- Sep 23, 2005
- 32,690
- 6,107
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Most folks admit that there is a theological divide on this forum, and that it reflects a divide in the church.
It raises the question of why the church allows this divide to continue? A recent thread about Tom Norris reminded me of a paper that Norris wrote in response to an administrator's proposal on how to deal with conflict and dropouts in the church. According to Norris one of the elements of the plan by this administrator--which was supposedly accepted--was to encourage allowance of diverse views. In other words, church sanctioned pluralism became one way to deal with theological controversy. Here is Noris' statement:
The number [of dropouts] 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.
In the late 1980's, because of my research in the White Estate, the NAD shared this study with me, and also an unpublished article that represented the new direction that the church was planning to take.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
So here is the question. Did the church knowingly promote acceptance of pluralism during the years following the Ford and Rea crises? Is it the plan of the church leadership to allow very divergent views? Why does the church not regularly purge members who do not subscribe to the 28? Why do they only at times purge pastors who do not?
Is this something both sides should be upset about? Progessives tend to want reform of SDA fundamentals. Traditionals tend to want a more strict approach to promoting adherence to the 28. Did the administrators just take the middle road approach allowing both sides to duke it out but making no real change in order to avoid a split?
It raises the question of why the church allows this divide to continue? A recent thread about Tom Norris reminded me of a paper that Norris wrote in response to an administrator's proposal on how to deal with conflict and dropouts in the church. According to Norris one of the elements of the plan by this administrator--which was supposedly accepted--was to encourage allowance of diverse views. In other words, church sanctioned pluralism became one way to deal with theological controversy. Here is Noris' statement:
The number [of dropouts] 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.
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
So here is the question. Did the church knowingly promote acceptance of pluralism during the years following the Ford and Rea crises? Is it the plan of the church leadership to allow very divergent views? Why does the church not regularly purge members who do not subscribe to the 28? Why do they only at times purge pastors who do not?
Is this something both sides should be upset about? Progessives tend to want reform of SDA fundamentals. Traditionals tend to want a more strict approach to promoting adherence to the 28. Did the administrators just take the middle road approach allowing both sides to duke it out but making no real change in order to avoid a split?