Larry Romrell: Adventist Connections? Options

[Johann]

Re: Rich Odle:

The 2007 YEARBOOK lists a Richard Odle, who lives in Granite City, IL, as a currrently recognized, and ordained SDA pastor. If this person is the "Rich Odle" referenced above, he clearly was a recognized ordained SDA minister at the time teh 2007 YEARBOOK was printed.

I have heard Rick preach, and I have never heard him make any statement that is contrary to SDA doctrine.

[PeacefulBe]

See now, Appletree, I don't get that from Bear's post. What I get is exactly what you are saying. That 3ABN HAS BEEN preaching the uniquely SDA doctrinal message for 20+ years. The problem comes in when they leagally describe themselves as non demonational, not having any ties to any denom, and preaching a non denom message. For 20+ years most if not all of that is not true. Did they only have a drop down arrow with already prepared categories, and they had to pick the closest one? I am almost sure that they could have more accurately described their apparent association with the SDA church.

It might be a good idea to see how AF describes it's ministry by definition under the law.............ya' think?

princessdi,

3abn is not the one legally describing themselves as nondenominational, not affiliated or funded by any denomination, or denominational organization, etc. appletree has very reasonably described that it was the lawyers who wrote this legal stuff. We can only speculate as to why they would need to distance 3abn from the SDA denomination. We all know that it is okay for lawyers to misrepresent the truth a bit, to try to create loopholes by creative wordings or subtle untruths to create the best case for their client. We all know that 3abn would never describe themselves (for they are a supporting ministry of the SDA church and have the contract to prove it)thusly. Right?

[panther]

[princessdi]

Oh ok, and Danny & Linda(cuz she was right there) just signed where they told him.......without reading. Ok I got it PB!

I said it before, and I will say it again. If I was Linda, and I could talk now I would keep silent just as she is. Danny wanted to be the only talking, let him keep talking and 'splainin' errythang!

princessdi,

3abn is not the one legally describing themselves as nondenominational, not affiliated or funded by any denomination, or denominational organization, etc. appletree has very reasonably described that it was the lawyers who wrote this legal stuff. We can only speculate as to why they would need to distance 3abn from the SDA denomination. We all know that it is okay for lawyers to misrepresent the truth a bit, to try to create loopholes by creative wordings or subtle untruths to create the best case for their client. We all know that 3abn would never describe themselves (for they are a supporting ministry of the SDA church and have the contract to prove it)thusly. Right?

[Johann]

Oh ok, and Danny & Linda(cuz she was right there) just signed where they told him.......without reading. Ok I got it PB!

I said it before, and I will say it again. If I was Linda, and I could talk now I would keep silent just as she is. Danny wanted to be the only talking, let him keep talking and 'splainin' errythang!

You probably got it.

[watchbird]

I will have to say WB that for a change your post gave me quite a chuckle.

Why thank you, appletree, so kind of you to say so. And I'm so glad to hear that... for your posts ALWAYS give me a chuckle.... in fact, sometimes they make me laugh out loud. So nice to hear that you at least get a chuckle out of mine.

It is so funny how people can leave out a few words or change a few to give something a whole different meaning.

Yes... isn't it. But then... you give such good examples that it doesn't take a lot of work to pick up the knack.

I am not accusing you directly of doing that but very possibly the person who said that to you. I know better.

Oh really. I didn't realize that your talents ran to mindreading.... through time and distance even. What a gifted person you are!

Now, while the supposed 3abn person may have added into the conversation that making the programs appealing is very important, to say they are judged on that alone would have to be a blatant lie on someone's part. Think about it. Do you think any ministry connected to Adventist teachings could last 23 years if content didn't matter? Of course not. The Adventist people would not stand for it. That certainly would be the scenerio if programs were based "soley on appeal." Another idea that proves that theory wrong is because we also know that there are a few programs that are not really appealing but actually a little boring. If they are boring the certainly can't have been aired soley on appeal.

Thank you again for yet another example of the way things can be distorted by the clever rearanging of words and near synonyms. Sorry... not working. My source does not lie. The conversation was much longer than I attempted to repeat here, and the bottom line was that 3abn wanted no assistance from outside the 3abn compound for any interpretaional, doctrinal, or practical application of the SDA belief system.

We do not like all the programs on secular TV why would christian TV be any different. There are some programs people will like and others they will not. This is just a "common sense" issue.

I believe you said the important aspect here is who is reviewing the content. I already answered that. A well grounded pastoral committee.

Yes, you did... but you neglected to say where they got their "grounding". Thank you so much for explicating that in your next paragraph.

As to your comment on Rick Odle and his non SDA background, let me give the flip side of that coin. Rick was a pastor for many years in another denomination. While pastoring that church he came to work in Master control at 3abn in the early years. Master Control is where the programs are put in the machines and sent up to satellite. This means that an MC operator spends his working hours in front of the TV listening to all the programs being aired. No they can't turn the volume down in case of a problem. After months and months of listening day in and day out to Adventist doctrine, Rick started studying diligently for himself with the motive of proving us wrong. End result? He became an Adventist pastor and still is today many years later. My point?
Rick would have been an excellent reviewer after his conversion. His "learning" was fresh, his scriptural knowledge, astute and his reasoning as to why we believe what we believe was excellent. Sometimes those that study hard to prove us wrong, learn and understand more of our teachings than the average Joe.

That was then when the ministry was very small. Now there is a full pastoral committee for review meaning that 3abn does as much as is humanly possible to make sure that no error is presented in their programs.

O K ..... I think I've got it.... Lessee... Rick got his instruction on what Adventists beleived by watching 3abn programing.... IOW.... what he knew of Adventism was whatever someone before him picked out as being what 3abn had decided was the way they wanted to represent SDA doctrines... and practices.... and biblical interpretation... and ..... whatever.....

So yes... that would give him an EXCELLENT foundation for being " an excellent reviewer".... so it was a natural that he be advanced to the position of making decisions on which programs were representative of SDA interpretations... and doctrines... and practics.... .... yeah.... .....

Sounds pretty common sense and accurate to me....

Thank you very much for confirming .. and adding to... the information that I already had on this.


..............................

[watchbird]

3abn is not the one legally describing themselves as nondenominational, not affiliated or funded by any denomination, or denominational organization, etc. appletree has very reasonably described that it was the lawyers who wrote this legal stuff. We can only speculate as to why they would need to distance 3abn from the SDA denomination. We all know that it is okay for lawyers to misrepresent the truth a bit, to try to create loopholes by creative wordings or subtle untruths to create the best case for their client. We all know that 3abn would never describe themselves (for they are a supporting ministry of the SDA church and have the contract to prove it) thusly. Right?

Wrong..... On their initial website they described themselves as a supporting ministry.... that changed when they put in a new format... back somewhere around 1999.... and the same disclaimer about not being affiliated with any denomination has been on their website ever since that time.... even though the site was drastically redesigned sometime in 2005. What was interesting was that they had the claim that they were a supporting ministry on before they got that document signed by the GC in which GC gave them full right to go into all Divisions of the world.... a privilege not usually allowed to denominational entities, btw..... and then... within a year or so of getting that document they claimed they were not affiliated with any denomination... though many of their employees were SDAs.

The details are here on BSDA somewhere.... you can probably find them.


.............................

[Artiste]

Wrong..... On their initial website they described themselves as a supporting ministry.... that changed when they put in a new format... back somewhere around 1999.... and the same disclaimer about not being affiliated with any denomination has been on their website ever since that time.... even though the site was drastically redesigned sometime in 2005. What was interesting was that they had the claim that they were a supporting ministry on before they got that document signed by the GC in which GC gave them full right to go into all Divisions of the world.... a privilege not usually allowed to denominational entities, btw..... and then... within a year or so of getting that document they claimed they were not affiliated with any denomination... though many of their employees were SDAs.

The details are here on BSDA somewhere.... you can probably find them.
.............................

Pretty complicated, but thank you for the explanation, Watchbird.


**************************************************************

[watchbird]

Re: Rich Odle:

The 2007 YEARBOOK lists a Richard Odle, who lives in Granite City, IL, as a currrently recognized, and ordained SDA pastor. If this person is the "Rich Odle" referenced above, he clearly was a recognized ordained SDA minister at the time teh 2007 YEARBOOK was printed.

I was not questioning his current status. The incident to which I referred happened back in the early 1990's some time. All I really know about his position at 3abn at that time was what I was told... which was that he was the one who made the decisions as to what SDA ministers were to be allowed to be aired on 3abn... and in the context of the specific incident, criticism of doctrinal content was the specific issue.

I have heard Rick preach, and I have never heard him make any statement that is contrary to SDA doctrine.

This was not my point. My point was that he was judging whether OTHER SDA ministers... and senior ministers at that... were preaching something "contrary to SDA doctrine".

..........................

[Snoopy]

Please correct me if I am wrong. I have not reviewed the papers filed to begin the litigation for a while.

Did those papers not assert that 3-ABN was preaching a unique message not associated with any other relligious group?

That sounds to me like it is said that the message that 3-ABN is preaching differs from what the SDA chruch proclaims.

So, appletree... All this discussion of 3ABN's non-denominational, unique message brings up a question. For all of those SDA donors who thought they were contributing to an SDA ministry...does 3ABN now have a process in place to refund the donations of those SDA donors who are dismayed to learn that 3ABN claims no ties to the Adventist Church?????

[princessdi]

Snoopy!!! you already know that I love you gurl!!! You go!!! That's what I'm talkin' 'bout!

So, appletree... All this discussion of 3ABN's non-denominational, unique message brings up a question. For all of those SDA donors who thought they were contributing to an SDA ministry...does 3ABN now have a process in place to refund the donations of those SDA donors who are dismayed to learn that 3ABN claims no ties to the Adventist Church?????

[LaurenceD]

Beartrap,
You of all people know better than to insinuate anything other that 3abn's strict doctrinal guidelines for programming. Read my post again. It's all about definitions under the law, nothing else. You are well aware of the Adventist Message being broadcast 24/7 and to try and post anything different is at the very least deceitful and you know it.

IMO, once we get keen on this double-mindedness that the apostle James refers to, it will be simple to understand how a person can utter both statements...that 3abn is technically non-denomination, yet technically broadcasts a denominational message (understand Aletheia? I sense that you were gagged and told that the apple will handle this one). Even the title of the business has strong connections to a denominational link. Tricky, eh? Oh so tricky.

double-minded: from the Greek dipsuchos, dis meaning twice, and psuche meaning mind. Vacillating, wavering, uncertain, two-faced, half-hearted.

James goes on to describe certain other examples of double-mindedness, like James 2:2 where he warns that wealthy church members may be receiving special treatment when they come into an assembly (ie, board of directors).

In James 3:9 he warns against double-mindedness as talking out of both sides of ones mouth. Like saying denominational when it's handy, or non-denominational when it's handy.

[Artiste]

IMO, once we get keen on this double-mindedness that the apostle James refers to, it will be simple to understand how a person can utter both statements...that 3abn is technically non-denomination, yet technically broadcasts a denominational message (understand Aletheia? I sense that you were gagged and told that the apple will handle this one). Even the title of the business has strong connections to a denominational link. Tricky, eh? Oh so tricky.

double-minded: from the Greek dipsuchos, dis meaning twice, and psuche meaning mind. Vacillating, wavering, uncertain, two-faced, half-hearted.

James goes on to describe certain other examples of double-mindedness, like James 2:2 where he warns that wealthy church members may be receiving special treatment when they come into an assembly (ie, board of directors).

In James 3:9 he warns against double-mindedness as talking out of both sides of ones mouth. Like saying denominational when it's handy, or non-denominational when it's handy.

Quite good examples you have there, LaurenceD!


*********************************************************

[fallible humanbe...]

LD,

It seems to me that you have missed the point made by some in regards to the wording used in the legal documents. Much consideration was given to these phrases by the attorneys I am sure, and I am sure that those being represented by these attorneys were not comfortable with these phrase. However, if one reads the documents it becomes clear that Gailon Joy maintained the intent or at least the possibility of such intentions, to counter sue.

It is not at all a ridiculous speculation that Mr. Joy would go after any entity that was/is tied to 3ABN. If there were any mention of the Seventh-day Adventist church organization then he might very likely go after the church itself in order to further embarrass 3ABN. What better tool to create a false perception than to run around shouting that you didn't want to sue the church, but you had no choice because they were/are directly connected to the church.

The phrases used in the legal briefs were designed to insure that no other ministry, and especially the organized church, would not be used as a target to further attack 3ABN. Following the rules of logical taught in law school allows one the opportunity to understand why these phrases were used and then to imagine why such was done. Your arguments continue to be hold only peripheral connection to the subject being discussed.

There is nothing double-minded. The message being broadcast through 3ABN, when it comes right down to it, is non-denominational. To think that it can only be proclaimed by the Seventh-day Adventist Church or a baptized Seventh-day Adventist is rather a triumphalist attitude. The message of the Gospel belongs to no man, to no denomination . . . but belongs to those who will hear and follow.

A denomination is merely an organizational tool whereby those who do subscribe to a particular set of tenets/beliefs. A denomination is not the truth, the individuals who are members may have learn the truth through study and prayer - but the denomination is only there for managing the organization of the believers. The believers may ask it to do more, like provide pastors and help maintain a repository of the definitions of shared beliefs. In other words, it has a place in the process of religion, but isn't the religion.

For 3ABN to say it's message is non-denominational isn't far from Jesus method of operation. Did he single out who would be an acceptable recipient of His message? Of course not. Did he limit his message to the members of the organized Jewish faith of His day? Of course not. His message was for Jew and Gentile alike. His salvation was for Jew and Gentile alike. His message was non-denominational. It was His message and He gave it to all who would hear and sent them on with the admonition to share this message with anyone and everyone. So for 3ABN to say its message is non-denominational would not be unlike Christ in His earthly ministry.

As a last note, 3ABN's web site has the following statement:

3ABN is not owned, operated or funded by any church, denomination or organization, so people from all cultures and backgrounds appreciate 3ABN programming. Many of 3ABN's employees and volunteers are members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

There is nothing there that distances it from the Seventh-day Adventist church, nor does it deny the Adventist origin of its message. You can not logical argue that simply because it isn't spelled out there that the opposite is true. To do so is to weaken your own point of view.

So, the fact that the lawyers decided to use the phrase "non-denominational" and protect the church organization and other ministries from frivolous law suits would seem to be the wisest course of action.

- FHB

IMO, once we get keen on this double-mindedness that the apostle James refers to, it will be simple to understand how a person can utter both statements...that 3abn is technically non-denomination, yet technically broadcasts a denominational message (understand Aletheia? I sense that you were gagged and told that the apple will handle this one). Even the title of the business has strong connections to a denominational link. Tricky, eh? Oh so tricky.

double-minded: from the Greek dipsuchos, dis meaning twice, and psuche meaning mind. Vacillating, wavering, uncertain, two-faced, half-hearted.

James goes on to describe certain other examples of double-mindedness, like James 2:2 where he warns that wealthy church members may be receiving special treatment when they come into an assembly (ie, board of directors).

In James 3:9 he warns against double-mindedness as talking out of both sides of ones mouth. Like saying denominational when it's handy, or non-denominational when it's handy.

[LaurenceD]

FHB, you may not be up to speed with what's going on here. I'm not referring to the incongruence of the lawyers terms v. anyone elses. I'm referring to what one 3abn supporter posted here vs. another 3abn supporter. And one said both.