A recent Adventist Today article by Melissa Howell entitled Why Are They Leaving? Covers some of the material that this blog has discussed but it also shows a fatal disconnect in Adventism. That disconnect is summed up with this quote from the article:
“Thankfully, one giant we still have in our ranks is the fact that it's almost never our beliefs that make them leave. The Adventist message, our fundamentals, and the Bible truth as we see it are usually not where the problem lies. Most still see ours as the correct understanding. Most still believe in the Sabbath, the state of the dead, the second coming, the health message and the three angels' messages…”
While Melissa’s article is about young people she reflects the same idea that I have seen other denominationally employed writers put forth. The fact is you cannot separate your doctrines from your relevance. After all your doctrines are the teachings of your church, if your church is not relevant how can what you teach be relevant? The other error with the assumption is the idea that youth or adults have this great acceptance of the “Adventist Message, or “our fundamentals” “the health message” and particularly the code word used “the three angels messages” which covers everything Adventists teach including the investigative judgment and 1844. The importance of 1844 and the Investigative judgment is certainly not readily accepted by many Adventists.
In an article on this blog I quoted Bailey Gillespie, Ph.D. Professor of Theology and Personality Director of the John Hancock Center for Youth and Family Ministry School of Religion La Sierra University at the Pacific Northwest Adventist Association Forum presentation on what we know from the Valuegenesis studies: He stated:
“However three of the least believed doctrines show up in every study we do in every single group we do they are the same three in the same order. The sanctuary doctrine definitely believed by only 20 percent of your young people in Washington 20 % [meaning Washington state where the forum occurred] of your kids so all the other doctrines except these three are right up there 20% definitely believe this one. The Remnant 42% the next one 42% definitely believe and you know what the next one is Ellen White 36%...”
If we were to state that in a more familiar form it would be 20% believe in the Adventist Sanctuary doctrine, 80% do not believe in the Adventist Sanctuary Doctrine.
42% believe that the Adventist church is the Remnant church. 58% that it is not the Remnant church.
36% believe Ellen White is a prophet. 64% that Ellen White is not a prophet.
Of course in polls you can never simply say the negative is made up of the remainder of those holding to an affirmation. The reason is that there are likely gradients of opinions and then there is always that 5 to 10% who don’t know or have no opinion. I put the negative numbers there to be used as a contrast. When you have numbers like that you really can’t be going around saying that youth or adults don’t leave the SDA church over doctrines.
However if we move back to the concept of doctrines and relevance aside from some particularly troublesome doctrines as listed above there is a good quote from and Adventist Review article by Margaret G. Dudley, Ph.D., a counselor and retired Andrews University faculty member, entitled: I don’t want to go to church anymore.
“Youth and young adults like to be able to think for themselves. Foster a thinking climate in which they can explore what the church teaches, in which they can discover the principles and biblical support behind Seventh-day Adventist doctrines, and in which they can determine the church’s relevance for today’s world. They should be able to feel comfortable asking questions as they sort through their values and make their own choices.”
This is very wise advise but notice the disconnect that occurs if one assumes what Melissa does in her quoted statement in her article. If the church feels that they have this giant in their ranks which is that Adventists have the true doctrines how could we or why would we encourage questioning of those doctrines so that the young person can find their relevance? We have simply said that they already believe them so why don’t they find them relevant? We have in effect destroyed their exploration of what the church teaches, what the Bible teaches, what they should support or not support and what relevance it has to them and the world around them.
Our myopic view based upon the assumptions that we are the remnant, we have the truth and most don’t leave the church because they have trouble with our doctrines translates to a church that disregards our own young people and their necessary exploration of what they believe.
Consider this quote from the Adventist Review; Drowning in a sea of Gray :
Kevin Kibble, associate chaplain at Southern Adventist University in Collegedale, Tennessee, believes this may be the case. “Too many still give voice to the external elements of discipleship without witnessing to the heart of the matter. Far too many in the church are preaching to the smoke and not the fire. We are making proclamations about the fruit without giving thought to the root. Many of our young adults are challenging us to speak to the core issues of salvation with a tattoo or two and a cup of coffee in their hands. They are very clever in doing so. In this way they can determine if we really can present the gospel in its greatest clarity.”
Jan Paulsen, president of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, addresses these issues in his televised forum for youth, Let’s Talk.2 Questions cover topics from Ellen White to legalism to morals, but the largest grouping of questions relates to lifestyle. Adventist young adults want to know: “Will disobeying these rules—such as wearing jewelry and eating meat—really keep me from going to heaven?” “How should a young person dress?” “Do I have to ignore popular culture?”
You simply cannot get past the doctrine issue. Melissa goes on to talk of other things that would no doubt help sustain our youth in the church if we actually tried them. But we don’t try them because as the above illustrates we think we don’t have to do anything other then teach what we have been teaching. We have been deluded for so long that we don’t even realize our own lack of relevance and how that lack of relevance destroys our own youth as they look for relevance.
Melissa is right, there is a giant in our ranks, the problem is it is destroying the village and the villagers and in the end the giant will be all that remains in a silent barren world.
11 comments:
A Friend sent the following to post here.
==
Friday, October 08, 2010
Doctrine to irrelevance
I think the observation about thinking by Dudley is critical to the vitality of any organization, but especially faith-based institutions.
I was raised SDA, but our 13 year old goes to confirmation class at a local Lutheran church, which for this congregation is a 3 year, once a week meeting, with commitment to serving as acolyte, etc. Our older son, now 18, also went through this process, which usually happens during the school year over 6th, 7th & 8th grades, although there is some variability. This last summer, we saw an incredible thing - the kids asked to keep meeting over the summer Another interesting thing is that a significant fraction of the participants are not Lutheran and their families do not attend that church. This congregation also has about a dozen retired bishops and professors of theology - again, some not Lutheran - which makes for pretty interesting discussion, sometimes, and especially with middle-school and high-school aged folk.
Most confirmation or baptism classes seem to focus on sectarian doctrinal indoctrination. What I have noticed about this particular class structure is that it seems more like drivers ed instead of boot camp. The focus seems to be on getting tools and attitudes into the hands of the confirmands that will help them make healthy and rational decisions. It is pretty incredible to see the excitement and joy on a retired bishops face when a 14 year old says "what if I don't believe this or that" - what is clear everyone privileged to see this kind of exchange is that the kid IS thinking for themselves, and is in a place where they feel secure enough to challenge the status quo or at least seek a deeper understanding.
When I was growing up SDA, one of the criticisms the SDA church had of catholicism and lutheranism was the use of the catechism - the presentation of issues coupled to "correct" answers; and I think that is a valid and important criticism for SDAs as well as Catholics and Lutherans (or any church; and perhaps any cultural institution as well). As one of my professors noted, what we are after is not answers, but better questions. To the extent an answer helps us form better questions, it is a good answer. And that is what I see happening with these kids over 3 years is that they learn to ask better questions - of themselves, of their elders, their churches, and of God.
Appreciate the article, but I think there are a couple of flaws in reasoning. First, just because a low number of teenagers were willing to say they "definitely" believe certain doctrines is not the same thing as demonstrating that this is the reason they left. If you look at Barna research of teens in non-SDA churches they will express very little confidence in Jesus being God or dying for their sins. Does that mean that people leave Christianity because of calvary? Should we change the gospel to keep them in? Absolutely not. But you are proposing similar reasoning. So, in my opinion, your logic here is fundamentally flawed. Not being definite about a doctrine is not the same thing as being against it. Doctrinal beliefs may be uncertain in someones mind and still having nothing to do with why they left the church.
It may sound obvious, but to find out why they left you have to ask why they left. The answer to that question is rarely doctrine and usually relational.
I have one other objection in regards to your reasoning. You said...
"You simply cannot get past the doctrine issue. Melissa goes on to talk of other things that would no doubt help sustain our youth in the church if we actually tried them. But we don’t try them because as the above illustrates we think we don’t have to do anything other then teach what we have been teaching."
I believe you are saying that our doctrines keep us from trying other things, such as those Melissa suggested. I don't think that follows at all. Holding to SDA doctrine does not mean we can't change methodology. Melissa isn't proposing teaching anything different, just teaching differently. There is no contradiction in holding to the doctrines and changing up Sabbath Service. Not sure where this argument is coming from???
My thoughts: This is a fantastic article with great points that are well supported and logically consistent, while remaining relevant. I just don't think you agree so you are trying to pick it apart.
Ron,
I am honored that you have poured so much time and thought into this subject! How wonderful!
I am officially inviting you to visit my class one day!!! Come and sit with my students. Listen as I not only allow them to question the beliefs and struggle with apparent inconsistencies, but watch as we open the Bible together and search deeply for what it teaches. I think we all recognize that we HAVE TO allow young people to question, wrestle, and struggle with what they believe. This is a necessary developmental process. Saying that they aren’t leaving because of doctrines does not mean we never look at our doctrines. Believe me – we look at them, and look at them, and look at them. Yes, the kids have some problems. They have some unresolved issues. Who doesn’t? Don’t fool yourself into thinking that denominational employees have never questioned the doctrines, or that we discourage others from doing so. Honestly? Most of us are here because we HAVE questioned, terribly, and found them worthy of staying around for. And most of us are incredibly dedicated to providing a safe, non-judgmental place for our kids to question as well. Hey, we even let them disagree with us! That’s why you are welcome in my class. =)
You got pretty fired up about my comment that the doctrines are not what makes young adults leave, but what if this is exactly what they are telling me? Because it IS what they are telling me. The overwhelming voice of the youth today rings in one harmonious protest: “WE ARE BORED. CHURCH IS NOT RELEVANT TO OUR LIVES.” In your blog, you tried to equate doctrines with a church service. You suggested that our church is not relevant because our doctrines are not relevant. However, I never suggested a separation between doctrine and relevancy. I did, however, say that sometimes our Sabbath morning church services have not always been terribly relevant. Nobody is trying to “get past” the doctrinal issue. I am only reporting that this is not why our young adults report making that final decision to find another church. Oh, and our kids who now sit regularly in other churches? Most of them still report believing our doctrines….so what does that mean….?
You said that our doctrines are the giant that is destroying and pillaging the village. So. You believe our doctrines are destroying this church? Our doctrines are sentences on paper, friend. It is US, PEOPLE, who use them to destroy and pillage and wound. WE destroy the church when WE use the doctrines badly. But let me ask – what do you propose? Get rid of the doctrines? I have a better idea. How about we get rid of our agendas, our chips on our shoulders, our fear and our anger and our judgmental attitudes first, and start living lives full of the love of God and the power of the Holy Spirit.
~Melissa Howell
Ron,
I am honored that you have poured so much time and thought into this subject! How wonderful!
I am officially inviting you to visit my class one day!!! Come and sit with my students. Listen as I not only allow them to question the beliefs and struggle with apparent inconsistencies, but watch as we open the Bible together and search deeply for what it teaches. I think we all recognize that we HAVE TO allow young people to question, wrestle, and struggle with what they believe. This is a necessary developmental process. Saying that they aren’t leaving because of doctrines does not mean we never look at our doctrines. Believe me – we look at them, and look at them, and look at them. Yes, the kids have some problems. They have some unresolved issues. Who doesn’t? Don’t fool yourself into thinking that denominational employees have never questioned the doctrines, or that we discourage others from doing so. Honestly? Most of us are here because we HAVE questioned, terribly, and found them worthy of staying around for. And most of us are incredibly dedicated to providing a safe, non-judgmental place for our kids to question as well. Hey, we even let them disagree with us! That’s why you are welcome in my class. =)
You got pretty fired up about my comment that the doctrines are not what makes young adults leave, but what if this is exactly what they are telling me? Because it IS what they are telling me. The overwhelming voice of the youth today rings in one harmonious protest: “WE ARE BORED. CHURCH IS NOT RELEVANT TO OUR LIVES.” In your blog, you tried to equate doctrines with a church service. You suggested that our church is not relevant because our doctrines are not relevant. However, I never suggested a separation between doctrine and relevancy. I did, however, say that sometimes our Sabbath morning church services have not always been terribly relevant. Nobody is trying to “get past” the doctrinal issue. I am only reporting that this is not why our young adults report making that final decision to find another church. Oh, and our kids who now sit regularly in other churches? Most of them still report believing our doctrines….so what does that mean….?
You said that our doctrines are the giant that is destroying and pillaging the village. So. You believe our doctrines are destroying this church? Our doctrines are sentences on paper, friend. It is US, PEOPLE, who use them to destroy and pillage and wound. WE destroy the church when WE use the doctrines badly. But let me ask – what do you propose? Get rid of the doctrines? I have a better idea. How about we get rid of our agendas, our chips on our shoulders, our fear and our anger and our judgmental attitudes first, and start living lives full of the love of God and the power of the Holy Spirit.
~Melissa Howell
Ron,
I am honored that you have poured so much time and thought into this subject! How wonderful!
I am officially inviting you to visit my class one day!!! Come and sit with my students. Listen as I not only allow them to question the beliefs and struggle with apparent inconsistencies, but watch as we open the Bible together and search deeply for what it teaches. I think we all recognize that we HAVE TO allow young people to question, wrestle, and struggle with what they believe. This is a necessary developmental process. Saying that they aren’t leaving because of doctrines does not mean we never look at our doctrines. Believe me – we look at them, and look at them, and look at them. Yes, the kids have some problems. They have some unresolved issues. Who doesn’t? Don’t fool yourself into thinking that denominational employees have never questioned the doctrines, or that we discourage others from doing so. Honestly? Most of us are here because we HAVE questioned, terribly, and found them worthy of staying around for. And most of us are incredibly dedicated to providing a safe, non-judgmental place for our kids to question as well. Hey, we even let them disagree with us! That’s why you are welcome in my class. =)
More....
Thanks for the invitation, I may take you up on it if you send me your contact info to the email address on the top of the blog. Though I will say that I did not mean to imply nor did I actually imply that Adventist schools do not allow some questioning. After all when I was in Academy I had one good Bible teacher during my 4 years so I do think they are out there, Probably outnumbered by the not so good ones however.
Melissa writes: "You got pretty fired up about my comment that the doctrines are not what makes young adults leave, but what if this is exactly what they are telling me?"
Then it would be anecdotal and that is subject to who in the class says what and how free they feel to say things. There is a group dynamic there that makes it not very reliable. And that is where I have the real problem with those saying it is not doctrinal, they supply no actual research for their position. The Adventist Review even did it without even referencing a study. I have looked many times for such a study I am pretty sure someone has done one but the church has certainly hidden it well.
Melissa wrote:
"In your blog, you tried to equate doctrines with a church service. "
No I never did that. I did connect doctrines with the teaching of the church however as opposed to your assertion in the comment that they are just sentences. As you wrote:
"Our doctrines are sentences on paper, friend. It is US, PEOPLE, who use them to destroy and pillage and wound."
That is particularly silly the Bible is just sentences also, that is a poor dodge around the reality that what the church teaches is its doctrines. And those doctrines are far wider then the 28 fundamental beliefs.
Melissa wrote:
"Most of them still report believing our doctrines….so what does that mean….?"
Where is that research from. I know on the Adventists discussion sites that is not the case. I have seen Adventists pastors leave the church because of the doctrines and many others. It is funny The Adventist church counts someone who transfers to a different denominations church as lost to apostasy. So whether they stop being a Christian all together or move on to another Christian church the Adventist church counts them the same. That is kind of telling I think.
I think what you really mean is they still believe some of our doctrines. But then we Adventists believe some of the Catholic doctrines, Baptists or Lutheran too.
My feeling as I posted on Atoday is that doctrines are closely connected to whether we accept someone in our church or not. Doctrines become more important to Adventists than relationships.
By the way there seems to be an error message after entering a comment. But it appears the comments are still posted.
So, Melissa has experience with hundreds if not thousands of kids and her observations are anecdotal?
I agree with her, so let me give you my anecdotal evidence... I have worked with youth and young adults for decades.
I am the young adult leader for the young adults in my church. It is so challenging and sometimes exhausting and yet despite the hard work, they sometimes leave.
Why? Certainly not because of some doctrinal difference. No, they leave for one of these three reasons:
1. They did not feel accepted for who they were or
2. They did not develop a relationships with others in that church to hold them in that church or
3. The "world" (drugs, sex, alcohol, porn, masturbation etc.) was just a big part of their life. They find that the inner clash between the "world" and their church gave them a sense of guilt and shame. Not wanting to feel guilt and shame or be reminded of it, they find they must choose one or the other - many choose the world.
And that is why they leave, doctrinal belief for the vast majority of our youth and young adults is irrelevant to them. They leave because Jesus does not represent acceptance, forgiveness and friendship. No, Jesus represents condemnation - not because Jesus has rejected them but because they have rejected Jesus.
Bruce Justinen
Bruce demonstrates the real tragedy of the Adventist church. We can accept that we lose our youth because the church doesn't accept them or does not develop a relationship with them or that it is simply their fault but we must loudly proclaim it is certainly not over doctrines. Why? because the Adventist mindset is that we are the true church and we have the truth. And for some reason many in the Adventist church don't see that remnant church doctrine as any part of the problem when it is very much a part of the problem. If you ever wonder why someone is not accepted by others into something you will often find it is because they believe differently than the others in the group. It is also true in the reverse those accepted are those with similar beliefs as those in the group they join.
You would think by the opposition such commons sense is getting this was some kind of outrageous thing that no one ever heard before but it is simple common sense after all. But think about this why is something so obvious rejected with such sweeping words?
Ron, the tragedy is that you continue to lay claim to an unsupportable position. Your position is erroneous because you are holding to logic that you so often fault in others. Here it is:
A. Adventist youth are leaving the church.
B. Adventist youth disagree with many doctrines of the church.
So C. must be true - that is - Adventist youth are leaving the church because they disagree with many doctrines of the church.
This is simply false logic.
In response to your article, the young adults Sabbath School class yesterday had an open discussion on why they had or their friends had left the church. None of them agreed with you.
The reality is that they feel free to disagree, it doesn't bother them. Now part of it may be that I have no problem with them disagreeing, there is no repercussion if they feel Ellen White is unimportant to their salvation for instance.
Most of them do not feel that the Adventist Church is THE remnant church. They feel that God is calling a remnant people from many churches. I have one kid who strongly feels that homosexuality is normal and why do we have a problem with it.
Why do I mention that, simply to illustrate that kids today can sit in Sabbath School with a hugely diverse set of beliefs and have no problem with the fact that the Adventist church thinks otherwise.
Todays kids are used to diversity, division, disagreements, and polarized positions. They have no problem disagreeing. BUT if we do not listen? Yes, if we do not listen. We do not necessarily have to change, but we do need to listen.
Which brings me to you, I do not agree with you on many points but I really appreciate that you have a position. One usually well articulated and I like to listen, not agree but listen.
Bruce
No my logic is not false and I did show evidence from the valugenesis study to back up my point. see my article http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2010/11/both-here-and-on-adventist-today-there.html
Now let's us your example syllogism and see if the opposing view that youth are not leaving over doctrinally related matters.
A. Adventist youth are leaving the church.
B. Adventist youth disagree with many doctrines of the church.
So C. Adventist youth are certainly not leaving the church because they disagree with many doctrines of the church.
I am constantly amazed by how many people read things yet only see what they want to see rather than what was said.
What I don't understand is why people can't see that doctrinal ideas have a large impact on relationships. Using myself as an example I was asked to stop helping to teach my daughters Early teen class because of doctrinal issues. How do you think that affected my relationship with the local church? Well I suppose using the syllogism similar to the above you might say:
A. Ron is or was a Progressive Adventist
B. Ron was told to stop teaching Early Teen Class
C. Ron is closer to all Adventists now.
Strangely there are probably people who would thing that was perfectly correct.
Post a Comment