Talk:Remnant (Adventist)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Remnant (Adventist) 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.
Start This article has been rated as start-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] Current antagonism

I believe the page is currently slightly too antagonistic. It begins with a more traditional view of the belief, and moves on to a refutation by citing progressive Adventist and non-Adventist views. Instead, it needs to start with a presentation modelled after the fundamental belief. Specifically, the most important part of this belief is that the church believes there will be an end-time group of godly people. After that, more intense debate may follow as to whom that group constitutes. Colin MacLaurin 14:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dissonance

Personally I am unhappy with what I perceive to be a dissonance between standard Adventist teaching, and the presentation given in this article. Standard Adventist teaching is that the remnant of Revelation 12:17 is the Seventh-day Adventist church.

"This preparatory message is symbolized by the three angels’ messages of Revelation 14, and meets its fulfillment in the great Second Advent Movement today. This has brought forth the remnant, or Seventh-day Adventist Church, keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." (Church manual)
"Do you accept and believe that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is the remnant church of Bible prophecy" (baptismal vow, emphasis added)
"Fifth, since the Seventh-day Adventist Church is the main body proclaiming the perpetuity of the Law of God and the Sabbath and since, in addition, there was a manifestation of the gift of prophecy in this particular church, we can identify it as God's faithful, end-time remnant" (Rodriguez, on the "traditional position", with emphases added)
"Since there is not other religious body today outside of Seventh-day Adventists which uniquely and specifically has the characteristics of the remnant of faith and carries their marks, it follows that Adventists as they meet all the aspects of the remnant are the final remnant of faith of the end-time." (Hasel, quoted in Rodriguez, emphases added)
We [i.e. Seventh-day Adventists] are the historical expression of the eschatological remnant, raised by the Lord after the fulfillment of the prophecy of the 1260 years recorded in Rev 12. The historical remnant is at the same time the faithful remnant in the sense that they are the bearers of God's message to the world. They have been entrusted with a mission and message from God that, if accepted by others, will be a protection against the last great deception of Satan. This is a visible remnant that can be identified through some specific marks. The fulfillment of their mission requires the presence of some type of organization. (Rodriguez)

All of these statements identify the Adventist church (that is, the visible organization) precisely with "the remnant" or "the remnant church". By comparison, my feeling is that this article as a whole distances itself from admitting and exploring this identification. As such I think there is a progressive bias, which I would like to try and correct. Tonicthebrown 14:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hasel

Gerhard F. Hasel wrote an important book on the Remnant which is respected by non-Adventist scholars. It might be worth taking a look at it as a source. Tonicthebrown 13:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in fact he was a leading scholar in this area, I understand. The book title The Remnant: The History and Theology of the Remnant Idea from Genesis to Isaiah pops up in searches; as a confirmation I did recall that the scope was only Old Testament, and even then not all of it! He also wrote the article on "remnant" for one of the famous Bible dictionaries. I think he believed there were 3 types of "remnant"s in the Bible - incl. an eschatological remnant, whereas some scholars disagreed with the existence of this third category. I actually did an assignment on this topic, and did consult his book. I need to dig out my work and mine it for references! I recall he was very critical of speaking in tongues - I have never read a primary source of his on the topic, so I won't add anything until confirmed. Colin MacLaurin 13:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New article

I propose a new article, perhaps titled remnant theology or remnant (theology), about the theology of the remnant theme in the Bible, within Christianity that is. This present article would be a {{main}} branch of that one. As I understand, remnant theology has existed in many movements throughout Christendom (or all? I'm not sure). Read one author who surveyed major remnant thinkers and criticised the overemphasis of the concept. Will try to didg it out. Colin MacLaurin 13:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of views, and quality of article

I've had a bit of a think about this article. As it stands it may give the reader the impression that there are 5 equally notable views about the Remnant. My impression is that there are really only 3 notable positions, or groups of positions: (1) The traditional position (Adventist church = remnant church), (2) The "broad" or "remnant message" position (remnant is an invisible entity which includes all sincere Christians, although the Adventist church may have a unique remnant message), and (3) Liberal positions -- which include social activism views, Steve Daily, and outright rejection.

Also, the descriptions of each view are currently fairly convoluted with plenty of references to books/articles but a lack of clear explanations. Here is what I suggest:

  • Change section "Interpretations of the Remnant" to "Alternative interpretations". Remove sub-section "Traditional/conservative views". The traditional position is already explained in the section "overview and explanation". The rest of the material just appears to be bibliography, which can be moved to a bibliography or external-link section at the end of the article.
  • Scrap the list of 6 positions taken from Rodriguez. Incorporate the material elsewhere where appropriate. This will get rid of repetition in the article.
  • Scrap "ultra-conservative views". This is not a notable position, being held only by a few independent ministries -- and even then it appears that they don't even have a definite, stated position on the remnant.
  • Streamline remaining views into 2 sections: "Remnant message" position, and Liberal positions.

I think that will make for a much higher quality article. Tonicthebrown (talk) 10:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, Tonic. I agree it is was a bit scrappy (nice reworking - flow is better now) - more bibliographical than simple overview. I added the articles as I came across them, and haven't even read many of them, so I hoped future revising would be done! I agree that the social activism views could be merged with liberal views, as both are "left-wing" - politically and theologically respectively. I do think that separate subheadings or at least paragraphs would be good to distinguish them a little, though. Additionally, if you look at some of those writing the social activism views (e.g. Scriven), its those who are more liberal theologically anyway. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 02:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Colin. Back to the issue of notability: I think that "ultra-conservative views" are non-notable and should be removed from the article. At present, the article states that some conservative subgroups "either consider themselves to be the remnant or come close to doing so. They hold a sort of "remnant within the remnant" view". According to Rodriguez, "This seems to be the position taken by Hope International and Hartland Institute." "Those organizations probably consider themselves to be part of God's faithful remnant". "suggesting or implying that their new organizations are to some extent the embodiment of the true faithful remnant". Note all the ambiguous "maybe, possibly, perhaps, sort of" language, which suggests to me that we're not dealing with a view that is fully formed and articulated.
Regarding the liberal views, I agree that a differentiation is needed between the sociological (eg. Scriven) and more theological (eg. Daily) views. Although I do wonder about the notability of the sociological views as well -- how many Adventists really think of the remnant as a sociological concept? Is it just one or two liberal scholars who are promoting this position? If that is the case, is it really notable? Tonicthebrown (talk) 02:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
True that Hartland Institute etc. are not very notable. A friend and former student there told me it has ~50 students. The Standishes' books are published by them I recall. Don't know about Hope International. I think the sociological one is worth a mention, although I think you are right that it is not as notable as some of the others. Ray Roennfeldt's view mentions a call to social action as one of the duties of the remnant in the Avondale College theology textbook (I'll add it sometime), yet I don't consider him liberal (more importantly and in particular, I doubt a reliable source would say so). So there is crossover. Also it links to topics which have been a big part of Adventism, like peacemaking, freedom of religion etc. e.g. the book The Peacemaking Remnant by various Adventist scholars I added to the page. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 11:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Thinking about this further, Rodriguez is a good, "reliable" source, yet only one POV all the same. Him describing "remnant within a remnant" views establishes him as more towards the theological center. Without that POV, he is at the far-right end. Other reliable sources I have read don't mention them. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 10:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)