AT Editor Answers Questions about Adventist Faith for Rachel Held Evans
by AT News Team
Rachel Held Evans is a Christian author published by Zondervan, interviewed on NPR and the BBC, with speaking appointments recently at Fuller Seminary, Calvin College, Baylor University and Mars Hill Church in Grand Rapids. She recently invited an Adventist to be part of her interview series “Ask a ….” She asked Adventist Today editor J. David Newman, senior pastor of New Hope Church near Baltimore, to answer questions submitted by the general public on her popular web site.
When Pastor Newman was announced, a total of 158 suggestions came in. Evans selected ten of these for him to respond to, some because they were asked so often and others because of her personal interests. Pastor Newman wrote answers to these ten questions which have been published by Evans on her web site.
Some of the questions were among the most common in any dialog with Americans outside the denomination: “Why is Sabbath keeping so important to Christian life and practice? … Do you see worship on Sunday as a sin? … Can you explain ‘soul sleep’ and the Adventist position on hell? … Do Adventists believe that the Catholic Church is (or will become) the anti-Christ? … Why vegetarianism?”
One questioner seem to admit the widespread ignorance about Adventist faith that public surveys have demonstrated. “What is the most common thing said about Seventh-day Adventists that simply isn’t true?” Others revealed a nuanced knowledge of contemporary Adventist realities. “I used to attend Adventist churches,” wrote James. “Because of this, a friend of mine, a medical student, asked me about Adventist beliefs because he was about to work at an Adventist hospital. … To what extent do Adventists take their eschatology seriously?” Paula, a seminary student who wrote a paper on Ellen White and said she is “fascinated by the fact that this important early leader was a woman,” asked, “Are women in ministry common in the Seventh-day Adventist Church? What roles are women permitted to occupy?”
“I was raised SDA and left the church in college,” wrote Becky. “Many family, friends, etc., remain SDAs, and I really wish I could still feel ‘at home’ in an SDA church. However, I accept evolution, don’t think the Bible is strictly ‘inerrant,’ and am not even remotely on board with the standard Adventist end-of-time beliefs. … Can you envision a future for the church in which people like me will ever be able to ‘come home’?”
You can read Pastor Newman’s responses at the web address given at the bottom of this news item. He quoted from a number of standard Adventist sources. Never one to miss a pastoral opportunity, he invited Becky to visit his church in Maryland and assured her that she could find a home there if she wished.
Over the past year, Evans has published a similar exchange with her readers and “an atheist, a pagan, a nun, a Mormon, a Mennonite, a Calvinist, an evolutionary creationist, a humanitarian, an environmentalist, a gay Christian, a Unitarian Universalist, an Orthodox Christian, a Pentecostal and many more.” She writes from Dayton, Tennessee, in the heart of Southern Baptist land. Her first book was entitled Evolving in Monkey Town, which reflects on growing up in the town where the Scopes Monkey Trial occurred in 1925. She describes herself as “a skeptic, a creative, and a follower of Jesus,” as well as a “happily married … lifelong Alabama Crimson Tide fan.”
https://rachelheldevans.com/ask-a-seventh-day-adventist-response
I can see that he has given wishy-washy answers to try to please people and to appear normal and not like a cult. But he has seriously misrepresented Adventism and its core doctrines. They should have chosen Doug Batchelor or David Asscherick to answer the questions. Then she would have received a more representative view of the real Adventism.
Doug Batchelor and David Asscherick are excellent representatives of the extreme fundamentlist right wing of Adventism. Real Adventists reflect a wide diversity of views on a range of issues. The current editor of Adventist Today is an excellent example of someone in the moderate middle of Adventism. He believes in a diverse, big tent Adventism but is to the conservative side on some issues.
Doug Batchelor="the extreme fundamentlist right wing of Adventism?!" When I was growing up he would have been considered mainstream. Folks like Dr. Taylor have moved so far left that normality looks extreme to them. Prophecy is being fulfilled by those who deny the validity of the prophetic gift.
And exactly how is it, pagophilus, that your expertise in psychopunditry enables you to discern that Pastor Newman's answers and explanations were motivated by a desire to please people rather than by his honest convictions?
Nathan, this is exactly one aspect of Adventism that has to evolve and change: judgmentalism.
This is one bad trait that has been developed in our church throughout the years, the arrogant attitude of judging others and their motives. It's certainly a cultic trait that promotes separatism and encourages some people (especially fundamentalists and untraconservatives) to keep pronouncing the verdict, "We are better than others."
Needless to say that despite the conservative attempt in the contrary, Adventism is a pluralistic society that includes people from the radical conservative side to the radical progressive side, and all in between. Left alone the fact that Adventism is multi-cultural as well. Thus, it was good to have a moderate midldle Adventist to speak on the issues, especially because real Adventism is NOT defined by the ultraconservatives. They only define an arrogant-Adventism – which is far from being a good thing.
Nathan – it's obvious that Newman was trying to please. When asked about the Catholic church and the pope as the antichrist, he acknowledged that some Adventists believe the pope to be the antichrist, and acknowledged Catholic persecution but also admitted that protestants and even SDA's have manifested prejudice and bigotry.
Everyone manifests prejudice and bigotry at some time, but not everyone has killed tens of millions over the centuries in the name of God. And it's not just some Adventists who believe the pope to be the antichrist. It's most, and virtually every conference-sanctioned evangelist and non-conference-sanctioned evangelist preaches this and it is taught at all the seminaries. Though there are efforts to undo this (ie Dr Ranko Stefanovic's book Revelation of Jesus Christ, and his speaking appointments) though his position does not hold a lot of water when put under scrutiny.
On that note, I wonder if either Adventist Today or Spectrum will review Edwin De Kock's recently-published book about 666 and Vicarius Filii Dei. Perhaps its clarity and depth of research and volume of evidence is too much of a threat to the 666-deniers that they will quietly ignore this 800+ page tome rather than risk exposing the emptiness of the "666 is not Vicarius Filii Dei" position and putting another nail in the sceptics' coffin.
Regarding the National sunday Law, once again most Adventists do believe it is coming and that it is the beginning of the end. Newman has misrepresented the minority liberal/sceptical position as being mainstream and as having more weight than it really carries.
Pagophilus was being kind when he referred to Newman's answers as "wishy-washy." Obfuscation is the term I would use. He completely misrepresents the official SDA beliefs on several issues. And he is considered "moderate" or "middle of the road?"
The moderator will not like this but I will reiterate something I've said before: the name "Adventist" on this website is misleading. Plurality may sound nice, but when it comes to standing for truth, there cannot be a plurality. The Israelites liked plurality. It got them to Babylon. If "progressives" don't like the current state of the SDA Church, they are always welcome to start their own church. No one is forcing them to remain.
Like it or not:
Evolution will never be accepted by the SDA Church;
The SOP will continue to be accepted as valid;
Homosexuality and same sex "marriage" will never be acceptable
The "Great Controversy" theme and its inherent eschatology will not be changed; no reason to
Our understanding of the antichrist and his end time activities will not be changed to accommodate liberal theologians.
Those who wish to change these things appear to be ignorant of the fact that they are doing exactly what Ellen White said they would do.
Who is the "real Adventist" Can any one individual claim to represent the entire church?
Elaine, I don't think there is one, not one, "real Adventist" though there are many who proclaim to be "the ones."
Find two people that understand and follow the "Adventist rules and doctrines" in the exactly the same way, and then you will have two "real" Adventists…
This doesn't mean that all Adventists are "fake" or "unreal" but emphasizes that UNITY is the important aspect and not uniformity.
It's interesting to see two groups in church fighting over this issue, one defending uniformity, the other unity. It just highlights the whole between a stagnat and a progressive Adventism.
So the opposite of "progressive" (liberal, unorthodox, often heretical) is "stagnate?" If being stagnate means holding to the well-established truths of Scripture espoused by the founders of the SDA Church, then count me in. I'd rather stick with what I know to be true than to venture out into questionable and dubious bypaths, which have led so many out of the church.
Correction: my last sentence above should read, "It's interesting to see two groups in church fighting over this issue, one defending uniformity, the other unity. It just highlights the huge difference between a stagnant and a progressive Adventism."
At one time prior to 1955 or so, there was a dominant "center" of Adventism to which most all active members belonged. Those on the ultra-conservative and ultra-liberal extremes were very few indeed, and certainly were not represented to any degree institutionally or in the ministry itself. But as normally happens in any organization, when inconsistencies begin to emerge, financial abnormalities are revealed, and evidence of hidden agendas is exposed, the middle tends to "contract" and the extremes "expand"—hence diversity expands, the base widens. Any healthy organization will undergo these changes, unless they succeed in keeping a lid on reality. Every organization is ultimately human, and humans make mistakes; and the longer the organization exists, the more history will record its imperfections and unearth past mistakes.
This is where we are today. I find Dr. Newman to be about as close as we can come to a mainstream, articulate, centrist First World Adventist minister. The denomination admitted as much by electing him to serve as a leader of the General Conference Ministerial Department, through much of the 1990s. I would suggest that at this time in denominational history Dr. Newman represents exceedingly well a prototypical First World Adventist minister. I know a lot of Adventist ministers, and Dr. Newman has the kind of resumé that gives him both theological balance and practical versatility as a world citizen of Adventism.
Similar situations are to be found in the Mormon church which also has rather strict rules for good membership. In the WaPo there is an article addressing Mormon doubt, the most fearful word and it more frequently being asked as the better educated members question the origin stories and the degrees of heaven one goes to at death.
If one openly expresses doubt he will no longer be admitted to the temple even for wedding or burial services for his loved ones. There are other "shunning"
practices. This is even more extremely exemplifed by JWs.
Adventists have always had small pockets of such critical judgmental attitudes but today when people are much more widely traveled and engaged in many cultures, it becomes increasingly impossible to surround ourselves with high fences. As in the article on Mormon doubt, this turns away young people who are far more tolerant and more inclusive. We should be prepared for a different church in 25 years.
Good interview. Rachel Oakes Preston would probably be surprised to know she gave the Sabbath truth to Adventists in the 1700's though. (18th century).
From one of Newman's answers to Rachel Evans: "We believe in a big tent. Doctrine does not save you; only Jesus. The Bible is not primarily a book of doctrine. It is a book of relationships."
Interesting. Jesus did not believe in a big tent. In fact, He was rather narrow minded, in some respects. Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Matt. 7:13, 14.
Not very inclusive is it? Where's the "big tent in this?"
And what's wrong with doctrine? If you read what Jesus said, it was full of doctrine. In fact, most of what Jesus did, aside from His healing, was teach and preach. Doctrine is teaching. The Sermon on the Mount was a doctrinal treatise on the principles of His kingdom. "The Bible is a book of relationships?" OK, and doctrine is the teaching about how to conduct those relationships. God has told us how to relate to Him and to our fellow man (in condensed form, that is the 10 Commandments). How can one have a relationship with anyone if they are unaware of the principles that under gird a relationship?
I believe his answers misrepresented what the SDA Church teaches.
Hi Jean. Please do not put words in mouth. I never said doctrine is
not important. It is very important. But doctrine is only important as it leads
me into a relationship with Jesus. We are saved because we enter into
a faith trust relationship with Jesus and not because we believe a
particular doctrine.
I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, Pastor Newman, I was just trying to achieve a little balance. I agree with your statement: "We are saved because we enter into a faith trust relationship with Jesus and not because we believe a particular doctrine."
However, a commitment to Jesus will lead one to be faithful to Him, which means obeying Him. Jesus, the Saviour cannot be divorced from His teachings, which are the blueprint for living a victorious Christian life. This is somewhat like the argument between faith and works. You can't have one without the other. Similarly, you can't have Jesus without doctrine; and sound doctrine has Jesus at its core.
Amen!
"I find Dr. Newman to be about as close as we can come to a mainstream, articulate, centrist First World Adventist minister."
I have read some of the things Newman has written and I do not agree with the above assessment at all.
Big tent? Some posters would appear to want to make the SDA church a big tent if I understand the term correctly. Pluralism would be a death knell to the SDA church.
Indeed, I would have preferred Doug Batchelor to have been the person interviewed; I find his preaching and teaching to be very representative of the SDA church.
For me Doug Batchelor does not represent the SDA church as I understand it or know it from my circle of Adventists. As a Christian church our message first needs to be Christ-centered, and his approach is not. It is doctrine-centered. The doctrines themselves may not be questionable, but the way he presents them is. The arrogance of his approach may appeal to some who are already Christians but rarely to those who are not. Even the handouts look like they come from the 1950's. It is a very dated, exclusive approach.
Might I ask "Truth Seeker" which part of the SDA Church Doug Batchelor represents: fundamentlist, conservative, evangelical, historic, or progressive? There is no such thing as a representative of the entire SDA church anymore. Or perhaps "Truth Seeker" has not noticed this in the regional where he lives.
50 years ago Doub Batchelor would have represented the mainstream of the SDA Church. The fact that he is perceived to be on the far right today is in indicator of how much the church has changed–and not for the better. His theology would have raised no eyebrows back then. As predicted, those who preach a straight testimony will not be popular in the last days. Truth is never popular with the majority. Why should that surprise anyone?
Interesting that Jeus didn't represent the mainstream of Jewish thinking while He was here. He was perceived as too far to the left by the Pharisees, and too far to the right by the Sadducees. Which means He was right on the mark.
Are people the same as they were 50 years ago? I would suggest that some sections of society have improved, while others have changed for the worse or not at all. It is also said in the last days that there will be a starker difference between the good and the evil in society and the church. I would also suggest the major difference has to do with relationships (love for one another) and how we treat those who disagree with us.
Jesus was more tolerant, kinder, than the temple leaders on either side.
Each of you who disagree with my emphasis go back to the Rachel Evans blog
and tell me which of the two pictures I posted you identify with best.
The first picture represents doctrine first. The second picture represents Jesus
first. Historic Adventism was not Jesus first. Is there a place for growth
in Adventism?
It's not an either/or situation. You can't have one without the other. Of course Jesus it first. But that's not the whole package. It's like justification and sanctification; you can't have one without the other. Justification is first, but it doesn't stop there. Accepting Jesus as one's personal saviour is the first step, but it doesn't stop there. Accepting Jesus will lead to a desire to obey Him. There's where doctrine comes in. So, to say the Bible is a book of relationships is incomplete. It is much more than that. I think we all realize that even the devil has a relationship with Jesus: he hates Him. What he doesn't have is a commitment to Jesus, which is what we all need.
Jean. I sense your angst and entries on blogs are short and it takes a long time to communicate effectively. I agree whole heartedly that it is "both and" and not "either or" when it comes to salvation. And I agree that if we have a relationship with Jesus we will be anxious to do what he wants us to do. However, as a pastor, administrator, editor, and teacher for the SDA denomination for more than 42 years I have found many Adventists to be unsure of their salvation and in their witnessing people think of us more about doctrine (the Sabbath, what we do not eat, what we do not wear, etc.,) than our love for Jesus.
Ellen White wrote "Of all professing Christians, Seventh-day Adventists should be foremost in uplifting Christ before the world. The proclamation of the third angel's message calls for the presentation of the Sabbath truth. This truth, with others included in the message, is to be proclaimed; but the great center of attraction, Christ Jesus must not be left out" (Gospel Workers p. 156).
Notice her balance. We are still Seventh-day Adventists but what comes first? What is our major emphasis? Jesus. When the world sees us as lovers of Jesus before being proclaimers of the Sabbath I will then shift my emphasis to talking more about the doctrines of Adventism than about the truth as it is in Jesus.
I see most of Adventism still in the James White picture and very few in the Ellen White picture. I am all the way with Ellen White. I want to be known first as a lover of Jesus and second as an Adventist.
:This problem was presented this weekend on an outing with friends and relatives. My brother-in-law, a graduate of SDA schools through LLU medical school, began asking me about the sabbath. Now retired, he has been reading and studying about SDA doctrines and he asked questions about the continued importance of sabbath when compared with what Paul wrote in the NT and that no new pagan Christians were ever instructed on observance of a holy day.
These texts were never included in the "proof texts" as continued necessity of sabbath observance for Christians. Only the consistent referral to the much later texts that Jesus went to the synagogue on sabbath although as a good Jew that was the custom of ALL Jews, but never of pagans. Had the new, former pagans turned Christians been expected to observe a holy day, why wasn't it recorded? And why was there not a single record of any patriarchs from Adam to Moses, mentioned observing the seventh day?
Another recollection of the other SDA-educated relatives regarded the IJ: the fear that their names would be called up and they would be found in a movie or some other "sinful" place and be forever lost. This is a very common experience of millions who were raised in this environment. It is actually very close to spiritual abuse to be constantly reminded of such fears through home, school, and church. Many simply so not stay as they find no reason go do so.
Adventism is trying to make changes; but too many haven't stayed to observe them; and many churches are still stuck in the old fear and control doctrines. Like Philip Yancey, many have had to leave the church to find faith: faith in a person, not a man-made religion.
Good interview with answers that reflect the viewpoint of many across the NAD! Some posters here may not be satisfied with the less than stringently conservative answers/perspectives but I believe that he did a great job with balance and tone.
As some posters have already stated, there are at least 4 different groups in SDAville and I felt that Pastor Newman was a good middle-of-the roader. For those who like to harken to the "good ole days" of adventist legalism- I, for one, are very glad that we are past that time period. It did not reflect the love of Jesus at all.
We cannot afford to further push individuals away from us that are true "seekers of truth". We have done lots of it in the past decades with our "holier than thou" and judgemental attitudes which was never any part of Jesus Christ.
"Newman claims not to believe some of the core Adventist doctrines. Yet he is an Adventist pastor who earns his salary from the Adventist denomination, not from his congregation. He represents and endorses official Adventism, and although he (and many others within Adventism) deny holding to historic Adventist beliefs, still those historic beliefs ARE official Adventist doctrines, and he must endorse those doctrines. Oh, he redefines the troublesome ones, but he still must endorse them—as he endorses their Sabbath doctrine while personally re-defining it."
A comment from the website that includes Newman's interview. What I copied, IMO, says it all. How very sad.
Ah Truth Seemer How little you know me and how quick to judge. I hope that you really are a truth seeker. I endorse all 28 fundamental doctrines of the Adventist church. Now I may quibble with some of the wording but I endorse and teach these doctrines. At the same time I take very seriously this statement by Ellen White,
"There is no excuse for any one in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact the certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrines will lose anything by close investigation. We are living in perilous times, and it does not become us to accept everything claimed to be truth without examining it thoroughly; neither can we afford to reject anything that bears the fruits of the Spirit of God; but we should be teachable, meek and lowly of heart." EGW, Review & Herald, 20 December 1892.
I published an article by George Knight in Ministry October 1993 which began with these words "Most of the founders of Seventh-day Adventism would not be able to join the church today if they had to subscribe to the denomination's Fundamental Beliefs" and then Knight6 lists several examples.
Truth is never static. Would we want to return to the antitrinitarian and semi arianism of the formative years of the denomination? Doctrine has an important place but in the end it is only the doctrtine of faith alone in Jesus that saves a person and even that is powerless unless we choose to enter into a personal relationship with Jesus.
I have very little confidence in Knight and I know others, much more skilled theologically, who have little confidence in some of his theology as well. So Brother Newman, that doesn't cut it.
Incidentally, why did you not continue as Ministry editor? ere you tired of that position?
George Knight is an historian, and from what I have heard, well respected by fellow-historians, even those who find his theology a little conservative. I am not sure what his theology has to do with the article mentioned above.
Does anyone else find that such disdain and questioning by someone who doesn't dare give a name to be like hiding behind a barrier throwing potshots at every comment made. Such anonymous comments are best ignored rather than encourage cowardice.
"At long last, do you have no common decency"?
"How little you know me and how quick to judge."
Bro. Newman-
I believe that quote was an evaluation of your stated views; in my experience it is a liberal tendency to accuse a person of *judging* when it is not a matter of judging motives. Why libs make such accusations I can only surmise since any public conjecture about motives would characterized as judging.
I agree Eaine!!
This is why many people Today, can not find a home in Adventist Communities/Churches. Those who claim to know 'the truth,' are unkind and judgmental.
I suspect you do get a lot of accusations of "judging." I can't imagine why! 🙂