There have been several reports and responses to General Conference President Ted N.C. Wilson’s, Sabbath sermon during the 2021 Annual Council in Spring Maryland. I spent some time reading and listening to the last 2 Annual Council Sermons. The 2021 Sermon “Trust God’s Prophetic Word in the Coming Conflict” and the 2020 Sermon “God Will Have A People” This is my analysis of the implications of both together, as usual my take is far different from what one reads on most of the Adventist Media outlets.
Both of Ted Wilson’s sermons are pretty much the same though I will point out that the 2020 sermon does an admirable job of pointing out just what Adventists think the messages of the 3 Angels of Revelation 14 are. This is important because I have long said that the Adventist use of the 3 Angels messages is simply a shorthand way of saying Seventh-Day-Adventist distinctive doctrinal beliefs. In this sermon we hear that very clearly pointed out with no obfuscation which normally occurs when you ask an Adventist what are the 3 Angel’s messages.
Ted Wilson set forth a list of bullet points which I quote below with excerpts. If you are familiar with them you can skip to the Implications section.
1. The Word of God Not Accepted as Authoritative
“The Spirit of Prophecy indicates we should read the Bible as it reads…” “…Seventh-day Adventists believe in the historical-biblical or historical-grammatical approach, allowing the Bible to interpret itself line upon line, precept upon precept, verse upon verse. We believe in the historicist approach to prophecy, not the preterist or futurist approaches. The historical-biblical hermeneutical method is the only method accepted by the Seventh-day Adventist Church.”
2. Attempts to Diminish the Spirit of Prophecy
“The Spirit of Prophecy was given by God through Ellen G White as special instructions to God’s last-day church and is verified by Revelation 12:17 and Revelation 19:10. The Spirit of Prophecy is absolutely reliable and is to be believed and accepted in its entirety. Ellen White was absolutely a prophet of God and her ministry including strong messages from the throne room of God about apocalyptic prophecy and instruction are for all time. As we read the Spirit of Prophecy we are convinced of its accuracy, truthfulness, and relevancy.”
3. Misconceptions of Justification and Sanctification
“Christ’s righteousness encompasses His justifying and sanctifying power and is at the very core of the three angels’ messages. It is through Christ’s justification that we can be righteous in the Father’s eyes. It is through Christ’s sanctification that we can keep the commandments of God.”
4. Denial of the Urgency of the Times
“However, in the Bible, God has provided many signs indicating Jesus' return. We are very close!”
5. Humanism versus Heavenly Inspiration
“My fellow leaders, fight against humanism and lift up heavenly inspiration according to His word!” [He does not define humanism.[ Humanism is defined as:
1. A system of thought that focuses on humans and their values, capacities, and worth. 2. A cultural and intellectual movement of the Renaissance that emphasized human potential to attain excellence and promoted direct study of the literature, art, and civilization of classical Greece and Rome. 3. The study of the humanities; learning in the liberal arts.]
6. Disregard for the Sanctuary Service and the Gospel Message
“…Promote and teach the sanctuary doctrine with Christ, His righteousness, and the everlasting gospel at the center. Biblical prophecies are real and Daniel 8:14 is absolutely rock solid. Don't believe anybody who says, “Oh no, that was only 2,300 literal days and it ended with someone called Antiochus Epiphanes.” No, my friends, don't believe that. We use the biblical day/year principle given to interpret prophecy. Allow the Bible to interpret itself. The historicist approach shows us that history has accurately unfolded according to His Word!”
7. Ecumenism versus The Shaking and Sifting of God’s Church
“I strongly urge you to stay away from ecumenism. Instead, focus on the proclamation of the three angels’ messages. Believe what The Great Controversy says about the end time setting when the shaking and sifting of the church will take place…”
8. Congregationalism versus God’s Worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Remnant Church
“There are those who wish to focus only on local church and community settings ignoring the worldwide family of Seventh-day Adventists in about 215 countries…”
9. Attacks against the Godhead
“There are those who advocate that the Godhead is not three distinct Persons thus diminishing God. We know from the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy that there is absolutely a Godhead made up of three Persons united in One…”
10. Opposition to God’s Law and His Ten Commandments
There are those who will say the law has been done away; however, God’s law is eternal. We do not keep God’s law, the ten commandments, through our own power but only as we lean on Christ and His righteousness… This will be our test.”
11. Evolution versus Biblical Creation
The devil has attempted to obliterate all references to God’s authority as the Creator, including the erroneous idea that the earth evolved over billions of years. Both evolution and theistic evolution are opposed to the account of creation found in the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy. The global flood, also denigrated by non-believers, is another indication of God’s power and authority to remake the world…”
12. Aberrant Lifestyle Behavior versus Biblical View of Sexuality
This subject is a delicate one, but we cannot be silent on what the Bible teaches as correct living and practice. The Seventh-day Adventist Church has carefully studied these topics and has issued voted statements by representatives of the world church that reflect the biblical view on human sexuality including statements on homosexuality and transgenderism. ..”
13. Rejection of Temperance versus God’s Comprehensive Health Ministry and Health Reform
“…The devil will use anything to distract people from God’s laws of health and health reform, but God has given us enormous counsel in the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy for living a healthy lifestyle. Read and follow it as part of the third angel’s message to stay away from anything that will defile you. My fellow church leaders and members, stay faithful to God’s pure health principles. According to His Word!”
14. Disastrous Influences of Eastern Mysticism
The devil is using eastern mysticism to bring in all sorts of syncretistic beliefs into the Seventh-day Adventist Church, including pantheism and other forms of aberrant theological twisting of the Word of God...”
Implications
This article is not an attempt to counter any of Ted Wilson’s points. I have read several articles in the past few weeks from the Progressive Adventist viewpoints that dealt with some of these 14 points. I want to point out that these 14 points are pretty much in line with the views of Traditional Adventists. There might be a couple that some Traditional Adventist would quibble with, however I can say that there is relatively few on this list that Progressive Adventists would say are important and we must accept and teach these denominational concepts. Most notably I would point to the authority of Ellen White as a prophet and assertion that we must believe in a recent 6 day creation and literal worldwide flood.
As equally to be rejected by the Progressive Adventist is the Historicist view of history and the dismissal of anything but a “historical-biblical or historical-grammatical approach, allowing the Bible to interpret itself line upon line, precept upon precept, verse upon verse”. The statement, “line upon line…” is interesting since it reflects an Ellen White viewpoint that is based on a misused Bible verse. The context of the verse in Isa 28:10 indicates that those erring teachers (vs. 7 “they err in vision, they stumble in judgment”) who use repetition without imagery or illustration and without an appeal to understanding or respect for reason.
Several of the statements on this list would seem to many Progressive Adventists to encourage what is often termed Last Generation Theology. Some of the articles from Progressives also took the political progressive view of LGBT+ non-affirmation as their most important take away from the 2021 sermon.
This leads to the question the members of the SDA denomination should be asking themselves. Which of these points is important and which ones can be discarded. If I as a Traditional Adventist am in agreement with Ted Wilson, I would say none of them must be discarded and all must be proclaimed as essential to our denomination? If I as a Progressive Adventist say I disagree with most all of Ted Wilson’s points, I would think that most of those points should be discarded. What would be my essentials that the denomination must proclaim?
It would be interesting to ask the Progressive Adventists that question and if their websites were not so restricted maybe someone could. I do guess that the Progressive Adventist would say their essentials would be fairly nonspecific. Preach the Gospel and likely essential to reject eternal torment in hell and possibly a respect for the park in time of a Sabbath. That seems to be about it, certainly there are other essentials but those would be common among most Christian denominations.
This is the point where the implications of all this really hits me. Why should the Progressive Adventist even try to change the SDA denomination? The Traditionalist would say save the denomination by proclaiming the things on Wilson’s list and the Progressive SDA would say leave those things behind. If this ever becomes a real struggle for the denomination as in if an actual schism occurs there is nothing that the Progressives would give up to the Traditional Adventists. But the Traditional Adventists would have to give up most of their beliefs.
Does it make sense to take away all these things from the Traditional Adventists? Progressive Adventists believe that many of these things the Traditional Adventist believes are harmful to the cause of Christ. Let us for sake of argument say that the Progressive Adventists are correct and many of these teachings hurt the cause of Christ. Would not the best thing be to leave the Adventist system altogether; spend their time on spreading what they believe is the gospel to the world rather than spending their efforts trying to dissuade the Traditional Adventists to change their beliefs. Having the SDA denomination infrastructure would certainly be helpful to the Progressive Adventists but it is not likely to happen is it?
I would assume that Progressive Adventists likely have most of the faculty of SDA colleges and have had them for the last 20 years at least. But because they still cling to Ellen White as something of an authority even if not accepting all her statements they don’t really have a consistent message that could dissuade Traditional Adventists. When you read the two sermons by Ted Wilson you will see that on much of his sermons he backs himself up by using Ellen White. The Traditional Adventist can always point to anyone not accepting Ellen White as a fulfillment of prophecy (making her of none effect). So in simple terms I see no way that Progressive Adventists can get what they want. They can’t even chip away at the Adventist church as they have been doing, as I have been doing for most of my life, because the church is built on Ellen White. To think that the SDA denomination will give up their distinctive message, that 3 angels messages that they think firmly places Ellen White and the Adventist denomination inside the Bible is something that simply will never happen.
At the Adventist Today zoom Sabbath School Class I asked this question:
“Should there be pluralism in the Adventist church? Should there be pluralism in the Adventist Today publication (and website)? I am using the last half of the Cambridge dictionary definition of Pluralism: "...different beliefs and opinions, within the same society" (I am not using the different people groups/culture/races meaning…”
No one there really offered an answer to the question but Loren Seibold did reply at one point: “Ron, we don’t expect the denomination to be pluralistic. Not sure where you got that idea. We have seen little evidence that they want to be.”
My question was not is either the Adventist Church or Adventist Today pluralistic but should they be. It has long been my opinion that Adventist Today has become politically progressive and that is their main emphasis. If a person thought that the Denomination should be pluralistic it would seem appropriate for a website serving other members of the church to also be pluralistic.
But if a Progressive Adventist has no expectation of the denomination being pluralistic what is the point of being a Progressive Adventist?
One thing that is quite a big difference between the Traditional and the Progressive Adventist is that the Traditional Adventists are pretty sure that what people believe in the way of doctrines is important for their salvation. I can say that for myself and many of the people who attend the AToday Sabbath school class this is not their belief. I place myself in the Universalism camp. See my article What About Universalism which interestingly enough was first published in Adventist Today back before I was persona non grata there. While that may still be a minority view of Progressive Adventists, most certainly believe that Adventism is not now or in the future a requirement for salvation. You will notice that ecumenism was one of the things on Wilson’s list.
While I would love to persuade the Traditional Adventist of my Progressive Adventist views because I think it is closer to the truth and better for society and better for the cause of Christ. It is not to me a salvation issue for them to change. The Traditional Adventist expects that people who are not totally in on the Adventist belief system to be shaken out of the church, to be shaken out as non-believers that is a salvation issue!
So I can’t see any reason to be a Progressive Adventist. Certainly not if I was like Loren Seibold and thought that the Adventist church is never going to be open to different beliefs and opinions in the denomination. I in fact do agree with Seibold on that. How much effort should Progressive Adventist put in on changing what does not want to be changed? Traditional Adventists certainly have the right to their chosen beliefs and it should not be too much trouble for me to accept their beliefs as I accept so many other people’s beliefs. My having been raised in the same denomination as them should at the very least make me more accepting of their beliefs. So again what is the point in being a Progressive Adventist?
There is as far as I can see only one reason for Progressive Adventists to continue. It is not however a good reason, it is a quest for power and control. That is, to attempt to take over churches and schools from the control of the Adventist denomination.
I have been what I have called a Progressive Adventist for over 20 years, (See The Problem of Progressive Adventists ) though back then I always noted it was not at all related to political progressive. 8 or 9 years ago places like Adventist Today and Spectrum merged with political progressivism and I used the term much less. Today I feel it is time to complete the dissolution of the term Progressive Adventist. I no longer see any use for the term and no benefit to continue it at all. Thus it is not only the end of a term but the end of my involvement with Seventh-Day Adventists. I appreciate the history I have with the church and people. I wish the church well and do not want to see a schism disrupt the people. So I offer this to all of Adventism, but as I am always learning if anyone can explain to me a reason for Progressive Adventism I look forward to hearing it.
6 comments:
Ron, you have taken Ted Wilson as the authority on what defines SDAism, then proceeded to argue that because progressives don't agree with nearly any of those or at least don't see them as essential, while traditionalists do, progressives would do better to just leave Adventism to the traditionalists and leave. I'm paraphrasing what you seem to be implying and what it sounds like you have decided to do.
But what if you defined Adventism simply as a pursuit of truth, building on the received truths from earlier Adventists and Christians (and being open to changing/discarding them as needed, even as EGW herself said would be necessary--much to learn, much to unlearn)? Even Present Truth, which implies progressive? Then, people from different sets of assumptions, educations, cultures, etc., could seek truth under that banner. At any moment in time and specific location/meeting/leader/etc one would find particular expressions of perceived truths, but that wouldn't imply they are universally held or that they are necessarily correct. The overriding principle would be that each is free and even obligated and responsible for studying for themselves and finding truth as best they can. Integrity means standing up for that truth, even if inconvenient or leading to confrontation (with humility--you may not be correct after all--and love). A culture of truth-seeking, and not one of ideology/propaganda, would be accustomed to disagreement and would encourage multiple perspectives to engage in the conversation. It would not conclude there is no place for progressives or for traditionalists but that each represents people seeking truth within this ethos. Local churches should be places where such diverse people gather, as should AT, Spectrum, the Review, etc. When organizations become all about ideology (preserving tradition, or OTOH, promoting leftist political/social ideologies), then that ethos is damaged, leading one to question its purpose (as you have).
Historically, Adventists have been about this progressive search. Contra Wilson, trinitarianism was NOT embraced by several founders, so they would have failed to agree with his list. The organization has changed its beliefs about numerous things over the years. That change has been driven by progressives (people driven by their belief that truth lay beyond the current position).
On a more personal level, most people "progress" through life, changing their views as they experience life. As a practical matter, the church of one's childhood is not the church of one's working years or of one's retirement. I question the wisdom of abandoning an organization just because one has "progressed." What if one's children or one's parents are in the organization? Is there no value in the community? If the church is seen as a group of truth-seekers, I don't see why leaving is necessary.
Only if one sets up a Manichean "us" vs. "them" scenario might it seem necessary to either "win" or "leave".
It certainly would be possible for me to define Adventism as "a pursuit of truth", However, I don't believe that and I can't see any evidence for that so why would I make a statement that I clearly know is not true. Now, why do I use the President of the Adventist GC (Ted Wilson)as an authority upon what the Adventist church believes? Because the President of the GC is just as political as any other President. That means that he does not stand on some unpopular beliefs but upon the beliefs of those around him and in control of the Adventist church, the people that elected him. Never think that it is the common people in the Adventist church that elect their President and other leaders, it is the Bureaucracy of the Church that does the electing. Next time they hold elections check out how many are employees of the church and how many are not!
I don't really hold that the trinitarian position so much of a change as much as codifying their beliefs. This is a good article on the question of were early Adventist Arian or semi-arian. https://www.asitreads.com/blog/2017/9/21/were-seventh-day-adventist-pioneers-arians-or-semi-arians
I also have to disagree with your estimation of present truth. It was never really progressive it could be defined as a form of propaganda. see my article http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2010/09/defining-and-redefining-present-truth.html
I'm arguing that YOU (and I and others) can make Adventism a pursuit of truth. I'm not saying the entire church would make that their goal. Some people's desire for communion has other motivations. If you don't find that Adventism is a community in which one can pursue truth, then yes, leave. My own experience has been that I have many resources within the church that help me in that pursuit, including infrastructure resources (such as university libraries), people (pastors, professors who are experts in various fields, fellow-seekers who are willing to share and discuss ), and a "starting point" of received doctrines that we can re-examine and use as starting places for our own searching/learning if we find them to be reasonable starting points (or from them triangulate to some other starting point).
I am dealing from my perspective, not yours. What that means is that as I think Loren Seibold has said many times something like 60% of Adventists go to 10 different churches in America. So if one is part of a big Adventist community that actually has lots of progressive Adventists their view is likely much different from mine for them personally. Though ultimately I think that my view applies better to the world situation. When I had the Progressive Adventist website so many times people would ask where they could find other Progressive Adventist churches or Sabbath School classes. The answer in most cases was there were none near them. I then set up a website to try to help connect Progressive Adventists. That did not get any participation either. So with my experience, I would grant you that you could say there are clusters in large Adventist communities that may pursue truth. But they do not bother to try and do anything outside their cluster. So they are insulated and their reality is much different from the rest of the world.
I'm not in one of the 10. The congregation I worship with usually numbers in the 30-40 range. Maybe that is why I argue that it is up to each of us to find our way, and not define who we are or can be by what a Ted Wilson or a Loren Seibold says.
When I use that 10 number I don't necessarily agree with it literally those 10 churches but I think it is more accurate as 10 centers of Adventism. For example, I think there were something like 10 Adventist churches in the Walla Walla area when I was there. That is what it sounded like to me when you said you had resources within the church. "infrastructure resources (such as university libraries), people (pastors, professors who are experts in various fields.." I am not trying to talk anyone out of anything. As some I have talked to about this basically talk about how they can tolerate and be content with the Adventist church. I think tolerate and being content are not the same as having a reason to exist. So my question is aside from some hopeful thinking what is the reason for a progressive Adventist.
Post a Comment