Tom Norris interview on Re-inventing the Adventist Wheel

[NightEternal]

Tom Norris was raised as a Seventh-day Adventist in Takoma Park, MD and studied theology at Columbia Union College in the 1970's. Soon after, he spent significant time conducting independent research in the General Conference Archives and the Ellen G. White Estate, where he made a life-changing discovery - finding the hidden 1888 documents. Over the years he has interviewed a number of prominent Adventist scholars, theologians, and pastors ranging from the late Arthur White to the exiled Dr. Desmond Ford. In addition, he has amassed a large private library, which includes numerous rare books and manuscripts about Adventist theology and history. He is presently the online editor of Adventist Reform, and can be found at Adventist for Tomorrow or All Experts answering questions online about SDA theology and history as well as promoting Adventist Reform. Tom is a Real Estate developer and Builder by trade and has been married 20 years to Elizabeth Gurubatham, a 3rd generation SDA. Both attend the Capital Memorial SDA Church. His hobbies, in addition to Adventist history, include racquetball, weight lifting, and playing the board game QUINTO. He's also a Member of the Society of Mayflower Descendants.

: : :​

Tom, you’re a self-proclaimed “expert” on Adventist history and the Three Angels message. You've spent many years going through the General Conference archives and the Ellen White Estate doing extensive independent research. What led you to want to conduct such massive research and what did you discover?


Tom: I was taught to believe that the Advent Movement was prophetic, special, and true, and that SDA's would play a major role in the last days. However, during the 1970's, when I was studying theology at Columbia Union College, a number of challenging issues surfaced that demanded attention and study.

Up until that point, I was naively unaware that there were divisions within the SDA church about Prophecy, Christology, and Salvation. I was surprised to learn that there were unsettling questions about the history of Battle Creek, especially about the 1888 debates. Moreover, there were even opposing versions of Ellen White emerging, one very legalistic and authoritarian; the other more Protestant, and focused on the Gospel. It was a very confusing time that caused great debate and division.

In an attempt to resolve this conundrum, I went to the Takoma Park General Conference in 1978 to research the historical records of the 1888 period. There, in the recently opened Archives, was the genuine record of the 1888 debates that had been hidden since the turn of the 20th century. Here was the historical proof about what happened in Battle Creek between Ellen White and Uriah Smith. This surprising discovery facilitated my entrance into the White Estate, over the objections of the retired Arthur White, where it immediately became obvious that he had suppressed the history of 1888 and dishonestly manipulated Ellen White's writings and theology.

It was a stunning discovery that was quickly covered up so that the leaders could go forward to attack Dr. (Desmond) Ford and the evangelicals at Glacier View. Even though the historical answers had been discovered that would have solved the debates, it made no difference to those in charge. They were determined to protect a false view about Ellen White and defend Traditional Adventism as fabricated by the Takoma Park apologists.

http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/

I am a huge fan of Tom Norris. He has some excellent insights on Adventist Tomorrow and the man is a no-nonsense Progressive SDA pitbull. His aggressive posts there are both dead-on and hilarious. He shows no mercy towards the Trads, and I can respect that even if I don't agree with everything he espouses. I like his style!

GO TOM! EXPOSE THE LIES!

 

[NightEternal]

Expert Profile: Tom Norris

Expertise: I can answer most any question about church history and theology, starting from 1818 when William Miller articulated the 1st Angels Message that became the foundation of the Adventist Movement. While this first prophetic message terminated in the spring of 1844, it was followed by what Adventists refer to as the 2nd Angels Message, which dates from the spring of 1844 until the great disappointment of October 22, 1844. By 1847, the 3rd Angels Message had been developed and this Sabbatarian theology represents the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Moreover, I can explain the historical and theological development of the SDA denomination from its beginning and on through the great Battle Creek schism that forced the SDA's to retreat to Takoma Park. Here the 20th century church recovered from their internal battles that had erupted at the 1888 General Conference in Minneapolis over the definition of the law and the Gospel. Fearing another repeat of this disaster, President Daniels, determined to hide this debate. However, this policy led to more conflict, especially over the role and authority of Ellen White, a unique and accomplished religious writer that had remarkable spiritual gifts. However, by the decade of the 1970`s, the church once again erupted into debate. The hierarchy settled the turmoil in 1980 with the trial of Dr. Desmond Ford at Glacier View. Here Dr. Ford was exiled because he supposedly disagreed with Ellen White over the Fundamentals. But this controversial action resulted in another major schism that is still in progress today.

Tom Norris was raised as a Seventh-day Adventist in Takoma Park, Md. He attended SDA grade and High schools, moving on to study Adventist theology at Columbia Union College. He also spent significant time conducting independent research in the General Conference Archives and the Ellen G. White Estate. Over the years he has also interviewed a number of prominent Adventist scholars, theologians, and Pastors ranging from the late Arthur White to the exiled Dr. Desmond Ford. In addition, he has amassed a large private library, which includes numerous rare books and manuscripts about Adventist theology and history. He is presently the online editor of Adventist Reform, and can be found at Adventist for Tomorrow answering questions online about SDA theology and history as well as promoting Adventist Reform.

What do you still hope to achieve/learn in this field? Seventh-day Adventist eschatology was meant to reach a point of sophistication whereby a new and final Message would emerge at the end of time. So this is the challenge for this unique group, whose self-proclaimed mission is to complete the Protestant Reformation and prepare the church for the Great Time of Trouble that precedes the Second Coming.

Something interesting about this subject that others may not know: Many do not understand that the Adventist Movement is responsible for changing the eschatological paradigm for the entire Protestant church. Although every 19th century church repudiated their pre-millennial eschatology about the Second Coming as the Day of Judgment, virtually every denomination has since embraced this fundamental Adventist theology.

What do you like about this subject? The Study of Seventh-day Adventism is fascinating because it deals with how the world will end. With the recent focus on WMD's and the Middle East, the eschatology of the SDA's becomes even more timely and provocative. The SDA's also have a very interesting emphasis on Natural Health and Vegetarianism.

Something controversial or provocative about this subject The modern SDA Church has not been honest about Historic Adventism. The leaders have seriously and dishonestly misrepresented the theology of Ellen G White and the Adventist Pioneers, even as they have beem caught hiding thousands of documents in the White Estate in order to promote myths and legends as if they were facts.

 

[tall73]

From the interview:

...the leaders went on to embrace a deliberate policy of "pluralism," which was meant to overlook and ignore the many anomalies and problems that were left unresolved in the rush to exile Dr. Ford and repudiate the Gospel.


Here is a quote from him over on AllExperts that gave more detail on this contention of his:

The number that you speak about is based on Monte Sahlin's 1988 study, "The Dropout Problem in the Adventist Church in North America," NAD Church Ministries Reports. This was an internal and private report that stunned the leaders. But it was a correct study, which essentially showed the devastation from Glacier View, as well as the awful bookkeeping in the local churches.

See also: http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day-Adventists-2318/Decline-attendance.htm

In the late 1980's, because of my research in the White Estate, the NAD shared this study with me, and also an unpublished article that represented the new direction that the church was planning to take. So I met with Monte and Bob Dale, and others to give them my views about how the church should move forward to address this crisis. They all knew that Glacier View and the Walter Rea book had devastated the church and they also knew they had to mitigate the damage and stop the hemorrhage.

My views were presented in 1989 in a private paper entitled: ADVENTISM IN CRISIS. It was actually a detailed response to the proposed direction of Pluralism that was being promoted by Ralph Martin, President of the Potomac Conference. I took the position that the church should tell the truth and embrace major Reform, but the leaders choose another course that has proven disastrous for Adventism.

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

 

[NightEternal]

I would love to see Norris produce the goods at some point in time. If he is indeed sitting on a powder-keg of evidence as he claims, it could radically alter the future of Adventism as we know it.

It will be interesting to see how this progresses. I have heard Tom has plans to level a court order against the EGW Estate at some point.

That I would pay to see happen.

 

[NightEternal]

A choice exerpt from the interview:

Back in 1999, you did an extensive interview with Dr. Desmond Ford which was published on the Adventist Today Forum. How was this interview received? What were its repercussions?

Tom: Many appreciated Dr. Ford's detailed and comprehensive interview. It was well received by the Online Adventist Community. However, I don't think the General Conference leaders appreciated it. In fact, after the Ford Interview went online, I personally went to the General Conference for an official reply. But no one would dare attempt such a response. Not anyone in the White Estate, Biblical Research, or the Review. Not even Clifford Goldstein, one of the leading apologists for the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment.

Today, Dr. Ford's views and positions still stand strong. Not one Church apologist, theologian, or scholar has credibly refuted him. This is because his positions are as solid and true today as they were back in 1980 when he was exiled by those who incorrectly claimed he was an enemy of Ellen White and a traitor to the Advent Cause.


Dr. Ford's exile for supposedly "disagreeing" with Ellen White over the fundamentals at Glacier View caused major division then. How has this division manifested itself in 2008 with new generations of Adventists?


Tom: The fallout from Glacier View has devastated the church and terminated its eschatological focus and ruined its doctrinal credibility. Which means that the SDA's no longer have an active, contemporary prophetic message. Moreover, few today, within or without the church, have much good to say about Adventism, which explains why the Internet is so full of angry and relentless critics, most all of which were former SDA's.

It is estimated that since 1980, 5 million members have left the North American church because of all the confusion and debate over the Gospel. Millions of SDA's have become fed up with all the doctrinal double-talk and confusion. Thus, out of the one million members on the North Americans books today, at least half of that number refuses to attend church or support the doctrines of the church.

The late 20th century debate over the Fundamentals has stopped the Advent Movement in its tracks. It left the church with a very legalistic and outdated view of eschatology that makes little sense. In fact, because SDA theology is so fractured, legalistic, and incoherent, the leaders went on to embrace a deliberate policy of "pluralism," which was meant to overlook and ignore the many anomalies and problems that were left unresolved in the rush to exile Dr. Ford and repudiate the Gospel.

Thus, confusion, cover-up, and double-talk are now the official policy of the SDA church. It is their plan to avoid the issues and pretend all is well.

Did I mention this man is brilliant?

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Did I mention this man is brilliant?

Having discussed things with Tom for several years at Atomorrow I would never suggest that he was brilliant. In general though I agree with him on lots of things I find him to be a blow hard.

He works far better in a limited article where you don't have to see his inconsistencies and revisionist history he uses. His favorite is that the Investigative Judgment is not found in the first angels message. Which is certainly true of the way the Millerites understood it but not true of the Adventists and ultimately Ellen White. Who mentions them together in the same paragraph of the Great Controversy chapter. And though he has tried many times over at Atomorrow I don't think he has ever convinced anyone there of his version of the first angels message. Either the TSDA's the Progressives or the Agnostics and Atheists.

 

[NightEternal]

A blowhard he is. But you can always find gems in his vast mass of ranting posts!

He has charisma and a way of rallying people to his cause, convincing them to follow him to the Promised Land of orthodox Adventism.

I am tempted to follow, but I have to first see that he has some substance to his flashy claims.

 

[Lebesgue]

I get the impression that Tom is desperately trying to justify why he is still an Adventist.

Before I left Adventism, I went through a stage where I thought I would try to be a "progressive" and I just couldn't do it.

I am much happier since I got honest with myself and realised that I just couldn't believe in Ellen White in any way shape or form. Even if Tom is right, you have the situation where Ellen counterdicted herself and I just don't think a true prophet of G-d would do that.

Shalom,

Lebesgue

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I get the impression that Tom is desperately trying to justify why he is still an Adventist.

Before I left Adventism, I went through a stage where I thought I would try to be a "progressive" and I just couldn't do it.

I am much happier since I got honest with myself and realised that I just couldn't believe in Ellen White in any way shape or form. Even if Tom is right, you have the situation where Ellen counterdicted herself and I just don't think a true prophet of G-d would do that.

Shalom,

Lebesgue

I agree he is desperately trying to hold on to Ellen White. Though he will very clearly say she should not be taken as or above apostolic authority. Which is why the Investigative judgment is so troublesome to him. Beside it not making sense it was not taught by the apostles. But he wants to cling to Ellen White all the same so he has to redefine her statements about the IJ not being a part of the hour of judgment first angels message.

So I think he is still in the struggle phase where he knows EGW is wrong on many things but can't decide what he wants to do with her.

 

[Lebesgue]

I agree.

I will pray for Tom.

I think he needs to just get rid of Ellen.

Shalom,

Lebesgue

 

[NightEternal]

I agree with Tom on this issue. I see no need to totally discard EGW. She has her place, just like any other Christian author.

If the church would just use some common sense and not elevate her unnecessarily, we wouldn't have half the problems we are having right now.

But, we have ridden this hobby-horse into the ground and then some. As I have already explained my position on EGW in many other threads in here, I feel no need to ride the merry-go-round again.

 

[Lebesgue]

I used Ellen without common sense when I was SDA and the result was spiritually disastrous.

I made the mistake of elevating Ellen's writings almost to the level of the Bible, having been taught that in the Indonesian and Filipino SDA churches.

Back in 2006 I studied the Great Controversy intently and became convinced based on chapter 28 that I COULD NOT be saved and would be annihilated by G-d no matter what I did, I was NOT going to pass the IJ.
I seriously considered becoming an atheist at that point because I would have the same end result and at least have more fun and less stress along the way.

I picked up a copy of Dr. Hugh Ross' wonderful DVD, "Journey to the Edge of Creation" around that same time and became convinced after watching that there HAS to be a G-d and I COULD NOT be an athiest.

Then the 3Q 2006 Adult Sabbath School quarterly came out and I discovered the IJ was a sham anyway.

I left the SDA church eventually and got saved. I never really knew if I was saved or if I could be saved or how to be saved the entire 14 years I was SDA.

Shalom,

Lebesgue