As you can tell from my posts, I'm not the biggest fan of Amazing Facts. I think they are effective at reaching a certain kind of person which I'm not necessarily opposed to. Yet, I still do have serious reservations about some of their theology. Alan Parker, VP of Evangelism for Amazing Facts actually wrote a comment over on the Spectrum Blog which I'll share here:
I sent an email along and thanked him for his thoughtful response. I take back my comments about the classic A.F. lineup and approach because I obviously was wrong. I decided it might be interesting to interview Dr. Parker and get a better feel for A.F. and he agreed to answer some of my questions. We'll have an email interview/dialogue over the next few days which he has agreed to let me post on the blog. Stay tuned and send me an email or comment if you have any questions you would like to ask.
Hey Trevan, I read with interest your experiences over the last few weeks. Evangelism can be challenging, but I've appreciated your open and sincere critique. However, since I'm in charge of the evangelism department at Amazing Facts, I'm a little curious as to the constant references to a "classic Amazing Facts lineup" and AF approach. Since each of our evangelists has a unique lineup of sermons, I'm not sure that there is a "classic" approach any more. A number have moved their second coming sermon to later in their meetings. One uses a verse by verse approach to the book of Revelation. Many are very intentional about a positive, Christ-centered focus. Since public evangelism does call for lifestyle change, there are times when we must confront the anomalies of their current paradigm and call for a decision (paradigm shift). We try to do this in a context of love and acceptance, but it can seem very confrontational. I'm not aware that any of our evangelists have ever used money as an incentive for attendance, and I know that I personally feel uncomfortable with this approach. It is true that we seem to reach nominal Christians best in a public evangelistic meeting. I think that the advertising itself draws this kind of crowd. We have found that very few secular people are likely to attend a meeting that deals with religious themes. Secular people are likely to be reached better by other forms of evangelism. We've found that Adventist public evangelism is most successful at reaching Christians who have stopped attending church or become disatisfied with their church, rather than committed Christians of other churches. I think Adventist evangelism provides an a biblical alternative to disatisfied and disaffected Christians.
Thanks for your thoughts!
I sent an email along and thanked him for his thoughtful response. I take back my comments about the classic A.F. lineup and approach because I obviously was wrong. I decided it might be interesting to interview Dr. Parker and get a better feel for A.F. and he agreed to answer some of my questions. We'll have an email interview/dialogue over the next few days which he has agreed to let me post on the blog. Stay tuned and send me an email or comment if you have any questions you would like to ask.
Comments
One Adventist, commenting on a recent Sabbath school lesson, wrote that after God closes “probation” it will not be possible for anyone to make a choice.
I believe the exact opposite of that. I believe that Jesus died and that he now ministers on our behalf and that he will come again to rescue his waiting saints precisely so that we will ALWAYS be free to choose--so that we will ALWAYS have free moral agency.
There is nothing “wrong” with telling people what they “should do”. Christians do good things and they “should do” those things. But there is a difference between telling people what they should do on the one hand and telling them to do it on the other hand. Few Adventist seem to understand the difference. What is worse, most Adventist “evangelists” tell people to do things even more often than Adventist laity do.
After being a voting member of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination for fifty years, it has been only recently that I have reluctantly decided that, while there are other true protestants (beside my wife and myself) among the members of our denomination, the majority of Adventists in my newly adopted state are not protestants.
I also believe that Adventists who are not protestants will be deceived before the Lord returns because they have not carefully built their own personal understanding of the nature of the kingdom and the nature of the king brick by deliberate biblical brick on the basic biblical principles of the protestant reformation. From the time I can remember until recently, I thought of the modern-day advent movement as the CONTINUATION of the protestant reformation. I would prefer to find enough protestant adventists so I can continue to think that way. Mormons (members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) are taught to say that “the gospel HAS BEEN restored through Joseph Smith and his successors”. I am appalled by the number of Adventists who think that “truth” HAS BEEN restored by the leaders of our denomination and that once a person has decided that our denomination is “right”, there is nothing else to learn except what the denomination teaches. For such Adventists, the reformation cannot continue.
Develop a Protestant Adventist Evangelistic Association (by this name or any other that might be considered appropriate). Details about how to insure that the Association would promote protestant (as opposed to “restorationist”) Adventism will be provided upon request.
My goal in making this suggestion is nothing less than to encourage the promulgation of the three angels’ messages in ways that those messages will be perceived to be, indeed, glad tidings. They were not glad tidings they way they were taught to my mother in the nineteen twenties. My parents made some improvements in the way those messages were taught to me. I believe I have made even more improvements in the way I teach them to others. Our children are protestants, not in the sense of being members of “protestant” denominations, but in most or all of the ways implied in my comments about barriers to Adventist evangelism. I am still willing to think of the modern-day advent movement as protestant. But our children know so few other protestant Adventists besides my wife and myself, they still think they must remain at arms’ distance from the Seventh-day Adventist denomination. I hope and pray that situation can change before the Lord returns.
Roger Metzger
4606 Miller Road
Buckley, Michigan 49620
r.metzger44@gmail.com
I’m electronically challenged, so maybe you can help me out here.
When I Googled “alternative Adventist evangelism”, there was a message under “Divergence: PSR -- 2 (Amazing Facts Responds)”. It read, “Oct 14, 2006 ... I think Adventist evangelism provides an a biblical alternative to disatisfied and disaffected Christians. Thanks for your thoughts! …”
Failing to notice the date, and thinking maybe you were responding to my messages that you had posted, I pulled up you website.
Not finding that message where you had posted mine, (and again failing to notice anything about dates), I started reading from the “blog archive”.
After reading a couple of those, I finally did notice that they had been written in ‘06!
Words like “Twitter” and “Facebook” are still a foreign language for me. I guess I couldn’t even define “blog” if I were asked to do so.
If you can tell me how to participate in the conversation in the “Twitter” section, maybe I could do so. I didn’t read very far but I didn’t find any comments along this line of thought: Adventists need to be very careful about applauding anti-smoking laws. (And even more careful about working for their adoption.) Do Adventists remember that, in the past, many legislators who favored Sunday “blue laws” argued that they were not religious laws but health measures?
Those who deny liberty to others deserve it not for themselves and, under a just God, it cannot long continue. -- Abraham Lincoln
If Adventists hope to have a leg to stand on in legislative debates about a weekly holy day, they must begin right now to take the side of liberty on every other issue. This is especially true of discussions involving any requisites for voting membership in our denomination. If something is a requisite for membership in a religious organization, it is a religious issue, even if it can be argued that it is also a health issue. By what logic can we argue that Adventists “should” favor laws against smoking and not laws against eating pork? How far are “Christians” willing to go in trying to use civil laws to get people to “act like Christians”? How far are Adventists willing to go in trying to use civil laws to get people to “act like Adventists?
Even if it is better to do the right thing for the wrong reason than to not do the right thing, is legislative activism a substitute for educating the general populace about the health advantages of not smoking and not working seven days a week?
Thoughts to ponder.
Roger Metzger