Am I a Progressive?

[Sunrunner]

So after thinking about the "Ellen White and Inspiration" discussion on the main page, I had to stop and think: am I a Progressive? I thought about the topic, and realized that I am very open-minded to the idea that we still have much Truth to understand (though I don't feel a radical overhaul of our doctrines is in need).

However, I am far from liberal on moral issues. That is, dress, music, entertainment, etc.

So what am I?

 

[Sophia7]

The line between progressive and traditional can be somewhat blurry. For the purposes of this forum, progressive has been defined as liberal and/or not in agreement with all 28 of the Adventist fundamental beliefs. However, many of us are not completely one or the other. Personally, I tend to be very conservative on moral and political issues but not so much in some other areas. I can't characterize myself as entirely traditional or entirely progressive.

The Adventist forum was subdivided because of some heated disagreeements many months ago, and these subforums were created and designated non-debate areas so as to help keep fighting to a minimum. Fortunately, the situation has improved, and the subforums are perhaps not quite as necessary now, but they remain open for fellowship and discussion by those who do consider themselves primarily traditional or progressive. The main SDA forum is the place to debate (within reason and according to the forum rules, of course).

Bottom line: you can decide whether you fit better into the traditional or progressive category or whether you don't want to apply either of those labels to yourself.

 

[Sunrunner]

Well, then I'm going to consider myself a tragressive.

 

[StormyOne]

Well, then I'm going to consider myself a tragressive.

thats better than calling yourself a "regressive..." lol

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Haven't been here for a while nice to see the name change, kind of scary that it took so long however.

Anyway here is an article I wrote on the subject which may help people decide if they are Progressive Traditional or Moderate SDA's
http://newprotestants.com/traditio.htm

 

[StormyOne]

Haven't been here for a while nice to see the name change, kind of scary that it took so long however.

Anyway here is an article I wrote on the subject which may help people decide if they are Progressive Traditional or Moderate SDA's
http://newprotestants.com/traditio.htm

thanks for the article link..... it sums up perfectly where I find myself as an adventist.... I had read it before, but lost it after several computer changes...

 

[Sunrunner]

I read the article, and now I'm thinking I'm pretty much just traditional, with a progressive tendency.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Well if you are traditional with only progressive tendancies you will find life in the SDA church far less stressful but you might have to reign in those progressive tendancies sometimes.

 

[Windmill]

Well if you are traditional with only progressive tendancies you will find life in the SDA church far less stressful but you might have to reign in those progressive tendancies sometimes.

Maybe in America. But the South Pacific division is very liberal. We're sending our pastors (our pastors can only come out of one collage- avondale collage) to hillsong to see what they're doing and follow it, etc, you know, into liberal style music, but, the thing which really shows just how liberal this conference is getting is the fact that they're teaching evolution instead of creation to our pastors when they go to avondale collage to get their degrees.

Note I totally disagree with this sort of behavior.

Anyway, since our pastors are taught to be liberal, our people are liberal. "Traditional" SDA's are few and far between. Its a hard, rocky road being a traditionalist.

 

[ttreg]

Maybe in America. But the South Pacific division is very liberal. We're sending our pastors (our pastors can only come out of one collage- avondale collage) to hillsong to see what they're doing and follow it, etc, you know, into liberal style music, but, the thing which really shows just how liberal this conference is getting is the fact that they're teaching evolution instead of creation to our pastors when they go to avondale collage to get their degrees.

Note I totally disagree with this sort of behavior.

Anyway, since our pastors are taught to be liberal, our people are liberal. "Traditional" SDA's are few and far between. Its a hard, rocky road being a traditionalist.

Your kidding right?! Does the president of the General Conferance (whatever he is called if we have one) know about it?

 

[Sophia7]

Your kidding right?! Does the president of the General Conferance (whatever he is called if we have one) know about it?

Yes, I'm sure he does (and he is called the president); however, he doesn't dictate what everyone does or how they should think (and the current president is actually not originally from the U.S. but from Norway). It's true that in some countries Adventists are much more liberal than they are in the United States. On the other hand, in some other countries they are much more conservative. When the GC meets, delegates come from all over the world, and they sometimes have disagreements over controversial issues (women's ordination, for example).

 

[Sunrunner]

More liberal than the United States? The U.S. seems to be the most liberal to me (of course it differs with each State conference, but it seems like the majority of American Adventists are more liberal). There are even a few charismatic Adventist churches near our church that my grandparents have taken me to before where they ignore a lot of foundational Adventist teachings.

I think the number of conservatives/traditionals is shrinking. Many conservatives now identify themselves as "Historic Adventists" because of the big shift in Adventism towards new theology (it's mainly taking place in our schools). There are countless of these Historic Adventist ministries on the web, but I'm not sure they're growing.

 

[ttreg]

Charismatic Adventists? I knew there had to be some somewhere! And my church in pretty conservative but I have been in any other SDA churches in my conference (Gulf states) long enough to see about them.

 

[Sophia7]

More liberal than the United States? The U.S. seems to be the most liberal to me (of course it differs with each State conference, but it seems like the majority of American Adventists are more liberal). There are even a few charismatic Adventist churches near our church that my grandparents have taken me to before where they ignore a lot of foundational Adventist teachings.

I think the number of conservatives/traditionals is shrinking. Many conservatives now identify themselves as "Historic Adventists" because of the big shift in Adventism towards new theology (it's mainly taking place in our schools). There are countless of these Historic Adventist ministries on the web, but I'm not sure they're growing.

Even within the United States, there are extremes--from very liberal to very conservative churches, as well as some more moderate churches--and geographical locations make a big difference in finding what you are looking for. However, in some countries it is definitely harder to find traditional Adventists. There are so many areas in which Adventists can disagree--theology, lifestyle, worship styles, etc. It's a wonder that we have been able to maintain any kind of consistent doctrine and practices throughout the world.

Historic Adventists go way beyond conservatives in trying to guard against any progressive or non-traditional teachings from creeping into the church. It seems to me, from looking at many of the historic SDA (many of which have broken off from the main church and formed independent groups) sites and reading the materials that they send us in the mail or leave on our cars occasionally, that their main focus is on labeling the mainstream Adventist Church "Babylon" and calling people to come out of her. They usually object to the GC leadership and accuse them of apostasizing and leading ordinary members astray into false teachings. Their priority is not where it should be, on spreading the gospel to the world, and they tend to be very legalistic. I don't see how a movement can grow when its members exhibit such a harsh and critical spirit, but they do have a following, and perhaps the Internet has helped because it tends to polarize people who might otherwise be sitting on the fence.

By the way, I attended an Adventist college, and I did not see any evidence that they were trying to undermine traditional Adventist teachings. Everyone in the theology department there was very conservative except for one teacher, who is gone now because he left the church. Sure, there were some more liberal professors in other departments, but they never caused me to have any doubts or tried to convince me that I had to believe the way they did. My college experience gave me a good understanding of Adventism. I grew up Adventist but attended public schools most of my life (except for a couple of years in Adventist elementary schools), so college was really the first time that I was formally educated about what Adventists believe.

 

[Sunrunner]

Historic Adventists go way beyond conservatives in trying to guard against any progressive or non-traditional teachings from creeping into the church. It seems to me, from looking at many of the historic SDA (many of which have broken off from the main church and formed independent groups) sites and reading the materials that they send us in the mail or leave on our cars occasionally, that their main focus is on labeling the mainstream Adventist Church "Babylon" and calling people to come out of her. They usually object to the GC leadership and accuse them of apostasizing and leading ordinary members astray into false teachings. Their priority is not where it should be, on spreading the gospel to the world, and they tend to be very legalistic. I don't see how a movement can grow when its members exhibit such a harsh and critical spirit, but they do have a following, and perhaps the Internet has helped because it tends to polarize people who might otherwise be sitting on the fence.

I don't agree with the term "Historic" Adventist. The Seventh-day Adventist founders believed firmly in Present Truth. That is, God continually imparts increased light to His people (though we must remember that increased light expands or deepens previous light... it doesn't contradict it). By calling themselves "Historic" Adventists, they are basically declaring themselves immune to Present Truth.

I agree, also, that their message is too extreme. I personally disagree with countless things our leaders do, but a message focused on darkness cannot spread the light. That said, I don't think we should make excuses for sins and errors in the camp, but instead prioritize/balance our message.

By the way, I attended an Adventist college, and I did not see any evidence that they were trying to undermine traditional Adventist teachings. Everyone in the theology department there was very conservative except for one teacher, who is gone now because he left the church. Sure, there were some more liberal professors in other departments, but they never caused me to have any doubts or tried to convince me that I had to believe the way they did. My college experience gave me a good understanding of Adventism. I grew up Adventist but attended public schools most of my life (except for a couple of years in Adventist elementary schools), so college was really the first time that I was formally educated about what Adventists believe.

Well, some schools are different than others I suppose. Ever heard of Walla Walla though?

 

[Sophia7]

Well, some schools are different than others I suppose. Ever heard of Walla Walla though?

Yes, I've been to Walla Walla (not as a student), and I've heard some things. It's true that each school is different. That's why I think that we need to be careful of making generalizations, as some people do in declaring that all of our schools are either watering down the truth or teaching outright heresies.

 

[Windmill]

Your kidding right?! Does the president of the General Conferance (whatever he is called if we have one) know about it?

Is the general conference the south pacific one or the specific area I'm in? I know that the south pacific conference (the overall one for Australia, New Zealand and a bunch of islamds) recently booted our south island president (the president in this particular part of New Zealand) a year early because of the sort of stuff going on here they also thought too many people were leaving the church under him.

But, if our only uni/collage is teaching evolution, then I should think that the division its part of, in this case, the south pacific division, knows about it, and obviously doesn't mind it.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

From the first page of this thread:

Maybe in America. But the South Pacific division is very liberal. We're sending our pastors (our pastors can only come out of one collage- avondale collage) to hillsong to see what they're doing and follow it, etc, you know, into liberal style music, but, the thing which really shows just how liberal this conference is getting is the fact that they're teaching evolution instead of creation to our pastors when they go to avondale collage to get their degrees.

I would imagine that most every SDA college will teach evolutionary theory. You would not be prepared to work in many of the sciences without knowing the theory. Theology Students at many SDA schools take special science courses which amount to basically introductory course dealing with biology, geology, astronomy etc. They would not be much of a course without dealing with the evolutionary aspects of each of those areas. So yes our schools do teach evolution and they should. Even if you don't believe in the full evolutionary theory from single celled to complex organisms you would expect a college level education to deal with the topic. And frankly you really can't get by the idea of evolution even if you are a literalist who believes in 6 literal days of creation and very recent 6000-10,000 year creation. Because those lions and crocs sure don't have teeth made to eat vegetable matter.

 

[StormyOne]

From the first page of this thread:


I would imagine that most every SDA college will teach evolutionary theory. You would not be prepared to work in many of the sciences without knowing the theory. Theology Students at many SDA schools take special science courses which amount to basically introductory course dealing with biology, geology, astronomy etc. They would not be much of a course without dealing with the evolutionary aspects of each of those areas. So yes our schools do teach evolution and they should. Even if you don't believe in the full evolutionary theory from single celled to complex organisms you would expect a college level education to deal with the topic. And frankly you really can't get by the idea of evolution even if you are a literalist who believes in 6 literal days of creation and very recent 6000-10,000 year creation. Because those lions and crocs sure don't have teeth made to eat vegetable matter.

unless of course they were created that way.... that then opens another can of worms....

 

[Sophia7]

From the first page of this thread:


I would imagine that most every SDA college will teach evolutionary theory. You would not be prepared to work in many of the sciences without knowing the theory. Theology Students at many SDA schools take special science courses which amount to basically introductory course dealing with biology, geology, astronomy etc. They would not be much of a course without dealing with the evolutionary aspects of each of those areas. So yes our schools do teach evolution and they should. Even if you don't believe in the full evolutionary theory from single celled to complex organisms you would expect a college level education to deal with the topic. And frankly you really can't get by the idea of evolution even if you are a literalist who believes in 6 literal days of creation and very recent 6000-10,000 year creation. Because those lions and crocs sure don't have teeth made to eat vegetable matter.

Yes, they should teach students about evolution so that they have an adequate understanding of all of the issues that they will have to deal with in the scientific realm. However, they should not teach it as the underlying assumption behind all scientific observation that pervades secular science and even some Christian science. And I believe that most Adventist colleges do teach it in a different way than public universities.

As far as the subject of lions and crocodiles, as a creationist who believes in a literal Genesis account and a relatively young earth, I believe that the issue is one of adaptation rather than evolution. Here is a link to an article that offers a possible explanation from a creationist perspective (and also discusses related concerns, such as gene activation and deactivation). This article was written by Walter Veith, who is an Adventist professor at a secular university in South Africa. He used to be an atheist and an evolutionist but had a dramatic conversion experience and became a Christian creationist. Here is a portion that deals with carnivores:

Carnivores: Carnivores kill and eat other animals and in the case of carnivorous mammals, they are classified as such on the strength of their teeth. A carnivore is equipped with the necessary weapons to kill and catch other animals, but this equipment need not necessarily have been designed for that purpose. Yes, possessing the equipment pre-adapts an organism to become a carnivore but this need not have been its original disposition. Panda bears, for example, are classified as carnivores on the strength of their teeth, but they eat bamboo. The same type of teeth can kill and tear flesh, but as in the case of the Panda bear, that need not be what they were designed for. The same can be said for the whole family Ursidae, the bears, that subsist largely on a vegetarian diet eating mainly berries. It is true that they will eat fish if available and can be opportunist carnivores, but they are equally at home on the fields grazing alongside buffalo.

Carnivores are not only adapted for meat eating in terms of their teeth, but their intestines are also shorter than those of herbivores. It is very interesting that diet has an amazing effect on intestinal structure. Intestines have a tremendous capacity for growth, and if sections are removed during operations, some parts can regenerate and grow back to their original length. Carnivores have short intestines because meat does not contain fiber and a short intestine is thus advantageous so that the food does not remain trapped in the intestines for long periods of time. Also, the food of carnivores is high-energy food that is absorbed rapidly. Carnivores whose diets are changed to herbivorous diets adapt rapidly to these diets and subsist very well on them. Lions will also preferably eat the contents of the rumen of a kill first. The rumen contains fermented plant products, and there are numerous accounts of lions and other carnivores that were raised on plant diets such as grains and would not touch meat even if presented to them. Dogs and cats can also subsist very well on vegetarian diets and in fact live much longer and are less aggressive on such diets. The teeth of these animals that act as shears could equally well have been used to shred tough plants in the past, and the fact that they don’t do so now could simply be as a result of the destruction of their original food source. There is plenty of evidence in the palaeontological record that far greater varieties of plants existed in the past than exist today.

Destruction of habitat changes the diets of animals even in our day. Chipmunks traditionally eat seeds in the forests, but with acid rain leaving its mark, food sources are often becoming inadequate, and it is not unusual to see these cute herbivorous animals tearing away at road kills to augment their diets with meat. This is a case of a herbivore becoming a meat scavenger as a result of changing circumstances. . . .