Putting the SDA prohibition of unclean meat at 1981 may be technically true at least in how it was expressed, but it was longstanding practice and standard among SDAs since the 1800s.
It is true that people can take a standard as the end point, but this has always been true. Unless we continue to apply the truth to ourselves and our choices, we will naturally become satisfied with our situation and complacent.
I am not sure that this point is relevant to the discussion at hand.
The point of the article highlights a tendency in human nature:
“Members may feel that by becoming vegetarians or abstaining from unclean meats, they have “arrived” and no longer need to pursue deeper reforms, even though further light has been given about a fully plant-based diet.”
People have a tendency to just meet the bare minimum visible standards as opposed to aiming higher (I love your username 
).
My view is that health reform and the gospel mission is better served by removing the test on flesh, and aiming higher in our denominational commitment to health reform in all its phases.
Thanks for your thoughts. I agree on aiming higher, but I don’t think one thing militates against the other here. 
Part of my concern is that the way we have framed this test actually works against the mission of the church. We are called to reach all people, in all places, and to meet them where they are. If the goal is to present a united voice on health and temperance - particularly regarding flesh eating - then that purpose is better accomplished through internal policies, practice, and education, rather than by making it a test of fellowship. What does SDARM do in areas where agriculture is extremely limited? Or in areas where the culture depends almost entirely on livestock or fish?
1 Like