Traditional and Progressive SDA's
By Ron Corson
However one may want to believe that someone or some group
has all the
answers about Religion and God, we can be sure of one thing, they
don't.
Whether they are Traditional/Historic Seventh-day Adventists (SDA's),
Progressive SDA's or Moderate SDA's, all see only part of the picture,
"a
poor reflection in a mirror". The question before the people of the
Seventh-day Adventist church is how to pursue the knowledge and truth
of God
while not stepping on others personal search and convictions.
Unfortunately, we
cannot all be right. The history of the Christian era is filled with
differences of opinions. The beginning of the SDA church is based upon
differences with other Christians. Even once the SDA church became an
organization there were considerable differences of opinions, even
among the
pioneers who formed the SDA church.
What is meant by the labels Traditional/Historic SDA's,
Progressive
SDA's, and Moderate SDA's? These labels are only useful for those who
want to
be described by the terms. If a label is used in a pejorative way it
loses its
value; it becomes another form of name-calling. This is often seen in
the
political arena but for our discussion name-calling is not what we
want. We are
using labels to assign certain peoples doctrinal views into simple
categories
for the sake of comparing or contrasting views. For this discussion the
moderate views will not be highlighted since the Moderate encompasses
people
who in one area may agree with the Traditional/Historic view and in
another
area agree with the Progressive view. Generally the Moderate then is in
the
middle of the two categories, equally divided. While many people
probably
consider themselves Moderate, if they spend the time to analyze their
doctrines
it is likely they will fall more to one side or the other. In many
peoples minds being a Moderate is the place
to be. Hopefully this
article and others like it will enable these people clarify for
themselves
their own positions.
Traditional/Historic SDA's desire to hold to and continue
with the beliefs
which were instituted at the foundation of the Seventh-day Adventist
church,
during the mid to latter 1800's. A move away from those traditions or
teachings
is viewed with suspicion or as error. This can be demonstrated by the
resistance which occurred in the Traditional/Historic SDA's rejection
of the
1957 book Questions on Doctrines. It was felt that the book was too
great a
departure from the historic position of the Seventh-day Adventist
church. The
move to use drama or contemporary Christian music in the worship
service is
often thought as worldly entertainment entering the church. The
Historic/Traditionalist desires to hold on to several "pillars" of
the SDA church. Some key doctrines would be:
At the other end of the spectrum is
the
Progressive Seventh-day Adventists. This could be termed liberal except
that
the term liberal Christian is generally used of those who believe that
Christ
was not resurrected, miracles did not happen and other tenants which
most
Progressive SDA's would not agree. The liberal Christians are by this
most
accepted understanding, those involved in the Jesus Seminars, or people
like
Bishop Spong. While such liberals
Christians do
exist in the Seventh-day Adventist church. They would not make up a
sizable
portion of those who would feel comfortable with the label Progressive
SDA. Of
the key doctrines listed above as the "Pillars" of
Traditional/Historic SDA's the Progressive SDA's would hold to
significant
modifications.
The Progressive SDA's do not feel that the church should
be limited by
the teachings of its founders. If errors are discovered in teachings
previously
held, the errors should be acknowledged and corrected. That all
knowledge is
built upon those who have gone before us, not only those in the SDA
church, but
also the many Christians outside and far before the existence of the
SDA
church. Knowledge is progressive. What seemed right a hundred years ago
may not
be right for today or tomorrow.
Certainly the above lists do not cover all the areas of
contention; the
lists do not cover the differing views of the Atonement, or the nature
of
Christ, etc. The list however provides a good method of demarcation to
establish the two sides in the discussion.
In an issue of the science magazine Discover from a year
ago an incident
is recounted about a parasitic wasp and a cockroach. While pruning a
tree a man
noticed this rather docile cockroach that was right under his nose as
he sawed
on the tree. Wondering about the strange behavior of the cockroach he
saw that
instead of its normal long whip-like antennae there were only blunt
stubs of
antennae. At some point the wasp had cut the antennae of the cockroach
making
it docile and willing to be lead around by the wasp. The wasp then
would lay
her eggs in the cockroach and the larvae would grow eating upon their
living
host.
We also are dependent upon outside stimuli to understand
the world around
us and the God who calls us. We do not want to be docile and herded
about at
someone else's whim. Neither Traditional/Historic SDA's or Progressive
SDA's
would want that type of Religion. But to protect ourselves from such an
experience we must ask questions, we must seek answers, and we must
analyze
data. We must use our God given powers of reason. This is not merely
man's
reason, for God asks use to reason with Him. Christ while here on earth
did not
just ask people to do what he said; He revealed to them in His
teachings and
stories the why of things. Some He knew would not understand, most
likely
because they refused to try and understand, others might not understand
because
they had created a box for God and assumed they knew all they needed to
know.
But there were always those people who would search the teachings,
taking time
to reason the message out and draw conclusions that in the end lead
them closer
to God. In the time of the apostle Paul the Bereans
were considered noble for their decision to search things out and
reason
together in search of the truth. In fact for us as human beings finding
out the
truth about God should be one of our highest goals. What is God like,
what does
He want from each of us, how should we relate to Him and our fellow
human
beings. This is our calling, our mission, to search for God and relate
God to
others around us, as ambassadors for God; we call others to pursue a
relationship with God.
It is perhaps here, how each of the two groups search
for truth where the root of the division really lies. Both the
Traditional/Historic SDA's and the Progressive SDA's would certainly
agree that
each is searching for the truth about God. But both views are vastly
different
in what they see as truth, and both are different in what methods they
use to
arrive at their view of truth.
Churches are built upon commonality of beliefs,
the proliferation of denominations is ample evidence of people forming
together
under certain belief systems. Similarly, groups may be bound together
by common
history or common values. A Baptist and a Seventh-day Adventist have
many
beliefs in common, many values in common,
and often a
common history. It is however, the differences that cause division,
they may be
worshipping the same God, yet one may look at the other as an apostate.
Inside
the Seventh-day Adventist denomination the same dynamics occur. The
division is
here already, it has been here for many years. Some may read this and
claim
that it is the "Omega" of prophecy, it is not, it
is actually an attempt to re-establish a Bible based Seventh-day
Adventist church.
Continued in part 2 "Truth,
Progressive or
Traditional?"
Truth,
Progressive or Traditional?
If you were going to explain to someone how you arrive at
"truth", which would you say is the best method? Is it to base you
understanding of truth upon the tradition of your fathers or would it
be
arrived at by examining your previous beliefs and adjusting them as
necessary
to arrive at the most reasonable conclusions.
Because
we as a church once believed in something does not make that belief
true. It
does not make that belief false either, however it is important to
analyze our
positions to see whether they can stand up to objections or differing
perspectives. If they stand, and if they have a good foundation to them
we can
feel confident in claiming them as our beliefs, as the best explanation
of
truth we currently have.
The Christian church has for many centuries used the Bible
as our
standard for revealed truth about God. The
Scriptures which
have been inspired by God, for our edification, instruction, correction
and
encouragement. True the Bible was not handed down to us by God, it was brought together by men who searched
the
writings of Religious people both of the Jewish and Christian
perspective.
Through the application of reason and logic and consistency the church
fathers
arrived at conclusions which have become our Bible. Not everyone agreed
on all
the books placed in the Bible yet there was substantial agreement on
all but a
few books. Even among believers in Christ today there are still those
who
accept some books and reject others. The Roman Catholic accepts the
Apocrypha
while most Protestants do not. In most cases these variations in
accepted books
does not change much in the area of doctrine. Usually the variations
come from
differing interpretations of texts, which are accepted by Christians.
One
notable exception is eschatology, an area where more differences occur
then
perhaps any other.
When reviewing the list of beliefs which
Traditional/Historic SDA's hold
as pillars there is a striking similarity. The similarity is that they
are not
Biblically supportable positions. For instance there is no
Biblical verses teaching an Investigative Judgment or its origin
in
1844. There is no mention of the SDA church in the Bible to cause one
to render
it as the Remnant; even the concept of the Remnant is not indicative of
its
popular use in many churches. The Bible speaks nothing about Ellen
White as the
"Spirit of Prophecy" or a prophet. The Spirit of Prophecy in the
Bible is used of the Holy Spirit. The Bible says nothing of a Sunday
law. The
Bible does not teach the Sabbath as the seal of God, again it is the
Holy
Spirit that is the seal of God.
So the question should arise in most people's minds, just
how do those
doctrines become "pillars" of the Traditional/Historic SDA's? The
answer is found in the label Traditional/Historic, These were the
doctrines
incorporated into the SDA church therefore they must be true and
accepted. The
Progressive SDA's see those doctrines as history, but not as truth.
They must
be tested to ascertain if they are indeed true, if they should be used
as
doctrines in the SDA church at all.
Here is the conflict between the Progressive and
Traditional/Historic
SDA's. The Progressives desire to hold to a Biblical standard, whereby
all
doctrines we preach should be clearly demonstrated from the Bible. This
method
retains a commonality with other Christians outside the SDA church, as
well as
showing our esteem of the Biblical source of truth. We certainly
understand
that the Bible cannot be taken literally in all places, that poetry,
symbolism,
and apocalyptic literary forms are present in the Bible. Nor does it
mean that
we must view the Bible as inerrant. God is inerrant, He alone is
infallible the
Bible while inspired does not contain all the attributes of God, errors
are
present, much of the Bible is man's attempts at representing God and as
such
man's suppositions can color his view of God. This is why Progressive's
SDA's
encourage looking at the Bible as a whole complete volume. Allowing
the more comprehensive New Testament authors to help explain the Old
Testament.
Not that the Traditional/Historic SDA's have less
authoritative view of
the Bible. They do view it as authoritative often inerrant and maybe
infallible. Here as in the rest of Christianity there is a difference
of
opinion about the Bible. Still some will acknowledge that the Bible has
errors
but they assert that the original manuscripts did not have the errors.
Of
course we do not have the originals so what does such and assumption
prove? In
any case the errors in the Bible are mostly inconsequential to any
important
doctrinal material. The Traditional/Historic SDA's also have a second
source of
truth which has from the beginning of the SDA church been used to
support it's teachings.
The works of Ellen G. White are often taken by the
Traditional/Historic
SDA's as equal authority with the Bible. Too often her works are used
in place
of the Bible, even though many Traditional/Historic SDA's would say
that such
should never be the case. Perhaps as troublesome as giving her works
equality
with the Bible is her use as an "inspired commentator" on the Bible.
As Morris Vendon wrote in his book "The
Pillars": "The gift of prophecy is not an authority over the Bible,
but it is an authority on the Bible. Some people have trouble with the
phrase,
evidently coined by F.D. Nichol, 'inspired commentary.' But if you
accept the
inspiration of the gift of prophecy and realize the fact that it is
also a
commentary on the Bible, and then put the two together, you have an
inspired
commentary." (page 104). While this may
sound
innocuous enough it is not, such a system of thought gives Ellen
White's
interpretation over and above everything else. In a very real sense it
is
placing her interpretation above that expressed in the context of the
Bible
itself. If a person were to hold such a view then her incorrect use of
a verse
such as Acts 3:19: to assign the blotting out of sins to some distant
time, has
to be accepted, even though such an interpretation was based upon the
King
James translation. Hardly any other translation would
lead
to such an interpretation nor would the original Greek. To call her an
"inspired commentator" is to place her above the book she is
commenting on. Fortunately as Vendon noted
there are
those in the SDA church who have trouble with such a phrase,
Progressive SDA's.
Often the Traditional/Historic SDA's object to the
difference in views of
the works of Ellen White by stating that to reject the counsel of Ellen
White
is to reject God's counsel. This is based upon the traditional view of
Ellen
White as a prophet. If she were not a prophet then it would be accepted
to
reject her views, if they seemed to vary from the Bible. So here we are
once
again at the crux of the problem. The Progressive SDA's look at many of
these
doctrines and see them differently based upon their reasoning from the
Scriptures. Since the Scriptures seem to point to a different
interpretation it
becomes necessary to re-evaluate the interpretation delivered or
endorsed by
Ellen White.