One Man's Journey out of Seventh-day Adventism Chapter 2 Free Reprint Article

NotifySnack

Christian Articles for All of your Publishing Needs!

LIKE US

Translate this Page Here

Word Count: 4154

Send Article To Friend

Print/Use Article

Contact Brian Hyde

One Man's Journey out of Seventh-day Adventism Chapter 2

by Brian Hyde
7/06/2011 / Testimonies

The "Big Church"

Though slightly apprehensive about the possibility of winding up in 'Egypt', I was actually excited at the prospect of being a part of the Seventh-day Adventist Church or 'big church', as the small SDA Reform Movement calls itafter all here was the very organisation that could trace its heritage right back to the very first Adventists who founded the Church 150 years ago.

My initial euphoria quickly evaporated when I observed the general spiritual declension. The local church did not enjoy the family atmosphere that characterised the Reform Movement meetings. Over time, however, I did manage to come into close fellowship with most of the membership and eventually into a closer intimacy with those who shared the same vision I had and who shared my enthusiasm for traditional Adventist values. But there were also certain elements that were openly hostile.

One legacy of the Reform Movement that I took into the Adventist Church, was a thorough grounding in the writings of Ellen G White, which in the Reform Movement are considered as equally inspired as scripture. But attitudes toward E G White in mainstream Adventism are, as I soon discovered, somewhat mixed. I found that there are essentially three groups within the Church:those that believe in her inspiration, those who are ambivalent, and those who wish she would go away.

Another legacy I took with me from the Reform Movement, was a deep interest in SDA history, especially around that of the Minneapolis Conference of 1888 (albeit highly influenced by the politicised version taught by the Reform Movement), which is considered to be a defining moment in the destiny of the SDA Church and a landmark unrivaled in its history. The central theme of the Conference was Righteousness by Faith which was a radical departure from and contrasted sharply with the dry legalism that had pervaded the ranks of Adventism. Soon, the '1888 Message', as it is dubbed by traditional Adventists, began to grow into an all-absorbing passion in my life. After all, it had been hailed by E G White as the 'Latter Rain Message' a message that if accepted would finish the work and usher in the closing scenes of earth's probation. I did all in my power to disseminate material on the 1888 Message but, to my dismay, I encountered either apathy or resistance. In some quarters I experienced open hostilityespecially from the more progressive elements in the church. Then it was that I came into contact with a group of young conservative Romanians. They were hungry for the message and eagerly seized hold upon it. Soon we were studying together and sharing the 'glad tidings' in the local church. What we shared with others outside our own group was tolerated but not approved, especially as our material had its origin in literature from independent sources that were being demonised by the GC in Adventist publications.

This opposition to independent sources is best understood in the context that the Seventh-day Adventist Church considers itself as the only remnant church of God. It believes that even its organization is divinely ordained. Therefore, the SDA organisation claims supremacy within its own community, the Church. This means leaders (the clergy) rule the membership (laity) and the spiritual or religious allegiance of the membership is to the Church. Individuality in religion is not recognised or sanctioned by the Church and all personal initiatives must be subjugated to the organised work and its administration at the highest local level. The organisation lays claim to the unquestioning loyalty of the membership. Hence, if you question either the polity or the policy of the Church, then you are soon made to feel that there is something seriously wrong with your faith and allegiance.

"A twofold task faces the church: (1) train and inspire good leadership, and (2) train and inspire good followership [sic].Leadership will lead in love and understanding, and followership [sic] will support the church leadership unfailingly, even though necessarily critical of some decisions of leadership." (Walter R. Beach, past vice-president of the General Conference, in Adventist Review, October 25, 1979, p 13-14).

The SDA Church is a representative democracy, with a hierarchal pyramid-shaped organisation closely modeled after the theocratic order of ancient Israel. Primacy of authority lies with the General Conference (GC) which is the highest legislative, judicial and ecclesiastical authority.

"The General Conference, then is the Seventh-day Adventist church.the embodiment of the Remnant Church as a Christian denomination, in a unified worldwide organization, to which all baptized Seventh-day Adventists owe spiritual [or religious] allegiance" (Court Transcript of United States vs. the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission vs. the Pacific Press Publishing Association and the General Conference, Opening Brief for Defendants, Civil Case #74-2025 CBR, p 17, brackets added to show meaning).

E G White spoke in terms of the General Conference as being the "voice of God" when it is in session (E G White Testimonies to the Church V.3 p.258). Its powers include policy administration, imposition of doctrine, and the control of the ministry, evangelism and other community departments and all institutions of the world-wide denomination.

During my time as a member of the SDA Church, I was challenged by a former friend and brother of the SDA Reform Movement, to investigate the Adventist concept of church organisation. After conducting intensive research into the subject, I was led to see church organisation as it is defined in scripture. My new understanding was informed particularly by the New Testament teaching of the 'priesthood of believers' and parallel insights provided by A T Jones. Alonzo T Jones was a former Adventist leader and contemporary of E G White. He was a prominent champion of religious liberty during the late 1880s and it seems to me a lesser recognized champion of individuality in religion, a concept fully at one with the 'priesthood of believers' (see for example his book, Lessons from the Reformation).

My own studies of scripture have assisted me to see that the believer's spiritual and religious allegiance is not to sinful men but to Christ, the Head of the Body, His universal church embodied by all Christians, irrespective of church affiliation.
The following are a few lines taken by way of example from Jones' Individuality in Religion, a major work on the subject. His theology exposes the false claims of the SDA Church and the Reform Movement offshoots, as not only unscriptural but iniquitous.

"no church, no council, senate or other collection or association of officials or others, can ever of right command any member even of her own communion in anything pertaining to what he shall believe or not believe, or what he shall teach or not teach . . .

"For the Holy Spirit is given to each individual to guide him "into all truth." The truth of God is infinite and eternal. Therefore it will always be true that there is still an infinity and eternity of truth into which the Christian is to be guided. In the nature of things it is impossible for any other than the infinite and eternal Spirit to guide any one into or in the truth of God. Therefore every soul must be infinitely and eternally free to be guided by the infinite and eternal Spirit into this infinity and eternity of truth. . . .

"But the crowning iniquity of saying anything else than this, is that it recognizes, sanctions, and establishes a mere human tribunal in the place of the eternal Spirit, and clothes a clique of sinful men with the prerogative of that infinite and eternal Spirit, as the guide into and in all truth." (A T Jones, Individuality in Religion)

But the SDA Church (RM offshoots and other independent groups included) chooses to ignore these divine principles, preferring instead to follow its own man-made methods, thereby usurping the authority of Christ's Spirit. The organisational structure and ideology of these organisations is probably second only to that of the Roman Catholic Church. Consider, for example, the following statement issued by the SDA Church:

"It is our responsibility to study the Scriptures for ourselves, to ask for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to submit our understandings to those in the church who are able to judge our findings, and then to abide to the decisions of the church" (Seventh-day Adventist Church Adult Sabbath School Quarterly, Lesson 13, March 28, 1987, p.92 or Teacher's Edition p.153).

The SDA Church not only lays claim to the authority that its clergy has over the membership but the right that the clergy has to the unquestioning loyalty of its membership. Thus, the historical understanding is that if anything 'goes wrong at the top'at leadership levelGod will intervene and make any wrongs right. In other words, mind your own business! This means that tithes and offerings, for instance, are to be returned to the Church by the rank-and-file member, who is to dispense with any reservations he may have about financial corruption reported at the head of the work!

Notwithstanding the spiritual edification that I did receive at times when attending local SDA churches, eventually evidence of wide-spread apostasy among its membership, persistent reports and allegations of financial corruption at GC level, (e.g. misappropriation of millions of dollars of tithe monies and tithe invested on the USA stock market; misuse of ADRA monies; law suits against dissident leaders; persecution of conservative believers; and my own disagreement with SDA church ideology and polity; gradually took their toll on me. I became disillusioned; convinced that despite its claims, this organisation was not destined to triumph after all.

I drifted away, almost imperceptibly at first, to the fringes of Adventism. There I found myself among the 'independents'.

Independents

Independent Seventh-day Adventists are members who operate, as their name suggests, independent of the main body of of Seventh-day Adventists, in order to carry out specialist ministries founded on historical or traditional views. Some of them, like those operating under the name of Truth For Today (UK) and Steps to Life (USA), have voluntarily separated or have been forcibly separated because of concerns over declining spiritual standards and widespread corruption in the main body. I affectionately dubbed the members of these groups 'concerned brethren'.

One interesting fact about many of these brethren is that most have refused to resign their membership of the main body of Seventh-day Adventists. To my mind, this practice appeared hypocritical.

Generally, the independents hold to traditional or historic teachings of Seventh-day Adventism. In the early days they thought of themselves as 'historic' Adventists but nowadays most prefer to think of themselves as 'present truth' believers.

Mainline Seventh-day Adventist churches are notorious for the almost total disregard for reverence in their meeting places (sanctuaries) during worship services. The lack of decorum among children is especially evident. In fact, the orthodox churches, like the Anglican Church and the Roman Catholic Church, are by comparison, to be commended for the quiet dignity and discipline that characterises many of their worship services. Independent Seventh-day Adventists likewise conduct their meetings with quiet solemnity and appropriate decorum. As I have indicated, most separatist groups are dedicated Seventh-day Adventists who hold a genuine concern about the worldliness that has become a hallmark of mainstream Seventh-day Adventist churches. They long for a return to the traditional beliefs and standards that shaped historic Adventism. However, because most independents operate on the fringes of the main body of the SDA church, and are not shy in exposing issues that the larger denomination would prefer to keep under wraps, they are often maligned and labeled as "trouble-makers", "subversives" or even "fanatics", by those who might know anything about them. But these charges leveled at the Independents are without foundation, being based on mere hearsay or narrow-minded prejudice.

As an independent, I had a desire to be a faithful Seventh-day Adventist, to worship God in "spirit and in truth"that is, to coin a Whiteism, on the "platform of truth" and the 'blueprint' (Froom) that the Lord had given Adventists through the Bible and the 'Spirit of Prophecy' (as E G White's testimonies are named by Adventists). I earnestly desired to fulfill the commission to proclaim the "Three Angels Message" as the overarching message of Adventism is called (based on Revelation 14:6-12). It seemed to me that some of the independents were, actually fulfilling this criterion in their respective ministries. For this reason I felt a strong affinity with them.

Notwithstanding their faithful commitment to the historic truths of Adventism, I came to realise that there were uncomfortable similarities with the SDA Reform Movement. There was the same focus on the Law and emphasis on obedience. There was the same focus on the faults of others who did not conform to their ideas. This critical spirit was one I must confess I was not free from personally. As far as finding fault with others is concerned, Christ warns us that it breeds a sense of self-righteousness, a 'holier than thou' attitude. Focusing on the faults of others takes one's attention away from one's own failings and, worse still, away from Christ and His commission to spread the gospel message. This tendency to fault-find the larger denomination was not confined to that organization but even existed between the different organisations the independents represented.

I personally witnessed inter-group tensions and at once time open conflict. I attended a meeting that was held for the main purpose of finding ways of uniting a range of respective ministries existing across the UK. I was really enthusiastic about this development. Alas, it failed, leaving individual ministries further apart than ever. This was due to a lack of Christian grace, personal ambition and personal resentment. There were those who demonstrated that they were more concerned with safe-guarding their particular patch of the vineyard, so to speak, than in obeying the Lord's call to unity. Even E G White in her writings, calls for members to stand together on the "platform of eternal truth". But this call found no answering echo among these groups. I had joined the independents thinking that they were doing the actual work ordained of God, as embodied in the proclamation of the '1888 Message'. Unfortunately and much to my bitter disappointment, I soon discovered that this is not a vision they shared.

Faith, and Works?

A significant turning point in my life and my association with the Independents came with an incident that took place at a meeting held in the Cambridge home of one of the members of a particular group. There the leader of this group spent an hour running through texts in the New Testament that apparently showed a strong relationship between faith and works. His aim was to dispute the belief that salvation is by faith alone. Though he did not say directly that we are saved by our works his meaning was clear: good works are essential if we are to be saved. And naturally, the brother had to present works in this manner because this is an essential aspect of Seventh-day Adventist doctrine. You must be perfect to be saved, otherwise you will be lost. Even when speaking of being justification by faith, Adventist scholars, evangelists and teachers will speak of an 'imparted righteousness' (as distinct from 'imputed righteousness' justification), calling it 'Christ's righteousness' which they claim is the dynamic for attaining the sinless perfection they believe is required for salvation.
At the time all my 'Spirit of Prophecy' and other Adventist books were abroad in storage. Then, the Bible was the only source of study available. I was well into the books of Ephesians and Romans and using the inductive method of study drawing upon online explanations of the original Greek language and parallel Bible commentaries. I had been following this practice for some time and I had gained some remarkable insights that served to inspire and reassure my heart. My studies told of what the Lord Jesus has done and what we are, positionally, in Him through faith alone. They told of the true relation of our works to salvation.

As the leader launched into his topic I listened closely hoping to learn sound doctrine. But what I heard provoked a very strong reaction in me. The leader rapidly read through a long list of texts of each one of which spoke of works. He used them to build an argument that works are essential for salvation. It is not enough to talk about faith we need to consider the importance of works in fitting us for Heaven. His meaning was crystal clearwithout works we cannot be saved.

The leader, a dapper man, the quintessence of an Englishman in speech and manner, usually taught with an air of authority that together with his lively manner, I found irresistible. His delivery commanded your full attention. You were hard pressed to question the validity of anything he said. Those listening were clearly impressed by the force of his argument, for they were expressing their agreement in the usual ways. I was influenced by his reasoning and felt compelled to submit to agree with his conclusion. But uneasiness stole over me. I could not account for why I had reached a different understanding in my personal studies. I became uncomfortable but repressed these feelings immediately. But then I noticed that his interpretation of some texts definitely did not accord with the meaning the Bible intended and did not support his argument. As I listened almost unconsciously a sense of indignation began to well up inside me. Normally I listen passively to whatever is being said and even if I do not necessarily feel like agreeing with everything that is being promoted, I am usually able to keep my feelings in check. And besides we sometimes see things slightly differently. Other times we get things wrong. And so, I told myself. But today this was different and I felt that certain deductions the leader was making were false. Ashamed that I should feel opposition in my spirit, right in the middle of a sacred service, I determined to keep my emotions firmly under control. But the indignation would not be extinguished. I could not understand why I was feeling so. Indignation turned to depression. The more I listened the stronger the conviction grew that what was being said was simply not true! Alas, I was in no position to dispute the speaker's claim. To have done so with any effect would have necessitated a review the texts concerned and the drafting of alternative explanations. This was not the time or place. It would have been unthinkable of me to contend with the leader in front of the members. The leader's influence over the group is strong and I was merely an infrequent visitor, hardly known by some of those present. I reasoned that they would have been affronted if I had contended with him. When I was returning home that day the unease and depression of spirit remained.

The next day during my morning study, I reflected on the events of the previous day and the negative feelings I had experienced. The leader is a man held in high esteem for his unfeigned Christian sincerity and knowledge of scripture. How could he be wrong? Yet I was not satisfied. Emotionally, I felt flat. I went back to my studies and checked over my notes to see how I had arrived at my former conclusions. Had I arrived at wrong conclusions? After carefully reviewing my notes and re-reading the relevant scripture and commentaries, it did not take me long to see that they vindicated my former understanding as correct. I was now sure that I had been right all along. The sense of relief I felt was warm, healing.

Then, suddenly I made the connection! It broke upon my senses why I had felt so uneasy during the Cambridge service. What had been presented was the antithesis of the truth my recent studies had revealed! It was hardly surprising I reacted the way I didthe presentation had robbed me of my former peace and assurance!

"For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselvs, it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so that no one can boast."

"Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference"

(Ephesians 2:8-9 NET; Romans 2: 20-22 KJV)

We are not justified) by our works. Salvation is "by faith of Jesus" alone.

"Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Romans 3:20)

"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." (v28)

We are not justified (declared righteous and reconciled to God) by works of the law; we are justified WITHOUT OR APART from the works of the lawirrespective of how righteous they may be. If justification grants salvation and salvation is without or apart from works of the law then we are not saved by our works. It is freely by His grace all the way! Justification with God is the root of salvation and sanctification is the fruit of salvation. Praise God!

This truth was beginning to dawn upon me and now, I knew enough to realise that the leader's theology was somehow seriously flawed. It undermined my confidence in his theology and the merits of the group as a whole.

Notwithstanding, doubts about the role of law remained. Not yet did I possess adequate knowledge of the distinction between the old covenant of law and the new covenant of grace and its corollary the role that the law has in relation to the Christian. Yet, right here, with this experience regarding my erstwhile companions, the first seeds of the true gospel were sown.

During our usual Sabbath meetings the leader I have been referring to regularly placed on display a range of publications for members to freely take home. But I noticed that there was an absence of any literature that made reference to the 1888 Message. This puzzled me and one day, when I was sat with the leader at our lunch-time meal, I quietly raised the question with him. He told me that he did not display literature on the 1888 Message and then proceeded to explain why. As his explanation unfolded elements of it corroborated a story I had heard previously. This was that a certain individual, an American evangelist, (wife of a prominent SDA pastor and author of many books), who held a strong influence over the minds of conservative groups in the UK during the late 1980s, had apparently disagreed with the teachings of another independent group that specialised in presenting the 1888 Message. The group operates under the name, The 1888 Message Study Committee. She was so opposed to its views that she was instrumental in having any their removed from tent meetings. The phrase '1888 Message' became associated with 'New Theology', a term coined by SDAs as representative of any teaching that runs counter to the fundamental core beliefs of historic Adventism.

The leader told me that for fear of prejudicing the minds of the regulars who attended his meetings, he chose not to mention the 1888 Message! The reason I relate this story as part of my testimony, is that I believe that the 1888 Message would actually safeguarded him and his charges, from placing the wrong emphasis on good works! In all fairness I know the leader to be a sincere and devout man and I pray that God will lift the veil from his eyes as He has from mine.

Not long after my experience in Cambridge I finally stopped attending meetings held by any of these groups. I no longer felt an affinity with them and was now fearful of being influenced by legalism. But now, once again I had a crisis of identity. Where did I go from here?

For some time following this incident, my wife and I worshipped on our own at home on the Sabbath. Then tired of worshipping on our own, I decided to give the SDA Church another try. We attended a local SDA church in the hope of finding like minds. But my wife and I never felt that we were accepted as part of its fellowship and eventually we stopped attending. I did not know it then but this was to be the last time I ever stepped foot in a Seventh-day Adventist Church as a member of that organisation. I was now on a path that would lead me, inexorably, back to orthodox Christianity.

Brian Hyde is a first generation born-again Christian who lives in the United Kingdom. He holds a BSc (Hons) degree in Social Work and is a part-time social work mentor. He is currently researching new covenant theology and enjoys writing the occasional faith article. The link to his website is www.wayministry.org

Article Source: http://www.faithwriters.com-CHRISTIAN WRITERS

If you died today, are you absolutely certain that you would go to heaven? You can be! Click here and TRUST JESUS NOW