Talk:Progressive Adventism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Progressive 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] Need for this article

The intent of this article is to contribute to a more complete picture of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Certain other subgroups within Adventism have quite a strong representation in Wikipedia articles already. This is fine because they are sufficiently notable, but an overemphasis on any particular view will lead to a skewed perception of what the Adventist church really is.

Let's work towards making the "mainstream" view(s) the most prominent. Of course, contributors may disagree about what "mainstream" is, and there is a natural tendency for people to think of their own view as "mainstream". Don't forget that we have the talk pages to discuss these issues! Some minority positions are notable, but let's not try to pass them off as mainstream (whatever that is), or as official teachings of the church. --Colin MacLaurin, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, this article is definitely needed. Does anyone know of any statistical data that shows what fraction of the SDA church is "progressive" and what fraction is "traditional"? That would be really interesting to know.
From my own personal experience, it would take someone VERY brave to admit that they thought EGW was wrong about some things. It it was a minister, they'd be risking their job, no less. And yet, in >20 years of attending an SDA church, I can't remember a single sermon which taught about the sunday law... which probably shows what the ministers really believe deep down... Tonicthebrown 15:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I did find a survey on beliefs of Adventist science educators in North America regarding creation and the Bible, and have incorporated it into the article. I do not know of any other surveys regarding beliefs, but I would also be very interested to know. It would also make the article less "weasely", i.e. instead of saying "some Adventists are progressive" we could say "x% of pastors believe in doctrine X". --Colin MacLaurin 05:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Tonicthebrown, regarding your earlier comment, I have done some research and found that there have been some changes in the church regarding the authority of Ellen White's writings. Must research has been done since the 1970's and 1980's, when critical books such as The White Lie and Prophetess of Health came out. Herbert Douglass' Messenger of the Lord reflects a modern position more than I might have expected. Certainly Alden Thompson's Inspiration had a strong conservative reaction, but that was back in 1990 or so. Graeme Bradford's Prophets are Human is endorsed by the South Pacific Division President. But I must admit that I was surprised to find Clifford Goldstein call her "fallible" (although he did qualify the statement somewhat). Examples such as him demonstrate that there has been a shift in thinking in the church.
Bradford wrote his book because he was concerned that unrealistic views of her prophetic gift would not stand up to scrutiny, possibly leading to a complete rejection of her writings, "throwing the baby out with the bath water", as exhibited by Walter Rea. Books such as his have a pastoral concern - they are positive, not critical in tone. Personally, I know of no Adventist scholar or pastor who does not believe that Ellen White had the prophetic gift, although I am sure they do exist. Colin MacLaurin 10:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC) (spelling edited)

Let me just comment, incidentally, that although I am the original creator of this page, it doesn't necessarily mean that I hold to the positions mentioned therein. To take a sample, I believe that Ellen White had the gift of prophecy, I believe in a young-earth creation, I believe in a historicist interpretation of apocalyptic prophecy, and I have never spoken in tongues in any sense of the term! (Just thought I'd clarify that as I've taken the risk of being open about my name and personal details). -Colin MacLaurin 19:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC) I am very loyal to the church, and strive to be positive towards people who disagree on some points, even if others use strong or critical language. -Colin MacLaurin 09:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

In response to Tonic's question about about statistical data of beliefs, see question 42 in 101 Questions on the Sanctuary and Ellen White by Robert Olson. It shows what a group of theologians and administrators thought in 1980. I think this has limited relevance for articles here, however, because the main aim of Glacier View was to decide what to do with Mr. Ford. Statistics of church-members beliefs worldwide would be very interesting, but I can't see how it is in the interests of the mainstream church to obtain (and certainly not to publish) them. Reliable estimates would be hard to obtain, IMO. However one of the independent groups might attempt a survey. Still, how would you get reliable estimates? Colin MacLaurin 23:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting topic, as is the material in the article, and on this discussion page. I am not at all convinced that it is an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia however. There is no formal organization of so-called "progressive Advenstists" - there is no definitive text or statement of beliefs, indeed there is no set of criteria that have been agreed upon to decide what one is. That does not mean that this is a trivial movement within the Adventist church, but it might very well mean that it is a movement that has not yet (and may never) reach the point where it can be described and summarized in an encyclopedia. The attempt to do so here can only result in the views, assumptions, experiences and biases of a view being misrepresented as fact. As things now stand anyone can assert that they are a progressive adventist, object that their views are not accurately represented here, and argue that their views should be included - and there is no valid basis to deny the claim. I think you are better off with a short paragraph on the main SDA page briefly noting the diversity within the church, mentioning "progressive" views along with some others.Gogh 02:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Let me ask, is there a formal organization of the movement called postmodernism? Is there a rigid set of beliefs which clearly defines it? No, and no. However is it encyclopedic, citeable from good references, and notable? Yes, yes and yes. Colin MacLaurin 11:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
We do seem to disagree - which I suggest is OK. I do point out that you are the one who added the modifer "rigid" to my observation that there are no criteria for progressive adventism. Your example of post modernism is a good one, but seems to count on my side of the argument. While it is notoriously difficult to define post modernism, there is a long and well established literature and community that is post-modern. This is precisely what is not true about progressive adventism. Let me ask you something - if you enter "post modernism" is a serach of amazon.com, how many titles will you find? Now do the same with "progressive advenstism". While of course this is not the only criteria for something being encylopedic, it seems pretty clear that you are trying to use wikipedia to create and construct progressive adventism, rather than describe and explain it, which seems more the function of an encyclopedia. While there may be no one agreed upon set of criteria for post modern, a person who said "post moderns believe that truth is objective and culturally transcendent" would clearly be wrong. I am not sure that there is any claim about progressive adventism that, at this time, can be said to be clearly wrong. A "progressive adventist" is anyone who calls themself a progressive adventist; some of these people are more progressive and less adventist, others are less progressive and more advenstist. I know people who call themselves PAs because they no longer think it is a sin to take a shower on saturday morning before going to church, while I know others who call themselves PAs because they still enjoy a vegeburger once a month, (with a good light beer) even though they would never think of setting foot in an Adventist church anymore. As I say, this is a rich and productive conversation to be having, and I do not dismiss or trivialize it. I just think it is premature for an encyclopedia article, and gives a (false) impression of consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gogh (talk • contribs) 17:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Gogh 18:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Greetings all. Some thoughts of my own. I think the issue is in the label being used. Progressive has connotations of cultural barbarians eschewing anything traditional in the name of progress. I am certain that this is not the sense in which it is being used here. Another label could be liberal Adventists, but liberal Adventism looks nothing like liberal Christianity, so that label is also problematic. That said, some label is needed to describe and group that most definitely exists. Examples of organisations that represent progressive Adventism are the Association of Adventist Forums, with its publications Spectrum and the paper Adventist Today. There are also communities known for a more progressive stance with regard to theology, for example Loma Linda. I think that the phrase I just used indicates what we are talking about, theology, and not lifestyle. Sure there are various expressions of Adventist lifestyle, some of them traditional, some of them less so, but this article is primarily concerned with theology. To give clarity to the definition, a progressive Adventist is someone who interprets and understands Adventist theology in the light of present truth and views Adventism as being an evolving project. Fermion 23:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not think that the issue here is the proper label. I think the issue is that an encyclopedia is not the proper place to construct or create or define a movement. "Progressive Advenstism" is too new, and too dynamic, to be clearly defined at this time. It may be the kind of movement that always resists clear definition, or in the years to come it may take on a stable and coherent form. It is not appropriate to use wikipedia as a tool to give shape and coherence to this movement. I have noticed the same tendency in a lot of the articles on wikipedia having to do with Adventism (no doubt the same is present on other subjects as well) and I think it is dangerous (to the credibility of wikpedia that is).Gogh 18:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Too new? You can see progressive elements in Adventism since the 1950s publication of the Adventist bible commentary, the theological controversies of the 1980s, the existence of the Adventist forums since the 1970s. I would like to understand which bit needs clarity? Fermion 03:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have ignored the quotation marks in my assertion above that "PA" is too new (and dynamic) for its own entry here. The quotation marks were meant to indicate the recent, self-conscious use of that term by a growing number of disparate SDAs. No harm though, as you also are making my point for me. If PA simply means any form of SDAism not contained in its original expression, then I suppose every Adventist is progressive who no longer believes in the Shut Door. When contemporary SDAs self-consciously refer to themselves as "progressive" they mean to somehow set themselves off from what they perceive to be traditional Adventism, but since this is an inherently relative process, it will mean something different in almost every case. And most of the people who have self-consciously written about PA argue against establishing any definitive criteria. If that is true (and I believe such is stated in the current article) then how can anyone justify an encyclopedic article that purports to give a definitive summary and description of a movement which, if it has any definitive characteristic at all, it is its opposition of self-definition? Such a circumstance strongly suggests that Wikipedia is being used to impose a definition on a movement that is not yet ready for one, and is, by definition, POV. I should note that my comments on this page do not reflect any antipathy that I have toward PA - just to giving it its own wikipedia entry.Gogh 06:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
My opinion is that you are referring more to a lifestyle segment of the church, and I am referring to a school of theology evident in the church. I agree, labelling someone progressive, based on their lifestyle is futile, it is such a diverse group. However, labelling someone, with whatever label, to indicate they are progressive with regard to their theology is a distinct necessity to adequately describe the Seventh-day Adventist community. For example, many theologians very publicly object to organisations such ATS which seem to support a static creed. If wikipedia were only to focus on the traditional views of Adventism, then it would, in my view be POV. This article is an attempt to provide a description of a very real and distinct vein of Adventist theology. Fermion 06:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)\
I don't agree with the distinction you are making. I am refering to much more than just lifestyle issues. There is no clear theological position implied by SDA Theologians who describe themselves (or, are sometimes described by some, but not others of their "followers") as PA. Some PA's accept the Investigative Judgement, for example, and some do not. Some accept the inspiration of EGW (and of course, those that do disagree about what this might mean) and others do not. Some believe in a young earth, others do not. Some believe in the importance of traditional ways of observing the Sabbath, some do not. I do agree that it is important to describe the full range of views and practices within Adventism. What I disagree with is the attempt to baptize Ron Corson's version of the defining beliefs of PA as definitive (as worthy of Corson's views are for careful reflection and discussion). This is premature. Again, I think the range of SDA view should be briefly described on the main Adventist page, without using wikipedia to try to create a consensus for the definition of a movement which has not yet (if it ever will) defined itself. Gogh 07:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did Ellen White label progressive Adventists as superficial conservatives?

Here's the Ellen White quotation sourced for the term "superficial conservatives" in the article. It does not link progressive Adventists, described in this article, to the term superficial conservatives. To assert this is highly POV. Also, the language is very loaded.

"The work which the church has failed to do in a time of peace and prosperity she will have to do in a terrible crisis under most discouraging, forbidding circumstances. The warnings that worldly conformity has silenced or withheld must be given under the fiercest opposition from enemies of the faith. And at that time the superficial, conservative class, whose influence has steadily retarded the progress of the work, will renounce the faith and take their stand with its avowed enemies, toward whom their sympathies have long been tending. These apostates will then manifest the most bitter enmity, doing all in their power to oppress and malign their former brethren and to excite indignation against them. This day is just before us. The members of the church will individually be tested and proved. They will be placed in circumstances where they will be forced to bear witness for the truth. Many will be called to speak before councils and in courts of justice, perhaps separately and alone. The experience which would have helped them in this emergency they have neglected to obtain, and their souls are burdened with remorse for wasted opportunities and neglected privileges." {5Testimonies 463.2} [emphases added by e.Shubee]
Colin MacLaurin 07:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The amended paragraph read, "Progressive Adventists are members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church who consider themselves to be theologically progressive relative to the denomination. They have also been referred to as superficial conservatives[1] because of their affinity to mainstream Christianity and are also labeled cultural Adventists[2] since they feel an attachment towards the Adventist church for cultural reasons, instead of strict theological conformity."
"... Most progressive Adventists still identify more with conservative Christianity than liberal Christianity."
The article itself admits that progressive Adventists have an affinity to mainstream Christianity. Ellen White said that they have sympathies for mainstream Christianity. Progressive Adventists virtually confess to be apostates. Ellen White calls them apostates. True Seventh-day Adventists have many "avowed enemies" that belong to conservative Christianity, not liberal Christianity. Ellen White thought of conservative Christianity as a superficial, conservative class of Christians. --e.Shubee 14:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The label "progressive Adventists" is just as loaded as the phrase "superficial conservatives." The meaning ascribed to these terms merely weigh the assessment of mainstream Christianity from two opposing points of view. Progressive Adventists believe that progressing toward mainstream Christianity is a good thing. Other Adventists take the opposite point of view and say absolutely not and agree with Ellen G. White who wrote, "Babylon is the church, fallen because of her errors and sins, because of her rejection of the truth sent to her from heaven."[3] --e.Shubee 14:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The aim of progressive Adventists is not to progress towards the Christian mainsteam - it is to seek truth (like all Christians). On many points, this may take them towards the Christian mainstream. But on others, it will not - for example most evangelicals are Calvinists, but progressive Adventists do not want to become Calvinists! Eternal hell is presumably still more popular than conditional immortality, but I don't believe any progressive Adventist would believe in eternal torment in hell. The comparison was simply for illustration - one could also make a comparison that more conservative Adventists may have points in common with conservative evangelicalism, or fundamentalism. This is not an insinuation of alliance. There is no evidence that Ellen White is referring to progressive Adventists in this quotation. Regarding terminology, the term "progressive" appears to be the preferred self-label (just read Spectrum or Adventist Today). -Colin MacLaurin 15:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
You are correct in saying that progressive Adventists don't have a written or premeditated plan to join the Christian mainstream and that they are just, coincidentally, moving in that direction. On that point Ellen White said that the superficial conservatives were moving in the direction of their sentiments.
An obvious synonym for "cultural Adventists" is "nominal Adventists." Consider the following prophecy, which parallels Ellen White's expectations about the superficial, conservative class of Adventists:
"I saw the nominal church and nominal Adventists, like Judas, would betray us to the Catholics to obtain their influence to come against the truth. The saints then will be an obscure people, little known to the Catholics; but the churches and nominal Adventists who know of our faith and customs (for they hated us on account of the Sabbath, for they could not refute it) will betray the saints and report them to the Catholics as those who disregard the institutions of the people; that is, that they keep the Sabbath and disregard Sunday." Spalding and Magan Collection, p. 1.
It is clear from this passage that the "nominal church" can only be the superficially conservative but apostate protestant church and that "nominal Adventists" are prophesied to join together with other nominal, superficially conservative, cultural Christians to persecute true Adventists. Consequently, my edit was fair. It is true that Ellen White thought of conservative Christianity and nominal Adventists as a superficial, conservative class of Christians. --e.Shubee 17:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, progressive Adventists could not be described as "nominal" because they are not "nominal Christians", but by contrast are very active and care deeply about their faith! I recognize that you are probably mean "nominal" in the sense of not being completely (traditionally) Adventist, but I do not think the term is the most appropriate. Colin MacLaurin 08:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some ideas and thoughts

This is a very interesting article and long overdue. I have a few thoughts that I would appreciate discussion on and eventual incorporation into the article.

  • Both historic and progressive Adventists consider themselves to be representing true Adventism. The progressive Adventists tout the notion of present truth as justification for their adjustments of viewpoint. The historic Adventists believe they are holding to a set of beliefs more true to what the early church believed. I think a case can be made that historic Adventists usually follow 1920s and 1930s Adventism and the progressives have the same spirit of discovery as the contemporaries of Ellen White.
  • Ervin Taylor, editor of Adventist Today, makes the comment that sociologically and historically Adventism should be fundamentalist. He argues that the event that "saved" us was the need to accredit the union colleges in America. It became a requirement that feeder colleges to medical institutions needed to be accredited, which meant that a large number of professors at the union colleges were required to take PhDs in secular universities. This allowed a widening of ideas and a greater degree of open-mindedness. In conversation with Ervin Taylor when he was at Avondale, I asked him if he was concerned that our institutions offering PhDs could result in a move towards fundamentalism, he replied that he is concerned.
  • This will be an ongoing discussion, but progressive doesn't seem the right word. I am struggling to find the right word, the article is correct, liberal suggests a rejection of evangelical belief, left-wing is meaningless in the context of a church (it could mean anything from liberal to concern for the poor). I guess I am concerned that some of the beliefs expressed on the page a representative of a large spectrum of Adventist scholars. For example, Alden Thompson has done a lot to advance understanding of thought inspiration, but I would be uncomfortable calling him a progressive. Again, I don't the correct term. -Fermion 10:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Insightful comments Fermion! Interesting discussion about Ervin Taylor. If you can reference any part of it, it would fit well on Association of Adventist Forums. As for terminology, I agree that "liberal" is not the right word, because what's theologically liberal for Adventism (a conservative denomination) is not liberal in the broader scheme of Christianity. "Liberal" is a stronger term, sometimes used with a negative connotation. As mentioned above I understand "progressive" to be the preferred self-designation. Does this label have a negative connotation to you? Do you think there would there be a better term to describe Alden Thompson, or are you simply uncomfortable with labels? I am becoming increasingly aware that a sizeable proportion of scholars disagree with certain aspects of our traditional understanding. Perhaps this could be acknowledged in articles but without using a label? Colin MacLaurin 15:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
This Ervin Taylor interview with Clifford Goldstein (particularly the last question or two), whould be able to highlight at least Goldstein's view, although Taylor has rather pointed questions, it could still be of assistance to differentiate "cultural adventists" and "progressive adventists". The definition that Taylor uses there is not the one that this page uses I think. Ansell 21:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
To me it seems consistent. It defines "cultural Adventists" as those who disagree with some of the doctrines (primarily), or religious practices (less emphasis given to this). Colin MacLaurin 07:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)... On second thoughts, now that I have read it again, I agree with you Ansell. I have differentiated the two somewhat. Change it more if you think it needs it. Colin MacLaurin 12:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems to be okay as it is unlikely that a small mention like that will have its own page, and it is most closely related to this page. I have never heard the term before that so I am not sure how much better it could be described. Ansell 20:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
IMO, "progressive Adventist" is a suitable term for someone who has considered the theological issues in some depth and decided that they disagree with traditional or mainstream Adventism at one or more points. i.e. the term has doctrinal/theological significance. On the other hand, "cultural Adventist" is a broader term which may include people who are simply "nominal", i.e. they stick around in the church because that's where they're culturally comfortable, but haven't looked into theology. Tonicthebrown 12:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Comment that Cultural Christian has a different connotation than "Cultural Adventist" added. Colin MacLaurin 08:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Getting back to Fermion's post, the first two comments were excellent in my opinion, and I request that they be added to the page and preferably cited as well. Colin MacLaurin 08:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
OK Fermion I have tried to integrate your comments which I think contain excellent material. Please contribute yourself, as I'm sure you could make some helpul contributions to the article. Cheers, Colin MacLaurin 11:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charismatic Adventism

I would like to branch off the section "Charismatic Adventism" into its own article, having recently expanded it. There are certainly plenty of resources referring to charismatic experiences within the Adventist church, despite it surely being a minority. Yet the term "charismatic Adventism" would be a neologism I believe, so I guess the article couldn't be called that. Or could it? "Charismatic" as simply the best adjective to use. Otherwise, some unwieldy title may have to do. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

  1. ^ Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church Volume Five, p. 463.
  2. ^ http://www.atoday.com/486.0.html
  3. ^ White, Ellen G. [1888] (1999). "The Final Warning", The Great Controversy: Between Christ and Satan. The Ellen G. White Estate, 607. ISBN 0-816-31923-5. Retrieved on 2006-06-06. 

[edit] Resources

Here are some other articles which need adding:

The following were not available online when I checked in November 2007:

  • Folkenberg, Robert S. "Will the real evangelical Adventist please stand up?" Adventist Review 1997, v174, Apr [3], p16-19(464-467)
  • "Where are evangelical Adventists headed?" Spectrum 1982, v13, n1, p62-64
  • Mostert, Thomas J. Jr. "How to spot a "liberal" Adventist". Pacific Union Recorder 1990, v90, Dec 3 p2
  • Morgan, Douglas. "Dissent to departure: The evangelical Adventist movement". College People' 1982, v2, Nov 1, p8-10+

Colin MacLaurin (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV in this article

To start this article with the observation that some Adventist disagree with long-held, official beliefs is highly POV. It reveals that the primary author really does not know the subject well. Survey data clearly indicate that most self-identified "progressive" or "more liberal" Adventists accept the 28 fundamental teachings of the denomination. Some of the other characterizations in this article are not supported by the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.64.151.223 (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)