| Author |
Message |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 2811
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 2:27 pm: |     |
I think both of your analyses are right, Rick and Melissa. The metaphor that comes to mind is "the Mob". Inside, there's distrust, mutual resentment of powerful leaders, fear of reprisals, covert alliances, self-serving motives--but let one of those who is commiserating decide to leaveóhe is instantly the enemy and will likely get himelf killed. The organization closes ranks; the one who leaves becomes anathema.
Again I see it being like an abusive family. Privately, the cousins may get together and complain about legitimate grievances and abuses. Let one member of the family go ouside for help and recovery, however, and get beyhond the secrets and unspoken rules of protecting the "family name", that person is villified.
As long as one is "loyal", he can say 'most anything. Let him leave--he's a trouble-maker and dangerous.
Truth really isn't an issue in the minds of the group members. Loyalty and preservation of identity is the bottom line for those inside...
Colleen |
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob
Post Number: 35
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 2:46 pm: | |
Dear Ric
Even if I don't reject your explanation, I think that Melissa is right about fear. I have a friend who, when I give signals to the persons in charge of my church that I'm going to leave, and I rejected Ellen White, suddenly begun to quote her in SS class, or from the pulpit. Just last Saturday I confronted him and said "You can't just abstain from mentioning Ellen White". he don't even want to talk about this, just change in a hurry the subject, and never return to it. Usually he always has an explanation. What keeps our conversation going is the fact that I never judged him for his actions, even I disagree and consider that he made a mistake. But, in this case, I think he tried to cover himself, in case his loyalty is questioned.
What makes me sad is that I really care for him, and I was with him when he was badly treated by some leaders of the church. He knows that the people don't love him, and that I love and care for him. And he still wants their friendship who never existed... ready to reject and betray his true friend. I don't want to praise myself, but I really care. |
Pauls
Registered user
Username: Pauls
Post Number: 28
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 4:08 pm: | |
it seems to me that most people are in the church--whatever church it is because that's where their friends go. that is probably why most people haven't studied through their beliefs on their own--they just keep sticking with what seems friendly. they really don't care about doctrine--as much as they do about relatioinships....
this also seems to me why people leave the SDA church early on after batpism--they don't build deep friendships inside the church that holds them there and they face opposition from their old friends who remained in sunday keeping churches...(a similar thought was published in the review some time ago, although i don't have the exact article--it was talking about how to prevent people from leaving after they join--and it said--they need 1-2 deep friendships to evolve...)
in conclusion, then, sadly, for a lot of people, its not about "truth" in doctrine, and never has been--its about a place to belong.....basically a social club with religious or theological overtones...
|
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 2816
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 4:21 pm: | |
I remember reading that article in the Review about people needing 1-2 deep friendships to evolve. There is a lot of truth to the idea that people are where they are because of friendships, but if frienhdships are the reason and the glue for being there, then I have to conclude their belonging in the first place was not about a heart change.
For example, as an Adventist, I would never have allowed a lack of friendships to draw me away from the church because I believed its doctrines. Similarly, now friendships are not the reason we attend the church we attend. We decided to attend this church long before we really knew anyone. We chose it because of the way the staff honored Jesus and held the gospel and the Bible in high esteem.
I don't believe the reactions of Adventists to those who leave is based on friendship issues. It's based on fear--fear of finding out they may also be wrong; fear of losing one's identity and culture; fear of losing one's place and one's influence.
Friendships may glue a lot of people where they are--as you said, like a club--but if people are there because of developing friendships, their attendance and membership has a more secular base than it has a conversion base.
Bottom line, there is a spiritual hold on Adventists that only disappears when we surrender it to Jesus and allow Him to replace it with the Holy Spirit.
Colleen |
Buzz
Registered user
Username: Buzz
Post Number: 15
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 4:07 pm: | |
We sent our letter 5 weeks ago and not a word in reply. We are still sent the newsletters and other propaganda. Wonder whether we will know if they removed our names or not? |
Helovesme2
Registered user
Username: Helovesme2
Post Number: 326
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 4:21 pm: | |
I asked for my name to be removed from the SDA church books back in 1993 I believe, when I switched to the SDA Reform Movement.
Church papers for to my maiden name still come to my parents' address to this day. In fact a few years ago a letter explaining that the church I'd been a member of when I resigned had been disbanded and I was now counted as a member of that 'field at large'.
Since I know I wrote the letter, and I know the church elder there received it, I've just left it as it is since. Maybe sometime I'll try writing that conference and explain that not only did I resign years ago, but I no longer have the name they send things to.
When I left the Reform Movement I found out right after they voted that they had accepted my resignation, though not unanimously.
It seems to differ with where you are and who you are and whether that matters to the local church.
Blessings!
Mary |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 2858
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 5:38 pm: | |
Buzz, you may never hear. Mary's story is not uncommon.
You can always send your name to the local conference office--they may remove it.
Even if you don't hear, you know you've left!
Colleen |
Loneviking
Registered user
Username: Loneviking
Post Number: 376
Registered: 7-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 6:38 pm: | |
Nope--don't count on the conference office to remove it.
The Ohio conference still has my name on the books. The secretary told me that a person's name can only be removed by action of a local church. So, I would have to have my membership transferred to a local church and then have them vote to remove my name from the books.
It was just too much of a hassle to bother with... |
Jdpascal
Registered user
Username: Jdpascal
Post Number: 8
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 7:07 pm: | |
Several weeks ago I received a phone call from the new pastor in our area. His greeting to me was (loosely translated), that no one else wanted to do it so he had to go thru the membership list and was calling to ask if they could remove my membership. Didn't mince words or beat around the bush about it at all - they wanted us off the list.
I thought that his approach was rather calloused, so I brought that thought to his attention and suggested that he might consider a pastoral visit. I assumed his response correctly as his reply was that he would be unable to accomadate our schedule for a visit and he would call when he was available -- we are still (waiting?)
Come to find out later that he had called at least two other persons with the same message and attitude. Someone complained to the conference and they hopefully adjusted his attitude.
We will ask them to remove our names some day. In the mean time, were we to do it now, it would do much harm to family relationships so we continue in limbo on paper but not in our minds.
JD
|
91steps
Registered user
Username: 91steps
Post Number: 26
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 5:25 am: | |
Coleen, the most I can say about my new job is I am going to work for the Govt. It will be a blessing to be back in the "world" again, and work with Christians and non-Christians, instead of all "saints" as most of the GC employees feel that they are. When I was a Board Member they had people listed on the books who had been dead for several years!!! The Pastor at the time told me that our Church had to maintain so many members on the books or the Conf would sell the property!!! |
Susan_2
Registered user
Username: Susan_2
Post Number: 2059
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 8:39 am: | |
Mary, Can you explain what The Reform Movement is? Or at least give an Internet address so I can read up on that. I don't think I've ever heard of such an organization before. |
Helovesme2
Registered user
Username: Helovesme2
Post Number: 329
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 6:29 pm: | |
The Seventh Day Adventist Reform movement is a seperate organization (well, actually TWO separate organizations) from what they call 'the big church'. It was started in 1925 by a bunch of SDA church members in Europe who had been kicked out of the SDA church beginning in 1914 because they refused to participate in war (this explanation is from the SDARM point of view. SDAs have commonly explained that the SDARM were kicked out because of some belated datesetting that came to naught).
They existed as one church from 1925 till 1951, when internal conflict erupted in division. Two separate organizations came out of that time - each claiming to be 'the original' Reform Movement. To be fair I should also mention that the two 'original churches' have had several peace conferences over the years attempting to bridge the gap.
The website of the Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement is: www.sdarm.org (estimated membership around 34,000 worldwide last I heard)
The website of the International Missionary Society - Seventh Day Adventist Church Reform Movement is: www.imssdarm.org (estimated membership around 24,000 last I heard)
I was a member of the Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement (the one with the shorter name) from 1993 to 2004.
Along with 'traditional' or 'historic' SDAism, the Reform Movement holds as doctrine:
-that they are the 'fourth angel' (also called the angel of Revelation 18)
-that you must be vegetarian to be a church member
-that women are to wear skirts and dresses only (this is changing, but at a much slower pace than it has in the 'big church'), are to have long (uncut or barely trimmed) hair, and are to use no cosmetics or jewelry
-that communion must be closed, and that one cup only must be used (there is argument over this point-some local churches are 'in rebellion' on the point)
-that the 144,000 is a literal number made up of all the 'sealed' (as opposed to the 'saved' who died never having understood the SDA message but have accepted Jesus) from 1844 to the present, who will be resurrected in 'the special ressurrection and will therefore be alive thruout the time of the seven last plagues (there is some arguement about whether the '144,000' is an actual 'body count' or is the number of 'households' or 'heads of families or something' but that's getting into speculation)
Culturally they are similar yet different.
The SDARM does not put the same imphasis on education that the SDA church does, and neither does it have as 'American' a culture. From the outside the SDARM would be considered more 'fundamentalist'.
Also there is even less of a forum for differing opinions to be discussed in the Reform Movement than there is in the SDA church itself.
One of the observations I made as a member of the SDARM was that one explanation of the difference between SDAism as I knew it and the SDARM as I knew it was that 'the big church' took SDA doctrine and, in a manner of speaking, put it as a saddle on a 'Protestant' horse, while the SDARM took the same doctrinal saddle and put it on a 'Catholic' horse.
|
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 2877
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 6:53 pm: | |
Very interesting, Mary. Thank you.
Colleen |
Buzz
Registered user
Username: Buzz
Post Number: 16
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 6:39 pm: | |
We just received a very warm, caring and friendly letter from the SDA pastor of our former church. He wished us well and if we ever wanted to talk about the doctrines we found troubling he would be happy to visit us. It was nice of him to send a letter saying they would act upon our request. Case closed :-) |
Flyinglady
Registered user
Username: Flyinglady
Post Number: 2008
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 8:51 pm: | |
Buzz,
Congratulations!!!
God will continue to take you where He wants you.
It feels so good to know that God is in charge.
Diana |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 2923
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 8:42 am: | |
Buzz, what a wonderful way to experience the end of this "era". As Diana said, God will continue to take you where He wants you.
Congratulations!
Colleen |
|
