One of the old car commercials was famous for its slogan “This is not your father’s Oldsmobile”, attempting to convey the idea that the old, worn out image of an Oldsmobile had been re-born into something new and wonderful.  Reading some of the Progressive Adventist blog sites leaves one wondering if the underlying message is “This is not your father’s Adventist church”.  While certainly there is great diversity of practice within Adventism, there are still some critical fundamentals which are not negotiable, such as worshiping on a particular day of the week and acknowledging the authority of a particular prophet.  Former Adventist missionary Ramone Romero reflected on this recently in a post on his blog.  Drawing parallels with the Japanese practice of butsudan, where a family altar is kept in the house to show respect for deceased family members, he says, “I found it eerie that no matter how ‘progressive’ one gets in Adventism, in order to stay Adventist, you have to keep the early Adventist beliefs, writings and foundation somewhere ‘in the house’, just like a Japanese family needs to keep the family butsudan to avoid offending the family or being cut off. The ‘old things’ in Adventism have to be brought along and given a place. And just like a real butsudan, you can somewhat neglect them.” Ramone has given permission to share his reflections here, in the hope that a truly progressive Adventism may be identified and embraced – progressing to an acceptance of gospel truth without strings attached.  Read on below for the entire article.

Getting Rid of the Family Altar in Adventism
by Ramone Romero in Osaka, Japan

Progressing to Simplicity

Recently I read some comments posted by friends and by well-meaning progressive Adventists. They cover a lot of territory, and the issues seem too many to be counted. I confess it’s becoming difficult for me to read these exchanges, and I must force myself through. You see, the Gospel is a very simple thing, very simple yet possessing all the beauty of the universe, the beauty of God’s heart. It is simply this: Christ, not us. What He has done is the Good News. He has saved us. So recently in revisiting progressive Adventist conversations, I’ve found that my heart desperately wants to cut straight to the meat – to lovingly go for the jugular.

I suppose in my mind the “Adventist” issue is fairly simple, centering in mostly on historic Adventism – the root where things began. When reading progressive Adventist comments, I find it difficult to not view what they write as basically “Invent your own definition of Adventism”. That vein may give some peace to progressives, but what’s the greater reality of “Adventism”? Progressives may leave the “old” things untaught and they may even completely disagree with them, but in order to remain an “Adventist” church, these “old things” must be carried along and given some assent at some point.

The Japanese Family Altar

The other day I wrote about this to a friend and told him that I’ve found it eerily similar to the Japanese butsudan. The butsudan is a large highly-decorated family altar to one’s ancestors (with a Buddha in the center). If you are the eldest in the family here, it gets passed down to you and you have to take it. If you don’t, the rest of the family will get upset. You just don’t dishonor your ancestors that way! Of course this has been an issue in church families in Japan… once you become Christian, what do you do with the butsudan? Some have kept it quietly, and others have thrown theirs away (often we hear testimonies of spiritual lightness and/or healing which comes right after throwing away a family butsudan). Biblically, having a giant physical altar to Buddha and one’s ancestors is a rather clear issue. Incredibly clear, actually! (Let me add that there’s nothing to bring the Old Testament to life like stepping into a dark temple of towering Buddhas and incense!) Yet the nature of the territorial spirit in Japan obscures and confuses such otherwise obvious things, but the characteristics of that spirit are another relevant story which will have to be written about later. For now, though, we understand that keeping a butsudan is obviously a problem.

What does this have to do with Adventism?

I found it eerie that no matter how “progressive” one gets in Adventism, in order to stay Adventist, you have to keep the early Adventist things somewhere “in the house”, just like a Japanese family needs to keep the family butsudan to avoid offending the family or being cut off. The “old things” in Adventism have to be brought along and given a place. And just like a real butsudan, you can somewhat neglect them. Japanese families can worship other gods or even the real God. They can even say they don’t believe in everything the butsudan represents. But they must keep it. The Adventist foundational beliefs demand the same reverenced position. You have to keep them; they must have a place in the “house of God”. You can disagree with them and neglect them, just as progressives do. But to directly call them into question and suggest throwing them out produces the same effect in the Adventist “family” that it does in the Japanese family when you get rid of a butsudan: the family gets highly upset. You could find yourself basically “kicked out”.

Doing the Unthinkable

However, by the time a butsudan is passed down to the eldest in a family, often there aren’t so many elder family members left to get upset. Yet still it is nearly unthinkable to throw it away. The reason for this is because the notion that one’s ancestors continue on is deeply embedded in Japanese culture, and the butsudan is the place to honor them. Understood at this deeper level, a butsudan becomes much more than an idol, altar or a family heirloom; after the family is gone, in a way it the representation of your family. To throw out the butsudan is to throw out your family. To discard the butsudan is to insult and disown your family. It is a complete and tragic confusion of identity.

In the same way, the Adventist “identity” cannot seem to exist without its historical foundation – the historical beliefs, writings, and the claims of the early Adventists to a unique calling, a special message, a special truth, etc. The Adventist identity is tied to these things like a Japanese family to a butsudan. The “unique messages” of Adventism (what we have that everyone else doesn’t) become what defines us. We can’t let them go completely. If we do, then who are we? Our identity seems to be inseparably tied to our forefathers’ claims. The Adventist heritage “altar” is passed down from one generation to the next.

And just as Japanese take it theologically for granted that their ancestors continue to exist as spirits, in Adventism we seemed to have taken it theologically for granted that our history was divine. We never questioned whether or not the Spirit was in our foundation. To suggest such a thing is like telling traditional Japanese that their ancestors are actually not still existing as disembodied spirits – they just wouldn’t be able to believe it or comprehend anything other than what they’ve always believed.

Keeping it Quietly

For a Japanese family to become Christian and completely sever ties with demonic powers and strongholds, it means throwing out the butsudan, risking the anger of your family, and letting go of a comforting belief you’ve always had. I can’t completely imagine how that must feel. They likely had never before realized how their identity previously was tied up in their family’s ancestors. They grew up believing that their ancestors continued on as disembodied spirits, and that the butsudan was the place to show them your respect and love for them. They might have felt that keeping the butsudan brought them good fortune, blessing and protection. It’s a big shock to let go of all of these things. That is why many Japanese Christians quietly keep their butsudan. They may want to continue honoring their family, or they may think it is merely “cultural” and not “religious”. They don’t notice that for one reason or another, they are unable to throw away the altar – it has a power over them.

Many Christian pastors in Japan shy away from addressing the butsudan problem, perhaps figuring that it’s better not to offend or disturb. After all, “church” looks the same, members give support, and maybe it’s just not that important. Better not to risk offending members; after all, if you harp on it too much, they might leave. Many pastors and members simply see no problem with keeping a butsudan, and perhaps can cite theological reasons why there is no problem. But these reasons are rooted in the desire to harmonize with the culture and avoid offending people by taking the Bible too literally. (Interestingly, my wife informed me that the “no problem” view of keeping a butsudan is very common among members in Japanese Seventh-day Adventism, even among “conservative” Adventists.)

Similarly, don’t most liberal and progressive Adventist churches “quietly keep the altar”? Aren’t many pastors afraid of saying what they believe about it for fear of losing their jobs or losing their members? If we disagree with the early Adventist beliefs, aren’t we still afraid of letting them go because then we won’t have any more special claim about who we are? Isn’t our identity tied to them?

As I talked about these things with my wife, she considered what her parents might do if they had to take a butsudan into their house (my wife’s parents are not the eldest in their families, so they don’t have to keep a butsudan). Although my in-laws are less religious than the least religious of Japanese people, my wife believed that they would certainly take the butsudan into their home. They might put it aside somewhere and leave it there with its doors closed. They might open it and clean it if relatives were to come over or if special occasions arose. Later they would put it back in its place of neglect, but they would still keep it. Even if my wife protested that she felt uncomfortable with it, they would not be able to even consider getting rid of it, even though they don’t really believe in it. “We just don’t have that idea of getting rid of it,” my wife said. “Leaving it closed, putting it away somewhere, or even replacing it is okay, but not getting rid of it.”

As she spoke, my wife suddenly remembered how when she took SDA baptismal classes, the pastor pulled out a large blue file book. He explained a lot of things from it about the “sanctuary” – few of which my wife understood, thank God. Before this she had never heard of these things (and afterward seldom heard them again, except from foreign missionaries). These beliefs can be neglected like a butsudan, but on special occasions they get brought out. Or perhaps when more zealous Adventists or conference officials stop by to visit?

I also thought it was interesting that she said that it is okay to replace the altar. It is fine to throw out the old altar provided that you get a new one to replace it. Immediately I remembered how many reform-minded and progressive Adventist friends are very comfortable talking about updating the old beliefs. The problem, they believe, is that the old beliefs are outdated, old, and no longer relevant. It is completely permissable to re-interpret them, update them, or even alter them to an extent, but like a butsudan, it is unthinkable to throw the old things away.

A New Identity

Throwing out the altar means truly starting over. For Adventism, it is basically the same deal. Throwing out the old things means starting over from ground zero. It means letting go of your old identity, even if your family becomes upset.

But you find a new identity – you are in the family of God. Your new identity is not defined by your ancestors or forefathers anymore, by who they were, nor even is your identity defined by who you are. Rather, your identity is defined by who Christ is. He switched identities with you! Through the cross, He received your sins and punishment, and you receive His name and inheritance. Through the cross, His inheritance and position before Father becomes your inheritance and position before Father. And His perfect life becomes your heritage. You find Him to be the “unique” and “special” One.

Progression or Regression?

One progressive Adventist friend (a friend whom I love as a brother in Christ) once took issue with me about how I continually addressed of the old things of Adventism. Because he had re-defined “Adventism” to himself, he felt like my statements implied that progressives were “marginal Adventists”, and he felt that such sentiments were more at home in the expressions of “regressive Adventists”. It should be noted that “regress” is indeed the opposite of “progress”. Where the old things are not taught, the Gospel is given more room to breathe. Where the old things are taught more, the Gospel of God’s grace is given less room to breathe (if I could write in Greek, I would say “pneuma” for “breathe”, also meaning spirit or Spirit… i.e., the Spirit is given less room when the Gospel is given less room). The inversion is proportional. The further we move away from the family altar, the better. Why not let it completely go? Is such a thought truly “regressive”? Why do we hold onto it–if not for the same reasons that a Japanese family holds onto a butsudan? Aren’t we afraid of the backlash we might receive from our spiritual family if we throw out the family altar? Aren’t we unable to imagine our own identity in Christ without the family altar? The writings and beliefs of early Adventism are kept on the altar, so to speak, in a sacred place, and our identity is tied to them.

I do understand and sympathize with how progressive Adventists feel when they discover the things that formed Adventism in the beginning – “This is not my Adventism!” When they go outside of the Southern California area, for example, into other areas (or in particular, when they go to less industrialized countries and see Adventist “evangelism” – mind you, I’m not talking about ADRA). Adventism holds a different meaning to them.

It reminds me of what I learned from reading a book by Kang Chol-Hwan. He used to live with his family in Pyongyang in relative luxury, completely unaware of the harsh conditions & famine across the country, unaware of the thousands of political prisoners kept in concentration camps across North Korea. If an escapee had somehow met him in Pyongyang, Kang & his family might have understandably felt that the escapee was just a bitter person who hated the nation for no reason. However, the first exposure to life outside of Pyongyang that Kang knew was when his family was imprisoned in the Yodok concentration camp. Sadly, after being released and escaping the country to South Korea, Kang encountered people at university who did not believe what he told them about the North. Most people there have not grown up with anything near that kind of difficulty, so some did not believe that Kang was telling the truth. They thought he was just bitter and that his was a rare experience. They told him to keep his comments to himself and stop making trouble.

I understand that progressives may have grown up with or adopted a nicer Adventism, a healthier theology, less extremism, etc. They may have settled in more Gospel-friendly areas. For them, that is what “Adventism” has come to represent. Yet for others, it’s been North Korea (figuratively speaking). Is this chance? Or is there something to be learned by noticing the directly inverse proportion of the teaching of the Gospel and the foundational Adventist things? When you look at the historical literature and events of the founding of Adventism, was it Gospel-friendly or not? It was clearly Gospel-hostile.

How Dare I Make This Comparison in the First Place?

Where do I get off saying this? How dare I compare the early Adventist beliefs to a Buddhist ancestral altar? I do so by simply comparing the Gospel–even as progressive Adventists know it–with the early beliefs of Adventism. The central truth of the Gospel of God’s grace (justification by faith) was missing for the first forty years of Adventism–the time in which all of Adventism’s “unique truths” were completely formed. The “good news” of the early Adventists was knowing the scripturally unsound Shut Door & Sanctuary teachings, and later keeping the law correctly (particularly the correct “Sabbath day”). If you disagreed with these things (in other words, if you were non-Adventist Christian), you were in “Babylon”, “apostate” and “fallen churches”, and were worshiping “Satan impersonating Christ”. Such beliefs and teachings as these were given divine credentials because they were supported by Ellen White’s visions. Let’s look at this soberly and reflect on it:

#1 - The Gospel was missing from the first 40+ years of Adventism

#2 - Anti-Gospel beliefs were confirmed by a “prophet” who had visions and received instruction from “angel guides”

#3 - The “angel”, “prophet” and teachings condemned those who clung to the Gospel instead of to their new teachings

This simply adds up to the working of a different spirit than the Holy Spirit. An anti-Christ spirit that actively opposed the Gospel of Jesus Christ’s righteousness and salvation by faith in His finished work. If any of you had a friend today who exhibited such traits – if they taught a different gospel based on visions and condemned people who stuck to Scripture – wouldn’t you pray for your friend’s deliverance? Wouldn’t you pray for spiritual warfare so that your friend could be free of the confusion? When Marian Catholics pray to Mary and get answers back from her, wouldn’t you pray for their deliverance, too, and desire to help them lovingly learn discernment? When Japanese children and adults are choked at night by spirits, don’t they need deliverance? Yes, of course.

Keeping a butsudan–a Buddhist ancestral altar–in the house cannot fail to have an effect on a Japanese family. In the same way, would keeping the 40+ years of teachings from an anti-Gospel spirit (that deceived our forefathers) in the Adventist “house” be without effect? Think about it: Is it any wonder that Adventists have such trouble letting these old things go? Is it any wonder that there is such confusion about the Gospel when people read the old literature? Is it any wonder that Gospel understanding is proportionally higher the less that foundational Adventist things are taught? Is it any wonder that progressives who disagree with the old things still have difficulty clearly saying the early things were simply wrong? Is it any wonder that Adventists have trouble envisioning their identity in Christ apart from the “unique” heritage of Adventist beliefs? It is not enough to simply embrace a partial teaching of Christ’s righteousness while keeping a different altar in the house – because the altar isn’t empty. It still holds a power over the household, and the family cannot throw it away.

What Kind of “Reform” is Needed?

What shall we do? Yes, we can “reform” our modern churches and teach people how to read the “Spirit of prophecy” with one eye closed, how to re-interpret it, take the good, leave the bad, etc. We can try to grow Southern California and other liberal spots to encapsulate all of the Adventist world! But the problems that we know of in extreme Adventism (or rather, historical Adventism) continue popping up like a many-headed snake. Even though you cut off one head, and another pops up elsewhere. This happens because the root is left untouched. The ministry of early Adventism (a Gospel-hostile spirit) is able to re-emerge simply because the family has kept an altar for it in the house and staked their identity on it, like a butsudan in a sacred place.

This is why I say that for myself, the issue has become very simple. Just as some Japanese families attempt to hold onto a butsudan and Christianity, trying to keep both identities, so many progressives may be trying to do the same thing (and perhaps calling it “diversity"). But by letting go of the butsudan, you can discover your heritage solely in the family of God. Yes, you can keep your name. The Suzuki family as Buddhist/Shinto can still be named the Suzuki family when they become Christian and toss out the old family altar. Adventism can still be called Adventist, but the family altar needs to be thrown out, or many lives will still be kept in confusion, and snake heads will continue appearing even though progressives themselves may not want them to.

The family’s testimony can become a Gospel story of transformation: “I once was lost, but now am found; I was blind, but now I see.” Progressive Adventism can become even more truly “progressive” by continuing to “progress” away from the Gospel-hostile spirit that shaped the beliefs of the denomination for 40+ years. Yes, many can easily disagree with the old things, but few are able to even think of throwing out the altar. The old writings do not want to be removed from the sacred place they occupy. Though we may disagree with early Adventism privately, few of us dare to say openly, “We were once blind, but now we see.” Early Adventism couldn’t be called “blind” because saying that would damage our identity, and deep inside we know that the institution as a whole is still deeply attached to these things; they’re written in the charter and in our manuals. The butsudan demands a place and must be given it, even in progressive churches.

Yet for those who have dared to let it go, they have indeed found awesome rest in a new identity, found in the unique specialness of the Lord rather than in their name or their church history. And not a few have experienced greater spiritual joy and lightness. Here in Japan, families who’ve thrown out the butsudan for Christ can tell you that it is difficult at first. But finding their identity in Christ alone has been worth it all. They learned the truth of His words, that “whoever loses himself for My sake will find himself.”

Excellent article Ramone and thanks for giving Greg permission to post this.

This is an interesting comparison between Adventist culture and Japanese culture.

I am sure some progressive Adventists may take exception to the foundations of Adventism being compared to an idolatrous altar.

But when I read progressive blogs, and attend progressive Adventist forum meetings, I am amazed at the passion to want to hold on to Ellen White in some way, but at the same time, those wanting to hold on to her, and keep her in some position of honor, don’t follow even remotely her advice on many issues. They pick and choose what parts of Ellen they like, and disregard what they don’t like, and they make themselves the ultimate judge as to what of her writings is truly inspired of God. But Ellen White in her day would not allow for this picking and choosing, and that is a historical fact, as evidenced by the ruined lives of those who would challenge her in anyway.

But, even though progressives acknowledge the problems of Ellen White, and how people like Ballenger were treated, still there is this big BUT, attached whenever her name comes up in conversation. Some will say this is our great heritage, or this is the mother of our church, similar to the way Catholics hold up Mary.

Then of course, there is another extreme view circulating out there on some web sites, that everything Ellen White wrote was inspired by demons, and there was nothing good that she ever did. Even good apologetics scholars like Ken Samples (who used to work for Walter Martin, and wrote the forward to Dale Ratzlaff’s book “Sabbath in Christ") would not agree with such an extreme view, as Ken has indicated even recently.

However, it must be acknowledged that as long as Ellen White is given any prophetic authority at all, then still Adventists read the Bible through the lenses of Ellen White. In my experience, only when Ellen White’s authority is taken away, only when the lenses clouding the texts are removed, can the Bible’s pure meaning of the gospel be appreciated. And certainly in my home growing up, Ellen White was held at a level of an idolatrous entity. And when I left Adventism, my family did treat me like I was attacking “the family altar”. However, praise God, much of that has been taken away.

Stan

Ramone,

This is the finest article and explaination / description on this subject of “progressive or Evangelical Adventists,”
that I have read!  I commend you!  Excellent!  This illustration is as perfect as possible, I think, in describing the unspoken mind-set of the majority of Adventists who fall into this category.

Stan, your points are well stated and right on target as well.  I was raised in the time where virtually no one would ever think of questioning any interpretation or doctrinal point already officially set in type by the denomination.  Ellen White’s authority was undisputed.
Unfortunately, it still is within the hard-core traditional Adventist believer.

I am frequently told by members that “things have changed.  You could come back to the church and preach your gospel message, for which you were terminated, and not even raise a ripple of dissent.” These simply do not know the “authentic Gospel” which is cemented to the one foundation stone beneath the Cross:  namely, that the Atonement of Christ on the Cross was a FINISHED work.  It
not only dealt with forgiveness of past sins, it provided everlasting adoption into the family of God with records officially, legally stamped RIGHTEOUS!  All in and through the merits of Christ Jesus for genuine believers who accept Jesus both as Savior AND Lord of their life.  These do not see that clinging to the Investigative Judgment Sanctuary teaching represents a FALSE GOSPEL!  The “another gospel” upon which Paul places a curse (Gal 1:8,9).

I know an Adventist, also a former classmate, who clings to the Church and to Saturday Sabbath worship; and yet has no problem whatever, in going shopping on her Sabbath after church, or when skipping church.  I have never in all my years as an SDA, ever found two members who agreed harmoniously on how to “keep the Sabbath holy.” This goes for personal dietary habits as well, and can abe seen in virtually every category of “Church Standards,” from attenging movie theaters, to eating meat, drinking coffee, wine, colas, wearing jewely, dancing.  [In fact I have made an acquaintance of a SDA in a visual denominational position which publishes it’s own publication, whose top enjoyment is going to dance halls and dancing.  Yet he takes a position of trying to woo me back into church membership, while offering to give me personal dance lessons should I ever want them!) And he is held in “good and regular standing” within the Church!  Some feel it is breaking the Sabbath to go out for lunch to a restaurant following the worship service on Sabbath mornings; while others feel no such guilt.  Some wear very visible jewelry while in some churches someone wearing a wedding ring will not be allowed to sing for the service.  I worked with the pastor who turned a lady away, because she wore a wedding ring.

Yet they “all” without exception, as far as my experience tells me, identify themselves as good SDA’s and Sabbath keepers! 

There IS something wrong with this picture!

Remember the TV program years ago where several individuals would claim to be the real Mr. So-in-So, who did such and such a thing.  Finally the MC would announce, “Would the REAL Mr. So-in-So step forward.” I wonder who, and how many Adventists would stand if that pronouncement was made from the pulpit.  Do they “ALL” consider themselves solid Adventists?  It would seem to be the case, based upon Ramone’s “butsudan”; the traditional “don’t touch” beliefs and teachings of historic Adventism.

Prov 14:12 seems to apply here.  The crucial question is,
“Is this ‘way’ the true way of Jn 14:6?”

Jess

Posted anonymously by: Zane

Ramone,

Thank you for a graciously and wonderfully written reflection on Adventism and the gospel. I am inspired by the Christ-centered and Christ-filled thinking that exudes from your writing.

As an Adventist, I actually agree with many of your observations and concerns. (I puruse and comment on “progressive Adventist” sites, but I would call myself a “traditional” Adventist, in the sense that I believe the history of the church predates 1844 and even the Reformation.)

I have commented on some of my own views on some of these matters elsewhere (in conversation with Stan), so will not repeat them all here. If you are interested please visit the following site: http://progressiveadventism.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2. I do not think I am “inventing my own Adventism” but trying to work out a coherant theology. (Perhaps, I am. I’d love to get your take on any of this...)

So, I agree with you that Christ, what he taught, what he as done, (and what he continues to do) is central to Christianity, and is central to the identity of any individual or group that professes that name. (There is only one Church, and that is the Church of Christ.)

Where I believe we may diverge, and I don’t know if we do, is on the nature and importance of “church” (little “c"). I’m not referromg tp an institution here, but refering to church as communities of indivudals who love Christ and also ask hard questions about the Bible and faith, i.e. local congregations, and “denominations.” They gather together, and love each other, for they love Christ and have been instructed by him to do so.

As these groups gather together, they form views on matters that are addressed in the Bible but seem to be open to multiple interpretations amongst well-intentioned Christians--eschatology, sanctification, the Old Testament and its relevance, etc. (They develop, other words, the dreaded term, “doctrine.")

A non-Adventist professor of mine once referred to these matters as “adiaphora”—matters of indifference. In the larger scheme of things, they surely are and their importance is blown out of proportion at time, and not just by Adventists! This, I beleive, is the history of the church broadly speaking and explains why there are so many denominations within Christianity that at their inception identified themselves after the distinctive teaching/belief that sent them apart--Calvinists, Baptist, Methodist, Pentacostal, etc.

All Christians need to “major in majors” (God’s love and grace revealed in Christ), and perhaps Adventist more than many other Christians. But to be honest, all believers need to recognize “minors” do exist, its just a matter of how much we find identity in them and emphasize them.

Does this mean that when one disagrees with the tradition he/she grew up in on one of these issues should abandon that tradition and start his or her own? Perhaps he or she could join another denomination, but what happens when a disagreement on another matter arises? They could join a church that “just believes in Christ” but eventually these interpretations of certain issues inevitably come up.

Isn’t there away for one to remain within his/her denomination, honestly admitted its checkered history (every Christian group has one), humbly affirming its positive contributions, and yet engage in the work of loving people, being loved by them, growing together, sharing and showing good news, and from within that group itself bring about positive change? 

Perhaps you have tried and reached the conclusion this can’t be done! My views are still very much developing on these matters and perhaps a bit more optimistic. However, while they are, I believe Christ’s calls us to “love” one another, within the Church and without, focusing on what is central, Christ. I’m hoping this is possible within Adventism, in my dealings with other Christians, and lastly their dealings with me!

Respectfully and warmly yours,

Zane

Good to hear from you Zane. I appreciated your comments also on the progressive Adventist blog. I think you make some good points.

But I would just have to ask you, ‘what do you personally do with the writings of Ellen White?’

She made some stupendous claims for her mission, and trampled on anyone who would question her.

I know of some Adventists who are true Christians and they have been led to stay in Adventism, and maybe they are reaching people who would not be reached otherwise.

If Des Ford had just up and renounced the SDA church and the Sabbath all at once, I wonder what his impact would have been. By him staying as close to Adventism as possible, many listened to what he had to say, and thousands left the SDA church because of his ministry.

I think also of Smuts Van Rooyen who chooses to remain. But again he was a big influence in my discovery of the gospel, and then my exit out of Adventism.

I am just happy if Adventists discover the true gospel of grace. If the Lord leads them to stay for some reason, then blessings to them.

I still think though that a person has to come to the realization that Ellen White did not have any special gift of prophecy. As long as there is any nagging doubt about whether she received any direct visions or inspiration from God, then there will always be this doubt that ‘the Sabbath is the final test of salvation,’ or ‘Adventism is really the remnant church of Bible prophecy.’ My own personal belief is that this “family altar” (as in Ramone’s analogy), needs to be taken down and discarded.
When this happens, you will be surprised how the bible really comes alive and really has meaning. The Bible is not interested in issues like Jess brought up regading Jewelry or diet, or dancing, or you name it. If the bible doesn’t deal with an issue of externals, then, we don’t need a “woman made rule”.

Stan

Thanks everyone for your comments.  I’m a bit rushed today, but I hope to have time to reply a little later.  Keep commenting.

Blessings in Jesus,
Ramone

P.S.  Brief comment to Zane:  I understand all denominations have “checkered” parts, and that there are differences which make up Calvinists, Baptists, Pentecostals, etc.  However, they all have a common thread: the Gospel of God’s grace.  You see, their differences arrive after the Gospel is already established.  The problem in Adventism is that it began on differences.  It was founded on these things without the Gospel.  Later on and through the years, some Adventists have tried to graft the Gospel onto the tree of Adventism.  That is, the root was not the Gospel, but something else, and the Gospel was added to an already-existing foundation.  The problem, however, is that the foundation was hostile to the Gospel.  This is the reason there are such sharp clashes in Adventism between progressives & conservatives (those who neglect the foundation and those who cling to it, respectively)… the root & the Gospel are hostile to each other.  The Gospel must become the foundation—God does not tolerate us making Him an extra “add-on”.  He wants to drive the car, so to speak.  The SDA foundation has resisted letting Him drive since the beginning.

Posted anonymously by: Zane

Hello Stan & Ramone. It’s good to be dialoguing with you on these matters. Stan, you asked about my personal views on Mrs. White’s writings.

Let me start by saying this from what I understand belief in Ellen White is not “a test of fellowship” in the Adventist church. Adventism does not stand or fall on the Mrs. White’s writings/ministry, and if one were to disregard them altogether, one in my mind at least, could still be an Adventist. (Stan, I refer you back to my web/building comments found in the thread I mentioned in the previous comment.)

Secondly, I agree with you that Mrs. White’s writings have been used to generate all kinds of fear--of other Christians, culture, end time events, etc., and that this taken to an extreme is unhealthy to the Christian experience. My own family, for example, went through a period where we lived in the country preparing for the end with well-intentioned people quoting her writings. (These people were NOT affiliated with the Adventist denomination offically, but had sympathies with independent ministries and Adventism of the historical stripe.)

Also unhealthy is the use of Mrs. White’s writings to define sanctification with things like jewelry, diet, dress, etc.

With this said, if one is fair, there is a strong understanding of grace and the gospel (forensically and holistically speaking) that pervade the writings of Mrs. White. I actually read some of her books for the first time in college, after having feared them for most my youth, and proved to be very benefical to my growth as a Christian. Theologically, her Christiology and her beliefs about God (Trinity) are orthodox, therefore giving a very Christian understanding of salvation--God himself comes to us although we do not deserve it--and were important in keeping Adventism from becoming Arian and legalistic. (I use the term here in the strict theological sense, i.e. earning or meriting salvation through works.)

So, I guess I am saying that I have a mixed feelings about Mrs. White’s ministry/writings, but that I think this is okay. I do not take her to be infallible in her utterances, or totally “original”; she was shaped by 19th century Victorian culture and its mores, and in the end very human. (I think it is okay to even disagree with her on points.) I am uncomfortable with the title “prophet”, as it means many different things to different people, but can understand the use of it, if one means by it she was someone who testfies about Jesus and provides guidance to a community of believers. I am also reminded of prophets in Scripture, like Moses, Elijah, John the Baptist, who had powerful ministries for God, but also imperfect humans. They lost their temper, faced boughts of depression, and even doubted the identity of Jesus! (I am not comparing Mrs. White to such figures. I’m just trying to describe the nuanced use of the term “prophet.")

Ramone, on your comment about the foundation of Adventism being anti-thetical and irreconcilable to the gospel of grace. Hmmm...I’ll have to think more on this and hope to converse further, but here are some initial thoughts.

I guess first of all, I don’t draw a strong line between law and grace. Everything God has given us, including the law, is part of his grace toward us. Without it, we would not know how to live our lives! I think people have misused the law in ungracious ways, but I do not believe the problem is with the law itself. (This is what Paul argues in Romans.) Even the end of the world is a message of grace and hope. Christ returns to make all things news and to be reunited with his people.

Yes, and I would agree with you that Adventism, it its early years was very reactionary and focused on the details that set them apart from other Christians. I think, however, this was partly due to the fact it was assumed that everyone was already a Christian. This, however, after fifty or so years, led to an unbalanced understanding of Christianity and the theological pendulum swung the other way. (I’ve commented on a book that is very helpful on this point by Dr. George Knight called “In Search of an Identity” in the forum linked in the previous comment.)

Okay, this is a bit longer than I anticipated, so I’ll stop here for now! Thanks again for the dialogue.

Thanks Zane for your reply.

I want to ask you about this quote of yours:

“With this said, if one is fair, there is a strong understanding of grace and the gospel (forensically and holistically speaking) that pervade the writings of Mrs. White. I actually read some of her books for the first time in college, after having feared them for most my youth, and proved to be very benefical to my growth as a Christian.”
------------------------------------------------------------

The problem is this: What writings of hers are grace filled and which ones are really perfectionistic? I have seen statements where she said ‘that no one will ever receive the seal of God, until they have remedied every character defect’. Paul in Ephesians 1 says clearly, that all true believers who have been redeemed have already been sealed and the outcome of salvation guaranteed. These are two opposing messages and two different gospels.

I don’t have to pick and choose from the epistles of the New Testament which statements to believe. They all speak of salvation as an accomplished fact. In the chapter on the Investigative Judgment in the Great Controversy, she paints a picture that is nothing short of discouraging regarding assurance of salvation.

Ellen White clearly teaches that our salvation is dependent on our Sabbath keeping and other good works. Paul teaches that circumcision and the keeping of days count for nothing Galatians 4. 

Zane, as an Adventist, do you have the absolute assurance of salvation at this moment, or is it something you hope to someday attain? Do you believe your salvation depends in any way on keeping the Sabbath or abstaining from certain foods or drinks?

It has been questioned by some whether it is really possible to be an Adventist, and be really trusting in Christ alone for your salvation. I am convinced that there are many who are of the Desmond Ford wing of adventism where this is true. But so many from the historical branch are trusting in their Sabbath keeping and the fact that they abstain from all the externals forbidden in Ellen White. And then in the progressive wing of Adventistism, even the basic doctrines of Christianity such as the Trinity and the full Deity of Christ are all being undermined.

Stan

Speaking of Desmond Ford.

Here is a critique of the recent Sabbath School lesson quarterly where the Investigative Judgment was discussed, and Desmond ford gives his critique at this link:

http://ellenwhite.org/DFordSS.htm

How can one read the critique above, and still believe in the very basic message of the SDA church? 1844 is the very basic foundation of Adventism, and Adventism does stand or fall on 1844. Because, this is by the church leaders own admission that this is the only doctrine that Adventists hold to be unique.

This is what I think Ramone may mean by holding on to the “idolatrous family altar”. Because if you look at the church leaders response to Des Ford’s challenge, you can see the total dishonesty in their approach.

All through the history of the SDA church, Ellen White, and most leaders since that time, have fought violently and mean-spiritedly against anyone who would dare challenge this basic doctrine. If 1844 was really so unimportant as many progressives claim, then why the vitriol and outrage expressed by Ellen White and all other SDA leaders since?

Believing in 1844 was a test of fellowship and credentials for Desmond Ford and so many others. Ray Cottrell was also ostracized for his courageous views.

Until this particular “family altar” of the sanctuary message is absolutely demolished and ground into powder, then Adventism will always have this cloud over them.

Clifford Goldstein continues to try to maintain the status quo and defend the indefensible. Re-inventing the meaning of this doctrine will never do.

Maybe because of my objective scientific background, that I see this particular doctrine as black and white. Either it is true, and should be defended to the death, or, it was based on a false vision in a cornfield by Hiram Edson, and then this false doctrine was continually propagated by Ellen White until her death, and has continued to be taught and re-invented.

This doctrine will continue to eat like a cancer at the adventist foundation. Most honest seekers for truth will see that Adventism was built on a false doctrine which cannot stand the test of Biblical exegesis. Already the southern Calif SDA church is becoming a big social club in many areas, and regard for Biblical truth is at an all time low. I witnessed this directly again last Saturday in San Diego when I attended an AAF forum put on by an ultra-liberal professor, Dalton Baldwin, who spent three hours underming the authority of Scripture. Does objective Biblical truth even matter any more?

Oh well, enough of my soapbox for now. (smiley)

Must get back to work.

Stan

Hi again Zane,

Sorry for only being able to give short replies for now.

Ramone, on your comment about the foundation of Adventism being anti-thetical and irreconcilable to the gospel of grace. Hmmm...I’ll have to think more on this and hope to converse further, but here are some initial thoughts.

I guess first of all, I don’t draw a strong line between law and grace. Everything God has given us, including the law, is part of his grace toward us. Without it, we would not know how to live our lives! I think people have misused the law in ungracious ways, but I do not believe the problem is with the law itself. (This is what Paul argues in Romans.) Even the end of the world is a message of grace and hope. Christ returns to make all things news and to be reunited with his people.

Brother, I would say that this sounds like wisdom except that an apostle of our Lord did draw a strong line between law and grace.  According to the Scriptures, the law was given to lead us to grace.  In that way, it is part of grace, but now that grace has come, we are not under the law.  You are right that the problem was not the law, but rather it was sin.  However, law had no cure for sin, and this was entirely God’s point in giving the law as a tutor to lead us to Christ until He was revealed (see Galatians 3). 

That said, now we are shifting to talking about Law instead of the unique Adventist twist on Law—namely, the historical Adventist founding belief that the Law (particularly the 4th commandment) distinguishes true believers from false, the Remnant from Babylon, and that those who don’t accept the Adventist message are deceived by Satan impersonanting Christ.

Let us also recognize this: If the Adventist founders had not set up foundation and staked SDA identity on these things, we would not be talking about “law vs. grace” today.  In other words, the founders of Adventism introduced an anti-gospel theology that centered on Law (and unique beliefs), and as a result, every succeeding generation of Adventists has been attempting to reconcile what they believed with the Scriptures.  Your statements about “law and grace” are a result of the heritage of confusion handed down to us.  We’ve all tried to reconcile “law and grace”, but in fact the deeper issue is that we are trying to reconcile the founders’ beliefs with the Scriptures.  That is why we go to great lengths to explain “law and grace”.

Yes, and I would agree with you that Adventism, it its early years was very reactionary and focused on the details that set them apart from other Christians. I think, however, this was partly due to the fact it was assumed that everyone was already a Christian. This, however, after fifty or so years, led to an unbalanced understanding of Christianity and the theological pendulum swung the other way.

I would say instead that Adventism was unbalanced from the very start.  A casual or deep look at William Miller’s “proofs” is a clear enough indicator of this.  On top of it, stubbornly insisting on a date for Jesus Christ’s return ran counter to Scripture, just as other churches tried to tell the early Adventists.  Instead of listening to the clear witness of Scriptures, however, the early Adventists disregarded what was plainly written in favor of an unscholarly link of unrelated texts which aimed to predict Christ’s return.  It was a choice to accept a confusing “little here, little there” rather than what was spoken clearly in the light.  In a nutshell, right from the very beginning the founders put a veil on.

Not only that, but when Christ did not come, they invented a theology which has haunted and oppressed Adventists in every generation thereafter.  Instead of admitting error (repentance is the path to blessing!), they covered it up and deluded themselves.  This Sanctuary theology cannot be proven without utilizing the writings of Ellen White.  This is why her writings are indispensible to the church.  This is why the fundamental beliefs were altered in 1980 as such: the Scriptures were no longer “all-sufficient”, and Ellen White’s writings became an “authoritative source of truth”.

I notice that you felt it was okay to disagree with Ellen White on points.  Bro, this is what I wrote about above.  “On points” it is okay to disagree… but we cannot dare suggest throwing the whole altar out, no matter how unbiblical it has been proven to be.  We can say she was human, she was fallible, she misunderstood some things, etc., but we cannot question the divine sanction of her writing & gift.  And we certainly cannot simply say she was wrong.  This is the power that the altar has held over us: even though we can see countless problems and unbiblical things, even though our heritage is plagued by them, we are unable to pick up the altar and throw it out.  Instead, we continue to defend it or make excuses for it.  We might not use it so much, and we may indeed disagree with it “on points”, but it must be kept in the house.

Must run.  Thanks for all your thoughts.

In Jesus,
Ramone

Posted anonymously by: Barbara

Stan,

What’s the story behind Smuts Van Rooyen?  Do you have a link on this?

Barbara

Posted anonymously by: Phen

[quote author="Stan Ermshar"]"it must be acknowledged that as long as Ellen White is given any prophetic authority at all, then still adventists read the bible through the lenses of Ellen White. In my experience, only when Ellen White’s authority is taken away, only when the lenses clouding the texts are removed, can the Bible’s pure meaning of the gospel be appreciated.”

Stan, you repeatedly say these words above, but each time I wonder if you mean them. It is either one way or the other. If one is not speaking for God, if God has not “sent” that person as the bible says a prophet should be sent, then that person is a false prophet.
There are many people that have commentaries on the bible but they do not claim that they had a personal angel guide and have been transported to heaven.
How are we going to “take away the authority” of Ellen White? What will people conclude when this is done? Are people then to say that she was “just a great writer?” (she stole from others without giving them credit). She was adamant that Adventists understand that she was “more than a prophet” and that she had visions from God. Are people to say she was just misguided? For 70 plus years, she had and still has a firm hold on 14 million people around the world. The followers who assume an administrative role in the SDA church are still holding on to her writings and stating forcefully that they are authoritative, so her fruits are still being produced.
I know that you said that people who have investigated the SDA church at a high level ( e.g Walter Martin, for whom you have a high regard, and Ken Samples,who worked with Martin) have stopped short of declaring her to be “demon inspired,” and the SDA church a cult, but these people are not God, neither am I , but the bible does have criteria by which to judge prophets who claim to speak for God.
God specifically warned the children of Israel about prophets who presume to speak in his name and he “did not send them.” We can use the books of Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel and many others as references in this matter.
I grew up hearing preachers relate texts in Ezekiel 13:10 about “untempered mortar” as refering to people making Sunday the Sabbath instead of worshipping on the true Sabbath and how we must obey the “law” the ten commandments and not set up their own rules etc. 
They failed to mention however that Ezekiel 13:1 mentions prophets that “prophesy out of their own hearts, and verse 3 that talks about “foolish prophets, that follow their own spirits and have seen nothing” and verse 6 that says that “they have seen vanity and lying divinations, saying, the Lord saith: and the Lord hath not sent them: and they have made others to hope that they would confirm the word, verse 7. Have you not seen a vain vision, and have ye not spoken a lying divination whereas ye say, the Lord said it; albeit I have not spoken.” Of course this is talking to the prophets of the time but it can be said of any prophet who presumes to speak for God.
Ellen White declared herself to be the spokesperson for God and the SDA church kept up the deception affirming that her “writings” are the spirit of prophecy” to this day.
reading Gods word minus her goggles, one notices that “holy men” were inspired by God to write the words,that say there is “ one body,and one Spirit,even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and father of all who is above all, and through all, and in you all."Ephesians 4:4-6. When one searches the word diligently, one discovers that this oneness is mentioned again and again.
Isaiah 11:2 says about Jesus Christ; “and the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord. Spiritual gifts are mentioned in John 14:16,17,26 and 16:7-16, given by the Holy Spirit, the spirit of God verse 28. In 1Cor.12 these same things are mentioned again; the spirit of wisdom, the spirit of faith, the spirit of healing, the spirit of miracles, the spirit of prophecy, discernment, tongues, interpretation by one and the selfsame spirit.
These gifts exist together, but throughout Christiendom people have separated them, this is why one church professes that they are into healing, one says they are into tongues and the like. God is not divided, but churches have divided these claiming that they have one or the other. Since the spirit is the spirit of God it should not be thought of in isolation as the church thinks of it (spirit of prophecy as a gift that stands apart from the other gifts in the church). When Solomon in vision asked God to give him wisdom, God gave him all the other things that went along with that so he had the ability to handle all kinds of situations he would encounter. In Proverbs 8, wisdom, truth, understanding, righteousness, knowledge, prudence, counsel and all these are one and the same because they a