3abn?, Left Out Options

[inga]

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.

I find it rather astonishing that a number of folks on this list should consider it "deceptive" for Adventists to present themselves as Christians!!

What kind of Adventists are those who are not Christian??

The way I see it -- anyone who's not a Christian is certainly not an Adventist. And I found that I became a much more effective witness for Adventist truths when I recognized and presented myself as first and foremost a Christian. I highly recommend it to members of this board, providing you are actually Christians.

The reality is that we -- individually or corporately -- must always decide just how much to reveal of ourselves in any given situation. I think we've all known some who continuously run off at the mouth telling all sorts of unecessary details about themselves. Are these the only honest folks around? (I rather think they are lacking in good judgment!)

[västergötland]

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?

If the purpose of the archeological lectures is to find people who would convert to the SDA church, they yes, it would be deception. If the purpose is to educate people about the bible in general and strengthen the faith of those christians who attend without any intent for them to change church, in such case it would not be deception.

On a sidetrack, I heard of one such archeological seminar where at the end of the meetings the presenter got some questions for additional information from one in the audience, but he was to busy making altar calls and rudely dismissed the question. The person and children are since then thorroughly vaccinated against the SDA church.

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.

As I answered to Johann, that depends on the Adventists purpose. If you try to strengthen the faith of all christians without demanding or expecting conversions, then no. But if your purpose is to boost the size of the church books with "sheep stealing", then yes, it would be.

[Panama_Pete]

As far as I can find on their web sites, neither Hope, nor LLU claim to be Seventh-day Adventist.

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.

- fhb

Go to the HopeTV.org Web site, and on your browser's dropdown menu after you choose "View," select "Source" or "Page Source" or "Source Code."

You will then see where Google obtained their description. That description is placed there by the HopeTV.org webmaster under the "meta name" tag.

<meta name="Description" content="The Hope Channel is the official Seventh-day Adventist 7 x 24 broadcast to spread the good news of the gospel to the world.">
<meta name="KeyWords" content="hope faith bible tv television broadcast free webstreaming media adventist adventism prophecy">

As for Loma Linda Broadcasting:

"We are a volunteer-based, nonprofit organization," Hanna said. "The majority of us are Adventists, but we are not affiliated with the church. We are nondenominational."

http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories...n08.5e7b54.html


Pete

This post has been edited by Panama_Pete: Nov 1 2006, 06:00 AM

[Richard Sherwin]

I think there is a bias against us because we are deceptive is our literature. So because of the bias we think we have to be deceptive. It's a vicious circle. The only way to break it is to stand up and say we are Seventh Day Adventist Christians and proud of it.

An example of deception hurting someone is a tiered marketing company here in Michigan (Amway) who tried to get recruits by being deceptive. Now their company's ex-president is running for governor and people are holding the actions of Amway against him. It never pays to deceive.

Richard

[watchbird]

I think there is a bias against us because we are deceptive is our literature. So because of the bias we think we have to be deceptive. It's a vicious circle. The only way to break it is to stand up and say we are Seventh Day Adventist Christians and proud of it.

An example of deception hurting someone is a tiered marketing company here in Michigan (Amway) who tried to get recruits by being deceptive. Now their company's ex-president is running for governor and people are holding the actions of Amway against him. It never pays to deceive.

Richard

I agree wholeheartedly with Richard. When I go to a website, the very first thing I do is to check their "about us" (or equivilant) pages. If they do not tell very plainly who they are.... including both identifying the persons who have put the website up, or in the case of "ministries", the names of their leadership and the denomination with which they are either affilitated or identify.... then I simply move on.

Long long ago we should have been building respect for our denominational name by the openness with which we conducted our public meetings and identified ourselves on our literature. In some cases we did that, but unfortunately that has not become either official policy or practice.

In this age of openness and information access it is IMPERATIVE that all persons, websites, organizations, institutions, ministries, and anyone else who is connected with the Adventist church in any way, be up-front and honest about just what that connection is.

How ironic it is that in an age where the church has deemed it necessary to copyright the name Seventh-day Adventist Church and develop a logo that is recognizable .... and also copyrighted, with use restricted to official church entities and projects.... that some of these official entities and/or projects are not utilizing those means of identification.

Certainly, IMO, HOPE should not only state their status on their meta tag, but also should make the same statement prominent... either on their front page or at least on an "About Us" page that is listed on their main menu on their front page. And they display not only their own logo, but that of the Adventist church prominently on their front page.

As for LLBN, even though they are not owned by the church or directly operated by Loma Linda University, they are taking a lot of their image from the similarity of their name to the better known Loma Linda University.... which IS an Adventist entity, even though it obviously does not restrict its services nor its employment to Adventists alone..... so it seems to me that they also should make their relationship to the Adventist church known. Then, as it develops and shows by its programming that it is truly for all persons, it will, like Loma Linda University, be a witness to the fact that Adventists are interested in a lot more than either "talking to themselves" or increasing their numbers by evangelistic presentations.

As it is, the station is anchored in the Adventist church every weekend when it shows both live and repeat broadcasts of the Loma Linda University church services and has other religious programing that is entirely Adventist. For it to claim no affiliation with the Adventist church on their website, is, IMO ingenous (in its negative political sense) at best, and would be viewed by any who already had a prejudice against Adventists as being simple dishonesty.

[fallible humanbe...]

I agree wholeheartedly with Richard. When I go to a website, the very first thing I do is to check their "about us" (or equivilant) pages. If they do not tell very plainly who they are.... including both identifying the persons who have put the website up, or in the case of "ministries", the names of their leadership and the denomination with which they are either affilitated or identify.... then I simply move on . . .

Well said.

When I woke up this morning and was preparing for the day I was thinking back over this line of dialogue and my thoughts wandered across the the idea of ecumenicalism. The move to focus on what our similarities are, within Christendom, and to set aside the differences in an effort to coalesce all Christians seems to be somewhat a play here. If, as we present ourselves, we don't seem "so different" people may give us a chance. Once given a chance we can show them who we are.

There has always been this fear that if we mention "Seventh-day Adventist" as an identifying factor we may suffer from some of those preconceived notions out there about our faith - thereby losing the chance to share with someone what we have to offer. However, it seems to me that if our faith is in God, and we honestly identify ourselves upfront, the Holy Spirit - having already begun the work in an individuals heart - will lead them to the message we have to offer. If the individual declines the opportunity because of the moniker S-dA, then maybe they were not fertile ground for the message in the first place.

The question is still there, are we Seventh-day Adventist Chrisitians or Christian Seventh-day Adventists?

- fhb

[västergötland]

Of the Christian tribe, in the SDA clan...?

[watchbird]

The question is still there, are we Seventh-day Adventist Chrisitians or Christian Seventh-day Adventists?

- fhb

Of the Christian tribe, in the SDA clan...?

I'm not sure what the custom in other countries is, but I think here in the USA it is common to put the smallest and most specific designator first .... thus I would describe my location as house number, street, city, county, state, and country.

Applying this to fhb's question, I would call myself a Seventh-day Adventist Christian.... that is, I am part of the clan, Seventh-day Adventist, which is in turn part of the larger "tribe" (community of faith) called Christian.

If I were to say I am a Christian Seventh-day Adventist, to me, that would mean that I was implying that there were Seventh-day Adventists who were NOT Christian. So far, I don't think that is true ... though with all the different views held by Adventists currently it is not all that uncommon to hear somone use differentiating designators such as "Historic Adventist", "Progressive Adventist", "Celebration Adventists" ... etc.

So I think it is the term, Seventh-day Adventist Christian, which maintains both our solidarity with and our differentiation from other Christian communions.

[PeacefulBe]

Well said.

When I woke up this morning and was preparing for the day I was thinking back over this line of dialogue and my thoughts wandered across the the idea of ecumenicalism. The move to focus on what our similarities are, within Christendom, and to set aside the differences in an effort to coalesce all Christians seems to be somewhat a play here. If, as we present ourselves, we don't seem "so different" people may give us a chance. Once given a chance we can show them who we are.

- fhb

This is sort of like a young lady not wanting to be judged by the actual size of her chest. To hide this fact she opts to wear an article of enhancement to make her look more appealing while hoping that the young man she attracts will not care about size once he has the chance to get to know her.

Are we really that self-concious? Are we that unsure about the power of God?

As you said, it is after all, the Holy Spirit at work in people's hearts that draws them to us and our meetings. Why must we hide who we are, our differences, under a bushel?

PB

This post has been edited by PeacefullyBewildered: Nov 1 2006, 05:42 PM

[princessdi]

AMEN!!!!!

This is sort of like a young lady not wanting to be judged by the actual size of her chest. To hide this fact she opts to wear an article of enhancement to make her look more appealing while hoping that the young man she attracts will not care about size once he has the chance to get to know her.

Are we really that self-concious? Are we that unsure about the power of God?

As you said, it is after all, the Holy Spirit at work in people's hearts that draws them to us and our meetings. Why must we hide who we are, our differences, under a bushel?

PB

[princessdi]

Uh Inga, that wouldn't be a problem except we are proud to be Advnetist until tent meeting/Rev. Sem. season, then it is quite convenient to be "christian" and drop and Adventist. Kind of like Pat Robertson and Jesse Jeackson when they ran for president. All of a sudden their office to God was a burden. The name Adventism would not be a problem if we had the reputation of baptist or even charismatics. Let's not pretend, we claim christian when we know the name adventist will close the door before we get started. So, yes it is defintiely more effective, and most expedient.

Oh yeah. Adventist and Christian are not always one in the same. They are far too often mutually exclusive. Mainly because we get it backwards and believe it is our Adventism, 28(and growing) FB, belief in EGW, health message, which makes us christians. Instead, is should be, no, it IS our walk(relationship) with Christ, being a christian which lead us to Adventism.

More to the point when we have a good portion of our evagelistic meetings, indiependent ministries, etc. We dont' claim to be anything. In 2006, I would not go anywhere with anybody who couldn't be completely honest with me about their own identity, especially someone claiming to have life changing information, affecting something as serious as my soul's salvation. If they are ashamed of what they are, why would I want to be that? and then I just can't get over us starting out with a lie, of ommission, but a lie just the same, when re claim to hae THE Truth. That just doesnt' sit right with me.

I find it rather astonishing that a number of folks on this list should consider it "deceptive" for Adventists to present themselves as Christians!!

What kind of Adventists are those who are not Christian??

The way I see it -- anyone who's not a Christian is certainly not an Adventist. And I found that I became a much more effective witness for Adventist truths when I recognized and presented myself as first and foremost a Christian. I highly recommend it to members of this board, providing you are actually Christians.

The reality is that we -- individually or corporately -- must always decide just how much to reveal of ourselves in any given situation. I think we've all known some who continuously run off at the mouth telling all sorts of unecessary details about themselves. Are these the only honest folks around? (I rather think they are lacking in good judgment!)

[Skyhook]

As I recall, EGW wrote concerning this particular issue something to the effect that we are in no way to hide who we are, Our name Seventh-day Adventist should remain prominent, and especially as the end approaches we are to fly our banners high. She also predicted that there would be a movement within the church to make obscure our differences with the Sunday churches, and even set aside some of our doctrinal pillars.

[Green Cochoa]

I find this sidetrack of "deception" to live up to its name--it is deceptive! Folks, the real truth is that SOMETIMES, even God has advocated a course of action which might SEEM to be deceptive at face value. We are in a great controversy. The devil doesn't play fair. Sometimes God reaches people with direct honesty, but other times, God must use more subtle means. This DOES NOT make it in any way dishonest. Just not so overt as to cause offense before the person has had a chance to digest the little bit that they can swallow. Physicians work with the same principle at times: a person needs medicine, but if too much is given, a violent reaction will take place. So the dose must start small and gradually work up to higher levels as the body can accept it.

Some people will not be attracted to a church. They still need God. There will always be a fine line between the dove and the serpent, but nonetheless, we are counseled to learn from both and act accordingly.

A Biblical example of God being "deceptive":

Samuel 16:1-2 "And the LORD said unto Samuel, How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? fill thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite: for I have provided me a king among his sons. And Samuel said, How can I go? if Saul hear it, he will kill me. And the LORD said, Take an heifer with thee, and say, I am come to sacrifice to the LORD."

So, Samuel was told to say something that wasn't the full truth. Does that mean Samuel was lying? Decidedly, NO! Just because we tell a partial truth, even perhaps with the intent to mislead, as is the case here, does NOT turn our truth into falsehood.

The point is, does it serve God's purpose, or does it not? Is it for selfish motives, to cover sin, to promote pride, or some other un-Christlike reason? or is it to fulfill the will of God? When we are doing God's will, we can rest assured that God will be honored through our best efforts. Even if we make mistakes, when we are truly desirous of following Him, and doing the best we know how under the circumstances, God will approve, and will give us strength and wisdom.

Do you suppose that in certain closed countries of this world it would be best for every Seventh-day Adventist Christian to make known his or her identity and go straight to jail? While they might reach some inmates by so doing, they would have effectively removed all other opportunities which God may be providing them.

For a more thorough understanding on the ethics of "deception," I would strongly recommend the book "The Ethics of Smuggling" by Brother Andrew, who took many Bibles into such closed countries, with God's help, including miracles, intentionally breaking the law so that others might come to a knowledge of truth.

[västergötland]

I find this sidetrack of "deception" to live up to its name--it is deceptive! Folks, the real truth is that SOMETIMES, even God has advocated a course of action which might SEEM to be deceptive at face value. We are in a great controversy. The devil doesn't play fair. Sometimes God reaches people with direct honesty, but other times, God must use more subtle means. This DOES NOT make it in any way dishonest. Just not so overt as to cause offense before the person has had a chance to digest the little bit that they can swallow.

Are you advocating that the ends justify the means? It do sound as if you are.

Some people will not be attracted to a church. They still need God. There will always be a fine line between the dove and the serpent, but nonetheless, we are counseled to learn from both and act accordingly.

It is fully possible to "have God" without at the same time having "church" in the classical sence of the word. I know this first hand, many people are much more interested in knowing God than in joining a denomination.

A Biblical example of God being "deceptive":

Samuel 16:1-2 "And the LORD said unto Samuel, How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? fill thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite: for I have provided me a king among his sons. And Samuel said, How can I go? if Saul hear it, he will kill me. And the LORD said, Take an heifer with thee, and say, I am come to sacrifice to the LORD."

So, Samuel was told to say something that wasn't the full truth. Does that mean Samuel was lying? Decidedly, NO! Just because we tell a partial truth, even perhaps with the intent to mislead, as is the case here, does NOT turn our truth into falsehood.

So you are saying that when organising a meeting with the intent to convert catholics and lutherans to sda and doing this while flying under no colours at all is comparable with adding another purpose than ones main purpose for the sake of safer travel? It would have been a much better fit if Samuel here had denied himself (going in disguise) in order to reach Bethlehem unknown and in the shadows. What examples do we have of that. Jacob disguised himself when he decieved Isaac to bless him. But did God approve? Jonah used disguises but that was for trying to flee from God so we can be pretty sure that God did not approve. Abram had Sarai disguise that they where married, and God defended their marriage. But did He approve of the means used? Are there any examples of God asking anyone to pretend to be someone they where not or pretend not to be what they where for a purpose? Cant think of one (thought that doesnt nessessarily mean that such an example doesnt exist). I do remember that Jesus once said that if we deny Him for other people (deny who we are with Him?), He will deny us before the throne of heaven.

The point is, does it serve God's purpose, or does it not? Is it for selfish motives, to cover sin, to promote pride, or some other un-Christlike reason? or is it to fulfill the will of God? When we are doing God's will, we can rest assured that God will be honored through our best efforts. Even if we make mistakes, when we are truly desirous of following Him, and doing the best we know how under the circumstances, God will approve, and will give us strength and wisdom.

Is our best effort really to hide who we are? If so, its not something to shout from the rooftops, it is something to whisper in the shadows.

Do you suppose that in certain closed countries of this world it would be best for every Seventh-day Adventist Christian to make known his or her identity and go straight to jail? While they might reach some inmates by so doing, they would have effectively removed all other opportunities which God may be providing them.

In these countries you wouldnt go tell the authorities that you are a christian either, and the question here seems to be specified to the question of "christian" or "adventist christian".

This post has been edited by västergötland: Nov 2 2006, 06:39 AM

[Green Cochoa]

Are you advocating that the ends justify the means?

Not at all. I am arguing that when God commands, we should follow, and it is not always wise to proclaim oneself and one's motives to every person who happens along.

It is fully possible to "have God" without at the same time having "church" in the classical sence of the word.

True! But that is because "Christian" transcends denomination.

So you are saying that when organising a meeting with the intent to convert catholics and lutherans to sda and doing this while flying under no colours at all is comparable with adding another purpose than ones main purpose for the sake of safer travel? It would have been a much better fit if Samuel here had denied himself (going in disguise) in order to reach Bethlehem unknown and in the shadows.

I am saying only that we must be wise as serpents and harmless as doves, as Christ Himself commanded. God Himself gave Samuel his instructions, and God did not tell Samuel to go disguised.

Jacob disguised himself when he decieved Isaac to bless him. But did God approve? Jonah used disguises but that was for trying to flee from God so we can be pretty sure that God did not approve. Abram had Sarai disguise that they where married, and God defended their marriage. But did He approve of the means used?

Yes, and I point you once again to what I said before, that it is the motive which moves us to the action which is important here--are we moved by the Holy Spirit, or by our own selfishness, whether from pride, embarrassment, fear, etc. which are not of faith. We must live by faith and according to God's direction.

Are there any examples of God asking anyone to pretend to be someone they where not or pretend not to be what they where for a purpose? Cant think of one (thought that doesnt nessessarily mean that such an example doesnt exist). I do remember that Jesus once said that if we deny Him for other people (deny who we are with Him?), He will deny us before the throne of heaven.Is our best effort really to hide who we are? If so, its not something to shout from the rooftops, it is something to whisper in the shadows.

Well, what would you understand Jesus' own words to His disciples to mean, when He told them NOT to reveal who He was?

Matthew 16:20 "Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ."

Jesus does not mean this to be the motto for everyone, right? or does He? But it illustrates once again that there is a time and a place for everything. The better part of wisdom and of discretion is to know when that time and place is. Fish are not caught by brandishing the hook. Jesus teaches us how to fish for men.