Posted anonymously by: Monte Sahlin

I am amazed at the elaborate misunderstandings spun out here. What Samir is doing is no different than the Apostle Paul going to Athens and entering into dialog with the Greek philosophers of the time. If you have any real knowledge of the cultural context in New York City, you see the need for establishing neutral places for dialog. If we insist on the superiority of the Christian faith as a pre-condition for dialog, then there are large numbers who will never enter into conversation. Particularly in New York City, where the wounds inflicted by Fundamentalism are still painful, the importance of a neutral arena for conversation about faith is absolutely vital. Why are we so defensive? How can we possibly have any hope of undertaking the gospel commission from such a position of defensiveness?An important part of the Adventist tradition is the notion that in any open conversation about faith, fair and open to all the options, God’s truth will prevail because it is God’s truth, not because of positioning or other techniques of persuasive communication. That concept seems to have been lost.

Hi Monte,

Thanks for stopping by and welcome to 4TG.

As I outlined above, I think what is missing in Samir’s introductory materials is an obvious declaration that this project is indeed Christian in its emphasis.  Furthermore, he implies that Christianity is broken and in need of repair, suggesting that we must move beyond Christianity if we are to remain “relevant.”

You drew the comparison with the apostle Paul in Athens, but let’s not forget that in this same account, Paul spoke unapolagetically about “Jesus and the resurrection,” being branded a “babbler” (Acts 17:18).  He proceeded to preach openly about repentence and judgment, to the point where he was mocked (Acts 17:30-32).  This doesn’t sound like a culturally-sensitive and safe “conversation” to me.  In fact, Paul was routinely beaten and imprisoned for his belief in Jesus.

As another example, the apostle Peter didn’t win any friends when he accused the Jews at Pentecost for crucifying Christ (Acts 2:36).  If his main concern was having a conversation, perhaps the three thousand would not have been converted on that day.

In his second letter to Timothy, Paul recommended an entirely different evangelistic approach than what seems currently fashionable: “I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry” (2 Timothy 4:1-5 ESV)

Monte, I don’t think anyone here has advocated undertaking the gospel commission from a position of defensiveness–quite the opposite.  What’s being advocated is that the gospel is actually preached without succumbing to preaching a different gospel that soothes the itching ears of unbelieving Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and even atheists.

Greg

Posted anonymously by: Randy Gerber

Welcome Monte,

I appreciate your input as you have much experience in dealing with outreach and creative ministries.

I tend to echo Greg’s concerns regarding the initial infomation we have read about this project. It seems that the emphasis was less on the Good News of the Gospel and more on finding things in common with these other faith groups.

I truly believe that the Good News of the Gospel presented as some of us have come to know it will be irresistable too those seeking a better life. My concern is that the Gospel according to Adventism is different than that which I find in the New Testament. If the goal of this ministry is to make more Adventists, then I think the Good News aspect of the message has the potential of getting lost.

If the idea is to present Jesus alone as our Saviour, then I feel that the Holy Spirit can bless this type of ministry.

You made the comment that “An important part of the Adventist tradition is the notion that in any open conversation about faith, fair and open to all options, God’s truth will prevail because it is God’s truth, not because of positioning or other techniques of persuasive communication.”

This has not been my experience or that of many that I communicate with.

My experience is that Adventism as a whole does not allow for open conversation about all options.

They do indeed believe that God’s truth will prevail because it is God’s truth, but only as they interpret it, and as it fits within the Adventist theological paradigm.

In all my years in Adventism the one thing that turned me off the most, was the way the Church evangelized its message, and that was largely due to its positioning and use of persuasive techniques. I often sensed manipulation tactics used such as the threat of loss of eternal life if the person evangelized did not accept the Adventist “truth” as presented. The last Revelation seminar I was at spoke to that very thing for those who had now heard the “Sabbath Truth” and did not respond.

What I hear you saying about Creative Ministries regarding the presentation of the Gospel sounds good, but where the rubber hits the road, I don’t believe that message is being presented.

As long as the goal of Adventism is to convert everybody to Adventism, as opposed to just presenting the Gospel of Jesus Christ, I think it will be doomed to failure.

The differences between Adventism and Christianity are too great to consider them as one and the same. I think if the focus is to present unadulterated Christianity without the Adventist slant, then there will be hope and the Holy Spirit can work through this type of ministry.

Thank-you for sharing your thoughts,

Randy

Posted anonymously by: Ted

An interesting discussion indeed.

As a lay speaker who is engaged in giving seminars in New York City, I might point out that the problems of engaging the city are not necessarily that New Yorkers have to be made to feel good about their traditions, etc.  Certainly, New Yorkers are not keen on polemic expressions directed toward their religious tradition; however, many tend to be quite open to discussion of the differences involved in the various faiths.  Typically, New Yorkers feel comfortable speaking about anything so long as the environment is accommodating and one is friendly about it.  So the idea that we have to do backflips in order to somehow fool one into accepting a gospel message that my otherwise come across as difficult to handle is quite misguided from my point of view.

It seems that the pluralistic project under discussion is an exercise in universalism, and it attracts the endorsement of a line of reasoning that desires to believe the Adventist message while somehow absolving the responsibility of proclaiming it to the world.

For example:  it would seem difficult to engage Islam in some sort of feel-good dialogue when the Qur’an denounces Christians as blasphemers:  “They do blaspheme who say: ‘Allah is Christ the son of Mary.’ ... They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.” Qur’an 5:72-73.  My question would be how do we address this situation?

Do we also subvert the historicist interpretation of the prophecies because it may cause considerable discomfort to all of the other Christian denominations who have abandoned it in favor of preterism or futurism?  What happens to our interpretations of Daniel 11, Revelation 9, 11, and 13 if we go down such a path?

Then, the question becomes, if we are involved in socializing with those whom we are commissioned to teach, and our socializing does not address these important issues and more as detailed, for instance, in “the Revelation of Jesus Christ,” then are we not compromising our solemn duty?

Universalism is contrary to the many references in Scripture regarding the separation of the saved and the lost at the end of time (e.g. Daniel 12:10 and Revelation 22:11).  So it would seem that we do a disservice to humanity if we cloak the full gospel message—including the warnings of theological deception.

Obviously, at this time, the approach should not be to teach the Mark of the Beast in the first five minutes.  However, at some point, such a lecture may be completely appropriate—perhaps when the close of probation is imminent.

The postmodernist is generalized in intellectual elucidation to desire the relation of experience over the exposition of objectivity.  It would seem that personal testimony about how real a relationship with Christ really is is in order.  This is in contradiction to redefining Christ as something different than what has been plainly revealed in Scripture.

And before we completely abandon the evangelistic crusades of the past, let us remember that they were very instrumental in building the church to what it is now, and perhaps setting them aside is not necessarily the answer either.

I agree that the church needs to adjust some methods to more appropriately deal with the postmodernist mindset including better use of information technologies.  However, such adjustments do not include a shifting or expansion of the theology willy nilly.  I also agree that we should build bridges with individuals.  But it does not make sense that we should build bridges with ideologies.  Certainly, our example for this is in the compliment Christ paid the Church of Ephesus in Revelation 2:1-3.

It seems to me that Adventists are so heavily indoctrinated in the idea that the remnant church will be quite well known at the end of time that we lose our perspective of where we are now.  In the Greater New York City area, for instance, we have probably less than 100,000 SDAs.  This represents less than 1/2% of the population.  The fact is that many do not even know who the SDAs are or perhaps have only heard of us through a recent article in National Geographic about how we live longer.

The challenge is how to reach all of these people and bring this important message to them through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  It would seem that somehow befriending them and allowing for an intellectual nonchalance toward challenging some of the fundamental issues so as to discourage conversion is lacking.

Welcome Ted to the 4TG discussion.

I agree in principle with what you said about not compromising the gospel.

You wrote:

“It seems to me that Adventists are so heavily indoctrinated in the idea that the remnant church will be quite well known at the end of time that we lose our perspective of where we are now. In the Greater New York City area, for instance, we have probably less than 100,000 SDAs. This represents less than 1/2% of the population. The fact is that many do not even know who the SDAs are or perhaps have only heard of us through a recent article in National Geographic about how we live longer.”
---------------------------------------------------------

Ted, do you believe that the Adventist church is the remnant church of Bible prophecy, or is it more important to preach the message that Paul emphasized, and that is Jesus Christ and Him crucified? (1 Cor. 1)

Is there something beyond Paul’s message of Christ crucified and risen again, that is of any greater importance?

I agree with your assessment of the Faith House as being nothing more than an attempt at universalism.

Stan

Ted, welcome to 4TG and thanks for your remarks.

I think we share many of the same sentiments about reaching those who are lost with the gospel, but perhaps we are defining what we mean by “gospel” differently.

The apostle Paul did not present himself with slick media campaigns, pictures of the beasts in Revelation or even smooth speech and eloquent arguments (1 Cor. 2:1).  Referring back to the Hebrew Scriptures, he unashamedly preached the gospel, declaring it the “power of God unto salvation” (Romans 1:16).  I would argue that this message has not changed in 2000 years and is still the message a dying world needs to hear.

What concerns me about the Faith House approach is exactly what you mentioned–it is an approach that waters down Christianity for the sake of appearing non-threatening to those who are not Christian.  This effectively homogenizes the basic Christian faith, however, and what remains is a product devoid of “the power of God unto salvation”.  New Yorkers don’t need another bland pseudo-religious concoction, they need genuine faith in Christ.  Sure, the gospel will close the ears of some, and as Paul said, if their ears are closed, they are closed for a reason (2 Cor. 4:3-4).  But to those who have the ears to hear, the person who faithfully preaches to them will have an abundant harvest, and how beautiful will be the feet of those who preach the good news (Romans 10:15).

I also echo Stan’s question above.  What more than “Christ and Him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2) do we need to preach?

Greg

Posted anonymously by: Ane

I am very upset about Samir’s theology! And cannot fathom how a church who fires its ministers for rejecting the unorthodox doctrines of the Investigative Judgment and Cleansing of the Sanctuary ... can allow a minister like Samir, who used a witch to bless a group of SDA theologians, continue to exist!

If God is already in the “other” as Samir teaches, if “other world religions already possess the substance of Christ” as Samir teaches ... then why does Samir feel Christians even need to be evangelizing to the “other”?

Why if Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists etc. already have both God and Christ within them, why then is there a need for Faith House?

Samir makes me think that IF his theory is true ... then evangelism is no longer necessary. What is the need then for evangelism via his Faith House if “other” religions already know the God and Christ of Christianity? It appears to me that according to Samir’s logic then that God’s work is done!

And in listening to Samir’s sermon “Find God in the Other”

Samir’s interpretation of Acts 17 particularly verse 22 is way off base! Samir is saying that the Apostle Paul was seeking to find good in the idol worshippers. So Paul compliments them trying to show his consideration of them by saying, “I notice that you are very religious,” and then Samir goes on to say this statement was Paul’s way of kindly pointing out to them that he sees Christ in their religion.

And I’m wondering have SDA theologians bothered to look up the term religion as used in the context of that text? In Greek this word “religion” is actually a negative statement!

Religion #1174 Deisidaimonesteros means superstitious and fearful of gods.

Paul is not being considerate of their religion in that verse as Samir would suggest! Paul’s use of that term is extremely negative. Paul is saying to them “Hey, I noticed that you are very superstitious and fearful of your gods.” Paul is pointing out a reality to them ... not the fact that he sees Christ in their religion! Paul isn’t being all warm and fuzzy in his approach. Paul is using his intellect to nail them on their beliefs and command respect.

If we back up to verse 18 these people are calling Paul a babbler. Which was a negative term used to basically tell Paul he was not intellectual. So in verse 23, Paul comes up with a very clever “intellectual” argument that has them cornered. He uses the name of their Unknown God, to teach them about the true God, and they cannot argue with Him, because they have already admitted they don’t know who their Unknown God is by the sheer fact that they named Him Unknown. Paul is being bold, intellectual and direct here! He isn’t at all using the techniques of ministering to these people as Samir suggests he is. Paul even calls these people ignorant!

Ane, I was also very upset when I heard Samir’s sermon “Finding God in the Other”. For those who want to listen to the sermon, you can find it on this page. The comments by those who’ve listened to the sermon are also worth reading.

Samir wants to break down the barriers between Christianity and other religions, and he misuses Acts 17 to do so. Ane, as you said, Paul was not being complementary to the Athenian’s religion. Instead, he used their religious beliefs as an entry point to bringing the gospel, implying that they were religious without knowing anything about true religion. If Paul were to give this sermon today, we might say he was being slightly sarcastic in his approach: “I can see you are very religious, but you have no idea what you are worshiping”. Paul was not saying that the Athenians were somehow worshiping Jesus Christ through their idolatry, as reading through the rest of the chapter indicates. Interestingly, Samir does not deal with these passages in his sermon.

“The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” (Acts 17:30-31 ESV)

Paul’s message was not, “Let’s just all get along because we’re really worshiping the same God–Jesus Christ!” No, he’s drawing a bold contrast between the worship of the “unknown god” and worshiping the God who has made Himself plainly known in Christ.

Yet more evidence for this comes at the very end of the chapter:

“Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, ‘We will hear you again about this.’ So Paul went out from their midst. But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.” (Acts 17:32-34 ESV)

If Paul was bringing a message of reconciliation, he would not have left with only a handful of believers. If the god of the “other” was the same God of Paul, they would not have mocked Paul’s account of the true God in Jesus Christ.

Postmodernism attempts to redefine Christianity by bringing all religions to the table as equally valid expressions of worship. That this teaching is finding root in Adventism is incredible, given the backdrop of many pastors being fired for something as inconsequential as disbelieving the Investigative Judgment. I guess as long as one doesn’t explicitly deny the doctrinal distinctives of Adventism, their job is safe.

Greg

Greg

Here is another point of interest.

In Exodus 32 when Israel made the golden calf ... look at verse 4.

They actually thought of this calf as God Himself.

Note how Scripture says, “This is your god, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt.”

In their minds they thought they were doing a good thing.

They, like Samir, thought they were finding God in the “other.”

Samir, do you remember God’s reaction to Israel’s finding Him in the “other”?

Posted anonymously by: DeeAnna

I just today heard this term, “postmodernism” and have no clue as to what the meaning is in this for the Adventist church. Are other churches also using this term in their churches or is this in someway a way of Adventists compromising their beliefs to become acceptable by the world and other religions, enabling the Adventists to have as big numbers as some of the “secular churches”...I am just really shocked at some of the the things I am reading lately. This does not sound like the Adventist church I became a member of in the 60’s.

DeeAnna

In Sept. I began researching the Emergent Movement because I had no idea what it was. One of the main leaders of this movement, Brian McLaren is extremely unorthodox. I believe this movement has roots in new ageism, occultism, and its intent is to syncretize Christianity with eastern mystic religions.

I had already determined that when I accidently stumbled across the fact that the SDA church is partnering with this movement. I could not have been more shocked at that discovery.

We have every reason in the world to be concerned about this. I’ve even tried to express my concern to friends in leadership positions within Adventism and was basically told I was a fearful person. They see absolutely nothing wrong with the path they are taking, nor do they see this movement as anything that crosses over into the realm of darkness. The church leaders who are involved in this are especially fond of and admire Brian McLaren.

We need to pray over this! 

Thanks DeeAnna and Ane for your comments.

I totally agree.

Also the seeker sensitive movement which tried to make church appeal to the world with its rock and roll music, and watered down topical sermons is also a bust.

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2007/10/willow_creek_re.html

The founding pastor of Willow Creek, Bill Hybels has admitted that all his church programs and the millions of dollars spent really hasn’t contributed to spiritual growth at all.

So all the churches who were following Willow Creek’s model of doing church have all been going down a bankrupt pathway.

The seeker sensitive movement including both Bill Hybels and Rick Warren is a colossal failure.

The article points out, that going back to the basics of bible study and prayer, and cultivating family relationships is really where it is at.

At least Bill Hybels admitted he was wrong.

Now will Rick Warren follow suit and admit his errors?

It was unbelievable how many current SDAs and former SDAs were so enamored with this movement.

Madison Avenue techniques will never work.

“Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit saith the Lord.”

John MacArthur was one of the lone voices that dared criticize Rick Warren publically, but he is proving to be right. There are a lot of false conversions and false Christians spawned by both the seeker sensitive and emergent church.

Stan

After I started seeing all this “postmodern” and new style of Adventism talk,( I don’t know else to call it ), I asked a friend of mine, who is a Baptist if similar things were going on in her church. She said yes. The sermons are all watered down and certain doctrines are not mentioned anymore because it “may offend”. How ridiculous is all this ???

Then, I was curious as to what an Adventist minister would tell me if I asked him. I got this response. ( to make it brief and to summarize ). The old ways just don’t work anymore. In the past, the object was to believe,behave,& belong.  Now, it’s just the reverse. Get people to feel a sense of belonging, this will in turn affect their behavior, and then they will believe !  ( I am wondering...believe WHAT ?? They haven’t heard anything ! )

I am remembering back when I first became an Adventist. I was already a Christian, but when I heard the message of the Adventist church...I felt I had found Bible truths that were solid and became convicted to follow them and then I felt the sense of belonging. I’m not sure it will work in the reverse. People need to know upfront what a church believes and the church should be proud of what they teach, however contrary to popular opinion, it may be.

After being “loved in” and feeling the sense of belonging and wanting to be like these people....at what point will I be told what the doctrines of the church are ???  Then what ? 

Honestly...it’s all about compromise and wanting to fashion the church after the world, as far as I’m concerned.

Those who are doing this...are really walking on very shaky ground and I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes.

DeAnna,

As an SDA I can understand your concerns and I disagree with some of the true liberal theology coming out (and Idon’t mean choosing to wear jewelry or lift one’s hands in the air during a church service).

However, neither do I believe that we should close our ears from new perspectives simply because it doesn’t follow the die hard true and blue SDA doctrines of 40+years ago. It is easy to close one’s mind and scream ‘apostasy’ because it seems like ‘new theology’ is ‘creeping’ into the church.

However, we must guard against sectarian cultism as well as a liberal watering down of the gospel message.

I think the thing that bothers me most is that the watering down seems to be for the purpose of getting more numbers into the church and being seen as “more in tune” with all the other denominations. I am seriously wondering why not attend a non-denominational church if this is what it’s coming to.

I’m not a die hard SDA - in fact, I have been considered by those who know me as quite liberal thinking, but the message that led me to the church is rarely heard anymore and I think that is disturbing.