Perhaps the famous (or infamous) conference held at Glacier View nearly two decades ago, reflects the speed at which the church moves: glacially.

How many remember the belated "discovery" of the 1919 Bible Conference? It was buried. The Glacier View "consensus" was distorted; or the Committee on Problems in the Book of Daniel appointed by then GC President Figuhr that met for five years WITHOUT FINDING ANY ANSWERS! Had they found anything helpful, surely they would have publicized it.

The optimism expressed by Scriven can only be called a distant hope, based on past history within the church. How long must one live to expect to see the changes he envisions?

Rich,

Thanks for the article. If I could make a classification for how a "Conservative Christian"(vs.SDA) would view "1-2-3" above...1) The Bible- The Inspired Word of God 2) Everything and Everybody else subject to #1's scrutiny for faith and practice.

"Liberal Christian" --1,2(who?),3)The Bible might "contain" God's word and those parts are to be discovered by the scholarship of the historical critical method.

As to SDA's your classification of "conservative" ranking would likely be accurate for many however some "groups" in that area would find it hard to see the difference between 1&2 at all...perhaps none in practice.

"Liberal" SDA's might perhaps share much with "Liberal Christianity" with Sabbath,Vegetarianism and "Great Controversy Themes" added in for credibility. :~)

"OF COURSE" categories do not apply to "all aspects" of anyones personal "experience"...just good starting points that often reveal where someone might end up in their theological process.

Regards,
pat

PS. Boy, could Dr. Francis kick an American football in 1962...about 50 yards in a beautiful Spiral...unfortunately however he never offerred me the assurance that Calvin and Luther taught in the biblical doctrine of "Justification by Faith Alone."...He had a good heart though...at least to me just kept me "hoping" I would reach the goal at the top of that ladder howbeit thru the Spirit.

Could it be that comparing scholars to the Bible and Ellen White is comparing apples and oranges? It seems to me, as an Adventist, that the Bible and Ellen White belong in the category of "inspired writings" (not to say there's no differences between the two), and that the scholars are part of the process that helps us interpret those writings. To use Ellen White to interpret the Bible limits the role of both. To give scholars more spiritual authority than Ellen White conflates the two, and in the end both credibility.

The last phrase in my previous comment should read:

"and in the end both loose credibility.

Comparing Ellen with scholars is making a wrong comparison. She never claimed to be a scholar; nor does anyone claim that scholars are to be classed with her. The serve different functions and operate in different spheres. Do Mormons claim Joseph Smith was a scholar?

Grammatical hint: It's spelled "lose."

If one were to re-invent Adventism ie Seventh-day Adventism one would have to place Jesus Christ exactly where Paul and John placed Him and not where Hiram and Ellen placed Him. Or at least where the writer to the Hebrews placed Him upon His triumphal entry (see Ps 24)

Christ not the sanctuary must be the pivotal point of the Good News. Tom

Thanks, Elaine. It's not my day...grammatically.

The last man to attempt to re-invent Adventism was Dr. Desmond Ford. It certainly gave pause to anyone else with that idea in the back of their mind.

My son recently moved to a new middle school to teach biology and life sciences. His principal pleaded with him to take on coaching the football team. John had never coached or played football in either high school or college: although he was a strong Georgia Bulldog fan. He agreed to a very modest increase in salary even with a history within that school of losing every game for the past six years.

His team won their division and was entered into a playoff with a division that had won every year since time began. This year John’s team own. He call us on the bus on the way back to the home school. We could hear the excitement across 100 plus miles of Georgia pines.

I asked him later, how did he do it? He said, for one thing, I stuck up for the little guys. One little linesman complained to John. “I can’t tackle these big guys”! John said, “Can you out run them?” The little fellow said: “Sure!” John said; “Well then run in front of them and fall down.” The next play the little guy came running up to John and said: “I did it! I did It”. John said: “Great go back in there and show them you can do it again!”

To re-invent Adventism we need another Desmond Ford willing to run ahead and fall down to stop a movement that is heading over the cliff in North America and Europe if not the third world.

The only other answer would be to stop teaching Hebrew and Greek at Andrews. Tom

Tom,
Go Georgia Bulldogs!I was there doing part of my pre-dental in '64,'65.

Tom,

I too love the integrity of Des Ford! He had the intestinal fortitude to express himself and say where he disagreed with EGW BEFORE HE RETIRED! He also affirmed the gospel to me. May God bless him.

I appreciate EGW and I feel she is often correct but she is simply wrong exegetically on 1844 and the fact that Christ did not enter the Most Holy at His ascension.

In my not so humble opinion he was "hung out to dry" by the "perfectionist wing, Administrators and the "liberal SDA wing." All/Most of which do not properly appreciate the doctrine of "Justification by Faith alone" which ultimately is at stake in this incorrect doctrine of ours and sets the stage for "final generation theology."

i.e. When was Atonement made and is the "last, final generation" made righteous or "reckoned" righteous.
...not the same as growing in holiness (sanctification)
Do we vindicate God or has He vindicated Himself and pardoned believing sinners.

Regards

Pat et al, have you studied what ALL reputable SDA theologians are saying about 1844 and the sanctuary doctrine, especially Frank Holbrook and Roy Gane? Apparently not because your assertions about Desmond Ford and atonement are trite and unfounded.

Please, let's keep the discussion honest and academically interesting. All I see is people 'high-fiving' each other with the same old, tired and arguments and platitudes...

A couple of observations:

First, the welcome mat for visionaires is to be laid by, rather than for, "pastors, older members, and church leaders".

Second, about the relationship of "Bible, EGW, and scholars". Academic and administrative theologians/scientists seem to be back of our minds as far as the last category is concerned. If Adventism means more than doctrines, a re-visioning of the movement would most likely benefit as much if not more by including those with varying perspectives, whose interests go beyond doctrinal hairsplitting.

PS: I'm for our SDA scholars publishing in reputable journals such as WTJ. But isn't there more to Adventism than theological/doctrinal orthodoxy?

Andre,

When I see "our" sanctuary position (1844, Christ into the MHP etc.)offered for publication in a credible scholarly Journal such as Westminster Theological Journal (WTJ)...conservative by the way..."for critique"... then I will assume you will find out what academic honesty and credibility means.

Regards.

Pat, I say "Amen" to your last comment.

Joselito,

If I didn't think so I would be gone. But does that mean that theological/doctrinal orthodoxy is not important? Does not doctrine guide our "practical" life? Are they not both important? Not either-or. I think you believe so.

Perhaps we can "hear" the accusers of Luther, "why the theological "hairsplitting" Martin. Isn't salvation by grace? Yes, it is even by faith also Martin... but "Justification by faith alone" brother Martin? (Check out Trent XI, XII)

Thus no Protestant Reformation

Or to an updated "liberal" version. "Martin you must be mad. We are not sure of the accuracy of the Greek text, must less the whole Bible being trusted as accurate. We must examine the allegory and metaphor of it all to capture the real Jesus. Let's be ecumenical about it and see the fallacy of the "propositional truth of Justification." After all, we know we can't understand God through words and propositions. God loves us all as his children. Why the "exclusivity" of Christianity? Let's just make our planet a better place for all of us. Doctrine is so divisive. We can bring a "kingdom" here that way can't we?

Oh well.

The bottom-line is simply Christianity isn't divesible: That is the message Paul gave in these thoughts to his friends in Ephesus---"There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. Eph. 4: 4-6.

If we come closer to Christ we will come closer together.
The group that composed Answers to Questions on Doctrine were trying to accomplish such unity.

We all stand on the same foundation. All else is sinking sand.
Why must be look at each other as through a glass darkly? There is none righteous no not one! Our hope is built on nothing less than Jesus Righteosness. Ellen White was a child of her time. We live on the brink of eternity--Our task is not to defend EGWhite but to proclaim Jesus Christ and Him Crucified. To re-invent Adventism urge every Seventh-day Adventist pastor to become an active member of their local ministrial association and treat every member as a brother in Christ. Tom

yes!

Several of the preceeding postings have addressed the Bible, EGW, & Scholar's relationship. Allow me focus on the Bible/EGW relationship in terms of my personal background. Hopefully I will develop some constructive throughts that are relevent to this interesting discussion on reinventing SDA adventisim.

After being raised in a conservative/John Wesley Holiness/evangelical home, I was to become an aethist, then an agnostic. During this time I was drafted into the US Army, became a purple heart/bronze star combat medic in the 26th Infantry Div., and then attended a large secular U. for two years. In 1948 I began serious studies of SDAism, and became a baptized member two years later in Sept, 1950.

Fortunately during those two years I did not have to struggle with the tobacco habit, or losing my job, or other problems many converts have to face. My two year struggle was about acceptance of the divine inspiration of the writings of Sister White, as she was known way back then. I had long ago rejected the writings of Joseph Smith and Mary Baker Eddy as being divinely inspired prophets. After reading Desire of Ages, I was willing to make a conditional acceptance of the insipiration of EGW, despite the fact that I had had to make major compromises in accepting the sanctuary doctrine of the church. Acceptance of EGW's divine inspiration was not a test of fellowship in those days.

Entering PUC in the summer session of 1952 as a candidate for a degree in Am. Hist. [Class of '55], I encountered a new set of problems concerning the inspiration of EGW's writings. When I used certain EGW statements in preparing various written assignments, time and again I would encounter the response, "Didn't you know that Sister White said thus and so on the same subject in an unpublished manuscript? She also said thus and so in the Review and Herald of eighteen hundred and something, and again in the Signs of the Times in nineteen hundred and something."

My situation became even more difficult when I discovered that certain statements from compilations of EGW's that I had wanted to use had been taken out of earlier EGW complilations. This meant that I would not be using an original source, which is a tad unscholarly. An even more basic problem - can the SDA Church claim divine inspiration for a book of EGW statements that were selected by a committee of lesser mortals who were not divinely inspired?

My typical response was, "Professor, that's interesting, but tell me, how do I gain access to all of these unpublished manuscripts, not to mention some kind of Reader's Guide for all the SDA journals, and especially with the White Estate being managed under a fortress mentality [which was true back then]?" About all I recieved in response to my question was sympathy.

Then one day in 1954 I experienced an epiphany of sorts on the matter of divinely inspired writings. One knows where the inspired writings of the Bible begin, Geneses 1:1, and where those inspired writings end, Revelation 22:21. There may be a beginning with the inspired writings of EGW, such as Early Writings perhaps. But where is the ending of her alleged inspired writings? There was always yet another unpublished manuscript, or some utterance that was made in a talk at a campmeeting, or some letter that had not yet been published, ad infinitem, all of which were inspired. I decided that when and if the Brethern could get all of EGW's writings together in a single set of books which provided not only the beginning of her inspiration, but also the end, I would reconsider my church's claim of EGW's inspiration. Meanwhile, I would do - and in fact have done - very well with that collection of books known as The Bible. Granted, I even have problems with various statements in the Bible, but thus far my faith is still strong in Jesus as my Lord and Saviour.

Could the successful reinventing of SDA adventisim include a determination of the beginning of EGW's inspiration and where that inspiration ends? [Including the statements about here Shut-door theology. Yes, I've read the "scholars" efforts to explain away these many statements, and I find them unscholarly.]

Desire of Ages has continued to be a favorite of mine since I first read it in 1949, and I refer to it often. It has also been a widely used source of many Sister White, divinely inspired prooftexts. What a shock to learn of a re-write of Desire of Ages by some lesser mortal entitled, MESSIAH, which has proven, at least for me, to be an even better read! Can statements be quoted from MESSIAH as divinely inspired prooftexts, just as they have been from Desire of Ages? If so, can lesser mortals also do a re-write of The Great Controversy to correct those serious errors of history that EGW wrote into that interesting volume under divine inspiration? Would this help to reinvent SDA adventisim?

Hopefully my observations got us back on the subject of this thread.

Braantley

We have lived parallel lives, I in the 40Th infantry Div.
I also have a well marked Desire of Ages and Great Controversy. Without a doubt both read far better that the sources from which she is alleged to have used.

You must remember that she had a team of editors, rewrite
scribes, and proof readers. I read E.G.White's Conflict of the Ages series as a Readers Digest version of a stable of historians writing for historians. Desire of Ages reads as clear today as it did the day it was first published.

The issue is simply her repeated use of phrases like: "I saw" or I was shown" used to bolster her claim to direct inspiration from God. It would be every difficult to find an original revelation from God to E.G. White. She took from Joseph Bates, J. N. Andrews, Uriah Smith, Dr. Graham, Dr. Kellog, The San Franciso newspapers, Willie White, even James White. If one were to rank her she would be way above Dear Abby and way below the Apostle Paul. Tom

I'm with you, Pat and Tom, regarding the importance of sound doctrines. The ascription of theological hairsplitting is pejorative and subjective, I know. It's used as a descriptor of an opponent in debate. It's best reserved as a reminder to oneself - me, in particular.

I have great respect for Tom's record as a visionary institutional administrator in and out of denominational circles. My preference for the alternate title of this thread, "Re-visioning..." instead of "Reinventing" should include the likes of you both whose passion for theology goes beyond theoretical musings.

Where I live there's a Christian congregation whose overflow attendance for worship on weekends is not unlike a sports event. Here's why, in the words of its teaching pastor:

'To study Christian theology adequately is to practice Christian theology, as one practices basketball (whether as a player, coach, referee, commentator, fan, or sponsor)...

'The relationship between faith and theology reaches into the heart of Christian epistemology and theological method. Jesus did not choose commentators, editorialists, and historians to follow him objectively. He created a community of disciples to play his new game. He called them to commit their lives to his mission. To these he gave "the secret of the Kingdom of God" and, later, the gift of the Holy Spirit. To practice Christian theology truly is to join the official fan club of Jesus Christ and put one's life on the line for the Master.'

http://www.westmont.edu/~work/material/teachingtheology.html

Joselito,

Thanks for your comments and I will seek to do that daily as the Spirit enables me.I think a Christian life is very practical in loving God and loving others as we would like to be treated.

Loving God to me means always "willing" to share the importance of Christ as "my only hope of salvation." Loving others is offering them the forgiveness, acceptance and longsuffering that Christ has given me and assisting them in a way that seems consistent with the way Christ would...to some this is but a kind word or a cold drink...to some it may be a challenge to myself and them that we live a God honoring life.

Holiness to me is not practiced in a monastary or convent or "apart from the world" but in the service of others wherever our talents and spiritual gifts lay.

As the song says, "Little is much when God is in it, labor not for wealth or fame."

For a serious reconception of Adventism present and future, please see the following link: Future of Adventism

Joselito

What a great mission statement.

What attracted me to Reid Memorial was a pastor who lived what he believed.

His sermon outlines went something like this:

A Text

What I think the text is saying.

What I believe about that concept and its meaning in my life.

I hope you agree.

However, if you don't: be assured that the Lord still loves and and so do I.

Let us Pray to Our Father!

Tom

Boy oh boy--

I'd love to see some hope that maybe Adventism is about more than just "right" beliefs. I know it has practical value, too. But it would be very encouraging to find more folks who were more open about different doctrinal/theological perspectives and yet found value in the Adventist family for different reasons. In short, I'd like to see a variety of different reasons as being generally acceptable for holding the family name.

Hanan,

It has always been my belief that a "Protestant" church was to hold biblical belief as primary for faith and practice...at least originally.(Again, don't confuse conservative Protestantism with conservative SDA where more "distinctive" rules exist)

Is it possible that the just "right" beliefs ultimately over time bring the "more" in the fullest sense?

Is it possible that a good Rotary,Civitan,Elks club or other good civic organization i.e. might be more the community you are looking for? In reality they do serve a good civic purpose.

They do many good useful deeds in the community and have good comradery without the "biblical stuff."

May I venture to say that using the Bible only as our basis, the faith and practice that hold Adventists together are the Sabbath and Second Coming. We may believe along with other Christians that Christ is risen and that Jesus is Lord but take away those two doctrines and there'll be no more reason anywhere in the world for us to keep our family name.

Sakae Kubo has probably captured the spirit of Adventism very well in his book: God Meets Man. A strong case for Adventist theology may also be derived from Richard Rice's Reign of God perspective of the already and not yet. For me, the Sabbath is a sign, a foretaste, that God rules my life as an Adventist Christian here and now, till Jesus comes again, and eternally.

Joselito,

I agree with that appraisal of sabbath and second coming...it is our name.I don't believe even our skeptics (Protestant) have asked us to give that up to be labeled Christian. They may have disagreements. It is our christology, IJ, and the role of EGW and scripture that were the focus.

Please let me ask a rhetorical question.

With whom biblically might I have more in common?

Going to a PCA church that still believes in a literal 7 day creation of mankind in the present order. They are "Sabbatarian" in theology although they assume "transference." They thus believe in the "literal creator" the "stuff" of the 4th commandment.( you know, not worshiping the sabbath but Lord of the sabbath).They emphasize the sovereignty of that creator God. They believe in a literal second coming mostly amill.(2nd coming and judgment occur at same time) not postmill.however they are not pre-mill dipensationalist.

or-

"Evolution" SDA's who keep "sabbath" for community or other reason with out the "nuances" of the 4th Commandment?

Just for thought...

PS. The PCA is also great on the "now and not yet" construct.

Pat,

Thanks for joining me regarding the importance of sabbath and second coming doctrines. Instead of "spirit" I should have written "essence" of Adventism.

Allow me to cite two posts elsewhere, in AToday, that I found relevant to this conversation.

First, Lisa Clark Diller's review of Seeking a Sanctuary by Bull and Lockhart that underscores the significance of boundary markers for Christian sects. Briefly, Bull and Lockhard simply stated a matter of sociological fact regarding religious groups without making any value judgment.

http://www.atoday.com/magazine/2008/01/bull%E2%80%99s-and-lockhart%E2%80...

Second, Robert Johnston's Essay on the Taxonomy of Doctrines. I found his 9 ways of classifying the "27" [now "28"] helpful in how we may view the sabbath and second coming in light of our varied and changed situations. (Don't forget to read his footnotes as well. Let me just cite the first two:

1 The adjective "biblical" is often used by Adventists and Evangelicals generally in the way the early Christian Church used the word apostolic. It means simply what we vaguely believe to be correct and pious, as in such phrases as "biblical marriage," "biblical entertainment," or "biblical roller-skating." It is vague because it is unclear whether something has to be prescribed (commanded or recommended) in Scripture, described in Scripture, or merely not forbidden in Scripture, in order to merit the designation of "biblical." The ordination of women is neither prescribed nor forbidden in the Bible; it is simply not dealt with at all. The same is true of Sabbath School and church school. Are these things biblical?

2 This is the language of our nineteenth century pioneers--which they shared with Baptists, Campbellites, and other anticredal Protestants. But the Bible is, in fact, not a creed; and a better expression is the classical Reformation slogan, sola Scriptura.)

http://www.atoday.com/magazine/2002/01/essay-taxonomy-doctrines

In point of fact, like it or not, variant interpretations of sabbath (literal/symbolic) and second coming (pre, post, amill) already exist, in uneasy tension, among progressives and traditionalists within Adventism. My own preference is constructivist as a personal descriptor.

Thanks Joselito,

When I say "biblical" I mean "rational" explicit or implicit conclusions that might be drawn from scripture. It recognizes that in fact it is God's inspired word for faith and practice. I feel you are correct that it is not exhaustive on every topic...and I feel it is legitimate that we sometimes come to different conclusions.

I do feel the Protestant churches originally had "core essentials" which united them in spite of their "distinctives." They disagreed but valued each other as Christians because all claimed the Solas.

The onset of "liberal theology" changed things!

Except for the mentally retarded, as mentioned, most people are too savvy to fall for either "easy money" or a belief that becomes merely another commodity. Those who do so are usually the same ones who can be scammed for other promises. Preachers are a dime-a-dozen on TV and radio. On what basis could one choose when biblical literacy is at its lowest?

What reason do new converts give for joining a church? For the majority of Christians in the past twenty years, it is probably safe to say that it was because of a loving and accepting community where they could be a part of the family.

While most Adventists, or their parents or grandparents, joined because of the "truth" of their doctrines (as my parents did), how many of those children are cultural Adventists but would still would join for the doctrines only?

Adventism has been long on fundamental doctrinal beliefs and very short on the creation of a loving family community of Christian believers. Comparing the church to a family is a frequently used metaphor. How many of us feel a part of our biological family because of the values it holds, or is it because we have the wonderful feeling of being loved and accepted regardless of our personal beliefs or even practices? How many of us have adult children who no longer are practicing Adventists, and we have never lost our love our binding relationships?

When the Adventist church can cease judging on doctrinal beliefs and accept all those who wish to belong to the community, then we have reached what should be the ideal. "Loving" someone into your church should be the focus; not on correct doctrine. Wil there be a test for heaven based on a doctrinal questionnaire?

Elaine,
Not omitting the need to be "loving"...back to the either/or position.

Could it be that when "sound doctrine" is no longer an issue we could have reached the "ideal" apostasy and we are saying, "Peace,Peace, where there is no Peace?"

Could I add a PS.

I have never known "legitimate" Christians to turn away "practicing" sinners at the door. They should be able to visit, mingle and be respected as "fellow human beings" as long as there is order.

The problem comes when one wants to "join the body of Christ" without repentance and accepting Christ as the Lord and Savior of their life.