George Knight save us from the law

George Knight had a series of presentations at the Pleasant Valley SDA church in Oregon recently. Here are the links to the presentations. Clink on the link to stream or right click to save the mp3 file. I am giving the links here as after a time they will likely be moved on the PVC website. Currently they are on the home page but no doubt they will be moved as time goes by.

Root of A Prophetic Movement

Adventism And the Apocalyptic Vision

Adventism Gets Baptized

Question and Answers with George Knight.

Earlier I wrote a review of George Knight’s last book The Neutering of Adventism…

It was not a favorable review as the book is basically a continuation of the propaganda that Adventists have the truth, we are the Remnant and if we lose our unique Apocalyptic view we destroy Adventism because Adventism is not content to be Christian but has to be something superior to Christian.

I figured the first two presentations would go over the themes of his recent book. So I started with the Q and A which aside from his answer to the question posed by a “last generation theology” person which was good, in the main the Q and A was unremarkable.

The presentation on “Adventism Gets Baptized” is about Jones and Waggoner and 1888, or more precisely Ellen White and 1888, she being the force that allowed Jones and Waggoner to present their views to a church that thought it had the truth yet did not even understand the basic Protestant concept of Justification by Faith (never really picked up steam until the late 1970’s). It never ceases to amaze me how Adventists can think of their history as that of the remnant, the people with the truth and yet for so long they had no clue about Justification by Faith (Righteousness by Faith to Adventists because apparently we were too pure to use the terms of Protestant Christianity).

What most bothered me is the section in the presentation is where George Knight says that we have to be saved from the law:

“… Seventh-day Adventists needed help, I’ll just read one other statement this comes from her (Ellen White’s) diary, looking back at Minneapolis she talks about a fear that there was danger of carrying the subject into justification by faith altogether too far. And not dealing enough with the law. By the way we have still got some Adventists in that camp today. Talk too much about justification makes them all nervous. OK. But the two go hand in hand I’ll tell you that right now. These people that say you don’t need the law if you got grace, I have never been able to figure that out because you don’t need grace if you don’t have the law. You have got to be rescued from something the law says you’re a sinner grace says shhrrrick we can take care of that. If you don’t have the law you don’t need grace period. No, where all this foolishness comes from in dispensational theology I have not been able to figure it out. We’ve got some Adventist hung up in that camp too.” [he then continues with the Ellen White diary]. Quote begins at 16:02 to 17:05

The question should arise in most people’s minds are we saved from sin (our own rebellious self centered attitude) or are we saved from a law. That is a big difference. It comes down to the idea that God is condemning me for not meeting His law rather then my own selfishness leading to my own demise. It amounts to grace is given to save me from myself vs. Knight’s version of grace is given to save me from God (God’s law). After all it is God that gave the law and the law is of no authority without someone or some system behind the law giving the law authority and power. It is this misunderstanding of God which was pointed out in an earlier blog article which concluded by saying:

“If our fundamental assumption about God is based upon the idea that God’s law condemns us we have set up the presupposition that God is against us. A direct contradiction of the New Testaments declaration: “What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? “(Rom 8:31 NIV) This presupposition becomes the root of so much misunderstanding about God which culminates in the idea that God had to pour out His wrath on Christ so that God could forgive us. An idea which flies in the face of the characteristics of God : “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.”

Certainly the law points out that we are sinners, but was that the reason for its existence or is that the simple result of giving a law to people who are selfish. If the state tells you not to drive through a red light is it because it means to condemn you or because it is seeking to create an orderly environment. You need grace not because you have a law but because you have a defect of sin which will lead to your death unless someone outside of yourself intervenes. Grace exists before a law because grace says I want to help these people, the law is a tool to help people. First as a way to formulate and orderly society such as the law given in the Old Testament and second as a tool to show us that we left to our own devises are no where near the type of person that God is. So the “law was put in charge to lead us to Christ”, the person who offered grace in the first place.

This reminds me of the following quote from Charles Spurgeon:

Yet, pardon me my friends, if I just observe that this is a very natural question, too. If you read the doctrine of the apostle Paul you find him declaring that the law condemns all mankind.

Spurgeon gives no reference to where Paul says that…because Paul never said it (see footnote). Paul did say that all sin and fall short of the glory of God before telling us that it is grace that saves us. But what much of Christianity has decided is that what Paul actually said is less important than what they want Paul to have said. Possibly so that they can make grace and law work hand in hand when they never were intended to work hand in hand the way most people think, grace gave the law and grace saves without regard for if someone keeps the law.

All of this and I have not once told you what the law is. It can be many things to many people, is it the 613 Jewish commandments, the 10 commandments, the Exodus 10 commandments or the Deuteronomy 10 commandments? Is it the 2 commandments that Jesus referred to as upon which hang all the law and the prophets or is it all the instructions that Jesus gave or that the apostles gave in the New Testament? Why there are probably some Christians who think the law is that God says obey me or I will have to kill you because my justice demands it. That fits in with Knight and Spurgeon though we have to do some creative restructuring of the New Testament Bible to make it say that but just some simple interpretations of a few stories of the Old Testament however can give you that kind of God.

To sum up the law does not make you a sinner, it does not stop you from being a sinner, though just like the red light it may save you from causing more problems and hurting yourself or others if it is followed in certain instances. It does not change you, it is not an outside force that can change you even if you decide to follow it to the best of your ability, it does not cover all your selfishness whether acted out, thought about or omitted. The change comes from the grace of God who cares about you and seeks to reconcile you to Himself. If the focus is on the laws; whatever laws there may be do not focus you on grace of God that we see in Jesus Christ they are not serving their purpose for God. That is the way that law and grace go hand in hand and it is practically never the way Christians use the term.

Footnote:

There is one other place one can get the idea that the law condemns it reads as follows:

Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. (2 Corinthians 3:7-10)

First we have to realize that apart from what we may want the text to say it might be saying something different so we have to analyze it. Did the 10 commandments written on stone usher in death? No clearly from the other Bible stories death was common. Is the verse speaking of some kind of death in the afterlife, as in no eternal life after this life? Again the answer is no the concept of an after life is not present this early in the Biblical stories. So what is Paul talking about? What ministry of death was inaugurated with Moses the lawgiver? Paul is referring to the Jewish nation who followed the traditions of Moses and ended up ultimately rejected Jesus Christ. No matter how glorious the history of the lawgiver was it did not establish a way out of death. Worse then not providing a way out of death it put Israel in a covenant relationship where if they failed, God would be against them. As Leviticus chapter 26 states:

I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt so that you would no longer be slaves to the Egyptians; I broke the bars of your yoke and enabled you to walk with heads held high. "'But if you will not listen to me and carry out all these commands, and if you reject my decrees and abhor my laws and fail to carry out all my commands and so violate my covenant, then I will do this to you: I will bring upon you sudden terror, wasting diseases and fever that will destroy your sight and drain away your life. You will plant seed in vain, because your enemies will eat it. I will set my face against you so that you will be defeated by your enemies; those who hate you will rule over you, and you will flee even when no one is pursuing you. (Lev 26:13-17 NIV)

The verses go on for a good long list of horrors. Therefore it was to Paul a ministry of death as opposed to the ministry of life through faith in Jesus Christ and His promises. It is not however a covenant to which the Gentiles are a party, but an apt demonstration of the difference between the letter of a law where the nation entered into an agreement that they were unable to keep versus the Spirit’s ministry by the grace of God as revealed in Jesus Christ offer of healing and reconciliation.

As the Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (InterVarsity Press) states on page 537:

"The most natural background for Paul's statements that the Law is aligned with sin, death and condemnation is the widespread conviction among first-century Jews that the Law had justly condemned Israel to Gentile domination for transgressing its commands."

Review George Knight's Apocalyptic Vision and the Neutering of Adventism

George Knight’s new book The Apocalyptic Vision and the Neutering of Adventism;

derives from presentations that Knight gave before the “quinquennial ministerial council of the Pacific Union Conference in August 2007.” (page 106) The book begins with the proposition that Liberal Protestantism is neutering Christianity and Adventism. He notes that the mainline Protestant churches are in decline, those churches still growing are the churches with a strong and distinctive message. It is somewhat true as the following Review News article informs us:

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, at 5.7 million U.S. members (1.56 percent increase) and the Church of God in Christ, with steady 5.5 million, round out the top five. Only the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Catholic Church, Southern Baptists, Mormons, the Assemblies of God (2.8 million) and the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church (1.4 million) reported increases; all others either posted declines or flat membership from 2005.”

See the 2004 report from the National Council of Churches

On page 17 Knight writes:

“The best example of religious neutering in the modern world is Protestant liberalism, which by the 1920s had divested itself of such "primitive" ideas as the virgin birth, Christ's resurrection, the substitutionary atonement, miracles, the Second Advent, creationism, and, of course, a divinely inspired Bible in the sense that it had information from beyond the human realm that could be obtained from no other source but divine revelation.”

The first thing I noticed here is that Knight is taking the position of Fundamentalism. Fundamentalism was a reaction to modernity and Biblical criticism AKA Higher Criticism. Although Knight does not go so far as the fundamentalists with inerrant and or infallible Bible concepts; he has listed the major beliefs of fundamentalism. Though as we look at the church growth rates it does appear that the more authoritarian denominations, the more certain a church is that they have it right the more likely they are to continue to grow in this time of overall Christian decreases across the Western World (AMEZC may be an exception). As we will see this is the Traditional Adventist viewpoint that Knight intends to present, traditional Adventist understanding of Daniel and Revelation is the cure to the neutering of Adventism and the main reason for the existence of the Adventist denomination.

At the beginning of Chapter 3 on page 53 Knight sums up his apocalyptic Adventism:

“This chapter will take a look at the big picture of the apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel and Revelation that have made Adventism a vibrant movement. The first chapter focused on the fact that the book of Revelation centers on Christ as the slain Lamb and the victorious Lion of the tribe of Judah. Put the two symbols together and you have the core of the gospel— that Christ died for our sins, resurrected and has the keys to the grave, and will eventually return to put an end to sin and suffering. Take away any aspect of that picture and you have neutered the Christian/Adventist message. As we noted, the Lamb without the Lion is a partial gospel.

The second chapter examined the rise of Adventism as it related to the apocalyptic vision. We discovered that the Seventh-day Adventist pioneers had seen the big picture and put together a theological package whose logical force has driven Adventism to every corner of the earth.

In this third chapter we want in part to stand back with both eyes open to see if early Adventism's apocalyptic understanding has validity and relevance for the twenty-first century. I must admit that I was daunted by the challenge of this chapter and how to say what needs to be said in such a short space. After all, during the past 30 years we have seen a dismantling of the apocalyptic vision by Adventist thinkers on one side and defensive reactions on the other. And then we witness a never-ending parade of apocalyptic cranks whose special burden is to prove something unique or at least strange from the words of Revelation. I felt challenged to say the least.”

While Knight has spent the last 50 pages trying to bolster his case we see that by his own analysis he has produced very little. The first chapter is based upon Revelation Christ died for our sins and was resurrected and eventually will put an end to sin and suffering. Other then the emphasis of deriving this from the book of Revelation he has essentially described every Christian denomination and most all independent Christian churches.

The Second chapter which mostly goes over how Adventists interpreted Revelation to see their peculiar doctrines in verses such as Revelation 14 (e.g. Adventists doctrines revealed in the three angels messages); he sums up Adventist have become a worldwide church because of their doctrines. Well so have the Mormons, the Jehovah’s Witnesses and all the mainline Protestant Denominations. The idea that just because you grow world wide that your beliefs are true is hardly reasonable. If it was than the Roman Catholic church which has the most adherents and is still growing as it is in the top five denominations in growth should be a major contender in the we have the truth category.

Based upon the unreasonable conclusion from chapter 2 Knight continues:

“And I still hold that conviction. To put it as frankly as possible, if Adventism's apocalyptic big picture isn't valid, the most sensible thing is to shut up shop, go home, and do something meaningful with our lives. If Adventism's big picture lacks meaning, I would like to suggest that the title for the next generation of Ph.D.s in Adventist studies be "Curators of Adventist Antiquities for Those Who Still Have Some Reason to Care."

Here then is the purpose of Knight’s latest book. We see that chapter one is true of universal Christianity. Chapter two is the peculiar Adventist interpretations which like other churches grew into a world wide movement. But instead of critically looking at those issues that the pioneers produced he has largely assumed that they are true because the SDA church grew world wide and since based upon that extremely faulty position if you question those Adventist traditions there is no point in continuing to be an Adventist. It is rather like someone saying to Martin Luther quit your belly aching about the Roman Catholic churches abuses and leave. He had no place to go. I am much like him in I can’t see any place to go either so why not try and reform the church I am in? Apparently reformation is heresy to some; it was to the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Luther’s day and apparently it is heresy to the Adventist hierarchy today, George Knight and Clifford Goldstein being the most recent Adventist Apocalyptic bulldogs.

On page 55 we see that Knight has so completely discounted the idea that anything could be wrong with our apocalyptic tradition that such an idea is how the devil would attack us:

“But if I were the devil I would tempt Adventists and their preachers to be just nice evangelicals and forget about such nasty stuff as apocalyptic. And if that didn't work I would tempt them to beastly preaching that focused on the details and the esoteric and extremes. I would get them arguing over 666 and the identity of the 144,000. And if that didn't succeed, I would get them to focus on excitement and apocalyptic fear-mongering. And of course I would sow doubts in their minds about the validity of Adventism's basic apocalyptic understandings.”

Do you hear the old Roman Catholic leadership of Martin Luther’s day in that paragraph? How dare you young whippersnappers doubt our tradition! It is this questioning of our apocalyptic that is the neutering of Adventism for George Knight. Though he does include others; “We have a pretty smart devil. He has driven Adventists and their preachers off a balanced view of apocalyptic in almost every direction.” (page 55); those off balanced must be any view other then the traditional view.

Knight then goes one to explain how he dealt with the troubling parts of the Adventist Apocalyptic and came out the other side firmly holding to traditional Adventism. The first is the Historicist position which he finds as the only possibility because Daniel 2 goes from the time of Daniel and tells of the 4 kingdoms which takes us to the second coming. He seems to think that Rome is mentioned in there also, I have no idea why. The second on his list is the year day principle which he believes is true because years are used for the seventy week (sevens) prophecy of Daniel 9. Though Knight seems to forget that people were interpreting the verses as weeks (sevens) of years, far before anyone came up with the day for a year idea. (Joachim of Fiore {d. 1202} first introduced the year day principle, several early church fathers used years on the seventy sevens of Dan. 9, but it is a stretch to say that was year day principle as they did not have a day component, it is not something they endorsed)

His third point is that the little book unsealed in Rev 10 is Daniel. Which apparently was the great disappointment as God anticipated that before the book was unsealed people would make erroneous interpretations and when their errors did not come to pass they would be disappointed. As if the prediction of 1843, 1844 etc were the only time people erroneously predicted the second coming. Knight goes through a bunch of stuff on the 1260 day/years as if it proves some point. It does not other then he has accepted something that general Christianity accepted for a couple hundred years and when the theory always failed they gave it up. Now of course it is an important part of the Adventist apocalyptic. That morphs to point 4 which is Daniel 8:14 and the Investigative Judgment. Again asserting that day for a year is used in the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 even though it is not; there is no mention of day at all in that context. On page 69 he does differ from traditionalism by saying:

“Thus the Adventist understanding of a pre-Advent judgment is not the problem. Rather, it is the wrong use of Daniel 8:14 to prove a point that comes out of chapter 7.”

So he still believes in a pre-advent judgment which by the way so does all Christianity otherwise they would never talk about being saved as a current position. But that part of the big picture is largely forgotten in Adventist circles. We forget that God already knows who are His; that He has known since before the foundation of the world. But apparently Knight does not deviate significantly from the traditional apocalyptic. After all he just wants to say the better evidence is found elsewhere. On page 70 he does note that Adventist traditional emphasis on the pre advent judgment has been wrong, saying:

“The tragedy of Adventism is that we made the pre-Advent judgment a fearful thing built upon a less-than-biblical understanding of sin, law, perfection, and even judgment itself. Spiritual insecurity and lack of biblical assurance was the result. "God is out to get you" was the message in the era of bony fingers.”

He then moves on to the old excuse that the Judgment is not for God but for the universe:

“The judgment and the books of judgment are not for God but for the rest of the universe. It has to do with the justification of God, which is foundational to His justification of those humans who have accepted Christ into their hearts and lives (Rom. 3:25, 26; 1 John 1:9).”

Of course he does not explain why God would start such a show a hundred years ago and why not save the evidence for humans, the only beings we really know of beside fallen angels that question God. He then moves into the subject of the heavenly Sanctuary. On page 75 Knight writes:

“Let me repeat my main points as I sum up. First, we create problems in sanctuary theology by placing undue emphasis on sanctuary geography. Second, we are heading in the wrong direction when we read Hebrews as if it were either propounding Adventist theology or arguing against it. Hebrews has its own agenda. Third, it is wrong-headed to project chronology into Hebrews 9. Most of Adventism's difficulty with its sanctuary theology center on those three areas.”

So apparently it is okay for Knight to suggest and try and repair some of the Adventist apocalyptic problems. But the rest of us who see even bigger problems…well we can’t reform the apocalyptic because it is too important to Adventism. In other words this entire book is an endeavor to shore up a shaky part of Adventism and yet those who try to do that are neutering Adventism (excluding Knight). It is acceptable to do it in dribs and drabs dealing with some problems as long as we don’t touch other problems. Adventism can slowly change but let’s not take any big steps in the change process because a big change means we have been wrong, clearly Knight thinks we have been wrong and I think most of us know that. So why do we keep pretending that we are not wrong? Why assume that acknowledging errors is neutering Adventism? (The last two on his list are the Great Controversy and the Remnant neither of which is worth noting and he spends little space on them.)

His next chapter (ch.4) is about how bad things can happen and they can happen fast. Apparently the Adventist apocalyptic spends much of its time thinking about what bad things can happen and if you don’t think about them happening then you are neutering Adventism. Though Adventism can do nothing at all if the bad thing happens apparently we should feed on that fear and remember our hope in the Second coming.

Knight then presents one of Ellen White Shut door visions as her most remarkable:

“Ellen White's Most Remarkable Vision

That brings me to what I consider to be Ellen White's most remarkable prophecy. She made few actual prophecies regarding the future in her long ministry, but we find one of them in her first vision of December 1844.”

"While I was praying at the family altar," she recalled, "the Holy Ghost fell upon me. ... I raised my eyes, and saw a straight and narrow path, cast up high above the world. On this path the Advent people were traveling to the city, which was at the farther end of the path. They had a bright light set up behind them at the beginning of the path, which an angel told me was the midnight cry [i.e., the prophetic understanding that led to a fulfillment of prophecy in October 1844]. This light shone all along the path and gave light for their feet so that they might not stumble. If they kept their eyes fixed on Jesus, who was just before them, leading them to the city, they were safe. But soon some grew weary, and said the city was a great way off. . . . Others rashly denied the light behind them and said that it was not God that had led them out so far. The light behind them went out, leaving their feet in perfect darkness, and they stumbled and lost sight of the mark and of Jesus and fell off the path down into the dark and wicked world below." (Page 86)

The remarkable thing about this is that this was during Ellen White’s shut door period. If people did not accept Miller’s Midnight cry message of the return of Christ in 1844 the door was now shut on them. They are outside the possibility of salvation. In a couple years Ellen White outgrew that idea and that was the major emphasis for the spread of worldwide Adventism. The gospel message still had to be spread to the entire world and then the end could come.

What a lot of us see as important George Knight does not seem to understand. That is the need to see God as someone who is for us, someone who can be trusted and someone who loves us unfailingly. That is the gospel message of Jesus and the New Testament. That as the Protestant call says the plain things are the main things. That is very different from George Knight’s Adventist apocalyptic. Where peculiar understanding of Daniel and Revelation are are the main things; those two apocalyptic books which have found the least amount of agreement within Christianity through it entire history. I frankly don’t want to be part of a denomination which has taken the obscure things as their main things. If we want a distinctive then let us go with the love of God as revealed through Jesus Christ, not the kind of God who says obey me or I will kill you, not the kind of God who says someone has to die to pay your penalty but the kind of God who says come back to me and I will heal you. Let that be our Adventist Apocalyptic.

A Recent Interview with Milton Hook

Here is an interesting exchange from the Christian Forums Adventist discussion forum. This is posted with the permission of the reviewer (Icedragon) and Milton Hook. First the review of Milton Hook's book "Flames over Battle Creek" followed by some questions and answers with Milton Hook. (I did correct some of the spelling to make it a little easier to read):

"Flames over Battle Creek" -the George Amadon Story by Milton Hook

"Flames Over Battle Creek" by Milton Hook was released in the Mid 70's by Review and Hearld ,is the story of George Amadon. Amadon was the Head of Review and Hearld Printing. Amadon was a first generation adventist who joined adventism during the 3 years in Rochester New York. He became a printing assistant at the newly formed Review and Herald press. George Amadon is an over looked figure in Adventist history but an important one. He was editor of the Youth Instructor, wrote numerous books and articles, but worked mainly behind the scenes. His wife was the founder and the Charter member of the Dorcas Society. He is unique because of insight to the live of other Adventist. James, Ellen, Uriah, DM Canright, Kellogg, Jones, Waggoner. Because he was 2nd tier leader and not the center of the action, he was able to see thing that other were not, because no one knew he was looking.

The book "Flames over Battle Creek" is a small book 130 pages, but very valuable for the insight and the details of things that happened to the SDA movement. Major figures there is too much info to get into details, but with George Amadon the detail seep in to every aspects of his life. We find out in FOBC for example that....

1. In 1908 O.R.L Croiser attended the SDA campmeeting and that there was a fight. Croiser apparently up set about being linked with the SDA'S

2. James and Ellen White, Left Battle Creek for about 3 years because of the abuse heaped upon them by the Church members. they accused them of being greedy, worldly, demon possessed and insane. So much for respecting the prophet

3. James White at one point kicked out over 370 member of the Battle creek SDA church and took the membership down to under 20 people, all in a fit of rage.

4. States that Kellogg was obsessed with the pantheistic view of the soul as early as 1875, although this may be the writers bias.

5. James was under investigation for illegal business practices, and was eventually cleared, but the charges stuck for the rest of his life.

6. George Amadon was one of the people who conducted the Kellogg exit interview. He and Kellogg was were neighbors and very friendly even after Kellogg's membership was dropped.

the more disturbing aspects of the book was the denomination blatant misrepresentation of the proceedings with Kellogg stating that the the transcript was written under false pretenses and Amadon was not aware that it was happening.

Another disturbing aspect of the book was the continual portrayal of D.M. Canright as an unstable man. Innocent actions were twisted out of there context. Canright in his mid 20's, had written a young girl, whom later would be come his wife, and was waiting in anticipation and for to she if she would return his affection, when the letter took longer then expected he began to despair, hardly a crime, but a normal reaction. He also question the harshness of James White and withered under his brutality. these normal reactions were deemed character flaws. that is disturbing.

The title of the book comes form the Numerous fires that were set during the 1890's and early 1900's. As late as 1910 fire were being set in battle creek. Some have attributed the fires to divine judgment, but this is unlikely, do to the fact that the fires continued long after the the SDA church had moved it's headquarters to Washington DC and it's College to Berrian Springs. This another aspect of SDA history that would do well to have scholarly research done one it. to answer the question Who set the fires?

Over all Milton Hook did a good job and he should be commended for his efforts. the flaws in the book are indicative of the denominations policy of "white washing" the difficult facts, but if rightly understood, can be over looked. Amadon's life gives important details and Hook while giving a Pro SDA bias does a really good job, especially for the size of the book, More work from Hook would be nice.

Milton Hook's response to the above review:

From the Author

Hi. I'm the author of Flames Over Battle Creek.
Readers may be interested to learn how the little book came into existence.
In the mid-1970s I was doing a church history unit at Andrews University. The late Dr Maxwell was my lecturer. He required each student to write an eight-page research paper. While fossicking in the University archives I happened on the diaries of George Amadon and found that no-one had written about them. My subsequent research paper ran to 40 pages but I submitted it nevertheless and Dr Maxwell patiently ploughed through it, giving me a straight A.

Later, when it came time for me to consider writing a major thesis for my MA degree my advisor, Dr George Akers, suggested I develop the Amadon paper as a book manuscript. I forget all the finer details regarding the further research but I do remember interviewing some old identities of Battle Creek and digging into files at the Battle Creek library.

In the meantime Dr Akers contacted editors at the Review and Herald office. They expressed interest in the project and soon published it. The royalties helped to pay my expenses during doctoral studies.

In hindsight I recognize the book is chiefly eulogous. It is a characteristic of popular-style SDA histories to be eulogous. Most academic theses, dissertations and articles published in the better semi-independent magazines possess a more objective tone.

I have always regretted the fact that I did not insist on the full documentation being included in the book.

Flames Over Battle Creek was my first attempt at serious historical research. Since then I have published 2 books, 32 monograms, and a number of book chapters and articles, all on SDA history in Oceania. I like to think that my work demonstrates an increasing level of objectivity. It is a personal opinion. I must leave the real assessment to other trained historians.
I am happily retired in Sydney, Australia, and still sleuthing through church archives with the view to write more history.
Shalom.
Milton Hook

Here is the interview, edited so that the answers follows the questions:

“Who set the fires?” a hot interview with DR Milton Hook:
An Online interview about “Flames Over Battle Creek”, Church history, New Projects, & New Challenges,

First of all let me say thank-you for you time and your willing ness to respond to the questions. I was not in any way expecting to here from you when I wrote the review of your book. Let me first tell you why I wrote a review of you book. I have been studying SDA history for the Last 2 years. I have read literally thousands of pages. I was given your book at church and said why not. It’s small enough it wont hurt, It probably won’t contain much use SDA history. Boy was I wrong. For such a tiny book it pack a historical punch. My goal in writing the review was to get people who are on this site interested in reading SDA history and I felt that this book was a very good place to start. Thank-you for stopping by. SO let me ask you Why did you choose to respond to the review?

Your questions are excellent. I'm always happy to respond to earnest questions rather than flippant ones. It was a friend who alerted me to your kind review.


I. About Milton Hook
For those not familiar with who you are tell us about yourself give us a brief overview of your Origin, educational schooling, and career overview
Weather you are a critic or a supporter of Adventism SDA church history is extremely fascinating. Tell us how you got into church history: What are your notable literary accomplishments regarding Church History and why do keep writing? As an Australian how is your view and approach of Adventist history different then say some one in America where Adventism originated, what unique perspective do you bring.?

A little about myself, as you requested: I'm a third generation SDA. Born 1939. Baptised at 17. Taught elementary school for 2 years then attended Avondale College to graduate with teaching certificate and a BA Theology. Mission work for 3 years in Papua New Guinea. Bible teaching in New Zealand. Ordained. Then to Ohio ministry and studied part-time at Evangelical Lutheran Seminary to transfer credits to Andrews University. At Andrews did MA and Ed.D in Religious Education, thus joining the 2 disciplines of theology and education. Back to Australia for further Bible lecturing and church pastoral work. Now retired but still doing a bit of preaching and teaching in Sabbath School.

Other literary work: "Avondale: Experiment on the Dora." (Written for the centenary of Avondale College). And a series of 32 monograms on aspects of SDA history in Oceania (for use in teaching SDA history in Australasian academies).

There is a view that Adventists cannot write objectively of their own church. My own view is that if the proper guidelines are followed in historical research then Adventists are the best qualified because they are most familiar with the church and its identities and know where to look for the information.


II. About “Flames over Battle Creek”
You have already given us a some background ground on how “FOBC” came into being is there anything else you would like to add about it’s origins. As you were studying what was the most interesting thing about Amadon that you think most people don’t realize? What was the most disappoint thing about Amadon that most people don’t realize? assess Amadons over all contribution to the church?
What do you see as his greatest professional success and what was his greatest professional blunder.
For you personally what was the most fascinating part of the research, what was the most disappointing? what did you not include that you wanted to include. What did you not include that you could not include because of denominational restraint. What do you wish you could do differently and what do you wish you could take out.

Regarding FOBC: Amadon, as a long-standing printer in the denomination and leader in the headquarters church at Battle Creek, was ideally situated to know what was going on behind the scenes. His diaries therefore reveal a lot of anecdotal data. He was not an academic. He was a workhorse. In retrospect I don't think I would have written the book any differently. I experienced no severe editing in order to "airbrush" it. Any improvements the editors made were beneficial to the literary style.

III Controversial History
Controversy sells and raises interest and we here at ChristianForums.com like controversy. Give us something about to think chew on. I want to bring up the subject of denominational “air brushing”. It is no secret that that denomination has at times engaged in “air brushing” and “halo enhancing” of church history to “protect” it’s members from the realities of human failings and “shielding” itself from criticism for the failures of the church. I have notice how this has changed over the years. In your book, I was presently surprised to find , you seemed to able to crack that mold a bit and allow information to escape, that prior to that people would not have known. I would like to ask you about some of the controversial things that were and where not air brushed or appear to be air bushed.

"Airbrushing":Yes, I think it has been done, and still is especially in the church magazines. These are a poor source for historical research. The better sources are letter collections and committee minutes. Even the latter are often deliberately vague. It is very difficult for a perfectionistic church to admit their own human foibles.

1. You wrote in your book that members thought Ellen White or James were insane or demon possessed , this was one of the most shocking statements in your book. That is not the standard view I grew up with. What is your source for that? Why would anyone think James or Ellen were Insane or demon possessed? What does that say about the credibility of her writing when people who knew here did not seem to respect her? How are we, over 100 years or more removed from the events ,supposed to give her any more authority then they did? How might a critic view such things?

Accusations of EGW insanity: The White Estate itself has the papers on these, together with their replies. You may read them and make up your own mind. Some of the accusations were made by medics of her day.

2. You mentioned ORL Crosier and 1908 camp meeting, Much has been made in recent years of his unhappiness with being linked with the SDA church from your research tell us why was he unhappy and what actually took place in 1908? What is the source of this. On a side note, ORL Crosier supposedly wrote a biography about himself as result of being associated with the SDA church, any idea where we can get a copy?

Crosier's unhappiness: I cannot add anything to this. I did not pursue research into the cause because it was peripheral to my book on Amadon.


3. I only bring this up because a Professor told me, when I informed him that I was reading your book, that Amadon had and Affair. You mentioned in your book that he had a happy 50 year Marriage and that he denied having an Affair when he was accused. Is this a case of deformational “air brushing” ? Could you set the record straight did he or did he not have an affair.


4 Much speculation as been made over who set the fire. In the Movie “Road to Wellville” the fires were attributed to a bad child of JH Kellogg., EGW attributes them to God, other say it was competitors with the publishing industry. Tell us ,Who you think set the fires and Why? Why would fires continue to be set long after the SDA have abandoned Battle creek? What would have been the purpose.

Who set the BC fires? Conspiracy theories abound. My own opinion is there were natural causes. Wooden buildings and internal heating systems are prone to disaster. Kellogg wisely insisted on a brick building for his San. In 1896,97, when EGW was advising on the building of Avondale College, she advised wooden buildings be constructed. There were cost reasons and everyone expected the Advent soon. In retrospect, this was probably short-sighted.


5. I recently read “I was Canright’s secretary”, Canright testimony and Norman Doughty’s book on Canright. The denomination approach to Canright has changed in the last 20 years, see “George Knights books on AT Jones and “Angry Saints” While not friendly, they can admit that he left not because of glory seeking, but he was not convinced of the truth of Adventism. What do you think is the motivating factor for denominations change? What is your take on Canright and has it changed over the years?

Canright: I think time and better historians have caused the church to mellow in their criticisms of him. My reading of his 1867 diary caused me to think he was psychologically troubled but I am really not qualified to make a clinical assessment.

6. You said the roles were purged from the Battle Creek Church, Why was this done and who did it?

Purging of BC membership rolls: I don't think I ever discovered who or how many were at the cause of it all. It was certainly someone or a group who were works-oriented in their view of life and very judgmental.

IV. New projects
1. Tell us about what you have been working on? Is the gossip true??? Are you writing on “Desmond Ford”??? If true, Why? What is your purpose in writing on DF what do you hope to accomplish? What are the benefits and challenges of writing on a person while alive? What input has Ford had on the book. What is the denominations input on the book? How will that effect the content or the approach. If you had time what project you would like to write on and why. Any Chance of republishing the book or putting it on line for easy access for a new generation.

My current book: It is a biography of Desmond Ford. When the event of Glacier View happened in 1980 I realized something monumentally significant had occurred so I began to gather documents with a view to publishing later after a period of historical reflection. A number of people eventually donated their own collections of papers. And Des himself, who had kept most of his correspondence including letters during his courting days, graciously filled a car-load which I brought home and analyzed. There has been no denominational input. Adventist Today have published it. It can be purchased through their website or Good News Unlimited. There are no plans to put it online yet but that may occur in the future.



V. Views on Development in Church History ?
Since you wrote FOBC the church’s approach to history had dramatically changed. What do you think of the changes. What could you do today that you could not do back in the 70’s? As far a the scholarship of the church what to you think needs to be improved and what to you think the future holds.? If you could set the record straight on one thing in Adventist History what would it be and why?

I think the church has learned from some of their reactionary responses of the past. Men like Dr Ron Numbers and Dr Graybill and Elder Walter Rea were poorly treated. Scholars who rose to their defense have had some impact but unfortunately there is still no official "Sorry" expressed. Perfectionists find it difficult to admit mistakes and say "Sorry."

What record would I like to set straight? The traditional account of the 1888 GC Session. Why do perfectionists call for a return to the theology expressed by Waggoner and Jones? Because W and J preached a message germane to perfectionism. It wasn't the apostolic doctrine of righteousness by faith alone. My reading of their Signs of the Times articles, 1884-1890, convinced me of that 2 decades ago. Where did Robert Brinsmead source his perfectionism theory in the late 1950s and 1960s? He admits it was W and Js writings.


There are many people talking about SDA history, both positive and negative. On the positive side is the denomination has release some excellent history biographies in recent years. What is your take on them? What do you wish could be written that has not been written.


What needs to be improved on the SDA history horizon? I have come to the realization that too much research is done on Ellen White. As a church we have over-rated her contribution when in fact so many other gifted individuals played important roles, e.g., Uriah Smith, James White, WW Prescott, AG Daniells, etc. Too many research papers have been done on every imaginable aspect of her life and they are still being churned out. I am of the opinion that it was a mistake to locate the various EGW Research Centres on college campuses. They would have been better located at Division headquarters. At present students spend too much time researching her writings when they should be researching Scripture. And EGW is given academic credibility by the very association with our academic institutions.

On the Negative side Ellen Whites Critics have amassed much history that the average Adventist might not know of or had accessed to, how has this helped the scholarly community and How has it hurt it. The church is now being confronted with information that is troubling, embarrassing and challenging, what do you think of this information and what do you think the churches response should be? What effect will it have on the on the role of Ellen White in the church.
Have you heard of the play “Red books” by Mei Ann Teo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Books It is about the conflict between scholars and the church and the struggle to be truthful facts and loyal to church.? What do you think about this play? What do you think about this approach to history?
Thank-you for you time.


The "Red Books." I am aware of the production but have not read it yet. I will do so.
EGW's advice was that her writings were meant to lead us to Scripture. That has been my experience. They led me to Scripture and that's where I'm happily at today. I am enjoying my study of Scripture. I have not read her writings for approx twenty years simply because my study of Scripture leaves me no time for much more.
Blessings in Christ
Milton Hook