Progress or Regress
Adventism has taken multiple “hits” to its self-image in the last 70+ years. There was a time when the church told a confident story—internally and externally. Jesus was coming very soon, we knew what the end time scenario was, and those finally saved by the “loud cry” would join the “remnant church,” which was, of course, us.
But then, in the 1950s, there was contention between M.L. Andreason, who championed salvation involving sanctification, and church leaders who wished détente with Walter Martin and the evangelicals. That disagreement has morphed into Last Generation Theology, and remains with us.
The worst hit though was a rolling revelation, beginning in the early 1970s, that Ellen White “borrowed” material, which was then folded, uncredited, into her writings. This has had the collateral effect of greatly diminishing the widely held perception that she was near-inerrant. And it subsequently became much harder to do theology through the lens of her writings.
Adventist eschatology, as semi-codified by Uriah Smith in Daniel and the Revelation (and largely endorsed by Ellen White), was also not aging well. But Desmond Ford’s 1980 Glacier View challenge to the Investigative Judgment doctrine opened a further and deeper wedge. Today that confident eschatological story is, at minimum, more muted in our expositions. Liberals ignore much of it; staunch traditionalists lament the decline in emphasis.
There are other hits as well. The role of women, and its flashpoint of ordination, has seriously divided membership. Science, with its world-accepted view of an ancient earth and evolution, is in conflict with traditional theology. This results in severe dissonance for the formerly unchallenged understanding of Genesis.
It’s a different world surrounding Adventism than the one I was born into. And the church has struggled to adapt or retain orthodoxy—depending on your perspective of where truth may be found.
Reacting to change
In any sizable group with values worth taking seriously, there will be both “liberals” and “conservatives.” These words have been used so often, and frequently applied loosely, that they have become problematic labels. But the core issue always comes back to whether change is needed. And there are undeniable issues the church has had to think about, with consequences of whether, and/or how, the organization might need to alter its beliefs.
In Adventism, current popular labels for people holding these contrasting views are:
— Progressive Adventists: those who see change as progress, and thus positive.
— Historic Adventists: those who see the original vision, at least what Ellen White supposedly approved of, as both normative and worth fighting for to retain. Change then is negative.
It’s my perception that the great majority of members are conservative, but don’t fully embrace Historic Adventism. They are also somewhat at distance from the contentious intra-church conflict raised by the fallout from Adventism’s ongoing struggle to deal with both modernity, and its past.
But the entire Adventist continuum does care about the future of the church. The obvious and crucial question then is: what is the right way to proceed?
Progress and regress
These two words are generally viewed as antonyms. And society at-large has typically assigned cultural approval to the “progress” option. Think of all the human improvements we now have, largely via science. Medicine, labor-saving devices, advanced communication, etc. By many metrics life is dramatically better, compared to former ages. For example, penicillin was discovered less than 100 years ago. How important have antibiotics been to human quality of life?
But a more useful, and central definition of progress—in the metaphysical realm—is whether we are moving toward more truth, or away from it. Progress is toward, regress is away. Consequently, a Historic Adventist could be the genuine “progressive,” if we (mostly) have truth now, thus (almost) any movement would be toward error. In that case we would be leaving the “faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” (Jude 1:3 KJV)
How then can we determine how to progress? Here’s one example-answer from a Historic author’s perspective:
“faithfulness to the written counsel of God”
Well, who could disagree with that? But the problem is that writers like this are too-often confident that they know—clearly—just what constitutes “faithfulness.” So, when they approve, it’s because they are being faithful in exegeting the “written counsel.”
But everyone is human, and thus we have this little problem of fallibility. So how can such Historic Adventists warrant their conviction? It’s evident that there has been much theological disagreement ever since the Bible’s “written counsel” came into existence.
The presumption of orthodoxy, and its limits
The church has been working on determining its orthodoxy since day one, and we now have 28 Fundamental Beliefs that are intended to capture our best understanding of the “counsel of God.” So this list has, and should have, the presumption of being normative.
However, even a cursory examination of Adventist history shows that there has been, not just an expansion of orthodoxy-definition, but some revision. Such changes suggest that our orthodoxy is, or at least was, a work-in-progress. So, it is problematic to presume we have “arrived.”
And any orthodoxy has its natural limits. In addition to our needing to recognize human fallibility in doctrine formation and rationale, new questions arise as world knowledge increases and culture morphs. Past justifications are questioned and further examination is mandated, both by members and non-member enquirers.
The form of an “argument”
Each belief posited by the church can be viewed in the structural context of a formal argument. An “argument” takes place when a proposition is not accepted by all interested parties. Some have a favoring position; others have reasons for doubting its correctness. Still other stakeholders—often the great majority—are evaluators of the differing views, and ostensibly open to modifying their understanding.
It’s important to note that, in an argument, the initial position is not presumed to be axiomatic. This is the first hurdle to clear in the Adventist context. Too often the Historic view is that what is being defended isn’t just our current, fallible understanding. It’s God’s Truth—full stop. So, to question these “axioms” is not just honest enquiry, it’s opposition to God. But human fallibility is undeniable, so this is a deeply problematic, even presumptuous position. In a skeptical world, including many questioning members, unwillingness to engage in fair examination equates to stonewalling. This is ultimately harmful to the church.
So, a formal argument model would proceed as follows:
(1a) The current orthodoxy advocates, being assumed as normative but not axiomatic, would therefore begin. They state the “official” position, then provide a basis to warrant its acceptance.
(1b) Next, those who disagree—or at least find the initial warrants problematic—would respond, giving counter-arguments to show why the rationale for (1a) seems unpersuasive. Then they would propose how to modify or reject the initial proposition.
(2a) Continuing, the status-quo proponents would respond to these raised objections. They could conceivably fully accept the counter-position, but likely would give reasons for rejecting it, or perhaps make some adjustments to the initial proposition, because some (1b) arguments were convincing.
But, where is Adventism in such a process?
Essentially, we’re stuck at the (1b) step. There are those, inside and outside of the church, who have already articulated various counter-arguments to the (1a) position. But institutional Adventism is essentially unwilling to engage with, and respond to (1b).
No stasis
This impasse could be conceptually viewed as stasis, that is, some sort of “balance” where there is no movement. But I would argue that no such stasis exists. The church is obligated to explain/defend its current understandings of “truth” sufficiently to actually address the issues that any fair (1b) counter-argument might raise. Failure here is damaging to evangelism and signals to membership—notably the youngest generations—that the church really has no answers. That might not actually be true, but it would be a reasonable conclusion if leadership continues to dismiss (1b) concerns. Thus, I would argue, the current condition of the church isn’t static, it’s regressive.
Progress, conversely, doesn’t necessarily mean changing to the views that self-identified Progressive Adventists might advocate for. Many Progressives have, I think, personally thought through a loose version of the above formal argument process and postulated what the church might say as a (2a) response. Then they have concluded that Adventism does need revision, because there isn’t a good (2a) response to the current widely-articulated (1b) objections.
But progress, short of actual change, is just for the church to honestly address the various “hits” I’ve exemplified at the top of this article. Change could occur, but a better warrant for current orthodoxy is also possible. I would then contend that the proper role of an Adventist Progressive isn’t necessarily to advocate for altered doctrinal positions. Instead, Progressives should vigorously try to hold the church accountable for the necessity of continual engagement between current orthodoxy and the many widely-held concerns in modernity that produce questions. Only then can Adventism properly determine whether the church needs any revisions to its doctrinal understanding.
Image Credit: Ádám Berkecz on Unsplash
