| Author |
Message |
Goldenbear
Registered user
Username: Goldenbear
Post Number: 74
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 8:10 pm: |     |
How people grow in their faith is interesting. James Fowler has written about a 6 stage of growth in religious development. I find that many Adventist don't grow out of some of the early stages of faith development. Read through Fowler's theory and opine...
Before the rather detailed description by Fowler I have inserted an abbreviated form as related to Adventists by Testerman. Somewhere I didn't see Fowler notated.
AToday: Magazine Archives: Mar/Apr 1995: articles
The Stages of Faith
JOHN K. TESTERMAN
Life can be viewed as a quest in which we seek to understand the world we find ourselves in, discover its meaning, and locate ourselves within the grand scheme of things. As we go about the lifelong business of constructing our intelligible worlds, we pass through different eras or stages in our life, in each of which we approach our meaning-making task quite differently. James Fowler called these life stages the "stages of faith"óyour faith being the way you make sense of the world. After listening to the life stories of hundreds of people, Fowler believed he had found a consistent pattern of six major faith stages which occur in an invariant order. However, most people complete only three or four during their lifetime.
These stages have to do with the type of faith but not with the amount of faith. Profound faith in God or unbelief may occur at any stage. Faith stage determines what one considers to be the important questions, what counts as evidence, and how and with what cognitive tools one looks for answers. The stages can be thought of as the different lenses through which we view the world as we journey through life.
Faith stage transitions occur when, in response to new experiences or life crises, our old way of seeing the world collapses and a new faith structure is built. As seen in the stories in this issue of Adventist Today, these faith stage transitions are sometimes traumatic, accompanied by much painful soul-searching, and they can bring people into conflict with their faith communities.
I. Magical World
The Stage 1 child of ages 2-6 perceives the world through the lens of imagination and intuition unrestrained by logic. The preschooler thus lives in a numinous, magical world in which anything is possible.
II. Concrete Family
Stage 2 children of ages 6-12 see the world through the lens of storyóa concrete, literal, narrative world of family and tribe, ritual and myth. They begin to identify with a faith community, which may be religiously, politically or culturally defined, and to locate themselves within its "Master Story"óthe story that tells you who you are. The Adventist "Master Story" not only includes the Christian story of creation, fall and redemption, but continues with the story of the Millerite movement, the great disappointment of 1844, the heavenly sanctuary, Ellen White, and so on.
Stage 2 collapses when teenagers use their newfound power of abstract thought to deconstruct their previous concrete understanding of the world. If they are not provided with a Christian peer group and adult level religious teaching, they will now be at high risk for rejecting their religion as childish, and identifying instead with the surrounding secular culture.
III. Faith Community
The teenager in Stage 3 sees the world through the lens of the peer community. We are socialized into our faith community, "catching" our values and ways of thinking unconsciously from our peer group and subculture. We are immersed in the thought system of our faith community like a fish that does not perceive the water in which it swims.
Stage 3 usually continues as the adult faith stage of most people in our church and society. Once the culturally accepted ways of thinking become part of us, we tend not to question them, nor the authoritative sources from which they derive. At Stage 3 my identity is based on being part of a group with shared history, traditions and values. Without Stage 3 persons, denominations or cultures would have little cohesiveness or continuity. People may change denominations, however, if they can be convinced that the new group is more faithful to accepted authoritative sources, such as the Bible.
Group-based identity is also a cause of conflict. It is hard to deal calmly and rationally with issues which touch on oneís identity. In the early 1980s, Desmond Ford, a prominent Adventist theologian, publicly questioned features of the Sanctuary doctrine. Although to many it was an obscure doctrine, it was an identity issue, part of our Master Story. The ensuing intense reaction, which nearly split the denomination, was a predictable response to a perceived attack on the Master Story. You can reinterpret the Master Story, even radically, but directly attacking it will provoke outrage. This is a homeostatic mechanism that protects the continuity of faith communities. Unfortunately, a lot of innocent people get hurt in the process of trying to maintain the continuity.
Adult Stage 3 Adventists, then, tend to be loyal and support the church and its beliefs and subcultural lifestyle practices. They may react strongly if they perceive any of these things as under attack, since their identity is tied to them. They form the majority and financially supportive backbone of our denomination, and without them it is doubtful that we could maintain such institutions as Andrews University.
IV. Rational Constructs
If the traditional answers stop making sense, Stage 3 collapses. In some respects Stage 4 is a continuation of the rational examination of belief that begins during Stage 3. Now, however, not only individual beliefs, but the whole previously unquestioned traditional and authoritative bases of belief are called into radical account. One develops the capacity to step back from oneís own faith heritage and examine it through the lens of reason, compare it to other faith traditions, throw out the parts that donít make sense, or even abandon it altogether. Oneís universe is now reconstructed along self-chosen rational lines, and oneís religion (if retained) must, above all, make sense.
Usually people at Stage 4 have little interest in the marks of Adventist subcultural identity, because there is a moving away from group-based identity, as well as from dependence on external sources of authority. Thus Stage 4 Adventists are extremely irritated by the traditional Adventist habit of using quotations from Ellen White as "discussion stoppers."
As illustrated in many of the stories in this issue of Adventist Today, adult Adventists in transition to Stage 4 may experience deep disappointment and anger on finding that some of the beliefs they had based their lives on do not stand up to their investigation. They may nevertheless remain in the church if they can reinterpret their Adventist faith along reasonable lines and find a supportive local church community with Stage 4 Adventist role models and tolerance of diversity. Leaders who insist on having 100 percent of the church agreeing with all 27 of the Adventist "fundamental beliefs" as a condition of retaining membership are essentially demanding that all Stage 4 Adventists leave the church. Members who happen to be passing through the Stage 4 transition but who hold highly visible positions in the denomination often become casualties, whereas less vulnerable individuals who are members of supportive local church communities may remain and thrive.
V. Numinous Universe
Stage 4 collapses when we run up against the limits of rational thought and the search for certainty ends in failure and even despair. Stage 5, which may begin at mid-life or later, in some respects is similar to Stage 1. Seeing once more through the lens of the imagination and intuition, we again come to live in a numinous universe of mystery, wonder and paradox. The answer is not an explanation, so reason is no longer the primary tool with which we attempt to apprehend ultimate reality. Having taken authority into ourselves at Stage 4, we now give back to sacred symbol, story, tradition, liturgy and faith community the numinous power they enjoyed in our consciousness decades earlier. God, previously the target of much theological discussion, is experienced in a way that is not so neatly captured in a theological box. Without giving up or devaluing oneís own religious heritage, there may be a new openness to learn from other faith traditions.
VI. Selfless Service
Stage 6 faith is rare. Such individuals identify deeply with all of humanity, and therefore tend to spend themselves in service of worldwide issues of love, justice and brotherhood. Some possible examples are Mahatma Gandhi, Albert Schweitzer, and Mother Theresa.
Coexistence
How are people at all these faith stages supposed to coexist in the same church? To those at any given stage, the next stage looks like loss of faith and the previous stage is repulsive. To people in Stage 3, Stage 4 sounds like giving away the store. To those in Stage 4, Stage 3 looks like unthinking traditionalism and Stage 5 like mystical mush. The problem is worsened by some Stage 3ís who engage in witch hunting at the first scent of heresy, and Stage 4ís who gleefully bait or ridicule their Stage 3 colleagues.
How do we provide for diversity without losing community? This is not an easy problem, and historically we Adventists have not done especially well at solving it. Many of the stories in this issue are testimony to our failings. There is, of course, no easy answer. But knowing about stages of faith can help us understand how tradition and continuity, as well as new ideas and diversity in the church, are inevitable and necessary. All of the stages are important and valid expressions of faith, and people in all stages have a right to serve and be served by the church.
Stages of Faith
James Fowler
Stage I Intuitive-Projective faith is the fantasy-filled, imitative phase in which the child can be powerfully and permanently influenced by examples, moods, actions and stories of the visible faith of primally related adults.
The stage most typical of the child of three to seven, it is marked by a relative fluidity of thought patterns. The child is continually encountering novelties for which no stable operations of knowing have been formed. The imaginative processes underlying fantasy are unrestrained and uninhibited by logical thought. In league with forms of knowing dominated by perception, imagination in this stage is extremely productive of long-lasting images and feelings (positive and negative) that later, more stable and self-reflective valuing and thinking will have to order and sort out. This is the stage of first self-awareness. The "self-aware" child is egocentric as regards the perspectives of others. Here we find first awarenesses of death and sex and of the strong taboos by which cultures and families insulate those powerful areas.
The gift or emergent strength of this stage is the birth of imagination, the ability to unify and grasp the experience-world in powerful images and as presented in stories that register the child's intuitive understandings and feelings toward the ultimate conditions of existence.
The dangers in this stage arise from the possible "possession" of the child's imagination by unrestrained images of terror and destructiveness, or from the witting or unwitting exploitation of her or his imagination in the reinforcement of taboos and moral or doctrinal expectations.
The main factor precipitating transition to the next stage is the emergence of concrete operational thinking. Affectively, the resolution of Oedipal issues or their submersion in latency are important accompanying factors. At the heart of the transition is the child's growing concern to know how things are and to clarify for him- or herself the bases of distinctions between what is real and what only seems to be.
Stage 2 Mythic-Literal faith is the stage in which the person begins to take on for him- or herself the stories, beliefs and observances that symbolize belonging to his or her community. Beliefs are appropriated with literal interpretations, as are moral rules and attitudes. Symbols are taken as one-dimensional and literal in meaning. In this stage the rise of concrete operations leads to the curbing and ordering of the previous stage's imaginative composing of the world. The episodic quality of Intuitive-Projective faith gives way to a more linear, narrative construction of coherence and meaning. Story becomes the major way of giving unity and value to experience. This is the faith stage of the school child (though we sometimes find the structures dominant in adolescents and in adults). Marked by increased accuracy in taking the perspective of other persons, those in Stage 2 compose a world based on reciprocal fairness and an immanent justice based on reciprocity. The actors in their cosmic stories are anthropomorphic. They can be affected deeply and powerfully by symbolic and dramatic materials and can describe in endlessly detailed narrative what has occurred. They do not, however, step back from the flow of stories to formulate reflective, conceptual meanings. For this stage the meaning is both carried and "trapped" in the narrative.
The new capacity or strength in this stage is the rise of narrative and the emergence of story, drama and myth as ways of finding and giving coherence to experience.
The limitations of literalness and an excessive reliance upon reciprocity as a principle for constructing an ultimate environment can result either in an overcontrolling, stilted perfectionism or "works righteousness" or in their opposite, an abasing sense of badness embraced because of mistreatment, neglect or the apparent disfavor of significant others.
A factor initiating transition to Stage 3 is the implicit clash or contradictions in stories that leads to reflection on meanings. The transition to formal operational thought makes such reflection possible and necessary. Previous literalism breaks down; new "cognitive conceit" (Elkind) leads to disillusionment with previous teachers and teachings. Conflicts between authoritative stories (Genesis on creation versus evolutionary theory) must be faced. The emergence of mutual interpersonal perspective taking ("I see you seeing me; I see me as you see me; I see you seeing me seeing you.") creates the need for a more personal relationship with the unifying power of the ultimate environment.
In Stage 3 Synthetic-Conventional faith, a person's experience of the world now extends beyond the family. A number of spheres demand attention: family, school or work, peers, street society and media, and perhaps religion. Faith must provide a coherent orientation in the midst of that more complex and diverse range of involvements. Faith must synthesize values and information; it must provide a basis for identity and outlook.
Stage 3 typically has its rise and ascendancy in adolescence, but for many adults it becomes a permanent place of equilibrium. It structures the ultimate environment in interpersonal terms. Its images of unifying value and power derive from the extension of qualities experienced in personal relationships. It is a "conformist" stage in the sense that it is acutely tuned to the expectations and judgments of significant others and as yet does not have a sure enough grasp on its own identity and autonomous judgment to construct and maintain an independent perspective. While beliefs and values are deeply felt, they typically are tacitly held-the person "dwells" in them and in the meaning world they mediate. But there has not been occasion to step outside them to reflect on or examine them explicitly or systematically. At Stage 3 a person has an "ideology," a more or less consistent clustering of values and beliefs, but he or she has not objectified it for examination and in a sense is unaware of having it. Differences of outlook with others are experienced as differences in "kind" of person. Authority is located in the incumbents of traditional authority roles (if perceived as personally worthy) or in the consensus of a valued, face-to-face group.
The emergent capacity of this stage is the forming of a personal myth-the myth of one's own becoming in identity and faith, incorporating one's past and anticipated future in an image of the ultimate environment unified by characteristics of personality.
The dangers or deficiencies in this stage are twofold. The expectations and evaluations of others can be so compellingly internalized (and sacralized) that later autonomy of judgment and action can be jeopardized; or interpersonal betrayals can give rise either to nihilistic despair about a personal principle of ultimate being or to a compensatory intimacy with God unrelated to mundane relations
Factors contributing to the breakdown of Stage 3 and to readiness for transition may include: serious clashes or contradictions between valued authority sources; marked changes, by officially sanctioned leaders, or policies or practices previously deemed sacred and unbreachable (for example, in the Catholic church changing the mass from Latin to the vernacular, or no longer requiring abstinence from meat on Friday); the encounter with experiences or perspectives that lead to critical reflection on how one's beliefs and values have formed and changed, and on how "relative" they are to one's particular group or background. Frequently the experience of "leaving home"--emotionally or physically, or both--precipitates the kind of examination of self, background, and lifeguiding values that gives rise to stage transition at this point.
The movement from Stage 3 to Stage 4 Individuative-Reflective faith is particularly critical for it is in this transition that the late adolescent or adult must begin to take seriously the burden of responsibility for his or her own commitments, lifestyle, beliefs and attitudes. Where genuine movement toward stage 4 is underway the person must face certain unavoidable tensions: individuality versus being defined by a group or group membership; subjectivity and the power of one's strongly felt but unexamined feelings versus objectivity and the requirement of critical reflection; self-fulfillment or self-actualization as a primary concern versus service to and being for others; the question of being committed to the relative versus struggle with the possibility of an absolute.
Stage 4 most appropriately takes form in young adulthood (but let us remember that many adults do not construct it and that for a significant group it emerges only in the mid-thirties or forties). This stage is marked by a double development. The self, previously sustained in its identity and faith compositions by an interpersonal circle of significant others, now claims an identity no longer defined by the composite of one's roles or meanings to others. To sustain that new identity it composes a meaning frame conscious of its own boundaries and inner connections and aware of itself as a "world view." Self (identity) and outlook (world view) are differentiated from those of others and become acknowledged factors in the reactions, interpretations and judgments one makes on the actions of the self and others. It expresses its intuitions of coherence in an ultimate environment in terms of an explicit system of meanings. Stage 4 typically translates symbols into conceptual meanings. This is a "demythologizing" stage. It is likely to attend minimally to unconscious factors influencing its judgments and behavior.
Stage 4's ascendant strength has to do with its capacity for critical reflection on identity (self) and outlook (ideology). Its dangers inhere in its strengths: an excessive confidence in the conscious mind and in critical thought and a kind of second narcissism in which the now clearly bounded, reflective self overassimilates "reality" and the perspectives of others into its own world view.
Restless with the self-images and outlook maintained by Stage 4, the person ready for transition finds him- or herself attending to what may feel like anarchic and disturbing inner voices. Elements from a childish past, images and energies from a deeper self, a gnawing sense of the sterility and flatness of the meanings one serves any or all of these may signal readiness for something new. Stories, symbols, myths and paradoxes from one's own or other traditions may insist on breaking in upon the neatness of the previous faith. Disillusionment with one's compromises and recognition that life is more complex than Stage 4's logic of clear distinctions and abstract concepts can comprehend, press one toward a more dialectical and multileveled approach to life truth.
Stage 5 Conjunctive faith involves the integration into self and outlook of much that was suppressed or unrecognized in the interest of Stage 4's self-certainty and conscious cognitive and affective adaptation to reality. This stage develops a "second naivete'' (Ricoeur) in which symbolic power is reunited with conceptual meanings. Here there must also be a new reclaiming and reworking of one's past. There must be an opening to the voices of one's "deeper self." Importantly, this involves a critical recognition of one's social unconscious-the myths, ideal images and prejudices built deeply into the self-system by virtue of one's nurture within a particular social class, religious tradition, ethnic group or the like.
Unusual before mid-life, Stage 5 knows the sacrament of defeat and the reality of irrevocable commitments and acts. What the previous stage struggled to clarify, in terms of the boundaries of self and outlook, this stage now makes porous and permeable. Alive to paradox and the truth in apparent contradictions, this stage strives to unify opposites in mind and experience. It generates and maintains vulnerability to the strange truths of those who are "other." Ready for closeness to that which is different and threatening to self and outlook (including new depths of experience in spirituality and religious revelation), this stage's commitment to justice is freed from the confines of tribe, class, religious community or nation. And with the seriousness that can arise when life is more than half over, this stage is ready to spend and be spent for the cause of conserving and cultivating the possibility of others' generating identity and meaning.
The new strength of this stage comes in the rise of the ironic imagination-a capacity to see and be in one's or one's group's most powerful meanings, while simultaneously recognizing that they are relative, partial and inevitably distorting apprehensions of transcendent reality. Its danger lies in the direction of a paralyzing passivity or inaction, giving rise to complacency or cynical withdrawal, due to its paradoxical understanding of truth.
Stage 5 can appreciate symbols, myths and rituals (its own and others') because it has been grasped, in some measure, by the depth of reality to which they refer. It also sees the divisions of the human family vividly because it has been apprehended by the possibility (and imperative) of an inclusive community of being. But this stage remains divided. It lives and acts between an untransformed world and a transforming vision and loyalties. In some few cases this division yields to the call of the radical actualization that we call Stage 6.
Stage 6 is exceedingly rare. The persons best described by it have generated faith compositions in which their felt sense of an ultimate environment is inclusive of all being. They have become incarnators and actualizers of the spirit of an inclusive and fulfilled human community.
They are "contagious" in the sense that they create zones of liberation from the social, political, economic and ideological shackles we place and endure on human futurity. Living with felt participation in a power that unifies and transforms the world, Universalizers are often experienced as subversive of the structures (including religious structures) by which we sustain our individual and corporate survival, security and significance. Many persons in this stage die at the hands of those whom they hope to change. Universalizers are often more honored and revered after death than during their lives. The rare persons who may be described by this stage have a special grace that makes them seem more lucid, more simple, and yet somehow more fully human than the rest of us. Their community is universal in extent. Particularities are cherished because they are vessels of the universal, and thereby valuable apart from any utilitarian considerations. Life is both loved and held to loosely. Such persons are ready for fellowship with persons at any of the other stages and from any other faith tradition.
|
Susan_2
Registered user
Username: Susan_2
Post Number: 1653
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 9:31 pm: | |
That is an interesting article. I do not understand something, was the article from the magazine A-Today? Isn't A-Today a SDA publication? If so, then how come on stage four they are advocating leaving EGW behind? Or, is it possible I missed something significant? It kind-of reminds me from my college classes in which I learned the stages of human development. |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 1548
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 10:20 pm: | |
Goldenbear, I think the stages of faith are really interesting and reflect fairly accurately the natural stages of human development, as Susan remarked above.
I've come to believe, though, that when one considers what happens when one actually surrenders to Jesus and the Holy Spirit, the stages take on a new look and even telescope on themselves, happening much more rapidly in many cases.
Stage 4, for example, as Testerman described it, is a rational critique of Ellen White and SDA traditions, often causing the questioner to become a denominational casualty. It you add the ingredient of being born again and surrendered to the Holy Spirit, "stage 4" becomes instead an awakening and a crisis of integrity instead of a mere logical questioning of mystical traditions.
Instead of a born again person in "stage 4" becoming a casualty, he or she may well choose to walk away from the denomination willingly instead of merely being black-listed because of one's iconoclastic views.
What is a mental, analytical process in natural man is instead an awakening to reality in a born again person. From one viewpoint, stage 4 presupposes a loyalty to one's tradition juxtaposed with the necessity to analyze it and keep the meaningful parts, blowing the rest away. From another, stage 4 presupposes loyalty to the Ground of Truth as revealed in God's word, and the analysis results in holding onto truth and beng willing to blow the tradition away.
Interesting stuff.
Yes, Susan, the first part of Goldenbear's post is from Adventist Today. AT is an independent Adventist journal which prides itself on being willing to report what the church won't report, and it's quite liberal in its Adventist wordview.
Colleen |
Susan_2
Registered user
Username: Susan_2
Post Number: 1654
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 - 1:46 am: | |
Is a-Today still being published? I thought it went the same way as Spectrum. |
Goldenbear
Registered user
Username: Goldenbear
Post Number: 75
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 - 6:37 am: | |
Thanks for your remarks Colleen. I guess the thing that really caught me was that a person can be stuck at stage 4 and never really grow in their faith walk other than being loyal to their faith group etc.
I have come across people who acknowledge that the don't believe Ellen White as significant in their walk but wont and don't leave the security of the church. Anything that challenges their "faith" is greated with screams of heresy or kookism. They are satisfied with their view of things and don't want anyone to mess with the picture. They are in a good place with it and anyone who pokes a hole in it is considered suspect.
SDAism prides itself in the fact that when an "individual leaves the church, they don't attend another church"! I see it as being an admission on one level that the level of faith development in many adventists is stuck at stage 4 - loyalty to a subgroup.
Most on this forum have discovered a thirst for truth and understanding that has forced many to go outside their childhood faith.
Oh yeah, I should also say that the post above was from two articles. One from Testerman the other a summary of Fowlers' work. |
Freeatlast
Registered user
Username: Freeatlast
Post Number: 304
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 - 8:35 am: | |
I too have come across people who insist that Ellen White is not part of their walk. I will never fully understand how someone can say that the person who built the road they walk and posted the signposts telling them how and where to walk has nothing to do with their walk.
Anyone who is a "faithful" Seventh-day Adventist, by definition, is fully indebted to Ellen White whether they acknowledge it or not. Are they being disingenuous or simply naive? Only God knows for sure, but saying that Ellen White has nothing to do with the Seventh-day Adventist walk is tantamount to a Mormon saying that Joseph Smith has nothing to do with their Mormon walk.
Ellen G. White is the de facto founder of the denomination, and her writings and influence shaped Seventh-day Adventism's unique doctrines, and continue to do so today. |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 1557
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 - 9:20 am: | |
Freeatlast, I totally agree with your observations. I ask the same questions. I tend to think the claim that Ellen is not part of their walk is disingenuous. It's a reflection of the relativism that underlies today's culture and worldview. You know--what's important for you may not be important for me; what's true for you may not be true for me. Reality is different for you than it is for me; there is no absolute truth.
With relativism permeating education and politics and even the work environment (i.e.--one of Richard's superiors at work told him, a few months ago when he questioned something that was happening, "I'll tell you the truth you need to know, and I'll tell other people the truth they need to know") it's not much of a stretch for people to bring that relativism into religion as well.
I'm back to Dale Ratzlaff's statement: "There are two kinds of Adventists: the deceived and the dishonest." I'm sure there can be shades of mixtures between the two, but the fact is that Aventism IS a deception, and to claim that Ellen isn't part of one's package is just plain "revisionism": people are ignoring what REALLY happened in the past and are rewriting the present to avoid the facts and implications of one's heritage.
It's kind of like saying the Holocaust didn't really happen and revising history to reflect something less embarassing than the the Aryan agenda behind exterminating Jews.
You're absolutely right: Adventists are fully indebted to Ellen White whether they acknowledge it or not. I do believe that for many Adventists, though, there is a period of time during which they begin to learn the truth, and over a period of months or even years the ADventist "trappings" begin to fall off, and eventually they emerge into an admission of the truth.
The bottom line seems to be: does a person desire to know the truth, or does he desire to justify his experience?
The answer to that question seems to determine whether people cling to relativism or embrace the Bible as the ground of absolsute truth and the Holy Spirit as the revealer of Truth.
Colleen |
Greg
Registered user
Username: Greg
Post Number: 51
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 - 10:21 am: | |
One of the observations I've made is that cultural Adventists who deny the impact of Ellen White on their religion can be made aware of the problem by talking about evangelism. Deep in their heart they know that the gospel message is so precious that is should be shared with a nonbeliever. Yet cultural Adventists are particularly reluctant to introduce a nonbeliever to the Adventist version of Christianity for fear of having to explain all the "extra stuff" like Ellen White.
When approached that way, it's much easier for a cultural Adventist to see the problem of remaining in a church whose foundation they have implicitly rejected.
Greg |
Pw
Registered user
Username: Pw
Post Number: 337
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 - 10:36 am: | |
I had the same thing said to me on another forum. Some SDA from Australia said that his church doesn't use any of EGW's writings, yet they are hardcore sabbath and dietary keepers. They claim that they are only following the Bible by observing what God has commanded and not White. I'm getting a lot of bumps on my forehead from smacking it against my computer keyboard. |
Susan_2
Registered user
Username: Susan_2
Post Number: 1659
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 10:56 am: | |
My SDA kin insist EGW is of no importance to them. I know for sure my mom and I think this is probably true of many of my SDA kin do not even have any EGW books. For some reason that I cannot figure out these people read their Bibles and come to full agreement with the SDA and EGW doctrines. If I point out any inconsistancies between SDA/EGW and the Bible I am told it it not the the problem of the church but that they themselves as individuals are unable to understand and reconcile that issue but when they get to heaven they will understand it then. It is just plain and simply devotion to the organization. Even though these kin have no EGW books they are still greatly influenced by her. They read their SS quarteriles, they get all the magazines and go to church there and all their friends are also SDA so in my opinion they are still greatly bound to the cultish teachings and ways of the SDA. |
Freeatlast
Registered user
Username: Freeatlast
Post Number: 306
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 1:33 pm: | |
Susan_2, it is a matter of the reader of Scripture being pre-biased towards a particular interpretation of it. When an SDA (or Mormon, or JW, or other) is told by someone they trust (or some organization they trust) that certain Scripture(s) can only be interpreted a particular way, the hearing of that interpretation from a trusted source pre-biases the reader to always interpret the Scripture(s)in that particular way.
Now, if someone comes along who is equally trustworthy to the reader and goes against the interpretation they originally trusted, it balances the first interpretation and sets up the reader for an honest investigation of the Scripture(s) in question. But, as we know all too well, this experience is rare in the sheltered, mutual-admiration-society culture that is Seventh-day Adventism.
The problem in Seventh-day Adventism is that, once the reader has been pre-biased towards SDA interpretations and methods of interpretation, other interpretations and methods are not likely to get a fair hearing with the reader. They have been inoculated against other possibilities by their first encounter. All other possibilities are automatically discharged in the reader's mind. It is subtle and subconscious, but it is exactly what happens.
If the reader has come to believe that Seventh-day Adventist interpretations and their methods are trustworthy, they are only able to consider other possibilities if they hear that those possibilities are valid from a trusted source (read: SDA). We all know this does not happen very often and, when it does, the reader has been inculcated to assume that the SDA source has "apostasized" and thus become untrustworthy. This is precisely why I did not initially give Desmond Ford or Walter Rea a fair hearing. I was unable to because I had been trained from childhood that anyone speaking against Ellen White and/or the SDA message had "apostasized" against God's remnant church. It really is a Catch-22.
Once someone has been inculcated into the Seventh-day Adventist interpretation, it is virtually impossible for them to interpret Scripture any other way, and it is even more impossibile for an "outsider" to convince them that other possible interpretation(s) may be valid, or even superior.
It is VERY frustrating and heartbreaking if one has family and/or friends who have been so inculcated. It makes relationship at any real level cumbersome at best. Because matters of religion and Scripture are so personal and important, it is terribly difficult to get someone to consider that they may be wrong and may not have exercised good judgement in picking a church. This is especially true when they think they may have spent their entire lives and family's resources in the false religious system. The mind contains powerful protective mechanisms such as denial in order to protect the psyche against unbearable emotional trauma such as this. Realization that they may be wrong hits them right where it hurts, and is too much for most to bear. |
Seekstruth
Registered user
Username: Seekstruth
Post Number: 5
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 7:26 pm: | |
The final Sabbath School I went to, the teacher quoted so much EGW I felt sick to my stomach. I went up to him afterwards and said, "Well, you have finally been successul." He said, "At what?" And I said, "At getting me to leave this SS class!".
I informed him that he quoted too much EGW for me. Another lady overheard and said, "Oh, but the quotes he read today are so beautiful." I said you either believe she's a false prophet or you don't---just like you either believe in the Bible or you don't."
The fact that they could argue that there is some of her writing that is good and some is not just blew me away! |
Seekr777
Registered user
Username: Seekr777
Post Number: 84
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 7:41 pm: | |
Freeatlast, I do not disagree with what you say about being inculcated within the SDA culture. It drives me to my knees praying that the Holy Spirit will guide me at all times and I will never be inculcated in any position and unwilling to change as he reveals His will to me. I feel excited about this journey He has started me on. I fear nothing as long as my attention is focussed on Jesus Christ.
Richard
rtruitt@mac.com |
Melissa
Registered user
Username: Melissa
Post Number: 792
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 8:32 pm: | |
I can only speak to what I've seen in B, and he is very consistent with what Freeatlast observes. He was listening to a study on 1 Corinthians by David Jeremiah. And everywhere that DJ agreed with SDA theology, he was right on according to B, but everytime DJ said anything that disagreed with SDA theology, DJ wasn't reading scripture for what it "really" said. I've seen him do this with other preachers too. As long as they say what he expects to hear, they are ok, but as soon as they start to say anything that makes SDA theology in error, they are automaticallly wrong...no discussion. |
Tracey
Registered user
Username: Tracey
Post Number: 250
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 4:12 pm: | |
C listens to David Jeremiah.. He just listened again to a message that he has had a number of years and now says that D.J. said Jesus fullfilled the law in 5 ways (practically, sacrifically, spiritually, historically, -- that's all that I remember) But as a result, C says he no longer believes that Jesus only fullfilled the "ceremonial" portions of the law. it's a start, but I would prefer he search the scripture to believe that, not just cuz DJ said it. But to now disagree that The Lord only fullfilled ceremonial parts, is certainly a baby step that it good. I don't think he knows what that means in terms of Christ's grace yet, but again, baby steps are still steps forward!
Tracey
(But he did not say that Saturday sabbath is a ritual or ceremony, so, oh well-- won't dwell on the negative) |
Tracey
Registered user
Username: Tracey
Post Number: 251
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 4:17 pm: | |
SeeksTruth,
You are right on! You reject a false prophet period.. IN antoher post I talked about a role of a prophet, and in essence they are God's mouth piece. So, if she said something off the wall as in contrary to the bible, then says something "beautiful" whatever that means -- coming from a nut, then you reject them and view them as a fake and liar and one who lies on God. And the bible says that those that lie on God, have already determined their own fate. I take no pleasure in that either. But you can't be friends with an enemy of God's! |
Flyinglady
Registered user
Username: Flyinglady
Post Number: 1189
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 4:23 pm: | |
Tracey,
You and "C" are still in my prayers and "baby" steps are steps. Remember babies, take a step or two, fall, get up and keep on going until they fall again. Then one day they are running all over the place. So do not be surprised if "C" falls. Just remember to guard your heart and head. And it is important to know what he does not say also. Just keep on praying and I will pray with you as all of us are doing.
Father in Heaven, you are the King of Kings, Lord of Lords, the Creator, the Alpha and Omega. Keep Tracey and "C" in your awesome hands and teach "C" the truths of the Bible. Send the Holy Spirit to talk to him as only you can do. Pick him up when he falls and let him know that it is you doing it. Thank you for bringing "C" to a realization of who Jesus is and what He did for each of us. Thank you for Jesus. You are awesome.
Diana |
Tracey
Registered user
Username: Tracey
Post Number: 252
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 7:27 pm: | |
I love you , Miss Diana, my big sis...
Lord, Bless and Keep my sis also Lord. Give her peace concerning her family and their place in You. Help her to rest and believe that her prayers are heard and will be honored. Lord, we know that from Abraham, some of the promises that you made to Him, he saw first hand and others came years later, but that you are not a God that you can or will lie,and being of Abraham's Seed, we are not only Children of the Promise but you are the God that will complete the Good Work that you begun in Diana through her and through her children's children and that she shall be called and remembered as Blessed of the Lord! |
Flyinglady
Registered user
Username: Flyinglady
Post Number: 1196
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 8:02 pm: | |
Tracey,
I am so happy God has given me a sister like you and all the other sisters and brothers here on FAF.
Thanks for the prayer.
Diana |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 1588
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 8:46 pm: | |
Tracey, I agree: baby steps are steps! I am so proud of you for continuing to keep your loyalty to Jesus and for holding firmly to the conviction that you must be equally yoked.
God will guide you and also C. I continue to pray for you, also.
Colleen |
Tracey
Registered user
Username: Tracey
Post Number: 262
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 7:34 pm: | |
Thank you Colleen. This ministry has been a blessing to my life!
Love ya!
Tracey |
Lori
Registered user
Username: Lori
Post Number: 9
Registered: 11-1999
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 6:58 am: | |
I just found these quotes in a Bible that I used during my senior year in academy. We were required to memorize them!!! They clearly support ìyouíre not saved if you donít keep ëthe lawíî. These are a very interesting collection of quotes attempting to embrace the law and grace as one. Adventist are inundated with these concepts each and every time they study Adventist material!!
"Law" is center stage! Every time "Grace" tries to step out of the wing for its major role, "Law" puffs out its chest (in its minor part) positioning itself in front of "Grace". "Grace" keeps trying to make itself known but "Law" will not allow it!!
According to these quotes, Christ only came to earth to ensure the destruction of Satan and to bring man back to law keeping. These comments bring back a flood of memories (confusion, uncertainty and fear) I had as an Adventist. The frightening concept of: you are only as saved as the laws you keep. The more uncertain and fearful I became, the more rigid the Sabbath keeping was.
I detested having to memorize these in academy, and at the time, I could not argue with their message. Now, every sentence seems so ridiculous! And, I can now quote a findable scripture to refute each one!
THE LAW PROVIDES FREEDOM
This law is the preserver of true freedom and liberty. It points out and prohibits those things that degrade and enslave and thus to the obedient it affords protection from the power of evil (Ed 291)
NECESSITY OF LAW
The mission of Christ on earth was not to destroy the law, but by His grace to bring man back to obedience to its precepts. (MB 48)
CHRIST DEATH UNNECESSARY IF LAW WERE CHANGED
If the law could be changed, man might have been saved without the sacrifice of Christ; but the fact that it was necessary for Christ to give His life for the fallen race, proves that the law of God will not release the sinner from its claims upon him. When Christ died the destruction of Satan was made certain. (PP 70)
LAW SOURCE OF JOY FOR CHRISTIANS
The law is an expression of the thought of God; when received in Christ, it becomes our thought. It lifts us above the power of natural desires and tendencies, above temptations that lead to sin. God desires us to be happy and He gave us the precepts of the law that in obeying them we might have joy. (DA 307,308)
COVENANT OF GRACE MADE IN EDEN
The covenant of Grace was first made with man in Eden, when after the great Fall there was given a divine Promise that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpentís head. To all men this covenant offered the pardon and assisting grace of God for future obedience through faith in Christ. It also promised them eternal life on condition of fidelity to Godís law. Thus the patriarchs received the hope of salvation. (PP 370)
|
Pheeki
Registered user
Username: Pheeki
Post Number: 605
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 10:31 am: | |
Lori...I haven't seen you post before. Welcome.
In my former life as an SDA, I would underline only parts of texts to make them fit my theology and Paul used to totally confound me. I look back at my bible when I was an SDA and can't believe the things I wrote in my margins. Totally brainwashed! |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 876
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 2:06 pm: | |
Here are couple more similar quotes that are just totally amazing!
quote:"Christ came to our world to show how man should live in order to secure eternal life. [...] When He came, He ranked Himself among the poor and suffering ones that He might become acquainted with fallen humanity and uplift them by restoring the moral image of God in them. The great price heaven has paid for our redemption should give us exalted views of what we, united with Christ, may accomplish in doing the same work that Christ did in our world. [...] Men and women have been granted another trial as probationers." (Manuscript Releases, Volume Ten, page 236, paragraph 2.)
This next quote says that Christ didn't need to come to earth even, and that He could have stayed in heaven but that He came to earth just to make it easier for us to know how to obey!!!
quote:"Christ came to this earth to show the human race how to obey God. He might have remained in heaven, and from there given exact rules for man's guidance. But he did not do this. In order that we might make no mistake, He took our nature, and in it lived a life of perfect obedience. He obeyed in humanity, ennobling and elevating humanity by obedience. He lived in obedience to God, that not only by word of mouth, but by His every action, He might honor the law. By so doing, He not only declared that we ought to obey, but showed us how to obey." (The Signs of the Times, 01-25-1899, paragraph 7.)
Jeremy |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 2333
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 4:10 pm: | |
You're right, Lori, these quotes drum up all the old feelings of hopelessness and confusion.
I realize that as an Adventist child, I grew up believing we had to "have" Jesus, but the "having" was not embracing His death and resurrection and Himself as a person. Rather, it was internalizing a concept of His perfect human obedience I had to emulate.
I remember almost no emphasis on His death. It was almost like a necessary detail that had little meaning. His obedience was everything.
Praise God for Jesus' substitutionary death and for His resurrection which gives us life!
Colleen |
|
