Questions For 3abn Conservatives, from CA Options

[Clay]

A great thread was started by Gregory Matthews on CA directed towards 3abn conservatives, but I am posting here because the questions are great... here they are....Bro Matthews said:

Introduction:

3-ABN appears to me to be a ministry dedicated to presenting the gospel from the standpoint of conservative Seventh-day Adventists. It speaks of it’s mission as presenting the “undiluted” gospel. That clearly appears to me to be a conservative viewpoint that suggests that the gospel may have been diluted by some, and calls for a return to a purity in faith and proclamation.

It has been said that Linda Shelton got into trouble with her conservative SDA supporters due to the fact that they saw her as to liberal in her music. I know nothing as to the accuracy of that comment. But, it supports my view that 3-ABN is a ministry that derives major support from the conservative block within the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

If this is true, I consider that to be a positive rather than a negative. I am pleased to see that several blocks co-exist within the SDA Church. While I do think that some of the issues that seem to divide them will only be resolved by God, I am pleased that some diversity exists within the church that is my home. I am pleased that this conservative block can find a means to do the mission that they believe God has given them.

I personally hope for the time when the various blocks within the SDA Church can work more closely together in achieving a common goal, and/or mission.

As I have observed the unfold saga of events with 3-ABN I have been confused. I have had questions raised in my mind as to how certain events could unfold as they are doing, from a group of people that I see as conservative Seventh-day Adventists. Some aspects of this unfolding saga appear to me to lie outside of what I see as reflecting conservative SDA viewpoints.

Question # 1:

How does the position that 3-ABN seems to have taken in regard to divorce and remarriage coincide with the conservative SDA position?

As I have understood the conservative SDA position to be that divorce and re-marriage are only justified on the basis of actual adultery on the part of the other person. The conservatives that I have known have often decried the increasing liberalization that they see creeping into the SDA with a lowering of standards, as they see it, a denominational position that allows divorce and remarriage for just about any reason. I often hear them telling me that a recent General Conference is a good example of this increasing liberalization regarding divorce and remarriage.

In regard to Danny and Linda, official statements from 3-ABN have informed us that they have never had proof that Danny’s wife committed physical adultery with another person. They have spoken about “spiritual adultery,” which I am going to assume pertains to someone’s thinking. Well, that seems to be a denial of the conservative position in regard to physical adultery being the only just cause. I am perplexed. This whole issue seems to be that of our conservatives now telling us that divorce and remarriage is justified on some ethereal basis that is not that of a previous rigid conservative standard. How is it that those who have formerly decried the liberalization of the denomination, now seem to have gone to a much more liberal position, which denies the previous conservative position?

Of course there is another position held by some conservatives that people in positions of spiritual leadership should not hold those positions if they have been married to more than one person. Some even say that a spiritual leader should not marry the second time if the first marriage ended by death. Others would allow that, but not in the case of divorce.

I ask again: How does the position that 3-ABN seems to have taken in regard to divorce and remarriage coincide with the conservative SDA position?

Question 2:

How does the position that 3-ABN seems to have taken relate to the conservative position that God calls us to stand for truth, and righteousness?

The claim has been made, and I do not know if the claim is accurate, that regardless of truth, Linda should be sacrificed for the “good” of 3-ABN. My focus will not be on those who are said to have stated such thoughts. Whether true or not, no statement from 3-ABN that I am aware of has ever denied such claims. That silence has indicated to me that whether the specifics of the claim are true, such an attitude exists—it may be appropriate to sacrifice the one for the better good of God’s ministry.

That attitude, regardless of the specifics strikes at the heart of conservative Seventh-day Adventists who as I have understood them have proclaimed that God expects His followers to stand for truth, righteousness, and justice regardless of popular opinion. The conservative position, as I have understood it, is that when an organization stands for truth, righteousness, and justice, God will take care of the rest. People are not to worry about the effect of taking such a stand. It is in God’s hands.

I cannot help but be reminded of a Biblical passage that speaks to this issue. You will find it in John 11:50. Here the popular thinking was that it was better for one to be sacrificed than for the whole to suffer injury. As I do not know the accuracy of the specifics in this claim, I do not apply this verse to anyone.

Rather I am speaking to the attitude expressed by those who tell us that it was better for Linda to be sacrificed than for 3-ABN, God’s chosen agency, to suffer harm.

I ask my question again, to those conservative SDAs: Where is your call to stand for truth, righteousness, and justice, wherever it leads? I do not see that coming from you. How did you work to bring truth and justice to the investigation of the charges against Linda? How did you treat her fairly, and give her full freedom to disprove the charges against her? How did you act in a manner to treat her by common standards of ethics, and fairness?

Question # 3:

How does the record of the manner in which Linda has been treated coincide with the call of many conservatives to treat people with compassion?

Conservatives in all venues generally attempt to portray themselves as compassionate conservatives. This is born out by 3-ABN that talks about mending broken people. So, I assume that it is the claim of 3-ABN to treat people with compassion.

Recently I was watching a 3-ABN interview with a couple dedicated to that call to mend broken people. The conversation included discussion of clergy sex abuse. Twice, in the conversation, Danny Shelton referenced his marital situation, without naming Linda, in regard to a professional seducing his former wife. Regardless of the truth of those statements, they were unnecessary. Nothing in the conversation otherwise called for them to be made. They simply served to trash a woman to whom he was married for about two decades. This to me was not an example of compassion.

Danny and Linda Shelton are divorced, and Danny is remarried. Nothing can be done to restore a broken marriage. Compassion would allow those parties to get on with their lives. For Linda, that is assuming her carrier as a concert artist. As she has booked concerts, individuals have contacted the sponsors of those concerts, and provided them with negative information about her, that appears to be attempts to interfere with her occupation as a concert artist.

NOTE: I do not make any claims that this is being organized by 3-ABN. It is simply happening. Individuals are apparently doing such.

This has enraged many people. Women who have not taken the position that Linda is innocent are enraged at what seems to be efforts to interfere with her life. They state that regardless of her guilt or innocence, she should be allowed to move on, and support herself. Men are enraged at this also.

I ask again: How does conduct such as this coincide with the conservative call to treat people with compassion?

Question # 4:

How does the conservative call for truth coincide with a treatment of Linda that is often one-half of the story?

The truth can only be known, and justice can only be done, when the full story is known.

It is claimed that the 3-ABN Board acted at time when they refused to allow Linda and/or her supporters to attend and to personally respond to the charges. This places the Board in a situation where they may be perceived as only hearing one-half of the truth.

It is claimed that a recorded telephone conversation provides compelling evidence against Linda. Yet, it is acknowledged that the conversation only records Linda’s comments, and not the other participant in the conversation. Fair people would most likely believe that little could be determined from such.

A certain pregnancy test kit is implied to be conclusive evidence of wrong doing. Possession, and/or purchase of such is not such evidence. I have purchased such a kit. Is that a presumption that I, a male, have become pregnant due to wrong doing? I can only be presumed to be pregnant by someone who follows the premise laid out in the movie THE RABBIT TEST.

According to posts recently made, Linda is said to acknowledge that she purchased that pregnancy kit. It is said that she purchased it during the time she was married to one Danny Shelton, and was living with him. Folks that was important information that should have been told to us by the person mentioning that kit. In the posts mentioned at the first of this paragraph, we are told why Linda purchased that kit. Folks, do we have to get into the personal details of the marital relations between Linda and Danny? I would hope not. Let us simply say here that the implied charge against Linda apparently did not contain all of the truth about the matter.

I ask again: How does the conservative call for truth and justice coincide with a treatment of Linda that appears to often be one-half of the story?

what do you all think?

[Uncle Sam]

I think most would consider me a conservative SDA. I am sickened by the way this whole thing was handled. I cannot believe two "Christians" couldn't work this out. If they couldn't than I believe if one left they both should have. Linda should not have had a gag order on her unless Danny had the same. I am sick of hearing him make his "little" comments. I am unable to watch 3ABN since Danny remarried. I think it is a disgrace that he married a lady younger than his daughter.

I think it is a disgrace what they did to Linda and they let Danny's daughter on 3ABN. After her pregnancy and marriage. I am not sure what kindof place it is up there where marriage/divorce and remarriage seems to be normal. It is like a bad soap opera up there.

I personally loved Linda's music. I have heard from several people that they felt her music was questionable. And that all of 3ABN seemed to be getting too liberal. I rarely watched it except for Linda's talks on "the porch". If that is why they wanted her gone than why didn't they just say so instead of ruining her reputation?

I believe that we need to "demand" the proof that Danny says is there. The pregnancy test could be reasoned away, the phone call could have been twisted if there is only one side being heard. Walt says they never caught them in bed together, but he believes there was an affair. What other proof do they have? Danny wrote me and said Linda went on vacation with the Dr. How does he know? If you read Brenda's book you can see what stupid choices she made in her life, she seems to be continuing. I cannot imagine being married for 20+ years and give it up because he said/she said.

I would like for people to show something concrete once and for all what really happened. Why did Danny want Linda gone so bad? Where is the proof he had plans for him and Brandy? Why did all of 3ABN turn their back on Linda so easily? Where were her friends/co-workers when all of this was happening? I cannot believe that the people up there were so snowed by Danny. They had to know what kind of person Linda was, did they think she could fall so easily??????

[princessdi]

I think those are excellent questions make the point I have made from the beginning. No matter what Linda actually did or did not do, I am really disturbed at 3ABN's handling of the whole situation. completely unCHRIST-like. All the while claiming to be leaders in christian living. And it is really disturbing that Danny sorry tail is yet and still running around like the victim! "a professional seduced his former wife"? Give me a break!!! He got his little young thing, give it a rest!!! Him and his friend are all going to be crispy critters!!


Ok, Sorry I just went there for a minute. I'm back now...........

This post has been edited by princessdi: Jul 26 2006, 09:35 PM

[Spike]

Uncle Sam I consider myself a conservative. (at least I think I am ) I have all the same questions as you. Ive watched 3abn off and on sense 1991 and I could hardly stand to listen to Danny speak let alone hear any of the Sheltons sing. ( I'm not sure who told that family that they could sing but they must of had a good laugh at the time.) Most people that I've talked with have been saying from the beginning when they heard about Linda supposedly having an affair that they didn't believe it. Linda was the one who blessed others with her ministry and you could tell she had a relationship with Jesus where as Danny only babbled. It was the same questions, comments, pat answers for every show or person interviewed and it's been that way for 20 yrs.

It's been said that 3abn is the face of the SDA church, but they are not what I think of when I think of SDA's. It should be Jesus and Him only that we hold up, and when we start putting a person or ministry upon a pedestal ( especially if it's not what everyone agrees with) then there is something wrong. I wish I had all the answers, but it tells me more then ever that if 3abn is the face of the SDA church then there must be something very wrong with our church.

This post has been edited by Spike: Jul 27 2006, 09:19 AM

[Clay]

amen Spike....

[caribbean sda]

As we say in St. Thomas..."the whole long and short of it" is that Linda was becoming more popular and likeable than Danny. She made a true connection with the audience and Danny was not going to stand for that.

[Clay]

As we say in St. Thomas..."the whole long and short of it" is that Linda was becoming more popular and likeable than Danny. She made a true connection with the audience and Danny was not going to stand for that.

ahhh now that is an interesting view....

[Johann]

amen Spike....

Honest people on the 3ABN crew will join your AMEN!

[Hersheys99]

As we say in St. Thomas..."the whole long and short of it" is that Linda was becoming more popular and likeable than Danny. She made a true connection with the audience and Danny was not going to stand for that.

I have to agree I think that is it in a nutshell along with my personal opinion that Brandy forced his hand as well so have to marry her now. That was one reason I think he had to let his brother Kenny go as well back in the beginning because he was the one everyone liked & was getting a bigger response from people. We all know that Danny has to be in complete control & charge of it all so we can't let anyone become bigger than us.

[Uncle Sam]

I am not saying all that has been said about Danny is not true but, if he was/is all these things, why did God call him in the first place? Or do you all believe he wasn't called? From what I have read Danny has been like this from the beginning.....

[Jvat]

Hey Uncle Sam, did God call Judas or did he just join the disciples? Did God really call Danny? And then there is also Saul whom God called as the King and yet he was a big disapointment!

[Clay]

Hey Uncle Sam, did God call Judas or did he just join the disciples? Did God really call Danny? And then there is also Saul whom God called as the King and yet he was a big disapointment!

Judas was called..... just like the others...

Joh 6:67-71
(67) Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
(68) Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
(69) And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
(70) Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
(71) He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

I like this rendering better...

John 6:67-71
(67) So Jesus asked the twelve apostles, "Do you want to leave me too?"
(68) Simon Peter answered Jesus, "Lord, to what person could we go? Your words give eternal life.
(69) Besides, we believe and know that you are the Holy One of God."
(70) Jesus replied, "I chose all twelve of you. Yet, one of you is a devil."
(71) Jesus meant Judas, son of Simon Iscariot. Judas, who was one of the twelve apostles, would later betray Jesus.

This post has been edited by Clay: Jul 27 2006, 12:03 PM

[Uncle Sam]

I am not trying to defend Danny at all. These are just questions that come up in my mind as I hear more and more about the 3ABN situation. It is hard to believe all that has gone on in the past couple of years. It is like you cannot believe anything any of them say. I wrote to John Lomacang about something he said and he, I believe, was less than honest about what I questioned. It is such a shame that what they are doing is in the name of Christianity......

[simplysaved]

I agree with your well-made points. My experience was that there was too much of ALL of them and not enough diversity to reflect the Seventh-day Adventist Church--in every area. I found it to be like watching Jim and Tammy Faye Baker---Paul and Jan Crouch....and for those that do watch TBN from time to time, you will notice that they are not seen no where near as much as they used to on "Praise the Lord". You see other people hosting and a more diversity representation of genres and shows---including It Is Written & Lifestyle Magazine.

Uncle Sam I consider myself a conservative. (at least I think I am ) I have all the same questions as you. Ive watched 3abn off and on sense 1991 and I could hardly stand to listen to Danny speak let alone hear any of the Sheltons sing. ( I'm not sure who told that family that they could sing but they must of had a good laugh at the time.) Most people that I've talked with have been saying from the beginning when they heard about Linda supposedly having an affair that they didn't believe it. Linda was the one who blessed others with her ministry and you could tell she had a relationship with Jesus where as Danny only babbled. It was the same questions, comments, pat answers for every show or person interviewed and it's been that way for 20 yrs.

It's been said that 3abn is the face of the SDA church, but they are not what I think of when I think of SDA's. It should be Jesus and Him only that we hold up, and when we start putting a person or ministry upon a pedestal ( especially if it's not what everyone agrees with) then there is something wrong. I wish I had all the answers, but it tells me more then ever that if 3abn is the face of the SDA church then there must be something very wrong with our church.

[princessdi]

You are right, Sarah. I check them nearly everyday, because you don't know who is going to be hosting. I really like the diversity on there. I just recently asked my sister about not seeing Paul and Jan, but I sure enjoy their guest hosts.

I agree with your well-made points. My experience was that there was too much of ALL of them and not enough diversity to reflect the Seventh-day Adventist Church--in every area. I found it to be like watching Jim and Tammy Faye Baker---Paul and Jan Crouch....and for those that do watch TBN from time to time, you will notice that they are not seen no where near as much as they used to on "Praise the Lord". You see other people hosting and a more diversity representation of genres and shows---including It Is Written & Lifestyle Magazine.

This post has been edited by princessdi: Jul 27 2006, 01:19 PM