Love your comment.
YES, there should be a “disclaimer”, Subject to change without Notice."
I was Fellowshiped in in 1955. A lot of changes since then.
The need for and listing of ‘Fundamental Beliefs’ of Seventh-day Adventists is in service of the institution.
Jesus rejects this practice. See Mark 9 and Luke 9.
Instead, John (Chapter 13) quotes Jesus saying, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.” And the reason is simple: “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
The institutional Seventh-day Adventist church prospered without a published statement of beliefs for nearly 150 years. The original Fundamental Beliefs document was presented and voted in a Texas General Conference Session lead by the father of the current General Conference President.
The persistent distraction that this document has brought to the church may well describe why the Seventh-day Adventist church is, when measured by its evangelistic success in Europe and North America, lifeless. And in light of Jesus’ declaration that by his death he will draw everyone to him, we will do well to redefine ourselves, starting with renaming the document under discussion.
Imagine we simply call it, “Traditional Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists.” And then imagine we welcome members who have been baptized because they have accepted Jesus as their savior and because they are willing to join the communion of Seventh-day Adventists after having reviewed the historical beliefs of the church.
Let’s consider Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, in which he declares knowledge will vanish and prophecy will fail, while Faith, Hope, and Love remains. This exactly defines the founding of the Seventh-day Adventist church after their knowledge vanished with the failure of their prophetic analysis of 1844. Imagine how a true revival of the spirit of the Seventh-day Adventist founders will reform the church today.
Remember, when the church was founded, it simply claimed the bible as its creed. The church was founded by people who wanted to be in a church that honored their experience of what happens when one senses their knowledge ending and the failure of prophecy as they understood it and yet God’s persistent loving presence in their individual lives.
Seventh-day Adventists may be in the world’s first church founded without a doctrinal statement but rather in recognition of the undeniable persistence of God’s love. Looking back, perhaps doctrinal statements and a persistence of God’s felt presence are mutually exclusive.
There is a nice little love story in which a man learns from his Latino lover the proper English translation of te amo. Google translates this: ‘I love you.’ The truly loving translation, though, is, “You, I Love.” When this is our sense of God’s love, we find everyone irresistibly lovable. And it shows. As the song goes, “Love, love changes everything.”
This is an excellent move by The SDA church. Just in time for General Conference Session, to vote, otherwise we may have spent another five years arguing about the clear meaning of “partners”.
Clarity on this issue is very important especially In the current context. I can see why this move to clearly define partners as man and woman, Husband and Wife is necessary. The world needs to know what the word of God teaches on this issue, even if the Word of God becomes unpopular.
In discussing this with my wife, she asked if it would be helpful if we all identified ourselves according to which version of the Statement of Fundamental Beliefs we were baptized under? LOL.
She didn’t force them to do anything.
The division is their creation, not hers.
Yes, because they don’t hold up all of the 28 fundamental beliefs in the same way. If they are all fundamental (the church’s words, not mine) then they are all on equal ground.
Have you ever heard of anyone being disfellowshipped for not paying tithe? But it is a fundamental belief that “We acknowledge God’s ownership by faithful service to Him and our fellow men, and by returning tithes and giving offerings for the proclamation of His gospel and the support and growth of His church”.
Have you ever hear of someone’s not-plain-enough clothes being an issue that got them kicked out? And yet, “While recognizing cultural differences, our dress is to be simple, modest, and neat, befitting those whose true beauty does not consist of outward adornment but in the imperishable ornament of a gentle and quiet spirit.” I for one am regularly not neat or simple. I’m sort of a slob most of the time, really, and I like to dress up and show off too. I like really expensive shoes, much more than anyone I know.
Have you eaten any junk food lately? Or heard of any Adventist doing so? Yet, "Along with adequate exercise and rest, we are to adopt the most healthful diet possible and abstain from the unclean foods identified in the Scriptures."
This order would necessitate never, ever eating anything from a can that says Loma Linda Foods or Worthington on it. That stuff is literally poison. This is actually one of my favorite because Adventists totally miss the boat on “unclean foods”.
- The only clean meats are those butchered according to the bible. The only place you can buy such meat is at a Kosher establishment. The steak at your grocery store is just as unclean as the pork chop next to it.
- Have you ever had a taco that included hamburger meat and cheese? How about a cheeseburger? Then you aren’t Kosher because you are not following the rules as “identified in the Scriptures”. How about a milkshake with a hamburger? That’s a no-no too.
This one is going to be a problem for many, many Adventists: "Since alcoholic beverages, tobacco, and the irresponsible use of drugs and narcotics are harmful to our bodies, we are to abstain from them as well."
As it turns out, the latest research indicates that the populations all over the world that live the longest habitually consume red wine daily. There’s now a developing science as to why this works. Also, the statement is quite vague. Who defines “irresponsible”? The individual? Is it wrong to smoke pot every day? If so, why and who gets to decide? What if you doctor says it’s OK, or prescribes it? Then is it OK? (Also, to pick at this, the statement really makes no sense at all because alcohol and tobacco and narcotics are all included in the overarching category of “drugs”, which in turn is vague here. All can be prescribed (even nicotine), and so the reality of what this statement is trying to say, or should be saying, is very different than what is says.)
I do not think I understand your point. Are you saying that your church is like a regulatory agency and law enforcement agency combined? If mine was, I’d find a new church.
The topic at hand is regarding the approval of homosexual actions by the SDA church, not alcohol, junk food or clothing. Homosexual acts are unequivocally condemned in Scripture and a crystal clear admonition is given in I Cor 5 as to what a church is to do with this rebellious behavior among those who profess Christ. Sounds like you prefer a church that isn’t caught up in rules. You would probably change your tune if, say, a perverted member gained access to your child or grandchild.
I’m sure you carefully respect and regard the regulations pertaining to your privilege to participate in various recreational fisheries. If you indeed are willing to comply with laws which protect the viability of a slimy stinky old fish, you should understand why church organizations have every right to expect their members to adhere to standards which are in place to honor and glorify Almighty God Himself!
I wonder if church leaders think their actions are going to keep young people in the church… As the PEW Research Foundation has shown in a recent survey, young adults’ most vigorous accusations against organized religion are its homophobia and its hypocrisy (“As His disciples, Seventh-day Adventists endeavor to follow the Lord’s instruction and example, living a life of Christ-like compassion and faithfulness.” - from the official statement on homosexuality)
And yet Jesus mentions homosexuals (eunuchs) without any sense of condemnation:
And yet no where in the bible is pedophilia mentioned or condemned. That would have been hard as marriage to very young girls was routine. So what was accepted then is not now. It was cultural.
Using your logic regarding homosexuals, where they can’t be accepted because the bible says so, then I suppose pedophilia can be accepted because the bible is silent on the matter.
But then that is silly, isn’t it? So, perhaps the two or three references to male homosexual relations (female relations are never condemned) are also cultural. At least, that is the opinion of many biblical scholars.
This is why most of the issues being discussed now don’t bother me much…
it is very interesting that " conservative churches " are the ones that are growing and even if most people leave , thats ok . Multitudes left Jesus also ( John 6 ) Marriage is a sacred institution established by God at creation , Jesus quoted Genesis in Matthew 19 .
This is a patently false assumption. The Southern Baptists lost thousands of members in the last year. This argument holding up other denominations is a fallacy.
My only comment here is that in the judgement Jesus says as you have done into the least of these my brethren you have done it unto me. It’s pretty obvious that you can’t be much more least of these in the SDA church and be lgbt. The swiftness with which the church has decided to inject this into an already polarized conference over women’s ordination does not bode well in Alamo Town. I’m sure there will be many who will see this as a cleansing of the church, when in fact it is a purge. WWJD is the burning question. He always identified with the underdogs and outcast of society in His day. I don’t think he would support something like this.
Is there a way we can speak out against this pro-exclusion rewording without having to attend the General Conference?
I strongly dislike when some people in the SDA circle attempt to redefine the fundamental beliefs to exclude others. If we place any value in loving humanity like Jesus did, we should be broadening our circle- not cutting people out.
All I see in this is self assured self righteousness. Your church should go ahead and kick out divorcees while it is at it if it wishes to be consistent.
we are not cutting anyone , we love LGBT . I pray for them and I really love them , Jesus loves them more than me but he has stablished an order at creation Genesis 2 , he affirms that order in Matthew 19 . And he can deliver them the same way he can deliver anybody else who is struggling with any sin .
All conservatives do not have the same unique doctrines as Adventist. “Conservative” is a very poor description of churches with little meaning.
Be careful and remember the law of unintended consequences. Wording that mentions marriage between a man and a woman may become a sticky wicket given transgender issues. Think it through! Oh, by the way, how long will it be before a suit is filed using the exact same arguments to promote plural marriage that SCOTUS approved for same sex marriages?
Simply don’t support the organization but your local congregation.
How are divorcees delivered? Once divorced can it be undone?
Purity, you know…something that none of us are in reality.