Posted anonymously by: WalkOnWater

Stan, thanks for the invitation you extended to me to check out this topic.  I have not visited FAF for quite some time so it has been interesting to get an update on the direction FAF and Colleen Tinker seem to be going. It appears their statements continue to get more and more outrageous.

Sadly we live in an age in which, for many, truth does not matter.  I see a Jerry Springer mentality at work on so many talk shows and I see the same at work at FAF.  Too often the object seems to be to create heat, rather than light.  I fear Isaiah 59:14 speaks to this issue. “And judgment is turned away backward ... for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter.”

Although I remain a committed Adventist and I see Adventism differently than many who post here, I sincerely appreciate the obvious desire for objectivity displayed on this Forum. 

Keep up the good work! We all need our feet held to the fire sometimes just to see if our theology is the real thing or is a house of cards.

Blessings,
WalkOnWater

Posted anonymously by: WalkOnWater

Another thought on the subject.

In his seminar series on the Laws of the Universe, Brian Tracy says that people generally give the socially acceptable reason for what they do rather than the real reason.  I think he is on to something there.  Perhaps the real reason Colleen and company are so over the top on the issue of the SDA Church is that they NEED to see it as demonic.  Anything less would call into question why they left Adventism.  If one can actually find the real Jesus while in Adventism that could undercut her need to see it as entirely demonic.

Needs are powerful things.  They can get us to do and think irrational things.  Needs can get us to ignore facts and twist reality.  Recently I was watching the Dateline program “To Catch a Predator”.  These guys would come out in droves thinking they were going to be able to have sex with a 13 year old girl. Of course it was a trap and they were arrested.  But some of the men who came out were high status doctors, lawyers, army personnel, teachers, a rabbi, etc who had tons to lose by their actions.  And yet their needs caused them to do totally irrational and illegal things.

I think there is an overpowering need on the part of some to see Ellen White as demonic and Adventism as Satanic.  Thus no amount of reason or Bible texts or arguments to the contrary have any effect.  They take irrational actions such as banning people who are calling for fairness and objectivity. 

To an objective observer, it is unbelievably clear that what they are doing is wrong.  But from their point of view, it seems very clear that they are right and Adventism is wrong.  They see themselves as defenders of the truth, fighting a hand to hand battle with Satan himself. They publish slick magazines and with missionary zeal send them to 10’s of thousands of people who have not asked for them.  And it is all for the socially acceptable reason of standing for truth against demonic forces.

The problem with the socially acceptable reason is that there just might be some out there who see past it and expose the real reason.  And when they do, the real reason is usually not as clean and sweet and honest and noble as the socially acceptable reason.

This hiding of dirty laundry behind a “noble cause” and suppressing anyone who might reveal the dirt, is the hallmark of how a dictatorship or a cult begins. 

Perhaps this sounds too extreme when it comes to FAF. Maybe so, but I do not find their actions very reassuring.

WalkOnWater

Welcome to the forum, Walk on Water.

Stan, I enjoyed reading your story in Proclamation!  They could use more of your writing these days. 

Hi ALL,

Even if I would not mention one person in particular, I want to thank you all who are participating on this thread. It is not a thread which has the goal to bash FAF or those who are a part of it. It has the goal to persuade people who are participants on FAF to do a personal investigation regarding their motivations for criticizing adventism.

I must say loudly from the beginning: there is a lot of legitimate criticism of adventism present on FAF. There are many things in adventism which obscure or pervert the clarity of the gospel. As far as the criticism has the goal of removing the misconceptions regarding the gospel, it is legitimate, and it is very helpful in the ministry toward adventism.

There is also a lot of cultic spirit present in adventism, and those who are leaving adventism suffers a lot because in many adventist minds, leaving adventism is equivalent with apostasy.  Former adventists loose friends, and are shunned by family members, and the sabbath issue is especially the point of confrontation. It is especially looked by adventists as the sure proof of apostasy, and suddenly a “wall of partition” is erected between members of the family. It is often a lonely road to walk. I know this from my personal experience. This is why FAF is doing a unique job in providing fellowship for those who are walking this lonely road.

In this difficult period of transition usually the question “Am I doing the right thing in leaving adventism?” is popping up from time to time. And here is the critical point on which I believe FAF offers a wrong answer. The reasons they offer in answering “Yes, you are doing the right thing” are the wrong reasons.

Basically the reason offered is “Adventism is a satanic cult, so you MUST leave”. But this is not the only legitimate reason for leaving adventism.  When someone is spiritually abused by his church, this is enough reason to leave it, and where the cultic spirit is present, people need to protect themselves from it.

But there remains a problem for former adventists: there are other churches which had also doctrines which obscure the clarity of the gospel. Legalism is present in other churches, and there is a lot of bad theology running in different places. When criticizing adventists for their legalism, the legalism present in other churches is often downplayed on FAF for obvious reasons: people will be tempted to return to adventism if they become aware that there is possible to be again disappointed by other evangelical churches. They were disappointed enough by the adventist church, and are not happy to risk another disappointment.

For example, one forum member spoke favorably about Benny Hinn and when Stan warned him about Benny Hinn’s heresies, Colleen became upset with Stan. In her eyes, it was preferable for someone to be a follower of Benny Hinn than a follower of Ellen White. The door toward adventism must be kept shut, and the doors toward the evangelical churches must be kept wide open, and the problems existing in those churches minimized, otherwise it can happen, as in the case of Walk On Water, for a former to become disappointed and come back to the adventist church.

This is a very dangerous position, because in this way the Roman Catholic Church becomes a better choice for a former adventist than adventism, which, looking from the perspective of reformation and the battle for the truth of the gospel, it is a dangerous step back to a gospel of works, back to legalism.

What FAF misses at this point is that an former adventist, having a good grasp of the gospel, having a good discernment, will be rooted in the truth in such a way that he will never return to a legalistic religion, or to a church where is enough confusion about the gospel. Sadly, this clarity regarding the gospel is not encouraged on FAF, and even Proclamation! published recently an article which contradicts the gospel, the great truth of atonement completed on the cross. It is in fact suggesting that something else must be done to complete the work of Jesus on the cross, that His work is not complete, Jesus had not obtained salvation on the cross, and had not secured it for anybody. Something else must come on the scene to secure the salvation, and it robs Christ of His glory.

To be continued…

Gabriel

Excellent points Gabriel. I too want to say that there are so many good things that FAF does, and there has been so many good articles in Proclamation, that I just hate to see LAM lose credibility, because they don’t control extreme statements. It is SO UNNECESSARY to call Ellen White names like “murderer, satanist” etc. and to label SDA a satanic cult. All a person has to do is to look up satanic cult on a search, and you will see that this is so inappropriate.

Gabriel wrote:

“Basically the reason offered is “Adventism is a satanic cult, so you MUST leave”. But this is not the only legitimate reason for leaving adventism. When someone is spiritually abused by his church, this is enough reason to leave it, and where the cultic spirit is present, people need to protect themselves from it.”
-----------------------------------------------------

This is so true. It is fascinating to me that there is another organization out there called “Calvary Chapel”, which is a huge organization and a very reputable and fine organization, started by a godly man, Chuck Smith. I spent 20 years off and on, and benefited greatly. But their theology is very Arminian, and Chuck Smith believes that our salvation depends on “us abiding in Christ” rather than Christ holding on to us. He believes you can lose your salvation. They are also quite legalistic requiring temperance pledges from all their employees to stay away from alcohol etc. So there are many similarities to Adventism.

But what is so fascinating is that their is a forum for former Calvary Chapel members at http://www.phoenixpreacher.com where you can read about the spiritual abuses in that organization and the bad theology, and you see people labeling the organization of Satan and the cult word. In fact, there is one poster over there who is almost a carbon copy of Jeremy in his criticism of Chuck Smith and Calvary Chapel. Yet Mark Martin is part of that orgaization, and the CC movement gets admired by the FAF folks, and there is little mention of the theological difficulties of CC. And the abuses of power in Calvary Chapel have been enormous.

The point is that many groups have problems.

However, Adventism is much worse in the area of legalism and abuses than Calvary Chapel.

Also, the Tinkers did become very nervous about my criticism of other evangelical groups, and pointing out their similarities to Adventism. Because the object of FAF is to demonize Adventism and to encourage everyone to “join the larger body of Christ”, no matter what the denomination or the fact that there is just as much legalism and bad theology in some groups as SDA. And now the fact that there are Roman Catholics and Orthodox posters on there who are former SDAs, these groups are now treated with more respect, and it is stated and implied that RCC is better than Adventism.

Well apparently, the FAF folks have very little regard for John MacArthur’s opinion. Because MacArthur regards RCC as a front for the kingdom of Satan, whereas, he knows many SDAs personally, and he will not get close to calling SDA as bad as RCC. However, it is said loud and clear on FAF that MacArthur just “doesn’t get it”.

You see all the time on FAF that SDA is just as bad or worse than Mormonism. This statement is actually an insult to Walter Martin, who also holds little respect by the FAF folk. This also proves that the FAF folk are not trained in Mormonism or the other cults, in order to do an honest comparison. Walter Martin wore a bullet proof vest when visiting Utah, but he prayed with my father and me in an SDA church. So, you are telling me that Martin would give SDAs the time of day, if they were just as bad as Mormons?

What is wrong with just pointing out the bad theology of groups? And then showing objectively from scripture where they are wrong? But, instead, name calling and attributing SDA to demons becomes the order of the day.

But the reason for the lack of objectivity, is the subjectiveness of experience which becomes the norm for what others should experience. Colleen loves to tell the story about her son claiming that Ellen White is of the devil and so is SDA, so, when they prayed to have the spirit of Adventism removed, they felt such relief. This is supposed to prove that everything SDA is therefore evil.

The same subjectivity goes with the Sabbath issue. Colleen related in the same Proclamation magazine I linked to above, that, it was when they willfully broke the Sabbath, that then they experienced freedom in Christ. So, this has now become the norm. It is constantly stated on FAF, that really Romans 14:5,6 doesn’t apply to SDAs, because of the association of the Sabbath with salvation for some in Adventism, and this is definitely true in lots of cases, but shouldn’t become the norm.

I still remember when we ran across some SDAs at an RC Sproul conference in Anaheim, these SDAs happened to have lunch with a group of us from FAF. These SDAs loved hearing the great Reformed theologian Sproul speak on the radio, and came to this conference. But, the priority of the Tinkers was to tell these SDAs who were into Reformed theology, that it was giving up the Sabbath, when they would be truly free in Christ, and it was based on THEIR experience, that they were telling them this.

I am really concerned when strong theological statements are made based on experience.

Stan

Yes, Stan, that’s the problem with experience when you are relying on it alone for taking a position. It’s true that for many adventists the sabbath is staying in the way of obtaining peace with God, but in and by itself, sabbatarianism is not legalism. Using the sabbath keeping as a mark of orthodoxy and non-sabbatarianism as mark of apostasy is legalistic, but only God knows the heart perfectly and will remove any obstacle which stands in the way of peace with Him.

More later…

Gabriel

John 3:16
Gabriel, It is so good to see you posting here.  I have to agree that in and of itself, sabbatarianism is not legalistic.  Not everyone has to give it up to know Jesus Christ.  For me, it was not the sabbath.  It was when I read about EGW and her plagiarism and having others write for her, then claiming God inspired her that I told God, I cannot go back to that church.  She has had to big an influence on it.  When I told God that, He lifted a big burden off my shoulders that I did not know was there.  For others, it is something else. There are some on FAF that still go to church on Saturday, for what ever their reasons are, such as peace in the family, or any other.  I do not condemn them as that is where they are with God right now.  Who am I to tell them any differently???
As always, we do have an awesome God.
Diana

I want to echo what both Stan and Gabriel said about the reluctance with which we make our concerns about FAF and its leadership known.  We know many of the FAF members personally and care deeply about them.  Our interest here is not to defame or loosely criticize FAF, but to lovingly and gently point out some very troubling problems we see developing within this closed group.  Speaking for myself, I would not enjoy (but I would nevertheless accept) the biblically-grounded criticism of another Christian if I was veering away from a biblical ministry.  The forum here remains open for this very purpose.  Sadly, FAF remains closed and each post may be censored by the forum administrators, giving an appearance that certain topics are off-limits, particularly when it comes to questioning the forum leadership.

I also think it’s fair to say that some current Adventists share the concerns about their church that we and many FAF members have.  H.M.S. Richards expressed concerns about the lack of gospel teaching within Adventism in his book, Feed my Sheep. Should we disparage Adventists like Richards (and others who participate on this site) who haven’t left the church because they don’t fit our idea of what God is calling them to do?  Should we brand them as “deceived” or accuse them of having a veiled understanding of truth because they have not made the same decisions about leaving that we have?

This boils down to a relatively basic truth.  Are people saved by Jesus because of their denominational affiliation, or are they saved as individuals?  Believing that Adventists are God’s end-time remnant people is a short step from believing in salvation through denominational affiliation.  Upon exiting the church, the same mindset can infect the former Adventist to the point that everything revolves around getting people to leave Adventism.  For example, Colleen Tinker recently asserted publicly, “In fact, we all have to ‘write off’ Adventism before we can come back and minister effectively to Adventists. As so many have said, it does no good to stay inside and minister if one appears to embrace Adventism. Further, we can’t call people to the truth if we waffle about how bad Adventism is.” The picture painted here is that no one can both follow Christ and remain in the Adventist church.  Furthermore, upon leaving, former Adventists must engage in a certain level of “writing off” of Adventism in order to be effective ministers of the gospel.  Just as some Adventists endeavor to widen the gap between Adventists and the wider Christian church, so too do some in the “anything but Adventism” movement.

Both sides are wrong.  It is not an “us vs. them” message that needs to be proclaimed, but Christ and His gospel.  It is God’s Word that must be more faithfully proclaimed so that those with ears to hear and eyes to see can be saved through the work of God’s gracious Holy Spirit.

We have utterly failed in our ministry to Adventists if we paint a picture of Adventism so dire that everything else looks good in comparison.  If we follow this path, we have employed the same “remnant” mindset of “us against the world”, when the true Christian message is “us for the world, for Christ and for the gospel”.

By setting the decision to leave Adventism as the most important task, FAF has perhaps unwittingly added one more condition to salvation.  The message is “trust Jesus AND leave Adventism”, instead of trusting Jesus and His Word alone.  So much is made on FAF about trusting the Holy Spirit by stepping out in faith, and rightly so.  But if the implication is that the only valid expression of this faith for the Adventist is to leave Adventism, the work of the Spirit has been hijacked.

It’s time to stop splitting people into groups of our own design and start proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ more faithfully.  True faith comes from hearing the Word preached (Romans 10:14-17), not from extended arguments about whether Adventism is a true Christian church or not.  The invisible Christian church is a body of believers, not a denomination, a church building, or an internet forum.  We regrettably obscure this biblical view of Christianity when we funnel everyone else’s experience through our own.

Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life.  Salvation is in Him alone, not in our name on (or off) the Adventist membership roll.  May we all submit to His Word and pray for strength as we continue to minister His gospel to a world that is lost without it.

Greg

Outstanding post Greg!

Well the FAF censors are at it again.

Our dear brother Randy had a post censored tonight on FAF.

He stated an absolute statement of fact as stated here on his post:

“Hi Gilbert,

I have appreciated your thought provoking posts.

I to have recieved many blessings from the John Riesinger website Soundof grace. I would also like to thank our brother Stan Ermshar for bringing it to my attention.

Since Stan was BANNED from this site for challenging the administration regarding their apparent condoning of offensive(to him and others) of over the top demonization of Ellen White and Adventism in general, he has been posting at http://www.forthegospel.org.

I am sure he would be happy to hear from you at .

Blessings in your witness Gilbert.

Randy Gerber”
---------------------------------------------------------

So here is Richard Tinker’s response:

Dear forum members:

The following rule was broken by Randy in this thread--

You must not publish any materials which:
(h) constitute or contain false or misleading indications of origin or statements of fact.

This forum is here “to be a safe, supportive, and healing environment for questioning, transitioning, and former Adventists, and those associated with them.” It is not a place to discuss administrative actions that were done to try to keep the forum fulfilling this purpose.

If you have concerns about this forum or the actions taken by the administration, please contact me directly by email or phone.

For Jesus alone,

Richard
-----------------------------------------------

So Richard just made a false accusation against our dear brother Randy. Randy’s statement is absolutely true. Richard Tinker is totally misrepresenting the facts, and accusing Randy of making false and misleading statements.

For Richard Tinker to imply that Randy made a false statement in this regards is beyond any credibility, and it shows that the Tinkers are getting desperate and I think paranoid when it comes to anyone questioning their ministry and how the forum is being run.

I am deeply troubled by all of this.

I continue to pray for all parties involved in this.

Stan

Posted anonymously by: Grace

Stan, you said, “I am deeply troubled by all of this.”

My thoughts exactly…

At a Bible study I was at last night, the Pastor was commenting about resolving issues within the church (and I’m using the word church in the sense of the “body") that doesn’t “sit right” with us.  He said that if we come across a situation, or hear comments that we don’t agree with, then talk to the leader and express your concerns.  IF after discussing it with the leader (and I already know your feelings about your attempt to do this first step), and the situation is still disturbing to you, then pray that God place you somewhere else where you can feel more comfortable to grow (which I believe you have found that here at forthegospel) AND (here’s the important part), KEEP IT TO YOURSELF!!! 

I know what you’re thinking, “We are not trying to criticize or defame anyone, we are just trying to lovingly point out troubling trends within the FAF group...” I understand.  I get your intentions.  But I ask you this:  How is this helpful to anyone?  Do you really think that this discussion is helping Adventists?  Do you really think that Adventists are seeing this as an opportunity to rethink their theology?  Seriously, let’s keep the overall big picture in focus.

As I’ve watched this issue unfold, I have had many times where I’ve been troubled, confused, and not sure “who to trust”.  On more than one occasion, it has “shaken me up”.  And this is coming from a person who knows both parties personally.  How do you think this affects someone who is just beginning to process out of Adventism, who already has a lot of fear?

The question of “who’s right?” or “who is acting more Christian-like?” is really insignificant.  What IS significant is the ministry.  We are on the SAME page about this.  “For the gospel” touches some people, and FAF touches some people.  There can be different approaches for the same goal.  And ultimately, it’s really about the Holy Spirit and His work on the hearts of people.  Our job isn’t to “weed out” so that the soil of Adventist hearts can be ready to hear the Spirit.  That’s all God.  We can trust Him to handle that.  Our responsibility is to be SENSITIVE to the Spirit, and be ready to act when He calls us to act. 

Stan, I am not asking you to stop being angry, nor am I trying to discount your feelings of being unfairly mistreated.  I understand.  But I am asking you to prayerfully evaluate the way you’ve been handling those feelings.  From my perspective, this whole issue has gone WAY beyond just “gentle criticism”.  Words expressed here are no longer godly, nor done in the Spirit.  In fact, in most cases it’s been an outright attack on the characters of those involved.  I know, I know...you feel the same way about the FAF forum.  And you’re entitled to your opinion and your feelings.  But as I said earlier, keep it to yourself.  Sharing them isn’t helpful to anyone.

To everyone else--I extend this challenge.  Prayerfully consider this issue.  Pray to be sensitive to the Spirit.  Pray for wisdom and discernment before continuing further in this discussion.  Ask yourself, “Is the fruit of the Spirit present in my post?  Are my motives pure?  If a non-believer were to read my post, would he be positively influenced?”

I have written what I felt led to write.  I will not be continuing in this discussion.  To do so, I feel, would be unproductive.  It’s time consuming and a distraction for me (I used part of my devotion time this morning to write this).  And quite frankly, I just don’t have the energy or desire to debate.

So I will end on this, “Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of priase, dwell on these things.” (Phil. 4:8 )

With ongoing prayers for everyone involved,
Grace

John 3:16
Stan and Grace,
I understand what both of you are saying.  That is why I have not said much on this subject.  SOO, what to do???  Let us all pray about it and ask God to take care of the situation on FAF.  That is what I have been doing, privately.
Your sister in Christ,
Diana

Posted anonymously by: Chas

Grace, I don’t see anything on this topic to date that I would consider vindictive or unduly critical.  There are many of us, who have been previously active at FAF, who just can’t stomach it anymore.  It is past time that the admin at FAF is called on their direction.  They are rapidly looking more militant and less like a place of healing.

-Chas

Stan, you are right--this is deeply troubling.  I wonder if Randy Gerber will be the next person to be banned from FAF?  What I find particularly troubling is that Richard Tinker is using an ambiguously-worded forum rule as the motivation for removing any post expressing concerns over what he or his wife are doing.  I don’t know how to say this any other way.  If a Christian ministry demonstrates a predictable pattern of avoiding accountability, the ministry may not only be unbiblical, but it might be the beginning of another charismatic movement where the focus revolves around the exclusive teachings of the leadership.

When I was banned from FAF, the forum rules were not quoted to me and I was not given a warning.  Instead, I received an immediate suspension and an email from Richard Tinker with these words: “The thread that you have been participating in is creating division and your posts are sometimes defamatory. Defamatory posts are not tolerated on the forum.”

My crime?  I merely questioned the credibility of Collen Tinker’s statement, which I will reproduce verbatim: “I know NO Adventist who really knows the real Jesus–to say nothing about salvation and how it really ‘works’.”

If Colleen’s statements cannot be openly challenged and held to Christian accountability, something is wrong.  If she wishes to be treated this way, she is asking people to follow her blindly, in essence elevating herself to a position of infallibility.  Both Stan and I attempted to meet face-to-face with Richard and Colleen in an effort to discuss our concerns, but after initially agreeing to meet, they retracted their offer.

What’s more, the Tinkers even differ with their pastor (Gary Inrig) over their belief that Adventism is not a Christian church. In answering a direct query on whether the Adventist church should be considered a cult like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons and Christian Scientists, Inrig replied, “[Adventism] certainly has major differences from Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Science, in that its major declarations are consistent with historical Christian orthodoxy...it is clear to me that Adventism, for all its problems, is in a very different category than the other three, which are at their core, utterly heterodox.”

I am concerned that such fundamental differences exist between the Tinkers and their own pastor, and it also concerns me that they have isolated themselves from careful theologians and cult apologists who have not drawn the same conclusions about Adventism that they have. Coupled with an unwillingness to answer the questions of other Christians, Colleen and Richard give the appearance that they answer to nobody but themselves.  As Stan pointed out earlier, they’ve even taken a departure from what Dale Ratzlaff wrote in his book Cultic Doctrine of Seventh-day Adventists.

We have been careful on this thread to affirm that there are positive aspects of the Tinker’s former Adventist ministry.  But nobody is perfect, and the body of Christ exists so that erroneous teachings can be exposed and removed.  In this light, the Tinkers should embrace the questions that we and others have asked rather than running from them.  By not answering, they will only raise our concerns further and the questions will multiply.  It is my prayer that we can resolve these concerns through open, Spirit-filled and prayerful Christian dialogue.

I close with the apostle Paul’s counsel to the Ephesians, still valid for us today: “Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise ... giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.” (Ephesians 5:15, 20-21 ESV)

May this be our prayer as we endeavor to strengthen each other for the sake of Jesus and his work in this world.

Greg

I know I am out of the loop on this. It seems to me that For the Gospel should remain just that. Unless, some person or group directly challenges your personal beliefs or ministry why engage in debate?  I think the advice of Gamaliel in Act 5: 34-39 is sound. Of course, I could well be missing the central argument. Obviously, calling anyone from Satan falls under the counsel of Jesus in His Sermon on the Mount Matt 5: 22.

It does seem strange to me that men and women of obvious learning continue to support the Fundamental Beliefs of the SDA Church. It also seems strange to me that men and women of obvious learning would attack by liabling by labeling any who disagree with their understanding.

To paraphrase Patrick Henry and Joshua: “ I know not what course others may take but as for me and my house we will follow the Lord.”

Certainly the Web supplies a large enough platform for each to express their faith.  Thus, I accept Greg closing comment: “let us strengthen each other for the sake of Jesus.”

Posted anonymously by: John Douglas

Well, to be fair, the moderators at CARM do not allow any comments regarding their actions either.

While I understand that FAF does not want to be a battle ground between Adventists and formers, within the definition of a former: questioners, in the process of leaving and GONE - open dialogue between ALL posters - including dissent - should be encouraged if done calmly, rationally and scripturally.

I do not accept that anyone who posts publicly can be exempt from criticism. To foster the atmosphere that specific posters are untouchable creates a one sided view point and squelches the free expression of ideas. This concept is prevalent in the SDA Church, it’s sad to see FAF adopting it as well.

JONVIL