Adventism In Crisis

[NightEternal]

ADVENTISM IN CRISIS​

OR​

A REVIEW AND FURTHER ANALYSIS​

Of​

"Will the Real Seventh-day Adventist Church Please Stand Up,"
Written by Ralph W. Martin
President, Potomac Conference​

Unpublished Article, Dated 9/7/89​

http://www.btinternet.com/~fountain/sda/adventism_in_crisis.html
Prepared by:​

Thomas Andrew Norris and Elizabeth Gurubatham Norris, Corporate Development Consultants​

October 1989​

Post Office Box 317
Ashton, Maryland 20861​

Submitted to:
North American Division
The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists
12501 Old Columbia Pike
Silver Spring, Maryland 20904

http://www.btinternet.com/~fountain/sda/adventism_in_crisis.html​

 

[NightEternal]

1. The Silent Majority.

The group referred to by Martin as "Regular Adventists" is in reality better termed the "Silent Majority." This segment, which primarily contains individuals who are middle-age or older, comprise approximately 60% of the Church body. The Silent Majority represents those "Regular Adventists" who are too apathetic, busy, or hesitant to take a public position on the theological debate that is the root cause for the Church's present polarization. Many Denominational workers fall into this category. Although their input, especially those in leadership positions, may be quite helpful, they are fearful of the possible repercussions. Therefore, they deliberately avoid the issues at all cost.

Because of its size, it is this segment that is most at risk from the current crisis. They are caught in the middle of a protracted and seemingly unsolvable debate--a debate that they are fearful of participating in themselves. This situation serves only to increase the level of frustration and anger within the main core of the Denomination. As the Church's mismanagement--Davenport, Harris Pine Mills, Adventist Health System, Ellen White's alleged plagiarism, etc.--surfaces from time to time, this segment grows more confused as well as wary and suspicious of the leadership's ability and motives. This segment may hold the key to the Church's immediate future. Should the Denomination lose the support of the Silent Majority, the Church will probably fall.

 

[NightEternal]

2. The Traditionalists.

The "Traditionalists" comprise about 20% of the Church body. Like the Silent Majority, this segment primarily consists of individuals who are middle-aged and older. Martin correctly identifies this segment as those who would like to recreate nineteenth-century Adventism, including the doctrine of perfectionism. The Traditionalists represent the conservative right wing of the church. They were supported by the Review and its editor, Kenneth Wood, during the Righteousness by Faith debates which took place in the 1970s.11 In addition, many independent institutions, such as Wildwood, Heartland, etc., also support this segment.

The Traditionalists believe that sanctification is a vital, necessary ingredient to achieve and retain personal salvation. Therefore, they insist that sanctification be included in the term righteousness by faith. Weiland and Short are the two most notable leaders of this market segment. Although the Traditionalists clearly teach a perfectionistic soteriology, their twentieth-century contribution has been an emphasis on preserving the Denomination's nineteenth-century doctrines including eschatology. As Martin notes, this segment is critically important to the Church.

 

[NightEternal]

3. The Reformationists.

The "Reformationists" are an important category that Martin completely overlooks. This progressive, more youthful segment emphasizes the doctrine of justification by faith and refuses to accept the Church's historical position that sanctification is a valid test for personal salvation. They comprise the remaining 20% of the Adventist community.

The Reformationists have rejected the Traditionalists' position relative to righteousness by faith in favor of the Protestant understanding as articulated by the exiled Dr. Desmond Ford. This segment believes that personal salvation is achieved exclusively by the substitutionary righteousness of Jesus Christ. Therefore, they reject sanctification as a means of salvation and refuse to include this doctrine within the parameters of righteousness by faith.

Although this segment has a far superior soteriolgy, their emphasis on "realized eschatology" has placed them at odds with the Church's historic apocalyptical mission, which is more closely associated with "consummated eschatology." Even though the Reformationists have failed to develop or articulate an eschatological viewpoint, many pastors as well as a large portion within the Silent Majority support their soteriological viewpoint.

As for Martin's third model, the "Intellectual Adventists," it does not appear that they are large enough to warrant a separate segment; rather, the Intellectual Adventists exist primarily within the Silent Majority segment in the hope of carving out a popular following. Intellectual Adventists are educated leaders, mainly from the academic or medical community and, as correctly indicated by Martin, they continually challenge the historic doctrines of the pioneers and see little value in many of the traditions of the Church.

The "Cultural Adventists," Martin's fourth model, is a category which simply does not exist. Perhaps Martin was using this term to refer to the "Worldly Adventists." In any event, "Worldly Adventists" don't stay in the Church long enough to form their own statistically relevant market segment. Lifestyle issues, such as the wedding ring, movies, jewelry, Sabbath observance, etc., are not confined to any one segment--it is a broad issue that is primarily generated by younger members who reside within the Silent Majority and Reformationist segments.

 

[Mankin]

I've seen it in my own church. Most of the people there believe in EGW but don't bother to study it out for themselves and keep out of theological dicussions on the topic. Then there are a few crazies that claim every fundementalist viewpoint in Adventism. In fact I've got one family there that was part of the super fundmentalist offshoot. Apparently their goal coming there was to sort us out.

 

[NightEternal]

The Church leadership can no longer afford to ignore the Reformationist market segment. Their soteriological viewpoint has penetrated much more deeply into the Silent Majority than the perfectionistic position of the Traditionalists. However, unlike the Reformationists, the Traditionalists are currently planning to reach "every Adventist home in North America"12 with their perfectionistic viewpoints relative to the righteousness by faith conflict. In addition, they have produced numerous books, pamphlets, tapes, videos, etc. in a blatant effort to once again convert the Silent Majority to their aberrant soteriological viewpoint. Should the Reformationists, who currently lack a recognized spokesman within the Church, choose to become organized, the Church would be plunged once again into a public struggle over doctrine that will far exceed the conflict of the 1970s.

There is no doubt that the Denomination will be forced to face public doctrinal debate in the near future. The only unanswered questions are when it will happen and what the outcome will be. Because such a confrontation could further weaken and divide the Silent Majority, the Church leadership should devise a method to control the conflict and resolve this potentially volatile situation. Specific solutions will be addressed more fully in the following sections

 

[NightEternal]

Martin's doctrinal analysis of the present crisis is incorrect. His claim that there is "harmony on the basic doctrines" can only be considered wishful thinking. Although he correctly states that the Denomination is in a period of "transition," one of "increasing diversity of thought and lifestyle,"5 his assessment that the Church is not polarized over basic doctrine is woefully inadequate. One must wonder where Martin has been for the last two decades when he states that "our dominant divergences are not centered around our primary Adventist doctrines."6 Such a statement is incomprehensible as well as counterproductive. His claim that the Church agrees on "the saving grace of Jesus Christ and the law and the Sabbath" cannot be supported. In fact, this is the very area that tore the Church apart in the 1970s, and it is still the underlying cause of the problems within the Church today. The unsettled debate over righteousness by faith is without question the single greatest factor impacting the current crisis. And unless Church leaders face this fact honestly, there can be little hope of unity or peace.

Martin continues to miss the point when he refers to the current crisis as, "the latest debates that threaten our unity"7--as if today's conflict is unique or isolated from our Denomination's historical background. The fact of the matter is that in the 1880s, our Church entered into a doctrinal debate that has never been fully understood, much less resolved. As the theological debate continued into the twentieth century, the Denomination's best scholars attempted to resolve the issues but to no avail. In the 1970s, the unresolved debate over righteousness by faith escalated out of control as the Church attempted to settle this century-old conflict by removing the popular Dr. Desmond Ford from the Denomination. Regardless of whether Ford's positions were valid or not, it was this action--more than any other--that directly contributed to the present crisis of polarization and theological drift.

 

[NightEternal]

Martin's third suggestion states that "God does not expect all Christians to think, look, and act alike." Such a position is quite refreshing. No doubt having seen the tragic results of the rigid, hierarchical approach utilized in the 1970s (which is largely responsible for the present crisis), it appears that Martin now realizes that the leadership can no longer force its theological positions upon the Church body. Unlike a decade ago, Martin now claims that the "Church needs a vigorous, pluralistic approach to current questions and values...."22 Unfortunately, adopting such a position now may assist in preventing further collapse, but it certainly will not correct the past. In fact, such a new position raises even more doubt as to the prior attitude and actions of the Church's leadership. One cannot help but think that Martin's call for tolerance is a decade too late.

Although Martin has been careful not to reference Dr. Ford or his supporters who comprise a significant market segment as previously noted, questions must be raised at this point about the extent of Martin's pluralistic proposal. Does his call for tolerance within the Church extend to the Reformationist segment? Does Martin mean that Ford's position on righteousness by faith and his corollary sanctuary position can now be tolerated alongside Weiland's public position of perfection and his aberrant view on Christology? If Martin and other leaders consider the issue of tolerance a "vital" question that "the future of the Church rests,"23 then serious consideration of this issue is of the utmost importance.

Regardless of Martin's answers to these questions, it should be obvious to all concerned that there can be no hope of unity or peace until all sides of the debate are represented fairly. Measures such as this will go a long way in laying the foundation for the development of a contemporary Denominational mission that can be implemented with unity and purpose

 

[NightEternal]

Martin's last proposal states that "Church leaders must take a more aggressive role in creating harmony among Seventh-day Adventists." Martin is correct in his assessment that Denominational leadership is a vital, necessary ingredient to the development of unity and purpose. At the present time, however, the members have very little confidence in the ability of the Denomination's management. They feel alienated and betrayed by the Church leaders. Public support for the Denomination is at an all-time low, and the scandals of the past and present are a haunting reminder of the leadership's inability to properly handle their responsibilities. Moreover, because many ministers and Church administrators refuse to accurately disclose information relating to the various problems confronting the Church today and choose instead to speak in unrealistic terms of glowing optimism, the credibility of the leadership has been severely damaged. Unless the leaders decide to be more open and honest in their public evaluation of Church-related matters--including the righteousness by faith debate--the members will continue to resent them.

Regarding the present state of the ministry, Martin seems genuinely perplexed as he laments the seriousness of this important and critical leadership group. Although he notes that the brightest and best talents "are turning away" from the ministry in pursuit of other, more challenging job opportunities,24 he fails to hazard a guess as to why so many potential theologians are refusing to serve the Adventist community. One of the major reasons can be directly traced to the righteousness by faith debates of the 1970s and the Denomination's heavy-handed, non-pluralist position which terminated the theological discussion in 1980. Unfortunately, as a result, many ministers left the Denomination and those who stayed have been too afraid to speak directly on the important issue of salvation. The action of the Denomination's leadership forced the ministry to sidestep these salvific issues rather than lead the people forward in continued study. Because of the Denomination's censorship, the quality of the sermons have deteriorated markedly and the mission of the Church, which was so closely tied to the righteousness by faith discussion, swiftly vanished. Open Bible discussions as well as frank inquiry about Church history are no longer meaningful or necessary. The pastors are crippled in their holy task and their lack of freedom, combined with the absence of a relevant Church mission, has made them ineffective. Unless this critical group is allowed to think and speak openly and honestly--without the threat of losing their positions--there can be no resolution of the present crisis

 

[Lebesgue]

Again, the problem is that the majority of SDAs are in 3rd world countries and in the 3rd worrld countries they are Traditionalists.

As I said before, I have been to SDA churches in Indonesia and it was like being sucked into a time warp back into the 1940's.

Shalom,

Lebesgue

 

[NightEternal]

Today, the world is awash with an unprecedented tide of freedom and democracy. The political events in China, Russia, and Eastern Europe are beamed on a daily basis into every Church member's home in North America. The members appreciate, as never before, the value of freedom and democratic participation. Church leaders must better understand current world events and repudiate the Denomination's previous attitudes which have largely been responsible for the present crisis. They must learn that they do not--and cannot--control the minds and conscience of Church workers or members. In addition, Church leaders must realize that unless the recent history surrounding the righteousness by faith conflict is honestly addressed and specific action is taken to include the Reformationist segment in the corporate body, there can be no hope for unity, no prospect for the development of a contemporary mission, and no hope of stabilizing the deteriorating market share that threatens the very future of the Denomination

 

[NightEternal]

Diagnosis:

DEAD-ON!

 

[NightEternal]

While the three categories laid out in the article are good, I would submit there are many more subgroups. My list is much more comprehensive!

LIBERAL ADVENTISTS: This group is mostly centralized in southern California, but they can be found almost anywhere in the world. These are Adventists who have accepted the liberal Christian concepts where just about anything goes. Do not hold to literal interpretations of Scripture from Genesis through the Gospels as well as the remainder of the New Testament. Scripture is regarded as a collection of myths or stories and historical exaggerations used to teach moral lessons. Some may hold other Gnostic ancient books as on the same level of importance as the Bible. They do not believe in the literal creation account, world-wide flood, or miracles, including the resurrection of Jesus. Many have accepted evolution in some form into thier belief systems. Beliefs can range from no after-life to Universalism. Homosexuality is accepted as another lifestyle alternative and impulse that God created people with. Ellen White means nothing to them and they have all but discarded most of the distinctive fundamentals as well as orthodox Christian fundamentals. They are often 'cultural' Adventists who still enjoy the oppourtunity to discuss with others philosophical ideas concerning the Sabbath. They may enjoy church services of various kinds or none at all, from high church to celebrationn services. Will often call themselves Christian Agnostics or Agnostic Christians. In fact, the only SDA feature many liberal Adventists have retained is the Sabbath. Almost all attend movies of any sort, wear jewelry, eat meat, drink coffee and caffeinated pops, some partake of unclean foods, many drink alcoholic wine, especially in the areas of California where vineyards are found. Women's ordination has never been a question and the SCC implemented it years ago against the official stand of the conference.

Key Adventist Figures: Steve Daily

PROGRESSIVE ADVENTISTS: Highly regard science, logic, reason and the historical-critical method. Will adopt any modern means of Biblical interpretation available. Want to do away with many of the fundamentals, especially the IJ/1844/Heavenly sanctuary doctrines. Believe Ellen White is a woman of her times whose works may contain inspirational material that may be used in a pastoral way. Do not believe she has doctrinal authourity. Some hold to a literal creation account, world-wide flood and miracles. Others see the Genesis story as non-literal and consider other methods of creation possible. The post-modern movement can also be traced to this group. In understanding post-modern philosophy, they desire to have the church be relevant in the present time and do not regard the history and legacy of the Adventist pioneers as the embodiment of religious truth. Some have adopted the views of the moral influence/larger view Adventists and rejected penal, legal atonemt. Others hold to such atonement theories as Christus Victor, Federal Head and Recapitulation. There may be an amalgam of several atonement theories. A credo would probably be reason over tradition. Spreading like wildfire in many European countries.

Key Adventist Figures: Riendeer Bruinsma, Alden Thompson, Richard Rice, Fritz Guy, John McLarty (Adventist Today), Spectrum Magazine

MORAL INFLUENCE/LARGER VIEW ADVENTISTS: Also found mostly in Southern California/Loma Linda area, this group denies that God will destroy the wicked in the end. They believe that sin itself will consume them without any intervention on God's part. Absolutely deny legal/forensic/penal atonement. Heavy emphasis on the love and mercy of Christ to the exclusion of His anger and justice. Revere Ellen White, but they only pick and choose that which reflects thier unique views. Heavily influenced by the views of Peter Abelard. You can find many of them on the website Heavenly Sanctuary.

Key Figures: Graham Maxwell (Pine Knoll), Dan Smith, Ty Gibson (Light Bearers), Michael Klute.

EVANGELICAL ADVENTISTS: Champions of Reformation justification by faith and the closest segment to the positions of Luther and the reformers. Bitterly fight against sinless perfection/final generation theology and the belief in the sinful nature of Christ. Consider both full-blown heresy. The most user-friendly Adventism and the one subgroup that presents the most acceptable Adventist face to mainline Protestantism. Believe the atonement was completed at the cross. Stand firmly behind Questions On Doctrine as representative of balanced Adventist thought. Have realistic views of inspiration and completely reject verbal inspiration for both the Bible and Ellen White. Ardent holders to thought inspiration. Ellen White highly regarded, but do not believe she has doctrinal authourity and believe she is subject to the New Testament apostles. Some Evangelical Adventists have abandoned EGW, but not all. Completely reject traditional understanding of the IJ as detrimental to assurance of salvation. Hold to pre-Advent judgment where the salvation of God's people is not under question. Very firm and uncompromising in thier opposition to Rome. Worship services are predominately contemporary with CCM as well as heavily influenced by Willow Creek seeker-services.

Key Figures: George Knight, Graeme Bradford, Hans LaRondelle, H.M.S. Richards Sr. (Voice Of Prophecy), Raymond Cottrell, Desmond Ford (Good News Unlimited), Edward Heppenstall, Frank Phillips

MODERATE ADVENTISTS: The largest subgroup by far, this constitutes the majority in the pews. Standard Adventist beliefs, hold to the fundamentals. Avoids either extreme and and tries to be balanced. High regard for Ellen white but do not hold to verbal inspiration nor elevate her above the Bible. Mainline believers who support official church mission ardently. Stay very close to offical GC policy, mandate and standard Adventist worldview.

Key Figures: Mark Finley, Dwight Nelson, Keavin Hayden, Marvin Moore, Roy Adams, Ed Christian, Morris Venden, Jack Sequeira (Vineyard Ministries), Shawn Boonstra (It Is Written), Steven Mosley, Steve Wohlberg, Lonnie Melashenko (Voice Of Prophecy), George Vandeman (Voice Of Prophecy)

CONSERVATIVE/TRADITIONAL ADVENTISTS: Close to moderate Adventists, but with a little more lean to the right. Bitterly oppose women's ordination, CCM, meat-eating, justification by faith as taught by Luther. Very high regard for Ellen White, borderline verbal inspirationists. Revere the law and the Ten Commandments and have sinless perfection tendencies. Many are heavily involved in Jesuit/Catholic/Masonic conspiracy theories. Staunch defenders of the 28 fundamentals and lovers of pioneer, 1800's style Adventism. Major representation in third world countries such as Africa and South America.

Key Figures: William Johnsson, Cifford Goldstein, Doug Batchelor (Amazing Facts), Sam Bacchiocchi (Biblical Perspectives), Sam Koranteng Pipim, Herbert Douglass, Ed Reid, Kenneth Cox, Richard O'Ffill (Revival Sermons), Danny Shelton (3 ABN), Walter Veith (Amazing Discoveries), Jan Marcussen, David Asscherick, Leo Schriven, Bill Tucker (The Quiet Hour), Robert Weiland and Donald Short (The 1888 Message Committee), C.D. Brooks

ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE/TRADITIONAL ADVENTISTS: Historical Adventists who represent the far right. Believe in the sinful nature of Christ, righteousness by works, have a hatred for the Reformation gospel. Sinless perfectionists who believe Christ merely set the example we can follow until we reach the condition of Adam before the fall-all before glorification, which they believe only changes the physical and nothing else. Bitterly oppose Questions On Doctrine, consider it the most hated book ever published in Adventism. Heavy emphasis on IJ, traditional style and making oneself worthy to pass inspection by Jesus. Strict diet reform emphasis, all are vegetarian, most are vegan. Borderline deificaiton of Ellen white, verbal inspirationist leanings. Most regard EGW as equal to the Bible in authourity and the final say in all matters not addressed in Scripture. Many can be found on such websites as Revival Sermons, Great Controversy, Adventist Affirm, SDA Defend, Temcat's House

Key Figures: M.L. Andreason, Kevin Paulson, Larry Kirkpatrick, Joe Crews, Vance farrell, Dennis Priebe, Stephen Lewis

EXTREMIST ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE TRADITIONAL ADVENTISTS/OFFSHOOTS/INDEPENDENT MINISTRIES: About as far right you can go in Adventism. The most disturbing, frightening Adventism available. Ultra-strict, unyeilding dress reform, diet reform, mind reform, any reform you can think of. Hyper-vegan, believe diet is a salvation issue and meat-eaters are lost. Heavy, extreme emphasis on historic Adventism and the pioneers. Agenda to purify the Adventist church and get back to 1800 style Adventism. Shepherd's Rod believe they will be the instruments of destruction God will use to cleanse the camp of modern-day Adventism at some point in the future. Have thier own communes, schools, churches, camp meetings, etc. Deify Ellen White, all but have included her in the Biblical canon. Fringe groups who believe that only a literal 144,000 are going through to the end. Hatred for corporate Adventism and conference structure. Believe the GC is the seat of the beast, riddled with Jesuit infiltrators. Hatred for any modern expressions of Adventism, believe they are the only true Adventists and the rest are lost. All believe the mainline church is in apostasy and is fallen Babylon, and so a call for as many as possible to come out is needed. Many use cultish fear-tactics and brainwashing to recruit and retain thier followers.

Key Groups/Figures: Shepherd's Rod (Victor Houteff), Branch Davidians, SDA Reform, Remnant Of The Remnant, Our Firm Foundation/Hope International (Ralph Larson), Hartland Institute (Colin and Russell Standish)

Anyone who thinks they can solely lay claim to the Adventist name is in denial. This is only a partial list of the groups that are in existence in 2008.

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=38653621&postcount=44