Revisionist history of Ellen White Reclaiming the Prophet

 I just watched the Adventist Today Donald McAdams, “A Review of the Ellen White Revisionist History Since 1970” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr10b-_UycA

This presentation had in attendance 3 of the authors of the new book Reclaiming the Prophet. The book was planned and written for the purpose as described by an AI app: “The book "Reclaiming the Prophet: An Honest Defense of Ellen White’s Gift" is a collection of essays by 11 scholars, edited by Eric Anderson, that aims to provide a balanced and historical perspective on Ellen White's role and influence within the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The book seeks to address the increasing polarization within the church regarding Ellen White by offering a "new consensus" and "reconstruction" of her role and influence.

This presentation was given when the book was just about to be published by Pacific Press. The book was since withdrawn. You can read about the withdrawal of the book at the Atoday site. However, the presentation on May 25, 2025, was before that announcement, and those present expected the book to be available in June.

Donald McAdam's presentation was interesting, as he was present during the period when major changes occurred in Adventism. He then presents us with the premise of the book which seems to be based upon what he calls Revisionist Historians' work. I am quoting from the transcripts, and I have edited them for clarity. The time codes are provided at the start of each quote.

53:38

“So we don't need to throw out Ellen White We just need to understand her better And I think I can get to that point The revisionist historians of the last 50 years have have gradually fleshed out this picture”

First, a note about Revisionist history. I don't like the term, and even looking it up, we can see it is used positively and negatively. Among the few references I looked at I tend to agree with the statement that all history is actually revisionist. That is, any historian who finds something true that others may have missed is actually revising the story of history. See The Ever-Changing Past: Why All History is Revisionist History. So avoiding that distraction here is what McAdam's tells us about the Revisionist historians:

57:27

“Okay So let's talk about the revisionist historians first of all I need to define what I mean by a revisionist historian I mean one that will look at the primary sources and try to look at all of the primary sources not someone else's account but primary sources and to look at all of them and and then try to face the facts as they are there in these sources and then finally make judgments that are consistent with the weight of the evidence So let me say two things about the historical craft. Historians make statements of fact and those need to be based on a on a primary source and they should be able to footnote it if necessary. They also make judgments that is they look at a whole lot of facts that some disagree with Some some are this way some are this way some are this way And they try to draw together a conclusion and make a judgment about what really happened or what the real issues were. And those judgments are important and that that's why people read history And I can give you a lot of examples You know why did Wellington win the battle of Waterloo they're all different kinds of opinions Historians weigh all this evidence and they try to come up with some conclusion and that's a judgment And revisionist historians should come up with honest judgments based on the weight of the evidence Okay so that's what I mean by a revisionist historian Uh now I also want...” 58:57

Here is his statement about Ellen White and Revisionist historians:

1:00:02
Right so let's just take Ellen White for a minute and then I'll get into these revisionist historians If Ellen White says "I had a vision and I'm writing it out." There is no way to know whether she had a vision or not. And there's no way to know for sure if the vision was inspired or whether it was just a dream or a hallucination or a seizure or ecstatic experience, there's no there's no way a historian can do that right what the historian can do is show if what was written is true or not true or original or not original,Right so you can by faith believe that Ellen White had visions and that she had visions from God but you can't believe by faith that she didn't borrow because you can prove she did .And you can't believe by faith that she didn't make any mistakes because you can prove she did. So that's how faith and reason work. There has to be a reason for your faith Otherwise you can have faith in anything You can have faith in witches you can have faith in Joseph Smith you can have faith in Muhammad you can have faith in anything. The way you choose to have faith in something because overall it makes sense to you And then you feel it And you might be wrong but nevertheless you believe it by faith. Now the revisionist historians have not abandoned faith in Ellen White's inspiration. They can't there's no way to say "No she didn't see that in a vision," or "No God didn't reveal that to her." That's that's something historians can't do So the revision historians don't do that What they do, do is describe what happened And sometimes they leave it to the reader to make sense of it but they nevertheless stick with the facts and where the facts lead them they follow, now there's been a lot of revisionist work but it mostly didn't start until the 21st century And I have a whole list of the scholars who have done this And I want to critique each one briefly and then I want to go to where I think the church is today 1:02:09

So for McAdams the Revisionist historians must start and end with a belief in the inspiration of Ellen White. That seems a fatal flaw in his definition of Revisionist historians. They are all looking at the same facts, but their judgment of those facts is restricted to one outcome. 

Here he discusses the new book Reclaiming the Prophet.

1:26:50

“The premise of this book is something new and fresh and I'm going to conclude on this and I recommend you should buy this book It's not expensive It's online and it's short You can read it you know in an afternoon. the premise of this book is that the scholarship of the revisionist historians is settled We we don't want to dispute it We don't want to argue about it We don't want to deny it We accept it We accept it. But what do we do with it, what is the value of Ellen White to us today how is she relevant for the church and the answer is the Lord used her in ways that we may not be able to explain but he did use her. We believe that because of the power of the books themselves not only was she a historical force of great significance we wouldn't have a church without her. Her writings point us to the Bible They point us to the cross they uplift our spirits they bring comfort to us in times of sorrow and there the value for Ellen White to the church is not [does not finish the thought but goes to the quotation] here's a quotation that comes from one of the 1919 Bible conference leaders and I want to find this and read it to you this is H Camden Lacy who was one of the participants in the 1919 Bible conference and he says quote, in our estimate of the spirit of prophecy isn't its value to us, more in the spiritual light it throws into our own hearts and lives than in the intellectual accuracy, in historical and theological matters and I think we know what the answer to that is Yes.”

I find this fascinating that the value of the belief in the inspiration of Ellen White is found in the spiritual light that it throws into our hearts. If a person finds some value then they believe she is a prophet. I guess that would make a whole lot of people who believe Max Lucado is a prophet. But I don't think that is actually how the Bible teaches us to recognize a prophet. It seems that the Revisionist historians have, if McAdams is to be believed, so limited themselves as to be useless with their judgments.

McAdams believes Adventism is at a turning point.

55:40

But in 1919 and in the 1970s church leaders were afraid I think that's the right word They were afraid that the unity of the church would fracture if they opened this up. And in the 1919 they were able to keep it in [hidden in archives of the 1919 Bible Conference]. In the 1970s they couldn't [Spectrum's publication of the Ellen White section of the 1919 Bible Conference full version now available at the archives]and and so they recognizing that they couldn't you would think they would have made some attempts to try to cope with it because the revisionist historians have not gone away and what they've produced since is now an overwhelming body of knowledge. And I do believe that right now we are in another turning point. Right now we are in another turning point, And if the church leaders don't recognize this I think Ellen White is going to be lost entirely to the Adventist church not she just forgotten as irrelevant to keep her relevant in the church which I think is important and good for the church we need to understand her differently And this book is an attempt to do so which I will get to at the end and I think might be encouraging to some but I do think the church leaders in the 70s and the to be specific 1980 I think they failed I think they I think they made the wrong decision I think they should have tried to open it up 56:49

Here I am in some agreement, Adventism is at a turning point, it moves away from Ellen White as a prophet, or it moves into a cult that follows Ellen White for it doctrines. Maintaining her as a prophetic authority will lead to being identified as a non-Christian cult. Meaning the doctrines of the Church are based upon Ellen White rather than the Bible. The alternative is this middle path of the so-called Revisionist historians, which is that she is inspired in a relatively vague way that if you get a spiritual boost in some way from her writings, she is important to you and important to the church because the church has her in its tradition. This leaves the other option that I think is the best option; that she did not have any prophetic authority and her work was mostly borrowed from others, and that, contrary to the claims she makes, she is not a messenger of God. At least not any more than any other Christian who points to Jesus as our Savior and the Bible as inspired information about God and his dealings with people. Which I will say is a good thing about Christians, we don't have to be always right and loving and accurate, but we always should point to Jesus Christ, and we learned about Him in the Bible and develop our doctrines from the Bible.

There is one more interesting point that I will add as I am a follower on FaceBook of Steve Daily and there was this question asked in the above presentation. The question was asked:

2:08:53  

just do you have any thoughts or comments on Steve Daily's book i've heard a lot of negative about it I've not read it but I just wondered if you have and I hear it's pretty negative about Ellen White Just that's my question Thank you.

 Donald McAdams answer was:

 “I read the first chapter and I quit because I considered it a polemic not a work of history”

So a book titled Ellen G. White A Psycobiography was not history so McAdams put it down. It is a polemic that is true, It is an argument against the traditional SDA beliefs about Ellen White using psychology, reason, and history. But he has better companions now he has Revisionist Historians who will only rock the boat and not follow the history and reason to its logical conclusions. Again, if it does not make judgments acceptable, it cannot be history, even though most all history makes judgments about the facts of history. It is, to my view, a sad commentary on the scholarship of these authors of Reclaiming the Prophet.

3ABN fires Ryan Day is it justified?

 I was listening to Advent Media Connect where he went over an interesting case in Adventism. An employee of 3ABN was fired from his job, or as Ryan Day said in his update told it was time to "separate". Listening to Ryan Day was interesting as he described his doctrinal questions and his experience. It is about 2.5 hours but it is well said and not hard to listen to, even if a bit long. Then the following day, Advent Media Connect presented the sermon to Ryan Day's home church in the video titled: "Pr. John Lomacang Warns His Church on Ryan Day's Unbiblical Position." This is where things really get interesting for me.
                                                            Picture below   Ryan Day

John Lomacang begins at 1:17 saying: "And not too long ago at 3ABN um a sad decision was made uh but not on the basis of anything incorrect but there was a decision made that was facilitated by a departure from the doctrinal integrities of our church and our dear brother uh Ryan Day decided that he no longer could be a part of 3ABN.                                    Picture Below  John Lomacang

He continues at 3:01

"And I've said it pains all of us to know that such a young man with grand potential would make a decision that he felt that our doctrines were so out of harmony with the Bible that he could no longer be a part of our church Well let me tell you he was an elder of our church also And nothing is further from the truth The seventh-day adventist church throughout its existence have maintained one standard and one continuous standard is that everything we teach must be based on the unerring word of God. If it is not we don't we don't embrace it "

Notice the cute little switch that makes it appear like Day left 3ABN rather than Day being fired (he did get severance pay). We have learned so far that a decision was made facilitated by a departure from the doctrinal integrities of our church, and that Day felt our doctrines were out of harmony with the Bible. Further that the SDA church is only based upon the Bible, and if not in the Bible, we don't embrace it. 

So Ryan Day, by John Lomacang's own words, feels that there are some doctrines out of harmony with the Bible. So, apparently, if they can both agree that their doctrines should come from the Bible, why would 3ABN feel it necessary to fire a fellow Bible believer? 

It must be something to do with something that is not really from the Bible. Lomacang's warning was that Day's departing from the "doctrinal integrities" of our church. That is interesting, as Lomacang has said that the SDA church only embraces things found in the Bible. But as we will see, that is not even true in Lomacang's own sermon. 

At 7:25 Lomacang says: "Examine our doctrines You know many people just like the fall of Lucifer from heaven Lucifer's fall was not based on the fact that he proved God wrong He made many accusations but because he could not prove God wrong He was expelled And the Bible talks about the influence of anyone who goes and walks away from truth Revelation 12:4 When Lucifer fell his tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth  One third of the angels rebelled with Lucifer And they did not rebel on the basis of the fact that Lucifer was right But they joined with Lucifer on the basis that they sympathized with him When you sympathize your reasoning capacities are shut down When you sympathize God's word is no longer your guide "

I will simply note here that there is no Bible teaching that lucifer is satan, that tradition that misidentifies lucifer as satan is not a biblical doctrine. But Lomacang goes much farther and says that the fallen angels sympathized with satan and their reasoning capacites were shut down. Where does anyone find that in the Bible? If you only embrace things found in the Bible, how can Lomacang make such a statement? 

Lomacang continues: "Every point of rebellion seeks to create new victims on the following points: One; they lack experience on doctrinal points that are being used to deceive them. Two; they fall for the belief that somehow the accusations made have some credible merit without going and asking for counsel from those of experience. And thirdly; they sympathize with the accuser The servant of the Lord wrote in councils for the church He said "Satan hopes to involve the remnant people of God in the general ruin that is coming upon the earth As the coming of Christ draws nigh he will be more determined and decisive in his efforts to overthrow them." Listen to what she says, and by the way, Ellen White's going to be attacked tonight on their broadcast also..."

So we can finally see where the problem lies. It is not a problem of Bible doctrines; there is no Bible doctrine that angels sympathized with Satan, that is, from Ellen White's addition, known in Adventism as the Great Controversy theme. An entirely unbiblical exposition on the happenings in Heaven before the earth was even created. Questioning how Ellen White is a prophetic authority is the "doctrinal integrities of our church". Taking Ellen White as a prophet is not a Biblical doctrine either, so very clearly, Adventist doctrines are in fact not derived from the Bible. Lomacang has very well demonstrated that his presupposition about the Adventist church's doctrines coming from the Bible is not true!

Here is an example of Ryan Day's apparent attack that Lomacang expected, from Ryan Day's Update: 

2:31:36 "Let's get back to the Bible Let's put Christ back in the church back in the center Make him the cornerstone of our existence Not a woman who contradicts scripture not a woman who plagiarizes and tells everyone she got it from Jesus We shouldn't have to say "Well, Ellen White says for every little thing that we we say but my goodness you go on these Adventist forums and I did one a few a few months back where I asked a question and and here we go Here I go." Very few Bible texts a plethora of Ellen White says "Have mercy Have mercy." We cannot call ourselves a people of the book if we're using Ellen White as a crutch to get us through. So that being said, my friends back to the Bible."

It is interesting that Ryan explains how he came to the view that we should go back to the Bible:
31:27 "so often early on in a and even as recent as when I was at 3ABN you hear this all the time and that is well there's nothing that the Adventist church teaches that cannot be rooted and grounded in scripture or found in scripture You'll hear people say "We don't need Ellen White to teach any of our doctrines All we need is the Bible." Uh the Bible and the Bible alone you can prove all of our doctrines and everything we believe from the Bible and the Bible alone And and that always stuck with me."

What Adventism claims and what it actually does are two very different things. That is something that a denomination that is proclaiming God to the world cannot do!

Doctrines define relationship in the church

There may actually be some hope that the Seventh-day Adventist church is waking up from their self induced delusions. Recently the Adventist Review in an article my Andy Nash actually admitted that Adventists are leaving the church due to not believing Adventist doctrine. Up until now he points out people left, and yes they left in a big way, over relationship issues. He writes of the past this way:

Past studies indicated that if someone left the Adventist Church, it was almost always because of bad experiences or relationships, not because they changed their beliefs.

In a 1998 report, “Why Do Adventists Quit Coming to Church?” prepared by the Center for Creative Ministry, Adventist researcher Monte Sahlin wrote: “Three out of four leave for reasons having to do with their relationships with people and groups, while less than one in five leave because they no longer believe in some teaching of the church.”

Then he goes on to write about a new study:

“The study, “Former Seventh-day Adventist Perceptions of the Seventh-day Adventist Church,” was conducted in 2011 by Southern Adventist University’s School of Business under the direction of marketing professor Lisa Goolsby. Goolsby was approached by Pastor Jerry Arnold and member Ken DeFoor of the Collegedale, Tennessee, Community church about exploring the reasons members are leaving the church. More than 600 former Adventists from throughout the U.S. were invited to answer questions online; 190 participated.

When asked why they quit attending the Adventist Church, 49 percent of respondents cited disagreement or disenchantment with Adventist doctrine, while another 10 percent cited their own lifestyle choices being out of harmony with church teachings. Only 38 percent of responses cited a bad personal experience or “other” reason for leaving. (The respondents were able to cite more than one reason.)

When respondents were invited to give open-ended feedback about their departure from the Adventist Church, 68 percent of the comments concerned Adventist doctrine, 47 percent concerned judgmental attitudes or other problems within the church, 31 percent concerned cofounder Ellen G. White, and 15 percent concerned legalism. (The respondents were able to submit multiple comments, which were then categorized.) “

Now for some analysis. First that last paragraph above. 68% of comments concerned Adventist doctrine and another 31% Ellen White. As most know Ellen White as a prophet is included in the 28 fundamental beliefs of Adventism. So of the comments received it would be more telling to say that 68+11= 79% we related to doctrines of the Adventist church.

In fact it really appears that those claiming relationship issues as the previous reason for Adventists leaving the Adventist church is probably inaccurate as well. So if we search for the 1998 report “Why Do Adventists Quit Coming to Church?” we would probably find a similar gloss over the real reason for the relationship problems. But unless you are connected to some Adventist school you are not likely to find the 1998 report. So I can't really comment on its methodology or conclusions. But there is an article that seems to draw heavily from the report.

The Seventh-day Adventist church puts out a study guide, the Ifollow Discipleship Series in their lesson plan entitled Member Care: Reconnecting they write the following:

Here are some depressing statistics: In most Adventist Churches across North America, typical Sabbath attendance is equal to about 50 percent to 55 percent of the total num-ber of members on the books. A number of churches have completed a name-by-name analysis of their entire membership list and found that typically a third of the members have not attended even once in the past 12 months. “Shut-ins” were not counted in this percentage.

A survey of active members found that 72 percent report that they have a relative or friend who used to be an active member of the Adventist Church but has since dropped out. Dr. Roger Dudley, director of the Institute of Church Ministry at Andrews University, followed a random sample of 13 and 14-year-olds from Adventist families for 10 years, until they were 24 and 25 years of age. About 65 percent had left the Church over those ten years and only 10 percent had returned later, or a net loss of more than half of our young people. It is estimated that there are one or two million former, inactive and “fringe” Adventists in North America and about 500,000 active members who attend at least once a month. Why do we have such a big dropout problem? Ten major studies have been completed by Adventist researchers since the mid-1970s and much has been learned that can provide some answers. Most grew up in the Adventist faith, and were not converts from evangelism. The most common “dropout” is an adult under 50. The median age of drop- outs is 40. The median age of members is 51.

A survey of the general public conducted by the Center for Creative Ministry asked: “Have you ever heard of or read about the Seventh-day Church?” Seven in ten of those over 50 said “Yes,” but only 58 percent of those 30 to 49 years of age; 35 percent of those 18 to 29; and a disappointing 10% of those under 18. Clearly, the Adventist Church

is not connecting with new generations of Americans, even those raised in its own families and schools. And it’s likely that some of the above reasons, especially worship and music style, have something to do with it.

Another place where we’re clearly failing to minister effectively is when people face storms in their lives. Dropouts are three times as likely as active members to be divorced and remarried, and four times as likely to be divorced and single. They are more likely to report stressful life events and moves from one home to another. Yet surely the church is the place where someone facing a major life crisis can most expect to be truly heard, held, and comforted!

Six in ten former members had a non-member spouse as compared with 28 percent of the active members. Did members make a concerted effort to make friends with the non-member spouses, without making it look like they only wanted to add them to the books?

Here are some reasons these former members give for why they left the church: “There is too much politics in the Adventist church [and] church leaders are more concerned with the number of baptisms than the people baptized. The church has too many rules and regulations. Adventists think they can work their way into heaven, and the church is too organized.” They did not feel accepted by the other church members. “The coldness of church members influenced them toward leaving the church, also bigotry, hypocrisy, and judgmental attitudes.” They may express a lack of Adventist friends, and a lack of visits from church members and pastors.

A significant number leave because of dissatisfaction with local church leaders; there is a perception of a lack of sympathy by church leaders for their problems.

In other words, no matter what the life crisis or the reason for leaving, the bottom line is, dropouts are people who never bonded with the core group of their congregation. Two out of three, while they were active members, did not have an office or volunteer role in the congregation. They report few visits by church members or pastors, even while they

were still regular attenders.

Three out of four leave for reasons having to do with their relationships with people and groups; while less than one in five leave because they no longer believe in some teaching of the church. Often it’s for reasons that have already been outlined above. Problems arose which were not addressed, and the person just slipped away. The sad fact is, what most

likely happened back at church is that people shook their heads, assumed the person “wasn’t really committed,” and continued to bring names up as prayer requests, but did not do anything.

Here is the key, in their analysis 75% leave over relationship issues, the last paragraph above says that the reasons are mainly those outlined above and can be summed up as people at the church assuming the person “wasn’t really committed”. Why would they be assumed to not be committed? Because much of what they classed as relationship issues were doctrinally related and the relationship strain came because the person questioned or didn't tow the line of necessary belief in some perceived Adventist fundamental. Take a look at the reasons listed earlier in the quoted material from Ifollow. Let us list those reasons:

1. There is too much politics in the Adventist church

2. Church leaders are more concerned with the number of baptisms than the people baptized.

3. The church has too many rules and regulations.

4. Adventists think they can work their way into heaven,

5. The church is too organized.”

6 They did not feel accepted by the other church members. “The coldness of

church members influenced them toward leaving the church, also bigotry, hypocrisy, and

judgmental attitudes.”

7. They may express a lack of Adventist friends, and a lack of visits from church members and pastors.

There is something that seems to underline most of those reasons. The politics of the church is about agreeing with the church, that will affect how well you fit in the church if you are in or out. Leaders concerned with numbers instead of dealing with issues and questions is again related to doctrine. Rules and regulations are supposedly Biblically derived so again doctrinal. They did not feel accepted, which is again the politics of being in the right group, the one that assumes they have the truth if you are not part of them then those who think they have the truth treat the outsiders coldly. And lastly Adventist friends lacking because they have not been taken into the political power in the church that is endorsed and given power by the leadership of the Adventist church which naturally support loyalty. From my experience it does appear that since the 70's it has been doctrinally based relationship problems that moved people out of the Adventist church for the most part.

Now let me give you a very recent example of how this works using my favorite example of foolish Adventism. Stephen Foster on Atoday.com newest article.

It makes about as much sense (to me) for a Seventh-day Adventist Christian to challenge the inspiration and authority of Ellen White as it does for a Calvinist to challenge the theological authority/bona fides of John Calvin, or a Lutheran of Luther. Yet some members of the voluntary Christian sect or denomination which was co-founded by White—whose commentary on the Bible and whose exegeses and interpretation of the Bible are the result of a prophetic gifting of God—routinely reject her messages (and/or reject the reality of her gifting).

Contradictorily and ironically, some of these individuals believe that they have been given the same or similar gifting; and that, since they live in the present, their gifting is representative of present truth—even though their “truth” may deny or contradict some of what White wrote in great detail.

I view all such claims as bogus at best; and, quite frankly, actually have a much stronger negative opinion of them.

More candidly in my opinion, the ultimate purpose of all efforts to discredit Ellen White is the purposeful destruction of the Advent movement generally, and of its interpretation of the Third Angel’s message in particular.

(Now, of course, I could be wrong; but I’d wager everything that I’m not.)

Basically SDA’s and those who are not SDA have differences with regard to interpretations—and implications resulting from interpretations—of the books of Genesis, Daniel, and The Revelation. This is no different at all than the differences between Adventist conservatives and liberals.

So what are we to do when we fundamentally disagree with what ‘we’ represents? Can those who fundamentally disagree remain together? Can a divided house somehow remain standing?
 

Inspiration provides the following guidance:
“Christ's servants are grieved as they see true and false believers mingled in the church. They long to do something to cleanse the church. Like the servants of the householder, they are ready to uproot the tares. But Christ says to them, ‘Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest.’ He then continues the Ellen White quote.

Now is there any question how such a person will treat those with questions about Ellen White or what the meaning Adventists put on the 3 angels messages or any other interpretation? Such people are tares, at best they are not committed at worst they are agents of evil seeking to destroy the church, after all loyalty to the church is the key to their thinking. To disagree with a doctrine, to acknowledge an old earth or realities of evolution etc is to attempt to destroy the SDA church.

It is rather simple doctrines inform how one relates to others. The remnant mentality, the we have the truth and unless you accept it you are evil will lead to broken relationships. But possibly the Adventist church is beginning to realize just what they have produced with all of the Stephen Fosters that they have filled their churches with. To late for millions of us though...then again just realizing they have a problem is far from actually fixing the problem.

More on youth leaving the church

Both here and on Adventist Today there was discussion on the claim that Adventists youth do not leave over doctrines. A statement that is clearly false on it’s face since of course there are Adventist youth who leave over doctrines and it only takes one to make the statement false. But numerous Adventists still held to that idea regardless of the common sense answer that of course there are Adventist youth and adults who leave over doctrines. So I thought I would supply some information from two books that we can read most of at Google books.

First from from page 35 of Why our teenagers leave the church: personal stories from a 10-year study  By Roger L. Dudley

“Since I believe that my estimate of 50 percent inactivity for those we are not able to contact is conservative indeed, it seems reasonable to believe that at least 40 percent to 50 percent of Seventh-day Adventist teenagers in North America are essentially leaving the church by their middle 20s. This figure may well be higher. Some will return eventually (perhaps a fifth of the dropouts), but, of course, more may also leave. This study does not provide data to suggest what may happen beyond the mid-20s.”

Page 38-39 dealing with those who remained in the church since it is difficult to gauge those who left the church but the conclusion is suspect:

Young Adults and the Fundamental Beliefs

“We did not ask about all 27 fundamental beliefs, but several that define key elements of Adventism. While correct belief is not all there is to being an Adventist, it is certainly core. Without our distinctive message, there is little reason to remain in our particular faith community, especially if friendship ties are broken.”

From the table on page 39

                                    Agree               Disagree

The Sabbath…………91%.................4%

The Second Coming

Of Jesus……………..92%..................3%

The state of the dead...88%..................3%

The heavenly sanctuary and

The 2300 days……….61%.................7%

Ellen White is a

True prophet…………73%.................9%

The Adventist Church is the

True church…………...69%................14%

I am guessing that it is here in this analysis of the survivors in the Adventist church that the myth of youth not leaving because of doctrines comes from. This being the source for the sentence quote that publications like the Adventist Review can use.

“…The feeling here seems to be not so much a rejection of Adventism but that claims for “true church” smack of pride and exclusiveness. Much of the drop in agreement on other items has been because of uncertainty rather than disbelief, especially on the heavenly sanctuary item, where 31 percent were uncertain. Disbelief in Adventist doctrine does not appear to be a major cause of dropout for youth and young adults.”

It is that last sentence that has taken on a life of its own. The conclusion taken from the comments on a survey of Adventists still in the church; that being that half of the group that is still in the church and communicating with the surveys. But not a survey of those who have actually left the church…the ones we are trying to understand.

Continuing on page 41 on the 11,000 Adventists in the Valuegenesis study:

“…With this younger group, once again temperance and Sabbath issues were highly supported; wine, unclean meats, and sexual behavior were moderately supported; and the “bottom four” were weakly supported. In that study the acceptance rate was jewelry, 39 percent; rock music, 26 percent; dancing, 23 percent; and movies, 19 percent. All four had more in disagreement than in agreement, with nearly two thirds disagreeing on watching movies. It seems almost certain that these four standards will not hold in the near future of the church.”

When reading this we have to wonder what the author sees as a difference between a standard and a doctrine? Unfortunately many people don’t realize they are the same thing. That is a teaching of the church as its standards and beliefs.

On page 42 dealing with the importance of religious faith:

“… This may indicate that contemporary young adults tend to view religious faith apart from institutional commitment and, indeed, the comments introduced in another chapter tend to bear this out. It may also suggest that inactive young adults may be open to fresh approaches to religious faith.”

Adventist doctrine has taught the institutional view of religious faith, but that is less important to the young adults, again a disagreement with doctrine.

Finally here is a brief section on page 273 from Getting it right: a power-packed resource for Adventist youth leaders  By General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists. Youth Dept. Chapter author Barry Gane:

“A simple factor analysis of the data revealed five main factors [Valuegenesis results from Sough Pacific Division]:

control: not allowed to think for self, problem with the doctrines, and emphasis on nonessentials

            lack of caring

            lack of meaning and purpose

            personal integrity

            control; discipline, family problems, too restrictive”

There is simply no around the idea that doctrinal issues are related to the loss of youth and adults in the Adventist church. Let’s start being realistic for a change.

Doctrine to irrelevance

A recent Adventist Today article by Melissa Howell entitled Why Are They Leaving? Covers some of the material that this blog has discussed but it also shows a fatal disconnect in Adventism. That disconnect is summed up with this quote from the article:

“Thankfully, one giant we still have in our ranks is the fact that it's almost never our beliefs that make them leave. The Adventist message, our fundamentals, and the Bible truth as we see it are usually not where the problem lies. Most still see ours as the correct understanding. Most still believe in the Sabbath, the state of the dead, the second coming, the health message and the three angels' messages…”

While Melissa’s article is about young people she reflects the same idea that I have seen other denominationally employed writers put forth. The fact is you cannot separate your doctrines from your relevance. After all your doctrines are the teachings of your church, if your church is not relevant how can what you teach be relevant? The other error with the assumption is the idea that youth or adults have this great acceptance of the “Adventist Message, or “our fundamentals” “the health message”  and particularly the code word used “the three angels messages” which covers everything Adventists teach including the investigative judgment and 1844. The importance of 1844 and the Investigative judgment is certainly not readily accepted by many Adventists.

In an article on this blog I quoted Bailey Gillespie, Ph.D. Professor of Theology and Personality Director of the John Hancock Center for Youth and Family Ministry School of Religion La Sierra University at the Pacific Northwest Adventist Association Forum presentation on what we know from the Valuegenesis studies: He stated:

“However three of the least believed doctrines show up in every study we do in every single group we do they are the same three in the same order. The sanctuary doctrine definitely believed by only 20 percent of your young people in Washington 20 % [meaning Washington state where the forum occurred] of your kids so all the other doctrines except these three are right up there 20% definitely believe this one. The Remnant 42% the next one 42% definitely believe and you know what the next one is Ellen White 36%...”

If we were to state that in a more familiar form it would be 20% believe in the Adventist Sanctuary doctrine, 80% do not believe in the Adventist Sanctuary Doctrine.

42% believe that the Adventist church is the Remnant church. 58% that it is not the Remnant church.

36% believe Ellen White is a prophet. 64% that Ellen White is not a prophet.

Of course in polls you can never simply say the negative is made up of the remainder of those holding to an affirmation. The reason is that there are likely gradients of opinions and then there is always that 5 to 10% who don’t know or have no opinion. I put the negative numbers there to be used as a contrast. When you have numbers like that you really can’t be going around saying that youth or adults don’t leave the SDA church over doctrines.

However if we move back to the concept of doctrines and relevance aside from some particularly troublesome doctrines as listed above there is a good quote from and Adventist Review article by Margaret G. Dudley, Ph.D.,  a counselor and retired Andrews University faculty member, entitled: I don’t want to go to church anymore.

“Youth and young adults like to be able to think for themselves. Foster a thinking climate in which they can explore what the church teaches, in which they can discover the principles and biblical support behind Seventh-day Adventist doctrines, and in which they can determine the church’s relevance for today’s world. They should be able to feel comfortable asking questions as they sort through their values and make their own choices.”

This is very wise advise but notice the disconnect that occurs if one assumes what Melissa does in her quoted statement in her article. If the church feels that they have this giant in their ranks which is that Adventists have the true doctrines how could we or why would we encourage questioning of those doctrines so that the young person can find their relevance? We have simply said that they already believe them so why don’t they find them relevant? We have in effect destroyed their exploration of what the church teaches, what the Bible teaches, what they should support or not support and what relevance it has to them and the world around them.

Our myopic view based upon the assumptions that we are the remnant, we have the truth and most don’t leave the church because they have trouble with our doctrines translates to a church that disregards our own young people and their necessary exploration of what they believe.

Consider this quote from the Adventist Review; Drowning in a sea of Gray :

Kevin Kibble, associate chaplain at Southern Adventist University in Collegedale, Tennessee, believes this may be the case. “Too many still give voice to the external elements of discipleship without witnessing to the heart of the matter. Far too many in the church are preaching to the smoke and not the fire. We are making proclamations about the fruit without giving thought to the root. Many of our young adults are challenging us to speak to the core issues of salvation with a tattoo or two and a cup of coffee in their hands. They are very clever in doing so. In this way they can determine if we really can present the gospel in its greatest clarity.”

Jan Paulsen, president of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, addresses these issues in his televised forum for youth, Let’s Talk.² Questions cover topics from Ellen White 
to legalism to morals, but the largest grouping of questions relates to lifestyle. Adventist young adults want to know: “Will disobeying these rules—such as wearing jewelry and eating meat—really keep me from going to heaven?” “How should a young person dress?” “Do I have to ignore popular culture?”

You simply cannot get past the doctrine issue. Melissa goes on to talk of other things that would no doubt help sustain our youth in the church if we actually tried them. But we don’t try them because as the above illustrates we think we don’t have to do anything other then teach what we have been teaching. We have been deluded for so long that we don’t even realize our own lack of relevance and how that lack of relevance destroys our own youth as they look for relevance.

Melissa is right, there is a giant in our ranks, the problem is it is destroying the village and the villagers and in the end the giant will be all that remains in a silent barren world.

The Bible In Our Lives..The Message That Leads To God

This weeks Sabbath School Lesson study present by Jonathan Gallagher on The Word in Our Lives was particularly good. I would recommend people taking the time to listen to it. Here are some of the quotes he uses in his notes, while the rest of the notes are not quite as good and the notes don’t really reflect what happened in the class they are a good starting point.

Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God. Johann Kepler.

The Bible is not an end in itself, but a means to bring men to an intimate and satisfying knowledge of God, that they may enter into Him, that they may delight in His Presence, may taste and know the inner sweetness of the very God Himself in the core and center of their hearts. A. W. Tozer

It is Christ Himself, not the Bible, who is the true word of God. The Bible, read in the right spirit, and with the guidance of good teachers, will bring us to Him. C.S. Lewis

We are not to make the Torah into God Himself, nor the Bible into a “paper pope.” The Bible is only the result of the Word of God. We can experience the return of the Word of God in the here and now, the perpetual return of the actual, living, indisputable Word of God that makes possible the act of witnessing, but we should never think of the Bible as any sort of talisman or oracle constantly at our disposal that we need only open and read to be in relation to the Word of God and God Himself. Jacques Ellul

At some point we have to get past the “paper pope” type of thinking about the Bible and see that it is a tool to bring us to God rather then the magic answer book to life’s questions. What we should realize by now is that with all the many different Christian views out there we will not find the answers if we use the Bible as a code book. It seems the codes are all decoded based upon the many different traditions and perspectives of people. Christianity for too long has worked upon the idea that faith in our interpretations is the most important aspect of Christian faith. Our interpretations are always going to be faulty; we need to acknowledge our need to implement our God given human reason as well as being open to inspiration from God as we seek to understand our world and our God. Faith in God is different from faith in our doctrines about God.

Here is a report from the Adventist Review 2007 Spring Meeting concerning losses in Adventist members:

Closing the Back Door
Executive Committee members on Tuesday of the session voted to adopt an appeal from the GC Council on Evangelism and Witness to church leaders and members to curb membership loss.

Presented by GC vice presidents Lowell C. Cooper and Mark A. Finley, the Council’s two-and-a-half-page statement indicated that although more than 5 million people were baptized into the Adventist Church from 2000 to 2005, nearly 1.4 million members walked out the back door and left the church.

During the last quinquennium some divisions began a review of active membership, Cooper said, resulting in higher-than-usual membership loss ratios.

“Current indications are that annual membership losses, for reasons other than death, equal approximately 28 percent of membership accessions,” and this “is not limited to new members,” the statement read.

The document cited research suggesting social and relational factors play a much larger role in a person’s dissatisfaction with the church rather than disagreement with church doctrine.

“The reasons more frequently cited by persons who leave local church fellowship are found in the realm of relationships, the absence of a sense of belonging, and the lack of meaningful engagement in the local congregation and its mission,” it read. “Therefore, the loss of members for these reasons should be preventable.”

The statement suggests that new members will most likely remain in the church if they are able to articulate their beliefs, form friendships within the congregation, and engage in ministry—in other words, “know a sense of belonging and identity.” To accomplish this, local church boards should, among other things, review membership care strategies, study membership accession and loss patterns, repeat Bible instruction, develop friendships and small groups with new members, and encourage new members to become involved in church outreach and other activities.

Executive Committee members who spoke to this issue were unanimous in their support of the appeal; however, some questioned how greater attention for member retention can be made part of the culture at the local church level. Suggestions by some participants included establishing an accountability process for local leaders, board members aggressively focusing on designing a discipling-oriented church, and cultivating a spirit of true love and concern for others.

“We have to have in our heart a love for people,” Paulsen said. “More than anything else . . . this will help us to retain our members.”

What I find interesting is how every time the Adventist leadership discusses membership losses they are so certain to say that it is not from doctrinal differences. I still have never seen any studies that support that view though I have heard it often. Personally I don't believe it.

The issues of acceptance within the church is often very much based upon conforming to the traditional views of Adventism. A recent example can be seen in my previous article When Worlds Collide...Is It All or Nothing. For a church member to tell another (in this case maybe a visitor or new attendee) that he must believe in 6 literal days of Creation or he can't believe in Jesus is a huge example of doctrine and interpersonal relationships meeting. On SDA forums I have frequently come across people who will say of someone who has a different view then that of the Traditional Adventist that the other person is acting as an agent of Satan. Fortunately in the real brick and mortar SDA church such comments are not as likely to occur but I do think that the attitudes is commonly there. With that attitude. it is highly unlikely that good relationships will be created let alone maintained.

The Spring Meeting attendees recommended "develop friendships and small groups with new members". They should have said with everyone rather then just new members but their assumption is that if you have been a member for a while you won't leave through the back door, a wrong assumption. The concept of small groups is actually critical to success and sorely overlooked in the Adventist church...well most Christian churches for that matter. However for small groups to ever really be successful the people involved need to be taught how to respect other views even those views which diverge from accepted Adventist norms. The corollary of that is that people need to be taught how to think critically so that they can analyze information and make informed observations about others beliefs as well as their own beliefs. And finally to be comfortable with the unknown. Because sometimes the answer we may want is not there to be found and at times we need to say we don't know and may never know in this life. This is rather hard for a church whose tradition has been that they have the truth.