Time to take back the Adventist Church

A while ago the following article was submitted to Adventist Today who appear to have rejected the article for publication so in fairness I thought I would publish it here as it almost seems prophetic when we consider the events of the recent General Conference selection of President and his sermon this last week.

------

Time to take back the Adventist Church

We have all noticed it, the diverse opinions, views and beliefs that have found there way into the Seventh-day Adventist church. People calling themselves “progressive” or “liberal” or “moderates” or “evangelical” Adventists. Why there are even “cultural” Adventists and a few “agnostic” Adventists, don’t ask what that one means. It is all actually just an abundance of terms for “apostate” Adventists. The time has come for us to admit the fact that inside our church are vast numbers of confused Adventists who are in need of conversion and who have become stumbling blocks to real Adventists.

Because of this abundance of confusion within Adventism real Adventists have had to term themselves as “Traditional” Adventists (some may say “historic,” substantially the same, however, unless you get to talking about the Trinity). Traditional Adventists are the only Adventists that still hold to the pillars of our church. The Pillars that Ellen White warned us to never leave behind[1]. Traditionals are the Adventists who hold to the 28 Fundamental beliefs[2] (formerly 27 but with time more fundamental ideas occurred to us). Let’s be clear as President Obama is found of saying; “Traditional” Adventists are the only real Adventists and it is time we took our church back from the Adventists in name only.

Does that sound radical? It should not; traditional (real) Adventism remains normative in all official areas of the church.  The church in its formal, duly constituted General Conference Session established the 28 Fundamental beliefs and refers to them in both short and long forms of our baptismal vows. Under the term fundamental Bible principles or fundamental beliefs the vow will include all additional fundamental beliefs we may find or devise in the future as well. The long form:

11. Do you know and understand the fundamental Bible principles as taught by the Seventh-day Adventist Church? Do you purpose, by the grace of God, to fulfill His will by ordering your life in harmony with these principles?[3]

The short (alternate) form:

2. Do you accept the teachings of the Bible as expressed in the Statement of Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and do you pledge by God’s grace to live your life in harmony with these teachings?[4] (2005 SDA church manual page 33)

Notice that there is no proviso in either of these vows for the exercise of ones individual interpretation of, or understanding of the Bible. The vow is to understand and to live your life in harmony with the Adventist statement of Fundamental Beliefs. Fundamental Beliefs established by the General Conference in session, God’s highest authority on earth.[5]

One of those Fundamental Beliefs is that Ellen White is; “the Lord's messenger, and her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction.” If Ellen White whose writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth tells us not to abandon the historic pillars of the Adventist church we are left with no choice but to follow the traditional form of Adventism as the only group which adheres to those historic pillars as she taught them. The only group of Adventists who willing maintain that “private independence and private judgment must not be maintained” against the highest authority of the Lord on earth.[6]

It is a small sacrifice to give up one’s individual beliefs when there is a God given institution proclaiming the truth. It would be both folly and arrogance of the highest order to doubt either the church’s organizational structure or its decisions, Traditional Adventist have always allowed the questioning of the churches belief however they insist the members acknowledge the answers that Traditional Adventism supplies as truth.  To that end God has blest our church with publications which officially represent His chosen movement on earth for these times. With such resources at hand there is little excuse to go to the apostate Christian world for additional insight, and no reason to ignore the answers which the church leadership has supplied. “Doubt, and even disbelief of the testimonies of the Spirit of God, is leavening our churches everywhere.”[7]

Some might suggest that there were indeed times past when the individual was right and perhaps even had a duty to question the established mother church. Martin Luther rightly questioned the Roman Catholic Church.  Our own Adventist Pioneers questioned their respective churches and were often cast out from their apostate protestant denominations.  But, those times are past. Today the apostates have taken up residence inside our own denomination.

We cannot allow individual interpretations or application of present truth because the Adventist church unlike every other denomination is a prophetic movement of God -- the last true Remnant church of Revelation.[8] As James R. Nix the director of the White Estate wrote in the Adventist World:

 “Those three defining characteristics describe Adventists as the only people who find their:

1. prophetic roots, or history, predicted in Revelation 10. 

2. prophetic identity defined in Revelation 12. 

3. prophetic message and mission given in Revelation 14.”[9]

That fact that we see ourselves as the fulfillment of certain passages of the book of Revelation is incontrovertible proof of the Adventist prophetic movement. It is evident then that when those in the Adventist church question our interpretation of the book of Revelation they are questioning our whole reason for existence.[10] They are questioning every doctrine we hold as true because they question our unique and distinctive nature. Thus, they are stumbling blocks, in the way of every truly believing Adventist because they deny the Fundamental beliefs which the Adventist leadership holds as being what the Bible teaches.

Individuals who question any of our fundamental beliefs of necessity end up questioning every one of our beliefs.  For instance, challenging the Substitutionary nature of the atonement whereby  Jesus had to pay a blood price to his Father for our sins would lead to the denial that God killed the first animal in Eden to give us the symbol of that Substitutionary future death. That might lead them to question the literal nature of the Genesis story and the weekly cycle on which the Sabbath rests and also open the door to the vast age of the earth as taught by worldly science with its death and predation before the fall of man. 

The Adventist church stands upon a precious if somewhat precarious chain of truth. The links in that chain dare not be disturbed.   They can never be doubted.  They must be accepted as they were first hammered out for us by those young people, led by the Spirit, 200 years ago in the farm houses of New England.  Or codified 30 years ago by the General Conference session in Dallas Texas.

To abandon a reliance on those truths as once delivered to those founders, as we stand on the verge of the Lord’s return would be to risk pushing Adventism into a whole new age of serious individual Bible study, to risk original individual interpretations or applications. Especially dangerous is the non traditional thinking among the young and inexperienced, the problems of excess enthusiasm are well known; Particularly among the young and inexperienced, people similar to those who founded our church.

Clearly our only protection is found in a universal commitment to our current traditional Adventist understanding – in thought and in action.  Those incapable of such commitment should flee their apostasy or flee their connection with the Adventist church.  As a stop gap measure it is now necessary for the organized church in each congregation to form boards of inquiry to lovingly investigate and seek to educate and motivate change in those who may have become confused as to their loyalties to God’s one true remnant church.  If necessary such guilty individuals who remain unrepentant would be remanded to similar bodies at the local Conference level for final review and disposition.  The time has come to develop an oath of allegiance to the Adventist church so that ultimately the board of inquiries could be dissolved and replaced by annual oath days filled with powerful sermons that recount our churches establishment as God’s remnant church and repeat our Fundamental beliefs. Oath Day services to be concluded with the solemn and moving recitation of the oath of allegiance and the signing of the written oath of allegiance.

It is well past time that the Seventh-day Adventist church prepare herself, pure and spotless, to be the bride of her Lord.  It is time we take up this issue this summer in Atlanta. Even so, Come Lord Jesus.  

---

[1]  Vol.4 Testimonies For the Church page 211 1875

[2] http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html

[3] 2005 SDA Manual http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/church_manual/Seventh-day-Adventist-Church-Manual-17th-edition.pdf

[4] Ibid

[5] Vol.4 Testimonies For the Church page 492 1875

[6] Ibid

[7] Vol. 5 Testimonies For the Church page 217 1889

[8] Fundamental Belief 13 http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html

[9]  http://www.adventistworld.org/issue.php?issue=2009-1006&page=14

[10] The Remnant and the Adventist Church Ángel Manuel Rodríguez http://biblicalresearch.gc.adventist.org/documents/remnantSDAchurch.htm

GC Prez says worship right

Adventist Today posted a transcript of the newly appointed GC president Ted Wilson’s press conference.  It looks even less promising then I had originally thought. Then of course I heard and you can read Wilson’s Sermon and see that the future does not look bright. Much of this post was composed a few days ago and I had not finished it before hearing Wilson’s sermon which pretty much verified Wilson’s traditional/historic Adventism and his now clearly active opposition to Progressive Adventism.  But since the interviewed contained something that was very important and overlooked so far I am going to still post this article dealing with his press conference statements.

Early on Wilson reflects on the mission of the Adventist church which he feels is somehow found in Revelation 14. He states:

“…that message is found in Revelation 14, verses 6 through 12, which announces, really,

the righteousness of God, the righteousness of Christ, the everlasting gospel, and God’s

call to his people around the world who truly worship him in the right way.”

That statement truly worship Him the right way? Is an interesting turn of phrase. It reminds me of the Chris Lizotte song “Hard Enough” that says:

 “All I want to do is grow in the love of Jesus Christ/ I don’t want to be one to say You don’t worship right/But you know that it’s hard enough, hard enough to keep our feet walking the straight and narrow/well it’s hard enough, hard enough we all were called to carry the same cross”

Sort of different philosophy from Ted Wilson but a philosophy I agree with much more than Wilson’s emphasis on “truly worshiping right”.

Here is the full quote I referenced in my last blog article:

“Newman: David Newman, Adventist Today. During the next five years, what would be

your main priorities, as President?

Wilson: Well, I am sure they will develop a little further, as I think about them, even

more. But definitely, as I have already mentioned, a very high priority will be on the

Bible reformation—on an understanding of Scripture from a historical biblical

perspective; not a historical critical or higher critical approach. I think—really the

authority of scripture is going to become the most critical areas of contention within, I

don’t think only the Adventist church, but in Christianity itself. The word of God is

relevant, is pertinent for us, and that, I think, is an extremely important thing. Within the

Adventist Church, we must place strong emphasis on the Spirit of Prophecy, not just as a

devotional reading, but as instructional counsel for every facet of life.”

Asked about bringing unity to the church Wilson noted that unity is based upon our beliefs and he concluded:

“I will bring unity in every possible way we can, but I want

us to understand that we are going to remain faithful to the Word and to what Spirit of

Prophecy indicates. Some people may find that archaic—not in tune with the times. I

think it’s eternal”

The problem with this statement is we don’t know what being faithful to the word means. Of course we do know that with his statement about his opposition to historical criticism he means that being faithful to the Word is a form of literalism and traditionalism when literalism does not work. And we know that the reference to the Spirit of Prophecy indicates that Ellen White is meant to be used as the interpreter of Scriptures.

All in all I think Wilson’s statement “truly worship him in the right way”. Will define the Ted Wilson era of the Adventist church; the right way of course being what the Traditional Adventist bureaucracy determines to be the right way. It is a return to the works era righteousness of Adventism expressed once by Ellen White  in Early Writings page 55-56 1882 when she said:

  I saw the Father rise from the throne, and in a flaming chariot go into the holy of holies within the veil, and sit down. Then Jesus rose up from the throne, and the most of those who were bowed down arose with Him. I did not see one ray of light pass from Jesus to the careless multitude after He arose, and they were left in perfect darkness. Those who arose when Jesus did, kept their eyes fixed on Him as He left the throne and led them out a little way. Then He raised His right arm, and we heard His lovely voice saying, "Wait here; I am going to My Father to receive the kingdom; keep your garments spotless, and in a little while I will return from the wedding and receive you to Myself." Then a cloudy chariot, with wheels like flaming fire, surrounded by angels, came to where Jesus was. He stepped into the chariot and was borne to the holiest, where the Father sat. There I beheld Jesus, a great High Priest, standing before the Father. On the hem of His garment was a bell and a pomegranate, a bell and a pomegranate. Those who rose up with Jesus would send up their faith to Him in the holiest, and pray, "My Father, give us Thy Spirit." Then Jesus would breathe upon them the Holy Ghost. In that breath was light, power, and much love, joy, and peace. 56

      I turned to look at the company who were still bowed before the throne; they did not know that Jesus had left it. Satan appeared to be by the throne, trying to carry on the work of God. I saw them look up to the throne, and pray, "Father, give us Thy Spirit." Satan would then breathe upon them an unholy influence; in it there was light and much power, but no sweet love, joy, and peace. Satan's object was to keep them deceived and to draw back and deceive God's children.   

Worshipping God is not enough when it has to be done so specifically that to Worship Christ and not realize he left a portion of the heavenly sanctuary which no one sees of course and will be hijacked by Satan will lead to God’s children’s destruction. Ted Wilson wants to interpret the Bible by Ellen White; he is condemning the Adventist church to irrelevancy and ultimate cult status. The sad thing is he is not alone but the product of the leadership of the SDA church.

The Exodus Begins

As many have predicted the Adventist church has committed itself to a return to Adventist traditionalism. To this end Ted N. C. Wilson “was appointed by the church's 246-member Nominating Committee and confirmed by the General Conference Session delegation…” as president of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination; as the Adventist News Network reported.  

What this appointment, quasi election demonstrates is a return to Adventist traditionalism and an open opposition to Progressive Adventism. Here is a section from the ANN report:

"This is not just an organization, this is not just another denomination. This is God's remnant church," Wilson said in an address to delegates after his appointment.

"I do not know everything, but I shall seek wisdom from counselors and from the Bible and from the Spirit of Prophecy," he said, referring to the writings of church co-founder Ellen White.

"The Spirit of Prophecy is one of the great gifts God has given to the Seventh-day Adventist Church," Wilson said. "It applies to the past and to the future. And, we are going home soon."

J. David Newman, Editor of Adventist Today further reports:

“Another priority will be to lift up the Spirit of Prophecy to be more than devotional-level reading, and to employ them for instruction and counsel. Another issue he addressed was the use of Scripture. In interpreting Scripture, we must make sure we are not following the historical critical approach, he warned.”

What these brief excerpts demonstrate is a return to historic/traditional Adventism. They can be summed up by these three points which are foundational to the interpretation of Traditional vs. Progressive Adventism.

1. Adventist church is the Remnant church of God.
2. Ellen White as more than pastoral or devotional but as an authority on truth.
3. Biblical interpretation limited to Ellen White’s method of Bible interpretation, her version of historical grammatical approach.

If we looked further at the above 3 principles we see that they are contrary to Progressive Adventism. Progressive Adventism does not see the Adventist church as the Remnant but that it makes up a part of the Remnant. The Remnant being found throughout the numerous denominations of the Christian world, that the Remnant is the people not any denominational organization. See To be the Remnant or to be part of the Remnant

Ellen White is viewed by Progressive Adventists not as an authority on the truth but as a pastoral writer. Someone whose writing contain errors in theology and science and history, that even if one accepts her writing to be derived from the gift of prophecy that does not equate to being a Prophet of either Old or New Testament standards.

Regarding Wilson’s intention to avoid the historical critical approach in favor of the historical grammatical approach favored by Adventist Traditionalist like Dr. Samuel K. Pipim. “The historical-grammatical method distinguishes between the one original meaning of the text and its significance.” What this means is that “The original passage is seen as having only a single meaning or sense. As Milton S. Terry said: "A fundamental principle in grammatico-historical exposition is that the words and sentences can have but one significance in one and the same connection. The moment we neglect this principle we drift out upon a sea of uncertainty and conjecture." (Above quotes from Wikipedia) Of course there are a number of assumptions here as well. For example if we take the Genesis creation chapters using the historical grammatical method we would assume that the author thought that what he wrote down was how events happened and that the first hearers would have understood it in the same literal fashion. Thus the single meaning of the creation story is the literal story. I alluded that this is based upon assumptions of history but also assumptions of traditions. For example the Isaiah 14 text about Lucifer was neither intended by the author nor was it understood by the first people to hear the text as a reference to Satan, but that will still be the interpretation of those holding the historical grammatical method of exposition.

Progressive Adventists  see the value and the application of using the historical-critical method. Unfortunately it appears that some of the abuses of the historical critical method such as assumptions that there is nothing supernatural have affected Wilson’s understanding about how the interpretations can be useful within the Christian community.

It appears to me that the shift in leadership will serve to force out Progressive Adventists and seek to perpetuate 19^th century Adventist Ellen White dominated theology.

So the exodus begins.

GC President decides via opinions rather then research

Adventist News Network reports the following:

The issue of women's ordination will not be added to the agenda for the 59th General Conference Session of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the church's President Jan Paulsen said April 6.

Speaking to leadership at Spring Meeting in Silver Spring, Maryland, Paulsen said that a canvass of the church's 13 world church divisions revealed only three willing to accept a change in the current policy of not ordaining women to pastoral ministry, and eight divisions reporting the move would negatively impact membership. Two other divisions apparently did not respond.

After all the arguments both pro and con on the subject of the ordination of women we see the true colors of the method of decision making in the Adventist Church. The President of the GC will ask the divisions leaders for their opinions, because of course they are all Bible scholars who would never allow their cultural traditions and personal biases to intervene with their opinions. Therefore the church cannot deal with the issue in the General Conference session because the majority of the World Division leaders don't want to accept the idea of the ordination of women and they think it would negatively impact their divisions. Because of course they have researched it well and they are all scholars and cutting edge researchers.

The problem here is that the World Division leaders are not in the main scholars they have not done any research into what will happen to the church should women be ordained. All they have is their opinions taken to the extreme as if their opinion is the will of all the divisions or even any divisions. Would it really upset the members of Division A if Division B ordained women? It is silly to expect the opinion of a Division leader to have any real value in that question. But it is given supreme value and the President Jan Paulsen takes it upon himself to veto any discussion at the GC session.

How can it be that our church has fallen into this state of arrogant leadership. It is of course symptomatic of the whole delegate process which is heavily weighted to employees of the church, who of course owe their employment to those same leaders of the SDA church.

All hail the bureaucracy!