Over at Re-Inventing the Adventist Wheel, Marcel Schwantes has posted an open letter to former Adventists. He makes some interesting observations about former Adventists based on a perusal of various websites listed in his post. His major conclusion is that the rhetoric on many former Adventist websites has betrayed the stated purpose of those sites, namely, to reach out to current Adventists with the good news of the grace of Jesus. While there are details of Marcel’s post I disagree with, he makes some valid points. Outlined below is my response to this thought-provoking blog entry, including a discussion of where I believe Marcel has missed the mark.
One of Marcel’s major contentions is that former Adventists are guilty of the same “groupthink” they accuse Adventists of. He says, “Basically that the opinion expressed by a dominant small group becomes the subscribed theme of the whole group and a means to a perpetual end. Sometimes, if one if not careful, the result can be fingers pointing to heresy that is blown out of proportion, out-of-context conclusions, or black and white blanket statements alluding to Adventism being a cultic denomination deceiving 12 million members worldwide.”
No doubt there is some level of groupthink ocurring in both camps, after all, when one subscribes to a belief system, groupthink tends to emerge. What’s unfortunate here is that the purposes of the group tend to overshadow the center of that group’s beliefs, namely Jesus Christ. When the purpose of Adventism is to make “good” Adventists who worship on the correct day, eat the “right” foods, and choose “appropriate” modes of dress, faith has taken a backseat to ideology. Conversely, when former Adventists create an Adventist straw man for a perpetual public flogging, their message of grace is undermined.
The investigative judgment is brought out by Marcel as the backdrop of former Adventist angst: “I know for many of you, you either leave the denomination altogether to flee the IJ as the ‘foundation of deception,’ or be branded cultic.” Here is where I must disagree with Marcel. The investigative judgment doctrine absolutely denies the biblical gospel of Jesus Christ and demeans the atonement he made on the cross, creating an incomplete atonement that flies in the face of Scripture. Marcel is no doubt aware of the monumental theological battles waged in the Adventist church over Desmond Ford’s challenge of this doctrine, resulting in its reinforcement and the defrocking of Ford. Despite the lack of belief in this doctrine by “evangelical Adventists,” it is still official Adventist teaching and is subscribed to at the highest echelons of the church.
In a 2002 speech, General Conference president Jan Paulsen heartily endorsed the historic investigative judgment doctrine: “A further word needs to be said about our being ‘loyal to our heritage and to our identity.’ Some would have us believe that there have been significant shifts in recent times in regard to doctrines that historically have been at the heart of Seventh-day Adventism. Take specifically our understanding of judgment and Christ’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary and the prophetic messages in which these teachings are contained. Some are suggesting that since the 1980 (Glacier View) meetings, the very teachings that the church affirmed that year at those meetings have been abandoned, and that the church has essentially moved to accept the very positions it rejected then. Such a claim is a distortion of reality, and nothing could be further from the truth. The historic sanctuary message, based on Scripture and supported by the writings of Ellen White, continues to be held to unequivocally. And the inspired authorities on which these and other doctrines are based, namely the Bible supported by the writings of Ellen White, continue to be the hermeneutical foundation on which we as a church place all matters of faith and conduct. Let no one think that there has been a change of position in regard to this.”
It should be obvious from this statement that the current president of the Adventist church is not in harmony with the brand of Adventism Marcel is practicing. It is not fair to criticise former Adventists, therefore, for the stand they have taken in seeing the inconsistency of the investigative judgment and the biblical gospel. This is not some obscure teaching that only the extreme right-wing of Adventism subscribes to. Whether you agree with them or not, it is unreasonable to accuse former Adventists of making mountains out of molehills when they are defending the biblical gospel against a doctrine that strikes at its heart. Taking a stand for truth matters and it is not without biblical precedent. Perhaps the best example we have is the apostle Paul, who also had very strong words for anyone who would tamper with the gospel (Galatians 1:8-9).
Marcel goes on to say, “I have seen in quite a few comments a sometime-arrogant superiority complex from your discovery of grace, while presupposing that the Adventists you left behind aren’t capable of finding it on their own.” Point well taken. Discovering God’s grace as revealed in Jesus Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit should be tremendously humbling and not give anyone cause to boast (Ephesians 2:8-9). It is true that some former Adventists have acted ungracious in their discovery of grace. In trying to understand this, however, it’s helpful to understand the various practices within Adventism that cause deeply personal wounds, many of which Marcel mentions later in his post. When someone leaves a church where their every action was measured against the writings of Ellen G. White, the discovery of righteousness by faith alone begins to smash many of the old, painful chains that once bound them. Given this, we can hopefully look beyond the rhetoric to the miracle that has transpired in the lives of these individuals and begin to see the perfect Savior who is behind the imperfect former Adventist.
Marcel then transitions to a discussion of “emergent Adventism,” a re-invention of the church he hopes to promote through his blog. He asserts that “the paradigm of the conversation [in Adventism] has changed,” and that attacking the old fundamentals is akin to propagating an argument that has long since grown stale. He says, ”If you paid close attention, you’d notice that the paradigms of our conversations have changed. We are deconstructing and reconstructing Adventist truth. We’ve moved beyond the griping and debates of historical fundamentalism, the interpretations of Daniel and Revelation, etc. Frankly, we’ll leave that to you guys to debate with diehard SDA’s because that stuff bores us out of our minds.”
Unfortunately as is demonstrated by the Paulsen quote above, the argument has not grown stale, and it is not some fringe wing of the Adventist church who believes in all 28 fundamentals. As further evidence, in William G. Johnsson’s final editorial in the most recent Adventist Review, he wrote, “Sound theology is vital; it must never be compromised. But the Fundamental Beliefs draw the boundaries, and so long as any Adventist assents to them, he or she deserves respect and fellowship. Points of doctrine not spelled out in the Fundamentals must not be allowed to divide us.” What’s clear is that this debate continues unabated and that serious divisions exist within Adventism. It is not realistic at this point, therefore, to make the broad assertion that the Adventist paradigm has changed.
To his credit, Marcel says, “Thankfully, I’ve escaped the atrocities that I’ve read about. Although there have been many frustrating moments dealing with an apathetic leadership, being told what we can and cannot do, I’ve never had to deal with religious abuse, like a pastor trying to ‘establish blame’ for my divorce when I needed grace the most; I’ve never been alienated or disfellowshipped by my church when I didn’t agree with all the pillars; I’ve never been manipulated into conforming to the standards of living by a self-righteous congregation; and I’ve never experienced severe judgment about lifestyle preferences that left psychological scars. Now that’s cultic! I empathize with you and also deeply regret that you had those experiences.”
While our major disagreements result from what we believe defines Adventism, we can hopefully agree on the Person who is at the center of our faith and the free gift of salvation – apart from works of the law or human effort – that is available to all who put their faith in Jesus Christ. Marcel’s comment about the dichotomy between “winning souls” and translating faith into action aside (because this dichotomy should never exist on any level), we can agree that the level of discourse between current and former Adventists is more often ungracious than not, and that through continued dialogue, this will hopefully change. Let us begin by admitting that none of us has all the answers, that we are sinners in need of a Savior, and that it is only through his grace we are even able to have these discussions. In short, let’s allow our faith to rise above our dogma and the finished work of Jesus Christ to overshadow our need to win an argument. “In him we live and move and have our being.” (Acts 17:28)
Finally, I’d like to thank Marcel for graciously linking to For the Gospel on Re-Inventing the SDA Wheel’s home page.
