Doctrines define relationship in the church

There may actually be some hope that the Seventh-day Adventist church is waking up from their self induced delusions. Recently the Adventist Review in an article my Andy Nash actually admitted that Adventists are leaving the church due to not believing Adventist doctrine. Up until now he points out people left, and yes they left in a big way, over relationship issues. He writes of the past this way:

Past studies indicated that if someone left the Adventist Church, it was almost always because of bad experiences or relationships, not because they changed their beliefs.

In a 1998 report, “Why Do Adventists Quit Coming to Church?” prepared by the Center for Creative Ministry, Adventist researcher Monte Sahlin wrote: “Three out of four leave for reasons having to do with their relationships with people and groups, while less than one in five leave because they no longer believe in some teaching of the church.”

Then he goes on to write about a new study:

“The study, “Former Seventh-day Adventist Perceptions of the Seventh-day Adventist Church,” was conducted in 2011 by Southern Adventist University’s School of Business under the direction of marketing professor Lisa Goolsby. Goolsby was approached by Pastor Jerry Arnold and member Ken DeFoor of the Collegedale, Tennessee, Community church about exploring the reasons members are leaving the church. More than 600 former Adventists from throughout the U.S. were invited to answer questions online; 190 participated.

When asked why they quit attending the Adventist Church, 49 percent of respondents cited disagreement or disenchantment with Adventist doctrine, while another 10 percent cited their own lifestyle choices being out of harmony with church teachings. Only 38 percent of responses cited a bad personal experience or “other” reason for leaving. (The respondents were able to cite more than one reason.)

When respondents were invited to give open-ended feedback about their departure from the Adventist Church, 68 percent of the comments concerned Adventist doctrine, 47 percent concerned judgmental attitudes or other problems within the church, 31 percent concerned cofounder Ellen G. White, and 15 percent concerned legalism. (The respondents were able to submit multiple comments, which were then categorized.) “

Now for some analysis. First that last paragraph above. 68% of comments concerned Adventist doctrine and another 31% Ellen White. As most know Ellen White as a prophet is included in the 28 fundamental beliefs of Adventism. So of the comments received it would be more telling to say that 68+11= 79% we related to doctrines of the Adventist church.

In fact it really appears that those claiming relationship issues as the previous reason for Adventists leaving the Adventist church is probably inaccurate as well. So if we search for the 1998 report “Why Do Adventists Quit Coming to Church?” we would probably find a similar gloss over the real reason for the relationship problems. But unless you are connected to some Adventist school you are not likely to find the 1998 report. So I can't really comment on its methodology or conclusions. But there is an article that seems to draw heavily from the report.

The Seventh-day Adventist church puts out a study guide, the Ifollow Discipleship Series in their lesson plan entitled Member Care: Reconnecting they write the following:

Here are some depressing statistics: In most Adventist Churches across North America, typical Sabbath attendance is equal to about 50 percent to 55 percent of the total num-ber of members on the books. A number of churches have completed a name-by-name analysis of their entire membership list and found that typically a third of the members have not attended even once in the past 12 months. “Shut-ins” were not counted in this percentage.

A survey of active members found that 72 percent report that they have a relative or friend who used to be an active member of the Adventist Church but has since dropped out. Dr. Roger Dudley, director of the Institute of Church Ministry at Andrews University, followed a random sample of 13 and 14-year-olds from Adventist families for 10 years, until they were 24 and 25 years of age. About 65 percent had left the Church over those ten years and only 10 percent had returned later, or a net loss of more than half of our young people. It is estimated that there are one or two million former, inactive and “fringe” Adventists in North America and about 500,000 active members who attend at least once a month. Why do we have such a big dropout problem? Ten major studies have been completed by Adventist researchers since the mid-1970s and much has been learned that can provide some answers. Most grew up in the Adventist faith, and were not converts from evangelism. The most common “dropout” is an adult under 50. The median age of drop- outs is 40. The median age of members is 51.

A survey of the general public conducted by the Center for Creative Ministry asked: “Have you ever heard of or read about the Seventh-day Church?” Seven in ten of those over 50 said “Yes,” but only 58 percent of those 30 to 49 years of age; 35 percent of those 18 to 29; and a disappointing 10% of those under 18. Clearly, the Adventist Church

is not connecting with new generations of Americans, even those raised in its own families and schools. And it’s likely that some of the above reasons, especially worship and music style, have something to do with it.

Another place where we’re clearly failing to minister effectively is when people face storms in their lives. Dropouts are three times as likely as active members to be divorced and remarried, and four times as likely to be divorced and single. They are more likely to report stressful life events and moves from one home to another. Yet surely the church is the place where someone facing a major life crisis can most expect to be truly heard, held, and comforted!

Six in ten former members had a non-member spouse as compared with 28 percent of the active members. Did members make a concerted effort to make friends with the non-member spouses, without making it look like they only wanted to add them to the books?

Here are some reasons these former members give for why they left the church: “There is too much politics in the Adventist church [and] church leaders are more concerned with the number of baptisms than the people baptized. The church has too many rules and regulations. Adventists think they can work their way into heaven, and the church is too organized.” They did not feel accepted by the other church members. “The coldness of church members influenced them toward leaving the church, also bigotry, hypocrisy, and judgmental attitudes.” They may express a lack of Adventist friends, and a lack of visits from church members and pastors.

A significant number leave because of dissatisfaction with local church leaders; there is a perception of a lack of sympathy by church leaders for their problems.

In other words, no matter what the life crisis or the reason for leaving, the bottom line is, dropouts are people who never bonded with the core group of their congregation. Two out of three, while they were active members, did not have an office or volunteer role in the congregation. They report few visits by church members or pastors, even while they

were still regular attenders.

Three out of four leave for reasons having to do with their relationships with people and groups; while less than one in five leave because they no longer believe in some teaching of the church. Often it’s for reasons that have already been outlined above. Problems arose which were not addressed, and the person just slipped away. The sad fact is, what most

likely happened back at church is that people shook their heads, assumed the person “wasn’t really committed,” and continued to bring names up as prayer requests, but did not do anything.

Here is the key, in their analysis 75% leave over relationship issues, the last paragraph above says that the reasons are mainly those outlined above and can be summed up as people at the church assuming the person “wasn’t really committed”. Why would they be assumed to not be committed? Because much of what they classed as relationship issues were doctrinally related and the relationship strain came because the person questioned or didn't tow the line of necessary belief in some perceived Adventist fundamental. Take a look at the reasons listed earlier in the quoted material from Ifollow. Let us list those reasons:

1. There is too much politics in the Adventist church

2. Church leaders are more concerned with the number of baptisms than the people baptized.

3. The church has too many rules and regulations.

4. Adventists think they can work their way into heaven,

5. The church is too organized.”

6 They did not feel accepted by the other church members. “The coldness of

church members influenced them toward leaving the church, also bigotry, hypocrisy, and

judgmental attitudes.”

7. They may express a lack of Adventist friends, and a lack of visits from church members and pastors.

There is something that seems to underline most of those reasons. The politics of the church is about agreeing with the church, that will affect how well you fit in the church if you are in or out. Leaders concerned with numbers instead of dealing with issues and questions is again related to doctrine. Rules and regulations are supposedly Biblically derived so again doctrinal. They did not feel accepted, which is again the politics of being in the right group, the one that assumes they have the truth if you are not part of them then those who think they have the truth treat the outsiders coldly. And lastly Adventist friends lacking because they have not been taken into the political power in the church that is endorsed and given power by the leadership of the Adventist church which naturally support loyalty. From my experience it does appear that since the 70's it has been doctrinally based relationship problems that moved people out of the Adventist church for the most part.

Now let me give you a very recent example of how this works using my favorite example of foolish Adventism. Stephen Foster on Atoday.com newest article.

It makes about as much sense (to me) for a Seventh-day Adventist Christian to challenge the inspiration and authority of Ellen White as it does for a Calvinist to challenge the theological authority/bona fides of John Calvin, or a Lutheran of Luther. Yet some members of the voluntary Christian sect or denomination which was co-founded by White—whose commentary on the Bible and whose exegeses and interpretation of the Bible are the result of a prophetic gifting of God—routinely reject her messages (and/or reject the reality of her gifting).

Contradictorily and ironically, some of these individuals believe that they have been given the same or similar gifting; and that, since they live in the present, their gifting is representative of present truth—even though their “truth” may deny or contradict some of what White wrote in great detail.

I view all such claims as bogus at best; and, quite frankly, actually have a much stronger negative opinion of them.

More candidly in my opinion, the ultimate purpose of all efforts to discredit Ellen White is the purposeful destruction of the Advent movement generally, and of its interpretation of the Third Angel’s message in particular.

(Now, of course, I could be wrong; but I’d wager everything that I’m not.)

Basically SDA’s and those who are not SDA have differences with regard to interpretations—and implications resulting from interpretations—of the books of Genesis, Daniel, and The Revelation. This is no different at all than the differences between Adventist conservatives and liberals.

So what are we to do when we fundamentally disagree with what ‘we’ represents? Can those who fundamentally disagree remain together? Can a divided house somehow remain standing?
 

Inspiration provides the following guidance:
“Christ's servants are grieved as they see true and false believers mingled in the church. They long to do something to cleanse the church. Like the servants of the householder, they are ready to uproot the tares. But Christ says to them, ‘Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest.’ He then continues the Ellen White quote.

Now is there any question how such a person will treat those with questions about Ellen White or what the meaning Adventists put on the 3 angels messages or any other interpretation? Such people are tares, at best they are not committed at worst they are agents of evil seeking to destroy the church, after all loyalty to the church is the key to their thinking. To disagree with a doctrine, to acknowledge an old earth or realities of evolution etc is to attempt to destroy the SDA church.

It is rather simple doctrines inform how one relates to others. The remnant mentality, the we have the truth and unless you accept it you are evil will lead to broken relationships. But possibly the Adventist church is beginning to realize just what they have produced with all of the Stephen Fosters that they have filled their churches with. To late for millions of us though...then again just realizing they have a problem is far from actually fixing the problem.

Review of William Young's The Shack

Recently I discovered a new pariah in the Evangelical world. His name is William Young and he authored the recent book called “The Shack”. After reading or in my case listening to the audio version of the book it is pretty clear that the problem with Young is found in things he has said elsewhere and those are seen as implied in the things read in the book. But I will get more into that in the second part of this review.

The book takes the form of a story of someone who suffered a tragedy and who then receives an invitation by God to meet at the shack. I won’t tell you the tragedy as to protect some of the literary integrity of the book but you will find it relayed in some of the reviews that I link to below. The Shack is used as the symbol for the life changing tragedy. Thus the book is a novel; a work of fiction which he hopes will reveal truth. Something that no doubt most novelists want from their books, though this book is certainly more overt in the process and as a story teller much less proficient. In some ways the book has a lot in common with the Celestine Prophecy, not so much as a New Age religious tome as Redfield’s book, but as something which so often presents an other worldly view in which light and color play as major emphasis and clarity is often unworldly brilliant. That of course is only a small part of the book but I wanted to point out that while the Celestine Prophecy is basically a primer on New Age thought it is written in a very engaging style which carries on through the book.

The Shack begins by telling of the main character “Mack” setting up his life and his relationship with his abusive and religious father and Mack’s experience which leads to the life changing tragedy which makes him question his religion. This only takes a couple of chapters and then the book turns into something of a conversation with God. A conversation with God is always a difficult task as each person who believes in God is likely going to have a different perspective on what God is like. To counter this problem the author mixes up the ways that God appears in the conversation. God appears as an older Black lady who enjoys cooking and who is referred to as Papa which is Mack’s wife’s term for God. Jesus appears pretty much as simply a Middle Eastern carpenter in contemporary clothes and the Holy Spirit as an Asian woman (Sarayu) who is not quite in focus, or constantly in motion. Over all it works pretty well imparting to God both male and female cultural characteristics and demonstrating as well as can be expected the standard Trinitarian concept of God (that is 3 distinct persons). These three deeply loving each other and all three are in a deep relationship. The author’s technique does incorporate the idea of Jesus as a son in more then just the physical incarnation concept however. But the book does not go into that part with the conversations: staying mainly within the framework of unity of all three. That unity being based upon a loving relationship.

The real meat of the book is found in the conversations which are the main focus of the book; the story is about getting to the conversation, between a hurting man and a loving God. How to make the man see things the way God see’s things. As a novel the book is not written very engagingly in other words it is not a story you read to take you into the life of a character and explore his or her feeling and adventures. The story is the preface to the conversation where the author can reveal his ideas about God. That is the reason to read this book. In fact I think the book would be useful in church small discussion groups. The conversations are packed with a lot of ideas. Some showing some real thought and provoking thought in people who might not otherwise think about these things. Others ideas which should be viewed as questionable of traditional Christianities views of God and the authors own questionable views about God.

From my perspective the theology is not quite right and still has some major flaws but it is much better than the theology we find in most Christian authors. It is not the giant leap but a first small step. That small step is focusing upon relationships. The relationship between God and man which spurs better relationships between humans. The author’s views would fit well within most Evangelicals views of God. Most people reading the book would likely not see many problems at all with his theology. Which is why several Christian watchdog types have attempted to discredit William Young, perhaps even making the book more interesting in the process. Their two chosen avenues are that Young does not accept the Penal/Substitutionary Atonement and that he believes in universal reconciliation (salvation). But these are not really concepts that can be found in the book. They may be mildly hinted at but if the reader did not know otherwise they would likely not notice them. In some ways it is an interesting phenomenon that these Evangelical watchdogs get so upset over such things even though they are not found in the book. It is not like most anyone agrees with Martin Luther or John Calvin or Charles Spurgeon on every theological idea. But that should not relegate their books to the trash heap of Evangelicalism.

As I move into part two about other reviews of the book it seems only fair that I lay out my pet criticism of the book. One of the annoying errors in the book is speaking of Jesus God says :

“Jesus is fully human although he is fully God he has never drawn upon his nature as God to do anything he has only lived out of his relationship with me. Living in the very same manner that I desire to be in relationship with every human being. He is just the first to do it to the uttermost the first to absolutely trust my life within him, the first to believe in my love and my goodness without regard for appearance or consequence. “So when he healed the blind” he did so as a dependent limited human being trusting in my life and power to be at work within him and through him. Jesus as a human being had no power within himself to heal anyone.”

A little later this view of Jesus is countered when God says: I am one God and I am three persons and each of the three is fully and entirely one. Obviously the author has some internal confusion about God. However this idea that Jesus relied on God as an external force is all too prevalent in Christianity and especially in Adventism. As if God acting as God is somehow different if it is God acting as a human depending on God. This kind of ideas does nothing but make Christians and their God look silly. I touched upon this topic in my previous article. I don’t understand how the concept of God with us (Immanuel) is so easily discounted by some Christians. So Jesus depending on God for power is somehow different than God depending on God for His Power. If there is only One God than there is no need to keep separating God from God. It seems those who do this want to subordinate their members of the One God into different orders of God. In fact many Trinitarians are more tri-theists then Trinitarians and many Trinitarians are very much believers in Subordinationism.

Part 2

This section is mainly dealing with the criticisms of the book because they really seem to reflect a difference between Emergent Christianity and Traditional Christianity. By way of reading the reviews you see which style of Christianity people feel is most appropriate. Some of the statements made by these so called discernment ministries are outright lies. But I won’t deal with some of the worst to save time. Anyone who actually reads the book will be able to see. (actually I lost the quote I typed in that showed how much one reviewer lied and I am not about to go and find the spot again and type it in.)

---

Update 4/25/09: It bothered me so much to see this particular falsehood in a review that I took the time to transcribe it from the audio. It is from a book review done by David Dunlap

He writes:

The third Person of the Trinity, God the Holy Spirit, is depicted as “...a small, distinctively Asian woman ’...I am Sarayu...keeper of the gardens among other things...’ ” (pp. 82-87). Young teaches that the Holy Spirit was a created being. Mack says, “Sarayu, I know your are the Creator...” Sarayu replies, ”A created being can only take what already exists and from it fashion something different” (p. 131). Evangelical theologians have always insisted that the Holy Spirit as a Person of the Godhead was not a created being. (Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that the Holy Spirit was a created being.) At another point in Young’s book, Mack queries, “Speaking of Sarayu, is she the Holy Spirit?” “Yes.” Replies Jesus, “She is Creativity; she is Action; she is the Breathing of Life; she is much more. She is my Spirit.” (p. 110).

In fact Young in no way teaches that the Holy Spirit was a created being and it is pretty near impossible to derive that from the book quote in context. When you have people like this lying for the sake of their gospel it is a pretty sure sign their gospel is corrupt. Here is the quote from the book:

Mack says, “Sarayu, I know your are the Creator but did you make the poisonous plants, stinging nettles and mosquitoes too? Sarayu seem to move in tandem with the breezes. Mackenzie, a created being can only take what already exists and from it fashion something different. So are you saying that you ”created everything that actually exists including what you consider the bad stuff. But when I created it, it was only good. Because that is just the way I am"…

End Update

----

One of the big problems some feel with the book is as the character who portrays God says: “mixed metaphors to help you from falling so easily back into your religious conditioning…reinforcing religious stereotypes.” In other words don’t question your traditions. As one review says:

The Shack contains subtle and not so subtle heresies. The Shack also contains what many Bible scholars would call “aberrant” teaching. Former Professor of Theology at Denver Seminary Dr. Gordon Lewis wrote me in a private e-mail that “heresy is a conscious and deliberate rejection of orthodox teaching and the acceptance of contradictory views on the biblically revealed essentials of the Christian faith” (Lewis). In the category of aberration, Dr. Lewis writes, “unorthodox doctrine leads to aberrant behavior that wanders from the path of right action (ortho-practice) on biblically revealed moral and spiritual essentials of Christian living. Beliefs have consequence” (Lewis).

What is kind of funny about the above statement is that that is the method of argument the Roman Catholic Church used against Protestantism. Orthodoxy has never really been about what is right as about who has the power to say that they are right. Dr. Lewis is correct that beliefs have consequences but that in the case of this book is generally only acknowledged as beliefs that are different from traditional beliefs have the consequence of exposing traditional beliefs as inadequate, not dealing at all with the quality of the life as a consequence of the different beliefs.

From SHACK ATTACK- OR A CALL TO DISCERNMENT?:

Christian, what about this assertion by the Jesus of The Shack? “I am the best way any human can relate to Papa or Sarayu.” (This is a false Jesus. The Jesus Christ of the Bible does not say that He is the best way, He says “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me.” John 14:6. He is not the best way – He is the only way.)

The shack quote actually continues:

“I am the best way any human can relate to Papa or Sarayu.” to see me is to see them. The love you sense from me is no different from how they love you.

This is all in response to Mack saying that he can relate to Jesus more easily then to the other two. The Shack Attack article however displays the proof text illogical techniques that I found in many of the reviews. If these people would only stop to think they have the whole Old Testament with not a mention of Jesus does that mean that they had no way to God? What these people act like is that if they can insert a Bible verse some place they have answered the question or solved the problem. That however is not true and is pretty clearly not the method the writers of the Bible wanted to convey. In context the statement in no way makes the Jesus referred to in the Shack as a false Jesus.

From Shack Attack:

Jesus: “God, who is the ground of all being, dwells in, around, and through all things . . .”

(Isn’t this Pantheism – God in all things?)

The quote from the book continues:

“Ultimately emerging as the real and any appearances that mask that reality will fall away.”

This is in the context of Jesus explaining that when Mack knows Jesus better appearance will not be as important. Clearly the review does not even know what Pantheism actually is but you see the pattern of taking a snippet out of context and inserting something that would sound horrible to most Christians. Another quick example is:

Papa to Mack: “We [the Trinity] have limited ourselves out of respect for you.” (Isn’t this Open Theism – God choosing to limit Himself?)

Again that review does not know what Open Theism is or the concept of literary license or the simple Biblical examples of God revealing Himself as an angel or a burning bush or as Moses saw when he requested to see God the back of God so that Moses would not die. And of course the ultimate example of Jesus Christ the incarnation of God in form of a man a little lower than the angels. That these people think they are discerning is truly amazing to me. I will only deal with one more example from the Shack Attack review because it is very representative of many traditionalists views.

Shack attack:

Papa: “I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It is not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it.” (Certainly there are consequences of our sin which we realize in this life and which impact other people. And certainly God has provided the cure for sin. That “cure” is the penal

substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross. Most certainly there is punishment for sin. Christ suffered the punishment for us. However, the implication of Papa’s statement is that the only punishment for sin is sin’s own punishment in a person’s life. The Bible is clear that punishment for the unredeemed, those who refuse Christ’s atonement, is the sting of spiritual death and eternal separation from God. The Shack makes light work of

the cross.)

The quote from the Shack:

“But if you are God aren’t you the one spilling out great bowls of wrath and throwing people into a burning lake of fire. Mack could feel his deep anger emerging again. Pushing out the questions in front a little chagrined at his own lack of self control, but he asked anyway. Honestly don’t you enjoy punishing those who disappoint you. At that Papa stopped her preparations and turned toward Mack he could see a deep sadness in her eyes. I am not who you think I am Mackenzie I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It is not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it…”

This is what I think is the heart of the traditionalists dislike for the book. God is not the kind of person most Christians think He is. To them God must punish someone in order to forgive. In fact they have a perverted view of the atonement and to question their atonement theory is nearly the greatest crime a Christian can commit.

A slightly better thought our review entitled a reader’s review of the Shack says:

The Shack offers only hints as to the importance of the cross and to its function within the faith. “Honey,” says Papa, “you asked me what Jesus accomplished on the cross; so now listen to me carefully: through his death and resurrection, I am now fully reconciled to the world.” “The whole world? You mean those who believe in you, right?” “The whole world, Mack. All I am telling you is that reconciliation is a two way street, and I have done my part, totally, completely, finally. It is not the nature of love to force a relationship but it is the nature of love to open the way.” What then is the nature of this reconciliation? Young never tells us in any clear way. What is clear, though, is that the God of The Shack is not a God who could have punished His Son for the sins of others. After all, Papa says, “Regardless of what he felt at that moment, I never left him” (96). He is not a a [sic] relationship with God? “Those who love me come from every stream that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans and many who don't vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions” (182). Mack asks for clarification. “Does that mean...that all roads will lead to you?” “'Not at all,' smiled Jesus...'Most roads don't lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you'” (182). While these words cannot rightly be said to actually teach universalism, the view that all men will go to heaven, neither do they clearly deny it. Is Jesus the only way to be reconciled to God? The book is less than clear on this point. Jesus says to Mack, “I am the best way any human can relate to Papa or Sarayu.” Jesus does not say, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me,” as he does in John 14:6, but merely states that He is the best way.

What is interesting is that the review does not even realize that love is the means to reconciliation. Because to the traditionalist God is loving in that He sent His Son to pay the penalty for our sin…because God had to punish someone. Young on the other hand see love as making the first move…God toward man offering man salvation. Healing as opposed to punishment. Reconciliation to the traditionalist is only based upon a legal fiction where the innocent pays the penalty demanded of the guilty. But how can it be demanded of the guilty if it can be substituted with the penalty paid by the innocent? What it comes down to is that the Penal/Substitutionary theory of the atonement has so colored modern Christians that the majority can’t see anything past it. It is historically not the main atonement theory and was a later development that seems to have been set in stone by the Reformation. Emergent Christianity is chipping away at that time encrusted idea and traditionalists are extremely unhappy about that. And that makes the Shack a very interesting book.

For more on the idea of Universal Reconciliation found in the book see The Shack A Friendly Critique

Transitioning out part 1

An article in the Adventist Review on Mike Jones ministry to former Adventists contains the following excerpts:

As much as Mike Jones enjoys a solitary Sabbath afternoon hike in the mountains surrounding his Portland, Oregon home, he'll be the first to tell you a life without relationships is pointless, a series of meaningless motions.

The same goes for church attendance. If Seventh-day Adventists don't maintain solid, nurturing friendships with fellow members, Jones knows firsthand that leaving the church is far easier.

A 2006 study by the Adventist Church's Council on Evangelism and Witness gives good reason for Jones' emphasis on church community. It reports that former Adventists often cite a lack of friends among their top reasons for leaving the church…

He thinks his job is far from over, estimating at least 1 million former Adventists live in North America. Adventist pastor Lonnie Melashenko agrees.

Look at that last paragraph…they are estimating at least 1 million former Adventists in North America, some estimate 1.5-2 million. That means there is at least 1 former Adventist for every member still on the rolls of the Adventist church in North America; possibly as many as 2 former for every member. That tells us immediately that transitioning out of Adventism (a phrase we probably owe to Dale Ratzlaff) is extremely common for Adventists to do.

Mike Jones undoubtedly has pinpointed the problem as relationship and friends. Because there is certainly an atmosphere in the local church that points people toward the door. The Adventist church likes to say that the people who leave aren’t leaving because of doctrines but it is likely in fact the root cause. Here is a recent quote from the Spectrum blog posted by Clifford Goldstein an author, Sabbath School Quarterly editor and apologist for Adventism. He writes:

Hanson's comment about Daniel being a "historical novel" is typically indicative of just how out of touch most of the folks here are with the vast, vast bulk of the SDA church. (Daniel . . . a "historical novel"? And I suppose Hansen actually views himself as an SDA? Amazing!)

I had no idea what was going on here when I first started reading the blog, but it's painfuly obvious to me, and others whom I have talked to, that the Spectrum blog represents an irrelevant and extreme fringe with minimal influence in the denomination (no matter how much they delude themselves into thinking otherwise). I am, though, glad it's here, because now everyone can see just how totally out of touch with our mission, our message, our purpose it really is.

I could actually cite several other examples from Clifford Goldstein since he has been more vocal then most Adventist leaders on discussion boards and blogs. Now for illustration purposes take those comments and put them into a local church setting. What will they do to the relationships in the church? Traditional Adventists like Cliff have a very black and white world view. If one doesn’t agree with their way of looking at doctrines than that person is not really Adventist. How would someone who was subjected to such insinuations feel functioning in the local church? Will the Traditional Adventist reach out to that person to be their friend? Will that person be included in activities in the church? Probably not, for example in my experience since I stated I did not hold Ellen White to be a prophet in the Old Testament mode of thought current in most Christianity I was asked not to help lead out in my daughters Early teen class.

Who knows what other rumors spread about someone who questions certain doctrines or who does not meet the standards of the Traditional Adventist leadership of the local church. My daughter does not feel comfortable in the Early Teen Class and I am pretty much ignored by those who were involved with me in the short time I was helping out the class. Relationships strained for no other reason then doctrines.

There is a large element of former Adventists who seek to minister to Adventists leaving Adventism. You can ask them or read their material and you can clearly see that they stress doctrinal issues as the reason they left the Adventist church.

Glen Davidson in the same blog mentioned above states the case well saying:

I believe that exchanges such as we've seen on this thread ought to bring into question the idea that people leave the church (most, if not all, churches) for social reasons, and not for doctrinal reasons. Not that it isn't true at all, but the fact is that those whose minds are closed on doctrine also tend to make the social situation within the church problematic.

IOW, the people who are hostile to new or different ideas are typically hostile to the people who might not be quite as hidebound. I mean, how does the SDA church prevent "heretical" ideas from being considered and discussed? Not by meeting the intellectual challenge, rather by denying the right of any member, or ex-member, to bring up what is outside of the "mainstream" of SDA belief. You've noticed the broad spectrum of discussion in the quarterlies, have you not?

The idea that someone as hostile to different ideas as Goldstein or Diehl is could be warm and welcoming to anyone who does not quickly agree with them within their holy citadels is absurd. So while I don't doubt that it is more the social aspects that directly cause people to leave a church, I hardly think that the social environment is not deeply affected by the all-too-frequent sense in SDAism that discussion of many ideas is not to be tolerated.

So we should be clear that those transitioning out of Adventism are doing so because of the climate in the local church. Hopefully there are several Adventist churches in an area so that if one church becomes intolerant and hence damages the personal relationships there could be another local church which does not have the same problems. Usually this is only a delaying tactic in transitioning out of Adventism. As the structure of local churches tends to place in leadership Traditional Adventists, there were after all some major purges in the early 1980’s after Desmond Ford’s Glacier View Conference. When tradition wins over logic and facts as happened there it puts tradition in the forefront and those traditionalists gained ascendancy.

True now the median age of Adventist’s in North America is 58 so in another generation the church may start to look a lot different as traditionalist die off. But few folks in the transitioning out process are looking ahead 20 years or so. Who can blame them, church is meant to be a social organization who wants to be a social pariah for the next 20 years in hopes that a new generation will change the church.

It seems to me that Adventists are actively driving Adventists out of their churches. The numbers certainly suggest this is true. Adventists are not just driving out Adventists adults who may questions certain doctrines but we are driving out our young people, the ones we need to continue the church as our old people, who make up the majority of the North American church retire or expire. To the Traditionalist Adventist maybe this is all the supposed shaking of the Adventist church. No doubt they will still keep a few young people convinced of their traditions so that as the church shrinks to nearly nothing it won’t quite disappear. Maybe even make it down to that magic number, 144,000 North American Adventists. Will the hope for the church growth be the uneducated third world? But what if they become educated will they follow the same pattern of questioning and social rejection as occurs today in North America?

Before I end this part let me just say a little about statistics. Here is a quote from the final draft of the article Conserving Membership Gains - an Appeal

Seventh-day Adventists around the world rejoice in the rapid membership growth of recent years. The Church views this as evidence of Holy Spirit-led movements and a fulfillment of Bible prophecy. (Matthew 24:14, Revelation 14:6, 7) Although the Seventh-day Adventist Church baptized over 5 million people from 2000 - 2005, membership losses during that time equaled nearly 1.4 million. Current indications are that annual membership losses, for reasons other than death, equal approximately 28% of membership accessions. Some membership loss occurs among recent converts, however, this tragic outcome is not limited to new members.

Did you ever wonder why they just don’t say how many people leave the Adventist church per year, maybe by area? Rather they skew the numbers. 5 million baptized and we lose 1.4 million. We know very well that 5 million were not from North America so what do those numbers mean? Where are the most losses occurring? One website offers the following statement:

In 2005, the SDA Church reported alarming membership losses. Despite adding 5 million new believers during the 5-year period of 2000-2004, over 1.4 million members left the church during that same period.²

SDA minister Vance Ferrell describes the problem in his newsletter:

"That is a very high loss. According to the official report, 'for every 100 accessions, more than 35 others decided to leave.' This was a significant increase over the 24 per 100 which left in the preceding five year period (1995-1999). The drop rate has increased by almost one-half.

"A sheet distributed at one of the booths said that '70 percent of young people in developing nations drop out of the church.'

"One missionary declared that, in his field, 'a third are dropped from the membership rolls; another third are on the rolls but no longer attend; and only a third are active members.' That one-third which remains on the rolls but no longer attends is significant. It is clear that membership totals are not a true indicator of the actual number of members in the world church.

"The statistical report, presented at the Session, lists the Southern-Asia Pacific Division (SSD) as having the highest drop rate in the world. It is 104.75%. This means that 104.75% of the number of membership increase in the SSD between spring 2000 and spring 2004 have left the church. That is more than 100%! ... In that time period, the SSD lost more members than it brought into the church."² …

1. Vance Ferrell, More WAYMARKS - from PILGRIMS REST, "The 2005 St. Louis Session: Items of Interest General Conference Sessions: WM1305, "2005 ST. LOUIS SESSION: ITEMS OF INTEREST Nov 05 Index: General Conference Sessions / St. Louis".

2. Ibid

This all leads me to ask a few questions, I will try to circulate these to the local pastors here but it would be interesting for others to ask their pastors to answer these questions in an email form and we could post the answers in a later article or simply submit them as comments here and I can put them in an article.

1. Which is most important doctrines or relationships?

2. Is it possible to accept people in your church who disagree with some of your doctrines?

3. Can a person hold a leadership position (other than an adult Sabbath School Teacher) if they do not accept all traditional Adventist doctrines (such as the 28 fundamental beliefs)

4. Do you feel your church does well in establishing relationships?

5. What do you do to try and facilitate relationships between people attending your church?

6. When did you last give a sermon on creating friends either with people inside or outside the church?

7. Many SDA churches have a stand and greet other people before the service, have you ever had a meaningful conversation during this time period (not counting someone asking for a prayer request)?

8. Aside from music how are young people encouraged to participate in your church?

9. Does your church offer an accepting environment should a young person bring in a non-Adventist or non-Christian friend? How comfortable do you think they would feel?

10. Are you afraid of pluralism or encouraged by it as a way to build relationships and encourage thinking?

And What are You Going to Do About IT

Recently I sent an Email to the folks in charge at my church. In it I asked how they would respond to the 5 previous articles on this blog. How will Traditional Adventism seek to retain our young people in the church? A portion of my email stated:

I arrived at this decision when I was thinking what the traditional Adventist proposes to do to help youth stay in the Adventist church. I looked on the internet and found precious little that dealt with the principles involved in retaining American youth in the SDA church.

After I read the article copied below, I was thinking, as it identifies relationship as the big thing how does one build a relationship if they deny the ability of others to hold differing views. Can one have a relationship with the young person while demanding that they accept all your beliefs and doctrines? What does a young person feel if they find that their teacher is not allowed to teach anything other then generic SDA beliefs or worse yet a subset of SDA beliefs which are ill identified or have to be officially presented by the SDA organization? Basically it comes down to how is a relationship built or maintained if the relationship is primarily built upon either side accepting a specific set of doctrines? How does a method of Traditional SDA doctrine only related classes, work with visitors or the friends of youth, do they feel that their church is open enough to accept their non SDA friends or will they feel that their teachers can't handle alternative Christian views? Perhaps, and I hope this is not the case but it likely is, we don't want to expose our young people to other possibilities and ideas because we have assumed that we have all the truth and if it is not part of our doctrines then it has no value, that the possibility that we could be wrong is too terrible to even contemplate.

A recent article in Adventist Today by Chris Blake began:

Every year I see my students leave a vibrant campus, and I know what’s going to happen to them. Many will walk inside a small Adventist church, where they expect or hope to encounter excellent preaching; soul-stirring music; honest, deep friendships characterized by open dialogue; and attractive, imaginative, courageous discipleship.

Soon they will be disappointed. Soon after that, they will bolt.

Some of that may be a little over the top. I grew up very close to Walla Walla College and I don’t recall it being known at that time for excellent preaching or soul stirring music. What did impress me was the selection of Sabbath School classes. Most were too big for real discussions but the range of thought was so much greater then any other church. It was there that the open dialogue found it’s fulfillment. The friendships were the result of the college not the church, but know doubt friendships made the dialogue even better.

Of course Adventism is not alone in seeing their young people leave the church. It happens in most all Christian churches in America. Here is a post from Ben Witherington’s blog:

Ron Luce is worried. And if Ron Luce is worried, we should be too. Ron runs an organization called Teen Mania which puts on camps, concerts and various and sundry other sorts of events for youth. He claims that in the last fifteen years 2 million youth have attended his events, the usual formula for which includes some prominent popular Evangelical band, speakers, and counselors. There is a figure that was put out there a decade or so ago which said that even Evangelical Churches are retaining only about 4-5% of our youth. A more recent poll by George Barna suggests that only 5% of our country's youth are Bible believing Christians, but perhaps he was defining Christian or Bible-believing too narrowly. I personally don't think this is true, but even if it is in the ball park it means that youth ministry as currently constituted is largely failing. You should read the story for yourself. Here's the link from this morning's N.Y. Times.

The youth in our churches have the same malaise affecting Christianity in the Western World. They just haven’t committed the years as adults so they feel free to bolt. The fact is that music and speakers and counselors aren’t going to really change anything. We have to change they way we do church. We have to allow open dialogue, stop being so dogmatic and provide relevancy of Christianity to the reality of the world we live in. Relevancy is not found in doctrines but in relationship; relationship between people which encourage and stimulate the relationship with God. We could all have a relationship with God in private but really what good is that? Christianity was never about making the individual content with whatever he or she thought they wanted in a relationship with God. After all if it is just you then you will tend to make God fit in to your ways. We need the outside relationship to stimulate that personal relationship with God…to make it more than what we want into what makes our community better. In simple terms we need to be healed, but when we are isolated by ourselves our sickness is not so obvious and of course we are of no aid to the other sick campers.

We have to get past our insistence upon doctrines as our salvation or the way to salvation. They are not, and sometimes our doctrines are part of the problem. The old methods are not working; they are not working in the Adventist church any better then any other denomination or non denominational church. When was the last time your church talked about this subject? Mine doesn’t I hope to stimulate them; it is too bad I had to be treated as problem to get them to talk about it, if they will talk about it. Hopefully they will respond and I will relay it here, and if they don’t…well hopefully not every Christian wants to play ostrich with their head in the ground.