Talk:Historic Adventism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Historic Adventism is within the scope of WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Seventh-day Adventist Church and Seventh-day Adventist Church-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church To-do:

Contents

[edit] Article creation

I would like to comment that I strongly support the creation of this article! It gives a nuanced, "insider" point of view into the Adventist church (yet the statements are easily verifiable as well). It also simply gives an insight into the people and the theology of the church. Its counterpart which I started, Progressive Adventists has a similar purpose, although I believe it represents a much larger proportion of scholars. For me, this insider, nuanced approach is a good thing - I believe it is a way of being open and including, and not insular. Let's just be careful to keep it as NPOV as possible. Colin MacLaurin 11:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title

Should we move the article to Historic Adventism? I seem to recall reading a policy somewhere that articles like this should be named as an "ism". Compare Christianity (not "Christian") etc. The same would of course be true for Progressive Adventist. Colin MacLaurin 11:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved both. Some articles will need updating. Colin MacLaurin 14:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definitions of "Historic", "Progressive" etc.

We need to discuss the definition of "historic Adventism" and when to label particular people as "Historic", "Progressive" etc. Perhaps to say, "The following prominent Adventists hold to at least one of the beliefs considered historic [/progressive] above: ..." is the best option, because this is easily verifiable if they have published their views. However it is not easily verifiable to label them outright as traditional, liberal etc. (See also the discussion at Talk:Progressive Adventists#Some ideas and thoughts).

I think that "historic SDA" and "progressive SDA" are primarily self-designations, rather than labels applied by others (hence the current opening sentence of this article). For example, historic SDAs label everyone else (including the mainstream church) as "New Theology" believers [1] instead of "mainstream" or "progressive". Meanwhile, mainstreams and progressives are likely to take issue with the term "historic SDA" (see [2]). So yes, we have to exercise caution when applying these labels. It's probably safest to only use a label when the person (or group) in question has already labelled themselves as such. Tonicthebrown 11:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ron Corson's article Progressive and Traditional Adventists Examined needs debating amongst us. Presumably he is a "progressive" himself, and I wonder if he has slightly overstated his case. He defines "historic/traditional Adventists" primarily as those who believe in the four doctrines investigative judgment, remnant etc, as well as other points. But I consider these four to be "conservative mainstream" today, not to be lumped together with believing in a sinful nature of Christ, atonement not fully completed at the cross, etc. which is a whole other category. Colin MacLaurin 15:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you read Corson's article more carefully, you'll see that he defines historic SDAs as people who "desire to hold to, and continue with, the beliefs that were instituted at the founding of the church, during the mid to latter 1800's", and also reject QOD. He also mentions "moderates" (see paragraphs 1 & 2 of his article) who lie in between historics and progressives. Thus, his definition of "historic SDA" is accurate, and excludes the "conservative mainstream" (as you call them). The mainstream disagrees with the 1800s positions and agrees with QOD. Tonicthebrown 11:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, there are three main groups, which believe:

  1. Sinful nature of Christ, atonement not completed at the cross, sinless perfectionism, etc. These may have been significant in the past, but they are a minority today and I do not believe they can be considered "mainstream" Adventism today.
  2. 1844 investigative judgment, remnant, Ellen White as significant doctrinal authority, etc. I consider these the conservative end of "mainstream" Adventism today, not to be confused with the above group. You could call it"Questions on Doctrine Adventism"! Presumably the majority among the church worldwide.
  3. Ellen White limited doctrinal authority, remnant broader than Adventist church, Saturday not the seal of God and Sunday not the mark of the beast, etc. I consider this also "mainstream", as these ideas are taught by many scholars and lecturers employed by the church. Presumably a minority position worldwide, but a significant portion of scholars I suspect. I believe the scholars' opinion is the most "notable" for Wikipedia purposes, as they are the experts on theology. Colin MacLaurin 15:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  1. Agreed. This is the group that calls themselves "historic". They are virtually absent from official academia, but are still strong in the grassroots and independent movements, and are still prolific publishers. Sadly, they are often the "public face" of the church because of their vigorous media campaigns, the anti-Catholic conspiracy theories etc.
  2. Yes. You could also call them "28 fundamentals" Adventism, and therefore "official" Adventism! I think that the overall presentation of Adventist theology has to reflect this mainstream position, rather than leaning excessively in either the historic or progressive direction.
  3. I'd be more cautious about calling these "mainstream". They are "progressive". And I disagree that they should be "most notable for Wikipedia purposes", because Wikipedia shouldn't just be about expert scholarship, it should be about what is widely and popularly believed in the church. Tonicthebrown 11:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

See my soon coming "Sourcing Adventist theology" proposal on the project talk page of WP:SDA. Colin MacLaurin 15:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology: Further discussion

I have just been talking to a friend of mine who knows much more about the Adventist church than I do. He said that terms such as "historic" are highly nuanced - in particular, not all self-termed "historic Adventists" necessarily believe in perfectionism and a certain christology. The article may hint at this, but if true it needs to be clearly stated. Colin MacLaurin 12:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last Generation Theology

I replaced Last Generation Theology as an example of Historic Adventism. Does anyone disagree? (If so, please give a good reason). Colin MacLaurin 02:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I would call LGT a subset or offshoot of Historic Adventism, so I agree with it being listed in the article here. But Larry Kirkpatrick has argued it is significantly different. See [3]. Perhaps that's why someone might want it left off Tonicthebrown 08:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, Tonic, and providing the link (which I read completely)! I have tried to improve the article accordingly. Colin MacLaurin 09:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible content to add

I have some questions. Perhaps someone who knows some of the answers could add them to the article? In Woodrow Whidden's interview with Julius Nam,[4] he mentions the "1888 Message Study Committee" which he implies is conservative and not mainstream, similar to Historic Adventists but not quite the same; what is it? What is "universal legal justification"? Why do some conservative Adventists I know talk so much about the 1888 message? Why is their interpretation different, as asserted in the article?Colin MacLaurin 08:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't have a full understanding of 1888, but here are my observations. The 1888 conference debated the issue of "righteousness by faith". Jones and Waggoner argued that "righteousness by faith" is righteousness imputed by God apart from works (i.e. legal or forensic justification) PLUS the imparted righteous (or perfect) character (i.e. sanctification). However, the church leadership of the time disagreed with them. Today, Adventists squabble over which side Ellen White took. Historic Adventists insist she supported Jones and Waggoner and interpreted righteousness in terms of character; whereas the mainstream/progressives think she did not.
Hence, when Historic Adventists talk about "Righteousness by Faith" they are talking about perfectionism -- not to be confused with Luther's "justification by faith alone"!
If I'm wrong about any of these facts, I'd appreciate correction from someone who knows more. Tonicthebrown 07:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's something else to read, mate: by Woodrow Whidden Tonicthebrown 09:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I assume that there's pastors employed by the official church who are Historic? Are there any academics teaching at official universities or colleges? Thank-you, Colin MacLaurin 08:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add a statement that there are no historic academics employed by the official church, but I am not certain whether or not this is true, and I don't have a reference. Please contribute with your opinion, hunch, or ultimately a citation of course. Colin MacLaurin 04:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I think that would be an impossible statement to back up. First you'd have to have a definition of "historic" that everyone agrees to, then you'd somehow have to prove that there isn't a single person in the whole world who fits that definition and is employed by the church. Good luck! :-) Tonicthebrown 06:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
While on the one hand the definition of "historic" is nuanced, on the other hand sources may clarify their usage. It would be sufficient to quote a reputable source as saying that there are no such academics. Colin MacLaurin 18:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you could certainly say "According to --- --- ---, there are no historic academics employed by the church". Such a statement would fit in with the remark that historic adventism is mainly a grassroots movement among members but poorly represented at the scholarly level. Tonicthebrown 02:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tertiary institutions known for being very conservative

I was reading the Progressive Adventist article and noticed that a number of tertiary institutions are listed as being progressive. I wondered whether institutions such as the the Institute of Advanced Study in the Phillipines are mentioned anywhere as being known for being very conservative? -Fermion 10:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Good to see you here, Fermion! You haven't shown up on my watchlist for some time. Do you agree with the list on Progressive Adventist? By the way, I tried to integrate your suggestions about tertiary education leading to Adventist Forums, etc. on that page. Perhaps you could list some of the institutions you know to be conservative, so that we'll know what references to look for. (Just quietly, I didn't reference the list I put on progressive Adventist, and plan to get references eventually, but I doubt that anyone will seriously question it.) Colin MacLaurin 12:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Colin, I do agree with your list and can think of one or two others. Of course this is the crux of the problem, but really depends on who you talk to. Walla Walla, it is true, is known for being progressive, but some would say this is unfair and has earned this label from a few unfortunate incidents. The IAS I mention in the Phillipines is universally recognised as fairly conservative. Southern is considered by some to be conservative but by others to be dangerous (I think if you live North of Southern, it is conservative, and if you live South it is dangerous!). Fermion 01:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
To answer your origin question Fermion, I believe there are no articles stating the IAS as conservative. I think that it could be placed on the Seventh-day Adventist theology article - perhaps not ideal but good enough for now. I assume that it is not historic? By the way, do you know if there are any historic theologians employed by the official church? Colin MacLaurin 14:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Where do I put this statement by Raymond Cottrell? Does it belong on this page? He comes out with guns blazing! "Southern [Adventist University] operates as an agency of Southern Bible belt obscurantism. Furthermore it was (and still is) to an appreciable extent, dependent on the largesse of committed ultra-fundamentalists, who insist that the college operate on ultra-fundamentalist principles."[1] -Colin MacLaurin

[edit] Link needing replacing

Presumably this page is still on the website somewhere. Colin MacLaurin 07:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Resources

I have sourced from the Standishes too much, and from self-published materials (e.g. much of internet content) too much. We need to improve the number of third party, independent sources. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 07:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

I propose that Last Generation Theology be merged into this article, Historic Adventism. While the two concepts are not exactly the same (according to adherent Larry Kirkpatrick for example), they are closely related. A merged article would clearly discuss the differences. I assume the history is largely identical. See also comments in the #Last Generation Theology section above. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally I would resist a merge at this time for a couple of reasons. Firstly, (as you point out) there appear to be some LGT people who disagree that they are the same as "historics". Secondly, both articles are quite large, and the LGT article is (IMO) quite poorly written, so logistically it will be difficult. Thirdly, despite the considerable overlap I think that there is sufficient differentiation between the two topics to warrant separate articles. For instance, do the Standish's work together with Larry Kirkpatrick and his crowd? I get the impression that they are two separate streams/movements, even though a lot of their theology overlaps.
IMO we should hold off on a merge until we can find a really good quality source which confidently states that "HA" and LGT are the same thing. Note this does not rule out a merge forever -- I do think that at some point in the future a merge will probably be appropriate. As an intermediate step, the quality and NPOV of the LGT article should probably be improved. Tonicthebrown (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Most of the LGT article is history, and looks identical to Historic Adventism. Perhaps Historic Adventism as a movement is emerging as "LGT"? Recent LGT'ers like Peter Gregory and others are mentioned - who are they? They really don't seem notable. Has any reliable third-party source described them? The articles are virtually identical. The burden of proof is on whoever added the material, not on those suggesting it should be removed. At the very least, some tough editing needs to be done to remove the uncited/self-cited material. The LGT has had a strong bias for far too long. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I doubt Peter Gregory is a notable figure. The LGT article needs a complete overhaul -- however I'm reluctant to do it because (a) I don't really have the time, and (b) it may upset another editor. Tonicthebrown (talk) 12:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Standishes emailed

I have emailed the Standish brothers, who are leading historic Adventists, to invite them to either improve this article or email me with suggestions. I didn't mention WP:NPOV or WP:V; I may need to in the future. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 07:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Historic groups and publishers

I agree this list isn't entirely appropriate for the article. I've put it here for research purposes. Tonicthebrown (talk) 02:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Steps to Life[5], which produces the monthly magazine Land Marks[6]
  • Remnant Publications[7]
  • Maranatha ministries
  • Amazing Truth Publications
  • Leaves of Autumn (publisher) [8]
  • Patriotic Christian Distributors

[edit] New layout

I like the new layout by Tonicthebrown of putting all the publications in a list. I have just done a similar thing for Progressive Adventism - that page looks much more pretty now! Colin MacLaurin (talk) 06:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No probs mate, I had a look and thought it was getting a little too disordered Tonicthebrown (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Provonsha

An informed person told me Jack Provonsha was closer to being a "liberal". I am conscious of not confusing readers nor misrepresenting Provonsha, as Taylor called his book "an apologetic for historic Adventism." Important to explain the nuances of "historic". Colin MacLaurin (talk) 12:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)