God Is Blessing Danny Shelton Abroad..., blessing him to "received a celebrity welcome!" Options

[SoulEspresso]

Who was it in this community that said,

"If you don't clean up your church, the media will clean it for you."

This post has been edited by SoulEspresso: Jul 15 2007, 02:38 PM

[princessdi]

SE, I keep trying to tell them, but they ain't trying to hear me!

[princessdi]

Now, I see this as a bit different. The church is clearly identified as a SDA church but they have a meeting that is open to any denom. That maybe a meeting to discuss community involvment, etc. Which has nothing to do with preaching or teaching doctrine. That is entirely different from what 3ABN is doing and pclaiming their whole message and existence ahs absolutely nothing to do with any denom in genreal and SDA in particular.

I have a serious problem with organizations that present themselves as non-denominational, but have very strong ties to a larger denominational body. There are a number of SDA ministries that do this. I mentioned a few months ago that a church here in the DC area has an afternoon program that is promoted as non-denominational. It's almost as if they are a church that happens to meet in an SDA sanctuary. They really try to deny any affiliation with the denomination. The problem with all of this is, it's not true! The motives behind these claims are deceptive, and they will not work. People aren't stupid. They are trying to get people to accept the message bit by bit while pulling the wool over their eyes. This method is not of God, and I ain't afraid to say it.

[mikell]

I believe my grandmother had a Bible signed by HMS Richards, but it could have been one of those VOP study Bibles.

From my position of thinking how wrong it was for Shelton to sign Bibles, looks like could been misguided, in seeing that HMS Richards signed Bibles. If what Richards did and what Shelton is doing is apples to apples, then I stand corrected. However, I myself would never sign any Bible, period, but if others do it, then whom am I to think it is not right to do?

[Richard Sherwin]

I'm not saying it was OK for him to do so, just agreeing with the other poster that the signing of Bibles is not at all unprecedented. However my feeling is that HMS Richards would not have signed them in a media frenzy rock star like setting. Humble and HMS Richards went hand in hand from my recollections of him. Humble and Danny Shelton would be another story all together IMO. So no, to compare Richards and Shelton are not apples to apples. More like a bitter lemon to a sweet naval orange

Richard

From my position of thinking how wrong it was for Shelton to sign Bibles, looks like could been misguided, in seeing that HMS Richards signed Bibles. If what Richards did and what Shelton is doing is apples to apples, then I stand corrected. However, I myself would never sign any Bible, period, but if others do it, then whom am I to think it is not right to do?

[Rosyroi]

I'm not saying it was OK for him to do so, just agreeing with the other poster that the signing of Bibles is not at all unprecedented. However my feeling is that HMS Richards would not have signed them in a media frenzy rock star like setting. Humble and HMS Richards went hand in hand from my recollections of him. Humble and Danny Shelton would be another story all together IMO. So no, to compare Richards and Shelton are not apples to apples. More like a bitter lemon to a sweet naval orange

Richard

WOW!!! LOVE your visual!!!

Yes I remember HMS Richards. I would NEVER compare DS with HMSR in a positive light except as very opposite.

I have no idea what HMSR wrote in the Bibles he signed. It would be nice to find someone who does have a Bible he signed to find out.

(ps... also comparing HMSR with DS about people putting money in each of their pockets for the ministry... discussing honesty and economical issues...not even in the same ballpark)
JMHO

Rosyroi

[pacunurse30]

Now, I see this as a bit different. The church is clearly identified as a SDA church but they have a meeting that is open to any denom. That maybe a meeting to discuss community involvment, etc. Which has nothing to do with preaching or teaching doctrine. That is entirely different from what 3ABN is doing and pclaiming their whole message and existence ahs absolutely nothing to do with any denom in genreal and SDA in particular.

Are you talking about the church that I mentioned in particular? Or are you saying that it's okay for any church to hold meetings that are open to other denoms? In any case, that is not at all what I'm talking about, and that isn't what this particular church is doing. I know for a fact that the original intent for this service was to slowly introduce people to the mainline church. It then morphed into a pseudo non-denominational church of it's own. It was never meant to be just a meeting where everyone was welcome to discuss Jesus in a forum free of doctrinal disputes. Here are some problems that I've noted with the program, and why I think the motives aren't quite what you've described.


1. The pastor who runs the program claims that it is independantly run and self funded. This is false. The "mother church" has a budget for this program. The funds are derived from offerings taken during mid-day services.

2. Those involved in the ministry are to refrain from using SDA "codewords" that would indicate any affiliation with the SDA denomination.

There is nothing wrong with preaching the simple gospel without having to beat people over the head with doctrine. I'm not saying that we always have to be about doctrine. What I am saying is that we cannot pretend to be something that we're not in an effort to appear more "user friendly." Everyone knows that SDAism is viewed as cultish and unorthodox. Therefore a lot of people would immediately be turned off if they knew a radio station/church/program/magazine/website were SDA. So is it okay to hide that fact in order to draw people in? I don't think so. And I don't think it's going to work in the long run.

[PeacefulBe]

Are you talking about the church that I mentioned in particular? Or are you saying that it's okay for any church to hold meetings that are open to other denoms? In any case, that is not at all what I'm talking about, and that isn't what this particular church is doing. I know for a fact that the original intent for this service was to slowly introduce people to the mainline church. It then morphed into a pseudo non-denominational church of it's own. It was never meant to be just a meeting where everyone was welcome to discuss Jesus in a forum free of doctrinal disputes. Here are some problems that I've noted with the program, and why I think the motives aren't quite what you've described.
1. The pastor who runs the program claims that it is independantly run and self funded. This is false. The "mother church" has a budget for this program. The funds are derived from offerings taken during mid-day services.

2. Those involved in the ministry are to refrain from using SDA "codewords" that would indicate any affiliation with the SDA denomination.

There is nothing wrong with preaching the simple gospel without having to beat people over the head with doctrine. I'm not saying that we always have to be about doctrine. What I am saying is that we cannot pretend to be something that we're not in an effort to appear more "user friendly." Everyone knows that SDAism is viewed as cultish and unorthodox. Therefore a lot of people would immediately be turned off if they knew a radio station/church/program/magazine/website were SDA. So is it okay to hide that fact in order to draw people in? I don't think so. And I don't think it's going to work in the long run.

Nope, it's not okay. It is nothing less than dishonest trickery, IMO. If we would study why many outsiders view our denomination as cultish, perhaps we would find it due to how we start out wooing them with attempting to appeal to their fear instead of introducing them to the God of Love that has already won the fight for us and desires our companionship and love above all else. The rest can come later, but should not be hidden.