A Question of Identity
by Lawrence Downing, May 8, 2015: “Am I an Adventist?” This question, on the cover of the newly formatted Adventist Review, is superimposed on the picture of a young woman, eyes directed away from the reader; her folded hands, a ring prominently displayed on her right middle finger, rest lightly on what appears to be a Bible.
The article that is intended to answer the question is written by Adventist Review editor Bill Knott. The article itself carries the by-line, “Your answer expresses your integrity.”
Knott is not unique in his quest to identify the “real” Adventist. Others have found the answer and are free to share their insight. General Conference President Ted Wilson, for one, has decreed “real” Adventists believe in a short-earth chronology and a world created in seven literal 24-hour days. Those who do not agree, he states, are not the genuine article and, if an employee of an Adventist institution, should resign their position. Others are less inclined to accept so precise boundaries as those set forth by church officials.
The internecine debate related to the determination of who is and what determinants define a “real” Adventist brings to mind, for those of a certain age, the 50’s TV show To Tell the Truth, hosted by Bud Collyer.
To Tell the Truth featured a panel of four celebrities who faced three contestants, one of whom told the truth. Each of the three would introduce himself or herself with a statement such as, “I invented the TV rabbit ears.” The two “ringers” attempted to convince the panelists that they were who they claimed to be. At the end of a time period, each of the four panelists selected the person he or she thought was telling the truth. Made for great TV entertainment, but not the best system for deciding who is or is not the “real” Adventist. Scientology has the E-meter. Any possibility someone can create a similar gadget to assure a church is populated by “real” Adventists? There is another option that holds some promise: a local congregation is authorized to determine and identify “real” Adventists.
The diversity found in a collection of Adventist congregations boggles the mind. Some congregations define an Adventist as one who does not do certain things: eat cheese or meat, wear jewelry, work on the Sabbath, evidence homosexuality, and other behaviors the congregation members do not approve. With these negatives as the ground-rules, a congregation may decide to exclude from membership individuals who, in reality or perception, practice or affirm any one of the congregation’s forbidden behaviors. A congregation is empowered to rule in such matters. Should someone object to the congregation’s decision, a higher authority cannot change or modify the verdict.
Other Adventist congregations are less concerned about behavior and what a person believes. The individuals in these congregations value whether a person desires to become a member of their congregation. People who are members of any of these congregations are fully Adventist. They are so because the people who accepted them say they are! About those people who have been dropped from membership of a congregation or are rejected by a church, are these people Adventists? Why not? Membership does not control or trump one’s beliefs. A person can be Adventist and not be a member of any congregation, as evidenced when the United States Census Bureau reports thousands who claim to be Adventists but are unknown to any congregation. We begin to understand why defining a “real” Adventist can be a sticky and perplexing business.
Individuals and groups, including church hierarchy, even the General Conference in session, may adopt statements that they believe define a “real” Adventist. The authority these bodies have ends at the front door of the local congregation. It is the congregation that determines who is and who is not a member of that congregation. Governing bodies and administrative personnel may parse, define and calculate ad infinitum questions related to doctrine and behavior. Elected people may vote and make declarations. Their actions and conclusions related to church membership, in the end, are suggestions and opinions only. The final action relating to church membership is the responsibility of those who populate the pews of a specific Adventist congregation, each of which has been voted into the sisterhood of churches by the constituency of a specific local conference.
Who, then, is a “real” Adventist? Knott, in the conclusion to his article, offers answer to this question. ”Those waiting for others—some General Conference session vote or gathering of world church leaders—to define them as ‘in’ or ‘out’ of Adventism have missed the vital, beating heart of the Seventh-day Adventist movement.“ His takeaway points, as I understand them: We are to ask whether we are in tune with the people with whom we worship? Do we believe like they say they believe? Do we intend to live our lives in harmony with what scripture teaches and hold to what God commands and live by faith in Christ? “These poignant and enduring invitations still comprise the warm heart of the Seventh-day Adventist movement,” writes Knott. Our response, he posits, determines our answer to the question “Am I an Adventist?”
How one can recognize “real” Adventists has led me to consider what it is that draws people to associate with any church group. Do we believe that joining a church assures a special relationship with God? Is there a certain satisfaction in having someone state that because our membership resides in a certain church we have an advantage in the kingdom of God, as compared to others? Does associating with people who, together, say they share a common set of beliefs, produce confidence and a sense of well-being?
Some Adventist church members identify themselves as cultural Adventists. They grew up with Adventist people. They attended Adventist schools. Their family and friends are Adventists. They like the people they associate with who are Adventists. They attend church on Sabbath and hold various church offices, including that of elder or deacon. They will confess, if asked, that they share few of the Adventist Fundamental beliefs. Nevertheless, they are members of an Adventist congregation that welcomes and loves them. They are Adventists. Some Adventists may retort with a vigorous, “They cannot be Adventist! They do not believe what we believe; therefore, they are not who they claim to be.” Membership in a local parish states otherwise. Is it a problem when a congregation does not demand uniformity? Why? Is it wrong to welcome people who hold diverse beliefs and allow God to sort out who is “in” and who “out”? Is it a problem that some find their social needs met by a group of people they know and like? We do well to remind ourselves that a denomination is a corporation established to hold property and transact other business matters. The true church, if theologians are correct, is invisible, known only to God. Might we allow the Lord to act as gatekeeper to that church and trust that his decisions are just? Sociologists, church historians, church administrators and the curious seek answer to the question “Am I an Adventist?” An alternative question might read something like “Is what others think important, as long as the Adventists I worship with every Sabbath accept me as part of their church family?” The answer these people have to the question “Am I an Adventist?” is “Yes, I am, for my friends tell me so!”
Seventh-day Adventist, why would one want to be? The name Seventh-day Adventist is almost synomanous with controversy: Ellen White, 6000 yr. old earth vs. 4.5 x 109 yr. old earth, 6 day creation vs. theistic evolution, equal pay for women, ordination of women, two or three different versions of the gospel, arguments over interpretations of Daniel and Revelation. What about gay members if there are any? Currently this is a man’s church, women have been second class from its beginning. It is also a pastor’s church. How many leadership position have been held by non-pastors. Any conference presidents, union presidents or GC president been a non-pastor?
All humans desire the company of fellow humans. It all comes down to who we associate and feel comfortable with.
Many Christians have the need to belong to a Community of Christians; whether influenced by their upbringing or experiences with Christ in later years.
What purpose does our membership of any Christian congregation serve? Is it only human fellowship, or most importantly our edification, unity and connection to Jesus Christ? Isn’t that what Christian fellowship is all about?
The “visible” church exists for many reasons, but to belong to the “invisible” Church of God depends solely on our personal commitment to Jesus Christ.
I think the question should not be whether anyone identifies with any specific denomination, or church, but rather with Jesus Christ. Are we saved collectively or individually?
Lawrence,
You cut Bill Knott’s article a good deal more grace than it is cutting members and readers of the magazine he edits.
I really appreciate that and your definition of a Seventh-day Adventist. Indeed, you explanation is the only explanation there has ever been.
I admire your gift of clarifying rather than criticizing. Well done.
Larry,
Brilliant essay! You have inspired a comment.
I’m not sure at what age Adventist children should be gently and carefully given the opportunity to compare the reality of the Adventist world of mirrors—Jesus loves me, this I know—with reality that occurs when those mirrors become windows. The following is my version of a Christian philosophy of Adventist education.
There can be no “education” without confronting questions, and educated Adventist men and women will, invariably, question their religious beliefs. If they come to believe that the foundational beliefs of Adventism cannot be supported by rational and/or scientific evidence, these young people have to make a decision about what to do. It’s at this point that the Adventist community should be prepared assure them that personal integrity should not be compromised to make anyone more religiously comfortable, and questions are part of healthy spiritual growth. They should be assured that they will always be members of the Adventist community in good standing, regardless of way their quest for answers shape their lives.
This scenario is currently a faint hope, but where there is hope, there is at least a spark of life.
My own take on Bill Knott’s article is that it started-out good then wandered-off into the weeds. If it was an attempt to trace the history of development of the various statements of Adventist belief, then it made for interesting reading. Adventist thought has developed over time and doubtless will continue to develop.
But at the end was tacked on something rather vague about different kinds of Adventists that did not for me fit with the rest of the article. Strong start – weak finish or in some ways a fizzle.
The side-bars by Andy Nash and Elizabeth Talbot were excellent and well worth pondering for anyone who takes their Adventist faith in the Bible seriously.
On the other hand if your church is merely a social club or cultural exchange or debating society then there may well be other better places to fill your needs.
The major point of the article, Jim, was to inform us that our leadership is rational and sane and any challenge is by radicals who should simply “get in, sit down, shut up, and hang on.”
That was the whole ball of wax of his article and intent.
I made a comment in the on line Review that they didn’t publish, at least, not yet. Here it is.
“Spoken by the man who works for the church and derives his lively hood by the same.”
They probably won’t publish it. But for the main part, they do publish many comments, even mine, by many and various views and some of them are challenging to the church and administration.
A-today used to be quite selective of who and what they allowed to be published and I appreciate the more open format of challenge they allow now. Even some of us conservatives are allowed some relative freedom to “attack” what we consider the liberal agenda that A-today seems to support for the most part.
The SDA church opted for Pluralism several decades ago in response to the Dr. Ford and Brinsmead fiasco. Independent ministries like A-today popped up like the frogs of Egypt all over the church community. Now we have no consistent identity to define or explain the SDA church. Even the book on fundamental beliefs has a dis-claimer at the beginning denying that any of the doctrines presented are an “official” statement of the church.
So now they can state that any individual position is not necessarily that of the church. And this includes any group statement as well.
Obviously this has created a fragmentation that has destroyed unity in the church on any given doctrine. And every “Tom, Dick, and Harry” has taken advantage of the Pluralism theology and so the church is “self destructing” just like all the Protestant churches are. Rome rejoices. They need not do anything, just sit and wait until the majority realize there must be some basis of authority to define the Christian faith, and Rome is more than willing to fulfill this role and most people will let Rome do just that.
Of course, this can only happen if the bible is abandon in spirit and form, and the SDA church did that when it opted for WO. Now they don’t know what to do about it. It will be interesting to see what they finally decide at the GC sessions this year.
I find your comments regarding the RC church to be particularly ironic in this regard.
If you bother to study an official RC encyclopedia (I have) you will find that you can teach or believe almost anything and be a RC. For example you can find an excellent article explaining that the dead are in heaven. And next o it an excellent article on Purgatory. And another one explaining that the dead are in their graves awaiting the Second Advent. You can find an article on salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. And other articles on the Sacraments. The RC church embraces both Creation and Evolution. You can be baptized by immersion or by sprinkling. etc etc usw.
That is how they became and remain the Universal Church.
That’s right, all you have to do is acknowledge the ultimate authority of the RC church. And Adventism is rapidly paralleling this same spirituality. Both spiritualites are built on the unconditional election of the church. A spirit ethic which claims the Holy Spirit would not let the church make a mistake. So, ultimate church decisions in any official capacity is infallible.
As I have confessed elsewhere, I attend Catholic church often with my Catholic wife as a practice of my love for her. She requests my presence next to her even though I’m not a mental participant (my secret from her), or partaker of the sacraments. She is reminded weekly that I am not a candidate now or forever for membership, and my pre-service jokes about the priests killing Jesus again via transubstantiation are not at all funny to her. But I have a hidden agenda, having been brainwashed by my Adventist upbringing, and that as an undercover agent I can keep a personal eye on the Papacy and its long term agenda to kill Adventists.
So, in harmony with Hammys’ scholarly researched analysis of the eclectic nature of said papacy, here is my updated report from the underground. First the conclusions. Adventism is safe for at least another week. They have Saturday services and they don’t know who you are. And underneath the big theological tent describe by Hamstra, is a an equally freewheeling spectra of practice by good Catholic members that has a small hard core of gray haired hardliners and a huge majority of all others who crunch their cookie, repeat the Nicene creed, sip their wine, tolerate the most boring homilies ever monotoned, sing the religious versions of row row your boat, and sometimes sing a Luther or a Wesley brothers hymn (yes, strangely, from their hymnal), and depart with sins forgiven for another week. And then waltz away and practice birth control, have abortions, believe priests should marry, eat meat on Friday, ignore Lent, in other words, ignore all the Catholic church recommends for good Catholic belief and behavior. So no threat from these rudderless souls.
You can ask, “how do you know this just by going to their services?” I’m under cover, I just know. OK, here is one little insight. When I see a family with a gaggle of stepping stone kids in Walmart, where I go on my weekly senior citizen field trip in my town (Mesa AZ), I know they probably aren’t Catholic, they are likely Mormon. I don’t see them at Catholic church, only smaller families there. Mormon theology encourages early marriage and big families.
Oh, a priest in her church got stung recently by an internet FBI teen-girl lure. He got reeled in by law enforcers! He’s gone, members not. My report includes this final tidbit of a gossip nature. Catholic churches are mostly full in spite of the years of scandal. Perhaps I should halt the transubstantiation jokes since that is, in fact, the trump card of Catholic theology, which is the only reason for Mass and attendance for Catholics at their service. The defects of the clergy seem shadowed by the tradition and authority of it.
Revelations to follow, Bugs Notes From the Underground, on Adventist Today when warranted!
Well I have my own confessions to make about my undercover activities in the RC church.
Years ago when on lived on the East Coast, my best friend at work was a very devout RC who often attended mass before we met-up to go help our customers.
We freely joked about his religion and mine. And he was a truly great and kind and loving Christian gentleman. Once when we were moving he showed-up to help though none of my Sevvie friends did. For years after we went our separate ways professionally, we would still meet-up whenever he was in my town or I in his. I fully expect to see him and his fine family in Heaven.
And then I made another friend in another office who was RC and sat in the next cubicle. He was a graduate of a Jesuit university and he clued me in on the real bottom line of RC theology (ie there IS no bottom line, you can believe almost anything and be a Catholic). Before he met me the only thing he knew about SDAs was that we didn’t eat chicken (that based upon a previous encounter).
And then I attended the wedding of a fine SDA bride and her RC groom. It was a rather seamless blend of both religious traditions officiated jointly by a RC priest and a good SDA and would no doubt have made Bugs-Larry proud. If I told you any more about this wedding the right wingers would really go-off about how we have sold our souls to the devil. Anyway, their daughter attended Sabbath School every week for many years, and so did her father. So much for having to sign-over your child’s religious future when you marry a RC.
No I am not about to join their church. No I didn’t sample the wafers despite my various opportunities. But at the individual level they are NOT demons bent for hell. Just normal people trying to lead normal lives.
To cover all bets on the future, Pope Francis has just assured us that everyone will be in heaven, including atheists. Now, Larry, we have no worries, you will be there with your wife and all of us happy condemned souls here will be welcomed in heaven. Pope Francis has relieved millions of the fierce judgment taught by Christians for almost forever.
Oh no, Elaine, are you proposing it’s a place us “lost” ones have to go? I’m not sure which is worse, the Adventist exclusive 144,000 hanging out under a tree singing songs of praise, or any Catholic versions, whatever they are. None of the imaginative descriptions of heaven I have encountered in my 74 years seems particularly inviting. Mr. Paul wrote somewhere that an “eye hasn’t seen nor an ear heard” (a paraphrase, along with its application, of course) of what might be there. So, I rest my tentative, threadbare, hope there that something of interest is in store, otherwise a long nap sounds pretty attractive!
Mr. Pope has no choice but to hedge his bets because, like every human, he is clueless as to what is actually on the other side of death. He, too, is hampered by the original Shut Door Policy, that is death, Catch-22. You can only know what’s on the other side when you die. Which blocks the way to the other side.
Probably the difinitive answer to the question “Am I an Adventist?” is: Do I contribute money to the Adventist church?
“definitive”!
There are other ways to give to the church besides money.
But the question “what am I giving to my church?” is indeed valid.
Some people think they are fighting men. False you are fighting God and we can’t win. At the end of the day we will all die. And women will remain women and men men. Some church will have women pastors others not. Some churches will keep, others not. Some churches will to the Word of God, while others will follow the trend in society. By at the end of the day you and I are both dead and will appear before the creator who made men and women different in the first place for reckoning. Keep this in mind when taking decision now because you shall answer for them later. And your friends encoutaging you now wont be there to defend you before God. Something to think about.
I meant some churches keep sabath, while others fight it. As for me I choose to stand by the Bible. And not be moved by the trend in society because society (by removing God from decision making) is going crazier and crazier. No matter how society change some things in life won’t change. Women will still be women, men men, the sabbath will still be there whether you acknowledge it or not. Now you choose tomorow you face the consequence of your choice. Pick wisely.
“But at the individual level they are not demons bent for hell.” Jim, I’m puzzled by this statement. Are you acknowledging that you buy into the traditional SDA teaching that corporately the Catholic church may be a demon bent for hell? I think it is time for the Adventist church to shed its 19th century anti- Catholic prejudices and simply note that the Catholic church,as well as the Adventist church, has its flaws but neither is a just target for demonizing.
Well, of course. And shame on Luther for calling the Pope the antichrist and devil’s apostle. We see how the Catholic church can be a real “lamb” when it suites her purpose. And the devil can be the nicest guy if its advances his agenda.
People are utterly deluded about Catholicism when we live in America where the Catholic church is helpless at the present time. Are you aware that Malachi Martin (A Jesuit) wrote clearly the Catholic church agenda? In “Keys of this Blood” he admits that the official Catholic mentality hates American ideals. They consider the US a “Judas” element in its spirituality and hate the idea that US freedom has corrupted many Catholics in the US.
Rome only changes momentarily when it is expedient to serve its purpose. And “Mr. Nice Guy” travels all over the world to convince everyone, that like Norman Bates, “I wouldn’t hurt a fly.”
That the world would be deluded, we can expect it. But when SDA’s are equally deluded, it is without excuse in light of the information we have both in the Spirit of Prophecy, and equally in the history of the Protestant Reformation. Just another evidence that EGW has been abandon by more than a few, even of those who hold considerable influence in the church.
Ask Lewis Walton about the Roman faith. And then read “Omega Two” by the same writer. There are people in the Roman church who have not yet seen the real issues, and at least some will see it and escape “Babylon” and be saved. Sad to say, many so-called SDA’s will embrace Catholicism in the end, in the name of tolerance, love, and a spirit ethic.
There is over a millennium of sordid history of the mediaeval church that its successors need to repudiate, or at a minimum offer an apology. But not to worry, this is all papered-over by integrating the major teachings of the Reformers along with everything else that has accumulated. The name for this philosophical practice is Syncretism – trying to integrate into one system of thought and teaching, elements that are inherently opposed to each other.
Presently the Western world is more concerned (and with no small justification) about the child abuse scandals within the “men of the cloth”. Some things almost all of us can agree are evil, even those who do not bother to read their Bibles if they even own one anymore.
Other things that are wrong in this world are not generally identified or agreed apart from taking the Bible seriously.
I do not regard the RC hierarchy as the embodiment of all evil on this planet. There is more than enough blame to go around, whether you look at our present world or at the multiple sinister beasts of Daniel or Revelation. Satan has multiple agents sowing seeds of discord and strife on this planet. Attributing all of this to one particular agency is giving far more credit/blame than is due.
I do believe that the current swing of the social pendulum in the direction of secularism and personal moral irresponsibility will eventually run its course. In the aftermath of the ensuing moral chaos there will be ample opportunity for those who are willing to enforce morality under the guise of religious mandate, to have their last hurrah.
You are correct in one respect, Jim. A false spirituality will always lead to sinful actions. And this applies to any individual or organization or church.
The issue with the “I’m an Adventist if those with whom I attend church say I am” approach is that we now have people who admit they don’t believe the Bible to have been inspired by the Creator God, and who likewise don’t believe that Jesus was God incarnate, and who don’t believe that Jesus will return, or who believe He is dead, wanting to influence others to disbelieve too. Needless to say, prophecy and historic Adventist doctrine and eschatology are off the table for individuals who’ve intellectually dismissed scriptural things.
(There was a time when I did not appreciate the value in church organization. That was prior to encountering such individuals.)
The question is what is the agenda of those who’ve chosen not to believe? The ironic thing about this is that if they’d keep their unbelief to themselves they would be welcome as Adventists anywhere. Apparently they don’t want to do this. The question I’d ask is “Why not?” Is it because they are actually seeking; or is it because of an agenda? Will those who are seeking say so? Isn’t it up to believers to ask?
A fair question and deserving an honest answer.
Problem takes care of itself because vocal agendas don’t last, they get invited to leave.
I, too, appreciated the questions raised in this piece. Thank you, Dr. Downing!
I think some commenters have missed the point of Knott’s piece, however: it was to try to say something progressive while not saying anything that would offend the people on the 4th floor. This accounts for the wandering that someone noted. Bill has always wanted to be thought progressive, but his instinct for ingratiating himself to leaders who are anything but is greater. It is very important to him to be important.
If you go back over his pieces in the Review, you’ll find this pattern: using lots of words to say nothing that can be criticized. Bill is a survivor. No matter what happens at the GC, Bill will crawl out from under the rubble with a smile.
Yep – I think you nailed it!
When Bill does not have to pander to those on the Top Floor who appropriate his budget, he is a much better writer.
I think Bill has the potential to be quite a bright and thoughtful person. But he has an insatiable drive to climb to the top, to ingratiate himself with important people. He thinks he can navigate all of this without cost. But there has been a big cost: the Review/World is a dull magazine, and Bill’s contributions have been mediocre, and disappointing.
I think that Bill IS quite a bright and thoughtful person. He got the nod for the top spot at the Review because he knows which side of his bread is buttered.
Regarding his “insatiable” drives I do no know him well enough to hazard more than a guess. But for most people the instinct to survive is quite strong and I think Bill does what he needs to do to survive.
And the Review/World has become a dull magazine because that is what those who pay the bills actually want. They want a conventional in-house PR rag like most large institutions publish for their own patrons. Ever read an alumni mag or a corporate newsletter? Those who pay the money get to call the tune.
Sadly, yes.
my guess is Bill Knott knows very little theology. He is a typical SDA product of the system. In which case, he couldn’t really write anything stimulating about theological issues. So, his best ploy is “me too.”
Well then how did he earn his MDiv from Andrews? People I know who knew him at Andrews hold him in fairly high regard as a thinker and student of Adventist thought.
He holds a PhD from Georgetown also but that would just tend to reinforce the Jesuit conspiracy theorists.
Simply dismissing others who hold different opinions or do things differently than I like to think I would in their place, by assuming they are ignorant, is highly uncharitable. It is merely another way of asserting that we are superior to those who disagree with us.
I still believe that he is doing what he has to do to survive in his current position. I think it no coincidence that after the initial, inevitable reorganization in Silver Spring after Ted Wilson was elected, and it became apparent to the survivors what would be necessary to remain in the building, that the Review began to spew-out an interminable stream of articles featuring every laudable thing that Ted Wilson did or said, even in his personal life. fawning over the new CEO is a hallmark of corporate and institutional PR mills. You have to build-up a cult of personality to inspire loyalty to new leadership (or so the PR types believe).
Bill is an intelligent person, and capable of good theological thinking. His weakness is his ambition. He tries to be all things to all men: it is second nature to him to conform to those in power, and to try to please them. If we were to get a GC president with an agenda that contrasts to this one, Bill would be first in line to endorse everything he says. He is not evil, unkind, or ungenerous, but neither would I trust him to stand up for you if his own connections to powerful people were at stake.
Our leaders are just cowards. WO should not even be on the agenda of the conference in 2015.
Sda’s may not believe in evolution of life on earth but are second to none in the evolution of bureaucracy.
Otherwise known as the SdA EGW Principle.