As iron sharpens iron…"

I want to make clear that my criticism here wasn't against the Adventist message, or against the dear people of the Grand Forks church, some of whom I know and love. Nor do I object to Steve DeLong preaching our message in an attempt to win people to the church. As I said, I believe he is well-intentioned. My criticism was pointed at one thing in particular: his refusal to admit he is an Adventist when asked directly, claiming instead that he is interdenominational, which led to a public questioning in the media of Adventists' integrity. I understand the intention in concealing the church identity is to prevent prejudicing anyone unnecessarily before they hear the message. But when he was directly asked, and his honesty was being called into doubt in the newspaper, to stubbornly continue on the same tack was foolish.

Which then begs the question of whether we should reveal up front who we are, which you have discussed here. Not being a professional, full-time crusade evangelist, I don't know all the subtleties of doing that kind of work. But full disclosure is my preference. We parish pastors generally don't try to conceal our identities. We can't. I have a church with a sign in front of it setting in my city, and if I want to be trusted in the local community at all, and be involved in the community in pastors' groups, inter-church helping ministries, etc. I wouldn't get very far if I were being cagey about who I really am.

Finally, the only comment that really quite offends me, above, is a person who identifies himself only as Tom, who suggests (in the midst of several more personal insults) that I am foolish for taking seriously the claims of a Catholic priest. I have Roman Catholic religious and clergy friends. Those whom I know are good, thoughtful people. I don't think of them as enemies. Whatever the deficiencies some may find in their beliefs, they are fellow Christians. As a believer in our message, my desire is that they accept it, too, and I don't think putting them in the position where they feel unwelcome, brushed off, and the subjects of underhanded tactics will impress them that we have the truth. Do you?

KM
I do like your mind and the way you debate. Many times I have the feeling we are not so dissimilar. The way you have the ability to express yourself in writing far exceeds mine.

In my mind this issue becomes a matter of degree where it is a tool to be used sparingly with those who are just curious not with the Zelots or crusaders.
As I hear Frank recount first hand experiences with this particular Evangelist I see he went far beyond the scope where the technique would be benaficial.

Loren makes reference to the subject of degree in his last post as well. Clearly this practice, done wrong, has the potential for harm. I think that is what most of the commenters were refering to when they related their experiences.

I myself have never experienced working with an Evangelist who does anything like what Steve Delong evidently practices.
And just for a point of reference I have worked with 3 of the Amazing Facts Evangelists so I think its important for everyone to know that Steves methods do not come from there.

One thing both KM and David Hamstra point out, was also my point in the SCC Evangelism thread. Properly done, personal evangelism makes public evangelism redundant.

I suggest the more effecient use of our time and energy would be to make those relationships and contacts in our communities. If we did, I doubt we would have the time, or feel the need to run around picketing, writing letters or attacking people on the phone.

When I read this article, I immediately contacted the Evangelist, Steve DeLong, to hear any clarification he might give. Here is his response to me, which he asked me to relay to the magazine and to the author:

"Thank you for forwarding this to me, although I am not surprised
at all, as most evangelists OFTEN get misquoted my "Newspaper
reporters" I remember when Mark Finley & Kenneth Cox & HMS
Richards Sr got misquoted. Even Ellen White got misquoted by
the public, & sometimes by members.

I did not say what was reported! When the reporter showed up at
my meeting hall, he asked me what faith I am, & I simply told him
that I am a 100% Bible believing Christian, & "If it's in the Bible,
we believe it, if it's not, we don't" as far as any salvational issues
are concerned. He asked me again, what faith are you? I said sir,
respectfully, I never run ahead of my subjects, as I will totally
cover that in the Seminar. He asked me again. I then said, "I
noticed that when I was working in the Baptist church, & they
held a public meeting, almost all the people attending were
Baptists, same thing when I worked in the Methodist Church, &
same thing in the Catholic church where my wife grew up as a
young person. So, obviously when you advertise what faith you
are, the general perception is that you are going to teach what
that particular faith believes. Therefore, we at Sure Word Ministries
want people from all faiths to be able to come to a neutral setting
where they can feel comfortable & be assured that we do not
identify with Cults & are going to teach only complete Bible truth,
because that's what America wants-the truth! Therefore we
attempt to operate our meetings with as much as an
interdenominational approach as possible so that Christian families
from all faiths, regardless of what church they may personally
choose to attend, will come and be blessed with pure Bible truths!
That is what I would like you to print!" He then asked me the
same question again!! So I kindly asked him, "Who is pressing
you to find out what Church I am from?? He refused to answer. I
then said, It's the Ministerial Alliance, isn't it?? He then said so
what??
I then told him to have a nice evening, & the conversation ended.

PS; When I am asked in the meetings by sincere visitors, (Not
reporters!) what Church invited us to come, I always tell them)

Blessings,
Steve

In the interest of accuracy, I must say that I forgot (it was nine years ago) that Mr. DeLong did conduct one full meeting in his campaign that focused on the need for cleansing and forgiveness of sin. I was not present that night, but was told about it.

This meeting was in addition to what I had already described above. That amounts to one and one seventh worth of meetings out of 20-25 that highlighted the grace that Christ offers us. When compared with expositions of the good news found in letters such as Romans, Galatians and Ephesians, I have issue with the proportionality of the message being given. Combine this with the final message of the series, "The Sin Against the Holy Spirit," or some such title, in which the audience was basically being told that if you didn't accept and act on what was being preached the Spirit would leave you, and you had one big, warm welcome to the family of God!

To me, this makes the issue not only about the ethics of the methods employed. It also becomes an issue of the message being given. Could the justification of a less than honest approach somehow be tied to a twisted view of the person of God in Christ?

Just wondering...and open to any and all of your thoughts.

Thanks...

Frank

"Therefore we attempt to operate our meetings with as much as an
interdenominational approach as possible so that Christian families
from all faiths, regardless of what church they may personally
choose to attend, will come and be blessed with pure Bible truths!"

I appreciate the overall clarification from Steve, but the above portion just seems to me like more obfuscation. It is not an inter-denominational approach that he takes. It is an SDA approach through and through...just made to look like an inter-denominational approach!! I personally experienced it from the inside looking out.

If he lives easily with this, more power to him. For my consciense, I would have to work out a different arrangement.

Thanks...

Frank

Obfuscation is a lie dressed up in fancy clothes.
But still a lie.

To call such meetings "interdenominational" is nothing but a lie, as the focus is on a few verses in Revelation, at best an esoteric and puzzling NT book which has been interpreted in many and various ways since it was first incorporated into the NT. It's easy to agree with those who feel it has no salvational message as without it, we would still have Romans and Galatians, as well as the Gospels as more than sufficient for one's eternal destiny.

These evangelists, whoever and wherever they may be, try to imitate Billy Graham's message which is non-denominational and Christian to the core in that he invites all the area churches to participate and bring their friends, and if converted, become a member of the friend's church or any of those they choose. When Adventists can do that, and only then, will they be truly "interdenominational." They do not now, nor have ever, maintained that all Christian churches offer true salvation: otherwise, why would Adventism exist if it is not thought to be superior to all others?

I taught at Marquette University for eight years prior to accepting a "call" to the College of Medical Evangelists.

Prior to leaving, I paid a visit to the Vice President for Academic Affairs, a scholarly Jesuit priest. I explained my reasons for leaving and thanked him and the university for the kind manner in which they accepted me and promoted me.

He replied: "Tom, you have done a great job here. I know you will do well out West. Be assured that if you ever wish to return, we will have a red carpet out for you.

Men and institutions like that don't need to have the mill stone hung around their neck in SDA Revelation Seminars!

Just a little aside. At Marquette Honor dinners they serve red wine. My Catholic friends always wanted to sit beside me.
They would urge me to take the wine, take the wine, which I did. They would finish their glass with gusto and then they sipped mine in great enjoyment. It is great to have and be a friend wine or no wine. I was never afraid to let the world know I was a Seventh-day Adventist. I am now not afraid to tell my Adventist friends that I am more comfortable worshipping in another community, which doesn't mean I reject them or Christians in any community.

Evangelism is the Good News about the Finished Work of Jesus Christ plus nothing. I have seen more zeal in the Rotory Club
than any SDA evangelist in the Southern Union has shown in proclaiming Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. It is always: "With every eye closed and every head bowed, come forward and beat the heat!" Tom

I am the priest referred to in the article. It is accurate. I asked Mr. DeLong repeatedly to identify his denomination and to state whether or not he was teaching the Pope is the anti-Christ. He adamantly refused to answer the questions, even though he had earlier promised to answer all questions honestly. He was indeed hostile. Given that he thinks I work for Satan I guess that's natural.

I called the number listed for his ministry and they did not know his affiliation. I called the group he had worked with before and they refused to answer. Don't you think that seems suspicious? How can you trust such a preacher?

I read Mr. DeLong's response above. I don't know what he told the reporter, but I know what he told (rather didn't tell) me. He used the same excuse of "not getting ahead of himself" to not answer my questions. He refused to say, just as he still does, what church affiliation he does have. He told me he had spoken at a Catholic church 18 years ago. When I asked, "did you tell them who you were first?" He refused to answer. In other words he deceived them into think he was just doing a Bible seminar. I am sure he got a kick out of it. He certainly does not teach only the Bible, but rather uses the Adventist tradition. Again he is being disingenuous. You might note that one thing cults also do is conceal who they are. He seems afraid of the ministerial alliance. He seems to expect them to oppose him. Why? If he is "interdenominational" what does he have to fear? Read what he says carefully. It is bland goo that says nothing. It calls to mind an unscrupulous salesman.

I have seen this before from Amazing Facts seminars. It's like pulling teeth to get them to confess they are Adventists. Also they doctor quotes from Popes using the ellipse and then refuse to correct the record. I showed them the full quotes and they just shrugged. Likewise at World Youth Day and the recent visit of Pope Benedict their were Adventists on the streets handing out literature that looked Catholic, but wasn't. They even invaded the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception and put literature on the cars in the parking lot. I have found Adventist literature on my car in the church parking lot. Such disrespect is almost pathological.

On top of all of this there was the usual anti-Catholic bigoted rant. Vicarious Filii Dei is NOT an official Papal title and never has been. Is it any wonder that we regard Seventh Day Adventists in a negative light? Does he think that this will make Catholics "comfortable" to use his term? Is this "neutral?" Most other Protestants have consigned such polemics to the history bin. They recognize that it is a misuse of scripture. Most Adventists know that Ellen White's name adds up to 666. The irony is palpable. Adventists need to take a hard look at their theology.

Do you really need to lie to get people to listen to you? Are you surprised when they find out they don't like it? Do you think recycling old falsehoods about Catholicism will win you friends? Of course I was unhappy about it. It's like having the Klan come to town. What if I had done a seminar that portrayed Adventists as minions of Satan and did it using falsehoods? What if I concealed my own church affiliation and lied about it? You would not be happy either and would consider it papist perfidy.

I am not the one that caused Mr. DeLong his troubles. He was deceptive and did the damage himself. It's called shooting yourself in the foot. He needs to be upfront about himself and his agenda. Rev. Siebold is quite right about the need for honesty in the Adventist church, including Amazing Facts and every other affiliated ministry, I applaud him for it. Let's see that happen. Bring it up at your next church convention. Make it the official policy of the Seventh Day Adventist Church. Then something good will come from this sorry affair.

Dear Fr. Jim,

Thank you so much for your comments and for stopping by this site. Your concerns are very legitimate, and you're very right that "most other Protestants have consigned such polemics to the history bin. They recognize that it is a misuse of scripture." Most Adventists have too, but I'm afraid not all, especially not in the self-supporting genre of "ministries." I'm just sorry on behalf of the Adventist Church that this affair happened--as you note, it certainly has done nothing to help heal and repair past misconduct and has only deepened rifts and suspicions. We have much to learn from each other, and, I'm quite convinced that we have much more in common than not. I can guarantee you that there are many Adventists in your town who are just as appalled as you are at these disingenuous tactics. I hope they'll take the time to contact you. Thanks again for stopping by! Your thoughts are much appreciated.

"I can guarantee you that there are many Adventists in your town who are just as appalled as you are at these disingenuous tactics."

Daneen, I would hope so but I wouldn't gaurantee it.

Fr. Jim has labeled this right as when he says, "It calls to mind an unscrupulous salesman." I also agree that our leadership has to be pushed to not allow deception as part of the SDA form of evangelism.

Fr. Jim
I am curious if the newspaper, or was it the other website quoted you right.
Did you say, "I found him to be hostile. It was obvious he hated me and wanted me out of there.…"

What gave you the impression he hated you? Or did he tell you?
Thanks

Mr Seibold: I appreciate this column and the comments it generated: it's enlightening to me. I'm the Grand Forks Herald reporter who wrote the two stories (so far) on DeLong.
I feel compelled to say DeLong's own account above of our conversation at the Alerus Center is very inaccurate. He may have been conflating my short and unhappy conversation with him there and that of Father Goodwin, from what the priest has told me.
DeLong said very little to me in person, except that he would not say anything to me. He appeared very angry and hostile and after a few curt words, he walked off. Some people I was interviewing appeared rather embarrassed at his attitude. He did accuse me of misquoting him in a previous article, based in part on a fairly short telephone conversation with him. I stand behind what we published. He did tell me he "used" to be Adventist, as well as Baptist and other things, and that is wife "is" a Roman Catholic.
I have no doubt she is a former Catholic, but that he misspoke, purposefully or unintentionally. He also made some vague claim, as part of his argument about his interdenominational nature, of sharing a venue with "Billy Graham," in San Francisco... He gave no details and for all I know he meant to refer to the name of a venue, with the Graham name there.
He speaks very fast, and, frankly, appears to be careless with his facts and phrasing, I say with humility and as a way of trying to understand him and give him the benefit of the doubt. I concluded that after our two brief conversations and from listening to his public talking and preaching during the three sessions I attended.
He never mentioned the local ministerial alliance to me, never suggested that I was "sent" from someone else. As I said, I have no doubt he is confusing his conversation with Goodwin and with me.
For what it's worth, Goodwin seems rather well-informed on these matters for a Catholic priest, and told me days before it happened, that the pattern of such (apparent) Adventist evangelists was to switch venues from a large, expensive one, halfway through, to the local Adventist congregation. Which is what happened.
While the people I interviewed at the seminar seemed sincere and open for the most part, DeLong gave a very strange sense of being, well, not forthright and straight forward. And quite angry.
For what it's worth, I also heard him say one night at the end of the session, to make checks out, not to Sure Word Ministries, but to the Revelation Seminar.
At the Herald, we try to cover religion much like we cover many things that are important to people and part of their lives. His seminar struck us as news.
I didn't try to portray DeLong in an unfairly negative light. The kind of seminar he advertised is unusual, in length, style, and a basic fact - who is he and who is he "with", - which I always try to provide in stories on religious speakers, made it a story for us. His attitude to a local reporter also was unusually hostile. I've been doing this for two decades and rarely have seen this sort of hostility.
The local Adventist pastor was very civil when I asked him about the seminar.
And for what it's worth, since Mr Seibold understandably mentioned the seeming "Jeapordy" nature of DeLong's mentiong of not being associated with cults: believe it or not, I never broached the subject, he brought it up out of the blue, after I simply asked him what organization or denomination he was affiliated with... I thought it was sort of a "well, who asked," sort of moment that was perhaps telling....
Stephen Lee

Wow, this really has been a very interesting conversation to follow. I'm glad that several of the individuals involved have been able to comment here. Sadly, it seems to confirm that these "evangelistic" series were undertaken without much integrity. The sad truth is that these evangelists (and most of them are not officially affiliated with the Adventist church but off-shoot ministries) don't advertise their Adventist identity because people wouldn't come. (First off, shouldn't that tell us something? If people won't come if they know it's "Adventist" maybe we should spend more time mending our reputation than trying to woo new converts, especially when series like this always focus on converting other Christians to switch denominations.)

The long-term effect of a series like this is very detrimental to the local community--witness what's happened here? The local SDA church has further isolated itself from other Christian churches, and very likely the "evangelist" will baptize a dozen or so people (many probably children of the congregation who would have been baptized anyway, most likely) but after about six months, most will be gone because this hasn't been authentic growth through relationships (that takes mutual respect, which includes truth-telling).

Frank is also right that the type of message presented at these sorts of venues (not just the medium of deception witnessed in this instance) needs addressing. This is old theology that just doesn't stand up. For example, 666 isn't even likely the "real" number given in Revelations. I remember seeing this on a TV special a while back--archeologists have found older manuscripts that have a different number (more than one, but 616 is common). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_the_Beast.

What would it take to institute some sort of code of ethics for seminars like this?

In my recent talk given to the LA Forum I make this point about "cheating" to achieve externalized ends (production of baptisms, new converts, whatever). This is a prime example of what I was talking about. This idea is not orginal with me. I picked it up from Bryan Stone (Evangelism After Christendon) who refers extensively to Alasdair MacIntyre (After Virtue). You can download my comments at http://www.ryanjbell.net

Fr. Jim

Calvin and Luther were as bloody as the popes of their day.
Centuries later the Mathers werre not any better.

What the world needs to hear is the life story of Pope John XXIII and a host of other truly Christian men and women of the Catholic faith.

There is another thread on this site on labeling. I think God looks on the heart not the label.

I recall reading Scripture and praying with my aunt who was
a Nun teaching English in a Catholic School of Nursing. I could tell she was talking to the same God I was. She was a lot more experienced at it than I.

Bless be the tie that binds us, Jesus Christ our Lord. Tom

Ryan,

Thanks for your comments. I read the article, and it really hits the mark beautifully! A positive ray of light!!

Thanks...

Frank

Michael,
He was indeed hostile and became so as soon as I identified myself. He was very short with me. I will grant that he had a smile pasted on his face, but his whole body attitude was one of hatred. Believe me, I can tell when someone is hostile. I am sure you can too. My experience was very similar to that of Mr. Lee, so if you doubt me then read what he says.

Everyone,
For those who decry this kind of deception I see that as a good sign. However, if you believe that the Catholic Church is in any way the Beast or that the Papacy is the anti-Christ or any permutation of those ideas then how can you say you want friendship? To call my Church the Whore of Babylon is like calling my mother a whore. How can I be friends with someone who believes that? Adventism can and needs to put such things behind it and realize that those notions are based solely on speculation not the Bible. Other churches have done this and kept their identities intact. They move away from defining themselves against us and begin to be for something. Adventism needs a "purification of memory" where Ellen White and the Great Controversy are recognized as being bound by the culture of their time and their mistakes are acknowledged. They can be retired and Adventism can move on and focus on its own unique qualities. To lay aside past errors and hatreds can only be a good thing. I do not say this will be easy and it will require some theological growth and courage. You can still believe the anti-Christ will come, but will have to admit that it won't be the Pope. By jettisoning such baggage you will open yourselves to truths you may have been overlooking.

This should be brought up at your next general conference or with your leadership.

Fr. Jim

Thank you for expressing your concerns about Mr. DeLong and for participating in this discussion.

This might be the beginning of some fruitful ecumenical dialogue. In hopes that this will be the case, I offer the following:

1. As far as I can learn, Mr. DeLong is not a Seventh-day Adventist minister in good and regular standing. I don't take him to be representative of Adventism as I know and live it anymore than all Roman Catholics hold that Mel Gibson acts and speaks for them.

2. My question is why the local SDA Church and the Conference (regional leadership) invited Mr. DeLong to your city. By now I hope they realize that they made a mistake.

3. With respect to the question of the "Mark of the Beast," it seems to me that among SDA theologians there is a strong tendency to think of this metaphor as applying to any oppressive union of religious and political power.

In my view, some Roman Catholic words and deeds over the centuries deserve this judgment, and other much more severe ones. But so do those of many other denominations, including at times my own.

I think we can see the "Beast" raising its ugly head whenever Christianity or any other religious movement attempts to use the state's coercive power to enforce strictly religious observances. I hope you can agree.

4. That SDAs and RCs can successfully and happily work together is more than evident in my view by Centura, one of the largest health care providers in Colorado. It started off as a joint venture between a SDA string of medical institutions and another one established by the Sisters of Charity.

5. There are many SDAs and RCs in high and low places who object to Centura and they may eventually succeed in destroying it; however, thanks to enlightened people on both sides, it continues to serve and serve well.

Many thanks!

David Larson
Loma Linda, California

Greetings from Grand Forks!

An interesting discussion...and brings back all too many memories of my journey from SDA Elder to Former SDA.

This was a flash back off the discussions, while an Elder, with our local church pastor and the traveling evangelist as they crafted advertisements of an upcoming "series" taking care not to mention an SDA affilitation. The bait 'n switch deceptive practices were repulsive to me in the 1980s and remain so today. Raised as an SDA and thus never given cause to study outside the box my repulsed response drove me to study the tennets of Adventism, the legitimacy of EGW both as a "prophet" and as "inerrant new truth" deserving of the Blended Bible According to EGW (aka: The Clear Word Bible) and eventually to indepth study of the Bible absent of the prelaundered, preengineered verse learned through too many years of indoctrination in SDA schools.

Through the course of that study, whereby the Biblical authors were allowed to "say what they really meant"--for the first time in my life, I was led to leave Adventism "not knowing where I was going" but trusting in Christ and Christ alone that He'd not leave me and my family in a parched, barren land!

My post-SDA journey has been an exciting one. Christ is risen...not only from the grave but to a new place of prominence in my life.

God is good indeed! ...save for the repulsion that I felt when I was asked to cooperate in an envangelism borne of deception I would probably never have been driven to the 4 years and several hundreds of hours of study! (BTW the best thing that the EGW Estate ever did was to put her writings on CD! It was through powerful Boolean searches and subsequent focused study that I saw her in the light! I have yet to thank the Estate personally but I must do so very soon...)

Still thanking God for not leading me to a parched and barren land...still responding to His leading through love and never through fear... The Good News is GOOD NEWS indeed...no deception needed!

"To call my Church the Whore of Babylon is like calling my mother a whore. How can I be friends with someone who believes that?"

You might want to check out Hans Urs von Balthasar, "Casta Meretrix," in Spouse of the Word; Explorations in Theology II (Ignatius, 1991), in which he shows how the image of the harlot was applied to the Catholic church by Catholics throughout the centuries, including Dante. Could you be friends with von Balthasar? Wojtyla and Ratzinger were.

Father Jim

I agree with you 100% Nowever, the Roman Catholic Church holds on to some pagan ideas that pre-date the Council of Trent. All denominations have excess baggage. If we don't clean house the Lord will.

That is no apology for the excesses within Adventism--they have had many opportunities to come clean and avoided them all.

That is way I say denominationalism is a curse of Christianity. It started in the days of Paul and has only gotten worse. Tom

"Adventists need to take a hard look at their theology." --Father Jim

The classic Adventist view of the Roman Catholic Church is based on a 19th century libel that can only be compared in its virulence and falsehood with the one contained in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

For the ten years I was a church member and later a church employee, I not only believed these lies but took money to spread them. Father Jim, I'm no longer a Christian, and I'm not asking for forgiveness, but I'd like to apologize at least once in my life to a representative of your church. To me this is a question of ethics, not theology.

Bill, Von Balthazar remained Catholic. If he believed as you imply then he would have left. I suspect you misunderstood him. However, what a theologian says is not magisterial teaching as you well know. Theologians can be wrong. We always believe that the Church needs to be reformed. Hopefully you will agree that the Adventist church could use some reforming. Getting rid of anti-Catholic bigotry would be a good start eh?

Tom, I do not agree that Catholicism is some form of paganized hybrid Christianity. You obviously want to be reasonable and I applaud that, but such ideas are the root of the problem. Atheists claim all of Christianity is pagan. They point to myths of dying and rising gods. You would object to that I am sure. Please don't do it to us.

David,
1. I don't know his affiliation. He would never say. However, Amazing Facts does the same thing. He is obviously some brand of Adventist. If he isn't one of yours then the Adventist church should contact him and demand the stop working with Adventist churches.
2. I don't know if the local Adventists know anything about him. They certainly didn't object to what he said. I would be delighted if they repudiated his seminar. It would send a good clear message.
3. I think eschatology in the Adventist church needs reworking. To be honest we cannot say very much about the Beast or Anti-Christ at all. We simply don't know enough. All we know is that he will be opposed to Christ and his Church. The Catholic Church and the Pope do not oppose Christ. We cannot say he will be a political leader either. Some humility is needed here. The anti-Christ might end up having nothing to do with State vs. Church relations. The anti-Christ won't be any brand of Christian at all, including Catholic or SDA.

I can certainly post horror stories of Protestants doing things that would horrify Torquemada. I think modern scholarship has exposed the black legend and the embellishments it has made. Let's put it this way: we were never that bad and you were never that good. Jesus never promised that his followers would all be sinless. Peter was promised infalliblity not impeccability.
4. It would be nice to work together ecumenically. I normally get along with every pastor in town. However, as I said, if a pastor says he thinks the Catholic Church is the whore of babylon and then says he wants to be my friend it won't work. It is like telling a black man that you think blacks are inferior, but you like him personally. He would not take it kindly.
5. I hope it does work. Perhaps if Adventists saw all the good that the Catholic Church does then it will be easier for them to realize we are not the Beast.

I would be happy to come to the next Adventist general conference and address your delegates. Maybe if they heard what was going on and how it effected people they might begin to make some changes?

Aage,
I accept your apology. Thank you for your honesty. Please let go of any guilt you may still feel. I don't know where you are on your faith journey, but I will say a prayer for you.
Fr. Jim

It's really a great opportunity to have you participate here, Fr. Jim. Thanks again. I'd like to say that in the Adventist circle that I move in, nobody believes or teaches that the Catholic Church is the "whore of Babylon" or anything remotely like that anymore. Many, many Adventists have taken a hard look at the church's traditional eschatology and realized that it needed a serious rethink. You're very right that Ellen White needs to be taken in the context of her time. However, there are fringe groups related to Adventism (and in conservative parts of the country even the mainstream churches) that haven't started that self-reflection process yet.

However, the Adventist church allows a surprising amount of flexibility and autonomy to local congregations, so the local Adventist "flavor" can change a great, great deal depending on your location.

I guess I would just ask that you not judge every Adventist you meet based on your experiences with this "evangelist"--he doesn't represent me or anyone I know within the church. I did look him up in the Adventist yearbook (an open, online record that has the names of all church employees and credential-holding ministers), and Dave is right--it appears that he is no longer an Adventist minister in good standing. I wonder if the local church is aware of that. I hope they do repudiate these very ethically suspect tactics.

I heartily agree that Father Jim needs to be heard, not by a few here, but the entire G.C. regarding the affect of their form of evangelism and its reception by local churches and communities. This is not an isolated case, as most of the posters here can testify: it is the usual modus operandi: the Standard Operating Procedure.

This is all the evidence one needs to make a determined effort to never have this happen again and to inform, indoctrinate, and strongly discourage to the extent of not supporting and disallowing the use of the name Seventh-day Adventist by any of its evangelists who operate in this fashion. All the future seminary graduates; the employees of the denomination; and the entire body of church members need to be informed that from thenceforth this sort of chicanery and deception will never be allowed anymore!!

Irreparable damage has already been done; to continue in the face of such firsthand knowledge, is to be deaf, dumb, and blind.

Fr Jim
Just for the record, has the credentialed SDA pastor in your area said to you, or to anyone else you know, that the Catholic Church is "the whore of Babylon?" I ask this question having no idea what the answer is. But I do wonder what is going on in the Dakotas, Many thanks!
Dave

Fr. Jim

Sorry what I had in mind was my experience in Mexico, Central America, and the Philipines not my experience at Marquette U.

These international experiences demonstrated some pagan rituals that pre-date the Council of Trent--yet they remain.

I have no answers to the problem. I have high regards for
the Kenosis of Priests and Nuns and the community service they render to anyone in need. My point was regardless of intent any and I believe all denominations carry some baggage.

I worship at Reid Memorial Presbyterian Church but by no means am I a Calvinist nor do I endorse the Westminster Confessions or the Dort's TULIP. Tom

I do know that in the GNYC, the methods used by the evangelist in question would probably be somewhat tolerated. The message...i.e. the Catholic Church as the "whore of Babylon"... would probably be heartily endorsed by administration, just not presented in such offensive terms.

Unfortunately, the SDA church is not so progressive everywhere. Ironically, it's not so in one of our most progressive cities.

Thanks...

Frank

I think some of you are overly optimistic about the possibility of convincing Adventist leaders to renounce the church's anti-Catholic conspiracy theory. It is this libel that lies at the heart of the SDA emphasis on the seventh-day sabbath as the end-time "seal of God."

Outsiders might wonder why Adventists should focus so much on the Sabbath commandment as to derive much of their identity from it. There is no corresponding emphasis on lying (deception), for instance, nor the commandment against murder. The reason for that lies in Adventist apocalyptics.

According to classic Adventist thinking, the RCC will unify with "apostate protestantism" (which back in the day meant all churches who rejected William Miller's 1844 end-of-the-world crusade) in order to ram Sunday-keeping down the throats of God's own church, the hapless Seventh-day Adventists. Then these minions of Satan will try to crush God's truth entirely by ripping from the hands of the SDA church the standard flying the Sabbath commandment.

It's heartening to know that many Adventists are embarrassed by a libel elevated to doctrine, but don't expect it to be renounced officially any day soon.

PS The standard Protestant conspiracy theory confined itself to believing that the millions of Catholic immigrants to this country had been sent by the Vatican in order for the Pope to assume the reigns of government and to reintroduce the Inquisition. The early Adventists embellished this theory to accommodate their view that they alone were stewards of God's full truth and hence a particular target for the forces of evil.

Fr Jim

Just another one of my stories. While on the faculty at LLU, I organized field trips to the State of Chiapas, Mexico. About 30 physicians, dentists, medical students, dental students, nursing students and allied health students would spend a month in the hills of Chiapas, the coffee country, providing medical and dental care to the natives. Of course the only church was the Roman Catholic Church. During our first and second field trips the priest of local Catholic Church would organize protest demonstrations, several of which became physically threatening to the extent that the Governor sent a squad of national guard to accompany us.

Several times the Governor would fly in and take "credit" for bringing all this "free" medical and dental care. While the governor was present the priest put on a good face and we have several civil conversations. During those conversations, I suggested that we were not in his parish to proselytize but to serve an urge need and to provide on the job training for our students. I suggested that we didn't care who got the credit. I proposed that I let him know ahead of time which villages we intended to visit and when. He could promote the free medical and dental services and join us in our work. He liked the idea. There after, he enthusiatically promoted our visits. He would join us and organize the "lines" and generally keep order.

The benefits were many fold. For LLU it produced a dean of the School of Medicine, a dean of the School of Public Health, an associate dean of the school of dentistry, a chair of one of the departments of the School of Dentistry, a member of the Board of Trustees of LLU, a public health officer to the Monument Valley Indian Reservation, and at least one missionary to the far East. On my last trip, the priest and I were very good friends. In the face of dire human need, theology was not an issue. Tom

"I can certainly post horror stories of Protestants doing things that would horrify Torquemada. I think modern scholarship has exposed the black legend and the embellishments it has made. Let's put it this way: we were never that bad and you were never that good."

Fr. Jim,

If the context of our current conversation is converts and proselytizing, we operate from a different Paradigm and history.
We believe a mature decision must be made and that precludes infants from becoming members or making decsions for Christ.
This makes it somewhat harder for us.
We also allow people to disscent within the church without feeling they are risking their souls with excommunication if they choose to leave. This makes retaining those who choose to take a different path along the way more difficult.

You may be painting with to wide a brush since like you, we also deal with a spectrum of believers. Many of us admire Mother Teresa but we are also aware of the problems of molesting priests that has impacted your denominations credibility of late. We would never assume that represents the bulk of your Pastors, leadership or members and that is why I say your brush may be a bit wide. There was also much dicussion in the media on how slow the Catholic church was to address the scope of the problem, so I know you will understand when the area under discussion will not be perfected overnight.

We are a younger faith with admirable people and less than admirable people. We try different things at different times starting with good intentions.
As such it would be encouraging to have a modicum of grace whenever possible.
When your faith was much younger they tried things too and they might have even believed for the best of intentions, but this did not stop the reality of the crusades or the inquisitions or selling indulgences.

Though some may have stubbed their toe in the area currently under discussion and I am sure it will be reviewed on many levels, we can at least be thankful it is one of the smaller errors when seen against the scope of the last 500 years.

I do understand your perspective and find you to express it well given your beliefs, however you cannot expect us to completely shed every aspect of protestantism since many of those differences are still quite relevant today.

Many of these protestant vs Catholic issues we will have to agree to disagree as respectfully as possible.

Are you OK with that?

Thanks for coming here and participating. I know you may have felt out of your element or uncomfortable. I applaude your courage.

Michael
I suspect we're talking about projection when you write "I know you may have felt out of your element or uncomfortable. I applaude your courage."

I suspect Fr Jim is very comfortable, even happy, having the opportunity to address people that have such a distorted view of his church. The ones that feel uncomfortable are the ones that suddenly have to defend slander face to face with the slandered.

It's part of human nature to view people we don't know as "wholly other". Gays, liberals, Catholics--it's easy to malign those we don't know, to attribute evil intentions to people to those who live beyond the pale.

And conversely, we tend to be overly charitable to those we do know. For instance, you state confidently "We also allow people to disscent within the church without feeling they are risking their souls with excommunication if they choose to leave. This makes retaining those who choose to take a different path along the way more difficult." I'm sure that you would like the Adventist church to be like that but to offer it up as a description of it, falls under the label of love makes blind.

Remember EGW, who argued that many people would eventually be lost because they lived close enough to an SDA church that they could have to dropped in to hear what God's latest instructions were.

To my knowledge, no Adventist pastor is authorized to reassure a departing member that breaking with Adventist theology has no impact on their salvation as long as they are sincere. Please tell me that I'm wrong.

Aage

You are wrong, wrong, wrong! (And so was EGW!!! She was stilling reflecting her "Shut Door mind-set.) Your argument and citation has no more validity than saying:"If you keep your membership you have prior validation for salvation!

There is no Scripture in either the Old or New Testament that demands membership in any human designed institution. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Acts 16: 31. I don't know how living next door to bigots brings assurance. It certainly brings a great deal of patience and self control or an urge to move."

I must repeat this story. My Uncle and his wife, my dad's older sister, were Dutch Reform. Dad urged them to attend an SDA effort in Holland, Mich in the late 1930's. To please dad they attended every meeting. of course, the evangelist thought that meant they were in full accord with his message, so he made a house call. They are very gracious and listened to his synopsis. In his conclusion he said; now you have hear the entire message. You can accept and go to heaven or you can reject and go to hell. My uncle replied. "I suppost you think you are going to heaven." The evangelist replied: "Of course!" My uncle responded: "In that case, I would just as soon go to hell!" Now please leave my house! I was just a young lad in about the sixth grade, when I hear the story. I never was so proud of my uncle. Of course, Mom and Dad were embarrassed to tears. The extended family stuck together but I could feel a tension, I had never felt before.

Denominationalism including Adventism is a curse on the Gospel. Paul told us that a long long time ago. Tom

While I dont believe denominationalism is the curse of the gospel since it is simply a label for a set of beliefs as we discussed on the other thread, I do agree with Tom that salvation is no respecter of denominations. Any bible believeing Christian knows that Christ has sheep in many folds.
Perhaps Aage should also re-read the section on dissention since the idea encapsulated is excommunication.
Whatever Aages confusions are, I am hoping he doesnt claim the Adventist Church excommunicates people, because it would not only be false, but a gross misrepresentation.

Michael, wake up and smell the coffee! Where have you been--living in a cave?

While the SDA church may not use the term "excommunication" they freely "disfellowship" which has the same effect.
If you've never heard or known of anyone being
disfellowshipped, you've been oblivious or else
not around the Adventist church very long. Also,
ministers are often "defrocked" as they are members of the "cloth." Terminology is different, but removes those who the official church deems unsuitable for its pure and rarified state.

Elaine,
I do see I was not clear in my point surrounding excommunication. I was thinking more historically, Sorry, let me put it a different way.
Do Adventists believe that anyone has the power to bar another person from Heaven?
You have some aquaintance with history.

Michael

You define denominationalism as it should be not as it is.

While my son was in highschool he had a friend that he went bowling with on Sat Night. The friend arrived early. While my son was dressing, I entertained the friend. He had just been converted into a Southern Baptist Church. He wanted to talk religion. He said, he could tell in a minute if I was saved or not. I asked how? He said: "recite the Lord's Prayer. I began. Our Father Which art in Heaven, Hallowed by Thy Name. Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven. He stopped me there. He continued: You said "on" earth. It is not "on" earth it is "in" earth. We are earth and His will is to be done in us!" I said; in the Greek the word in, on, by, are all the same word. He replied: "Now I know you are not saved if you try to confuse things by referring to the Greeks. Theirs is a pagan language. I said: the New Testment is written in Greek. He still didn't buy it.

I said: I'm sorry you feel that way but have a good evening.

Now that is how denominationalism truly is!!!!!! Adventism is no exception. Imagine determining one's salvation on how close to a SDA church one lives! There is a woman in the Augusta SDA Church who claims to be a fifth generation Adventist and so she boasts to close friends that she is a sure bet to be among 144,000.

Salvation is a personal matter between one soul and the only
Lord and Savior. Affiliations be damned. Tom

Michael...

We all know the reality behind this question. But I do remember someone posting that when they left Adventism in favor of an evangelical church and notified the PMC church of their decision, they recieved a letter from Dwight Nelson expressing the hope that one day they would come back to Christ. While this is not a disfellowshipping, it does point out an unofficial yet intrinsic belief within Adventism...that a rejection of belief in our doctrines, and a repudiating or revocation of correlating membership over such, is tantamount to being cut off from Christ, even if one chooses to remain a Christian within another fellowship.

Such a pervasive belief and mindset still prevails through much of Adventism. And it carries much psychological power. If one is disfellowshipped, or even leaves for another denomination, they put their salvation in jeopardy. If I remember correctly, even the present GC president has stated such.

Different from excommunication only in matter of degree.

Thanks...

Frank

I'm not certain that all the recent responses to Michael reflect a true understanding of what he has been writing.

For example, I think it would be interesting to compare in further detail the Roman Catholic practice of excommunicating people and the Adventist [and other Protestant] practice of disfellowshipping them.

Perhaps they are identical. But my hunch is that a careful reading of the respective texts will unearth some important differences.

I have not worked through the material myself, however. Bill Cork could give us a lot of help. How can we get him involved?

Dave

One of the commenters, Billy Gager, wrote me a note a few days ago to say I'd not been quite fair with Steve DeLong by not getting his side of the story. I agreed with Billy, and felt I should do a little extra work on this story. So I wrote to Mr. DeLong, wanting some clarification about why evangelists hide the church's identity when they do their meetings.

Mr. DeLong said he didn't have time to make a full response (and as he's just finishing up a crusade, I'm sure that's true). He sent me a PDF of a pamphlet that he produced to answer questions specifically about this matter. It gives as clear an explanation of the reasoning behind concealing the church affiliation as one could come up with, I think. It's called ""The Perception of Deception" and is available from Color Press in Walla Walla (800-222-2145). He says it is what "most professional Evangelists, as well as many Conference Presidents are using for the church members as part of their pre-work prior to beginning an Evangelistic Crusade."

He specifically asked me not to share it on the Spectrum site, however. I have written to him, and hope he will change his mind. I do believe it would address some of the questions here. Even though it isn't my style to conceal my identity, this pamphlet explains why Steve, and others, use this method.

He also wrote, "If you want to do what's right and honest, you can retract what you said by simply clarifying what actually happened to me in your next article." I believe that his explanation has already been posted by Billy in a comment, above. I don't have any additional information beyond that. So by way of making a partial apology to Mr. DeLong for not contacting him about this first, I direct you to Billy's post, above, where Mr. DeLong explains what happened from his point of view.

Loren Seibold

Loren

I've just re-read Billy's previous post and I find it more troubling than anything the newspaper or the priest said.

By his own report Mr. DeLong refused to acknowledge his SDA connections even when he was directly asked about them.

It is one thing not to force this upon people; it is entirely another thing not to speak "the truth in love" when directly asked.

I keep returning to the fact that Mr. DeLong does not seem to be an authorized SDA minister in good and regular standing. There might be a reason for this.

Thanks again!

Dave

While this forum is a comforting place for those Adventists who tend to be willing to consider the bigger picture, what most here feel is not the official positions of the current church.

Frank alluded to the comments of the General conference President Jan Paulsen, published in the Church's official general paper, and I find them worth noting in this discussion as they give a clearer picture, in my mind as to what most Adventists believe.

"We shun the perception of being overly exclusive, but at the same time we believe that being Seventh-day Adventists has a direct bearing on our salvation; that while a believer can be saved as a Catholic, I would risk my whole spiritual life and salvation were I to leave what I am now and joined any other community" Jan Paulsen....GC President...Adventist Review...2002.

If you think there has been any change regarding the Investigative Judgment, or the use and authority od Ellen White, in the Adventist Church please review the whole statement found here....

http://www.adventistreview.org/2002-1524/story3.html

Randy

"There is a woman in the Augusta SDA Church who claims to be a fifth generation Adventist and so she boasts to close friends that she is a sure bet to be among 144,000.

Salvation is a personal matter between one soul and the only
Lord and Savior. Affiliations be damned. Tom"

Posted by: Tom Zwemer | 27 August 2008 at 7:09

Tom I agree both of those are terrible examples of the correct attitudes. Perhaps it is our different perspectives that makes us come to different conclusions.
You paint entire denominations as if each and every person in them act as those 2 did in your examples.
My perspective leads me to believe that those 2 people represent nothing except themselves and their own struggles and challenges.

"...I do remember someone posting that when they left Adventism in favor of an evangelical church and notified the PMC church of their decision, they recieved a letter from Dwight Nelson expressing the hope that one day they would come back to Christ. While this is not a disfellowshipping, it does point out an unofficial yet intrinsic belief within Adventism...that a rejection of belief in our doctrines, and a repudiating or revocation of correlating membership over such, is tantamount to being cut off from Christ, even if one chooses to remain a Christian within another fellowship....

Thanks...

Frank"

Posted by: frank7 (not verified) | 27 August 2008 at 7:15

Frank,
I believe the salient part of your example would be whatever a person leaves the church for. If they join a different Christian or Catholic denomination they are not rejecting Christ nessisarily IMO. If they were choosing a belief system that does there is legitimate concern. Nevertheless, we dont paint the whole of Adventism by what any leader even Dwight Nelson does any more than we paint all of Catholicism with the child molester brush because some of their Priests were involved with that.

Jan Paulsens statement is correct. Salvation is available outside the Adventist Church however in his example one cannot violate their consience without feeling their salvation might be at risk.
That is my take on his statement though I am open to other perceptions.
Thanks

I'm quite curious as to why Mr. Delong wouldn't want the pamphlet that "most professional Evangelists, as well as many Conference Presidents are using for the church members as part of their pre-work prior to beginning an Evangelistic Crusade."

I think the many other posts on this site clearly attest that Spectrum readers aren't opposed at all to the message of evangelism (although some message emphasis might differ from a traditional evangelistic perspective) but to the methods. If Mr. Delong is essentially saying that he uses the same methods that everyone else uses, why not share it? The pattern of obscuration and withholding of information is very troubling. If we don't respect people's basic humanity enough to even tell them our own background, how can we remotely imagine they'll trust the plan we have for their lives? This is the sort of evangelism that can sweep into a town and then leave; it's certainly not a sustainable approach that builds community.

Dave,

It seems to me this is one of the side-effects of understanding our faith as theological propositions; the door into the church being the acceptance of those propositions. And so we will do whatever we can to get people to listen to and believe what we tell them, even if it means not being especially transparent.

I don't think I've ever had anyone come into the church, and remain, based solely on acceptance of the doctrines. The deciding factor has more to do with relationships—with other people, with God. The doubts and questions people in the church express tells me that people remain for non-theological reasons, too. That's also why newly-baptized people leave the church after these crusades: they have only facts, not relationships.

If I were an evangelist, I'd be embarrassed at the few who remain as fruits of my work. We all talk about it, all know the abysmal record of people remaining after these crusades, but we keep doing them.

More and more, I've had the experience of hearing baptizees say, "I love this congregation. There's such warmth and acceptance here," even when they yet know only the bare bones of our denomination's beliefs. That's the kind of evangelism I like!

Loren

Daneen,

I, too, am puzzled why he wouldn't want others here to see it. I suppose someone at Walla Walla could run down to Color Press and get a copy of "The Perception of Deception"—Color Press owns it, apparently—but for my part, I am going to abide by Mr. DeLong's request.

Loren

Dave Larson, you can get me involved just by giving a holler.

The question is to compare and contrast Catholic and Adventist views on ultimate church discipline.

First, the Adventist, as described in the 2005 edition of the CHURCH MANUAL. The term "disfellowship" is no longer used; it is now "removal from church membership." It is to be used "only after the instruction given in this chapter has been followed, and after all possible efforts have been made to win and restore him/her to right paths."

Members shall be subject to discipline for a number of reasons: "denial of faith in the fundamentals of the gospel and in the cardinal doctrines of the church or teaching doctrines contrary to the same," "violation of the law of God," including idolatry, murder, theft, profanity, gambling, Sabbath breaking, falsehood, sexual misconduct of various kinds, remarriage of a divorced person (except for the innocent partner of an adulterer), physical violence, fraud, "disorderly conduct which brings reproach upon the church," "adhering to or taking part in a divisive or disloyal movement or organization," "persistent refusal to recognize properly constituted church authority or to submit to the order and discipline of the church," and use, manufacture, or sale of alcoholic beverages, tobacco, and narcotics or other drugs.

Discipline must be done in a timely manner; caution must be followed; ministers and churches cannot set up tests of fellowship beyond what the denomination has done. Must happen at a duly called business meeting, and that only after the church board has reviewed the case. Must be a majority vote. Can't be a church board. The member has a right to be heard in their own defense; individual must have due notice. You can't be removed for nonattendance or for financial reasons.

Notification must be given to the person of the church's action. It should be in writing, and delivered in person.

Those disciplined by the church, whether through censure (which has a time limit attached to it) or removal from membership, cannot vote or hold office, but "He/She is not deprived ... of the privilege of sharing the blessings of Sabbath School, church worship, or the ordinances of the Lord's house." This is important. The purpose of discipline is winning the person back, and you don't want to cut that person off from fellowship, hearing the word, or even from communion at the Lord's table.

Many of us can tell stories of cases where the rules haven't been followed. But there they are.

Catholic norms are contained in the Code of Canon Law, which may be read online at the Vatican webpage: http://tinyurl.com/canon-law

Starting with Canon 1311, "Excommunication" is a form of "censure" for Catholics, not a step beyond censure.

An excommunicated person can have no "ministerial participation" in worship (no public praying, distributing communion, reading Scripture, etc.); is "forbidden ... to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals and to receive the sacraments." So here's a clear difference--an excommunicated Catholic can't receive communion, be confirmed, be married, be ordained, etc. (or participate in the sacramentals, which presumably would include being invested with a scapular, having a rosary or house blessed, etc.). They "cannot acquire validly a dignity, office, or other function in the Church." They do not "appropriate the benefits of a dignity, office, any function, or pension, which the offender has in the Church."

Can. 1341. Excommunication is not imposed by a pastor or a parish council, but by the ordinary--that is, the bishop. There should be time for "fraternal rebuke and correction," and the ordinary should use "a judicial or administrative process." But "just causes" (1342) can preclude this, and it can be imposed by "extrajudicial decree." He has some leeway, and can modify or suspend the penalty (1344), especially if there are extenuating circumstances (1345).

Can. 1347, the person must be warned in advance.

Penalties are remitted at various levels, depending upon the offense; some by the confessor, some by the bishop, and some only by the Vatican (1354 ff). Re-baptism is never an option. Baptism is an unrepeatable sacrament.

There are different kinds of excommunication--some are declared, but there are some actions which incur excommunication "latae sententiae" (that is, it happens automatically just by virtue of the fact that you did the act for which this was the penalty).

What are some reasons you could be excommunicated? (Can. 1364ff)

If you're "an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic," it's "latae sententiae." Also, if you throw away the Eucharist or use it profanely--but that can only be remitted by the Vatican. Same if you use physical force against the pope.

You can be excommunicated if you let your child be baptized or educated in another faith.

Can. 1372, you are to be excommunicated if you appeal the pope's decision to an ecumenical council (that was one of the reasons Luther was excommunicated).

Can. 1378, a priest is excommunicated "latae sententiae" if, in confession, he absolves someone he had sex with; this can only be remitted by the Vatican.

Murder, kidnapping, wounding, or other physical violence won't get you excommunicated.

"Can. 1398 A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication."

I could go on about different kinds of trials and legal procedures, but that gets very complicated.

Summary

Note, no Adventist penalty can deprive the person of Communion--but deprivation of the sacraments is the essential penalty (whether excommunication or interdict) that is imposed by the Catholic church.

Note that Adventist penalties require due process involving not merely the pastor, but the church board, and then a public business meeting, where the person has the right to be heard in their defense. Catholic penalties can be automatically incurred or imposed by the bishop.

Moral failures, important in Adventist cases, are trivial concerns for Catholic canon law. Murder would get you removed from membership in an Adventist church, but it wouldn't get you excommunicated from the Catholic church (unless you killed the pope).

Adventists will restore anyone at the local level--only the pope can remit some penalties for Catholics.

Adventists cover a few pages--Catholic laws, dozens and dozens of pages. Adventists don't need canon lawyers trained in the intricacy of church laws like Catholics do. Adventists have no standing tribunals. I had one course on Canon Law at the University of St. Thomas School of Theology at St. Mary's Seminary in Houston, and that just dealt with ministry and marriage issues. The professor stressed the pastoral intent ... but it remains as complex a subject as studying civil law.

So, Dave, does that help?

Michael

It was not the examples, it was the concept of triumphalism
that is prevasive in most if not all denominations. My reference to Paul was to his writings to the Church in Corinth. See 1 Cor. 3: 4-23.

I like the way Dr. Johnson Chaplain at Furman University put it in his homily at at an ecumenical conference about 20 years ago. His sermon was to the delegates that represented 28 denominations. His sermon was entitled: Our Basic Common Beliefs. His closing remarks were: One can same more but one cannot say less than Jesus Christ is Lord.

That is the sum of Paul's writing in the reference above.

So I stand with Paul, not EGW on that issue.

I only get my juices flowing on the issue when some evangelist comes with a message of fear, egotism, and exclusiveness. A trait that is pandemic in the breed.

I prefer the still small voice of reason of a Maxwell, Richards, or Heubach--a voice I hear most often in Augusta at Reid Memorial Presbyterian Church. I am sure there are many others in all communities of faith. Tom

Stephenie, I am glad of that. I hope that this becomes the official teaching of the Adventist church.

David, it was taught at the seminar. The pastor didn't get up and tell the people that DeLong was wrong. If he did I didn't hear him. I will write him however and ask. I have also heard other Adventists state it directly and clearly.

Tom, some pagans practiced, and still do, forms of baptism. Does that mean baptism is pagan? Also different cultures have different ideas of expression. Maybe what seemed strange to you is normal to a Mexican? The Church is universal after all. I was a Calvinist myself, but was predestined to become Catholic lol. I am sure the priest in Chiapas did not trust Adventists and has endured a great deal of sheep stealing. You can imagine how I will feel the next time I meet an Adventist who claims he just wants to help?

Michael, I don't expect you to stop being Protestants. I just want you to be honest in identifying yourselves and to take a look at your interpretation of scripture. It is always interesting how the sex scandals come up in these discussions. Shall we discuss Adventist scandals? The fact is that if we are wrong because our Church has sinners then you are in the same boat. I don't think you understand what excommunication is in Catholic law. It is not easy to be excommunicated and we never say that even an excommunicated person is automatically damned. I have read of Adventists who were treated very badly after they left, others here agree. We do not teach btw that non-Catholic Christians cannot be saved. We even accept their baptisms as valid. Most of my family is Protestant.

If you want a detailed explanation of excommunication according to canon law I can refer you to some sources. Bill is not a canon lawyer. I am. His comments are not accurate. Excommunication is a medicinal penalty. It only can be applied against delicts specifically mentioned in the code. The person must be imputable (Can. 1321 §1 No one can be punished for the commission of an external violation of a law or precept unless it is gravely imputable by reason of malice or of culpability.). There are a wide range of reasons as to why even if the offense was committed that the person is not excommunicated. If it is declared or imposed then the rules of due process must be followed. Also if it is not declared or imposed the punishment is lessened. They cannot receive Holy Communion, but a person in a state of mortal sin isn't supposed to reason Holy Communion either until they go to confession. A medicinal penalty MUST be lifted as soon as the person repents. There is much much more, but Bill is quoting canons without understanding. I suggest the book Excommunication and the Catholic Church by Dr. Edward Peters.

Bill, please do not comment on canon law. You are right it is very complex. That's why we spend 3 years learning it.

Rev. Siebold, so Mr. DeLong actually has a pamphlet that explains why he deceives and refuses to answer direct questions as to his church affiliation? I am glad he wants to respond to this issue, but he responds by not responding. Isn't that the problem? Why can't he just honestly answer the question? Why does he need to obfuscate? Doesn't he realize how that makes him look?

I am glad this discussion is happening. It pleases me that something good is coming out of evil. I hope it doesn't stop here, but goes up to the General Conference.

"The fact is that if we are wrong because our Church has sinners then you are in the same boat."

I believe I stated that quite clearly multiple times.

"Michael, I don't expect you to stop being Protestants. I just want you to be honest in identifying yourselves and to take a look at your interpretation of scripture."

Thats good advice and one area where it might be a little easier for us since we dont have to deal with church tradition being equal to scripture.

"I am sure the priest in Chiapas did not trust Adventists and has endured a great deal of sheep stealing."

We would of course see that as mature people making decisions for themselves. Without that element we might claim the Catholics as sheep stealers too since all babies are bathed at some point prior to being sprinkled ;) In fact water births are becoming quite common!

Come on. That had to bring at least a little grin to your face. Sometimes we have to laugh at ourselves. I know I got a good chuckle out of Toms little old lady who thinks shes special because shes 5th generation SDA.

Have a good evening.

"His comments are not accurate."

I gave the citations and the link. Folks can judge for themselves.

I had a good canon law teacher; he taught me how to put it into plain language. All the points you made by way of refutation I had made, if you'll take a look.

"It only can be applied against delicts specifically mentioned in the code."

Yes, and I listed many of them.

"There are a wide range of reasons as to why even if the offense was committed that the person is not excommunicated."

Yep, I mentioned that, too.

"If it is declared or imposed then the rules of due process must be followed."

I mentioned that.

Now, here are some cases in which excommunication has been applied. It doesn't happen often (I never heard of it being done a single time in my nine years as a departmental director for the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston).

The Vatican says women who attempted ordination are automatically excommunicated.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=12780

Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln excommunicated a whole slew of folks in one fell swoop: members of Planned Parenthood, Society of St. Pius X, Hemlock Society, St. Michael the Archangel Chapel, Freemasons, Job's Daughters, DeMolay, Eastern Star, Rainbow Girls and Catholics for a Free Choice. The Vatican upheld his action.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0606995.htm

Some church board members were excommunicated in St. Louis for defying the bishop; incoming board members were threatened with excommunication.

http://tinyurl.com/6yx8q5

Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo was excommunicated ordaining some married men as bishops.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=7693

I know of no priests who have been excommunicated for sexual abuse of children.

I might just interject at this point that while an interesting (and potentially constructive) interfaith conversation seems to be happening, I hope that it doesn't give wat to a denominational shoot-out.

I raise my glass to constructive, vigorous (if need be) dialog. Thanks to Fr. Jim for jumping in with some insights and perspectives outside of our purview. The clarification is helpful.

Carry on.

O. K.

Fr. Jim and Michael

Now you know why I feel that denominatinalism is a curse a la 1 Cor 3. If we build our faith and life style of Christ alone
we can meet in full trust and friendship. Fr. Jim--baptism or the Sabbath wasn't mentioned once not ever tithing or meat eating. We did go so far as to demonstrate how to use a privy, and how to take drinking water up strean and not down.

The funniest thing that happened one year, a evangelist insisted on joining us. We said, o.k but evangelism is out of the question. We will teach you how to be nurses aids. Well one night, he had to preach. So he decided to give a modified end-of time sermon. He attempted to talk about how knowledge was increasing. supersonic planes, atom bombs, television, etc. He had to preach through an interpreter. The atom bomb was the best. He felt they probably knew about ordinary explosives so he attempt to demonstrate the sound difference between ordinary explosives with a modest boom and a weak raising of the hands. He followed that with a loud boom and arms, legs, body airborn. The interpreter had to do the same in Spanish. You can imagine 20 plus LLU students in the audience. He stuck to nurses aid after than. On the bus home, just as everyone was almost asleep, some student would let out a large "boom". Now of the value. On our usual trip we would extract 5000-7000 badly decaded and infected teeth. The typical dental student in his learning cycle would extract about 100 teeth. The medical students would treat patients with anything from snake bite, to intestinal parasites, and the men with knive wounds, infections of all kinds, the nurses and doctors delivered babies in bush like conditions.
Everyone one left all their clothing except the clothes on the backs and their sleeping bags and any extra food.

I have never been so tired and to happy.

The next year we returned they proudly showed us the use of the pivy--used to store root vegetables. A three to four week trip can handle only acute problems. Tom

"We shun the perception of being overly exclusive, but at the same time we believe that being Seventh-day Adventists has a direct bearing on our salvation; that while a believer can be saved as a Catholic, I would risk my whole spiritual life and salvation were I to leave what I am now and joined any other community" Jan Paulsen....GC President...Adventist Review...2002.

"Jan Paulsens statement is correct. Salvation is available outside the Adventist Church however in his example one cannot violate their consience without feeling their salvation might be at risk."

Michael,

Jan Paulsen's statement doesn't seem to me to address the idea of violating one's consciense. He is simply stating, using a generalized I, that if one were to leave Adventism and join any other faith community, that they would risk their whole spiritual life and salvation.

How does that play for those who have left while following their consciences? For those who have joined other denominations and are flourishing spiritually? We have examples of this right here on this site.

This seems to give credence to what I stated earlier, that there exsists an intrinsic mindset within Adventism, or at least among many Adventists, that once someone leaves, no matter what the reason, no matter whether they have done so in good consciense, no matter whether or not they have joined another Christian fellowship, that they have somehow left Christ, or are in the process of leaving him.

How can this not be part of our mindset? We officially believe that we are the remnant church of Bible prophecy. The remnant, throughout the Scriptures, is always described as the group that God will save as opposed to the unsaved masses of Israel. We have managed, by our official belief system, to equate ourselves with that group.

This can exert tremendous psychological power on the minds of many. A picture is painted that outside Adventism there is only an abyss. To leave is tantamount to plunging into it.

Well, Mike... that's my take at least.

Thanks...

Frank

Fr Jim

Seems you are caught in the same mind-set as the Adventists
You have to find an excuse for unexcusable behavior. I thought you were made of better stuff. I don't think my heros in the Roman Catholic Church would have responded as you did: Theodore Hesburgh, Pope John XXIII, Father Mac, Hans Kung, and Thomas Cahill. But cheers for coming forward on exposing some every uncouth behavior in sheep stealing. Tom

Michael, making mature decision is fine. That is part of my problem with Mr. DeLong. He was not honest with the people he was preaching too and that makes it impossible for them to make a mature decision. I do not hide my affiliation or any of our beliefs when I preach.

Bill, your teacher should be ashamed. For example: "Can. 1398 A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication." However, if the person was a minor, was forced to do it, was mentally incompetent, did not know there was a penalty etc. then there is no excommunication. You imply otherwise. Someone just leaving the Church is not necessarily excommunicated. There are many factors involved. The canons are fine, but your commentary is sloppy at best. If you needed legal work done would you go to someone who took a law class or a real lawyer? Also it was nice of you to slip in the usual scandal comment. You of course know that such sins are mortal and if not repented of land one in hell. They also mean the person should not receive Communion. Do you really honestly think the Adventist church has never had any sexual scandals? How does that log in your eye feel Bill?

Tom, I do not think that one follows Christ and not be in fellowship with other disciples. I see the Church as essential. In fact all the baptized our in some form of communion with the Church, even non-Catholics. Granted it isn't full communion, but there is a relationship. Faith is never just God and me. Denominationalism is a problem because once people decide that they interpret the Bible personally, without reference to where it came from, then the door is open for all kinds of errors. I have worked with various denominations, but they did not demonize us. They didn't believe in the papacy, but didn't think it was the anti-Christ. That makes working together a whole lot easier. I understand that priest in Chiapas. He has probably dealt with all kinds of groups coming down and luring his parishioners away. He is alone and overworked. He does not have their resources. So he isn't very trusting. Is that really surprising?

You will note that I do not claim Adventists are the Beast. I don't go around doing seminars claiming that EG White is the anti-Christ. Yes, I get angry and I am angry. You sound pretty reasonable. But others here are not. Have you any idea of how annoying it is to have to answer the same line about the inquisition, often vastly embellished, every time you post on the net? People bring up problems from 1000 years ago or they use the recent scandals to tar us. They have no real interest in them other then as a way to bash us. Then they object if I bring up things they prefer not to hear about. I see history in context, that is not excusing the inexcusable. The crusades should be seen in their historical context. EG White should be seen in hers. How is that the same mindset as the Adventists? I am very different. I will grant you that I have little in common with Hans Kung. I have never been impressed with him. His mindset is actually closer to the Adventist one in a strange sort of way. Both hate the papacy. My attitude is that we should be able to disagree and discuss things without calling each other Satan. How is that wrong?

Hugo's blog contains a post by him that I think needs to be read. It sums up the anger and hurt that Catholics feel. If you want to know why I react the way I do I think this explains it pretty well:

"Over the past few days, this blog has seen a flurry of comments. In that time, I have noticed a phenomenon I frequently noticed in Adventist contexts: many Adventists do not appreciate how hurt Catholics really are by Adventist attacks against our Church (however sincere). Allow me to voice the pains of my fellow Catholics.

Adventists rightfully condemn misinformation circulated by other Christians about their group. They take pains to defend their teachings against critics, who make websites disparaging Ellen White and their entire movement. At worst, Adventism has been labeled a "cult," and Adventists have every right to resist the label.

But, Adventists condemn the Catholic Church as far more than a "cult"; they publicly slander the Church (and especially the Bishop of Rome) as the "antichrist," "beast," "whore of Babylon," "blaspheming little horn," "the man of sin," and "the lawless one." Does any Christian group make analogous claims about Adventists? They distribute literature that calls upon Protestants to "abhor popery" as a "most dangerous foe" "the apostasy of the last days" and "a mammoth system of deception" (GC 562-581), and contains a plethora of negative caricatures of Catholics. They spend millions of dollars each year to broadcast these claims worldwide (e.g., public prophecy seminars, satellite series, correspondence bible schools and tracts, bible work, etc.), believing it their raison d'etre to warn the world of the evil of Catholicism, according to the proclamation of both "the second and third angels" (Rev 14:8-11). In many countries, Adventist evangelists primarily target Catholics. Worse, many of their ordained evangelists profoundly misrepresent the Catholic Church before international audiences (e.g., Doug Batchelor saying Catholics are considering making Mary a fourth member of the Godhead, that we worship Mary as a deity, etc.). No Adventist leader has publicly corrected or apologized for these errors; there is virtually no accountability.

. . . And then, many of them wonder why Catholics feel victimized. Fr. Jim (in Grand Forks), for one, has every right to protect his congregation and be frustrated by an Adventist evangelist (temporarily) obscuring his seminar's message to draw in unsuspecting Catholics.

Mind you, I accept and appreciate the distinction between condemning "the institution" rather than "the people within it" (though "inspired" Adventist literature has just as readily slandered Catholics). But make no mistake: we are as frustrated by the misinformation and negative caricatures Adventist circulate about us, as Adventists are about those circulated against them by other Christians. Perhaps we have greater reason for frustration. Our Church faces fiercer accusations ("antichrist"); moreover, no Christian group spends millions of dollars annually to directly counter or misrepresent Adventism, the way Adventists do against the Church we love.

Adventists have every right to issue these claims, in conformity with their beliefs. They are sincere, as was I; I loved Catholics, and thought I did God service through my opposition to their beliefs. But Catholics are not about to thank Adventists for their condemnations of our Church, or the misinformation they present. And neither will Catholics remain passive. I find it astounding that some Adventists criticize my DIES DOMINI essays as "unnecessary" or "combative." Defending Catholic theology against its critics is the least I can do for my God and my Church.

. . . And I don't care if all the Protestant Reformers also labeled us as antichrist, haha. Is that observation supposed to make it hurt less?

I'm sorry if I sound too negative, but honestly, how are Catholics to react?"

I sent my summary of canon law on excommunication to some friends, including one at the Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston.

His comments:

I would say that what you have written is correct. Additionally, I would make these comments; I would write “staring with canon 1312” rather than 1311. Rather than “censure” I would use “medicinal penalty”. I would add at the end of the paragraph about the effects of excommunication that “However, an excommunicated person is still a member of the Church and is to live as a faithful member of the Church, including attending Sunday liturgy”.

Stylistically, in paragraphs 9-11, I would write “person” (as you wrote elsewhere) rather than “you”.

Oh, and Jim, if you'll look at what I wrote, I did note that "extenuating circumstances (1345)" are to be considered. Remember, this is to summarize for Adventists. They just need enough to be able to compare.

Fr Jim

Neither do I!!!! And I never have. The only discussion I have had as been on the issue of the Immaculate Conception.
Even Hans Kung questions that--not originating in any Church Council. Even that discussion has been in friendship with several dear cousins. I don't support SDA evangelism. If you have been following my post you know my low regard for Revelation seminars. Of course, I believe in fellowship. Which I currently enjoy at Reid Memorial Presbyterian Church.

It is well known, I do not support the Westminster Confessions or the deviousness of the Counsel at Dort. I come from a long line of Dutch Reform adherents with which I enjoy close fellowship. Yet they also know my scope in regard to Calvin. I believe one can disagree without being disagreeable or vindictive. Latter Day Saints and Jehovah Witnesses have been dinner guests in my home without a mumbling word.

Jesus Christ is judge, not me.

Yet I think I can match Christian for Christian at Marquette and LLU> both of which I taught for eight years. I am always ready to give testimony as to my beliefs and confidence in Jesus Christ, If others agree, I am of course please, If not we are still friends and God loves us both. Tom

Frank,
Thanks for sharing your perceptions on Paulsens statement.

If as you say he is using the generic "I" how does that play out with where he says "We shun the perception of being overly exclusive...and.... that while a believer can be saved as a Catholic...".

If (thought 1) is, Christ has sheep not of this fold, and (thought 2) is as you percieve, how can they agree or make sense if thought 2 is as you percieve? Dont they go against each other?

Michael,

No, I don't believe they go against each other in the line of Adventist thinking. Thought 1 is that those of other folds do not have the light that Adventists do, therefore God judges them up to the light they have.

Thought 2 is that once one has come into the full light as taught in Adventism, to leave it means to reject God and his light, even if one finds themselves conscientiously disagreeing on what they feel are biblical grounds. Even if one joins with another Christian community or fellowship. Thus, one puts their salvation in jeopardy. At least this is the way I've often understood how this dynamic has been explained throughout the years.

Kind of sounds like membership in la Cosa Nostra...once you're in, there's no way out...you know what I'm sayin'?? =)

A little fun!

Thanks...

Frank

That was my personal experience some 25 years ago. When my close relative, a conference president, found that I had requested my name be removed from the SDA church, he told me that I was "leaving the Good Ship Zion" that was going through to the kingdom. The denomination was the "ship" and anyone electing to leave was risking eternal salvation.

This is not a new concept, as most of Adventist literature and evangelism has adopted this principle. Those, who after listening to an evangelistic series cannot accept the "testing truths" (read: Sabbath or the IJ), will be out of the fold.

This, IMO, is rank heresy and should have been placed on the trash heap long ago.

Fr. Jim:

Your attacks on Bill Cork's comments have cost you credibility with me. I appreciate reading what you have to say but, please, address the main point rather than picking nits. Part of the spirit of blog discussion getting to the main points without pausing for every detail. We don't demand that you take Adventist seminary courses on Daniel and Revelation before commenting about our beliefs on this blog. I expect you to give to same courtesy to Bill.

Thanks,

David Hamstra
apokalupto

Adventists who embrace the ethics of Jesus are put in an impossible situation when it comes to navigating between a libelous anti-Catholic doctrine and the ethics of brotherly love.

Anthropologist point out that societies contemplating warfare prepare the ground by demonizing their victims, thus justifying behavior that they would condemn, were it directed at themselves. For Adventists it's necessary to smear the Catholic church in order to justify such patently unchristian behavior.

Adventist tend to come back and argue that the Catholic church got itself into this situation by behaving like the Antichrist. Here's my reply to that:

1. As Father Jim points out, Christians are equal opportunity offenders. Adultery and other sexual misconduct has, to my knowlege, always followed the Adventist clergy like an ominious cloud. Stories are legion, if you're willing to ask around.

2. The Inquisition and the Crusades and other medieval abominations were the abominations of the Western Church, in whose loins every Protestant lodged. The Western church committed horrible sins but they were not "Catholic" sins, they were the Church's sins. Yours, if you will.

If you want to argue that the Christian church turned into the Great Hore of Babylon, go for it but don't pretend that it was "Catholic" as opposed to "Protestant".

The only legitimate issue regarding the relative merits of Protestantism and Catholicism can only be made about the period following the Reformation. The divorce between the two parts of Western Christianity was messy and accusations have flown back and forth, but I don't believe that history is about to bestow sainthood on either party.

The truth of the matter is that the medieval church suffered from homicidal certainty in theological matters and both Protestants and Catholics have struggled to free themselves from that legacy.

Adventists, I suspect, cannot officially admit as much because it would undermine the libel around which it's apocalyptic doctrine is based.

Only those who are ignorant of Christian history can blame the church: it's like blaming your parents or grandparents. There would be no Christians today if the one Christian church (our ancestors) had not kept it alive for 1400 years.

That was my personal experience some 25 years ago. When my close relative, a conference president, found that I had requested my name be removed from the SDA church, he told me that I was "leaving the Good Ship Zion" that was going through to the kingdom. The denomination was the "ship" and anyone electing to leave was risking eternal salvation.

Posted by: Elaine Nelson (not verified) | 28 August 2008 at 8:53

Are you sure your close personal relative was giving you his conference presidents or official opinion? Or knowing you, because he was a close personal relative, he was giving you his personal opinion?

I guess what I am getting at is wouldnt part of the equasion be whatever a person was leaving the church for? Would his opinion have been the same if you had found fellowship in the 7th day Baptist or whatever faith, instead of where you might find yourself now?

Bill, I disagree. You have attempted in your interpretation to slant it to look like justice is arbitrary in our Church. Certainly in the context that is exactly what you have done. Excommunication is very rare in the Catholic Church. You have to work at it to achieve it. I would say our system is fairer then yours. From what I read those who leave the Adventist church can find themselves shunned and reviled. If they want to compare the two systems then they can read Peter's book or contact the Canon Law Society of America. I would ask did you also include in what you sent your friend on the tribunal your mention of the scandals?

Tom, I have no doubt that you repudiate what I heard at the prophesy seminar. If all Adventists took your approach this discussion would never need to have happened. I studied once under one of Kungs classmates. He gave us some inside understanding of Kung. Basically he denies papal infallibility, but is completely certain of his own lol. Unfortunately he remains under a cloud and can teach, but not as a Catholic theologian. Actually that is what should happen to Mr. DeLong, we still don't know what his status is but if he has any kind of license it could be revoked. That way everyone would know he only speaks for himself. I would ask you what percentage of Adventists have the view of Catholicism that you have? Is it a minority or majority in the Adventist church? I would like to have some hope that there is some future in ecumenism with the Adventist church.

David, unfortunately Bill and I are not on very good terms personally. That effects our discussion. I have asked him why, but have received no answer. In my opinion as a canonist he was slanting the Catholic law on excommunication in order to make us look bad. That seems to be his goal. I gave a precise example because Bill seems to want me to answer him point by point. I agree that that would be to time consuming. Apparently he is a former Catholic and has a beef with us. I don't know what it is. As a priest I suspect he projects his anger onto me. But it is not an excuse for slanting what we believe. You may feel I go to far in demanding he be a canon lawyer, but if he is going to comment on the law then he needs to understand it. If I commented on brain surgery and a surgeon disagreed which would carry more weight? In addition Bill makes sure he tosses in a reference to the sex scandals. That is intended as an insult to me. I considered it an attack on me personally. If someone attempted to smear you with allusions to pedophilia I suspect you would be upset too. I think you should consider his level of credibility. If Bill is willing to ratchet down the level of animosity I will do my best to reciprocate, but I will not allow him to misrepresent my faith.

Please Jim,
In Bills list he simply gave a sample list of different items and the published means of dealing with some of them. In and amongst those issues were things like murder robbery ect. He simply mentioned child molestation as one of them but that he was unaware of anyone being excommunicated for that particular offence.

I fail to see why you would be more personally offended by his refering to how they handle molestation than you would by his mention of murder or robbery.
You mention you are a lawyer in this area. Fine. Thank you for your expertise but please dont play at being a Psychologist.
You seem to assume or infer too much to the detriment of your blood pressure.
Your statements are full of conjecture.

1. In my opinion as a canonist he was slanting the Catholic law in order to make us look bad.
2.That seems to be his goal.
3.Apparently he is a former Catholic and has a beef with us.
4.I suspect he projects his anger onto me.
5.That is intended as an insult to me.
6.I considered it an attack on me personally.
7.If someone attempted to smear you with allusions to pedophilia...

One would have to be some kind of a mind reader to make the assumptions you have.

The law is reason, free from passion.
I dont percieve that with especially your last post. I percieve passion for sure, but not reason. Surprising for a lawyer.

Fr. Jim:

Did Bill accuse you on this blog of being a pedo? Was his statement about pedophilia connected to you personally. Not that I saw. If someone were to write that they knew of no Adventist minister whose name was removed from membership for adultery, would that mean they are smearing me, an Adventist minister, as an adulterer.

I have met Bill Cork personally and discussed his departure from the Roman Catholic Church with him. He did not seem angry to me. I heard him give a guest lecture in a seminary ecclesiology class in which his reasons for leaving the RCC. Afterward the professor remarked to me that he couldn't believe Bill had only been out of the RCC for one year because of the academic detachment with which he spoke.

Fr. Jim, do you believe that someone could have good, substantive reasons for leaving the RCC, that they could share these reasons with others, that it could be the right thing for them to do at that point of their faith journey, and that it is possible for such people to leave and not be angry-ex Catholics? I believe, as an Adventist minister, that it is possible for an Adventist to leave the fellowship of the Adventist Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, although I do believe that in the ideal world such a thing would not be necessary. But then again, we do not live in an ideal world, do we?

David Hamstra
apokalupto

Hi Everybody! Great conversation!! Perhaps I can add a few thoughts:

1. I think I was the first to invite Bill to join our discussion because, of all the people I know, his insider's knowledge of both RCism and SDAism is the greatest.

I'm very grateful that Bill and Jim took time to participate and that they have had a good exchange. I have found it very informative, particularly with respect to the sacraments.

I gather from what they have both said that I would be unwise to equate without qualification how the two communities of faith exercise church discipline. I think this is something about which we all agree.

2. I think that everyone in this discussion also agrees that the tactics Mr. DeLong reportedly uses are unworthy of the high calling of Christian ministry. I have read no one defend his methods, as we understand them.

3. One of us should acquire "The Perception of Deception" pamphlet and review it for this web site. Loren would be the logical one because he initiated this discussion. But if he can't, someone else should.

4. I find it easier to deal with SDAism's faults and failures when I see how honorable people in RCism deal with its.

Anybody can storm out of a community of faith in self-righteous disgust because of its shortcomings.

But to stay by and do one's best, to affirm what one can and challenge what one can't, is the more difficult and more impressive option, in my view.

5. One little note about SDAism and denominational exclusivism. Like many others, this topic is perhaps more complex than it first appears.

On the one hand, it is very easy to find in SDA materials exceedingly negative attitudes toward others, or "the other" in today's lingo.

But it is also very easy to find in SDA literture the idea that, not only Christians of other perusasions, but also aherents to other world religions or no religion at all, are in a positive relationship with God if they follow their understanding of truth whereever it leads them.

We call it "living up to the light you have."

This conviction is under pressure in SDAism from those who hold that one is forever lost if one does not consciously accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. But it remains, and as long as SDAs read "The Desire of Ages" it will not completely disappear.

THANKS AGAIN!

Dave

"You have attempted in your interpretation to slant it to look like justice is arbitrary in our Church. Certainly in the context that is exactly what you have done. Excommunication is very rare in the Catholic Church."

No. I mentioned due process. I mentioned the steps. I said a bishop can for "just cause" bypass that, and cited the canon. I was comparing the two systems. I noted that it was rare, and gave examples in the news of folks who have been excommunicated and folks who have not.

"From what I read those who leave the Adventist church can find themselves shunned and reviled."

I wasn't. Nor was I shunned and reviled by Catholics when I left. The priests who worked for me remain friends.

"Bill makes sure he tosses in a reference to the sex scandals. That is intended as an insult to me."

No, I wasn't writing to you or thinking about you. I was responding to David Larson. I was pointing out the difference that Adventists more often "remove from membership" people with moral issues; Catholics do not tend to "excommunicate" people for either theological or moral reasons.

"David, unfortunately Bill and I are not on very good terms personally. That effects our discussion. I have asked him why, but have received no answer."

I've never met you. Not on good terms personally? We've had some discussions on this blog and on Hugo's. I have remained cheerful and upbeat as I write. I do not recall you asking such a question. Perhaps I missed it.

"Apparently he is a former Catholic and has a beef with us. I don't know what it is. As a priest I suspect he projects his anger onto me."

A beef? Anger? I think if you look at our mutual responses, on this blog and Hugo's, you'll see some anger. It isn't coming from me. Over at Hugo's, and here, some of the folks in the conversation know me in real life. One person over there has known me for about 12 years. He comes to my house, I go to his. We are good friends. You're reading into what I've written something that isn't there. That's demonstrated by the fact that a canon lawyer who knows me read my analysis and said, "Sounds good; here's how to make it better." He didn't get upset or think I was pointing fingers in his direction.

David H. said, "Afterward the professor remarked to me that he couldn't believe Bill had only been out of the RCC for one year because of the academic detachment with which he spoke."

That's fascinating. He didn't tell me that. :-)

Father Jim,

Just want to thank you for your willingness to interact with us here. It is meaningful to me, and to others, I'm sure, that you'd take the time to tell us with such candor how you've felt about all this.

I think all of us mean well, though we can be a disputatious bunch. There are lots of good things about us: diligent, clean-living, often very compassionate to those in need, we read and study our Bibles. But alas, we have some rough edges that need smoothing, some prejudices that we've yet to admit are unfair, and as you probably know (from being part of a group that has been wrestling with what it means to be a Christian for 2000+ years!) we human beings are stubborn, opinionated, self-justifying creatures, and it isn't easy for us to see through others' eyes.

I've always suspected that when we at last get a lot closer to the infinite Creator we'll realize we've all been quite wrong about a whole lot of things. So In the end it won't be about who was right, but about God's mercy.

In the meantime, as a former pastor of the Grand Forks SDA church, I apologize again for your unfortunate interaction with some of us there (and here): where we have been self-righteously accusatorial, or not entirely aboveboard with you. I hope, by God's grace, we'll have a chance to make a better impression upon you at some later time.

For myself, I count you as a brother in Christ, without reservation; and ask your prayers for me as a fellow pastor, as I hope you will accept mine for you.

Blessings,
Loren Seibold

Michael, I am a canon lawyer and gave my opinion. His post on excommunication was slanted.

Starting with Canon 1311, "Excommunication" is a form of "censure" for Catholics, not a step beyond censure.

#There is no "beyond" censure. It is a type of penalty, in this case a medicinal penalty. Bill is wrong here.

An excommunicated person can have no "ministerial participation" in worship (no public praying, distributing communion, reading Scripture, etc.); is "forbidden ... to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals and to receive the sacraments." So here's a clear difference--an excommunicated Catholic can't receive communion, be confirmed, be married, be ordained, etc. (or participate in the sacramentals, which presumably would include being invested with a scapular, having a rosary or house blessed, etc.). They "cannot acquire validly a dignity, office, or other function in the Church." They do not "appropriate the benefits of a dignity, office, any function, or pension, which the offender has in the Church."

#Ministerial participation is engaging in a public ministry. This would include being a lector or Eucharistic Minister. If he is a cleric he cannot celebrate the sacraments. BUT he can sometimes do so if the faithful ask for a legitimate reason or if there is danger of death (Can. 1335 If a censure prohibits the celebration of the sacraments or sacramentals or the exercise of a power of governance, the prohibition is suspended whenever this is necessary to provide for the faithful who are in danger of death. If a latae sententiae censure has not been declared, the prohibition is also suspended whenever one of the faithful requests a sacrament or sacramental or an act of the power of governance; for any just reason it is lawful to make such a request. Also they CAN receive sacramentals such as the scapular or blessings, Bill is just plain wrong there, read the canon. It plainly says "sacraments" not sacramentals (2° to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals and to receive the sacraments). In addition, "§2 The obligation of observing a latae sententiae penalty which has not been declared, and is not notorious in the place where the offender actually is, is suspended either in whole or in part to the extent that the offender cannot observe it without the danger of grave scandal or loss of good name." Most of this applies to clerics since laity rarely hold an office.

Can. 1341. Excommunication is not imposed by a pastor or a parish council, but by the ordinary--that is, the bishop. There should be time for "fraternal rebuke and correction," and the ordinary should use "a judicial or administrative process." But "just causes" (1342) can preclude this, and it can be imposed by "extrajudicial decree." He has some leeway, and can modify or suspend the penalty (1344), especially if there are extenuating circumstances (1345).

#This is correct in so far as it goes, but keep in mind"§2 Perpetual penalties cannot be imposed or declared by means of a decree; nor can penalties which the law or precept establishing them forbids to be applied by decree." Excommunication is not perpetual. Likewise, "Can. 1318 A legislator is not to threaten latae sententiae penalties, except perhaps for some outstanding and malicious offences which may be either more grave by reason of scandal or such that they cannot be effectively punished by ferendae sententiae penalties. He is not, however, to constitute censures, especially excommunication, except with the greatest moderation, and only for the more grave offences." Note that if a person appeals it has suspensive effect. Canon law is weighted to avoid penalties. They are a last resort. There are many reasons when penalties are remitted or are not imposed:
Can. 1321 §1 No one can be punished for the commission of an external violation of a law or precept unless it is gravely imputable by reason of malice or of culpability.

§2 A person who deliberately violated a law or precept is bound by the penalty prescribed in that law or precept. If, however, the violation was due to the omission of due diligence, the person is not punished unless the law or precept provides otherwise.

§3 Where there has been an external violation, imputability is presumed, unless it appears otherwise.

Can. 1322 Those who habitually lack the use of reason, even though they appeared sane when they violated a law or precept, are deemed incapable of committing an offence.

Can. 1323 No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept:

1° has not completed the sixteenth year of age;

2° was, without fault, ignorant of violating the law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance

3° acted under physical force, or under the impetus of a chance occurrence which the person could not foresee or if foreseen could not avoid;

4° acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls;

5° acted, within the limits of due moderation, in lawful self-defence or defence of another against an unjust aggressor;

6° lacked the use of reason, without prejudice to the provisions of cann. 1324, §1, n. 2 and 1325;

7° thought, through no personal fault, that some one of the circumstances existed which are mentioned in nn. 4 or 5.

Can. 1324 §1 The perpretrator of a violation is not exempted from penalty, but the penalty prescribed in the law or precept must be diminished, or a penance substituted in its place, if the offence was committed by:

1° one who had only an imperfect use of reason;

2° one who was lacking the use of reason because of culpable drunkenness or other mental disturbance of a similar kind;

3° one who acted in the heat of passion which, while serious, nevertheless did not precede or hinder all mental deliberation and consent of the will, provided that the passion itself had not been deliberately stimulated or nourished

4° a minor who has completed the sixteenth year of age;

5° one who was compelled by grave fear, even if only relative, or byreason of necessity or grave inconvenience, if the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls;

6° one who acted in lawful self-defence or defence of another against an unjust aggressor, but did not observe due moderation;

7° one who acted against another person who was gravely and unjustly provocative;

8° one who erroneously, but culpably, thought that some one of the circumstances existed which are mentioned in Can. 1323, nn. 4 or 5;

9° one who through no personal fault was unaware that a penalty was attached to the law or precept;

10° one who acted without full imputability, provided it remained grave.

§2 A judge can do the same if there is any other circumstance present which would reduce the gravity of the offence.

§3 In the circumstances mentioned in §1, the offender is not bound by a latae sententiae penalty.

Can. 1347, the person must be warned in advance.

#Note "must."

Penalties are remitted at various levels, depending upon the offense; some by the confessor, some by the bishop, and some only by the Vatican (1354 ff). Re-baptism is never an option. Baptism is an unrepeatable sacrament.

#This has to do with internal and external forums. Also the law itself can determine who can remit. Baptism has nothing to do with it, other then you must be baptized to be subject to penalties. I don't even know why he brings this up.

There are different kinds of excommunication--some are declared, but there are some actions which incur excommunication "latae sententiae" (that is, it happens automatically just by virtue of the fact that you did the act for which this was the penalty).

#There are declared excommunications where the Ordinary conducts an administrative process, with right of defense, and declares that a penalty has been incurred. Excommunication can be imposed by a judicial sentence after a trial. Latae sentenciae is not "automatic". See the above list of reasons for this not being incurred. Bill is wrong on that. It does happen if one does the act, but one must also meet the other criteria. He leaves out that crucial fact.

What are some reasons you could be excommunicated? (Can. 1364ff)

If you're "an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic," it's "latae sententiae." Also, if you throw away the Eucharist or use it profanely--but that can only be remitted by the Vatican. Same if you use physical force against the pope.

#These are strictly interpreted as is all penal law. For example an Adventist is not guilty of schism even though he may not be in full communion with the Church. Keep in mind intent as well.

You can be excommunicated if you let your child be baptized or educated in another faith.

#What does the canon say? Can. 1366 Parents, and those taking the place of parents, who hand over their children to be baptised or brought up in a non-catholic religion, are to be punished with a censure or other just penalty. It says CAN be punished with A censure (not necessarily excommunication, maybe interdict instead) OR a just penalty. I have never seen this happen. Notice the slant here?

Can. 1372, you are to be excommunicated if you appeal the pope's decision to an ecumenical council (that was one of the reasons Luther was excommunicated).

#What does "appeal" here mean? He leads you to think it is disagreement. No, it means that if a bishop for example appealed to an ecumenical council as if it were over the head of the pope. The Papal Bull Exsuge Domine lists 41 reasons for his excommunication. Luther never appealed to an ecumenical council to reverse a papal decision. Bill is wrong here.

Can. 1378, a priest is excommunicated "latae sententiae" if, in confession, he absolves someone he had sex with; this can only be remitted by the Vatican.
Murder, kidnapping, wounding, or other physical violence won't get you excommunicated.

#Correct. But notice he throws in other crimes implying that we don't punish murder, kidnapping, or wounding. Why does he do this? It implies that we don't disapprove of murder etc. The code in fact is trying to be merciful and limit penalties. However it does say "Can. 1399 Besides the cases prescribed in this or in other laws, the external violation of divine or canon law can be punished, and with a just penalty, only when the special gravity of the violation requires it and necessity demands that scandals be prevented or repaired." So we could punish murder if we had too.

"Can. 1398 A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication."

#Only if the criteria are met. It is not automatic.

I could go on about different kinds of trials and legal procedures, but that gets very complicated.

#Yes, it does. That is my point.

Summary

Note, no Adventist penalty can deprive the person of Communion--but deprivation of the sacraments is the essential penalty (whether excommunication or interdict) that is imposed by the Catholic church.

#So if an Adventist renounces their faith you still give them Communion even if unrepentant? Here he is trying to make us look mean and the Adventists nice. As I said before you have to work at it to be excommunicated.

Note that Adventist penalties require due process involving not merely the pastor, but the church board, and then a public business meeting, where the person has the right to be heard in their defense. Catholic penalties can be automatically incurred or imposed by the bishop.

#We also require due process. Even a bishop must hear the accused and give him the right of defense. It is NOT automatic. Bill is wrong. Canons 50 and 51 require hearing the ones who are effected by a decree. No bishop in my experience has issued a penalty without giving due process. The code itself is weighted toward the judicial procedure. Again he slants his response to make it look like we are arbitrary.

Moral failures, important in Adventist cases, are trivial concerns for Catholic canon law. Murder would get you removed from membership in an Adventist church, but it wouldn't get you excommunicated from the Catholic church (unless you killed the pope).

#Now he admits murder will get you kicked out of the Adventist church. But then goes on to imply that we don't take it that seriously. I think mortal sin is pretty serious. Note he says we think murder is "trivial." That is more then slanting, that is libel.

Adventists will restore anyone at the local level--only the pope can remit some penalties for Catholics.

#In fact even at the local level some penalties can be remitted in danger of death or for other causes. Medicinal penalties MUST be remitted immediately upon repentance. This has happened in St. Louis recently. Rome only gets involved in serious cases. In internal forum situations they are remitted within 48 hours by the Apostolic Penitentiary. Bill makes it seem like we are just being mean.

Adventists cover a few pages--Catholic laws, dozens and dozens of pages. Adventists don't need canon lawyers trained in the intricacy of church laws like Catholics do. Adventists have no standing tribunals. I had one course on Canon Law at the University of St. Thomas School of Theology at St. Mary's Seminary in Houston, and that just dealt with ministry and marriage issues. The professor stressed the pastoral intent ... but it remains as complex a subject as studying civil law.

#We need the law because we are a large complex institution. We do need standing tribunals for the sake of justice. It is almost like Bill is blaming us for having canon law. But he is right in saying it is complex and is similar to studying civil law. That is why I can comment here authoritatively. I have studied it and Bill has made many errors and has slanted his response negatively towards us.

Dave, he stated at the end of one of his posts "I know of no priests who have been excommunicated for sexual abuse of children." No reason to put it in. It is obvious that he was trying to throw salt on wounds. He knew that it would insult me. That's why he did it. It happens all the time nowadays. When someone wants to bash the Church they toss this kind of insult at us.

Bill, I took the time to go over your initial post on canon law. I didn't want to do it. It took way to much time. But I wanted to emphasize that as you said it is "complex" and also to point out where it seems that you drew unwarranted negative conclusions. Having worked for the Church I am sure that you knew the effect of tossing in a child abuse remark would have. Especially when it was at the end of the post and was obviously a throw away line. You knew what you were doing and wanted to twist the knife. That sent a message to me. I honestly find it hard to believe that it was innocently intended. When I argue with anti-Catholics it is almost always the first or last thing they say. Did you read what Hugo said about the pain such things cause and how it simply creates more anger?

This has been a very interesting discussion, and I'm very appreciative to learn more from Fr. Jim and Bill on several topics that I knew little about. And I'm very, very appreciative that Fr. Jim stopped by to give us his perspective--what a gift to hear how we come across to others, not just in the situation that started this post, but beyond. However, as an editor of this site, I'll ask everyone to revisit the comment guidelines. This is a place for respectful and thoughtful conversations, and we're starting to get a bit personal as well as repetitive. Three posts in a row start to look like we've probably had as much of this conversation as we need to have. Thanks!

Fr. Jim...

I don't always agree with Michael, but here I do. I too find you to be impugning intention and motive to Bill:

"It is obvious that he was trying to throw salt on wounds. He knew that it would insult me. That's why he did it."

I'm sorry, but I didn't sense this kind of spirit coming from Bill towards you at all. Could it be an assumption of intention on your part?

I must say that your responce makes me wonder about your perception of Mr. DeLong's response to you as well...and I am certainly no fan of his methods or substance as I have stated in previous posts. But, is it possible that you were assuming his attitude of hatred, as you put it, towards you as well? And before you jump the gun, I mean this as no defense of the way Mr. DeLong may have come across to you, of his methods, or of the tone and substance of his presentations. I've also witnessed him in action, first hand...and came away with bad feelings myself. But I could never assume that hatred was in his heart.

Isn't it more charitable for all of us to give people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their motives, intentions, or attitudes behind their actions? How do we know what a person is fully intending without really knowing and dialoguing extensively with them... A knowing that requires more than just a few blog posts or a short conversation or two?

I know that this is the way that I would like to be treated. I know that I need to extend this to others as well. I would like to see that happen here with us.

Thanks for participating, Fr. Jim...

Frank

Rev. Siebold, I thank you for your kind words. If enough Adventist pastors began to lobby against these groups and ideas then it will only be to the good of your church. Certainly it is in everyones interest that they be honest about who they are. That will make real ecumenism possible. We all should remember we are in the 21st century not the 16th or the 19th for that matter.

I looked at the website of your former parish in GF. It said that there had been an Amazing Facts seminar there a few years back. I guess your successor had different ideas then you do. That is unfortunate. The people would have been better off under your care. But maybe the controversy will clear the air and move things into a more positive direction. I hope so.

I hope that you bring this up at your Conference. Some will oppose it, but by their fruits you will know them. I believe that it is possible to disagree with Catholicism and not believe it to be the Beast. It is possible to disagree with us on the day to worship without considering Sunday worship to be the mark of the beast. You show that Adventism can do that.
Pax,
Fr. Jim

Fr. Jim:

Thank you for taking to time to explain all this. I believe it's important to give adherents of a religion priority in describing what that religion believes, so I think it's only fair for you to have the last word on what excommunication means in the Roman Catholic Church.

I pray that you find better relations with the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Grand Forks in the future. I know Adventist ministers who are repulsed the the methods of the evangelist who visited your city, and I know others who use them. I plan to use Loren's blog post and the comments that follow as a resource to which I may direct my colleagues in ministry and the seminary for information on this.

David Hamstra
apokalupto

"#There is no 'beyond' censure. It is a type of penalty, in this case a medicinal penalty. Bill is wrong here."

No, you are forgetting the context. I am comparing and contrast Catholic and Adventist policies. The Adventist term "censure" is a lesser penalty, with "removal from membership" a more serious step.

"Re-baptism is never an option. Baptism is an unrepeatable sacrament.

#This has to do with internal and external forums. Also the law itself can determine who can remit. Baptism has nothing to do with it, other then you must be baptized to be subject to penalties. I don't even know why he brings this up.

Because I am comparing and contrasting Adventist and Catholic approaches, and in the Adventist church, if someone is removed from membership, the path back to member ship is rebaptism.

Can. 1372, you are to be excommunicated if you appeal the pope's decision to an ecumenical council (that was one of the reasons Luther was excommunicated).

#What does "appeal" here mean? He leads you to think it is disagreement. No, it means that if a bishop for example appealed to an ecumenical council as if it were over the head of the pope. The Papal Bull Exsuge Domine lists 41 reasons for his excommunication. Luther never appealed to an ecumenical council to reverse a papal decision. Bill is wrong here.

No, I intend you to think it is to appeal to a council as to a higher authority. That was the teaching of the conciliar movement; that was how the Schism was ended, by declaring the supremacy of a council to a pope, and the Council of Constance deposed three popes and elected a replacement. After that, the supremacy of the pope was reasserted, and it was said that if someone appealed a papal decision to a council they were to be excommunicated. Luther did just that. He appealed over the pope's head to a council, in 1518 and again in 1520, asking that one be called to resolve the issue of indulgences and the other issues of difference.

Can. 1378, a priest is excommunicated "latae sententiae" if, in confession, he absolves someone he had sex with; this can only be remitted by the Vatican.
Murder, kidnapping, wounding, or other physical violence won't get you excommunicated.

#Correct. But notice he throws in other crimes implying that we don't punish murder, kidnapping, or wounding. Why does he do this? It implies that we don't disapprove of murder etc. The code in fact is trying to be merciful and limit penalties. However it does say "Can. 1399 Besides the cases prescribed in this or in other laws, the external violation of divine or canon law can be punished, and with a just penalty, only when the special gravity of the violation requires it and necessity demands that scandals be prevented or repaired." So we could punish murder if we had too.

I throw in those other crimes because those are what are specifically mentioned in the Code. I neglected to cite the reference. The point to notice is that excommunication is not mentioned as penalty for these. Instead, the "expiatory penalties" that may be imposed are various deprivations.

"Can. 1397 A person who commits a homicide or who kidnaps, detains, mutilates, or gravely wounds a person by force or fraud is to be punished with the privations and prohibitions mentioned in ⇒ can. 1336 according to the gravity of the delict. Homicide against the persons mentioned in ⇒ can. 1370, however, is to be punished by the penalties established there."

This is immediately followed by

"Can. 1398 A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication."

And that shows clearly the difference in weight between the mentioned "delicts."

#So if an Adventist renounces their faith you still give them Communion even if unrepentant? Here he is trying to make us look mean and the Adventists nice. As I said before you have to work at it to be excommunicated.

I'm simply underscoring the differences. Any one is welcome at an Adventist communion service--you would be, too.

#We also require due process. Even a bishop must hear the accused and give him the right of defense. It is NOT automatic. Bill is wrong. Canons 50 and 51 require hearing the ones who are effected by a decree. No bishop in my experience has issued a penalty without giving due process. The code itself is weighted toward the judicial procedure. Again he slants his response to make it look like we are arbitrary.

I cited above the canon (1342) that notes that a bishop may for "just cause" issue an "extrajudicial decree." I would offer that when Bruskewitz excommunicated the Rainbow Girls and other groups he did just this. He did not warn them. He did not have a trial. He issued a decree, and this decree was upheld by the Vatican.

Note he says we think murder is "trivial." That is more then slanting, that is libel.

I showed the canons that noted that there are penalties for violence and murder, and excommunication is not listed as one of them. It is listed for the specific form of murder known as abortion.

Rome only gets involved in serious cases. In internal forum situations they are remitted within 48 hours by the Apostolic Penitentiary. Bill makes it seem like we are just being mean.

Nope. I'm just showing that Adventists have only one disciplinary level. Catholics have some that must go to Rome. Again, I am comparing and contrasting. This is a difference.

#We need the law because we are a large complex institution. We do need standing tribunals for the sake of justice. It is almost like Bill is blaming us for having canon law. But he is right in saying it is complex and is similar to studying civil law.

I think it is an example of the cultural difference between Catholics and Protestants. I'd compare it to Catholic moral theology and the requirement that seminarians study philosophy before theology.

As to my comment "I know of no priests who have been excommunicated for sexual abuse of children," it is a statement of fact. It is something that angers and troubles many Catholics. Why are Rainbow Girls excommunicated while no priest who molests children is? I think it illustrates that while Adventists most often "Remove from Membership" for moral faults, Catholics most often excommunicate for "delicts" associated with church authority.

To get a sense of Catholic anger on the laxity shown toward clerical crime, read Jason Berry, Lead Us Not into Temptation: Catholic Priests and the Sexual Abuse of Children, Jason Berry and Gerald Renner, Vows of Silence: The Abuse of Power in the Papacy of John Paul II, and Leon J. Podles, Sacrilege: Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church. One of the points that Podles makes is that the clergy just don't get it. They don't understand the anger of the laity. They don't understand that righteous anger is morally obligatory in such cases. Lee would like, just once, to hear a priest or bishop express some genuine anger at the abuse that was done first by priests and then by bishops and other chancery officials who protected those priests.

Frank, I refer you to the lengthy post in response to Bill. I have been publicly insulted on the streets with sneers about child abuse. Bill worked for the Catholic Church and knows what this does to us. Is that charitable?

To All,

Daneen seems to be hinting that the conversation is pretty much finished and I am being politely ushered to the exit. If you want me to go that is your prerogative. Maybe on this site it is over, but I hope it is not elsewhere. I urge you to continue to consider the issues raised about evangelism tactics and to take another look at Adventist beliefs regarding the Catholic Church. As long as we are considered the Beast or anti-Christ there can be no real fellowship. You can still be Adventists and not be chained to the notion that we are somehow under Satan's dominion. I pray that the Adventist church will be renewed and that the Holy Spirit will guide you into ever greater truth.
God bless,
Fr. Jim

Thanks for your graceful response to my hint, Fr. Jim--and, please realize it was equally meant for Bill and others to note as well. You are most welcome to continue to comment on this site whenever you like. It's an open dialogue for anyone to join. We relish to opportunity to hear from those outside the often small Adventist bubble. I also join you in hoping that the very serious issues (both in practice and of doctrine) raised here continue to be discussed, and, hopefully, acted on. Just so you know, this article has been read close to 2,000 times as of this afternoon, so it is getting a much broader readership than even this robust discussion would suggest. I can only hope it's getting forwarded to folks in policy-making decisions, especially the writers/funders of this purported pamphlet that explains why evangelists shouldn't be up front about their church affiliation.

Fr. Jim

In a word "Very few". Even fewer give Revelation 14 a thought beyond the parking lot.

Now for a story. The year after I joined LLU. I attended the American Association of Dental Schools Meeting in St. Louis. In the lobby was the Dean of the School of Dentistry of Marquette University with a cluster of MU dental faculty. Of course they urged me to join them. Which I was most happy to do.
After about 20 minutes, the dean invited the group to his room, obviously for drinks and more conversation. He looked at me and said, Tom please join us. I asked what room Alex?
He replies 666. I said, in that case I can't come, but thanks anyway. He did a double take and laughed and we shook hands and he gave me a big bear hug which I returned with gusto. Later I recruited three Marquette alumni to join the faculty at the Medical College of Georgia, two became close neighbors as well. That is the way I would like it here and here after. Tom

Father Jim,

I hope you didn't misunderstand Daneen: I think she wasn't trying to move you out, rather hoping that the conversation could get back to something of more general interest. These later posts were getting pretty difficult, long and off topic, and I'd be surprised if many of us (other than Mr. Cork) took the time to digest deeply those posts on canon law. To be honest, it was too much for me! But again, I appreciate your willingness to spend time with us.

I wish we could, as you suggest, take up the matter of rethinking some of these prejudicial doctrines at our General Conference session. However, you Roman Catholics, of all people, should know how hard it is to get a huge bureaucratic body to move in a different direction! I'm not optimistic that the reconsideration of these things will (or even can) happen at the organizational level. It is more likely to happen at this level, where thoughtful church members and clergy begin to see other Christians in a more generous light, and it becomes contagious.

I'm hopeful.
Loren Seibold

I'm grateful that Father Jim has joined this discussion. How a discussion changes when representatives from all parties can participate!

A few words have stuck with me: libel and accountability. I am pondering the significance these words should have for we members of the Seventh-day Adventist church who do not want to be represented in such a way that a local veteran reporter smells a news story!

Father Jim: prior to this encounter, what proportion of your experience with Adventists was through pamphlets and books, like the ones left on your car?

Several times, Aage used the word "libel". That is an appropriate word for written works which is I think is well-choosen as I suspect writings have been far more influential in Father Jim's perception of Adventists than this crusade. Indeed, would we be discussing this event had it not been captured in the public record in writing? Are any of your own local churches accomplices in the distribution of such poor representations of our faith? I looked over our own and asked to remove (self-published) "The National Sunday Law", and it's gone.

These evangelists are ultimately accountable to our own cooperative churches, are they not? It seems to me that the problem is that some who specialize in spiritual matters are not fully involved in a wider community that they would realize the collateral damage they cause. Perhaps that is where we church members have a part to play, to provide gentle reality checks. Next time I'm asked to help, I will ask if there will be any deception/obscuration or slander. I should also ask whether Father Jim's local colleague and the local news should also be invited.

Let us be, as Loren suggests, contagious in our generous spirits. What a breath of fresh air that could be.

Fr. Jim

From the first grade to the fourth grade I lived in the town of Pound Wisconsin population 306. The town had a Catholic Church financed by my Grandfather Brooks, founder of the town.
A Luthern Church, A Methodist Church, and a Seventh-day Adventist Church founded by my grandmother Brooks(following the untimely death of her husband). A Pentacostal group was attempting to create a congregation and eventually establish a church. They would hold street meetings on the one block main street between Grandpa's bank and his general store (managed by my uncle) about three blocks from the Catholic Church.

The evangelistic group had a small Country and Western type band. The evangelist was a glad hander with a set speach of damnation. The upper middle school kids would stop at the Catholic priest's residence and pick up small fire crackers and matches. As soon as the evangelist started his hyper ventilation the fire crackers started popping.

We left Pound in 1934. I returned for a family reunion in 2001. The town still had a Catholic church but no priest, The Lutheran Church and the Methodist churhes had ciruit riding pastors, the SDA Church had less than 10 members and no pastor. The Pentacostal church was a large Butler Building with a very large gravel parking lot. As we drove past on a Sunday Morning the Pentacostal Church's parking lot was full. The other churches didn't have enough members present to choose up sides for a soft ball game.

I don't know what the lesson is--but certainly harrassment seems to work like the blood of martyrs. Also, the Church is not alway responsible for the actions of its ordained.

Tom

Jeannieb43

Steve DeLong says he forced the newspaper reporter to "admit" that his questions were prompted by the Ministerial Alliance of the city!

Well, this tells me that Steve DeLong had not done any preparatory work with that Ministerial Alliance. The Ministerial Alliance evidently saw his meetings as an intrusion, something foreign and unwelcome. And of course they saw him as a total stranger.

In my city, our Adventist ministers are MEMBERS of the local Ministerial Society. They meet together monthly. They frequently conduct services (or participate in services) held in each others' churches, especially for Thanksgiving, Memorial Day, etc. Our Adventist ministers are FRIENDS of the other ministers. --After all, they're all in the same business: saving souls for Jesus Christ.

That old-fashioned method of treating other communions as "enemies" of Adventism is totally out of date. If we are to be seen as friends of CHRIST, then we should FIRST be friends of MAN.

Our evangelistic meetings should be held IN our own churches, with church names fully illuminated. --BUT the message should have nothing to do with beasts, prooftexts, etc., but rather, should be based on the history of God's love and intervention on behalf of His people all throughout history. We can only win friends as we share our own experiences with that person. We have to be open with our own intimate relationship with God, and His actions on our behalf. We can weave into these sermons the truths of prophecy -- but forget those scary old horned beasts! It does nobody any good. We can open those chapters privately in our follow-up studies if necessary.

Approaching things in a "tent meeting mentality" and expecting to be hated by the locals gives the preacher two strikes against him to begin with. In fact, if I were a Grand Forks SDA member, I would stay completely away from those meetings. I would have nothing to do with the type of evangelism based on 19th-century, legalistic mindset. The reason to expect to be hated when they learn you're SDA is because of the legalism our people have exhibited. Do away with that old rigid, rules-based religion. Get to know Christ personally, and then share that love with your friends!

Fr. Jim

I just have to share another story with you. While I was a member of the Board of Trustees, a benefactor offered to commission a sculpture of the parable of the Good Samaritan.

I voted No. The Chair made inquiry: "Why Tom?" I said, around this table sit the President of the North American Division and each of the Union Conference Presidents within the North American Division. Now if each one of them will pledge to me that as soon as they return to their offices they will write a letter to each local conference president, and each pastor, and evangelist within their district that hense forth they will not publically or privately state that Roman Catholics worship idols, I will enthusiastically vote yes on accepting a sculpture of the Good Samaritan. However,
I can not and will not vote for such a sculpture and then return to my home church, offer the opening prayer and introduce the evangelist and then sit on the podium and listen to him tell his audience that the Roman Catholic Church worship idols, knowing that I voted yes for a series of idols on the campus of LLU. Tom

Tom,
That's a good story. In my first parish at Christmas the local Pentecostal church had a manger scene put out front. I mentioned to one of them that they were becoming very Catholic. He was shocked and asked what I meant. I said you now have statues of Mary and Joseph at your church, just like us. He did not know what to say and had never thought of it that way. I have never met a Catholic who worshiped a statue.

Jeannie,
Actually it was not the ministerial council. They had nothing to do with it. Mr. DeLong's own hostility was the main factor. I have received a contact about a Lutheran who was lured into this seminar. They want me to talk to her. So, I am now helping the Lutherans keep their parishioners. Also I did call the pastor of the Catholic parish in the town Mr. DeLong is going to next. They were very happy to be warned of his arrival. You are right though, none of this would have happened if he had been upfront about who was putting on the seminar.

Blake,
Since you asked I have to say that prior to this most of my interaction with Adventists was negative. Literature left on my car, unrequested gifts of "National Sunday Law", radio programs raving about the Pope as the anti-Christ, Amazing Facts seminars, anonymous letters, protesters at Papal events... I can hardly think of a single positive encounter with any Adventist pastor or layperson. I did once meet a nice Adventist lady, but that's all I can think of offhand. That's quite a build up of negativity. I think Hugo's post, which I copied and pasted here, really says it very well. There is a great deal of hurt.

Fr. Jim

Father Jim,

This may not mean much as I am one voice among many Adventist voices, and a little one at that. I am not official, and do not speak on behalf of anyone but myself.

That said, I want to tell you that I am sorry. I am sorry for a legacy of a church that has created an us vs. them ethos that you have found yourself on the receiving end of.

I am sorry that we have been too proud to apologize for the mistrust and animosity we have corporately sewn.

I am also sorry that you have been a recipeint of unfair, incorrect and hurtful mischaracterizations of your faith and the church to which you belong.

Not all Adventists are subject to the same prejudices and suspicions. I wish your experience with Adventists had been like my experience with Catholics.

When I was a boy, my best friends down the street were Nigerian Catholic boys. I played basketball with them, shared food at their table, slept overnight at their house...

This year I went to the state capitol to speak to our elected officials along with clergy of many denominations. The lady that picked me up from the airport was a Catholic woman, and the warmest and most gracious person I had talked with in a long time. I also met a Franciscan Friar, Father Franklin Fong. We spoke at length and had a great conversation about the things that matter both to us. While we talked, I forgot that he was Catholic and I was Adventist.

I wish that your experiences had been more like mine. And because for so many reasons they were not, I want to tell you with sincerity that I am sorry. And then add that I will do what I can to build bridges of trust and mutual regard...someday when I have children, I will teach them the same.
-Jared

Jared,
Words like that are exactly what is needed for healing and change. Perhaps as your leadership sees the animosity that has been caused they will revisit the doctrines that have caused it. Adventism needs to based on something more then just despising Catholicism as the Beast. I see on this site some voices that are urging movement in that direction. That heartens me. I get along with most of our other local churches, so I believe that better relations are possible. Thank you for your kind sentiments.
Fr. Jim

Quick update: the pamphlet, "The Perception of Deception," is available from NADEI.

It is written by Hiram Rester. Subheading inside: "Public Evangelism and the Messianic Secret."

It is very telling that there needs to be a pamphlet on why it's okay to lie and deceive in order to evangelize people.

II Cor. 4:2-Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

Fr. Jim

II Cor. 12:16--"But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile."

Bill,

You seem to quote this out of context. Paul, to me, is resorting to irony in this text. The whole flow of the passage in 2 Cor. 12 shows that he never exploited or decieved the Corinthians in his interactions with them, unlike the so called "super-apostles."

I believe Fr. Jim is on the mark. Paul is saying in 2 Cor. 4 that while his gospel may be veiled, his ways never have been. He has always been open and honest in his approach to his hearers and with the content of his message.

Should there be wisdom in dealing with people's hearts and souls? Absolutely! The right thing said at the wrong time can do untold damage in any relationship.

But, somehow I have a hard time reconciling this kind of common sense and sensitivity, with concealing one's public identity for more than a third of a public campaign. To me, Paul's statements bear this out.

Thanks...

Frank

Fr. Jim,

Official Adventism has not changed any of its doctrines according to their current General Conference president in a major address to SDA leaders. The clear tone of that address was that nothing will change in the future as well. It was due to the intense anti-Catholicism of the Adventist pioneers that resulted in their accepting Arianism instead of Trinitarianism. Despite claiming to be Trinitarians today, they are largely Tritheistic instead.

Those who formulated the foundational dogma of Seventh-day Adventism were staunch Arians. Thus, that Arian legacy continues to haunt them to this day in doctrinal matters--even extending to their hymnody. Since only 8 percent of all Adventists live in North America, the rest of the Adventist world is even less inclined to any doctrinal changes. The truth is that Adventists take great pride in being "settled in the truth."

Dennis Fischer
E-mail: dfministries@gmail.com

There is another side to this. Non-SDA churches have fostered such a stigma against the SDA church - "cult" comes to mind - that advertising your identity up front may turn some seeking people away without even investigating the program. I know a man who did not investigate SDA teachings for many years for the simple reason that he had been told by ministers that it was a cult. He now attends the church after putting aside his prejudice and attending, listening, checking. What difference does it make who is making a statement? Every Christian should be able to weigh a person's claims by Scripture. Sometimes it is important to not state your identity up front. Then the person has no hook to hang their prejudice on. Then they have to measure your statements on their merit, not by personal prejudice.

I just checked the Sure Word Ministries Website. The beliefs listed are not SDA beliefs. Obviously this man has had a falling out with the church or has decided to try reaching the public outside the umbrella of the SDA church. More facts please. Is he a church member?

I see a lot of carnal mindedness in this whole thing. Those who criticize the Adventist church and commend their own church, I liken to the two men who went into the temple to pray: "God, I thank thee that I am not like other men, or even like those Seventh Day Adventists over there!" We don't need to consider which one has the favor of men, but which has the favor of God.
If you choose a church only because it is well spoken of, and rejecting another because of the public criticism against it, you've missed the mark. (Who cares what the name of the church is, as long as it upholds the testimony of Christ?)

To those who think Seventh Day Adventist evangelists should be stopped would do well to heed the wisdom of Gamaliel in Acts 5:38,39 "And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God."

Why dont you guys search out what is truth rather than dicuss what you think is truth. Dont look to so call christains for christains should not look to themselves. Look to Jesus and be like Jesus.

You really waste your time discussing this issue. Talk about about Jesus and the benefits it confers will cover our human frailiites.

It seems that all evangelical American Churchs have taken much the same line. Very little if any Gospel and tons of predictions most based on Schofield or White. A 19th century reading of Revelation and related writings and a lot of headline stealing. The Beast is always the other guy! Usually the oldest!

Every human organization needs the covering of Christ's Righteousness. Why always point out the speck in the other guy's eye. There is very little difference between an evangelistic series and a political campaign.

God needs no defense literature department. He sure need
protection from some readings of what His scribes wrote. Tom

I have been involved in evangelistic crusades where we were instructed not to tell our denomination. I would never do that again.

I also grew up in the church and have always heard, from multiple sources, that those that leave the SDA church are lost. Usually, EGW is quoted.

The issue of hiding the identity of the church stems, I believe, from a very deep-seated "persecution complex" common among SDAs. There is this perception that all of the other denominations hate them and are just waiting to spread falsehoods about them and keep others from becoming SDA. These fears are the breeding ground for the deception in evangelism.

It is time for the church to wake up to reality. I have traveled throughout most of the USA and have lived in many states. It is rare to encounter a non-SDA that knows anything about SDA's or what they believe. Most people I know have never even heard of them, let alone have any type of animosity or hatred toward them.

Even in areas where we have academies or a fairly large church population, many residents know nothing of SDA's.

It is way past time to stop with the crusades as they are simply an exercise in frustration for most of the members and pastors. A lot of time and money is wasted on these ridiculous charades with little to show for them. Besides, why would you want the first impression someone has of your church to be as deceivers and hucksters? Negative impressions spread a lot faster than positive ones.

It would be nice to have SDA's known in their local community as the people that always raise money for the food bank or shelters, or the first to show up for a disaster. It would be nice to be known as a neighbor and friend rather than as someone that is always trying to "sell" someone on their religion.

John Wallace:

Yes, Steve DeLong is a full-fledged church member, and a contract evangelist. I do not know if he is an ordained minister—not everyone who does evangelism is ordained. There is no way, ever, that a non-Adventist would be allowed to do evangelism in this way in a conference church in any conference in the NAD

There is another Sure Word ministries in the Midwest, that is not Adventist, whose website you may have found. Steve's website is at http://www.surewordministries.org/speakers_2.html.

On Steve's website there is a list of beliefs (http://www.surewordministries.org/beliefs.html), but it isn't the full Adventist doctrinal statement. Perhaps that's part of the effort to appear interdenominational, and conceal the Adventist identity.

Loren Seibold

Dennis, I really hope that is not the case, but I fear so.

John, that is the point. By lying about who you are you create the impression that you are a cult. Honesty is the best policy.

Elmore, I think the point is that the prayer might be more "Thank God I am not like those heathen Catholics..." The early Christians did not deceive their converts. Do you think deception is a good basis for Christian evangelism?

Ed, the issue here is truth. I think truth about who you are is important. Witnessing to Jesus using deception is not being truthful.

DTaylor, you are right. It is strange SDA's feel persecuted while at the same time persecuting Catholics. These crusades only create bad blood and hate.

Update, while visiting Wahpeton, ND I saw an advertisement for a children's church program. It said to contact wahpetonchurch.com and that it was sponsored by Wahpeton church. Nowhere did it say Seventh Day Adventist. It sounds so generic. But it is in fact the local SDA church. Once again they are not being upfront. If you can't put your church name on it then you shouldn't be posting it. A friend of mine in the local nursing home had a visit from an SDA member there. On the second visit she went into a vicious anti-Catholic diatribe. He said it was like she turned on a switch. Needless to say he told her not to come back.

I would just like to say in regards to the Wahpeton Church, that if you go to their website it is very clear that they are Adventist. I know the Adventist pastor there personally and he is a nice guy....maybe getting to know each other is a two way street.

Oftentimes we assume things about people because we haven't taken the time to really talk with them in a non-confrontational way.

In regards to Mr. DeLong, I have personally talked with him and he also seems to be friendly and approachable...but again, I didn't have a confrontational attitude towards him. (Or a perceived confrontational attitude)

In regards to public evangelism, I have held meetings myself and am always up front with people in regards to my denominational affiliation. However, I have not always been an Adventist and when I came in, I could really care less about what church it was. The people had a healthy community outreach and had helped me as a troubled teen.

I remember very little about the meetings I attended...I don't recall hardly anything except the first night....which focused on a forever friendship with God. I do recall how friendly the pastor and the members were during and after the meetings. There was no pressure for baptism, and after searching things out for myself and in my time frame, I made a decision to be baptized.

Some people don't believe that public evangelism works....but I know it does....and how many Adventist churches would there be today around the world without some type of public evangelism?

I also thought that the book of Revelation was the "revelation of Jesus Christ". If it's about Him, then why are we afraid to share His message? I have yet to see any other interpretation of the book of Revelation that makes sense....we're not supposed to know who the Beast and the other prophecies mean? I thought Revelation was an open book?

I also know the current Adventist pastor in Grand Forks as well...he is a very kind person who I have only heard positive feedback about. I would encourage all to refrain from criticism unless you were present during the conversations involved. You have one person's word against another.

by God's grace,
Pastor----

It is OK to not declare your affiliation immediately. People have prejudice against SDA's for various reasons. To meet on "nuetral" ground is not a bad thing. But after a brief get to know you period the evangelist should inform them he is an Advnetist Minister. It is inexcusable to be evasive as this pastor seems to have been. When asked directly, he should have admitted his affiliation.

I've held meetings both ways, each has it's advantages, and all should be used often. "Go ye therefore into all the world" is still Christs commandment to us. Public Evangelism is a powerful tool, but it is one of many. Pastor Tom Hughes

Pastor Tom
Most people without church ties have no idea who SDAs are. Prejudice presupposes knowledge of some sort. The problem that Adventist evangelists face with regard to prejudice arises because they aim their efforts at members of other Christian denominations, who do know something about Adventists, instead of reaching out to the "unchurched."

For an evangelist it's no doubt easier to talk to other Christians because of a shared language, but trying to subvert the members of other churches is not a very honorable thing to do, unless you're theology is so warped that you believe salvation is a function of theological acuity (and I don't know that SDAs have corned the market on that commodity).

Turthful Evangelism should be just that. Bring good news truthfully. No fast shuffles.

The big questions are:

Who am I?
Why am I here?
What is the purpose of my life?
Where do I go when I die? (What are the consequences of my life)
Maybe, even where did I come from? A excellent link between Creation and Salvation. If He made you, he knows how to "fix" you good as new!

A simple Bible study of being a child of God by creation and adoption should set the foundation for all other questions.

Baptism and membership should be at the request of the student--not a pressure tactic of the evangelist. Let God do the counting. The only questions the evangelist should ask is: "Did I present Jesus Christ in all the dimensions revealed in Scripture? Was love, not fear the theme of my presentations? Did I inadvertantly step on any smoldering flax and crush any bend reed? How can I learn to do better in my next effort? Remember, there is not an oz. of theological talk in all of Christ's parables. A fisherman, a sower, a sheepherder, a housewife, a grieving Father, little children. a mother hen. Remember the Book of Revelation was written for Chritians under seige not for neophyes. Start with Romans as an introduction to Paradise Lost and then found.

Remember Jesus went up on to the side of a mountain as sat down and the people came and gather around Him. Quiet, understated, reassuring--nice to be next to setting.

The entire ministry of Jesus was "Come Let us Reason Together"

That is truthful evangelism. Tom

Steve DeLong contacted me awhile back, and the Spectrum editors as well, wanting to tell his side of the story. I would certainly welcome his doing that, and will follow up with him.

Again, my original article was directed primarily toward one aspect of this: not answering the question when asked directly and being belligerent when it was asked, so it was reported in this way in the newspaper. As far as not advertising the meetings as a Seventh-day Adventist program, I am willing to give those who choose to do it that way the benefit of the doubt, though it wouldn't be my preferred method. It seems clear to me that not coming clean when asked (if that is indeed what happened—and again, I am willing to get more information from Steve) turned into a PR disaster for our church name.

Rev. Miller, you had to go to the churches website. It did not say who they were on the advertisements. Why not? I think we can guess. Mr. DeLong was hostile from the get go. Of course he was very nice to a fellow Adventist. To others he was deceptive. I can give you alternative interpretations of the Book of Revelation. Since the Catholic Church gave you the Bible you might want to consider what others have said about it. Is their pastor a nice guy? Maybe, but I went to one of their prophesy seminars once some years back. It was the same bigotry. I have no hesitation in being critical of bigotry. Btw, you don't have one persons opinion here. Others have experienced the same things that I have.
Fr. Jim

Pastor Hughes,
So it is okay to lie and deceive others in the name of Jesus? The ends justify the means? You really think that this gives a positive impression of the Adventists? I am sure the Father of Lies is pleased with your reasoning.
Fr. Jim

Rev. Seibold,
I asked him directly what church he was affiliated with and who was sponsoring the seminar. He refused to answer and became hostile. It would be interesting to hear why.
Fr. Jim

Jim, I'm surprised that you have the attitude that you do. There are certainly numerous positive things about Roman Catholicism, as there are about many denominations. I would think, however, with the relatively recent revelations about widespread and systematic child abuse, as well as the homosexuality among a supposed celibate priesthood, you might be a bit more humble in your approach to other denominations.

Your "denomination" has been pilloried in the press. Leaders at various levels have been deposed, transferred, and subject to criminal prosecution, not for righteousness sake, but because of the outrages perpetrated against children and the trust of your community. You might want to get off of your high horse, at least for a while.

I've been to evangelistic programs of the type that are being decried here. The message itself turns many people off, regardless of the denominational affiliation.

There are numerous things I find repulsive about Roman Catholicism; however, I consider the many positive experiences I have had with clerical types when measuring the church.

You might find that there are positive things about Adventism, if you take a good look.

Father Jim

I believe you are correct in pointing out the deceptive tactics of many SDA Evangelists and their very obvious anti-Roman Cathoic bias. However, The Bible came to the world through Holy men of God who spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. The Roman Church certainly was a prime agent in its preservation and its translation into Latin. I for one enjoyed the book How the Irish Save Civiliation.

You take, naturally, the view that the early church was Romon Catholic. You are not joined in that view by many Christian Scholars.

My point is simply stick to you point, don't try to get in a second jab! It really takes away from your "righteous indignation1"

I have mentioned many times my encounter with Rev L. D/ Johnson Chaplain, Furman University and His sermon Our Basic Common Belies held at the University of Notre Dame June 21 1979 at the National Congress on Church-Related Colleges and Universities. His closing live was: "One can say more, but one cannot say less than Jesus Christ is Lord."

Would that we all could communication on that level. Tom

"that the early church was Romon Catholic. You are not joined in that view by many Christian Scholars."

Would you furnish the name of those Christian scholars who disagree with that premise? The Roman Empire was where the church was born. While they may not have called it Roman, it was catholic (universal), and not until the Roman Emperor, Constantine, did it become the "Roman" church.

There was only ONE Christian church for the first thousand plus years after Christ. We would not have the NT had it not been preserved by that church. We are Christians today ONLY because of that one church.

It has its faults, as does every church and institution. However, those with beams in their eyes have no business calling attention to the similar beams in other's eyes. Deception is of the Devil, wherever it is found and should have no part in Christianity. There is more than sufficient blame to go around. Each church should clean their own house before calling attention to the dirt in others' houses.

Mr. Hansen, perhaps I am hostile to being lied too, deceived, and at pervasive SDA anti-Catholic bigotry. I have posted on child abuse in the SDA church. I had one SDA who said if I could show him one instance of an SDA cover up then he would leave the SDA church. I did and he didn't. I'm not the one on the high horse.

Tom, the issue moves all to quickly to the evils of us Papists. Don't blame me for that. It is the attitude that leads to the deceptive tactics used by DeLong.

Elaine

The Bishop of Rome didn't arrive at ascendancy for years and years after the Pauline Letters.

One church? even Paul had to speak about divisions.
Tom

Tom, that would surprise Peter. 107AD St. Ignatius, "where Jesus Christ is there is the Catholic Church." Divisions didn't mean there was not one Church.
Fr. Jim

Fr. Jim...

Though i find myself in agreement with you on our less than up-front methodology, I have to disagree here. As early as 107, catholic to Ignatius meant universal. Where Jesus Christ is, there is the church...universal. It is also why some of the epistles not addressed to named churches in the NT are called the catholic epistles..."universal" in address.

None of it has anything to do with the the bishop of Rome, papal succession, and the entire medieval system and religio-political institution that arose out of such. Jesus Christ is present wherever two or three gather together and call upon his name. This is the church...universal.

Thanks...

Frank

Fr. Jim

Frank said it better than I. Tom

Its interesting how some people think we give to much credit to EGW. Its also interesting to see some give even more credit to some guy named Ignatius.
How may people did Christ elevate to sainthood was it? None? How many did humans saint? All?
Look here you might even find the patron saint of morning coffee.
http://www.americancatholic.org/Features/saints/patrons.asp
There are saints for
air travel
advertizing
Anesthetists
Bee keepers
Computers Thats handy these days.
Earaches
Even St. Isidore of Seville Patron Saint of the Internet.

There is still only one universal Christian church. We do not all look alike, live alike, attend the same church building, but if we are all Christians, we all belong to the body of Christ.

Just as siblings may be quite different in their beliefs, way of living, even do not look alike, they are still members of the same family.

Jim, Seems to me that you are making too much of this whole business. Whatever happened, get over it and move on. The behaviour of one or a few people is hardly grounds to indict an entire denomination. Why start a denominational feud?

Roman Catholicism is full of lies; however, there are many excellent features to be found within a church with such a long history. The doctrine of transubstatntiation is a lie. The doctrine of, and cultic dimensions associated with Mary are a lie. Until quite recently, your denomination referred to people such as myself as heretics. Bigotry and intolerance characterized Roman Catholicism prior to Vatican 2.

Pre Vatican 2 catechisms said that the Pope changed the Sabath to Sunday. Post Vatican 2 catechisms say that the Apostles changed it during NT times. The texts offered as proof do not prove that at all. That is a lie, a whopper, in fact.

You, as a Roman Catholic priest, lack the moral authority to condemn Adventism. You represent a denomination that is just as bad or worse than Adventism in many respects.

I prefer to not go down this road. I have been very impressed with the great missionary efforts made by the Jesuits, for instance. When Protestants were still squabbling among themselves in Europe, Jesuits were doing amazing things to promote the interests of Rome in far flung places. China, even Baja California, had Jesuit priests hard at work at a time when little is said about "Protestant" missions.

There are many things we can learn from a church with such a long, although not always illustrious, history. This little tempest, characterized by your "moral outrage" hardly does service to the worthwhile dimensions of Roman Catholicism

Frank, if you read the other letters of Ignatius you will find they have a very...Roman flavor. You say you know what Ignatius was really thinking. I would say his whole corpus is quite Catholic. The Catholic Church is universal.

Michael, we have saints, but you make EGW virtually a god. She claimed more authority then any pope. Ignatius, and the other Fathers, show us what life was like in the first century of Christianity. They are invaluable.

Mr. Hansen, no you are making too little of it. These seminars go on all the time. Denominational feud? You must be kidding. You claim the Pope is the anti-Christ and say I am the one with a problem. Ridiculous! If you want lies I can start posting some whoppers propagated by EGW. They will make you squirm. The Adventist movement started with the Great Disappointment, a lie. Jesus did not come back, or enter some heavenly temple, in 1844. That is a lie. But I don't lie about what Church I attend. SDA's do. Mr. DeLong deceived people and that is common among the Amazing Facts crowd. Even some Adventists here are embarrassed by that and believe it should stop. Even if you hate us, and it seems that you do, you should be upfront about what denomination you represent.

I am really mystified how people like Mr. Hansen do not seem to get the idea of simply being truthful about what church your seminar is sponsored by. Bearing false witness is against the commandments or are there only nine now? Very interesting given that most seminars claim that we changed the commandments. If Mr. DeLong had just said in his advertisements and to the people who came to the seminar that it was sponsored by the SDA church this whole debate would never have happened.

"The behaviour of one or a few people is hardly grounds to indict an entire denomination."

Would that there were only a "few people" rather than a definite type of these seminars that have been conducted for more than 50 years! (I know, as my father was one of those who was told to hide the denomination in the ads for such meeting.)

Please tell us where the church has ever told its evangelists to do otherwise? Are you contending that it was a few ministers who were deceptive in their promotion and not the entire modus operandi? Please document such statements.

Some of us here (Tom and I) have a looong history of Adventism, and what is yours? Show us where evangelists were told to be "upfront" in their ads? Did they take it upon themselves, with conference support to do other than they have? Sorry, you're proving the point of deception by your protests.

Jim said
"Michael, we have saints, but you make EGW virtually a god. She claimed more authority then any pope."

Are you off your nut? EGW virtually a God? Nonsense. No one prays to her. You have everyone praying to Mary and whatever "Saint" of the day or particular problem calls for.

This proves you dont know what your talking about. What a bigoted myopic accusation especially coming from someone who treats every Saint including Mary as a God by praying to them.

More authority than the Pope? EGW never claimed to be able to absolve sin or bar someone from heaven or have the authority to speak for God. You are truely deluded and I pity you.

[Please! Let's EVERYONE tone down the rhetoric. Take a deep breath, and perhaps move on to something more constructive. - website editor]

There is a lot of ignorance demonstrated by those who "claim" to know more about an institution than those who are involved and inside. The name-calling is beneath someone who wishes to receive respect--he must show it, first.

Jim, I have read more than 50 of EGWs books in their entirety. She had a lot of good things to say in the areas of health, education, and Christian service. Wherever the information came from, a lot of it makes good sense to day. Exercise, low fat diet, avoidance of alcohol, tobacco, stimulants, certainly no harm in doing that. Makes good sense even from the perspective of a Christian humanist or atheist.

When we talk about lies, we need to distinguish from purposeful falsehood intended to deceive and errors based on ignorance, misunderstanding, and so forth.

Historically, on All Saints Eve, around the Roman Catholic church graveyards, deceivers attached small candles to the shell of land tortoises and let them roam the graveyard at night. They told people that these were the souls of the dead seeking escape from earth. I doubt that this practice was widespread; however, it was done intentionally to deceive and fleece the congregations of money.

I would like you to show me one incident from the history of Adventism that approaches this magnitude of purposeful deceit.

I know something about land tortoises as well.

Michael, so you think I misinterpret your faith? Welcome to my world. This is exactly what you do to us. If I seem unfair then consider how you misunderstand my faith. Subtract EGW from Adventism and what do you get? Think about that.

Hansen, 1844. Jesus didn't come back. That was deceit. Even worse the reinterpreting of this to say that he entered the heavenly temple. That was deceit. Claiming false titles about the Pope in order to claim that he is the anti-Christ. That is deceit. Plagiarism on the part of EGW. That is deceit. Her theory of amalgamation. That is deceit. I can go on, but do I need too?

When it comes to Mass stipends I make about 100 dollars a month. So is it a real money maker for clergy? No. Adventist clergy make more then I do. EGW made her share of money and she didn't die in the poor house.

Come on, Jim. You are supposedly a clergyman. I assume that you are an educated one. Do you consider theological errors, that is mistakes in doctrine, on the same level with cheating people intentionally?

I have forgotten more about EGW than you know, seriously. Frankly, she doesn't suit my taste theologically. I much prefer Luther; however, most people would have marked health improvements if they followed her counsel in that area. One of the books she wrote is "Ministry of Healing." It's a great little book covering a variety of topics of great practical value to the Christian.

I worked for a year at Mont La Salle, a retirement home for the Christian Brothers. It's a beautiful location just outside of Napa. I had a very good relationship with the people there. The spiritual director of Mont La Salle was invited to speak at the SDA college nearby. He was also allowed to use a very high quality organ in the church.

The kind of polarizing polemic often associated with religious differences I did not experience.

When I became acquainted with Adventism years ago, the type of crusade that you are describing had perhaps not yet been developed. The crusade I attended was hosted by a group of college students who befriended me, accepted me, and supported me as a human being. I admit that in more recent times, I have seen some Adventist crusades that are poorly conceived.

I hope that you will not let these things embitter you. Adventism is dying in America. It could very well be that these tactics which you deplore are the last gasps of a dying movement. I wish Adventism would become known for preaching the gospel of justification by faith, a radical gospel that sweeps away every human prop and exalts Jesus as the crucified and risen Saviour.

If Adventism won't do it, perhaps you can.

Hansen

A very good response. It is now time to stop pointing fingers and directing our eyes towards Jesus. Our Hope can be built on nothing less!" Tom

Tom...

Amen and Amen!!

Thanks...

Frank

Hansen, I believe those theological errors were lies. Plagiarism is certainly lying. If you are not an Adventist I have no idea why you are defending these practices. I was certainly angered by the deception, but I get even more angry when it is defended. Even many Adventists here feel that this kind of thing must stop. If you want to evangelize that's fine, just be honest about it.

Dont get angry. Its one of the 7 deadly sins.

Come on Michael. This is not furthering the conversation.

7 Deadly sins:
2.1 Lust (Latin, luxuria)
2.2 Gluttony (Latin, gula)
2.3 Greed (Latin, avaritia)
2.4 Sloth (Latin, acedia)
2.5 Wrath (Latin, ira)
2.6 Envy (Latin, invidia)
2.7 Pride (Latin, superbia)

Wrath is not the same as anger. Otherwise Jesus would have sinned. For example: Mark 3:5

"4 Then Jesus asked them, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” But they remained silent.
5 He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored."

Rich,
Discribing anger in a context Jim was familiar with since his denomination invented the list.
Dante described it as "love of justice perverted to revenge and spite". In its original form, the sin of wrath also encompassed anger.

Justice means giving or receiving ones due. People who go to a seminar are due the truth. To deny that to them is an injustice. There is no sin in decrying an injustice and insisting on the truth. But lying is a sin, deception is a sin, and bearing false witness is a sin. Apparently Michael believes that he can practice those sins with impunity.

Speak for yourself Jim.
I don't see you apologizing for the lie's you personally told accusing SDA's of treating EGW as a God or that she claimed more authority than any Pope.
What I commented on was the issue or theory being discussed. Your lies were direct, singular and accountable solely to you.
Perhaps you might consider the log in your own eye first.

Michael, you make claims that are false about our devotion to saints. I respond and point out that you venerate her far more then we do any saint and according her divine status. In other words I did to you what you do to us. You don't like it? Then you have a big log to deal with. This whole issue is summed up simply: I say it is wrong to lie and you say it is okay when it suits the SDA church.

I am off to the March For Life in DC. Will I see any SDA's there?

It seems to me we lose so much when we revert to making our points with sarcasm.

Certain Catholic saints are associated with certain life situations. These patron saints intercede to God for us. We can take our special needs to them and know they will listen to our prayers,...
http://www.americancatholic.org/Features/saints/patrons.asp
http://catholicism.about.com/od/thesaints/f/Pray_to_Saints.htm
I said nothing of my own opinion about praying to saints.
I quoted and gave the link above.

The fact is Catholics do pray to saints. The fact is SDA's DO NOT pray to EGW. Therefore the facts are that I did not lie and you did.
Then you misrepresent the nature of our contention which is a second offense.
The most disturbing aspect is where you describe the theological standard you as a priest hold your self to.
Quote: "In other words I did to you what you do to us."
That is saddening.

Michael, it is sad to see you justify lying for Jesus. You place EGW on par with the Bible. You don't understand veneration of saints. But you do illustrate what I find so sad in some SDA's. Thank God there are others.

In reading the criticism of Ken Cox for not advertising which church he was with right away, I was wondering if anyone has read in the Bible where Jesus told people repeatedly not to tell others who He was. He also rebuked demons for the same thing. And what about when He said, "I have many things to tell you, but you cannot bear them now?" This is war against the powers of darkness, and withholding information until the right time is fair game (there is a lot of prejudice to consider). The evangelists are trying to save lives, and I'm pretty sure the people who picketed and "exposed" the operation were not inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Michael and Fr. Jim

To contend for one institution over another is vain at best.
All are human in design and in operational style.

The issue is simply Was the Christ event real? Was it Necessary? Is it sufficient? Where can I find those who answer yes to all three. I want to worship such a Divine Being in community with all who say Amen!

Whom to worship and Why are the two dominate questions.

That will be our science for eternity.

The canon tells us Enoch, Elijah, and Moses are alive and are in Heaven. Revelation tells us there are more but are not named. Peter tells us that David is still asleep in Jerusalem. So I pray to God the Father in the name of Jesus.
I know many blessed souls who pray to Mary. I don't, but I covet their faith and their works as honest believers in the Finished Work of the Lord Jesus Christ. He died that I might live. Tom

Gean, so lying for Jesus is a good thing? Those who expose the lie don't have the Holy Spirit? That sums up your argument. If it makes you squirm then you need to think again. If it doesn't then you have real problems.

Tom, my main issue is with Michaels unabashed bigotry.

So I was interested to see that the Grand Forks church is still doing evangelistic meetings, this time with Steve DeLong of Sure Word Ministries. Steve was once with Amazing Facts, but Sure Word Ministries appears to be another independent Adventist ministry.

I just got off the phone with Steve / Allen DeLong. He's staying at the Holiday Inn in Knoxville. I drilled him, and I do mean I drilled him. I told him he has messed with the wrong family because I have no problem digging into people's information to find out who they really are.

I told him he caused division in my family over his business he's running under the name of "ministry", and he asked..."Where is this leading?" I told him I'm going to find out who he really is.

He continued talking to me. I told him I will dig until I find out who he really is and if he wanted to go look at my Web site, he would find out how he has crossed a person that will not back down until I get the truth. He said that wouldn't be necessary and wanted to know again where this is going.

I told him I attended my sister's church to watch her and her family be baptized and while it was being announced that my sister was getting baptized, he walked across the stage to his projector and turned on the big screen to advertise his CDs and business.

I asked him who the founder of Sure Word Ministries was. He said he didn't know. I asked him if it was the the woman with Latter Rain. He said he didn't know. I asked him who he answers to. He said only himself.

I said to him that he is a pastor, and advertises Sure Word Ministries and that he doesn't even know who he's doing business with? He said it was an accident that he left the presentation showing SureWordMinistries.org on there, and that he is not with him any more.

That was lie #1, because he announced in the seminar last night (that was only supposed to be a baptism) that he was with Sure Word.

I drilled him some more because he would advertise something then say he wasn't affiliated with Sure Word. So, I asked him the name of his company. I never once allowed him to get out saying this was not a business. He never once tried to correct me saying it was not a business. Now he's going by an organization he calls Unveiling Revelation Ministries.

At first he wouldn't tell me his new organization name. He kept asking me where this is headed. I told him he messed with the wrong family and I do investigative reporting and I will find out the truth. So, he told me the new Web address that he's working on, which will be unveilingrevelationministries.org (not yet active at the time of this post).

You see, one of my other sisters had already got off the phone with him and he wouldn't talk to her. He told her he was on the phone working out a contract with the bank. He also told my siter he didn't do a seminar last night. Of course, my sister had left right after the baptism because she and I saw Mr. DeLong at the Jubilee Center in Knoxville and were turned off by his selling of his business products while he was supposed to be teaching the Word of God. So, I already had done some digging on him. I just never expected to see him at my sister's church last night.

He also didn't know I stayed after the baptism and I heard him say last night was the last night of the seminar, yet he told my sister there was not a seminar last night. There was. He said he always saved the last night for the Elisha teaching. And he never handed out the good Bibles until the last night, so as to weed out the other people who don't stay until the end.

Lie #2. He told my sister there was not a seminar last night. There was.

I asked him what his real name is, Steve or Allen. He said it's Allen. He also apologized for misleading our family about the baptism. He said it wasn't the church who arranged the baptisms. It was him and that was part of his program. I was furious. I told him he commercialized something that was supposed to be very important to our family and that he caused division.

He put me on hold and said he had to get the phone. I told him, yes, I know, it's a bank and you're working on a contract. He said yes. (on hold)

He returns and we continue the discussion. I asked him if he was working on a business contract with the bank. He said it had to do with the next convention he's setting up with churches in California. I said..so, you require a contract with the bank to do your ministry. He then said no. I asked him what bank he was on the phone with. He told me Bank of America. I asked him why a pastor would need a bank contract to preach. He then changed his story.

Lie #3. He was calling Bank of America to verify a deposit he made. He told my sister he was working on a bank contract for the next meeting.

I asked him to clarify what he meant by a bank contract. He said it wasn't really a contract and that my sister misunderstood. Well, it wasn't just my sister, because when he put me on hold, I repeated what he said to my sister by saying I know why he needed to put me on hold because it was with the bank over a contract. When someone lies, they can't remember and that's how I got him to screw up his stories. I kept bringing up his own words, but then I would drill further until he changed his story.

Lie #4. Business

I asked him how much money he makes. He said he has a base salary of only $500 per week and the convention pays all the advertising. I told him I didn't believe that's all he makes. I reminded him of his fancy clothes and him boasting about what kind of car he drove and how fast he drove it.

I reminded him he's a businessman and I asked him if he makes all the business decisions for his organization. He said yes, he does.

So, it's a business he's running, but it just so happens to have the label of ministry, which he says is a non-profit organization. He said he pays taxes. I'm assuming he's referring to his salary and not the organization. Imagine how much money his company makes…tax free. Wow! No wonder so many get in business and call it a ministry.

I told him it's pretty bad when he's in business and doesn't even know the people he makes contracts with.

Lie #5. Police escort. On day 1 of the seminar at the Jubilee Center, he told the story of how his house burned and he got a police escort…a cop in front and a cop behind… and they escorted him to his house at 120 miles per hour to get his Bible out of the house.

I brought up this story to him on the phone today. He said that's how the story went. I guess he was regretting talking to me, because he asked again where this is going. I asked him the address of the burning house. He wanted to know why I wanted to know. I told him because when he was telling the story of going 120 miles per hour, I was thinking God should have told him to slow down before he killed someone, and I wanted to know what police department would allow someone to go that fast over a Bible.

He said it was in Iowa. I asked him the city and he wouldn't tell me. I asked again why he went 120 miles per hour to save a Bible. He said it was because his house was burning. I reminded him that his story went that the house was already burned and that he went there to look for his Bible. I asked again what police department escorted him at 120 miles per hour. He then said it was a reletive of his that's a cop and it was actually up to 120 hours per hour. I told him that's not what he said in the seminar. I reminded him he led everyone to believe it was a cop in front and a cop behind, and I wanted to know what police department would escort a citizen at 120 miles per hour to get his Bible.

He then changed the story again. He said they escorted him across many states. Okay, now he's really ticking me off. I told him I have worked in law enforcement and no police department would escort someone at that rate of speed and across state lines. They have jurisdictions and I wanted to know what police department escorted him.

He asked again where this is going. I reminded him he changes his stories and lies, and I'm going to find out who he is, and I said I would call the Iowa police and ask if they would escort anyone at that speed.

He said he had to go now. Click.

FRAUD!!!!!

No one likes it when people dig for truth, do they?

How sad it was that he exploited baptism for his money-making deceptive scheme. He just ran across a person that is already in deep with uncovering corruption. He told me he's never, in 20 years, ran into anyone like me and my sister before.

I asked him if he ever Googles his name. He said all the time. I told him to make sure he Googles it again because I'm going to write about our phone conversation today.

I apologize for quoting a part of the article in my comment. The first paragraph was a part I was researching and forgot to delete it. The part from the article reads:

"So I was interested to see that the Grand Forks church is still doing evangelistic meetings, this time with Steve DeLong of Sure Word Ministries. Steve was once with Amazing Facts, but Sure Word Ministries appears to be another independent Adventist ministry."

I was going to research the Amazing Facts and do some cross referencing, and I didn't mean to copy that into my comment. Oops!

Does the SDA church have bishops?

I don't know their structure, but since Mr. DeLong wants to play games with people about who he's affiliated with, I decided to do some digging.

He's claiming he doesn't know who the founder of Sure Word Ministries is, yet, he said in his seminar that's who he's with. How can he not know who is over that organization?

He also said he's the CEO of his own business..Unveiling Revelation.

Sure Word is run by the following, according to their site:

Sure Word Ministries
c/o Donna Kazenske
P.O. Box 383
Litchfield, IL 62056

surewrd@yahoo.com

But, if you dig deeper, Sure Word is owned by a corporation known as
COVENANT FELLOWSHIP INTERNATIONAL, INC.
5119 NORMANDY BLVD
JACKSONVILLE, FL 32205
FEI Number: 59-3690137

The registration was signed by someone named Vaughn McLaughlin, who also runs an organization called Potter's House Christian Academy, and Potter's House Development.

His site is here: http://cfi.c-m-e.com/bishopsbio.html and he calls himself a bishop.

He has a foundation called Mclaughlin Charitable Foundation Inc.

He lists several businesses owned by the church, such as these:

The Potter’s House Café, Angel’s Hair Salon and The Potter’s House Bookstore, The Potter's House Federal Credit Union, The Potter' s House Recording Studio, The Potter's House Dance Studio, The Potter's House Game Room, Graphic Design Studio

They also own a shopping mall in Florida.

Sounds like a tidy business deal that has one umbrella business covering another which covers another, and still another.

It also traces back to some kind of Latter Rain whatever, which DeLong told me was a Mormon church.

So, who is who in DeLong's business and why is he exploiting baptism and the book of Revelation?

Who owns what and why do they need to keep changing their Web sites and organization names?

Taking into consideration that Sure Word Ministries is probably a common name, it's possible it's not related to bishops, but has anyone done a search on how many times it comes up with different addresses and Web sites but still linked to the same people?

Why do they need to change organization names and Web site addresses so much?

Who are these people and why are they involved in so much deception?

Here's another site: http://donnakazenske.com/ She's the one affiliated with Sure Word Ministries.

It's possible the bishop just happens to have the same ministry as DeLong.

Sure Word (DeLong) and Sure Word (McLaughlin) are different. I'm not able to delete, so I wanted to make the correction.

I'm in contact with Donna Kazenske, and I told her about the domain and name DeLong is/was using. She's going to check on the domain, but said he is not affiliated with her.

I asked DeLong why his presentations are using a name and address that are not accurate and all he did was apologize and said that information wasn't supposed to be in his presentations.

What organization spends $55,000 on advertising, only to print (and speak from the pulpit) the domain and name if it's not valid information?

I'm frustrated that the SDA church sees nothing wrong with printing up literature that leads people to believe they are dealing with a certain organization when really we aren't.

I attended the Jubilee Center seminar in Knoxville, and DeLong made it sound like he was Baptist. All the handouts looked like their teaching. He even talked about Sunday church as if he was part of that.

Honestly, I hope it all comes out who he really is. I have no idea what religion he is when he portrays himself to be each one, yet ends up in SDA churches. I'm guessing he's SDA, but prefers deception in order to attract the crowds.

Sharkgirl,

Keep up the good work...the SDA church doesn't seem to want to clean their own house. To really do so would be disastrous for them, but maybe one person, one website at a time, and perhaps a WWCG moment will come. Once can only hope!

Shark Girl...

My home church participated in one of Delong's seminars about ten years ago. At the time, he was an employee of Amazing Facts, an SDA independent ministry. He was less than above board in his advertizing and presentation then; but, this sounds like it has gotten worse.

The bottom line, he was and probably still is SDA, unless he's been disfellowshipped. The fact that the church would tolerate such a lack of tranparency in the name of sharing truth is also frustrating to me.

Thanks...

Frank

Wow Shark Girl. I am amazed by the facts (no pun intended lol). You really do your homework. I was right that this guy was bad news, but I didn't realize how bad. The SDA's should denounce this guy right away and disassociate themselves from him. Talk about a PR problem. The folks who think there is no problem about deception in evangelism really need to think again. God doesn't lie and we shouldn't either.

I just found a link that states sure word ministries is run by the General Conference of the SDA church.

http://www.manta.com/coms2/dnbcompany_6qf0tk

Company Name: General Conference Corporation Of Seventhday Adventists
Is This Your Company?
Address: 4804 Granite Dr Ste F3, Rocklin, CA 95677-2857 (Map)
Alt Business Name: Sure Word Ministries
Location Type: Branch Location
Est. Annual Sales:
Est. # of Employees:
Est. Empl. at Loc.: 1
Year Started:
State of Incorp:
SIC #Code: padlock icon View Details
Contact's Name: Steve Delong
Contact's Title: Branch Manager
Parent Company: General Conference Corporation Of Seventh-Day Adventists
NAICS: Religious Organizations

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/us/03church.html?_r=1

The Servants of the Paraclete first came to my attention when reading a book about a pedophile scandal in Louisiana. The book was first published in 1992. If I remember correctly, estimates at that time indicated that since the 1970s, as many as 60% of men entering the priesthood were gay.

The conflict between gay and pedophile can be argued and has been argued by gay apologists for some time. Gays need a whipping boy and pedophiles are it. What they overlook is that nearly all the RC pedophile cases involved man on boy, which is, however sliced, gay.

I had a RC priest in my home once. Upon entering, he immediately went to my bed and prostrated himself upon it, face up. During a discussion of works of the flesh, when I mentioned homosexuality, he asked "What's wrong with homosexuality?"

People who are concerned about honesty in Adventist evangelism, and "Catholic bashing," particularly when of the RC persuasion, should be carefully be scrutinized. The Nicene and Apostles Creed are to be found in the first chapter of the Vatican catechism. In theory, at least every RC priest would subscribe to both. That includes the many pedophiles and homosexuals.

I had the opportunity to become personally acquainted with a major figure in the RC pedophile scandal in L.A. I had not the slightest idea regarding the background or present (at the time) proclivities of said individual. It is incredible that a quarterback type guy with his personal charm could prey upon children. He's in prison now, as far as I know.

When talking about honesty, one need consider the implications of the RC handling of this matter. According to the above article, the church had been warned in the 1950s about the danger of predatory priests. For administrators to move a priest with that kind of history around, subjecting parishoners to abuse of that nature, hardly seems honest.

Hansen

Let me take you back to the middle 1950's in the mid-west.
The star of E.M.C. Department of Religion became head Pastor of the church in the largest mid-western city.

The Church had a Friday Evening service for young people only.One father drove his 15 year old daughter to the meeting and returned home. At the end of the service, he was back to pick up his daughter. She didn't come out. He waited a short time and then when into the youth room to look for her. He couldn't find her. He began systematically search all the rooms in the Sabbath School wing. No luck. Then he moved to the Chapel calling her name. No answer. Then he saw the drapes in front of the baptistry move slightly. He walk up the short flight of stairs and looked into the baptistry. He discovered his under age daughter in a sexual embrace with the pastor.

Of course, he registered a complaint with the Conference Office but refrained from bringing criminal charges against the pastor--to spare his daughter of the publicity.

The conference, merely sought to move the pastor to a different conference out of the Union Conference. He was placed in a large city church about 250 miles away. The father, learned of the pastor's new "digs" and traveled to that city and church and contacted the head elder and told him the entire sordid story--urging the head elder that the pastor was unfit to shepard any flock. The man's home conference office got wind of the father's attempt and called upon the father and threated him with disfellowship if he continued his actions against that pastor.

Several years prior to the above incident, the Treasurer of the Lake Union Conference spent a week at Broadview Academy working with the financial officer of the school on the problem of a vanishing cash flow. He was quartered in the guest room of the girls Dorm. During that time he carried on an affair with one of the academy girls.

That Sabbath, he was the guest speaker at E.M.C. Church.

Immediately following church he was met by a delegation of Union Conference Officers. It seems that Friday night and Sabbath at Broadview was spiritual emphasis week with a call at the end of the Sabbath sermon. The young girl involved came forward, and confessed of her "sin" and named her lover.

A prominent Seventh-day Adventist College President of a Canadian College, A Southern Union College, A Lake Union College, and a Pacific Coast College had multiple affairs at each location, known to a small circle of church leaders. But it wasn't until a young co-ed confessed at the close of a week of prayer that the President was removed from office.

I would suggest, you find a better brick bat to bash the Roman Catholic Church. The Seventh-day Adventist church has its full share of predators and its full share of cover-ups.

We were commissioned to spread the Gospel not manure. Tom

Tom, What you are offering is simply gossip and hearsay. The RC pedophile scandal is well beyond that. I haven't seen entire volumes devoted to Adventist clerical sexual abuse.It doesn't surprise me that Adventists are involved in things of this nature. They are no better than the saints of the Bible. I doubt that the Adventist clergy, or any clergy, which allows its members to marry, could approximate the Papacy in this area.

Even some of the greatest saints in Scripture stumbled in this area, with multiple wives, concubines, and adultery. There is no record in Scripture of any of God's saints violating children under the nose of those to whom they were accountable.

I was somewhat surprised at how quick many were to jump on an Adventist evangelist based on the accusations of an RC priest. Perhaps having one in my bed expecting me to abominate him has somehow skewed my perspective. I hope you can understand how that might have made me somewhat suspicious of their self righteous braying and motives.

Clergy of all stripes, as well as simple folk in the pews have issues. It would be interesting to know what turned you against the denomination.

Hensen

You of all people to dismiss the escapades I recited as gossip and heresay. I was there at each episode and each is a part of the record. I refrained from including a past President of Andrews who was arrested and booked on a charge of solicitation of a "male prostitute" that was in fact an under cover cop in the Takoma Park Area. Please do your home work on the home church as well as you claim you have done it on others. If one compares the size of the RC with SDA you will find a close parallel. At least far to close for comfort or for gloating.

I carry no water for the RC. I am a strong ally of fair play.

The Gospel is not served by denigration. For all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God. Please, let us focus on the Redemptive aspects of Christian living and witness. No useful purpose is in this constant drum beat on how bad someone else is. I attended the Augusta First Seventh-day Adventist Church this morning. The associate pastor had the sermon. He talked for 50 minutes and said absolutely nothing but a constant scold--about what I have absolutely no idea.

I did catch one repeated phrase: The man is the head of the household. What other fairy tales he had to offer, I have absolutely no idea. Tom

Tell your friend Jim, that, Tom. You consider him a true Christian because he subscribes to an ancient creed. I was simply pointing out that every RC priest subscribes to the same, as they violate their parishoners. You have no idea what he does in his personal life, unless you have some kind of personal friendship. And this is not about Jim. EGW warned people about the pernicious influence of Rome a century ago. The so called "thinking" Adventist snickers at her quaintness.

Here is a recent article documenting that nearly 50 years ago, someone was crying aloud to the RC authorities and they wouldn't listen. When Ronald Lawson exposed Colin Cook, he was out of business. The GC shut him down. They didn't move him around to prey upon others.

I don't understand why so many former Adventists, apostates as we are commonly called, are willing to lay down for the Papacy, homosexuals, feminists, Biblical critics and a host of others that are simply denying Christianity. Dig an inch below the surface and most of it is simply a social agenda in drag. Yet people seem to slurp it up.

I guess I am a Pharisee in the sense that I thank God that the has given me faith and I haven't yet become "like other men."

Hansen

It is vain to converse with you. In every one of the episodes I described the "heavy" was a strong supporter of the "Spirit of Prophecy!" Get real. I am neither a personal friend of nor an adversary of Fr. Jim. or "Jim" as you prefer to identify him. I am a very strong adversary of abusive behavior and allegations against anyone for either the sins of others or of institutional bigotry of which the victim is not a direct party.

According to your line of reasoning. The eleven disciples are tarred with the same brush as Judas.

So you name one who was moved around. There is an exception to every rule.

I don't run down the SDA Church because of a few renegades.
I differ on specific points of doctrine as I do with the RC.

I see no need to cast the burden on innocent bystanders.

Neal Wilson took several actions with which I disagree.

Herbie Douglas wrote a booklet that contains popositions outside of the Pauline Gospel.

The Church demands concurance with Fundamental beliefs that I cannot ascribe to. Since I cannot in good faith do so. I
did the honorable thing and severed my formal relationship as a member of the church body. I hold no animosity toward the church or anyone in it. I reserve the right to comment on the validity or lack there of an policy or doctrine in variance with the plain word of SCripture as God has given me light to see and understand it. I am willing to be persuaded but not threatened or abused to change my mind or understanding. Nor
am I willing to be silent when a Christian brother is abused
because of institutional sin.

With that, My conversation with you on this topic is closed.
Tom

The tragic fact is, the first priority of any organization is self-preservation. And that fact knows no denominational boundaries. It applies to the Seventh-day Adventist Church just as it applies to Roman Catholicism. Or General Motors or AIG. And the higher up the organizational ladder the miscreant happens to be, the greater the incentive to cover up.

I'm a fourth-generation Adventist on both my mother's and father's side. I attended Adventist schools right through college. I've been employed as a pastor or editor for more than thirty-three years. I've lived for extended periods in four of the church's world divisions. I've served on committees at every level of our denomination's organizational structure from the local church to the General Conference. So I've "experienced" the church quite extensively.

I can personally vouch for some of the stories Tom has shared. And I can match the others with verifiable stories of my own. I say this not to demean the Adventist Church but to candidly acknowledge that we have our long-standing endemic problems as do other organizations. Cover-ups are deplorable irrespective of the label under which they're perpetrated.

When many years ago I had an associate pastor who had trouble finding the right bed to sleep in--actually, I think it was the waking moments in the bed that were more problematic!--the conference administration asked me to tell my church board that my associate was disappearing because he'd suddenly decided he'd like to do further study.

Let me state their request in stronger language, just in case you missed the implication of their words: They asked me to lie to my church board. I refused. I told them that I had a policy of total openness and honesty with my board, and there was no way I was going to so misrepresent the case. Let's just say, the administration tolerated but certainly didn't commend me for my stand.

Tom isn't spinning yarns; he's telling real-life stories from which we should be learning real-life lessons.

Jim

Wow. I can't help but feel very sick in my stomach when I see so many former SDA's posting here who have left the truth's that mean so much to me. To me finding the SDA message was and still is like finding the pearl of great price. I left everything to follow the truth about Jesus Christ and I don't regret a thing.

For me it has always been a matter of what is bible truth, not which church has the "best" people in it. Tom and I are like two ships passing in the night. He is heading away from the truths of Seventh-day Adventism and I am more and more grateful that I found the truths that Adventism advocates. I don't believe all of the 28 Fundamentals either but I have looked into just about every other Christian group and I still have to say that I want to still be an SDA Christian. Truth is all I care about and I am overjoyed that an SDA came to my house to tell me about it. It took great courage to knock on doors and face the rejection of so many people who don't want to know the truth of the Bible.

Sure there are all sorts of sin problems in Adventism but from personal experience I know that I wouldn't trade the problems that Adventism has for the problems in the other denominations. Adventists really have something to believe in that is not to be found in any of the other denominations.

If you want the social gospel then you can find it in the Lutheran, Presbyterian, Congregational, and Methodist groups. These groups by and large have lost their Protestant heritage. All of these groups arose from the Reformation and all at one time believed that Rome was the apostate form of Christianity that Paul predicted would take over the Christian faith like wolves not sparing the flock. John Knox's fist sermon in Scotland was on the identity of the second beast of Revelation 13 and the little horn of Daniel 7 as being the abomination of desolation, Roman Catholicism. Knox risked life and limb to bring the true gospel to Scotland and he turned Scotland upside down with his courageous preaching.

Some here are ashamed of this kind of teaching because they want to "just get along with everyone". These persons are the supreme advocates of ecumenism. Well the truths of the bible will not mix with the lies of Rome. It is the duty of every true Christian minister of the gospel to denounce the lies of the doctrines of devils. It is not enough to just present truth, the preacher must call out error as well. We must not only be "for" truth, we must be "against" the lies of Satan as well.

Does Adventism have some immature teachings? Sure, but does mistakenly setting the date of 1844 as the beginning of the judgment hour compare in seriousness of degree of error as the teaching of the fires of purgatory and eternally burning hell fire, praying to the saints, confession of sin to a celibate false "priesthood" calling itself "Father", adoration of the Virgin Mary, the Pope as the head of the church, transubstantiation in the Mass, and justification by infused righteousness through the seven sacraments.

So many second and third generation SDA's are embarrassed by the distinctive truths of Adventism because of the stigma associated with standing up and daring to teach the truth. What a pity to see so many ship wrecks of faith. Sin is still transgression of the Law and the wages of sin is death. Those who willfully forsake the commandments of God will not inherit the eternal life which Christ purchased for them on the cross of Calvary.

carol f.

Question for Bill Diehl...

You said, "Those who willfully forsake the commandments of God will not inherit the eternal life which Christ purchased for them on the cross of Calvary." So, are you saying that former SDA's who are Christians, and are attending church on Sunday, will lose their salvation and that Christ's atonement does not apply to someone who leaves the SDA church?

So Jim, Tom, and others, When confronted by the enormity of the abuses of Rome in the name of Christianity, your response is, "The church which writes my paycheck is no better," or "The church which I was a member of for so many years is no better?"

A RC priest comes in here in an attack mode against an SDA evangelist, and he immediately finds a host of comrades willing to turn their guns on the evangelist. I don't know Steve DeLong. He may be as bad or worse than any boy loving RC priest.

So called evangelically minded renegade Adventists give aid and comfort to the agents of Rome while braying about the grace of God, Luther, the finished work of Christ, and so forth. What a sham. Note the following quote form the Vatican Catechism in its treatment of justification:

ARTICLE 2
GRACE AND JUSTIFICATION

I. JUSTIFICATION

"1987 The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us "the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ" and through Baptism: (Rom. 3:22; 6:3,4)"

People refer to the Reformation "sola fide" and out of the other side of their mouth support those whose life has been dedicated to an organization intent on enslaving the children of God. Again, let Rome speak:

"1989 The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus' proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."( Mt 4:17) Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. "Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man." (Council of Trent (1547): DS 1528)

"Thinking" [former] Adventists want to strengthen the hands of those who would impose the doctrines of Rome on the whole world, teaching that justification includes sanctification and renewal of the inner man. The teaching includes baptism as a necessity for justification.

Most former Adventists are adrift in a sea of confusion, depending on catch phrases two or three hands down from the Reformers, soon to find themselves comfortable kissing the foot, hand, rear end of the Pope.

Sad, indeed.

Hansen,

You stated: "Tom, What you are offering is simply gossip and hearsay. The RC pedophile scandal is well beyond that. I haven't seen entire volumes devoted to Adventist clerical sexual abuse."

Let me make it absolutely clear that I find Catholicism's pedophile scandal to be both tragic and despicable. The acts perpetrated by twisted priests are tragic, and the ensuing cover-up by the hierarchy is despicable. But I don't believe Catholics are cut from different cloth than other religious or secular groups: We're all sinners who fall short of God's glory, and we're all capable of doing evil. Great evil.

The fact is, there are roughly 75 times as many Catholics in the United States and Canada as there are Adventists. So, on a per capita basis, the Catholics would have to commit substantially more than 75 times as many crimes/sins as Adventists before we'd have any real basis to point to them as being morally inferior.

So, no, I haven't read volumes about Adventist clergy abuse of children. But I likewise recognize that an organization that's 75 times bigger would be more likely to have a sufficient number of such incidents to capture the attention of reporters and researchers.

I agree with you that the Catholic doctrine of an unmarried clergy lends itself to such problems. I think it inevitable that some sexually troubled men enter the priesthood because they very sincerely feel that an imposed celibate environment will help them resolve their inner tensions. And it doesn't always work. But, I also believe that belief systems, by their very nature, provide a sifting process that brings together people who have common tendencies. Thus, I suggest that if we could adquately research it, we would find that every denomination has tendencies toward its own uniquely "besetting sins."

I enjoy debate. But I find it offensive when Tom's comments are dismissed out of hand as "simply gossip and hearsay." I don't believe that Tom's track record of several years of measured comments justifies that kind of dismissiveness. Especially when I know from a lifetime of in-depth involvement with the Adventist Church that your statement is wrong.

What I don't know is whether Roman Catholic clergy have more than 75 times more incidences of sexual misconduct and cover-up than Adventists. So I'd prefer not to condemn them to hell or to set Adventists on a spiritual pedestal. Instead, I'd rather urge proper behavior and condemn improper behavior whatever the spiritual label of the perpetrator. And I'd suggest that, bad though certain behavior is, the cover-ups are actually a greater sin and do even greater spiritual damage to the victims.

Having a twisted clergyman take advantage of a child or an adult is tragic. But we all know that in our world of sin, twisted people exist. Having a twisted church hierarchy seek to cover up such crimes/sins when the victims bring it to their attention, seeking their help, is an even more devastating blow. And the pain doesn't feel any different whether you're Catholic or Adventist.

Jim

Jim, I don't know Tom personally. I've had dealings with a few Adventist good ol'boys. I regard them warily.

There is a thread here called "Confronting the Challenges in Adventist Education." Tom posted some things there, which sounded quite authoritative, regarding an Adventist institution. The president (I believe) of the college appeared and put Tom's feet to the fire, eliciting from him an apology and confession that he was simply passing along hearsay, unsubstantiated rumors.

Tom doesn't always dwell in a high and holy place, nor do I. If Tom is privy to information which he received due to a position of trust and he choses to reveal it in this context, that's his business. It is certainly not a common practice, so perhaps you can understand why I dismissed it as suspect.

As for the disparity in numbers between RCs and Adventists, Are there 75 times more RC priests and brothers than there are Adventist ministers? According to numbers for 2002 which I found, there were about 50,000 RC priests and brothers in the USA in 2002. There were about 4100 SDA ministers in the NAD at that time, according to the online yearbook.

Really, How many cases have there been of Adventist clergy sodomizing or otherwise abusing young Adventist boys? I can hardly recall hearing of more than one or two. Nothing compared to what appears to have been a systematic and conspiratorial practice on the part of RC clergy.

I do agree with Tom regarding the spreading of the gospel. Jim the priest, had an invitation extended by Alex to get something up on justification from an RC perspective. He offered nothing, nor did he appear on a thread addressing the subject. As far as I know, he would still be welcome to make such a display.

Had he done that before we could have moved into an area of discussion through which we all might have benefitted. He, apparently, had, or has, a different agenda.

Can someone please comment on the issue - is it deceptive to do community service outreach with a parallel agenda of soul winning for the church?

Hansen

At last, a long last, have you no sense of decentcy? To accuse me of breaking confidential information as an "Insider" is way below the belt. In each episode that I related on this site was and is a part of the public record. In the 1930's the treasurer of the Lake Union Conference stole over #3,000. of Conference funds. The Conference had him tried in state court. He was convicted and senstenced to three years in state prison. The publicity surrounding that case, so unnvered the brethren that ever since they have used more private avenues.

I have never, betrayed a private trust or abused my fiduicary responsibility to the church, to any institution of which I was or am a part.

There is an old adage: Don't shoot until you see the white's of their eyes. You seem to enjoy shooting yourself in the foot.

This site has raised two issues: 1. What does the public think of Adventist Evangelism. 2. Truthful Evangelism.
Both were an invitation to seek response from the public. Fr. Jim as part of the public responded in an open and candid fashion. Rather than taking counsel of his observations; you and others took immediate umbrage. Establishing a litany of the sins of others as if that expunged the sins of your Church. I merely pointed that there are dirty hands on both sides, but you failed to make any of that dirt stick on Fr. Jim. Now you have turned to try and smear me. Dear Friend. I don't think the SDA Church is particularly pleased with you help or tactics.

I hope, at last, at only last you will find peace in Christ alone. Tom

Hansen

At last, a long last, have you no sense of decentcy? To accuse me of breaking confidential information as an "Insider" is way below the belt. In each episode that I related on this site was and is a part of the public record. In the 1930's the treasurer of the Lake Union Conference stole over #3,000. of Conference funds. The Conference had him tried in state court. He was convicted and senstenced to three years in state prison. The publicity surrounding that case, so unnvered the brethren that ever since they have used more private avenues.

I have never, betrayed a private trust or abused my fiduicary responsibility to the church, to any institution of which I was or am a part.

There is an old adage: Don't shoot until you see the white's of their eyes. You seem to enjoy shooting yourself in the foot.

This site has raised two issues: 1. What does the public think of Adventist Evangelism. 2. Truthful Evangelism.
Both were an invitation to seek response from the public. Fr. Jim as part of the public responded in an open and candid fashion. Rather than taking counsel of his observations; you and others took immediate umbrage. Establishing a litany of the sins of others as if that expunged the sins of your Church. I merely pointed that there are dirty hands on both sides, but you failed to make any of that dirt stick on Fr. Jim. Now you have turned to try and smear me. Dear Friend. I don't think the SDA Church is particularly pleased with you help or tactics.

I hope, at last, at only last you will find peace in Christ alone. Tom

A Spectrumite convinced against his will is of the same opinion still . . . look hard enough and you will find we are sinners . . posting our faults on the Internet must be like putting balm on an old wound . . . how about some Baptist faults while you're at it?

Adventist evangelism is very good . . . it works. Evidence me and my friends. Adventist TV is even better . . . TRAINS and RETAINS to the seemingly horror of dropped-out Adventists.

God, please protect inquirers of the faith from stopping at this Internet site. Thank you.

Jody

Judy

Spectrum not I raised the questions. I responded because Specturm was and remains really concerned about the content and style of contemporay SDA evangelism. It wanted some cogent answers to very puzzling question: in order to improve the telling of the Gospel Story.

To cut to the chase. The problems with SDA Evangelism; despite all of its commentable traits are:

1. It uses puffery to elevate its cause while denigrating all other contemporary points of view.

2. It imposes the evangelist and an discredited set of beliefs between the convert and his/her Advocate: Jesus Christ.

3. It then places a burden on the convert greater than the one he/she thought they had released at the baptism.

4. The convert now lives in a double fear of their past and their future in Judgment.

Fortunately, a few like yourself seem to have found peace, joy, and love despite the best efforts of the evangelist.

One can thank the Holy Spirit for continuing to work even under the most trying of circumstances.

But give the Glory to God and not someone with sound equipment and a power point exhibit of gargolyes.

Yes, by all means, One can find the Gospel within Adventism among all the "stuff". Those of us who write--are trying to remove the "stuff" not the Gospel. As the above entries indicate it ain't easy. Seems their "baseball cards" are more precious than the plain Word of God.

I honor my history in Adventism. I did find the Gospel within its dogma. I believe that the Church left me, not I the Church.

If you find assurance within that community, praise be to God. Tom

Jody: to each his own. Whatever robe fits, wear it. There is no "one-size-fits all" in choosing a particular religious belief.

Tom, There are, in the above posts, references to RC theology upon which you are free to comment. How about we review the posting guidelines, which discourage personal attacks, and get back to discussing issues?

You, or your "friend" Jim (the RC priest) might make a meaningful contribution to a discussion of the issue of justification in the RC church. We might all gain something by moving the discussion in that direction.

Since the Vatican catechism plainly states that justification includes sanctification and EGW advised not quibbling over the distinction between the two, there is certainly a basis for meaningful dialogue.

Hansen

I pray to God that in your recent rebutal, your passion has not overcome both your reason and your civility. I will indulge you my understanding of Righteous or Justification by faith.

I have repeated stated in brief my understanding: By Faith Alone, By Scripture Alone, By Christ Alone. Below: is a more complete rehearsal of my understanding. I trust you will read it as a sincere effort to inform and not to debate. I have neither the interest or the time to trade insults with you.

Justification: The Watershed of the Church

The medieval Church at Rome was preoccupied with the occult. The things, the places, the people, and the institutions of the Church were viewed as having intrinsic supernatural or mystical powers. These purported powers were advanced as evidence of divine approval and had administrative and transactional value. Salvation and heaven became negotiable with “temple” money. Merchandizing was made of God’s Grace. It was said that the symbols, relics, sacraments and officers of the Church had inherent goodness and possessed redemptive power and authority. The Church had substituted its presence for the finished work of Jesus Christ.

The thinking and the behavior of the Church during the Dark Ages was reminiscent of Hebrew thought in Christ’s day. The Jewish spiritual leaders believed that they were “chosen” and that the dedication of the temple gave it inherent merit, hence both the officers of the Temple and the facilities of the Temple were intrinsically superior and particularly favored by God above all secular things. God had become obligated to man.

Illogical thinking ultimately results in illogical behavior. It was the behavior more than the thinking which first prompted Luther to protest. His protest was not unlike that of Jesus in driving out the money changers from His Father’s house. The Church indeed had become a den of thieves.

Pope Leo X had need of money, lots of money! Feudal wars and revolts, crusades against the Mohammedan hordes, the expanding retinue in Rome, along with the Pope’s magnificent obsession with building Saint Peter’s Church had all but drained his treasury. Pope Leo sought needed revenue by selling church offices to feudal princes.

Prince Albert of Brandenburg had incurred a large debt by buying the honor and power of being a bishop in three different jurisdictions. Thus, both Leo and Albert turned to additional ways of jointly increasing their income. As others before, they followed the convoluted logic that if piety, charity, and mercy are meritorious of salvation and have transactional value, then money which is both a universal measure of human effort and has great transactional appeal could be used to purchase the equivalent of piety, charity, and mercy from a designated officer of the Church.

Fiscal pressure created the likes of John Wetzel, an agent of Leo and Albert, and an enthusiastic evangel of indulgence, the gospel of redemptive payment. The claims of Wetzel far out-stripped even the claims of the Church. So when Wetzel entered Wittenberg with his merchandizing of salvation he had to contend with Luther, the Professor of Theology at Wittenberg. Luther, wishing to debate the issue on its theological merits and on its behavioral consequences, nailed 95 propositions to the door of All Saint’s Church in Wittenberg (which was the customary way of making public announcement in Luther’s day—it was not a defiant act in and of itself—only the subject matter announced was defiant of prevailing practice and the theology backing that practice).

If the Church followed convoluted logic to merchandize Grace, the buyers had their own logic. If one could pay ahead on salvation why not pay ahead on sinning? The morality and behavior of the citizens of Wittenberg fell to a new low under the “gospel” of Cash Discounting.

As Luther witnessed the declining morality in Wittenberg he was reminded of his recent visit to Rome. He was aghast at the dissipation and debauchery even among the clergy. In recounting his experience he quoted a cynical statement popular in Rome: “ If there is a hell, Rome is built over it.”

An equally compelling force was Luther’s personal quest for truth, freedom, and acceptance with God. As an obedient son of the Church, Luther was a monk without equal. Luther speaking of those days said: “I dare say that if ever a monk reached heaven by monkery, I would get there……If I had kept on any longer, I should have killed myself with vigils, prayers, reading, and other works.” It is obvious that Luther finally saw that the theology of Rome had created two divergent life styles: monkery and mockery.

Fortunately, Dr. John Van Staupits was Luther’s spiritual and intellectual mentor. Dr. Staupits was quite blunt with Luther saying: “Instead of torturing yourself because of your sins, throw yourself into the Redeemer’s arms…..Love Him who first loved you.”

If Tetzel forced Luther it was Staupits and Paul who stirred him into action. Luther was a changed man. Freed from Guilt, Luther became a champion of the Reformation of the Church with the rallying cry: Solely by Scripture, Solely by Grace, Solely by Faith in Jesus Christ. Unfortunately the Church rejected Luther and the opportunity to reestablish its Peterine and Pauline roots.

The anthropological evidence is that the Good News does change men. It changed Zacchaeus, It changed Peter, It changed Saul to Paul, It changed Calvin, Knox, the Wesleys, and Edwards.

Luther’s theology matured with the preaching of his sermon entitled: “Two Kinds of Righteousness”. In this sermon he set forth the propositional truth of two kinds of Christian righteousness. 1. An alien righteousness, the righteousness of another imputed to another from without, in this case the righteousness of Christ by which He justifies the believer through faith alone in His, Christ’s Righteousness. 2. The second kind Luther labeled “proper righteousness” the growth of the Christian in the virtues of the forgiven: love towards one neighbor, meekness or teachability, and in mastery of desires of the flesh. In this second righteousness Luther referred to Paul’s letter to Titus: “In this world let us live soberly, justly, and devoutly.” Titus 2: 12.

A parallel admonition to that found in Micah 6: 8 “He hath shewed thee, O 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.”

Strangely, yet predictably, every time a “priest” left the mother church a different set of doctrines emerged. Even within Luther’s band, justification became contested. Andreas Osiander, a contemporary of Luther, opted for a mystical “infused” righteousness rather than the Pauline/Luther forensic righteousness.

Luther’s contemporary, John Calvin, in writing his “Institutes” used more precise language and logic. He set forth the Pauline doctrine on justification by faith by refuting Osiander’s contention for an “infused” or “essential righteousness.

Calvin goes to the Paul’s letter to the Church in Ephesus “We are destined for adoption through Christ according to God’s good pleasure, to the praise of his glorious grace by which he has accounted us acceptable and beloved.” Eph. 1:5-6

Calvin then appeals to Paul and David quoting Romans 4: 6-7 and Psalms 33:11. “That man is declared blessed by David whom God renders acceptable or to whom he imputes righteousness apart from works, as it is written: ‘Blessed are they whose transgressions have been forgiven.”

As the battle over imputed rather than infused righteousness became enjoined in earnest, Luther was joined by the young, modest and diffident Philip Melanchthon. Melanchthon’s sound judgment and extensive knowledge of Scripture added materially to Luther’s cause. The mature propositional truths of the reformation were set forth by Melanchthon and edited by Luther in response to the Augsburg Diet.

An English summary of Luther/Melanchthon’s position was translated by Professor Landeen of Walla Walla College. “The Christian is wholly righteous in Christ, in the sense that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to him, or he is accounted righteous for Christ’s sake, and his own sinfulness is not imputed to him but freely and unreservedly forgiven. Yet he is wholly sinful in himself, inasmuch as the original sin remaining in him, even though it does not reign, affects every part of his being and infects everything that he does. At the same time, it can rightly be said that he is in fact regenerated by the Holy Spirit, though not yet completely so. There is a real measure of new life in him, as well as the sin that has still to be eradicated.”

Luther’s and Calvin’s writing reverberated in England by Tyndale and in Scotland by John Knox. The good news became the compelling force behind the classic Allegory Pilgrim’s Progress written by John Bunyan. Bunyan followed his allegory with a treatise setting forth his understanding of salvation. This small book entitled: Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners is both biographical and theological. In no uncertain terms Bunyan declares: “There is no other way for sinner to be justified from the curse of the law in the sight of God, than by the imputation of that righteousness long ago performed by, and still residing with, the person of Jesus Christ.” Bunyan goes on to say: “Our sins when laid upon Christ were yet personally ours, not His: so His righteousness that resides with a person in heaven should justify me, a sinner, on earth.”

Bunyan concludes: “Therefore, men are justified from the curse in the sight of God while sinners in themselves.”

The idea of a legal or declarative Righteousness (a heretical thought) was strongly apposed by the prevailing Church. Never-the-less, neither rack nor pyre, neither king nor prelate could stop its advance.

There were two amazing outcomes of Reformational thought. The use of bodily harm and death to compel obedience and the almost endless variety of “confessions” that sprang up—denominations, sects, and cults of every hue emerged—each proclaiming proprietary “truth”.

Years later Voltaire expressed the terror of “good” men: “The man who says to me, believe as I do, or God will damn you, will presently say, believe as I do, or I will assassinate you.”

James Buchanan, commenting on this state of affairs wrote: “It has been justly said, in controversies of faith, the difference between antagonist systems is often reduced to a line as sharp as a razor’s edge, yet on one side of that line is God’s truth, and the other a departure from it.”

Changing Buchanan’s metaphor, this writer sees the issue of Justification by Faith as the watershed of the church.

One side (Luther) evolved its position in Augsburg Confession and the other (Rome) in the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent is a refinement of the Osiander position. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The justified man has an acquired intrinsic dignity, and God continues to act in a manner truly consonant with His nature when His liberality rewards the good acts of such a man.”

In response, Maartin Chemnitz, a student of Philip Melanchton correctly demurs by writing: “ It is regarding the good works of the regenerate, or the new obedience, that there is now the chief controversy between papalists and us, namely, whether the regenerate are justified by that newness which the Holy Spirit works in them and by the good works which follow renewal: that is, whether the newness, the virtues, or good works of the regenerate are the things by which they can stand in the judgment of God that they may not be condemned.”

Chemnitz makes it crystal clear that Justification is an imputed standing before God and not an infused Righteousness within the believer.

Our standing before God is by Grace or underserved mercy based solely on the doings of another, Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

The issue of Christ, Our Righteousness, is not merely theological history. It is of immediate and eternal consequence. Moreover, theological wars are not a relic of history. We live in a time when the sword rather than the Word is once again becoming dominate.

How we stand in the Judgment may once again become a concern of the state as well as the church. The end of a dispute is often blood rather than consensus. Of Course there is a Moral Majority: One with Christ is a majority. However, to divide the house on the basis of one’s intrinsic Righteousness is totally contrary to the words of Paul: “There is none righteous, no not one!” The life style of the forgiven in the words of the Judge of the Universe: “For I was hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me” Matt: 25: 35,36 Freedom from guilt brings gratitude and generosity.

That freedom has given us Peter, John, Paul, Luther, Edwards,
Maxwell, Heppenstall, H.M.S. Richards, Paul Heubach, Philip Yancey, John R. W. Stott, Fred Craddock, R.C. Sproul, Willian Sloane Coffin, John Dillenberger, Hans Kung, a a multitude that no man can number. Hansen, by God's grace, I pray that it includes you and me. Tom

Tom,

Nicely collected and stated my friend.

regards,
pat

Thank you, Pat.

What grieves me, is that from at least F. D. Nickel, Don Neufeld, Kenneth Wood, and Herbert Douglass; the Review has contended for the Council of Trent definition and application of Justification by Faith. Hansen et al denigrate Rome while fully endorsing its basic soteriology--thinking, of course, they are in the main stream of reformational theology. Their obessioon with an end-time perfect generation has lead them to a trinitarian position on Justification and then go over the edge into denying even original sin as the spring board for explaining the possiblity of final perfection as necessary to complete the vindication of God. Thus they make the Christ event as an unfinished work and merely a stepping stone for man's ascention up Jacob's ladder.

While Paul exclaims that man is dead in trespassses and sin--The Review theology would compare that death as a dead battery that just needs battery cables to be "jump started" and go merrily on their way to vindicating God. Gross. Tom

I can just picture the current Spectrum editor with one hand on her forehead and the other clutching (my current) favorite hot drink mug which says, "Come on, Work with me people!!"

Is there no way to discuss these issues without the addition of sarcasm and name dropping? Although there have been a number who, I feel, have sunk to this level in this blog, I am going to mention one in particular. Maybe because he tends to really surprise me every so often.

Tom, out of anyone that I've read on the Spectrum website, I have found that you are one of the most earnest about turning all of our eyes back to Christ and His salvation and love for us. Why then, must you also be the one who brings up stories with all the details needed for everyone to either know (or look up) to see who it was. I don't find that this is necessary and, for some reason that I still can't place my finger on, it just doesn't seem congruous with who you are the rest of the time. I will be more specific, since this one particularly bothered me. Here is what you wrote in an entry above:

"...The Gospel is not served by denigration...No useful purpose is [served] in this constant drum beat on how bad someone else is. I attended the [Name of the City-Removed] Seventh-day Adventist Church [Date you attended-Removed]. The [Pastor's position-Removed] pastor had the sermon. He talked for 50 minutes and said absolutely nothing but a constant scold--about what I have absolutely no idea. I did catch one repeated phrase: The man is the head of the household. What other fairy tales he had to offer, I have absolutely no idea. Tom"

Why publicly humiliate by listing all the information? Wouldn't it be better to address the pastor himself if you have an issue with him? Can't you tell these stories without trying to give enough details so that everyone can figure out who you believe did what? I'm not saying they are or aren't true, just that we don't need proof. Most of us can fill in our own details from our own stories. Help us with the issues!

I've personally dealt with some pretty ugly stuff in the church and been amazed at what was allowed to happen and what was covered up. I could still use some help knowing how to deal with some of these issues. It sounds like you've had some invaluable experience in your life and I would love to sit at your feet and ask you how you got from A to Z without damaging anymore people than necessary, especially the children.

But, doing what you are doing on Spectrum? I guess I just do not see any purpose in it. Tell the story, we know there are plenty of scenarios out there that they would fit into and then help us figure out what to do with the mess these people create in our churches.

I want to say, again, that I respect and value so much your continually turning our eyes back to our Creator. We need you to be here to help us all with that and I thank you for doing it!

Respectfully, Gaylene

Gaylene, the sentiments you have expressed are what has given the church such a negative view:
cover up; don't mention unpleasant things; pretend everything is serene; present a "perfect" church to all its members.

Where, in such a scenario, is there ever a place or time to speak of such things? If not here, where? Certainly, the church's official publications are not the place. Only independent publications such as Spectrum are designed to be the true voice of the church, uncensored and truthful. If it does not reflect what is printed in official publications, it is only because truth is not to be expected from them.

Most of us have greatly enjoyed Tom's valuable experience in the church, something that few have been given. History is only valuable if it is heard. His voice is appreciated by most of us here; he is an admirable opponent which is what will never be seen in the official church press. Where else should one find it if his voice is stilled? Isn't this what Spectrum is all about? Tom deserves your apology, IMO.

Tom,

Thanks for your comments...and the names of those who have continuously opposed the gospel of Christ in it's simplicity in your life experiences.

regards,
pat

I'm always surprised when I see this thread of comments come alive again, months after it went up!—though it has strayed rather far from where it began, occasionally into some discourtesy.

I just want to say again that it was never my purpose, when I began this discussion, to denigrate honest evangelists, or the methods they use. I've got lots of friends in the church whose fellowship I owe to evangelistic meetings. I was bothered in this situation by what appears to have been the evangelist's attempt to dodge a straightforward question about his denominational affiliation. And it is important to note that this particular story came to our attention not from Father Jim (he joined the fray later) but from the Grand Forks Herald. So it was out in the press for the world to see in a much more public way than we are doing here.

It seems to me good that we talk about such things with one another, even if it exposes our faults. I've long felt that less-than-fully-ethical outreach programs can actually vaccinate the world against us. So we need to examine and police ourselves.

Loren Seibold

Gaylene

Thank you! I didn't think I exposed anyone person to the extent of public embarrassment. If I did, you are correct:
that was neither my intent nor my style. I do admit that Hansen is a provocateur--if he enticed me beyond the pale--I apology to all the readers. I was unable to speak to the preacher but did mention it to the elder, a close friend of mine. He has had prior difficulty in guiding the young man, even with his over 40 years in the General Conference.

If you recall, I did also cited some outstanding pastors of several communities of faith including the local SDA church in previous posts.

I just learned a few hours ago, that a dear friend, the father of Dr. Rick Rice, passed away yesterday. I certainly hope that someone in an editorial capacity at Spectrum will note his passing. Dr. Bruce Rice was a founding member of the dental faculty at LLU and an outstanding member of the dental faculty at the Medical College of Georgia. He and his wife Alyse were the sustaining presence in the Augusta, Ga. SDA Church for many years. Their spiritual and financial leadership was way above any call of duty. Bruce touched the lives of countless dental students in both dental science and in spiritual growth. Christian gentlemen of exceeding talent and grace don't appear on the stage very often. He will be missed. I am sure that several readers will note his passing in an appropriate manner. Tom

And as for the faults of Roman Catholicism: do you think it possible that we could learn how to make a solid case for our core beliefs without having to denigrate others'? That thing Jesus said about the guy with a plank in his eye trying to take the speck out of the other's eye keeps coming to mind.

Loren Seibold

P.S. Bruce and I were a team in presenting The Five Day Plan to Stop Smoking across both Georgia and South Carolina. We had many fourteen hour work days together. He would present the biochemical and physiological aspects and I the behavioral. I still meet successful graduates of that program in food markets and the mall. I am greeted with great affection and joy and I know Bruce would be also if he continued to live in Georgia. I have recemtly lost two Christian giants of the Church: Dr. Bruce Rice and Dr. John Roos. I know God marks their resting place, but I must call their lives of service to new generations. Tom

http://jonahmalone.livejournal.com/

I hope you feel better Jonah...or are you Cliff?
Many of us here are know longer Adventist for many of the reasons you listed...disagreement with the distinctive FBs, but find this one of the few places in Adventist circles, where there is a willingness to engage in thoughtful and thought provoking dialogue, not only on theological topics, but also social issues....you know...the stuff that Christ was concerned about....
Those of us former SDAs still share many of the same values as we always have....love...community...social justice...and theological discussion. We are not here for argument, but rather to lend different viewpoints and observations. Something that is usually sought after and encouraged by those who are curious as to how others might think.
While some claim this site to be irrelevent, and ignored by the main body of the church.....I would submit that it will ultimately to the church's peril....

Randy Gerber

Jonah

You sound more like the cat the swallowed the canary--than having been swallowed by a giant fish. If you had gone to Nineveh with your lament, I think the king would have put you in sack cloth and ashes. What an empty apology.

Everyone of your Spectrum villians or has had a very successul professional career, a very active member of their community, and postions of substance in their local churches at one time or another. Some still do!

None write in a capricious fashion, but out of experience and anquish of heart--at an institution increasing turning in on its self--A Laodicean condition--big time. In the last days scoffers will arise, strange we always thought it would be "outsiders", now we find the schoffers as "insider apologists"--the Cliffs, Hansns, and Jonah's of cyber space.

I challenge you to record Doug's message without any visuals and then sit down and analyse the content of his message.

You will find there is no there/there! It is vacumm cleaner pitch. Then pick up a contemporary book by Philip Yancey, or John R. W. Stott and see how far the SDA Church has fallen.

The only word that fits is Triumphalism. "Ye are the people and the truth will die with you!" If we didn't care we wouldn't post. We see the SDA church as the bridesmaids that fell asleep and awoke without any oil. At least, the church is running on empty. It has so ever since it circled the wagons at Glacier View. What used to invigorate the Church to meaningful outreach, now compells them to lash out against any critical thinking and comment. Cliff at least thinks he
as a cause. You simple display an itch. Sorry about that.

We had intended to stimulate the Church to meaningful reform--to meet a world in peril. But the Church prefers to remain in denial. Pity.

Just imagine the difference, if only the White Estate would have reworked the writings of E.G.White and added footnotes in Desire of Ages, Great Controvery in at least their trade editions. What weight it would have added to Ellen's writings. To have the giant writers of her day cited in her writings. Rather than, "I was shown". or "in the night season"
Even using the writings of U. Smith, J.N. Andrews, et al with citations, would have drawn the little band closer rather than having E.G.White on one coast and the brethren on the other. We would have been spared volumes of testy testimonies. She would rather destroy any rising star than be a mentor--King Saul like. Wake up and smell the smoke. It is your pants on fire not ours. Tom

And mud encasing all with many layers till a passer by would find it impossible to tell the difference between them.

Sometimes Tom, you write as though time has stopped in the early '80's. For you it has. Your blanket staements on the condition of the church are rooted in your past experiences.

If one wanted to wake up the sleeping virgins by throwing small pebbles over a high wall, fine, but how will you know if any or all of them have roused from the confines of your geographically confined world?

Your brush is far to wide in my experience.

Michael

If you can't default the message--attack the messenger. I have no desire to debate you now or ever. I have written--it is for the reader to judge. I would say that your judgment is confind to much smaller world than mine. But assured there is no mud on my hands. I just told the truth and you thought it was mud. Even the slightest research on your part would confirm every assertion I made.

One cannot get to a final perfect generation without denial of Original Sin and the adoption of an infused righteousness: protestations not with standing. All the yes buts will not alter that published thesis.

The tragedy is layer of layer of convoluted thinking just to prop up a false understanding of Dan. 8:14. All the time labeling Rome as a whore. A mind-set to be pitied. When the prostitution of the truth is right at your doorstep. I suggest that we both cling to Phil.2:5-11. Christ is Lord!

Tom

Michael, you wrote of Tom:

"Your blanket staements on the condition of the church are rooted in your past experiences."

And, pray tell, where do you get your expertise about the church? From outer space? Tom probably has a longer and more extensive experience with the church that nearly any one here. Perhaps for you that counts for nothing, but it's true about all history: ignorance of it only allows its repetition.

How long, and what has been your most extensive experience with the church? Is it sophomoric or based on multiple church affiliations? Why not tell us so we can compare?

You miss the point Sir,
I dont contend with your stories. I contend with your tone.
Let me quote some of your script and you can tell me what they have to do with the theology you contend against.

"Hansen

There is an old adage: Don't shoot until you see the white's of their eyes. You seem to enjoy shooting yourself in the foot.

Jonah

You sound more like the cat the swallowed the canary--than having been swallowed by a giant fish. If you had gone to Nineveh with your lament, I think the king would have put you in sack cloth and ashes. What an empty apology.

Michael

If you can't default the message--attack the messenger. But assured there is no mud on my hands. I just told the truth and you thought it was mud."

Do not make the mistake of thinking you can say what you want however you want and not have mud on your hands.

In all my reading You are the only one who ever says anything about a final perfect generation though sometimes you put words in others mouths as if they did.

Here you brand ALL evangelism as if it was cut fromn the same cloth. Are you denying there is any "evangelism" made outside of your little box then?
Further, all your points are subjective.
"The problems with SDA Evangelism; despite all of its commentable traits are:

1. It uses puffery to elevate its cause while denigrating all other contemporary points of view.
(Puffy is a personal opinion. As to denegrating others points of view, look at your comments above)

2. It imposes the evangelist and an discredited set of beliefs between the convert and his/her Advocate: Jesus Christ.
(In your opinion)
3. It then places a burden on the convert greater than the one he/she thought they had released at the baptism.
(In your opinion)
4. The convert now lives in a double fear of their past and their future in Judgment."
(In your opinion, unless mind reading is one of your abilities now.)

I, as Gaylene does, see very good affirming and uplifting sections of your writing. I myself have commented on you bringing discussions back from where they often stray to again focus on Christ.

The post you made on 05 April 2009 at 10:23 concerning
Righteous or Justification by faith is fantastic.
We only mention it because your pithy comments tarnish, who we know you really are. The guy with a good heart who always focuses on Christ and reminds us to do the same.

Anyone who has the ability to write what you did about Righteous by faith doesnt need to be as crochety as you can sometimes appear.

So as I have said before many times why don't the former SDA's on this forum who have given up the keeping of the seventh day Sabbath just move on with their lives??? I would rather not name names but some of the most prolific posters on this SDA forum and other SDA forums I have looked at are not even professing bible believing Christians.

For instance, how can someone call himself an SDA if he believes in Darwinian evolution and still keep the seventh day Sabbath which is a memorial to our Lord's having created the universe in six literal days? If Darwinism is true then the Sabbath is a memorial to something that never happened. For a Darwinist to keep the Sabbath seems rather like burning the candle at both ends. But then I am merely one of those "lunatic" young earth creationist. I have looked at both sides of the creation/evolution debate and I find the arguments which the Institute for Creation Research makes the most persuasive. http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/evolution-to-creati...

If I were absolutely convinced that Darwin was correct then I would not be an SDA for another minute. I honestly think that a lot of formers SDA simply are not able to cut the umbilical cord because they actually cannot face the loneliness of the world without the nice cozy nest that the SDA movement provides.

Miachael

You seem to enjoy cherry picking. Did you ever read the stuff
hansen wrote? Or Cliff? Or You? Did you miss my apology to Gaylene.

I stand by my statement on puffery, denigration, and mud I ain't crochety just penetrating into a few dark corners of a triumphalistic institutinal church and an few of its apologists. If you want crochety read Cliff.

Thank you for a concilatory close. I am too old to suck it up under attack but the likes of hansen. Sorry--But both Christ and Paul used much more earthy language in the face of unwarranted broadsides from pompous self righteous bigots. Tom

Bill,

I understand from your many posts that you are passionate about the creation/evolution debate.

Many Christians struggle with reconciling science and religon particularly with regard to origins. I would consider myself agnostic on the subject of how or whether evolution fits into things. All models, as the GC's geoscience research unit itself suggests , are flawed.

However, I would still consider myself an Adventist. Even though you don't understand how one can 'believe' in evolution and be Adventist, surely some latitude and understanding is needed? Rather than be prescriptive and dismissive, agreeing to disagree would be a better way forward?

Adrian

P.S.

Michael

You would gain a lot of credibility with me if you would call hansen on his ad hominum attacks on me. Even you came might close to the edge with your snide remark about my little world. I think we should all admit that some of Eve's apple clings to all of us.

I get a kick out of Alex. He comes to the defense of some poor souls but lets me hang out all by myself. I rejoice that even Alex has had Cliff up to the eyeballs. If Cliff is an intellectual--then one is enough in Adventism.
Tom

P.S. Again
Michael You stung me. So I must respond.

My small world includes but is not limited to the following.
Associate professorship at Marquette University
Chair and Professor at LLU
Associate Dean and Vice President at the Medical College of Georgia.

Member of the Accreditation site visit team at the following universities.

University of Florida Four times
University of South Caroline Four times
University of Tenn
University of W. Virginia
Commonwhealth University of Virginia
Harvard
Tufts
Columbia
U. of New York Stony Brook Twice
U. of New York Buffalo
U. Of Pittsburg
U. of Penn.
Temple
U. of Southern Ill.
U. of Detroit
LSU
UCLA
U. of Calf. San Franciso campus.
University of the Pacific
U.of Oregon
U of Colorado
U. of Iowa
U. of Loiusville
U. of Kansas
U. of Nevada Las Vagas
Guest lecturer at Andrews, University of Alabama, U. of Puerto Rico three times, U. of Colorado, U. West Virginia, U. of Kentucky, U. of Conn., U. of Georgia,(and nine states colleges in Georgia)University of Southern Calif. University of Toronto. Emory University. I have also been guest lecturer at several self supporting institutions in the Southern Union.
and a guest at Oakwood, South Western, and Columbia Union Colleges.

I must admit, I haven't visited Africa, or Europe.

Other than that my world is quite small Betty, three children their spouces, three grandchildren and three great grandchildren, three siblings, and personal friend of several Union Conference Presidents and General Conference officers both active and retired.

On a first name basis with the speaker pro tem of the Ga. House, the publisher of the Augusta Chronicle, and the 10th district congressman from Georgia.

Other than that I am a stick in the mud as you would put it.
Tom

Let me clarify Tom.
You rightly listed the extent of your "world". There is another factor that I am speaking of. When? You have let us know of your mobility and health problems that have restricted your interactions. (I hope your are currently enjoying the peak of health)

My point was that you have alot of knowledge of your life experience but have you been to any of those places or participated in those same capacities in the last say...5 years? 10 years? 15 years?
That is why I percieve you as stuck in time at Glacier view or shortly after. The world can and does move on while you continue to play the same 80's song. That is fine and I can understand that some people have a few particular issues that are the entire world to them.
As I have said, you have a right to your issues and beliefs but would question your demeanor on some days. Cliff could rightly tell you that it is a sunny day outside and you loath to agree with him because of his tone. Why take up a similar one when you have demonstrated a command of the english language based on your positions and not your emotions??
Many times I have seen you comment in a more thoughful manner after an initial knee jerk reaction post.

In times past you questioned my "tone" and I have worked to improve. I never said I was the example of perfection although one phrase I recognize saying myself.
Where you said, "You would gain a lot of credibility with me if you would call hansen on his...(comments))
I believe I said nearly the same thing to you about Jims mischaracterizations of my points. To date you still seem to defend the Catholic perspectives against all commers. I am still looking for a little more even handedness myself.

At least twice you have come to the point where you said Spectrum was to rough for you when people responded to your comments and I encouraged you to stay. Remember?

I dont consider this a big deal or think any less of you. I know enough of you to know that although you respond a little to quickly sometimes and fall into the traps we all do with the digs and barbs, that isnt you. You are better than that. I know because you have shown us.

Michael,

"In all my reading You (Tom) are the only one who ever says anything about a final perfect generation though sometimes you put words in others mouths as if they did."

I have also on a number of ocassions.

You might want to check out the works of M.L.Andreason (QOD-Annotated edition)and a "perfect final generation" and perhaps our own Herb Douglass of Why Jesus Waits?

How long have you been a SDA...first,second generation etc.?
In one sense it does not matter but in understanding "practical SDA practice and historical thought" it matters greatly.

regards,
pat

Michael,

Are you willing also to state your qualifications and experience as has Tom? Surely, any resume requires such and as a frequent commenter here shouldn't we ask you to verify your credentials to speak so freely? Pat has asked some very relevant questions. Life experiences are most valuable.

Pat
I know of what points you speak concerning those authors.
My frame of reference was Toms post of 06 April 2009 at 12:34 where he responds to you saying,

"Hansen et al denigrate Rome while fully endorsing its basic soteriology--thinking, of course, they are in the main stream of reformational theology. Their obessioon with an end-time perfect generation has lead them to a trinitarian position on Justification and then go over the edge into denying even original sin as the spring board for explaining the possiblity of final perfection as necessary to complete the vindication of God. Thus they make the Christ event as an unfinished work and merely a stepping stone for man's ascention up Jacob's ladder."

Hansen has said many things but I dont believe he has ever laid out a position that I have read here as Tom related. It may well be true but in the absence of Hansens own declaration I would be hesitant to characterize someone else's position to that extent.

As to my experience in the church. I am hesitant to say in this forum since it will be sure to bias some in these digital halls but I would tell you in a private email if you are interested. In general, 4th generation, church planter serving at the local and conference level. I have met with Jan Paulsen in his office and the more interesting rest will have to wait for your email.

Michael:

I didn't list my recent experiences.

Within the last five years, I have limited my consultation to the United Way of Augusta, Crisis management of the Presbyterian Church USA of North Georgia. Editor of three dental dictionaries and contributing editor for four health science dictionaries, presenter at the regional Orthodontic Association annual meetings, and Acting Vice Chancellor for Health Affairs for the University Sytem of Georgia for four years.

This thread and the previous thread have dealt with both the public view of Adventist Evangelism and the truthfulness of Adventist Evangelism. The rebuttal to Fr. Jim included issues dating back to the Dark Ages and the Inquisition--centuries older than Glacier view. My point was simply--the pot shouldn't be calling the kettle black. The argument of hansen et al regarding the charges against SDA evangelism was that the Roman Catholic Church is not only a whore but an entire brothel. I have only attempted to demonstrate that argument does not expunge the excesses of the SDA Church. Hansen et al beg the issue. The two questions were raised not to determine who was the worst sinner but how can the Seventh-day Adventist Church improve its image and to hone its out-reach mission. The denigration of other institutions offers nothing of redemptive value to lost souls or to leadership in improving its public view. My litany was current, the only current issue Hansen et al raised was pedophilia--I pointed out that the SDA church handled those issues much like the Roman Chruch. Currently the Curia in Rome has taken
a more active role in oversight of the U.S. priesthood. It also has cooperated with the U.S. legal system in bringing pedophiles to justice and has attempted to make restitution to victims.

Never-the-less, the majority of the contributors to this thread have attempt to justify the SDA outreach by simply pointing out the sins of others.

Fr. Jim simply attempted to give a straight response to a straight forward question. The apologists twisted the argument. I simply objected to such a crass distortion. I would have done the same, if any other denominational leader had pointed out a gross injustice routine in SDA public evangelism. I believe in fair play. Hansen et al didn't play fair with Fr. Jim--I took issue with that miscarrage of logic
and civility.

In case your impying that I am senile. My names is Thomas J. Zwemer I live in Augusta, Ga. 30909 zip code, I was born in Mishawaka, Ind March 23, 1925. I drive a Lexus with a current divers license. I am an unpaid consultant to the Medical College of Georgia. I do my own banking and do 90% of the grocery shopping for our household. I personally write the checks for all household expenses. My investment portfolio has increased by $30,000. over the past twelve months. I engage in weekly Bible study with a retired officer of the General Conference--without dispute. I carry on a wide range of correspondence with family and professional friends.
I received, in Feb.,a publishers check for my last review of a Health Science Dictionary--in which I reviewed, updated,and purged over 5000 dental terms. I self published a short story auto-biography. Finally, I challenged the smug triumphalism
of mis-guided apologists of Seventh-day Adventist evangelism.

To which you took exception by impuning my rational powers.
For shame.
Tom

Please, please, please......the last thing I wanted was to steer this discussion into an attack on Tom. Out of anyone, he has had the guts to keep gently pushing us back to focusing on Christ.

Some of you mistook my intent. I, not only, believe we have a number of deeply serious problems in our church, but I believe that this IS the location to discuss them. We must! WE MUST! WE MUST!!!!!!! There are people who are leaving the church because we turn the other way, children's hearts are being shredded because we ignore what is going on. Yes, please, let's discuss what to do with situations like I have seen:

A church elder, convicted in court of statutory rape, sought out by the pastor for re-baptism soon after and reinstated to position of Youth leader, without either the pastor or the elder ever contacting the family of the young girl (who had to then change churches because of the court ordered separation.)

I'm the first in line when it comes to wanting to discuss issues, you which our church unfortunately has plenty. I just don't think that dates, locations, or church names are necessary. I'm guessing this scenario has happened more than once in our church. If not, at least something similar enough that any discussion might help someone going through it right now to better know how to deal with it

I, also, believe this picking back and forth at each other is a waste of precious resources that could be used to help others deal with these issues. But, that's just my point of view, as someone coming from seeing some pretty messed up situations in our churches.

Michael,

As far as I can tell, you have continued to shroud your identity, which begs two questions:

What do you have to hide?

If people were to know who you really are, would it change the tenor of your entries?

Gaylene

Michael,

I think what Tom is saying is that as does Trent include the Spirit infusing and "making righteous" as part of the article of Justification rather than simply "reckoning or accounting righteous" by "faith alone" in the "alien righteousness/merits of Christ" as did the major Reformers...it seems that Hansen and Herb do likewise.

You may contact me at ptravis338@bellsouth.net if you wish to privately disclose that info in my confidence...but think about why doing that privately is even necessary...does that make a statement about our church? It is so nice to have the "liberty" of "not caring" about others responses in the sense of expressing one's beliefs. I do recognize however that all in employment in any body/institution don't usually have that liberty.

regards,
pat

Only Elaine would ask for credentials when the topic is the "tone" of a particular speaker.

Tom,
I am sorry you mistake my discussing "tone" with you to be related to your experience in your career or charity work or even further off the topic, your mental acuity. I do not intend to say more about it.

Gaylene,

Why are my particulars more interesting than anyone elses? I havent claimed any authority on anything, dropped names or touted my achievements as an indicator of anything like Alex or Tom.
I have no more hidden anything than you have.
Certainly the last staement of yours applies to off tangent topics like me.
"I, also, believe this ...(snip)...is a waste of precious resources that could be used to help others deal with these issues.

Michael

Because my movement is limited does mean my mind is dead.
In the last 18 months I have published in Liberty and in Ministry. I discontinued my Sunday School Class last year to be with my wife. I continue to carry on an e-mail conversation and telephone conversation with the pastor of Reid Memorial Church. I attend the Wednesday noon service at Reid. I have a monthly lunch with the Associate Pastor of Reid and several of my Sunday School class.

I read the Review, Ministry, Southern Tidings. Focus, Scope, Newsweek, Time, even Dagwood and Private Bailey. I follow the PGA tour, and I read Slate, use CNN as my home page. I read my professional journals and guest lecture in the Department of Orthodontics at the Medical College of Georgia. I am the very model of a modern pain in the rear of the status quo. Tom P.S. Any further challenges to my sanity please refer them to the dead letter file. Tom

Can't we all just get along?

Loren

Why not? Spectrum asked a simple direct question. Fr. Jim gave a simple direct obvious answer. The Gospel is not served by attacking others. That brought out the attack dogs in earnest--I simply got in their way and got bite big time.

I just barked and they bit back. I think they protest too much. I have been forth coming and they hid! I simply don't care about their history. I do care about their lack of civility.

At every turn they twist the issue--in debate that is called begging the issue. For those that declare they have final "Truth" one would think they couldn't wait to share it.

A classic of American literature is the story of the little country girl entertaining her city cousin. They walk down to the shore of a small lake. The boy challenges the girl to skip stones. He bet he could skip a stone more times than she could. He skipped his stone three times. She skipped her stone five times. He said, My stone went further so I win.

That is the sum of this exchange. The question never was the history or style of the Church of Rome.

My entries have always been, he who is without sin cast the first stone! That turned out to be a very provocative comment. Sorry about that. I thought I was addressing more mature and disciplined bloggers.

The recent silence would indicate better judgment is about to prevail. The bottom-line is simple "He that confesses Me before men, will I confess before my Father." The Apostles' Creed does just that. If Christ will acknowledge the person who endorses that statment, why should we call that person names out of the Book of Revelation? Certainly, one stands in the danger of hell fire if they pray: "forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors". From what Fr. Jim as written, I find no fault in his acceptance of Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. I have yet to read any comparable acknowledgement from his attackers. Their passion to defend a negative evangelical style has blinded them to the obvious. I guess one would call it plankitis. Tom

Tom,

My hope is that all individuals might find repentance and salvation in the the simplicity of Christ our redeemer and atoning savior...The Way, The Truth, and The Light... and that our "blind allegiance" to our particular denominational or religious heritage's faults doesn't keep us from doing so.

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
”‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own
household.’
37 “Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38 and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
40 “He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me. 41 Anyone who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and anyone who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man’s reward. 42 And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones BECAUSE HE IS MY DISCIPLE, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward.” Mt.10:34-42.( I suggest the proper understood context of Mt.25:35-40...disciple)

regards my friend,
pat

Michael

I didn't tout anything. You asked or challenged me. I just responded--you refuse. if you insist on twisting every thing
that is your priviledge--But for one who holds to an Investigative Judgment so tightly--I would think you would be more careful about your loose typewriter. Good night and out.
Please dont address me again. I promise not to acknowledge even the grossest of your misrepresentations--it is obviously in vain. Tom

Tom, et al.

This autoerotic flight of fancy reminds me of Bunyan's Vain Glory: He was most zealous for religion when it paraded down the street in sliver slippers and the people applauded. There are a hundred Jewish healthcare administrators with a resume just as impressive. Sharp elbows have little to do with Biblical literacy.

Reformation Adventists are just as confused as perfectionists. Remember Sola Scriptura? No wonder you slobber all over the minions of the Pope. You cling to tradition as much as they do.

Paul set forth a new justification paradigm based on the Abrahamic covenant, the covenant of promise. Galatians argues that justification and the gift of the Spirit are one and the same event. What do you think Galatians 3:1-9 is describing?

5 So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?
6 ¶ Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.
7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.
8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU."

Those of faith are the sons of Abraham who receive the spirit when justified.

Titus 3 spells out clearly the transformative nature of justification:

"5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,
6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,
7 so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life."

How much clearer can he be? The washing of regeneration and renewing of the HS is what justifies us.

No one has even attempted to refute the explication of Job on the "Justification" thread. There we see a direct linguistic path from the parallelisms regarding justification to the story of Naaman.

You whine about Glacier View but resort to the same ruthless tactics which you decry. If you can't put up a defense and explanation of justification based on Scripture, you belong in the embrace of Rome. A few proof texts. You betray your Adventist heritage with its shabby hermeneutic.

How embarrassing for you.

Hansen

My Dutch Reform Aunt and Uncle, out of courtesy to my father, attended the full evangelistic series years ago in the Holland, Michigan Seventh-day Adventist church. The afternoon of the final presentation--the night of the "big call" the evangelist paid a call on my Uncle and Aunt. He briefly outlined the salient points of the two week effort. He closed with this appeal: "Now folks, you have heard the entire "Truth". You can accept, be baptized, and go to heaven or reject and go to hell! My Uncle, bless his heart, said: "I immagine you think you are going to heaven?"
The evangelist replied in the affirmative. My Uncle to his everlasting credit responded with: "In that case, I just as soon go to hell." Seventy years later, the Gospel and its civility has again been battered and bruised beyond recognition by you zealots with no more sense of the Plan of Redemption or the civility, gratitude, and generosity it should engender. I pity such a pathetic pedesrian view of the Gospel. It is not too late for the Holy Spirit to soften your hearts. May you and Michael have a Road to Damascus experience even now. I shall pray for such a compelling confrontation with ultimate "Truth". Certainly I have only exasperated your Id. Obivously, further words of mine will only send you both into another irrational vindictive tizzy. I certainly apologize for disturbing your equalibrium. Too bad you didn't learn about fair play in kindergarden. What a full life you could have enjoyed. Tom

More yarns, more anecdotes. Ever learn to actually exegete and interpret Scripture for yourself? When you do, we can have a worthwhile discussion.

hansen

Did you read or understand Justification: The Watershed of the Church? Why didn't that start a worthwhile discussion--No you just kept on your rant. Send me your understanding of Grace--it could be a fresh start. Please recall, Jesus gave just one sermon the rest were just "yarns." Tom

Hansen and Michael

The piece below is my understanding of Truthful Evangelism.

The Four G’s of Christianity

Praying at my mother’s knee, Grace at meals, Sandbox Sanctuaries, and memory verses were a large part of my early years. Now as an octogenarian, Bible classes and church services play a central part of my twilight years. While time dims some things others become brighter and clearer. For me, Assurance is the little engine that “could”. It carries me through the reduction in physical powers, the loss of close personal friends and family, and the loss of the independence of my more robust years. However, time has been good enough to allow contemplation, and the continuing study of Scripture, all of which has provided me with a perspective of the weekly homily as an essential evangel to a hungry, distressed, and dying world.

The one known component of every rational person is Guilt. We cannot escape it. Neither the Holy Spirit nor the Devil will let go on that point. John Bunyan describes guilt as Pilgrim in the Slough of Despond with a heavy load on his back. John Wesley describes the prevenient Grace that convicts of sin.

What follows is of cosmic consequence: evangelism or despair. As a regular occupier of the pew since 1934, I would be so bold as to suggest that the proper progression of the homily should be from guilt to grace to gratitude to generosity.

Guilt
Created in the image of God, we all have, by birth and by choice, come short of the glory of God. We all stand in moral debt. We carry the true guilt of breaking not only God’s law but His heart as well. Jesus taught us to pray: “Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors” Matthew 6:12. KJV Paul reminded us: “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God” Romans 3:23. KJV We live in a spiritual economy in which everything must be paid for—there is no Chapter 11—only debtor’s prison. Each of us is in default. By rights, we should all be in debtor’s prison—a prison from which even death cannot release us. The awareness of this moral debt is called true guilt—the first “G” of the Christian economy. Paul expresses his true guilt. “Wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” Romans 7:24 KJV Paul goes on to describe God’s Grace. Unfortunately, too few hear or believe.

God designed guilt to drive us to the foot of the Cross. Satan distorted it to drive us to suicide or to insanity. Two sad stories illustrate the down side of guilt.

At about the age of 11, I was picking strawberries on the College Farm about one mile from our home in the College enclave called “string town”. The Farm Manager, his wife and two sons, and his older sister lived in the Manager’s home just across the street for the strawberry patch. One morning the Farm Manager’s wife came screaming out the front door, yelling she’s dead! she’s dead! Call the police, Call the police! It seems that her sister-in-law had hung herself in the cellar stair well. She had been despondent for years, troubled that she had committed an un-confessed “unpardonable sin”. Finally, not able to stand the pain and fear she took her life.

Years later in the South Pacific I was assigned to Kelly, a medic in the 115th Med. Bn. attached to the 40th Infantry Division. I had been trained as a dental tech. The Company Commander said, “We don’t need any dental lab. techs out here! You are now a medic. I’m assigning you to Kelly, he is our best medic, you can learn from him.” Kelly was a hard driving 24 hour a day dynamo. Within two weeks, I was assigned to work solo but next to Kelly. We worked our way through three assault landings in the Philippines and were regrouping to invade Japan when the war in Europe was over. The Division began to send “high point” men home and received new recruits to take their place. One day, we were assigned to police the area: pick up cigarette butts and trash. I was walking next to Kelly and he was crying. I asked what’s the matter? He just shook his head and waved me off.

The next day the Company Commander came to me and asked “What’s the matter with Kelly?” I said, “I don’t know sir, I asked him and he refused to talk.” The Major said, “Tom try again, I am very worried and you are the closest one to him.” Later in the afternoon, I found Kelly sitting on the side of his cot crying. I sat down beside him and said. “Kelly what ever it is you have to tell me. The Major is very worried and so are all the guys.” Then he told his story. Kelly was raised a devout Christian. He lived a Christian life in all the months I had worked with him. The story he sobbed out was as old as soldiering. When the 40th Division was deployed to Oahu, the camp was surrounded with taverns and bordellos. One night the guys got Kelly drunk and into a bordello. Kelly fought WWII so full of guilt he worked 24/7 trying to live it down.

Now “killing” time with no “work to do” just waiting for orders to go home as a “high point” man, the guilt overwhelmed him. I got out my Bible and read to him the passages about the woman caught in adultery. I read the passage in Matt. “Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” Matt. 11: 26 I read the invitation “Come let us reason together. Though your sins be as scarlet they shall be white as snow.” Isa. 1:18 I recounted the story of David and Bathsheba, I knelt at his side and prayed for him and invited him to pray with me. He declined. I reported back to the Major. I said, “I am afraid Kelly needs long term care, he is carrying a guilt he cannot shed”. Two days later Kelly shipped out still crying. What a shame that guilt is preached more than Grace. There surely is a Devil, but praise God, we have a Savior that can cast out devils!

Grace

But there is good news for us and for Paul: Everything has been paid for by a gracious benevolent Friend. Paul exclaims this good news in Romans 5:6: “While we were yet helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.” Romans 5:6 KJV We are the beneficiaries of Christ’s atonement. Jesus Christ died for all mankind without distinction or qualification. (He is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance) This gracious act is the second “G” of the Christian economy—free grace—free to us but costly to God.

Uncle Roy was a banker, a merchant, and a gentleman farmer. He just about owned all of the little town of Pound, Wis. Uncle Roy was also single and he worked hard at it. He drove a Cord convertible, his cousin owned a private phone company that covered three counties above Green Bay. Uncle Roy knew every single telephone operator in all three counties. He found the “good life.” very pleasant indeed, but as he entered his sixties, it didn’t seem to agree with him. He was hospitalized for tests. I got a call in California that Uncle Roy was in critical condition. I called his room and he responded in a very weak voice. We talked for a few minutes. I asked if I could read a Scripture and pray with him. He said, “Oh yes, Tom”. So I read again: “Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden” As I read I could hear him say over and over again, “Oh yes”, “Oh yes”. At the close of the prayer, we said good-bye. Hours later I got the word Uncle Roy had passed away before they could do surgery to stop the bleeding in his stomach. Those quiet words: “Oh Yes,” are the assurance that I will see him again in the morning.

Gratitude

The third “G” is gratitude for the bounties of God’s salvation. The response to being debt free is not more credit card living, but rather a living witness to the grace of God in Jesus Christ and the celebration of His victory over sin and death.

King David was exuberant in his gratitude for the forgiveness and acceptance of God. His response is a model of public and private worship as acts of celebration for the creative power and redemptive love of God.

The praise Psalms of David carry two themes: The glory and power of a Creator God and the love, mercy, and compassion of a Redeeming God. “The heavens declare the glory of God, Ps.” 19:1 kjv Ó give thanks unto the LORD; for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever Ps. 136: 1 kjv

Worship in the Christian economy is simply the celebration of the living, dying, resurrection, and reigning of Jesus Christ as our Savior, Lord and Master. As Christians we can say more but we cannot say less than Jesus Christ is Lord! “Thanks be to God” is not merely a benediction but an enlistment—here am I send me! It may be just the widow’s mite. Or it may be a life of David Livingston.
The Psalms capture the songs of heaven as we will see as we turn to John the Revelator.

Worship in the Christian economy is simply the celebration of the living, dying, resurrection, and reigning of Jesus Christ as our Savior, Lord and Master. As Christians we can say more but we cannot say less than Jesus Christ is Lord! “Thanks be to God” is not a benediction but an enlistment—here am I send me! It may be just the widow’s mite. Or it may be a life of David Livingston.

Heavenly Worship:

John, the Revelator, in vision is shown heavenly worship which is depicted in two phases. Praise for God’s Creative Power, and Praise for Christ’s Redemptive Love.

Creative Power is heaven’s song from the beginning.

“The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, 11Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created”. Rev. 4:10,11 kjv

Redemptive Love is the new song that thrills the universe.

“And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; 10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth”. Rev. 5:9,10 kjv

Generosity

The fourth “G” is generosity: “Freely ye have received freely give.” Matt: 10:8 kjv. The natural impulse of one freed from debt is to “go tell it on the mountain”. Evangelism is a special calling to give witness to the grace of God in Christ and to celebrate His life and His redeeming love. Generosity is also the substrate of our stewardship of all of God’s creation.

My early years were the years of the great depression. We lived twenty paces from the main-line of the Milwaukee Road Railroad. Freights would pass 4 to 6 times a day. Hobos were riding the rails both up and down the line. Not a few would drop off as the train slowed down through town. They would stop at our back door and ask for “work” translated: “Food”. Dad usually worked about two blocks away. Mother and Dad agreed to feed each transient toast, eggs, and fried potatoes, after the man had chopped a day’s worth of wood. They also agreed that the man should eat on the porch, never in the house. “No body every left the Zwemer back porch hungry even though in those days the cash flow was often less than 20 dollars a week for a family of six.

Proclaiming liberty (grace) to the captive is just the beginning of the lifestyle of the forgiven. Wholistic morality includes feeding the hungry, giving water to the thirsty, clothing the naked, healing the sick, comforting those that mourn, and visiting those in prison.
Worship is not a time to call attention to ourselves either to our fidelity or to our lack, but a time to extol the goodness and graciousness of Jesus Christ.

Christ as God, very God, showed us the Father. Jesus as man, very man, demonstrated what it means to be truly human. He is the hero of the Church and the focus of our attention and gratitude—the very reason for being a Church. Beyond evangelism stands the opportunity individually and collectively to deal generously and graciously with all mankind. Evangelism is not only telling the good news but serving all of God’s children with gladness. As Christians we have a very special calling to show both grace and generosity in our service to others.

Grace and Generosity are the theme of the Epistle of James
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. James 1: 27 KJV

Grace and Generosity are also the theme of the final judgment. “Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.” Matt 24: 34 KJV

John Oxenham wrote:
In Christ there is no east nor West,
In Him no south or north:
But one great fellowship of love,
Through-out the whole wide earth.
Join hands then brothers of the faith,
What-e’er your race may be,
Who serve my Father as a son
Is surely kin to me.

May our prayer be—
Lord, if we are so bold as to call You Father, may we also be so gracious as to greet each other as kin. Lord, if we are so contrite as to petition for the forgiveness of our debts, may we be equally generous in forgiving those who owe us. Lord, if we are willing to accept Christ’s service on our behalf, may we as gladly serve others in Your Name. Amen.

Reference:
Oxenham, John; In Christ there is no East of West: The Review and Herald Publishing Association Washington, DC 1985 page 587

It has been very interesting to read the initial article by Pastor Siebold--it brought back many memories of evangelistic series that I participated in as a preacher's kid. The technique was similar back in the 60's--renting a neutral hall, waiting until the right time to reveal which religion, setting up the members of the church to act the correct way, etc. Too bad SDAs get a reputation for deception and denigrating other churches rather than a positive message about Christ and His love for us. That should be the Third Angel's message and it would be revolutionary if it was practiced by a group of people in our current world.

I just have to quote one of my favorite authors, Richard Foster since it fits with all the arguments posted over the months of this thread--"in this day of fractious religious arguments, we could do with less debate over who may be counted among the faithful and more evidence of faithful witness to the way of Christ. We might open floodgates of healing and redemption were we to lay down our arguments and engage every aspect of life in answering God's gracious invitation, "I am with you--will you be with Me?" "

I also feel there is a passage in Foster's book "Life With God" that I feel needs to be read and understood by all and especially those of Adventist/Evangelical background. Please pardon my extensive quote but I feel it fits very well with the above debates: "The Evangelical tradition is characterized by its fervor for a personal experience of conversion, by its insistence on biblical fidelity and sound doctrine, and by its urgent call to evangelism and discipleship for all believers. When any of these characteristics is allowed to dominate our understanding of life with God, however, it leads to an unhealthy narrowing of the Gospel. Without the balancing emphasis of social justice, focusing on personal experience can lead to an understanding of God that is vertical at the expense of horizontal--so heavenly minded as to be of no earthly good. Without the inner richness of the contemplative life, focusing on sound doctrine may anchor faith in the head but not also in the heart. Without the charismatic appreciation for life in the Spirit and the wholehearted expression of the holiness stream, biblical fidelity can descend into a rigid biblicism--worship of the written Word instead of the living Word. And without the tempering of the sacramental life, evangelism and discipleship can be reduced to formulas for admittance to heaven instead of a call to a rich, God-soaked life."

If the Adventist church wants to be relevant to today's society, how to live "a God-soaked life" would be an awesome message to give to those suffering in today's world. If demonstrated in a group of people/church--imagine the powerful message that would give.

Donavon,

The opposite is also true.

When the "social gospel" is preached WITHOUT "personal experience of conversion...its insistence on biblical fidelity and sound doctrine...its urgent call to evangelism and discipleship for all believers"...Then, I suggest, that when any of these characteristics is allowed to be left off for the fear of "offense" it leads to NO Gospel at all but merely a political-social-economic idea.

regards,
pat

Thanks Tom, I agree with your comment...I am referring to this sentence in Donavan's comment- ("The Evangelical tradition is characterized by its fervor for a personal experience of conversion, by its insistence on biblical fidelity and sound doctrine, and by its urgent call to evangelism and discipleship for all believers. When any of these characteristics is allowed to dominate our understanding of life with God, however, it leads to an unhealthy narrowing of the Gospel.")
I offerred my comment in response. It is also often true that those that press for "social justice" are the "slackest" when it comes to the necessity of the "evangelical" aspects of sound doctrine mentioned...I hope that brings clarity. BOTH are needed in the church BUT in my view apart from government-religious partnership.

Pat

I don't know nor have I read Foster. But it seems from Matt. 25 that acceptance of the Gospel bears fruit in both gratitude and generosity. Freely ye have received, freely give. Did I miss something in Donavon's post? Charity is the fruit of the Gospel not its means. I Cor. 13. Now abideth faith, hope, and charity and the greatest of these is charity" an Agope love: the theme of the epistle of James is
a summary statment of the Sermon on the Mount.

Praise God from Whom all blessing flow. Not one jot or tittle passed away until Christ cried out: "It is Finished." or as Ps. 22 closes with "He has done this!"

Our confidence and our service is based upon the completed work of Jesus Christ. We wait His return with great peace and meaningful witness and service. Institutionalism is the plague of the Gospel--in that context, I fully agree that the social Gospel is anathema. For example, what percentage of Harvest Ingathering goes to fulfill Matt. 25: 34-40?

From my vantage point: the Dorcas women have done more than all the evangelists from Vandemann/Fagel to Doug. with a minimum of cash flow. A Seventh-day Adentist LPN working in a Catholic hospitl over a Memorial week end did more in witness and service than all the evangelists in Augusta since 1966 and that at minimum wage. A clean dry sheet, a glass of cool water, a cloth over a feverish 105 degree brow--with an RN. to indifferent to answer a page.

I strongly believe that the little people will lead the way through the pearly gates. Tom

Donavon,

Thank you for that quote from Foster! What a great point to make about balance in the Christian life. I suspect most of us need to take that to heart. The Adventist faith I was raised with had both Christian service and the emphasis on belief—but I suspect the belief outweighed the service.

Pat is also right: I've seen some spiritually sterile approaches to service, too, when the center of the gospel doesn't hold.

Loren Seibold

Thanks Pat

I understand and agree. Tom

I have been an evangelical SDA for the past 40 years except for a brief few years during which I gave up keeping the Sabbath after reading Bob Brinsmead's deceptively crafted booklet called "Sabbatarianism Re-examined". Thankfully I have recovered from the errors of that example of eisogesis.

During some of those years I worked in SDA hospitals as a medication nurse on med/surg units and in coronary care. In all of those years working in SDA hospitals I must say that the SDA's that I have known have been the finest people that I have ever met. It can be truly said of SDA's that for the most part they not only have a very sound faith in Christ as their Lord and Savior, but they also have been a living example of self-sacrificing love in service to humanity.

Not only in the medical field is this the usual case. I know of auto mechanics, roofers, carpenters, lawyers, and many other professions where SDA's have BOTH a saving knowledge of Christ and a life-long commitment to loving service to their fellow man.

I think that some here on this forum who don't see much of the loving "social service" done by SDA's are not being altogether fair in their depiction of conservative SDA's as being only doctrinaire in their religion and not interested in service to mankind. I have to say that my association with SDA's has been the highlight of my life. It is probably best to not get involved with the politics and administrative headaches in any movement. This is where some of the real hypocrisy can be seen and bitterness and anger results.

Perhaps some of the bitterness about the so-called lack of truthfulness in evangelism mostly comes from second and third generation SDA's who were not brought to Adventism through public evangelism. I watch the evangelism of other denominations on TV and they don't always mention which denomination they represent. They just preach on various topics of truth and leave the listener to accept or reject the message. I don't hold it against SDA evangelists who don't advertise which denomination they represent. Most people don't really want to know that. They are only interested in the topic of the message. Usually there is a brochure listing the topics to be presented each night and if the topic interests them they attend the meeting. So I personally I think that the fact that the name Seventh-day Adventist isn't put in the flyers and ads in not a problem.

Jim the Catholic priest is angry that SDA's identify the church of Rome as the Antichrist of the bible. This offends him, but he knows very well that all of the historic Protestant creeds label the church of Rome as the Antichrist in their confessions of faith. It upset him that Adventists still hold this belief. And apparently with all due respect, it upsets Tom Zwemer too. I could tell terrible stories about a Catholic priest in Guatemala when I was there doing dental cleaning, extractions, and literature evangelism, but it is doctrine that important to me, not the immorality of priests.

The fact is that SDA's do not hate anyone and they are not hateful bigots. What SDA's hate is the false doctrine that Rome teaches. And we all here are very well aware what those false doctrines are without having to cover that ground again. The immaturity of some of the date setting and food laws in Adventist doctrine does not begin to compare to the outrageous errors of Rome.

That is not "triumphalism", it is merely a desire to follow the bible and the historic Christian faith as closely as possible. Just because we are all sinners and we all fall short of the glory of God is no reason not to point out the true doctrines of the bible and point out where some of the false doctrines stray from apostolic truth.

Pat--I think Loren summed up what I felt was the focus of Foster's quote--balance.

"When any of these characteristics is allowed to dominate our understanding of life with God, however, it leads to an unhealthy narrowing of the Gospel."

The Adventism I grew up with was dominated by a "righteousness by right doctrine" approach--making sure you and everyone else around you had or was at least exposed to the right doctrine. That often can lead to a philosophy of the ends justify the means which is fraught with danger. The focus with evangelism in that approach is to convince the listener of the rightness and the distinctiveness of your doctrines as compared to other religions. It has also led at times to excesses in demonizing other beliefs.

Knowledge of the correctness of certain behaviors is not a very good motivator of longterm change in most people. Witness all those who know smoking is bad for them but still smoke--e.g. exercise, overeating, etc. What really changes people is a relationship with God that is life altering--"a God soaked life" and seeing another human living life that way before us is the most powerful sermon that could be told.

I agree with Tom that "Evangelism is not only telling the good news but serving all of God’s children with gladness. As Christians we have a very special calling to show both grace and generosity in our service to others." Witness the time Christ in his brief time of ministry here on earth feeding the hungry, healing the sick, focusing on justice for the oppressed versus spending time arguing the fine points of the law and prophecy in the synagogue. We should strive to do the same in our limited capacities.

I think you have hit a very good point Donavon.
Where you say, Knowledge of the correctness of certain behaviors is not a very good motivator of long term change in most people.

Its true but its position relative to old time Adventist evangelism is that the goal was different.

That is to say the great commission. (Simplistically put)God will come, not when everyone is Adventist, but when everyone has heard.

Many times the word was put out the people had a chance to hear and we all wished everyone would continue to grow and deepen their relationship but that wasnt the focus. Spreading the word was. Put people on the hook. They heard, they decided, and move on to the next one so the work can be finished and Jesus can come.

Now, the great commission as a goal to be worked for and actually able to be accomplished is off the radar completely for most people.

Donavon,

"What really changes people is a relationship with God that is life altering--"a God soaked life" and seeing another human living life that way before us is the most powerful sermon that could be told."

I've often wondered why when many saw Christ's "God soaked life" and Christ told them they must "eat my flesh, and drink my blood" they walked after Him no more.

I've also wondered why with a "God soaked" life far greater than mine the world didn't see Him as the "cat's meow" but rather they put Him on a cross.

I've also wondered why He did not just heal and feed but insisted on "preaching the good news" of the kingdom.

Just thinking aloud and recognizing we indeed need balance.

regards,
pat

Quoting Donovan: "It has also led at times to excesses in demonizing other beliefs".

In Pittsburgh where I was baptized, the great majority of its citizens are of the Roman Catholic faith. The SDA church there at that time was composed of almost 75% former Catholics who were brought to Adventism by literature evangelism, the Voice of Prophecy, and public meetings, etc. We new members were so happy that we had found the whole truths of Christ in the bible that we went out knocking on doors almost every Sabbath after lunch. The old "Bible Speaks" program was one of the most successful programs in the Pittsburgh area and I think in other areas of the country as well.

Of course some of those who heard the SDA message were not happy to hear that, because of the false doctrines in the Catholic faith, Rome was easily identified as the "false prophet" of Revelation 13. But for those who heard and accepted the truth and turned away from the errors of Rome, it was an absolutely liberating exciting thing to join the SDA movement.

I strongly disagree that there were many excesses in "demonizing" the other denominations in the Pittsburgh area. There will always be some serious opposition to the presentation of truth which demands changes in lifestyle and doctrine and religious affiliation of those who hear the truth. But there is joy abounding for those who finally have all of their questions answered regarding the true meaning of life, why all the suffering in the world, where the world came from, and what lies ahead in the future for the believer in Christ.

Only those who have wandered in darkness and error will know that joy of finding the word of God in all of its fullness and truth about Christ our Lord and Saviour. That is why I have repeatedly urged those who were born into the SDA movement and are very dissatisfied with what it offers as doctrine to move on in their lives and go out into the world to see what actually is out there in doctrine and lifestyle. It is sometimes only after tasting of the despair, fear, and ignorance that is out in the world that one can come to appreciate the liberation that comes through the truth as it is proclaimed in Adventism.

It is never a wise course to take "doctrine" lightly. As a man thinks in his heart, so is he. Truth always has a sanctifying effect upon the heart of the one who embraces it with all of his heart, but error always brings with it a harvest of pain, ignorance, fear, and finally death.

Bill writes:

"But there is joy abounding for those who finally have all of their questions answered regarding the true meaning of life, why all the suffering in the world, where the world came from, and what lies ahead in the future for the believer in Christ."

If you can confidently say that you have had all your questions answered about the meaning of life and especially why all the suffering in the world, you have surpassed Job's ability, and we would love to know how you can so assuredly say that you can explain all the suffering in this world. Please explain that to the starving in Africa, those thousands who lost everything in the tsnuamias, the recent loss of life in the Italian earthquake. What is your answer to them?

Elaine

Why disturb a man while he's sleeping? Tom

Even Job said, "Though He slay me, yet will I truth Him!" My best friend, Ron Blank, an instructor at the Loma Linda dental school died last year of Lou Gehrig's disease. Ron died a death that no one would want to see anyone die. Yet he died in faith in Christ surrounded by loving family and friends. The tears at his memorial were heart wrenching. We loved Ron with all our hearts as a friend and Christian brother. Should we therefore raise our fists to curse God as Elaine does in her post about suffering in the world? Read Hebrews chapter 11 where the suffering and death question is answered by Paul. These all died in faith.

What is the answer to the world's questioning about suffering, pain, and death? It is found in the opening chapters of Genesis and that answer unfolds through all the succeeding chapters of the Old Testament unto the New Testament. God Himself in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ has borne all our sorrows and sins upon Himself at Calvary. He shares in our tribulations and trials in this life. We are only strangers and pilgrims here as we seek a city whose builder and maker is God. There He will wipe away all of our tears and invite us to enjoy eternal life with Him in a new heaven and a new earth where there will be no more rebellion, sin, and Satan. That is the answer to those unbelievers who mock God and refuse to bow the knee to the Lordship of Jesus Christ our Lord. But those who reject Him will reap the consequences of their rebellion and unbelief.

"But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie." Revelation 22:15

Tom,

For someone who is always whining about personal insults and harsh replies to your own posted opinions, you sure are a hypocrit. All you can answer is a smart-aleck personal insult. Your tree is bearing its fruit. You are one of the most self-righteous posters on this forum and you can't even see it.

Bill
I am glad you have found the answers to your questions. I continue to struggle with living the "God-soaked life" that evidences the fruit of the Spirit--love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. I have personally found answers to my quest to live this life in other traditions than just Adventism but I know and have known Adventists who have found it there. I wish that all could acknowledge the rich heritage and examples of living that life that other Christians, including Catholics have provided in the past without resorting to denigrating their path to God. I pray the Holy Spirit continues to work in your life as well despite your statement that you feel you have all the answers.

The questions I asked were summarily avoided. We all have had close relatives who died horrible deaths, children whose lives were snuffed out much too early, plus the terrible natural disasters.

The answers given are empty. So, did all those in the tsnuamis trust that God was doing right?
Do the children dying of AIDS daily, praise God for his mercy and judgment?

Even Job had no answers, so how can someone today claim that he has such certitude? Regardless of an individual's trust for their future, it ignores the terrible calamities that are not caused by man's free will. Who causes or allows such natural disasters? Is it God? If he is all-powerful and all-knowing, does he allow them? Or, does he allow the devil to do such dirty work? Either way, God is not off the hook. The problem of theodicy, has never yet been answered, and for someone to claim that ability, it is something even God has not explained. In the book of Job, God never explains why Job suffers. He simply asserts that he is the Almighty and, as such, cannot be questioned. In fact, in the prologue, it was all a wager between God and the Adversary, and Job was simply a pawn.

Maybe we should rely on the writer of Ecclesiastes for realism: "The living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no more reward and even the memory of them is lost. Their love and their hate and their envy have already perished; never again will they have any share in all that happens under the sun." On seven occasions he tells in the book he tells his readers that they should "eat, drink,and be merry..

"This is what I have seen to be good: it is fitting to eat and drink and find enjoyment in all the toil with which one toils under the sun the few dys of the life God gives us; for this is our lot....So I commend enjoyment, for ther is nothing better for people under the sun than to eat, and drink, and enjoy themselves, for this will go with them in their toil through the days of life that God gives them under the sun."

If this writer was the "wisest man" ever to have lived, he never tries to explain suffering: it defies explanation. How much simpler than Job who describes a God who would beat, wound, maim, torture, and murder people, and then, rather than explain himself, overpower the innocent sufferers with his almighty presence and grind them into silence. In Ecclesiastes, unlike Job, suffering does not come from the Almighty. It is simply something that happens on earth,caused by circumstances we can't control and can't understand. It is rather puny to attempt to explain such disasters as Katrina, tsunamis, and earthquakes. Who would dare to answer?

Please Donavon

Don't make allegations and insinuations. It isn't Christian nor becoming. Please cite anything approximating that I said, wrote, implied, or suggested that I had, have, or will, this side of the new Earth, have anything like all the answers.

I certainly have explicitly stated that some answers others have proposed about origins, about faith, about perfection are in error. (Imagine a senior Adventist Theologian stating that Righteousness by Faith alone is legal fiction conceived by an over wrought monk.) If you have a beef--please respond to my anaylsis of Paul and Silas and the Jailer.

In my submissions, I have also given witness to my beliefs at the request of several who would challenge my intellectual faculties, my world view, my sincerity, my judgment, my senility and my right to submit to this Blog and then chided me for sumitting contemporary evidence of competence. I like the line from Kipling: "If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken Twister by knaves to make a trap for fools,"

You impugn me by invoking the Holy Spirit--that my dear sir borders on blasphemy. If you have minimal high regard for me, you should at least hold the third person of the Godhead in respect. Your condesending use of satire is disingenuous and a calculated attempt at puffing your status among Hansen and Michael a sorry lot of debaters. Never-the-less you come in at a distant third. But I am sure you will try again.
FYI The paper I placed in response to Hensen's request that I post something of substance so we could have a substantial discussion was published in Ministry. Neither he nor Michael have responded to that substance. They, and it appears you, would rather attack that consider. Then you mourn the sorry state of Spectrum. Go figure.

I hold no disrespect for Seventh-day Adventists. This thread is about Truthful Evangelism. Almost every punch line of contemporary SDA evangelism is denigrating implications of the errors, sins, and intentions of other Christians without any solid Scriptural evidence. The further the Church gets from 1844 the more and more it sounds like dispensationalism.
In fact, the Church is increasing adopting "Praise Music and
other trappings of pentacostalism to jive up the audience.

A final note: Attacking the messenger wwon't change or slow the decline in relevance of the "Three Angels Messages."
You can go to the bank on that! Tom

Bill

You learned better than that at LLU. Tom

Donovan,
You are, either knowingly or perhaps because you aren't using good logic, misconstruing what I said. But in case you are honestly misunderstanding what I meant, I will take the time to clarify my meaning.

I did not claim to have reached a perfect "God-soaked life". I am grateful that I found the bible answers to the meaning of life, and why life is the way it is, and God's plan of salvation as revealed in the word of God in Christ. The bible believing Christian will still have to wrestle with indwelling sin and hardness of heart until the coming of the Lord.

The Christian must always rely only on the perfect sinless life of our Lord for his acceptance and justification unto eternal life rather than the degree to which he attains unto the "God-soaked Life". We are accepted before God on the basis of Christ's "atonement" and not upon our "attainment" in holiness of life and action. This trust in Christ's merits will always bring the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit to begin to transform the believer into the loving person that Christ wants us to be. This work is the work of a life-time. We pray daily and throughout the day asking for more of the fruits of the Spirit in our lives and trust only in the forgiveness of sin in Christ for our acceptance with God now and on the final Day.

Having said the above, truth sanctifies through the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit. The lies of Satan never sanctify: they lead to slavery, cruelty, ignorance, superstition, oppression, and degradation of the human spirit.

It is obvious to any rational observer of history that the noontide of the Papacy was the midnight of the world. It was the Protestant Reformation which allowed the oppressed peoples of Europe who accepted the Reformation doctrine to begin to shake off the shackles of Satanic dogma which oppressed their consciences under a load of guilt and ignorance of Christ's love and mercy.

I lived in Central America where the dogmas of Rome still hold sway among the masses of the people. I saw for myself the fruit of the Roman dogma with its aristocracy ruling class. The people of Central and South America don't need the imagined freedom which Communism offers them. They need the bright beams of the evangelical gospel which Adventism offers them.

Seventh-day Adventism is not even close to being perfect but it produces a far cry better faith and lifestyle than any other religion in the world. Visit a nunnery or a monastery sometime and you will see all of the mumbo-jumbo that is practiced there. It is in Vatican City itself where one should look to see the fruit of Romanism doctrine. As for me and my wife we will chose the Adventist faith any day.

Tom, I think Donovan was aiming his reply at me and my regard for Adventism not you.

Dispite having said what I did about your views of Adventism, Tom, I still hold you in highest regard personally and realize that your views are a product of your life's experiences in the denominational work. I wish I could be half the gentleman that you are. Your brother, Jack, too. I just wish that you could have stepped back away from the politics and intrigues of the people within Adventism and love it for what it proclaims. The witness of all of us Christians is so tarnished that the only true perfect witness is Christ and His word which is true.

Bill, I appreciate your testimony. Years ago I heard Andrew Fearing at PUC make an appeal to the young people. He was urging them to consider a career in church work. "Don't let the denomination fall into the hands of former potheads and hippies," he said.

While I certainly understand his perspective, the fact is that Adventism has bred generations of people who have never really been converted to Christianity. Salvation for them is a good career, a house, good education for their children, a happy marriage.

Certainly all great gifts, but not unique to Christians or even dependent upon Christian faith.

You have managed to maintain a healthy attitude about the church through the years, while exhibiting Christian faith. Coming form one who is not paid to represent the denomination, I admire you for that.

Tom
I was not denigrating or attempting to use satire related to your responses or even Bill's responses even though my comments were directed to him. And my reference to the Holy Spirit was certainly not meant to be impugning you or anyone. I was responding to Bill's comments that were posted earlier relating to finding all the answers to life's questions. I feel it will take eternity to begin to find the answers to the mystery of life and why things happen the way they do.

Tom, I respect your views and agree with a lot of them. I also feel the Adventist church has lost a lot of credibility as a Bible believing church with its corporate response at Glacier View--which was a totally political and not at all a sound theological response IMHO.

I apologize if you took my response as satire--I do struggle with living the "God-soaked life" and have definitely found answers listening to the Christian saints and authors of the past who struggled with the same issues. I am sorry some have to tear down what others have accomplished in their lives just because they may not agree with them 100% theologically. The important thing is what you asked earlier--What must I do to be saved. I also believe it is important to know how can I live my life so that others may be influenced in a positive direction toward God. My constant prayer as I deal with other lives that I touch "Lord, make me an instrument of thy peace."

"Lord, make me an instrument of Thy peace;
where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury, pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
and where there is sadness, joy.
O Divine Master,
grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console;
to be understood, as to understand;
to be loved, as to love;
for it is in giving that we receive,
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
and it is in dying that we are born to Eternal Life.
Amen"
Attributed to St Francis

Donavon