The video clip was very difficult to hear. There was a lot of background talking on all three sections. I thought Dr. Knight focused on three things to the detriment of good exigesis. 1. He emphasized the end-time aspect of the apocalyptic writings--as end-time rather than Revelation--the opening of the details of the Great Controversy. 2. He emphasized the SDA strength in understanding the book. 3. He defined neutering as the loss of productivity implying that the lack of proper emphasis on "apocalytic themes" (end-time)
has resulted in the neutering--the loss of productivity of vitality of the Seventh-day Adventist church. I may have lost a lot due to the poor audio.

However, from my gleanings of his theme. I believe he is 180 degrees out.

The themes he is stressing are not the productive themes of recruitment or have any primary salvific value.

The book of Revelation was not written as a recruitment tool but as an encouragement message to a beleagered people in Asia Minor--the Seven Churches.

The neutering of Adventism has been the lost of the Gospel in all of its stress on apologetics.

The Gospel is found in the Apostles Creed--if one want a catholic or ecumenical summary.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Maker of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead, and buried;

He descended into hell.

The third day He arose again from the dead;

He ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost;
the holy catholic church;
the communion of saints;
the forgiveness of sins;
the resurrection of the body;
and the life everlasting.

Amen.

That, to me is the issue of Dr. Weis. We are hiding behind the "stuff" rather than joining in celebration of the Finished Work of Jesus Christ.

Adventism is neutered because it gave up the Gospel for the law--just as the Jews did several thousand years ago.

Adventists wuld rather argue about what Christ is doing that explaining what Christ has done! That is not productive!

I agree that another generation of Adventists is in serious doubt in North America.
Tom

Tom's opinion:
"The book of Revelation was not written as a recruitment tool but as an encouragement message to a beleagered people in Asia Minor--the Seven Churches.
The neutering of Adventism has been the lost of the Gospel in all of its stress on apologetics."

Human opinion:
Apostles Creed (written by humans) Cute: He descended into hell? Sitting on the right hand side of God? Has he stood a bit and done some other activities in 2000 years according to the Bible?

I prefer the Bible's opinion -- Revelation is a blessing to all who study its contents which is way beyond Tom's and Apostles Creed's opinions.

Yes, Revelation is a recruitment tool for us today to be recruited into the kingdom of heaven by understanding the Revelation (revealing Jesus) message for us today.

The "stuff" in Revelation helps understand what Jesus did -- and is doing.

Maybe one can't walk and chew gum at the same time? It does take practice Tom ;)

Thank God for Adventist Revelation evangelists ;)

Jody ;)

Tom,

I agree...in their present form/quality the videos are next to useless. I won't suffer through them.

regards,
pat

Jody,

SDA Evangelist have been good at vs.7 of Mt.24.

For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes. 8 “But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs. 9 “Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations on account of My name. Mt.24:7-9

They have yet to unpack completely the meaning of vs.8,9 which is directly related to the gospel and JBF "alone"...with the other issues being "warnings and secondary" to that message.

regards,
pat

I've tried reading the book. It's very messy, contains a lot of very tired retorts about "political correctness", and at the end of the day, just doesn't seem to really have a point. "We need more beastly preaching...but not too much beastly preaching...".

And that's too bad. I've long appreciated Knight's other writings.

John McLarty makes some humerous observations about this book:

"Knight’s answer to the first question sounds like an advertisement for chemotherapy. Adventism is no fun, but in the end, it’s good for you."

"Knight himself does not really want to be an Adventist. In contrast to others who are Adventist because they enjoy it, Knight is Adventist because of the inescapable force of Adventist evangelistic argument. His ambivalence is epitomized by his repeated statement: I am “an Adventist by conviction rather than choice.” To paraphrase Knight in the vernacular: I’m an Adventist because I have to be. Dang it. But I’m not happy about it!"

"The conclusion: We must preach more about the beasts. We must avoid “beastly preaching.” It’s like chemo, too much will kill you. Not enough will kill you. You must carefully calibrate the dose. I don’t get the idea that Knight enjoys the beasts but he believes they are good for us. Maybe like eating rutabagas."

"In many ways, Knight sounds like a typical adolescent, far wiser and more sophisticated than his mother, the church. He doesn’t wish his mother ill, but he is sure, if she would just listen to him, he could make her so much more attractive, relevant, intelligent and healthy. Maybe. But I’m not so sure. I, too, can see Mother is not perfect, but I have given up my own adolescent convictions that given the power, I have the wisdom to perfect her."

http://mradventist.blogspot.com/2009/03/neutering-of-adventism-review.ht...

HA! Good reading.

I was also disappointed in this book personally. Knight has always been a pioneer and trail-blazer for Evangelical Adventism, nailing the conservative perfectionists between the eyes in the magnificent tradition of Edward Heppenstall. He opened the door for a balanced and reasonable treatment of EGW as well. He is despised and hated by SDA fundamentalists and a continued threat to their agenda - both admirable qualities in my book!

But in this, his most recent publication, he seems to be pandering to the very audience he is declared anathema by. Why? Why would he do this? Please George, go back to what you do best - being an annoying burr under the conservative SDA saddle!

One thing I will agree with Knight and disagree with MacLarty about though: There HAS to be more to offer that keeps me in Adventism than just the culture. Because the culture, to me, is, frankly, the one of the least attractive traits about this church. I was not born into Adventism. I have never bought into the lifestyle rhetoric which the culture pushes. I drink wine occasionally, watch movies, dance, listen to rock music, go to the theater and love my meat (never have and never will jump on the vegetarian band-wagon.)

I need a something to die for. I won't face the inquisitional fires of the stake for Sabbath activities, vegetarianisn, SDA pioneer DVD's, potlucks, camp-meetings and Pathfinders, sorry. And I don't expect anyone else to completely change a whole lifestyle/belief system for such inane, non-essential issues offerings either. There needs to be a better reason to convert to Adventism than that.

The problem is that Knight focuses on more apocalyptic/three angels message dogma as the solution, when the real solution has been there all along: Preaching the pure, Reformation Gospel of justification by faith and salvation by faith in Christ alone plus nothing.

THAT will bring power to Adventism and appeal to millions.

The audio was fine, I guess the've been replaced...

The worst thing about the video was the CARPET!!! who had the idea of using such an awful carpet on a studio set??

Knight is the most brilliant theologian our church has today.

You naysayers out there, you don't seem to like anything or anybody that has SDA attached to them anyway, so just keep whining...

Nightdweller, thanks for the excellent ripostes from John McLarty and some cogent analysis. Two small asides:

1. Does a "humerous" observation mean to keep oneself at arm's length? (I know a humorous humerus when I see one--it's a funny bone.)

2. I believe you must be talking about the omnivorous bandwagon, which rumbles and pitches across this wide world loudly and incessantly. Vegetarianism is still a distinctly countercultural, minority phenomenon. As for the "never will," good luck with that on the new earth, pardner.

Nightdweller,
I kind of understand what you're saying though I don't understand Knight's book that way.
I DO agree with an emphasis on the three angels message and believe that we are losing focus. I'm not talking about 'beastly preaching', nor does Knight, BTW... I'm talking about preaching the Gospel through the Three Angel's Message. It's all there, but it's in a special package. The adventist movement and message, and note that I didn't say church or denomination, is supposed to be a wake-up call for all of Christianity. It may sound very nostalgic, but there IS a midnight cry and it consists of the message of the coming of the groom. That is the adventist message and I see it very well defined in the Three Angel's Message.
I'm kind of tired of trying to do the same things that other churches traditionally do better than we do. We have had to learn a lot from them, especially about justification by faith. We are Christians in our everyday life, but there is also a special calling to those who understand that we are dormant and need to focus on Jesus second coming.
I'm very aware that overemphasis on this has historically made Christians, and specifically Adventists, poor citizens. For many years we didn't try to make the world a better place, since whenever someone pointed out how bad things were many of us answered with the traditional "it will only get worse" and shrugged our shoulders. It is quite pathetic and doesn't show love for our neighbour like Jesus urged us to do. It IS possible to focus on Jesus' Coming and still try to ease the pain of those around us, showing loving concern and sympathy. It IS possible to believe in Christ's return and still be engaged ecologically, trying to fulfill God's first task of taking care of this battered world. I believe you get the picture.
I think I understand Tom's preterist point of view, but I've tried reading the New Testament that way and there were quite a lot of parts that just didn't make much sense from an exegetical point of view. I do respect your opinion though, Tom.
I do like Knight's effort in writing this book and I agree with far more than I disagree.
Admittedly: he writes better than he speaks, though I try to give him credit for tackling the issues with so little time.
regards do all

It is fascinating and perplexing to me to see a simple reading of the word "commandment" as the Decalogue. Abraham kept God's commandments also when the Decalogue came 430 years later. Gal 3:15-31 This is not just about Adventism, but about the Gospel. Let's not let the Sabbath cloud the Gospel message.

andre

I guess you would classify me as one of the naysayers.

I have fond memories of some giants in Adventism. Most prior to Glacier View. Those voices have been muted since. I think LLU and Walla Walla are excellent educational institutions with as little deadwood as any tenured institution. I believe The President of Andrews is a fine gentleman with a strong leadership profile. From the product the Seminary sends South, it is a monumental failure.

I believe that the Adventist Hymnal is a well collated and edited volume. I think Spectrum does the Church a real service as a sounding board although its agenda seems overly liberal at times.

I think David Larsen is a giant when it comes to ethics. I think Alden Thompson is a solid Christian scholar and teacher.
I think Fritz Guy is solid as a rock in both administration and teaching.

I have a very difficult time with the end-time doctrine of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and the perfectionism it fosters and the souls it has destroyed.

I have a very difficult time with the mind-set of the General Conference that takes the comment of E.G. White: "The General Conference in Session is the highest authority of God on earth." The leadership has truncated it to "The General Conference is the highest authority of God on earth.". That is so Vatican and so wrong--which is the least of its problems. It destroys any objective thinking or action.

I hve serious difficulty with public evangelism based upon Revelation Seminars and the burnt ground it leaves behind.

I have many dear friends within Adventism whom I believe are true Christians despite the baggage their insist on carrying. Tom

Chris, I type so fast that my spelling sometimes takes a beating. My English professors would be appalled if they saw how sloppy I am on the computer!

It has caused some embarassing moments. Such as the time I typed Hotmale into my search engine instead of Hotmail.

You can imagine the results I ended up with...

As for going veggie in Heaven, I will let God work that out. But I am pretty sure that when we are glorified our tastebuds won't be exempt...

Hamlet, if other denominations are doing justification by faith better than us, we just need to strive to do better, it's as simple as that.

As for the angel's cry to come out of Babylon, our denomination is in just as confused a state as any other. We love to hammer the Catholics and for baby sprinkling, priest confession, immortality of the soul and Sunday keeping - but show me a doctrine that has cause as much confusion, cognitive dissonance, controversy, pain, ruined careers and division as 1844/IJ/Heavenly Sanctuary!

Adventism is in as much turmoil and discord as any other denomination, so the three angel's cry may apply more to us than we want to believe...

Nightdweller,
I don't believe that the midnight cry has to do with calling out of Babylon. Mt 25 gives me another picture regarding it. The Three Angel's Message presents facts. How we convey those facts are a very different ball game.
Neither did I say that because others do it better we shouldn't do it. I said that we should do it in a different and specific manner. The Gospel continues to be the same, but the form of it's preaching would be the Three Angel's Message. It's not a competition, it's a question of knowing why you exist, what your identity is.
And that brings me to IJ. I agree that it isn't biblical and nowhere do I see myself defending it. On the contrary.
And, of course, the Three Angel's Message applies to all people, since it's essentially the Gospel put in another framework. I pretty much agree with Knight's assessment of Revelation 12-14 and see it as our calling to preach it. And it has to be with the focus on Jesus, since He is the center that book, too.
Worship, Creation and Judgement (and I mean the Final Judgement) are very positive if you start with Jesus, though there's no way around the fact that if you don't accept Him that things won't be that great. Without Him, it would be 'beastly preaching', though Knight doesn't use that expression limited to the preaching about the beasts.
Isaia 40 comes to mind as a paralell to Rv 14.

It really doesn't matter , too much, what George says because almost all pastors are going to do what they want anyway....which is simplistic nurturing/edifying of their members. The church perpetuates the meistic mentality by its constant approach of "needs" preaching.