3abn?, Left Out Options

[lurker]

Quiet Hour accepts tithe. I believe they are very careful to use it for gospel workers also.

The tithe is not a "test" question in our church. It is left to the individual where to send their tithe. It should nearly always be sent to the church to support our Pastors. I say "nearly" because there were a few times when Mrs. White sent her tithe to some Pastors who were beginning a work in the south that were not being paid and were in need. That is definitely not the norm now-a-days. Did Mrs. White support the SDA Church? Of course she did wholeheartedly.

Amazing Facts also accepts tithe as does some other ministries. But they return a "tithe" to the Conference of these received tithes. And they are careful to use them as salaries for Pastors in the work.

I do not know about Quiet Hour or Voice of Prophecy or It is Written, whether they accept tithe or not. They will let you know if you ask I'm sure.

[Skyhook]

It is news to me that the various independant ministries accept tithes. I always believed that the tithe was to go to God's storehouse which has always been interpreted to mean the organized church, and the independants raise thier own support via offerings. If that is widespread it would seem to be an unpredictable financial picture for the church. How can the independant ministries claim to be supportive of the church if they are in competition with the church for tithe money? Makes no sense to me.

I do know that there are a fair number of immigrants living in the US who do not pay tithe here but say they send it back to the church in their home country.

[lurker]

You can always send $5 to one of these ministries and mark it tithe. See if you get a receipt for it. then you won't have to take anyone's word for it.

It is news to me that the various independant ministries accept tithes. I always believed that the tithe was to go to God's storehouse which has always been interpreted to mean the organized church, and the independants raise thier own support via offerings. If that is widespread it would seem to be an unpredictable financial picture for the church. How can the independant ministries claim to be supportive of the church if they are in competition with the church for tithe money? Makes no sense to me.

I do know that there are a fair number of immigrants living in the US who do not pay tithe here but say they send it back to the church in their home country.

[fallible humanbe...]

Well, I see I have been beat to post this, but 3abn is NOT an SDA channel.
You can watch Hope Channel very easily, ONLINE, or get the dish that has SDA channels on it (tv and radio) from Hope's site as well.

As far as I can find on their web sites, neither Hope, nor LLU claim to be Seventh-day Adventist. I don't find the moniker anywhere on their sites (below I do point where you can find the SDA name on Hope but it isn't on their pages, only a mention in news stories). While they may be run by Adventists, influenced by Adventist doctrine, and financed significantly by Adventists they do not show direct connection between themselves and the church.

When you do a Google search the following information comes up in the first entry for Hope:

Official Seventh-day Adventist 7 x 24 TV station to spread the good news of the gospel to the world. Available online and via satellite.

But, on their "About US" page on their web site there is no mention of connections to the church. The first sentence on that page is:

"The Hope Channel is a Christian television network that seeks to bring everlasting hope to people around the world."

In their "News" section they do post ATN News Notes and the phrase "Seventh-day Adventist" appears three times.

Other than that no mention. Now at LLUBN web site there is no mention at all of the SDA Church.

So of the three most significant networks spoken of here none directly connect themselves to the church and only 3ABN makes direct comment about the SDA Church on their "About" page ("Many of 3ABN's employees and volunteers are members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.").

So while Hope may be the "official" channel of the church there is an obvious effort to maintain a little distance for marketing purposes maybe. I don't think you can legitimately call any of them SDA channels.

- fhb

This post has been edited by fallible humanbeing: Oct 31 2006, 05:22 PM

[Richard Sherwin]

For as long as I can remember we as a church have tried to deceive people as to who we are. Weather it be a Prophecy Seminar or an evangelistic series we're tried to hide who we are. Personally I think this has lead to the shame that some of us have felt in the past to be a member of the SDA church. And I have known people who were interested but felt taken when they found they were deceived

Would it not be better to proudly put right on the very opening page of the Hope web site that it is a outreach of the SDA church? If we really believe we are the one true remnant church why should we hide who we are in order to "hook" people. Why lie to win people to Christ. We should proclaim who we are from the roof tops! Instead we think we must deceive people to get them to a meeting, how pathetic.

Richard

[Lee]

Blue Mountain Television from Walla Walla, Washington has a web site and it also doesn't say anything about it being SDA. It uses the word "Christian" also.

[Richard Sherwin]

Blue Mountain Television from Walla Walla, Washington has a web site and it also doesn't say anything about it being SDA. It uses the word "Christian" also.

Again, hiding who we are is wrong, it's deception. It's bearing false witness.

Redfog

[princessdi]

Ok?!! I have never understood that deception, especially from those who claim to have not just truth, but THE Truth, the Remnant.

Again, hiding who we are is wrong, it's deception. It's bearing false witness.

Redfog

[Johann]

Again, hiding who we are is wrong, it's deception. It's bearing false witness.

Redfog

A prominent church member once told me that if he and his wife had known the Seventh-day Adventists were sponsoring the archeological lectures advertised, they would never have attended. But when they discovered the amazing Bible truths presented they gladly joined the church in baptism. Was this deception?

This post has been edited by Johann: Oct 31 2006, 10:29 PM

[fallible humanbe...]

A prominent church member once told me that if he and his wife had known the Seventh-day Adventists were sponsoring the archeological lectures advertised, they would never have attended. But when they discovered the amazing Bible truths presented they gladly joined the church in baptism. Was this deception?

Was it truth in advertising?

Second question, why would it have made a difference to them who was making the presentation, and why, if it were Adventists would it have kept them away?

- fhb

[Johann]

Second question, why would it have made a difference to them who was making the presentation, and why, if it were Adventists would it have kept them away?

- fhb

In this case she was a Roman Catholic and he was a prominent Lutheran. Neither one of them wanted to be influenced by any other church at that time. So they would not have come to the lectures if they had known they were sponsored by a church.

[fallible humanbe...]

In this case she was a Roman Catholic and he was a prominent Lutheran. Neither one of them wanted to be influenced by any other church at that time. So they would not have come to the lectures if they had known they were sponsored by a church.

Makes sense, thanks for the clarification. Now that aside, was it truth in advertising not to indicate who was presenting. One of the crucial questions in historical inquiry is to know the authority of the speaker - translating that here if I am looking for truth and I go to a web site claiming be presenting "truth" to the world without identifying who they truly are, I would have to question why they felt a need to keep that hidden.

Is it a fear that there is already a bias against the SDA "truth" or is it that too many people identify the church as cult or fringe religion and we really don't want to deal with that? In the instance of Hope, if in fact it is "the" television channel of the church why not say so? If it is the official voice, why not present it that way.

Did the disciples ever "couch" the announcements that Jesus would be speaking at a specific time and place?

- fhb

This post has been edited by fallible humanbeing: Oct 31 2006, 11:33 PM

[princessdi]

Ok Johann, that is all well and good, but is there ever a good reason for deception? God meant for those poeple to hear the truth, and just didn't allow the deception to get in the way of His plan.

In this case she was a Roman Catholic and he was a prominent Lutheran. Neither one of them wanted to be influenced by any other church at that time. So they would not have come to the lectures if they had known they were sponsored by a church.

[Ralph]

When you do a Google search the following information comes up in the first entry for Hope:

Official Seventh-day Adventist 7 x 24 TV station to spread the good news of the gospel to the world. Available online and via satellite.

But, on their "About US" page on their web site there is no mention of connections to the church. The first sentence on that page is:

"The Hope Channel is a Christian television network that seeks to bring everlasting hope to people around the world."

In their "News" section they do post ATN News Notes and the phrase "Seventh-day Adventist" appears three times.

FHB, what you wrote was correct as far as you went. I notice that you did not mention the home page where the following announcement appears:

Click here to read about Hope Channel's
Tell the World Convocation on Nov. 4, at
the Sligo Adventist Church in Takoma Park,
Maryland.

Instead of just doing a Google search, my wife and I spent a few hours watching the Hope Channel tonight, and time after time we saw or heard the name Seventh-day Adventist mentioned. During the breaks, they were advertising the upcoming 7 Signs program that starts on November 4. There was no question in our minds that this was a Seventh-day Adventist station. We were impressed.

[beartrap]

Is it a deception for an Adventist to say that they are a Christian as opposed to saying they are an Adventist? You make an interesting point here.

Ok Johann, that is all well and good, but is there ever a good reason for deception? God meant for those poeple to hear the truth, and just didn't allow the deception to get in the way of His plan.

This post has been edited by beartrap: Nov 1 2006, 01:40 AM