This is a movement that is sweeping across Protestantism as a whole. In Adventism it just has a different doctrinal twist. Even the new Science Fiction series "Caprica" taps into this worldwide rise in fundamentalism with their "Soldiers of The One" monotheistic movement complete with suicide bombing to make their point. There may be certain similarities between Christian fundamentalists and the Wahabi sect of Islam. Both are fighting for doctrinal purity and both are confrontational in their methodology. The problem with such methodology is that it often escalates when denied power. There is certainly no mistaking the intensity of conviction in this movie.

Mickey - "If they don't see the logic of the Bible they're stupid. 2300 days, they're totally ignorant. Investigative judgement, they're totally ignorant..." After watching this, I don't get the sense that these young people are rooted and grounded in the Word. I sense confusion and reasoning to find truth while walking completely around it. The Holy Spirit reveals truth to our spirit, not us just using our thinking capacity. Romans 9:28 - for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay." The work is His (not ours) and we can be a part of it as we abide in Jesus.

Fundamentalist ... in some sense. But considering how the word is used I question how helpful is it to use this. But I must point out a rather ironic element to the trailer - one of the "fundamentalist" men featured is baptised by a WOMAN! I'm still trying to parse that one... either the 'fundamentalist' Adventists don't get thier own theology or the makers of the movies haven't picked up on this ... or ... something else ... help me out here ...????

I talk to God just about every day and She hasnt mentioned the 2300 days in years...Hmmmm....

I wonder if the primary difference between the Fundamentalists identified here and the New Age Liberals is that while the New Age Liberals are arguing for the common roots of human Soul and Spirit (We are All One...) the fundamentalists are seeking to reinforce ethnocentric and egocentric claims to Truth...

My God is NOT an Adventist.... nor a Presbyterian, nor a Catholic... nor Hindu.... nor Islamic... but rather the Source of every human Soul and Spirit regardless of external trappings and traditions.

The term "fundamentalism" has a well known and very specific origin in Christian history. Fundamentalism was a reaction against theological liberalism, and "higher criticism", which tended to deny the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, and specifically deny the truth of anything supernatural or miraculous in Scripture. The multi-denominational movement united behind the "five fundamentals," which are usually listed something like the following:

1) the verbal inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture;
2) the virgin birth and deity of Christ;
3) the doctrine of substituionary atonement, or blood atonement;
4) the bodily resurrection of Jesus;
5) the authenticity of Jesus' miracles, and his pre-millennial second coming.

The only one of these with which Adventists do not completely agree is verbal inspiration. While a thorough-going fundamentalist believes in word-for-word (in the original languages) inspiration, Adventists believe in thought or idea inspiration. We believe that God inspired the Bible writers with ideas that they then conveyed in language of their own choosing; they were God's penmen, not his pen. But even on this point, we are much closer to the fundamentalists than to the liberals, the trend among whom is to deny inspiration and treat Scripture as a human document.

So Adventists obviously are, and have always been, about 95% fundamantalist. So it is surreal to see the term "fundamentalist" being used as a scary word about Adventist youth. If Adventist youth are drawn to fundamentalism, they come by it honestly, since their parents are also essentially fundamentalists.

Obviously, calling Adventist youth "fundamentalist" is a liberal rhetorical strategy designed to imply that traditional Adventist views are new and different, when it is in fact the liberals who are promoting a new theological agenda radically different from traditional Adventism. It's a bold gambit, but I can't imagine that anyone not totally ignorant of the relevant facts could be fooled by it.

Mickey - "If they don't see the logic of the Bible they're stupid.

************************************************************************************************

When I heard this I thought once again, the overriding concern for correctness and doctrinal purity leads to personal arrogance. And the sad part is that the speaker has no clue of the attitude just oozing from his words and demeanor.

But I really can't throw stones. I kind of felt this way when I was younger and first came to Adventism. I learned all this truth that no one else around me knew. They were shall we say, "poor, benighted souls." Then, life knocked me around. It took me some time, but I began to realize that many of those "poor, benighted souls" around me were personally more together than me, and often showed more compassion and care for others than I did. They still do. I guess God had a way of using life to knock that pride out of me, and to help me to see that the last thing I need to be doing is looking down my nose at others. Not that I never catch myself still doing just that. :)

Funny, I just can't picture Jesus calling people stupid over this. Yes, he chided his disciples for being slow to believe in him and what the scriptures said about him. But, he continued to bear with them, never to disrespect them like this. I think he got more upset with those who looked to oppress and ostracize others, and to use their religion for dishonest gain, and personal power trips.

Thanks...

Frank

Unfortunately being active and being right are orthogonal - ie: it is possible to be any one of (active, right), (active, wrong), (inactive, right), and (inactive, wrong)

Many people are looking for a sense of belonging and purpose - rather than truth.

This leads to them settling on leaders and movements that provide for their emotional wants - often at the expense of their emotional and physical needs.

Such people are ripe for picking by con-men and self-deluded leaders. History is full of them - and the damage they cause.

SDA'ism, with its emphasis on anti-science, anti-academia, 'don't test just believe', is one breeding ground for such groups.

When you sow the wind of "don't test just believe" then you must expect to reap the whirl-wind of such leaders coming in and taking over large groups of the gullible people you have created.

/Bevin

Interesting sounding film!

A quick question about the definition of "fundamentalism" provided above as “any belief system that adheres to one unique set of texts, which are considered to be inerrant, universally applicable, and fully authoritative in constructing a worldview.”

Isn't this definition a bit too general, including in its definition, all of Adventism, evangelicalism, and traditionally speaking, Protestantism?

This is the problem with propaganda, wether it be liberal or conservative. It creates caricatures of the opposition and lays them out there to be rejected and even ridiculed by the uninformed bystander. (us)

I saw this caricaturisation both within the arguments of the so called "fundamentalists" portrayed in the film, but also, and more troubling, the film itself is a caricaturisation of the entire movement it seeks to discredit.

A step forward in the vitriol, a step backwards as the Body of Christ.

AG

Isn't this definition a bit too general, including in its definition, all of Adventism, evangelicalism, and traditionally speaking, Protestantism?

*****************************************************************

Zane...

In the eyes of those who would put forth such a definition, all of these groups, with the possible exception of mainline Protestantism, are fundamentalist. Most Evangelicals and Adventists have a regard for the sacred text that is narrow and backward to those of a more secular or syncretic bent.

While this particular movement within Adventism seems somewhat disturbing to me, the film's definition of fundamentalism also indicates that the filmmakers have their own bias as well. One that speaks pejoratively of anyone who takes the Bible as the word of God.

Thanks...

Frank

Angelo...

Very well stated! Thank you!

Frank

Frank,

>>While this particular movement within Adventism seems somewhat disturbing to me, the film's definition of fundamentalism also indicates that the filmmakers have their own bias as well. One that speaks pejoratively of anyone who takes the Bible as the word of God.<<

I agree 100% with you comments. We see problems with the SDA theological "left and right." Neither, I suggest passes "classical Protestant muster."

Could it be that they both represent a form of "apostate Protestantism?" After all, neither embrace fully the Sola's of the Protestant Reformation IN PRACTICE.

regards,
pat

A pure theology found in the bible creates the Christian community. Any suggestion the bible is not adequate to explain salvation is an attack on the bible itself. And finally, we need no scientific proof of how, why and whether the bible is true or not.

Science often rejects scripture since scripture advocates miracles. For a scientist, this is impossible. Everything must be explained by natural law.

"Fundamentalism" would concur with this idea and reject the infallible science theory.

Bill Sorensen

Alex

Why not Fundamentalism? Certainly Revelation Seminars have had a negative effect. I believe it was Jesus who said: "As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the coming of the Son of Man!"

Maybe Hollywood, porno mag. and Islam terrorists will do more for the return of Jesus that a "Perfect Final Generation". I have two books before me as I write: Why Jesus Waits 1976 and Salvation Unlimited 1974 both by the Review and Herald Publishing Assoc. They propose diametrically apposed arguments. I prefer the Heppenstall proposition.

Nothing in the promotional video demonstrates that this new generation has a clue as to either the problem or its solution.

Maybe the bottom-line is the world just ain't bad enough yet.

The video reminded me of the young man who asked me to recite the Lord's Prayer for him. I complied saying "Thy will be done ON earth" The boy stopped me in mid sentence and said: "That proves you are not "saved" the prayer should read: "Thy will be done IN earth" he went on to say that we are dust--earth. God's will must be done in us to gain salvation! That was 30 years ago. Seems we are going to hear that refrain all over again by a new generation of bright eyed clean shaven zealots. Tom

When did fundamentalist or fundamentalism as it pertains to Christianity come into verbal vogue? Perhaps I wasn't paying attention but it seems to be that there was a sharp rise in the last 5 years.
Prior to that it was mostly used to define the radical sect of Islam that was displayed before the world as terrorists and suicide bombers.
As I hear more and more of those words used especially in pejorative manner, I cant help but think that it is often used as an insult rather than in a descriptive way.
If one played any collegiate Basketball one would often hear that it is the fundamentals that secure the skills necessary to win.
I dont often get the feeling that the word fundamentalist is used in that sense. Certainly the fundamentals of Salvation, baptism, Sabbath, discipleship and many other Christian concepts are not radical positions.
An example of what once was fundamental like homosexuality is now radicalized, but not by extreme adherence or persecution of homosexuals by "fundamentalists" but by those who promote what is biblically defined as being wrong, as actually meaning its fine and even Gods plan or will.
So isn't it actually the "progressives" that are "fundamentalist" in Christianity?

Lets go ahead and stipulate that the are indeed people who hassle and harangue the gays with posters as they march in their gay pride parades. Lets also stipulate that there are gays who go into church services proceed to the podium and proceed to kiss and fondle each other during services.
Lets stipulate that neither are mainstream and for the purposes here, cancel each other out.

I guess my point is that, fundamental things have always existed. Everyone agreed on what they were for generations. When people use the term, do they mean the radicalization of what is and always has been? Or do they mean to brand everyone with base foundational beliefs as dull, unenlightened and generally ignorant as it often sounds?

Seems we are going to hear that refrain all over again by a new generation of bright eyed clean shaven zealots. Tom

Posted by: Tom Zwemer | 03 February 2010 at 8:55

It seems God can use hot and cold Tom. He has a little problem with lukewarm. So try and think of it as God saw Saul, recognizing its a prefered position that God can work with.

So try and think of it as God saw Saul, recognizing its a prefered position that God can work with.

**************************************************************

Yes, Michael...

And, God had to knock Saul flat on his back and blind him, before he realized that he didn't see. Then, Saul owned up to his erroneous beliefs and practices. It's that way for many of us. Maybe, God will have to do the same with same of these young zealots, as Tom put it.

I was there, too. It's the attitude of having the pipeline like no one else.

Thanks...

Frank

I admire their attempt to make a fair, accurate, balanced and unbiased film. I think it naive of them to think they can create a documentary like theirs without bias though.

Also, they didn't answer the question, "What is your bias?" Instead they stated what their ideal was--what their aim was. A noble aim!

I'd be very interested to know what their opinion is on this topic though.

My impression from the preview is their bias is not in favor of their subject. I'll be watching the whole thing though. It looks very interesting.

Shane Hilde

What is your bias?

We have committed ourselves to making a fair, accurate, balanced and unbiased film. Although we, the filmmakers, both hold strong opinions on a multitude of topics, we have strived to keep the highest standard of non-bias throughout the filmmaking process. Careful attention to detail will reveal just that. However naïve or cliché critics might consider this notion to be, it has continuously been our ideal.

If Michael and Bill object one knows immediately one is on the right track. Thanks fellas! Tom.

Frank,

It'd be interesting to find out if the film makers have an Adventists background or not. If not, and they are documenting they've researched out of some 3rd party interest, this may be the most "objective" (despite their problematic definition of some terms) take on things we're going to get on this particular movement in the church.

I think people believe the sort of religion that they need to believe in. You can understand some things about people based on the type of religion they embrace.

I happen to know a couple of teens who are into GYC. They are nice kids. Awhile back I overheard one saying a classic comment to the other who was doing something she didn't like or approve of. She said, "God is really upset with you right now."

I know this teen is someone who has a very hard time expressing her own needs and wants directly. And yet, due in large part to anxiety issues she has, she also has a need for extremely clear boundaries and rules. A more fundamentalist view allows her to feel safe and a view of God as either approving or disapproving over the minutia of our behavior allows her to express her own needs and wants as God's. She might not be able to say "Cut it out," to the other directly but she can still attempt to control the other by bringing God into it.

Like I said, she is really a very nice girl but when it is time I will warn my son repeatedly to run, run, run from women like that.

I think the other loves GYC because he likes the power that comes from feeling superior. He is much less rule bound because he lacks the accompanying anxiety but he absolutely thrives on being "right" compared to others and GYC offers a much clearer "right".

I guess it is good that there is a form of religion for everyone's neuroses, liberals included :)

Good analysis, Beth

Bill Sorensen wrote
>>> Science often rejects scripture since scripture advocates miracles. For a scientist, this is impossible. Everything must be explained by natural law.

It is simply false to say that scientists believe miracles are impossible. There are lots of scientists that believe in God and miracles.

I don't believe in miracles creating life on earth a few thousand years ago - but it is not because I don't believe in miracles, its because I don't believe in a God that creates a planet sized lie - a world that looks like life has been here for millions of years even though it was created a few thousand years ago.

/Bevin

For those who are interested, this is a good link for understanding what is involved with Last Generation Theology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Generation_Theology

Obviously, calling Adventist youth "fundamentalist" is a liberal rhetorical strategy designed to imply that traditional Adventist views are new and different, when it is in fact the liberals who are promoting a new theological agenda radically different from traditional Adventism. It's a bold gambit, but I can't imagine that anyone not totally ignorant of the relevant facts could be fooled by it.

Posted by: David Read (not verified) | 03 February 2010 at 5:54
....fundamental things have always existed. Everyone agreed on what they were for generations. When people use the term, do they mean the radicalization of what is and always has been? Or do they mean to brand everyone with base foundational beliefs as dull, unenlightened and generally ignorant as it often sounds?

Posted by: Michael | 03 February 2010 at 9:05

No one can answer Davids or my questions then?

David and Michael, It seems to me that you are defining traditional Adventism as that type that existed after EGW's death until QOD was published. The early 19th century adventist pioneers were liberal and radical. They wanted to stay away from the confines of a creed. No, the views from "The Last Generation" are not new. They are just not as relevant and timely for 21st century life (in my view). From my studies I would suggest that the views put forward by the early church leaders were relevant for their time ---but truth progresses. God's truth is timeless and broad enough that different aspects are powerful in different eras.

Paul was not a fundamentalist. He was all bottom-line. He declared himself as the chief of sinner and Jesus Christ as God a very God and the Redeemer by covenant from the foundation of the earth. He that beliveth in Him shall not perish but have everylasting life. The could even have been Pilate or Judas. It certainly means more than just a final generation of Seventh-day Adventists early or late. If these young people are about to venture into every jot and tittle of reform dress, diet, et al they are monkish and not Christian at all. If they are set to proclain Jesus Christ plus nothing, Praise be to God! Tom

Tom, I was at GYC this year and I can assure you the young people, including my twin daughters, are not monkish and are truely into proclaiming Jesus Christ plus nothing. By the way I was a student of yours at LLU school of dentistry in the early 60s, graduated 1966. Like you I had the privilege of being taught and sitting in the SS classes of Maxell, Provonsha, Huebach, Alexander and others. A wonderfull period for my spiritual growth.

Carmen, I'm merely pointing out that the word fundamentalism has an actual meaning in Christian history. It isn't just a pejorative term that liberal sophisticates use to label people whose religion they deem illiberal and unsophisticated. And if "fundamentalism" means adherence to the five fundamentals, then we Adventists are in total agreement with four of the five, and have a slight disagreement on the fifth one, relating to the mechanics of inspiration.

I don't think "fundamentalism" can or should be used to describe the intramural dispute within Adventism in the period from 1915 to 1957, which I understand as having to do with perfectionism and the human nature of Christ, etc. These issues have little or nothing to with the larger split between liberal and conservative Christians over the authority of Scripture and the literal truth of the Bible's miraculous stories, which is where the term "fundamentalism" originated. In regard to that controversy, Adventists always have been, and still are, basically fundamentalist, or about 95% fundamentalist.

Which is why I object to liberal Adventists using the term as a pejorative term against more conservative Adventists. The rhetorical strategy behind this use is to imply that there is something new and different--and dangerous and undesirable--about conservative Adventism. But Adventists have always been basically fundamentalists, in regard to our high view of Scripture and our belief in the literal truth of miraculous and supernatural teachings of Scripture.

I feel like I am rehashing something very obvious and elementary--somthing fundamental, as it were--yet in this film and in several posts, including Ron Osborn's piece on Dostoevsky, I am confronted with Adventists using "fundamentalist" in a pejorative sense, seemingly oblivious to the fact that Adventists are fundamentalists.

Thank you, David, for taking the time to explain your thinking.

I guess I wouldn't fit in that group since I'm 18 year old Adventist male who is far from a fundamentalist!

I have noticed three types of Adventist youth
1.Liberal Adventists: A group of progressive Adventists who dislike certain things/doctrines in the church.
2.Moderate: These seem to be in the majority. They embrace neither the fundamentalism of some Adventists nor liberalism. At times, they may be apathetic or feel like Adventist doesn't apply to them.
3.Fundamentalists: The group shown in the video.

There is a very war like/us vs. them vibe I get from the conservative Adventists in this video. This is an old strategy, to draw youth back in by beefing them up with denominational chest thumping.

Richard

I remember you. You were a great student and an excellent clinical dentist. I think you mis-read my remarks. I said if these young people defined fundamentalism as nit-picking they would be monkish. I don't know what their trend is or will be. I know in my generation the funamentalists turned to nit-picking--it seems almost a fatal trap of the definition. I hope and pray that you are right. Tom

The term fundamentalism does indeed derive from the Christian fundamentalists of the 1920s, but the term has taken on a greater meaning to define their attitudes in any religious body. The book Fundamentalisms Observed, edited by Martin Marty and R. Scott Appleby (University of Chicago, 1991) explores the phenomenon throughout world religions, from Judaism to Hindusim to Theravida Buddhism.

Marty and Appleby define religious fundamentalism as movements that arise to counter modern, secular forces they perceives as a threat. The 1920s Christian fundamentalists emphasized those doctrines which they saw others rejecting (focusing on what others don't believe, I would argue, not being the healthiest approach to religion). Perhaps the first word to describe fundamentalists is fearful. They are fearful that without the use of force, their beliefs won't survive the barrage of competing ideas. They're convinced that their cause is right, yet fear that it will fail without extra support. Without the guidance of Zech. 4:6 ("Not by might, nor my power, but by My Spirit,' says the Lord Almighty), they fail to empathize with others.

Their terror that they'll fail unless they use force highlights another characteristic: fighting. Fundamentalists fight change. They fight the outside world. They fight against what they perceive as threatening or heretical. They may start out as mere traditionalists, yet whatever they think threatens their identity and way of life will eventually call them to battle stations. Otherwise, they believe, if they don't give it their all, all will be lost.

Fundamentalists are selective. They look back on eras when they imagine people were more pure, more faithful, more serious yet innocent, and pick out the details they think defined a more pure religion. Their identity is everything to them, so they emphasize the details that will most sharply define them, refine them, and bind them together--apart from and often against the world.

Fundamentalists often bristle at being called such, because they're only doing and advocating what they think is right. Yet in religion after religion, fundamentalist movements mimic each other, each condemning secularism, science, and modern trends, proclaiming a religion of rules and thought control. As they highlight specific practices, they forget principles. They lose balance and slip into contradiction. Fundamentalists' commitment is commendable, but their application needs adjustment. Without the big picture, their picture of God gets distorted, into one that's petty and controlling.

They may also be defined as idol worshipers--worshipping a God who's been shrunk 'til He fits on a soapbox.

Of course, the militant atheists of our day, e.g. Richard Dawkins, are as fundamentalistic in their thinking as the religions they caricature.

Adventism, with its emphasis on critical thinking, developing people who are thinkers, not "mere reflectors of other men's thoughts," has always been inherently un-fundamentalistic.

Fascinating trailer and clips!
Now where can the full film be obtained - either as a download or dvd?
Mike

God invites us to "Come and reason together!" Of sinners we are chief, In Christ we are heirs of the Kingdom. In order to accept Christ we must first acknowledge our own state and need. Why is fundamental such a good word while fundamentalism smacks of intransignence and ego-centric self satisfaction?

I recall a mother and daughter who joined the West Central Church in Chicago as the result of a evangelistic crusade. Following baptism, they attended church, front and center. During the homily they would bust out with Amen!, Yes Lord!, Praise God! etc. Loud and Clear!

After the fourth week of such behavior, I happened to sit two row behind them on the bus after church. I overheard a little of their conversation. It seemed they were greatly disappointed in the coldness of the Church and the lack of response to their enthusiasm. The daughter said, "Mom why do we still go?" The mother responded: "Let us give them two more weeks, if they don't come around, we will leave!" They left. What is the proper balance between respect and enthusiasm? What is the proper tension between openness and dogmatism? Let us hope and pray that these eager young people find the balance in their out-reach. Tom

"Adventism, with its emphasis on critical thinking, developing people who are thinkers, not "mere reflectors of other men's thoughts," has always been inherently un-fundamentalistic."

Amen to that. The fact that I can interact within my religious denomination as a "liberal" is indeed a blessing. I don't think I could stay in any group unwilling to learn, change, and grow. When in known history has any person or group ever had all of the answers?

I truly believe that the other side of this life will also contain the elements of learning, changing, and growing. Will we all agree? I doubt it. This is how God made us.

I find myself sympathetic to these young college students. They will accomplish much if they are willing to grow. God will use them. However, if they are too rigid in their beliefs they may see the day when their faith is gone. God and His acts can not be placed into a "fundamentalist" box. Doing so will lead to contradictions which will lead to apathy and finally loss of faith.

Blessings,

Posted by: Tompaul Wheeler
"Marty and Appleby define religious fundamentalism as movements that arise to counter modern, secular forces they perceives as a threat...They are fearful that without the use of force, their beliefs won't survive the barrage of competing ideas...Fundamentalists fight change. They fight the outside world. They fight against what they perceive as threatening or heretical. ...they believe, if they don't give it their all, all will be lost....Their identity is everything to them, so they emphasize the details that will most sharply define them, refine them, and bind them together--apart from and often against the world."
...As they highlight specific practices, they forget principles. They lose balance and slip into contradiction."

Wow. Thanks Tompaul for accurately defining and summarizing the obscurantist thinking of the uber-conservative SDA to a tee. Gone are the days of the times when conservatism ruled the church and diced and chopped from the church any who deviated from the norm. Loss of control of the way 'things always have been' (which is usually the written in stone-unalterable truth as they interpret it) is a sore point to many fundamentalists (as Tompaul has defined it).

Sadly what both sides of the camp are missing is balance and acceptance of diversity of belief. It seems that either we are stuck in the 19th century or jumping on the bandwagon of liberal Christianity. Our answer does not lie in holding tightly to a legalistic and outdated cultural aspect of SDAism, nor is it found in 'toss out everything and start over with what works for me'. What ends up usually being the case, is one side is an overcompensating backlash against the otherside.

Surely there is a middle ground here.

In what arena outside of Spectrum does one find critical thinking in Adventism? I have sat in countless Board meetings with the highest and alleged brightest of SDA leadership. The bottom-line was always--"Yes, but is there any word from the Lord? To which the calculated response was an inane irrelevant quote from E.G.White. I always withheld a remark--That question was first recorded as being asked by an apostate king of Judah. Tom

Tom,

What is often added to the comment: "Is there any word from the Lord" is "We have prayed much and this is the right thing to do," or "The Holy Spirit has spoken and we should do this."

Making a mockery of both prayer and the Holy Spirit.

As Susan B. Anthony once said: "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."

DOCTOR TOM ZWEMER:

TODAY AT CHURCH WE LEARNED THAT AN IMPORTANT AREA OF PRINCE HALL, WHICH HOUSES LLU's SCHOOL OF DENTISTRY, IS NOW NAMED IN HONOR OF YOU. CONGRATULATIONS AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR MANY YEARS OF DISTINGUISHED SERVICE HERE AND ELSEWHERE!

David Larson
Loma Linda, California

Thank you for your comment Tom Paul. That's one of the best definitions of fundamentalism I've heard in a long time.

BTW I read your devotional book GodSpace. I found it a very good read.

The major issue with fundamentalism is they take certain "values" and put them on a pedastal almost as high up as the sacrifice of Christ itself! Many young people become disillusioned when they realize that these values seem to be outdated or self contradictory. For example, let's take a look at the Adventist "standard" of not wearing jewerly. Adventists may say not to wear jewerly but they say nothing about someone owning an expensive sports car. Don't both necessarily serve the same purpose? It is to impress and to show off the fruits of your cash.

Dave

I guess you posted on several threads. Thanks. Tom

"In what arena outside of Spectrum does one find critical thinking in Adventism? I have sat in countless Board meetings with the highest and alleged brightest of SDA leadership. The bottom-line was always--"Yes, but is there any word from the Lord? To which the calculated response was an inane irrelevant quote from E.G.White. I always withheld a remark--That question was first recorded as being asked by an apostate king of Judah. Tom"

I to have repulsion toward the "inane irrelevant quote from E.G.White". However, many of us younger post-modern Adventists, educated in secular universities are focusing on taking Adventism to a more healthy (my opinion) direction. Taking it to a place where critical thinking is balanced with faith. Where questions can be asked and where answers are not readily available. The narrow black and white veneer of fundamentalism will fade in such an environment. This is indeed occurring in my local church.

So Tom, I guess my experience or at least my perception is indeed different.

Personally, I find the epidemic of fundamentalism in most evangelical churches to be naive and blinded. As blinded or more so then the fundamentalism of the Adventist church.

Erik

Erik

I am glad you are finding a church with a open view of thinking rather than rote. Have at it. I know a few SDA pastors with the ability to think outside the box. I enjoy them very much. Tom

I can't wait to see this film

The narrowness and closed-mindedness of the fundamentalists in these clips is scary.

Interesting topic. I am presently seeking to transfer my church membership to the local SDA church in the area to which my wife and I have recently moved. My transfer is being held up because the local head elder who embraces the "sinless final generation" view, went to my web site and found that I don't believe that the New Testament teaches mandatory tithing for Christians. Also he knows that I do not accept the writings of Ellen White as being authoritative and equal to the bible in matters of doctrine. I think that this head elder gets most of his theology from Robert Weiland and the "1888 Study Committee".

So the reason I am posting in this thread is to say that even though I am an "evangelical" and most of the liberals on the Spectrum forum would classify me as being a "fundamentalist" there still does not seem to be any room for some like me.

The liberals on the "left" within Adventism would reject my conservativism while the conservatives on the "right" would reject my imagined liberalism. I find myself in a "catch 22" position where those who call themselves "evangelical" Adventists cannot find anywhere to fellowship.

My wife is seeking baptism but I am sure that this head elder will object to her baptism because she has openly opposed his teaching of the sinless "final generation" before Jesus comes. Also, she wears earring studs and won't merely settle for a "thus saith Ellen White" as the final word on any matter. She prefers to search the bible for her answers and also to emphasize "justification by faith" in the blood of Christ.

It will be interesting to see where this all eventually leads in the SDA movement which I love and continue to believe in since finding this movement when I was in my early twenties.

Bill Diehl

I think Bill the difference is that in a Progressive Adventist church your opinions would be respected and you would be encouraged to debate and discuss with those who hold different ideas. I think it is wrong to say that the tactics of the Traditional Adventist would be the same tactics used by the Progressive Adventists.

The reality of course is that there are so few Progressive Adventist churches and they are afraid to advertise as such that there is most likely not one in your town. This next week I will post on my blog a letter I sent to a couple of the SDA churches in my area. It took over a month and one of them finally answered, I won't be able to post what he said but I will summarize it. It is actually part of the reason for my latest blog post on the myth of the "church as a whole" by which they really mean the beliefs of the bureaucracy. Which was kind of funny since I pointed out in my letter how bad it would be to have the beliefs defined by a bureaucracy.

Ron

Hi Cliff,
It seems to me that the unique emphasis that our church is to bring to the world is the message about God's character - the final message:

"It is the darkness of misapprehension of God that is enshrouding the world. Men are losing their knowledge of His character. It has been misunderstood and misinterpreted. At this time a message from God is to be proclaimed, a message illuminating in its influence and saving in its power. His character is to be made known. Into the darkness of the world is to be shed the light of His glory, the light of His goodness, mercy and truth. The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is the revelation of His character of love." Christ's Object Lessons, p.415

What I was trying to suggest in my last post is that Ellen White encouraged us to be continually in search of greater understanding and expression of truth that is relevant for our time and culture (and again, in my opinion, that new expression of truth will always be in the expansion of understanding about who God is):

"But as real spiritual life declines, it has ever been the tendency to cease to advance in the knowledge of the truth. Men rest satisfied with the light already received from God’s word and discourage any further investigation of the Scriptures. They become conservative and seek to avoid discussion." Testimonies, vol. 5, pp. 706,707 (1889)

"Christ in His teaching presented old truths of which He Himself was the originator, truths which He had spoken through patriarchs and prophets; but He now shed upon them a new light. How different appeared their meaning! A flood of light and spirituality was brought in by His explanation. And He promised that the Holy Spirit should enlighten the disciples, that the word of God should be ever unfolding to them. They would be able to present its truths in new beauty. ... every mind through whom the Holy Spirit has worked has presented these themes in a light that is fresh and new. The truths of redemption are capable of constant development and expansion. Though old, they are ever new, constantly revealing to the seeker for truth a greater glory and a mightier power...In every age there is a new development of truth, a message of God to the people of that generation. Truth in Christ and through Christ is measureless..The words of truth will grow in importance, and assume a breadth and fullness of meaning of which we have never dreamed." (Christ Object Lessons, pg 124-139)

"New light," "every unfolding truth," "constant development and expansion," "new development of truth," "advance in the knowledge of truth,"....

The enthusiasm of youth is a great thing, but it seems to me that an emphasis on such issues as a woman's role in church, a focus on the KJV of the Bible, 1844, character perfection, etc, are not the areas of expanding truth that are to lighten the world.

Perhaps, as some have suggested, what we are witnessing is a "conversion" experience and that with proper nurturing there will be growth, maturity, and that these young people will become great ambassadors for God.

It would concern me though if the direction that this group is currently headed is perceived as the correct mission and emphasis for our church at this time in history and that those in church leadership do not see a need to channel this enthusiasm in a different direction.

The good news about God will lighten the world before He comes. However we imagine that happening, it seems to me that it will look like Jesus. In other words, Calvary love, other-centered love, service and humility will be at the forefront. I also think that an emphasis on "being the remnant" can easily become a selfish endeavor in which we imagine ourselves as the most important #1 people on the planet. "We are God's true people who will usher in the great end time events" is an attitude that subconsciously puts us first and naturally leads us to judge and condemn everyone else. That is not to say that our church does not have a unique mission (I think we do!), but our focus should be to reflect the love of Jesus dying on a Cross.

Brad said:

Perhaps, as some have suggested, what we are witnessing is a "conversion" experience and that with proper nurturing there will be growth, maturity, and that these young people will become great ambassadors for God.

I agree.

Now, if the "grownups" can just agree on what "proper nurturing" really is....

Or maybe every generation of Adventists will have their young people who take Ellen White literally, as I did, and it can't be helped (the books say what they say) - they'll just have to learn things the hard way?

Perhaps with proper nurturing they will grow to be great ambassadors? All you have to do is watch or read the quotes I have on my blog from the question and answer session of the last GYC and you can see what kind of nurturing the leadership of the Adventist church is up to. I can tell you it is not toward great ambassadorships. It is toward Adventist traditionalism which is Adventist fundamentalism. When you see a collection of SDA leaders like that and the direction they are going you can tell easily what the goal is for the GYC youth. See: http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2010/01/gyc2009-hope-for-traditionals-dispai...

Ron

Brad, as you know, David Asscherick, is a very active speaker at GYC. I really think he is the "voice" of GYC and is listened to by the young people. I attended his seminar on the Great Controversy. Ty Gibson, who also was in the seminar, and I agreed that David gets it about the issues in the GC.

David quotes Greg Boyd several times in his new book "God in Pain". In fact he called him an Adventist except he didn't know it yet.

I would put Ty Gibson in the Traditional Adventist camp. You can read why here:
http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2009/06/ty-gibsons-sermon-on-penal-atonement...

Ron

Bill,

>>The liberals on the "left" within Adventism would reject my conservativism while the conservatives on the "right" would reject my imagined liberalism. I find myself in a "catch 22" position where those who call themselves "evangelical" Adventists cannot find anywhere to fellowship.<<

I can relate to your comment and have stated that "bipolar" SDA relationship to a classical "evangelical" on this site before.

Best wishes in finding a suitable church home and regards.

pat

Greg Boyd is a great example of someone who is radically growing in understanding and “truth” and who is preaching (and living) the message that is needed today. We have a lot more to learn from Greg Boyd than he has to learn from us, it seems to me.

Here is perhaps a distinction though that we could take a lesson from:

- Greg Boyd believes came to understand the state of the dead and annihilationism (as opposed to eternal torture) because of his conviction about God’s character
- While we might be more likely to describe the beast in a Daniel and Revelation series as applying to some future event and time, Greg Boyd sees the beast among us and has written a best seller on the subject, “The Myth of a Christian Nation” which describes the idolatry of American nationalism and that the use of coercive force is not a feature of God’s kingdom. He sees the beast now because of his view of God’s character.
- Greg Boyd came to see the “fire” in Revelation as the glory of God’s loving character (which EGW describes on some many occasions….as opposed to a literal fire that burns people for a period of time before they die) because of his conviction about God’s character as revealed by Jesus
- Greg Boyd has come to a view of the atonement that incorporates the cosmic conflict/great controversy (i.e. – beyond what the penal/legal view describes) because of his view of God’s character
- Greg Boyd’s focus for the purpose of the church, which is to serve, feed the poor, live out the life of Jesus, etc, is because of the fact that he has embraced what Jesus came to reveal about God’s character.

My point is that we often see the individual points of doctrine as separate and distinct isolated points of truth without coming to see that every belief ties together as hedge of defense around God’s character. If we are focused on God’s character of selfless love (as revealed by Jesus) as the core mission then I think we will also experience a radical growth and expansion of our understanding of truth rather than merely to seek to understand how people put it together over 100 years ago.

For Information purposes-not a judgment...

Boyd beleives in "open theism." Now that would mean that God does not know who will be saved.

>>David A. quotes Greg Boyd several times in his new book "God in Pain". In fact he called him an Adventist except he didn't know it yet.<<

So, there seemingly is an "intersting mix" that may be among the "last generation" speakers because that (open theism) would be contrary to traditional Adventism and, I suggest EGW and would definitely not be "fundamentalism" if this is a primary position..

regards,
pat

Pat, David Asscherick was not advocating "open theism" and probably does not agree with it but was in agreement with Boyd on his understanding of God's character of selfless love.

Asscherick had three evening sermons and was part of a discussion group with Ty Gibson on Sabbath afternoon with a packed house of young people. The message about God's character and that this is the message for the last day came through loud and clear.

Richard,

These folks are unknown to me. My comments were "based on" his overall admiration...it seemed...of Boyd's theology.

regards,
pat