M. L. Andreasen in his very helpful work The Sanctuary Service discusses two primary lessons that the sacrificial system impressed on the mind of the petitioner. The first lesson is Sin Means Death. We are told this explicitly in Romans 6:23 that the wages of sin is simply death. When we sin we are simply buying death, we are setting in motion a death cycle in our lives. We are simply setting ourselves up for future and sometimes present difficulties. The sacrificial system taught the petitioner clearly that sin means death.
The next thing that Andreasen notes is that sacrificial system taught is that forgiveness of sin requires confession and ministration of blood. Sin requires death, to be saved from sin requires the death of the sacrifice as well as confession of sin.
These two primary lessons were taught to those who offered a sacrifice in the typical service. Sometimes preachers note how difficult it was for those who lived under the Typical system. They “had” to bring a lamb, kill it, etc. Often preachers are attempting to describe the great difference between then and now where we presumably don’t have to do any of these things, however, the system lets us know that while we don’t kill a lamb, we kill the Lamb of God. While we don’t go to Jerusalem, we do by faith go to the heavenly tabernacle where Christ ministers. We can never let the “ease” of our forgiveness hide from us the great cost of our salvation to the Son of God.
In the book The Andreasen File Compiled by 
Over the last few years I have heard some clergy and laypeople calling for a movement away from an emphasis on such things as the Sanctuary or Prophecy to a more “Christ-centered emphasis.” While I certainly would have no problem with a Christ-centered approach, in that what else can we as Christians have at our center, I would strongly state that this idea places a false dichotomy. Is there necessarily a distinction between “Christ-centered” and “Adventist fundamental?” The reason why I am writing this is because I had another conversation with a preacher who is finding the present day relevance of the Sanctuary message. He is surprised to find that it is not irrelevant or boring, but a very relevant object lesson of how Salvation and the Great Controversy works. This is in stark contrast to the multiple preachers who think that their goal of preaching the gospel requires minimizing the teachings that make us who we are. 
I heard a Sabbathkeeper argue for a “deeper” understanding of the Sabbath. This is fine and I have argued for the same thing, however a growing number of people are saying that public worship was not a part of Sabbath observance. They argue that the Sabbath was primarily meant to be a one on one “date” between the individual and God and that there was no worship or communal component to the Sabbath.