|
Seventh-day Adventism |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
Historic Adventism is an informal designation for conservative individuals and organizations affiliated with the Seventh-day Adventist Church who seek to preserve certain traditional beliefs and practices of the church. As a general rule, Historic Adventists feel that the church leadership has shifted or departed from key doctrinal "pillars" ever since the middle of the 20th century. Specifically, they point to the publication in 1957 of a book entitled Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine; which they feel undermines historic Adventist theology in favour of theology more compatible with evangelicalism.[1]
Historic Adventists have tended to promote their message through independent ministries, some of which have had a strained relationship with the official church.[2][3]"Last Generation Theology" shares some elements with Historic Adventism, yet considers itself to have "expanded" the beliefs of Historic Adventism to their logical conclusion.[4]Historic Adventists are seen as at the opposite end of the Adventist theological spectrum from Progressive Adventists.
Historic Adventism has been erroneously applied by some to any Adventists that adhere to the teachings of the church as reflected in the church's fundamental beliefs such as the Sabbath or the Spirit of Prophecy. They misapply those who hold to mainstream traditional Adventist beliefs as synonymous with Historic Adventist.[1]Prominent figures in historic Adventism include M. L. Andreasen, Herbert Douglass, and Colin and Russell Standish.
Contents |
Teachings on Christian perfection and personal holiness were present in the religious revival of the Great Awakening in America and were evident in early Adventist movements such as the "Holy Flesh movement" in Indiana around the turn of the 19th century which Ellen White quickly rebuked."[5] They were also evident in some teachings on holiness by medical doctor John Harvey Kellogg, and Jones and Waggoner of 1888 fame.[6]
Joseph Bates was one of the three primary founders of Seventh-day Adventism (along with James and Ellen White). Like many in the early church he focused more on following the requirements of Gods law over salvation by grace.[7]
Following the 1919 Bible Conference, in which Ellen White's inspiration was discussed during 2 days, some defended against what they felt were attacks on her such as Holmes and Washburn, who wrote open letters decrying the alleged "new theology" and the "omega" apostasy of the Adventist church.[8]
Keith Lockhart has described the "Golden Age" of Adventism (from a sociological point of view) as the fundamentalist era of the 1920s–1950s. It is to this time period the expression "historic Adventism" most accurately applies, not to 19th century Adventism.[9] Along with Malcolm Bull, he claims "Adventist fundamentalism" emerged in the 1880s, became dominant in the 1920s, and survives to the present day amongst conservative groups." They also claim "elements of fundamentalism were re-invoked", becoming discernible in the 1990s.[10]
It is widely accepted that present historic Adventism emerged in response to the Adventist-Evangelical discussions which occurred in the spring of 1955 to the fall of 1957. These dialogues were initiated by evangelicals Donald Barnhouse and Walter Martin, who sought clarification on what Adventists believed and took issue with a number of teachings which at the time were generally thought to characterize Adventist theology. The most significant of these being: Arianism; man's sinful nature taken by Christ in His incarnation; an incomplete atonement at the time of Christ's death on the cross; salvation by obedience to the law; and extreme sectarianism.[12] At least one author considers the various streams existed earlier, as some Millerites came from churches holding Arian views, but this event polarized them.[13]
The Adventist leaders who met with Walter Martin presented a fuller description of mainstream Adventist theology, and described the more fundamentalist views as merely the beliefs of a few. (Le Roy Edwin Froom described them as the "lunatic fringe".) In particular, the Adventists asserted that the belief that Christ took Adam's sinful nature after the fall and an incomplete atonement were not part of mainstream Adventist doctrine. Adventist historian George Knight felt it was not a complete picture, because a majority of Adventists prior to 1950 had held to these teachings concerning the nature of Christ and the atonement.[14]
Martin and Barnhouse were satisfied with the responses given by the Adventist delegation, and concluded that the Adventist church was a legitimate Christian body. Meanwhile, Adventist theologian M. L. Andreasen, who was aware of these proceedings, opposed them openly. Andreasen represented the many Adventists at the time who believed that Christ had taken upon Himself Adam's fallen nature and that some aspects of the atonement were not completed at the cross. (Those Adventists who believed Christ had taken a fallen nature still believed that Jesus was sinless and committed no actual sins). Some of these Adventists continue to oppose the theological direction taken by the church leadership on these issues and the more fundamentalist elements are known today as "Historic Adventists."
Herbert Douglass has stated,
According to historian George Knight,
Desmond Ford convinced Robert Brinsmead his perfectionism was incorrect in about 1970.[17] During the 1970s, what is now the Adventist Review carried articles by editor Kenneth Wood and associate editor Herbert Douglass rejecting Questions on Doctrine and arguing for a final perfect generation.[17]
The General Conference addressed this controversy over "righteousness by faith" by holding a conference in Palmdale, California in 1976.[17] Ford was the "center of attention", and the resulting document known as the "Palmdale statement"DjVu.[18][19] However the controversy increased, and critics of the "new theology" of Ford and others formed their own institutions.[17]
Julius Nam has written,
The 1975 book Perfection: The Impossible Possibility (Nashville: Southern Publishing Association, 1975) edited by Douglass, contained essays by Douglass and C. Mervyn Maxwell supporting historic views, and Edward Heppenstall and Hans LaRondelle supporting the mainstream view.
Historic Adventist theology differs from mainstream Adventist theology in the areas of Christology, hamartiology (sin), soteriology (salvation) and eschatology (end times). They often use the term "new theology" as a pejorative term for perceived doctrinal shifts in the church.[21]
With regards to Christology, Historic Adventists believe that Jesus Christ possessed a fallen nature in common with all the children of Adam but with a propensity to sin. This view of Jesus' nature was prevalent in Adventism prior to the 1950s, but is now a minority position among theologians and mainstream Adventism.[22]
Historic Adventists tend to place more emphasis on sanctification than justification.[23] Following Andreasen, they define the atonement in terms of God’s work to cleanse our character from sin as well as payment of the penalty for sin. The work of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary is regarded as a continuation of the work of atonement begun on the cross, rather than the application of the benefits of an already completed atonement. [24]
"Eschatological perfectionism" is the teaching that a final generation of believers must achieve a state of complete sinlessness (or Christlikeness) in the final period just before the second coming of Jesus (see Last Generation Theology)and most Historic Adventists hold to that teaching. This belief in sinlessness arose particularly from M. L. Andreasen's interpretation of the investigative judgment doctrine, which is one of the pillars of adventism and found in The Great Controversy by Ellen G. White.[12][25]
They still believe as mainstreem Adventist, that Sin is defined in terms of personal trangressions of the commandments, over against an inborn corruption of the human nature inherited from Adam.[26][23]
Historic Adventists generally place more emphasis on the writings of Ellen G. White as a doctrinal authority compared to mainstream Adventists, some considering her writings as infallible and having near-equivalent status to the Bible.[1]
Historic Adventists have a differing perspective on the 1888 Minneapolis General Conference arguing that Ellen White supported the perfectionistic theology of Jones and Waggoner.[27]
Some historic Adventists, like many mainstream Adventist, are advocates of the King James Only movement, which promotes sole use of the King James Version of the Bible. (A classic book in this movement, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (1930), was written by an Adventist, Benjamin G. Wilkinson. One critique is by Alden Thompson.[28])
Last Generation Theology (LGT) or "final generation" theology is a belief system held by some conservative members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which claims that perfection will be achieved by some people in the last generation before the Second Coming of Jesus. It is closely related to "historic Adventism", but as one supporter claims, it differs in that it forms an extension or development of "historic" Adventist beliefs, or takes them to their logical conclusion.
Like mainstream Adventist theology, it teaches that Jesus Christ was not only the Substitute for man but the Example for man, but insists that Christians will have to cease from sin after the close of probation just before the Second Coming, and confesses that the close of the age has been delayed by unconsecration in Christians but can be accelerated through their living of holy lives.
Mainstream and progressive Adventists have criticised the use of the term "historic". It is observed that numerous doctrinal positions that were common among the Adventist pioneers are generally not held by those who profess to be "historic Adventists", such as semi-Arianism, which time of day the Sabbath should begin, certain understandings of Systematic Benevolence, the "shut door", and the personhood of the Holy Spirit.[27] It is argued that the over-valuing of "historic" beliefs leads to an unhelpful neglect of "new light" and "present truth", which Adventists have always held as defining beliefs.
Walter Martin labeled most of the historic Adventists he encountered as "legalists," "worshippers of Ellen White" and the "lunatic fringe."[29] The term was earlier used by LeRoy Edwin Froom when Adventist leaders met with Martin.[30]
Adventist historian Milton Hook describes it as "Adventist fundamentalism". He cites the aggressive preaching style of George Burnside who attacked Roman Catholics and "apostate" Protestants. Hook claims this turned many away, and some of the remaining merely "loved a religious dogfight", and converts "often generated dust storms of intolerance and became clones of militant dogmatism among their peers." He states this style of evangelism was once the norm amongst Adventist preachers, and had roots in 19th century Methodism in the United States.[31]
Andy Nash wrote that while working at the Adventist Review, he was "often perplexed about how our ability to function at the magazine was disrupted by some folk on the conservative extreme". In response to articles on worship, they would get many critical letters which were based more on tradition than on the Bible. They would airbrush jewelry out of photos to placate some readers.[32]
Historic Adventists look favourably on a past era of the church. Phil Dunham, a fairly conservative author himself, critiqued "nostalgia about the good old days of 'historic Adventism.' In some people's minds it seems to be a time of the most unblemished and unassailable doctrinal positions, the highest possible moral standards, the deepest spiritual maturity, the best snowlike purity, the utmost in readiness to be translated.[…] But the way we often use the expression 'historic Seventh-day Adventism' is built on an idealized and unrealistic notion of what our early church was really like."[33]
In response, some historic Adventists have claimed that they are loving in their evangelism and deny that the charge of fanaticism applies to them. They quote statements by Ellen White to support their view. For instance:
Methodist scholar Donald Dayton expressed some sympathies for historic Adventists in his paper presented at the Questions on Doctrine 50th anniversary conference.[37]
The Seventh-day Adventist Church has officially reacted to two organisations which espouse "historic Adventist" theology. In 1998, the General Conference established a committee to evaluate the beliefs and activities of Hope International, the Hartland Institute (USA) and Remnant Ministries (Australia). The committee produced a report expressing "serious concerns with respect to the nature and purpose of Hope International and associates."[3]
The conclusion of the report stated that "by rejecting the authority of the world church in session when their interpretation of Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy differs from that of the church, [Hope International and associates] have set their authority above that of the world church and operate in a manner that is consistent with offshoot movements." The report also contained a significant threat: "If Hope International and associates cannot bring themselves into harmony with the body of the world church, clearly evidenced within 12 months, the Seventh-day Adventist Church may need to consider whether there exists a “persistent refusal to recognize properly constituted church authority or to submit to the order and discipline of the church” (Church Manual, p. 169)."[3]
According to one article, the policy of the Adventist church in North America is that members of Hartland or Hope International may not hold any church office.[38]
Historic Adventists have established a number of independent ministries and parachurch organizations which assist in the articulation and defense of their views. Two primary historic Adventist organizations located in the United States are Hope International and the Hartland Institute.[39]
Hope International, currently led by Ron Spear, runs a publishing ministry and a health center..
Hartland Institute comprises an educational college and school associated with Colin Standish (who founded the organization) and his brother Russell. It publishes their books [1] and others, as well as Last Generation magazine.[40] Russell edits The Remnant Herald.
Remnant Ministries was founded by Russell Standish[41] and is based in Australia.[42]
The term "Concerned Brethren" describes a Adventist movement in Australasia[43] (not to be confused with the Brethren churches, a Christian movement entirely separate from Adventism). The description was used of a group of retired ministers opposed to Desmond Ford's teachings, particularly during his time as head of theology at Avondale College, and who urged for his dismissal.[44] The name derived from their signature or self-designation on a letter in the 1970s, although the stream of thought had been discernible earlier.[45] According to E. Bruce Price, "'Concerned Brethren' was abbreviated to 'CB' as a term of derision for those opposing Dr. Ford’s new theology."[44][46] According to the Standishes, "Hope International is to the United States what the Gazeley meetings are to Britain, and the Concerned Brethren are to Australia and New Zealand."[44]
The group was led[47] by James William Kent (1890 – May 5, 1983, Australia, aged 93), a "veteran Australian evangelist and administrator"[48][49] who chaired a meeting of "concerned" individuals in Sydney in 1974.[50] On 3–4 February 1976 a group of 16 men (11 "senior ministers", all retired, and 5 laymen) including Kent and George Burnside (1908–1994), a New Zealand evangelist[46][51] (described as the "foremost anti-Ford pamphleteer")[52] was given a hearing by 20 men from the Biblical Research Institute in the Australasian Division (now the South Pacific Division).[53] According to one author, Ford's understanding of righteousness by faith was the main issue,[47] while the report describes "concern about the teaching of theology at Avondale College, particularly in the area of the Sanctuary, the Age of the Earth, and Inspiration".[54] In response, the Institute affirmed its support for Avondale in its report.[54]
In March 1977, Kent and others met with Ford and church administrators. They were informed this would be the last time they could meet with church leaders as a group.[55] Kent and Burnside were banned from preaching in the churches on December 18, 1978 because of their continued opposition to Ford.[46] A. C. Needham replaced Kent as unofficial leader around this time, as the latter approached his 90th birthday.[56]
According to Arthur Patrick, "Looking back on the painful saga of the 'Concerned Brethren' from 1974 to the present, it is apparent that a better application of essentials for effective pastoral care may have alleviated some of the controversy."[57] Also, "Following the conflicts that gained intensity in the 1950s, during the 1970s the Adventist Church in Australasia made significant progress in better understanding and presenting 'the everlasting gospel;' but it failed to win the support of certain older members. In addition, viewpoints similar to those of the Concerned Brethren were promulgated by a variety of independent groups."[58] He has described them as "loyalists".
The Adventist Laymen's Fellowship (ALF) was founded in 1979 to counter the growing Desmond Ford movement in Australia. They held a series of weekend meetings at Vision Valley, outside Sydney, to which local and overseas conservative Adventist speakers were invited and to which several thousand Adventists attended over several years. Early speakers included Colin Standish, Ralph Larson, George Burnside, Austin Cooke, Mervyn Maxwell, Leroy Moore, Dennis Priebe and others. They also published a magazine for several years named Landmarks. The ALF succumbed to theological unorthodoxy and disbanded about 1986.
Historic Adventists have a particularly strong commitment to publishing, and often disseminate free literature to promote their views to the mainstream church and wider public. Historic Adventist publishers have been criticized for using misleading titles and concealing their links with Seventh-day Adventism.[59]
Offline resources:
Supportive:
Neutral or critical: