| Author | Message | ||
| Alison1 Registered user Username: Alison1 Post Number: 49 Registered: 10-2010 |
I wanted to get some feedback from you guys about the progressive movement within the Seventh-day Adventist. I ran into an old friend from the Adventist church recently. And,of course we got started in talking about the church. And my friend had told me that there had been some changes and views that were transpiring. Then she gave me a rundown in the following areas. Investigative Judgment: A different view of the investigative judgment, or a denial of its biblical basis. Remnant. An inclusion of other Christians in the term remnant. Ellen White. A less rigid view of the Inspiration of Ellen White, from recognizing her fallibility to perhaps even denying her prophetic gift. Sabbath. An emphasis on the benefits of the Sabbath, but a denial that it is the "seal of God" or that Sunday keeping will ever become the mark of the beast. Later on that day I started to think whether or not if leaving when I did was the right thing or not. This is one matter that I am leaving in the hands of Jesus. I sure would like to hear some of your thoughts in this matter. Thanks. | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 1621 Registered: 3-2009 |
In the pews, there are all kinds of beliefs. I doubt that you interview two SDAs and they will come out believing the same thing. It's at the official level where the difference becomes clear. Even if they don't believe alike, they have to make believe that they do, otherwise they may lose their jobs or voluntary positions in the church. The people in in the pews are freer to express their opinion and unless they start preaching it from the pulpit or start a home Bible study, or something of the sort, they are left alone as long as they don't make a buzz out of it, come to church, pay their tithes. Even in the same church building, there will be so many different beliefs that one would wonder if they belong to the same denomination. But again if you are not too public and adamant about it, you can about believe whatever you want and still be "in good standing" in the church. The one thing that will not allow you to hold a position in the church is if you don't pay tithes, even if you do it quietly. I remember a group of lay evangelist who came to the campus of the academy where I worked. I was discussing with the school principal about some estrange (unorthodox SDAs) doctrines they were preaching at their meetings. His answer was that he did not agree with them either, but that the SDA umbrella was so big and wide that we all fit under it. That seems to be the position of the organization. Hec | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12266 Registered: 12-2003  |
Yes, Hec--that's a common opinion. Alison, the "progressive Adventist" movement is embodied in Adventist Today, the independent SDA magazine and website that identifies itself as "progressive Adventist". Progressives have very "unorthodox" Adventist views and are very much theologically liberal. The stance that EGW was fallible and perhaps not even a prophet but rather a much-needed devotional writer and a "prophetic voice" at the time the fledgling organization needed her goes hand-in-hand with the belief that the Bible writers were also fallible and that their writings cannot be expected to be inerrant. Well, OF COURSE the "Bible writers" were fallible. But this view rejects the belief that the Bible is actually authored by God through the Holy Spirit and men whom He chose to record His word. Progressive Adventists not only see EGW as fallible and perhaps non-prophetic, but they still believe she was used of God the same way the Bible writers were, and they believe the Bible contains mistakes, cannot be read literally, and must be interpreted/edited in the same way EGW is. They do not see it as the actual word of God. Progressive Adventists are free to throw out traditional SDA doctrines, but they also throw out fundamental Christian teachings including the Bible as the revelation of absolute truth. I have heard progressives say that "truth" is found everywhere, in the Bible, in Mozart, in the daily paper. Progressive Adventists are also taking the position that "the remnant" of Revelation includes Christians, Jews, and Muslims...saying that each of these groups holds certain "distinctives" that reflect the character of the remnant. Jon Paulien, formerly of Andrews University and now of LLU, is actively teaching and writing on this view. On the surface these "changes" look promising; they whitewash, however, the core truth that progressives are rejecting not only the founding Adventist beliefs but also the core of the Christian faith: Jesus' blood is the means of forgiveness, Jesus is the only name by which we can be saved, and the Bible is God's inerrant word authored by the Holy Spirit. Adventism, in reality, is swinging back toward historic Adventism. The new GC president Ted Wilson is preaching the Spirit of Prophecy, the necessity of studying and obeying EGW, and is renewing the effort to have all Adventist university professors sign a statement of loyalty to SDA doctrines. Progressives are losing their advantage under Wilson's supervision; Jan Paulsen was much more of a theological liberal than is Wilson. And on the bottom line...progressives are ADVENTISTS. They will not leave; they are comfortable. They are willing to represent and endorse, by their membership and employment, the Adventist organization and all of its fundamental beliefs. Their talk may sound brave and progressive; they are merely putting on a new "whitewash" and are still endorsing the spirit of Adventism. Colleen | ||
| Michaelmiller Registered user Username: Michaelmiller Post Number: 235 Registered: 7-2010  |
I dabbled with the "progressive SDA" side of things during my study out going so far as to discuss things with two progressive SDA pastors (one of which has since been fired). My observations: 1. There are many "moderate" churches, but very very few openly "progressive" churches out there. 2. Where progressive churches do exist, they are at best tolerated by higher leadership, but are never actually accepted. 3. In many cases a progressive church only exists due to financial reasons (a significant tithe base would go away if they became an offshoot and started siphoning members from the regular churches). 4. It is easier to control the progressive movement when it is kept under leadership instead of becoming an offshoot. 5. Leadership will be quick to trot out the progressive leaning church whenever being questioned by another organization about SDA beliefs (look here; talk to these people; they are just like all of us) all the while holding a completely different official position behind closed doors. 6. The progressive pastor is free to hold whatever views he wants and the congregation is as well, but those views more than a tiny fraction contrary to the fundamental beliefs can not be preached up front. If/when that happens then the pastor is fired. 7. This results in the progressive pastors preaching "the other areas" without crossing paths with the controversial stuff (like, say, the gospel). 8. Since the simple gospel without any extras is "controversial", many progressive churches preach other stuff instead of preaching the "controversial" gospel. Progressive pastors have been fired for preaching righteousness by faith. 9. What is left when the gospel is removed? The inclination seems to be toward "social justice" preaching... which, without the gospel, is entirely about "doing" instead of "done". 10. In an attempt to be "all inclusive" of divergent views, post modern thought runs rampant. 11. I know one "progressive" church (really a moderate church but rather progressive for its region) which has conference "support" but is also forbidden by the conference from sponsoring any new churches. 12. There still is the problem of supporting a parent denomination who has "a different gospel that is no gospel at all" 13. Progressive "change from within" has existed for three decades and is no closer to effecting change now than it was back then. That is my limited view of the progressive movement. | ||
| Cloudwatcher Registered user Username: Cloudwatcher Post Number: 334 Registered: 5-2009  |
I'm intrigued by your doubts about leaving. Even if all of these things were OFFICIALLY changed at the GC level, where is the value in staying? Unless you believe those things, what's so special about being an Adventist? | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3585 Registered: 10-2004  |
As Colleen said, the progressives are still Adventists. All Adventists, from the historic conservatives to the progressive liberals, agree on certain teachings, and especially agree on the denial of the essentials of the Christian faith. Adventists, no matter where they are on the spectrum, are agreed on at least the following points: 1. Their denial of the atonement of Jesus Christ and denial of salvation being by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ's blood sacrifice alone. 2. Their rejection of the Trinity and their belief in Tritheism. 3. Their denial of spirits and their belief in materialism, which also leads to their denial of a resurrection and their belief in a "re-creation." 4. Their denial of eternal Hell. 5. Their belief in a heretical kenotic and Gnostic/Nestorian Christology. 6. As Colleen mentioned above, their denial of the verbal inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible (except for perhaps a few of the historic Adventists) and their denial that Ellen White was a false prophet. These points show that they are united on the points which condemn them as a non-Christian cult. Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on February 21, 2011) | ||
| Alison1 Registered user Username: Alison1 Post Number: 50 Registered: 10-2010 |
Cloudwatcher, you bring up some good points. It isn't the doubts about leaving, because I had left 6 years ago over the IJ teaching. That was the time when they were doing the Sabbath School quarterly on 1844 and the IJ. They had just started the quarterly. I remember wanting to give them a chance to explain their position. I remember that the Pastor wanted to stop me and to explain. But I didn't give him much of a chance because I kept on walking out the door and never returned. But I also do have a small soft spot in my heart because when I was 24 I had converted to SDAism from Mormonism. And it was through the Adventists that I developed a stronger relationship with Jesus Christ and development the daily pattern of reading my Bible. In fact, I remember my mom telling me that she was so glad to see me reading the Bible instead of the Book of Mormon. In fact I had found out that the Pastor who baptized me in CT at that time is no longer a member or pastoring in the SDA church. | ||
| Indy4now Registered user Username: Indy4now Post Number: 1011 Registered: 2-2008  |
Alison, I have a childhood friend of mine who use to be one of the bloggers on "Reinventing sda Wheel". He claimed to be a "cultural" Adventist which is the same thing as a progressive I believe. Everything you posted Alison in your first post... he believes. One year, on April Fools day, he posted on that site that the GC had renounced the Investigative Judgment. Evidently Adventist officials didn't think his "joke" was very funny and had him remove the faux announcement. I asked him why would anyone spiritually, physically and FINANCIALLY support a church they no longer believe in their doctrines. He never wrote back. I believe the only reason the church tolerates progressives and the cultural members is because of finances. This is how I see it: If you were a democrat because your family was democrat but in your heart you really were republican... would you stay a democrat? Would you financially contribute to the democrat party if you really didn't believe in their party lines? Would you personally invest your time in trying to change the democrat party from within? The best way to make a difference is to leave the church and no longer financially support it anymore. vivian p.s. great points Michael | ||
| Martin Registered user Username: Martin Post Number: 140 Registered: 11-2008 |
For a relatively short time I considered myself a "progressive Adventist". As far as I can remember it really wasn't about the liberal theology... I had no idea about that back then, but basically I had problems with many SDA doctrines and "progressive Adventism" seemed to agree more with my objections. However, it was more of an "intellectual" position in my mind, so it really wasn't satisfying in a lasting way. When I later came to see the real Jesus, to call myself a "progressive Adventist" didn't make any sense any longer. Now I see that my identity is based on Christ and nothing else. In the end it isn't about Adventist, progressive or not, former Adventist, Evangelical, Reformed or whatever other "tag" we might want to wear, however useful they might be sometimes. It is all about Him and being in Him.
| ||
| Mkfound Registered user Username: Mkfound Post Number: 23 Registered: 1-2011 |
I think that progressive Adventism has been invented by those who find problems with the current official beliefs, but in general still have the good 'pat yourself on the back' feeling of belonging to the remnant church, or having the 'truth'. And as long as they believe they have the 'truth' and it be a matter of doctrines, the progressive Adventist will likely not find Jesus as the Truth. It seems there's a flavor of Adventism for all. Change it up, shake it up, believe in this or that--the devil's OK with that, as long as you don't find Jesus. | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 2736 Registered: 8-2004  |
Mkfound wrote, "Change it up, shake it up, believe in this or that--the devil's OK with that, as long as you don't find Jesus." That's it exactly!!! | ||
| Cloudwatcher Registered user Username: Cloudwatcher Post Number: 338 Registered: 5-2009 |
We really need *like* buttons on this message board... LIKE, LIKE, LIKE Mkfound. There are a million reasons to find fault with Adventism. There are a million reasons to lose faith in EGW. But if the reason isn't Jesus, then it's worthless. You're no better off. | ||
| Cloudwatcher Registered user Username: Cloudwatcher Post Number: 339 Registered: 5-2009 |
Alison, thanks for your candid and transparent response. I think it's a common feeling among SDAs (and formers): "Even though this or that may be wrong, there is something that helped my life so much, that I have trouble renouncing it or criticizing it." Here's my thought on the issue: Give God the glory for drawing you to himself in spite of SDAism, not because of it. He uses any means to accomplish His purposes...even evil. There's no reason to have a soft-spot for evil, even though it may have, in some way, changed your life for the better. That was God, not EGW, not the health message, not the educational system, not the Sabbath. (Message edited by cloudwatcher on February 21, 2011) | ||
| Alison1 Registered user Username: Alison1 Post Number: 51 Registered: 10-2010 |
Cloudwatcher, thank you for your words of encouragemnt. And yes you're right it was God that used that experience to draw me close to Him and not the external stuff. Thanks. | ||
| Cloudwatcher Registered user Username: Cloudwatcher Post Number: 340 Registered: 5-2009 |
I had a run-in with one of the progressives that run the Reinventing blog. This was while I was still officially in, but mentally out, and was still a PW. So, I wrote it in a way that could be read either way...as if I were a former OR a historic Adventist. This is an excerpt from my blog post (Feb. 14, 2009): ***i don't believe that you can reinvent adventism. it is what it is. take it or leave it. its roots run deep and to reinvent would be merely putting lipstick on a pig -- purely cosmetic. ***i believe that if you want to be a part of an organization/denomination/group that better fits your spiritual beliefs, then you should go find one, not reinvent the one that you happen to find yourself in. sorta like the whole gay marriage debate... there's no need to redefine marriage, just go do your thing and call it something else. ***i will go as far to say that the notion of progressive adventism is a farce and a thin veil to mask that these people don't really have the guts to leave an organization that they don't believe is right and true. the whole blog gives these "progressives" an outlet to vent, yet never have to act on their issues with adventism. ***adventism is not a democracy. did the GC give you permission to reinvent anything? what difference are you really making to the "official" adventism. ***i don't believe anyone should try to reform something that the majority of the worldwide membership is very happy with...not just happy, but passionate about. the poll posted on the blog is very telling. it asks readers to choose the top reason they're still adventist. it lists choices like fear of losing salvation for leaving, the sabbath and cultural identity. i challenge all reinventors to honestly explore their reasons for staying adventist. http://cluesy.blogspot.com/2009/02/im-not-reinventing-thing.html | ||
| Nowisee Registered user Username: Nowisee Post Number: 720 Registered: 5-2009 |
If you don't stand for something (the Biblical gospel, 1 Cor. 15), you can fall for anything. Thank you, Alison, for trusting enough to be comfortable in asking the questions on your heart in this safe place. The progressive sdas I know have very often "progressed" into agnosticism, atheism, & true wordliness, as the infallibility of the Bible has been so denigrated. If certain sdas don't believe their own fundamentals, why do they stay and support a group that DOES support them? If they stay, why not be very open in speaking out to their local congregation & leaders and tell them they don't believe in certain fundamental teachings and that things need to change. How far would they get? We just had lunch with a progessive friend today. This person doesn't believe in most of the doctrines except avoiding pork and giving verbal assent to the Sabbath. No questions about the path we have taken even when we brought up the past FAF weekend. No discussion, just avoidance. Jewelry & wine & certain unclean meats OK, but lets not get too crazy with really going all out for the gospel. Let's stay comfortable. If I don't talk about it with you I can avoid and be in denial about the issues and not have to make any choices. Wonderful posts everyone! | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12271 Registered: 12-2003 |
Yes, so many of you have already said it so well: the choice is really not whether to stay Adventist or to leave but whether or not one will accept the Lord Jesus ALONE and submit one's life to His control, righteousness, and sovereignty or not. If one accepts the Jesus revealed in Scripture and embraces His atonement and responds to His call on one's life, he really can't stay and worship in any organization that denies Him. Colleen | ||
| Cloudwatcher Registered user Username: Cloudwatcher Post Number: 342 Registered: 5-2009 |
The progressives have talked themselves into believing a variation of the pillars of Adventism (so they can remain in their comfort zone), but they haven't gone to the Bible to see what the Bible teaches about salvation, prophets, Sabbath, etc. I find a lot of cultural sdas would rather hear both sides and decide on who has the best sounding argument, instead of opening the Word and reading for themselves (and of course, the logic that sounds right is the one they've been hearing since birth). It's almost like they're afraid to read the Word for themselves because there's a risk that they'll find out something that will upset the status quo. Lots of spiritual warfare. "Therefore, put on every piece of God’s armor so you will be able to resist the enemy in the time of evil. Then after the battle you will still be standing firm. Stand your ground, putting on the belt of truth and the body armor of God’s righteousness. For shoes, put on the peace that comes from the Good News so that you will be fully prepared.In addition to all of these, hold up the shield of faith to stop the fiery arrows of the devil. Put on salvation as your helmet, and take the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." (Ephesians 6:13-17) I wonder if the inability (or unwillingness) of Adventists to put on the helmet of salvation is the reason why so many have their brain exposed to absorb and accept right-sounding arguments, progressive logic and false gospels. Just a thought. | ||
| Michaelmiller Registered user Username: Michaelmiller Post Number: 237 Registered: 7-2010 |
Back when I explored the progressive movement (back when I was first questioning doctrine and had not yet discovered the new covenant and the gospel), I had one simple question which I emailed progressive pastors and even attempted to publicly discuss on a progressive message board. That one question: How do progressive churches handle the SDA baptismal vows? I have yet to get a single actual answer to this rather simple question. I've gotten pages upon pages that distract/deflect into other completely different areas, but never an answer to the question which I asked. The _closest_ I have gotten was a progressive saying that they personally didn't prefer to treat that vow like a wedding vow (I'm restraining myself from adding commentary to that statement). I've concluded that there really are no truly "progress"-ive SDAs because there isn't any "progress". There are formers which haven't left yet, and there are those who have made the choice to sacrifice the gospel for the sake of clinging to at least one SDA distinctive. Once the gospel is discovered and embraced people leave the progressive movement and the SDA church behind. As for agnosticism, I think that is the logical end result of the postmodernism (you have your truth and I have my truth and we'll just never talk about it). Interestingly, before I left I was starting to see this type of postmodern thought creeping into the mainstream SDA churches as well. Now that I've left I really see it in SDA reactions to me. What usually starts as a "we have the truth!" reaction, if pursued in study, eventually works its way into a "that's your truth and this is mine... I'm glad you found something... lets just stop talking about it and keep the friendship" attitude. A postmodern coping mechanism? Michael (Message edited by MichaelMiller on February 22, 2011) | ||
| Paulcross Registered user Username: Paulcross Post Number: 154 Registered: 4-2005 |
Clouddwatcher, Post #342 Your second paragraph really speaks to what I meet and where I have been in the past. I also want to say that as I read your reference to the Ephesians 6 passage I was reminded of my devotional time on Sunday morning in which the "arming" for spiritual warefare is for the purpose of fearless proclamation of the Gospel [Eph 6:19]. Thanks Cloudwatcher I needed your post. Michael, Post #237 In trying to speak out for the gospel and against "non-gospels" like SDAism I find that "truth for me" vs. "truth for you" existing in communities that also hold to the "we are right and must not listen to dieceving spirits". Truely an odd and very frustrating mix. I think that this may be indicitive of the "rudderless" state of SDAism in which some members depend on egw for their spiritual direction, others on "reasonability" [progressives] or the "be nice at all costs and refuse to discuss the tough stuff" approach. If only SDAists would try the unfailing word of God as their reference point and the Spirit as their guide... Sometimes it about wears me out... ...and I realize I am taking on stuff that is not mine. Paul Cross |
