How Much Of Concern About 3abn Is Motivated By Liberalism?, Neutralizing one of Danny's alibis Options

[Fran]

I think you would find that many, many Seventh-day Adventists resonate with what you are saying here, Pickle. They do tend to see two categories of questioning and criticism, one coming from Adventists generally (definitely including conservatives) in relation to "principles of ethics, morality, fiduciary responsibility, and the like"; the other motived by liberals "out to get a conservative ministry."

It is also to be observed that name tags are not always rightly placed. We should be careful how we regard them. God is always the final Judge.

In Australia in the huge Lindy Chamberlain saga of the 1980's, it is well acknowledged that prejudice against her little known Seventh-day Adventist faith (her husband at the time was an SDA pastor, though during her stay in gaol he resigned from the ministry) was a major factor fanning the flames of public opinion. Lindy was all but literally burnt to death as a witch, and this before vast cheering crowds. But the facts finally came out, and the country now looks back to the madness that overtook them in the 1980's, with a sense of shame. May the mistakes of history not be repeated. May those speaking to the "3ABN Saga" not have cause one day to look back upon their handling of the issues, with a sense of shame.

One of the beautiful things of the Chamberlain saga is that so many decent Australians from all levels of society and from all faiths - saw through all the prejudice, hype and false rumours, felt for Michael and Lindy as suffering human beings, and joined support groups to call for a fair go. Many - from all these different backgrounds - took up the work of trying to clear Michael and Lindy's names, with great courage and commitment. The clearing of their names also took heat off the SDA Church of which they were members. I have a feeling there are lessons here also which could and should carry over as folk try to sort through the issues of the 3ABN saga.

Brick;

I believe Lindy and Linda could really relate to each other. Both have been crucified just in different ways. Lindy by the country, and Linda by the church and 3ABN. I hope Linda is exonerated in a very public way to the church, so we can learn a valuable lesson too. You cannot judge a person by a fabricated cover!

[Fran]

Question:

Why do I have to stay up until 4:00 AM to enjoy Whentley Phipps?

Why do we never see his program in prime time?

It is a ministry; are they afraid he will take all the offerings to his great ministry?

Why do we never see him on Sabbath, but instead we have to watch Bohr-ing stuff?

Why is David Asscherick (sp?) not on prime time?

Why are we seeing the same thing over and over again on Sabbath?

If I watch on Friday night, Sabbath is only a repeat of Friday night; Why?

Why are they hiding Danny on Sabbath and bringing out the new president to try to fool everyone into believing Danny is gone; when Danny, is in reality, definitely NOT gone.

You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time!

Why does Danny have to repeat himself 7000-8000 times by saying "You were born Adventist with a silver spoon in your mouth, right?"

I am sick of Danny's face and Danny's voice period! I believe 3ABN can become what God intended for it to be, but not as long as they continue to "Hide" Danny away from mainstream Adventism.

I want to hear Danny preach about adultery and what it means. His theology in this area is challenged.

I heard a "RUMOR" that Danny is blaming Linda for his adultery because she cut him off sexually! Interesting thought. We will never know, huh? Sounds like another "She made me do it, Lord," excuse

Why do we not see Doug Bachelor's Sabbath School Lesson on Friday night and Sabbath early AM any more?

I have noticed that Melody's singing is sparse on Sabbath also. What is up with that? Are they hiding her too?

I get to hear Tammy and Bruce Chance push for, "What ever you hold in your hands, " during the wee hours of the AM during the week. Where can mainstream Adventist buy these great bargains?

Who are the "Other sellers" that sell these goods? Why do I never see "Good" stuff on 3ABN eBay?

I need to hear just what exactly this supposed "new" 3ABN stands for, and what the "new" 3ABN believes about adultery as well as all the other Seventh-day Adventist beliefs. In fact what do they it believes about all of the commandments?

Jim talks a good talk and is slick, but he is hiding a multitude of sins, IMO. This makes him guilty also.

I agree with Clay. Let's ask some questions.

[Observer]

When Adventist Today covered stories about 3ABN before, they were accused of being a bunch of liberals trying to take down a conservative ministry. That is one reason why they took such interest in Gailon and myself since we definitely do believe the Seventh-day Adventist message as it has been understood over the last 160+ years.

A pastor called me and remarked yet again that he feels that a lot of the criticism is motivated by liberalism, and that some of those posting here aren't really Seventh-day Adventists. Now with a lot of people I know, that is definitely not the case, but in light of some of the posts here, this last-ditch alibi will unfortunately resonate with a lot of people, even if it isn't true.

If you consider the various stances different ones have taken here when it comes to standards, the health message, a literal sanctuary in heaven, misconstruing thought inspiration into word inspiration, eschatology, the gift of prophecy, perhaps the authority and inspiration of Scripture, how can one counter this alibi?

How can it be effectively demonstrated to the conservatives in Seventh-day Adventism that it isn't a liberal agenda or philosophy or beliefs that motivate the criticism of Shelton et. al. at all, but rather one's principles of ethics, morality, fiduciary responsibility, and the like?

Or is it impossible to separate these two categories of possible motives, and thus we just have to live with Danny's accusations that a lot of this criticism is coming from liberals who are out to get a conservative ministry?

Rightly understood, both conservatives and liberals are concerned with ethics, morality, riduciary responsibility and such. It would be nonsence to claim that either conservatives or liberals are not concerned with such.

I consider myself to be a moderate, or one who is in the middle of the road in regard to conservative vs. liberal issues. I am supported in that by the fact that there are those who claim that I am conservative, and those who claim that I am a liberal. I was a member of a SDA congregation for a number of years, before transfering to the congregation that I presently attend. The pastor of that former congregation clearly believed that I was an arch conservative, whatever that means.

I understand why some think one way of me, and others in another way.

As I have previously said: I have never criticized Danny for the divorce, or for his remarriage. The reason is simple: In that aspect of life, I reflect a liberal view. In addition, that position of mine reflects a view that comes from years of pastoral experience in a congregation.

So, am I a liberal? You decide. But, as a liberal, I happen to believe that it is in the best spiritual interests of this denomination for peple who hold a variety of beliefs and life style practices to be considered members in good standing. Therefore, I can support 3-ABN as meeting the spiritual needs of a segment of this denomination. It does not mean that I have to agree with every thing that is said on 3-ABN. It simply means that I can believe that it is addressing the spiritual needs of fellow SDAs. Therefore, I can support it.

While I have not given large amounts of money to 3-ABN, I have contributed to it. At a previous time when 3-ABN requested funds to establish a presence in the State where I was then living, I made a financial contribution to that effort of 3-ABN. The effort was not successful. I did not request the return of my gift. I do not know where it went. But, that was then O.K. with me.

The idea that liberals are out to get 3-ABN is nonsense. This is not a liberal issue.

By the way, I do not consider Bob Pickle to be a liberal out to get 3-ABN. As a liberal, he would not have been associated with Eden Valley.

I consider Bob to be my friend, with whom I am united in regard to certain aspects of this 3-ABN issue. I believe that in theology he and I probably differ in some things. But, the Lord can take care of that. The Lord can deal with Bob for any theological errors that he might have. In the mean time, we will be friends, and celbrate that which we agree upon.

[västergötland]

Hmm, wonder what it would take for someone to come to the conclusion that Bob P was a liberal? ...

[Pickle]

Pickle, the next time you talk to that pastor just tell him to answer the questions, it makes no difference who is asking them. And if he doesnt'have any answer, then he has nothing to say, and stop talking to him about it. It's a waste of breath you will need one day. Those who grap onto this mess are equally silly and not worth your breath or thoughts. Pray for them and let them go!

Sorry for the misunderstanding. The pastor I referred to is concerned about 3ABN regardless. He isn't swayed one bit by such. But he still is concerned about the attacks against Adventist beliefs and the gift of prophecy that are made here, thinks some of the folks posting here aren't really Adventists even when they claim to be, and thinks that some of the motivation for the concern on the part of some about 3ABN is coming from that direction.

And it's my concern that the attacks against core Adventist beliefs and standards that are made here can hinder resolution by making some folks out there think that they have to choose between truth/3ABN and falsehood/Shelton gone, even though both the pastor I referred to and myself believe there can be no compromise with corruption at 3ABN, regardless of what the consequences might appear to be.

How often we face this same kind of thing in society: people vote Democrat even though some things are right, lest they lose something they hold dear, while others vote Republican even though some things are right, lest they lose something they hold dear. (Hope that was a safe analogy. If not, disregard.)

[Pickle]

Hmm, wonder what it would take for someone to come to the conclusion that Bob P was a liberal? ...

Maybe Mad Cow Disease, or Alzheimers.

Who? Could be me, could be them.

[Pickle]

Well, the music is conservative.

I'll ask something that has almost nagged me before. It seems that I recall that in 1984 at his concert in Slidell, LA, or perhaps he told our pastor sometime, or somehow I recall that he was claiming that a conference president out east had thought his music was of Satan.

Is his music different now than then? Or is contemporary music now different than it was then?

I recall Danny under Oscar Lane's big red tent lifting one hand toward heaven with a mike in the other, there in New Orleans in 1984 as the music went on.

[Pickle]

I consider Bob to be my friend, with whom I am united in regard to certain aspects of this 3-ABN issue. I believe that in theology he and I probably differ in some things. But, the Lord can take care of that.

Complete agreement on every point would be evidence of stagnation.

I'm glad we are friends and on the same side in this sordid mess. Thanks for the encouragement you have given over the last year, and continue to give.

[YogusBearus]

I'll ask something that has almost nagged me before. It seems that I recall that in 1984 at his concert in Slidell, LA, or perhaps he told our pastor sometime, or somehow I recall that he was claiming that a conference president out east had thought his music was of Satan.

Is his music different now than then? Or is contemporary music now different than it was then?

I recall Danny under Oscar Lane's big red tent lifting one hand toward heaven with a mike in the other, there in New Orleans in 1984 as the music went on.

Well that's the last straw. How can anyone support a man lifting his hand toward heaven while the music goes on.

-bear

[västergötland]

<br>Well that's the last straw. How can anyone support a man lifting his hand toward heaven while the music goes on.<br><br>-bear<br>

<br>Hmm, seems Paul could. 1 Timothy 2:8

[västergötland]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. The pastor I referred to is concerned about 3ABN regardless. He isn't swayed one bit by such. But he still is concerned about the attacks against Adventist beliefs and the gift of prophecy that are made here, thinks some of the folks posting here aren't really Adventists even when they claim to be, and thinks that some of the motivation for the concern on the part of some about 3ABN is coming from that direction.

And it's my concern that the attacks against core Adventist beliefs and standards that are made here can hinder resolution by making some folks out there think that they have to choose between truth/3ABN and falsehood/Shelton gone, even though both the pastor I referred to and myself believe there can be no compromise with corruption at 3ABN, regardless of what the consequences might appear to be.

How often we face this same kind of thing in society: people vote Democrat even though some things are right, lest they lose something they hold dear, while others vote Republican even though some things are right, lest they lose something they hold dear. (Hope that was a safe analogy. If not, disregard.)

What I then wonder is, is there only one way that one can be Adventist and who chooses which way that is? Someone who decides that, say, the Standish brothers are the only teachers of the only way one can be SDA might end up in a different place from someone who decides that Bob P is the only teacher of the only way or someone who decides that [fill in the blank] is the only teacher. So who are these people who claim the right to say that others are not SDA because they disagree on some Adventist belief?

[Observer]

What I then wonder is, is there only one way that one can be Adventist and who chooses which way that is? Someone who decides that, say, the Standish brothers are the only teachers of the only way one can be SDA might end up in a different place from someone who decides that Bob P is the only teacher of the only way or someone who decides that [fill in the blank] is the only teacher. So who are these people who claim the right to say that others are not SDA because they disagree on some Adventist belief?

The responsibility to determine the membership status of a person rests with the local SDA congregation, in our present organiztional structure. I support that policy.

Do I think that the local congregation is always correct. No, I do not. But, I would not want to change that to something else.

I will suggest that sometimes the local congregation is wroing is the membership actions that they take. But, they have the authority. Frankly, there is no way to overturn an action that the local congregation takes, outside of expelling the congregation from the SDA Chruch. I do not think that this is a perfect system. Three are changes that I might lilke to make. But, even with those changes I would still want the authority to rest with the local congregation.

[Pickle]

What I then wonder is, is there only one way that one can be Adventist and who chooses which way that is? Someone who decides that, say, the Standish brothers are the only teachers of the only way one can be SDA might end up in a different place from someone who decides that Bob P is the only teacher of the only way or someone who decides that [fill in the blank] is the only teacher. So who are these people who claim the right to say that others are not SDA because they disagree on some Adventist belief?

Seems that the Church Manual lays everything out fairly nicely.

How many beliefs can one disagree with and still be considered an Adventist? What if he or she believed that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday, that the pope is the head of Christendom, that the dead aren't dead, that the wicked are going to roast throughout eternity, or that Christ is coming in a secret rapture 7 years before the second coming? How many of these things could someone agree with and you would still be comfortable considering them to be Adventist? Are there any non-negotiables in your opinion?

[Pickle]

Good points, Gregory. The authority must still reside in the local congregation.

I think we can discuss this from two directions: Whether someone holds church membership or whether someone is Adventist in their belief system, with or without church membership.

[awesumtenor]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. The pastor I referred to is concerned about 3ABN regardless. He isn't swayed one bit by such. But he still is concerned about the attacks against Adventist beliefs and the gift of prophecy that are made here, thinks some of the folks posting here aren't really Adventists even when they claim to be, and thinks that some of the motivation for the concern on the part of some about 3ABN is coming from that direction.

Even if this pastor was correct... and he is not... he is still mixing pineapples and kumquats. The issues regarding DS is particular and 3ABN in general are *NOT* doctrinal.... as for how adventist beliefs are discussed in this forum, point your pastor friend to R&H, 12/20/1892 where Sis. White says:

There is no excuse for any one in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation. We are living in perilous times, and it does not become us to accept everything claimed to be truth without examining it thoroughly; neither can we afford to reject anything that bears the fruits of the Spirit of God; but we should be teachable, meek and lowly of heart. There are those who oppose everything that is not in accordance with their own ideas, and by so doing they endanger their eternal interest as verily as did the Jewish nation in their rejection of Christ. The Lord designs that our opinions shall be put to the test, that we may see the necessity of closely examining the living oracles to see whether or not we are in the faith. Many who claim to believe the truth have settled down at their ease, saying, "I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing."

Not to mention the fact that DS can't have it both ways, painting his detractors as anti-Adventist while painting 3ABN as non-denominational... ask your pastor friend to reconcile that, if he is inclined to believe this an anti-Adventism based opposition... or better yet, tell him to stop hiding behind you; we don't bite so he can come and discuss his reservations with the non-3ABN discussions in this forum with those with whom he disagrees.

And it's my concern that the attacks against core Adventist beliefs and standards that are made here can hinder resolution by making some folks out there think that they have to choose between truth/3ABN and falsehood/Shelton gone, even though both the pastor I referred to and myself believe there can be no compromise with corruption at 3ABN, regardless of what the consequences might appear to be.

Anyone who can read what you've posted on your site and still frame the issue as the choices you describe is one who has already decided to support Danny, though the heavens fall, come hell or high water... and as such deserves to be left in their chosen ignorance.

How often we face this same kind of thing in society: people vote Democrat even though some things are right, lest they lose something they hold dear, while others vote Republican even though some things are right, lest they lose something they hold dear. (Hope that was a safe analogy. If not, disregard.)

Which only proves the wizard's first rule: people are stupid. People like DS rely on that stupidity as the means to their manipulations and machinations.

In His service,
Mr. J