North American Adventist and Roman Catholic Church Facing Similar Problems
by Erv Taylor
Under the headline, “Competing Conferences Show Division Among U.S. Catholics,” a news story appearing in the Detroit Free Press reported that, over the weekend of June 11-12, 2011, Catholic liberals met in Detroit, Michigan. At the same time, a few miles away, Catholic traditionalists held their own series of meetings. Unlike the liberals, the conservatives will be coming together with the support and blessing of the local Catholic archbishop who had warned local deacons and priests to stay away from the meeting of liberals. He was quoted as saying that any member of the clergy attending would be in danger of being defrocked.
The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life in 2008 reported that about a third of those raised Catholic in the U.S. have left the church. The exposure of the long term abuse of children by Catholic priests has had grave consequences for a number of Catholic parishes and dioceses, including many being either actually bankrupt or close to bankruptcy. In the eyes of many Catholic laymen, the credibility of the Catholic hierarchy in the U.S. has never been lower. A number of Catholic intellectuals are aware that many traditional teachings of the Catholic Church are a product of issues of importance to European Medieval Christianity and having little relevance to the modern world.
Catholic liberals and conservatives agree that their church has many problems. Both agree that at the heart of the problem is the question of what it means to be Catholic in the 21st Century. They agree on the nature of many of the problems. What they can’t agree on are the solutions.
The liberal Catholic meeting in downtown Detroit is being sponsored by the American Catholic Council, a coordinating organization of 30 Catholic reform groups from across the U.S. The Council is asking for more democratic decision-making in the Catholic Church, as well as allowing women into the priesthood and a married priesthood. They insist their church needs to change to survive as a viable institution in 21st Century America.
The conservatives are meeting with the sponsorship of the Archdiocese of Detroit in Detroit suburb. Their agenda includes a critique the American Catholic Council agenda and the presentation of the official, sanctioned views of the church. A conservative spokesperson involved in the organization of the meeting of traditional Catholics was quoted as saying, “the liberals want the Catholic Church to change. But truth doesn’t change.”
The Roman Catholic tradition is more than a thousand years old while the Adventist denomination has been in existence less than two centuries. On the surface, it might appear these two vastly different institutions would have no problem in common. While their histories are obviously not similar and a number of the specific issues that exist may indeed be vastly different, surprisingly many problems currently manifesting themselves in American Catholic circles is also increasingly plaguing the North American Adventist Church.
Divisions within Adventism rarely get much coverage from the secular press because Adventist membership in North America is between one and two percent of that of American Catholicism and Adventism’s public image and name recognition is relatively low except around three or four of our major medical institutions. In addition, Adventism is widely confused with Mormonism and the Jehovah Witnesses Watchtower Society in the general public consciousness.
Within official Adventism, the problems are either ignored or covered over. As would be expected, the institutional Adventist press, led by the house journal of the Adventist General Conference, the Adventist Review, only publishes materials supporting the official understanding that all problems will be solved if we could return to the days when members did not question the God-ordained leadership and accepted without question the conventional Adventist understanding of the Bible as stipulated in the writings of Ellen G. White.
According to the new regime in place in Silver Spring, all that is needed is a reformation and revival which will return the church to what were supposed to be the “old landmarks.” In truth, these are traditions which were accepted without question before Prophetess of Health unmasked where Ellen White really obtained many of her health-related ideas. These were traditions which were accepted before The White Lie provided chapter and verse about where Ellen White and her “helpers” copied much material and then introduced with “I was shown…” in the prophetess’ inspired writings. Other traditions were accepted before the discovery in 1975 of an 1845 newspaper article describing events transpiring in the house of one Israel Dammon and what one young lady by the name of Ellen Harmon was doing and saying in that house were discovered and published. This was also before increasingly scientifically educated members discovered that the evidence provided by apologists such as George McCredy Price and his successors at the Geoscience Research Institute, in their attempts to salvage Adventism’s adherence to a fundamentalist young life creationism, were doing it with scientifically untenable arguments.
The specific issues are different but the spirit that animates conservative traditionalists and liberals in both faith traditions are very similar. Several years ago, the Los Angeles Times published letters received from traditional Catholics responding to an article entitled “Faithful, Yet Not Traditional Catholics.” One letter read: “For someone to reject the core beliefs of an organization yet claim to be part of that organization flies in the face of logic, reason and common sense…If people want to call themselves Catholics, they are obliged to accept the teachings and the authority of the church. If they want to leave the church, there is nothing to stop them. But if they leave, they’re no longer Catholics and should not identify themselves as such.” The second letter writer comments “The individuals described in the Times’ article defiantly invent a right to select whichever theological principles to accept or reject. To what are they being faithful? If they have the power to ignore certain doctrinal precepts of the church, then which ones should be followed? These breakaway Catholics argue that the church is not inclusive enough. This is merely code for the concept that the church will not change its doctrine to suit their ego-driven behavior. Without standards, the church is nothing more than a social fraternity…” If one substituted “Adventists” for “Catholics,” in these letters and changed not one other word, Adventist traditionalists would fully and completely resonate with all of the views expressed.
On the surface, Roman Catholic and Adventist clerical administrative authorities may appear to have few problems in common. On the contrary, many of their problems are very similar. An example: How to keep an educated membership in an open society from increasing their influence and raising so many questions about the validity of traditional theology and polity that the ability of the institutional church to influence opinions and continue to receive income from members will be severely damaged. This is probably relatively simple to deal with in most Third World environments. In the First World, the strains created by this process can be easily seen.
“To what are they being faithful?”
That is what much of this boils down to. There is a deep misunderstanding in churches where they think their faith in their churches tradition is the same as faith in God. They are vastly different however. It is just easier to apply faith as faith in tradition rather then to acknowledge that faith in God is something harder to quantify and difficult to judge as people like to do to other people. So tradition takes the place of God and tradition cannot change else God would change. It is a kind of hubris which is almost funny if it was not the cause of so much pain for so many people.
In the Catholic context “conservative” and “traditionalists” are too different categories.
But you’re right. There are some similarities. Both churches have clear historic identities. Both in the 1960s witnessed the rise of a liberal faction that thought it could change those outmoded ways of belief. The liberal factions in both churches are now largely made up of aging baby boomers who are frustrated and angry that more younger people don’t share their “progressive” passions. Both have conferences that are attended by folks with grey hair who vent their frustration at leaders they view as “dinosaurs” and “fundamentalists.” Both have clouds of former members that stand on the sides and tell how things would be so much better if the churches embraced their doubts.
I must say I am fascinated by Mr. Cork’s comment. On the surface, his observations do seem to be, in part, correct, and I would ask him if he would expand on them. There is obviously a generation gap in perceptions about the nature of the church. What are the specific reasons for this? I would ask if he and others might offer their views. How do younger church members—let’s say under 40—view the obvious problems in the church. Is this group monolithic or are their views divided along ethnic, cultural, educational, or socio-economic lines? Are theological or political issues inside the church ignored? Is it all about relationships?
Most people under 40 aren’t in the church, so what the church does is not their greatest priority. That is one thing that the RC and SDA church do share – they have lost large numbers of youth. I am not sure if it is the same in the US, but in Australia the majority of students in the respective school systems do not identify with the church. Most people I know under 40 who do attend church have little interest in the theological and doctrinal squabbles. The churches I am familiar with do not usually attract the young people with a passionate commitment to traditional Adventism, but from what I have observed, they also have little interest beyond the ‘identity’ doctrines pushed by their leaders.
From an LATimes article about Crystal Cathedral:
“Some of the church’s early members, now in their 70s and 80s, still attend services, but their children aren’t there, much less their grandchildren. The church’s efforts to update its approach with new music — a gospel-influenced choir backed with guitar, bass and drums — has alienated some older worshipers without attracting many new ones.”
Is it possible that this could also apply to many SDA churches?
I would say in some cases it does apply. The belief that changing music would solve the problem has proven not to be true. Perhaps because most churches refuse to face the deeper issues that remain no matter what they do with the music. In the 1960’s there was a huge cultural change, and churches still don’t seem to know what to do with it. Some ‘went with the flow’ and many are now almost empty and most attenders are elderly. Some stood against the flow, and many are now almost empty and most attenders are elderly. It is interesting that social histories indicate most people did not leave the churches in anger, they just found ‘better’ things to do. I think every generation since has been asking the churches to answer the question of why they are relevant, and not receiving a convincing answer, have moved on and don’t give the churches much thought any more.
The entire meaning of “church” must undergo radical change if it is to have any impact on coming generations. The old heads, sitting in their offices, and traveling to great publicity that may draw crowds for long enough for photographs and then fly on to another “mission field” conceals the fact that churches in first world countries are dwindling every year.
The world has radically changed in the past 25 years. There are more interests to occupy our “down” time than ever before. Driving to sit in a pew for several hours and listen to amateur music (when the best of music is available wherever anyone is), often a poor sermon, and massive amounts of time for announcements, reading Scripture, etc., is not seen as worth one’s time. One is no longer required to drive to a building to read the Bible, hear great music, and is not looking for something to fill a few otherwise “wasted hours.”
Even many local sports teams can hardly fill seats. There are too many choices available: hiking, bike riding, spending time with family, that compete for “church time.” There is no longer the expectations that on Saturday or Sunday, everyone will be in church. Adventism is experiencing this same laissez faire attitude. Yet, 150 years later, the same old model continues: Sat. morning SS classes, church song service, announcements and sermon. Only a very few gifted speakers can be expected to hold an audience for 52 weeks. Look in any church during and Saturday or Sunday morning to noon time to prove this. Regular attendance at church has never been a mark of a true Christian.
The new generation does not pay attention to the old authoritarian way the church was traditionally manipulated (and will be again under Ted Wilson). They are not emotionally attached to it. They will stay if they see coherence, logic, and honesty. Simple words from some “religious authority” (??) from the GC will not impress them. The “KGC” will not scare them.
The church either becomes a Bible-only based church, or the new generation will be lost. At least those who are not misinformed on the controvesies about plagiarism, 1844, Desmond Ford, etc. will not accept the fact that the church keeps insisting in not changing course. They will lack interest, they will leave. For them, there is no reason to belong to a church that is dishonest with itself.
For most of Christianity’s history, the common people attended church as a tradition, and to seek confession and penance. Those needs are no longer felt.
If one seeks spiritual renewal, it is much easier to find it in hiking in the mountains or fields, reading a good book in a quiet place, and taking time to meditate in solitude. Did Jesus go to the synagogue for spiritual refreshment? No, he went alone to pray and mediate and seek strength. Synagogue was a place for dialogue and the Rabbis encouraged such activity. Where is that found in a church today?
Sitting and listening to a sermon does not encourage spirituality. This is a silent, solitary exercise and young people, especially, seek peer activity and if “church” were structured as physical activity: working in soup kitchen, Habitat for Humanity (nearly every community is involved on Saturdays and weekends), this would be the kind of “church” that would have far more appeal than sitting still for several hours to a usually boring sermon.
Where is it written that church must be structured as it is currently? In a building that is only used a few hours weekly at great expense? The most ineffective use of time and money for which any building is constructed.
I dedicate the words below to Walter Rea, Ron Numbers and their ilk…
“Brethren and sisters, let not your souls be disturbed
by the efforts of those who so earnestly seek
to arouse distrust and suspicion of Sister White.
These attacks have been repeated hundreds of
times during the past forty years; but my labors
have not ceased; the voice of warning, reproof,
and encouragement has not been silenced. The
evil reports framed concerning me have injured
those who circulated them, but have not destroyed
my work.
“Before some of these opposers had an existence,
I was shown what would come, and from what
source. In the day of God, those who have been seeking
to prove me a deceiver must answer for their
course . .
“Leave Sister White in the hands of God. If the
work in which she is engaged be of God, it will prosper;
otherwise it will come to naught. But remember
that your own eternal interests are now at stake . .
“Many are in reality fighting his [Satan’s] battles
while they profess to serve under the banner of
Christ. These traitors in the camp may not be suspected,
but they are doing their work to create unbelief,
discord, and strife. Such are the most dangerous
of foes. While they insinuate themselves into
our favor, and gain our confidence and sympathy,
they are busy suggesting doubts and creating suspicion.
They work in the same manner as did Satan
in heaven when he deceived the angels by his artful
representations.”—Review Supplement, August 28,
1883.
In Memory of Ellen G. White [Messenger of God]
Posted by Trevor Hammond
“Leave Sister White in the hands of God.”
If only that had been done, she would RIP. As it has been, she is resurrected, dismembered, interpreted, and quoted ad infinitum every day of the week around the world by her ardent fans.
Elaine,
And once in a while she still writes a new book!!!…
I have been in many suspicious questionable unmentionable houses with some not so good people back in the day. So where’s my newspaper article to discredit me with some a biased inflated dodgy story from my past? Huh! Perhaps others may have some even juicier stories from their past? Well come on… Yeah, I thought so!
So, was the referenced newspaper article which mentions EGW, found in the sleazy gossip column? Or did it make the ‘Farmers whatever’ headlines? Was EGW and James charged or arrested? Were they convicted for gathering illegally in the home of some professed Christians? No? What was that you said? No? Ok – good answer…
The insertion of this scathing ‘below the belt’ attack on EGW in this article is one good reason that many who hold true to our Fundamental Beliefs don’t buy into this type of pompous partisan progressive patronage which is has declared a total onslaught on a humble wonderful Christian woman who wrote books like Steps to Christ and The Desire of Ages. Accused and falsely represented by many of her detractors who use propaganda juiced up with rumour and twisted accusations, that is mixed with error and fallacy with all purpose and intent just to try and paint a bad picture (as usual) of this humble servant of the Lord, Ellen White. The tone of the paragraph is sinister and misleading. The ‘Pink Pather’ de-dant de-dant music would fit well with such investigative journalism (that is if malicious gossip can be called such).
So EGW was in a house visiting and sharing her message and visions to some of the Millerites et al and one dude gets arrested for what? PRAYING LOUD? PREACHING STUFF? That ain’t NEWS! Freedom of association, freedom of religion and the right to practice and propagate one’s religious beliefs should be the right of all citizens in a truly free society.
Here are some links which rebut Numbers and Rea’s and others tirade :
http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/Prophetess-of-Health.pdf
http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/whitelie.html
http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/israel_damman.html
T
I didn’t know that there were still people denying the facts…
The two denominations each represent themselves as God’s sole legitimate church on earth, and it’s inevitable that they will tend to parallel and resemble one another in organizational strategy and even demographics. They also tend to face the same challenges in a world increasingly uninterested in denominational labels.
Interesting that so called ” progressives ” believe in ” verbal inspiration “.
I have said for a long time that the SDA and the Catholic have more in common than they would like to admit. Someone posted that the Catholic friend said the Catholic has Mary and the SDA has Ellen. I came to that conclusion a long time ago. The name of EG White is mentioned more times in the SDA church than the name of Jesus. I believe this veneration of her borders on idolatry.
Erv, you make many good points. I’m reminded of a colleague who once said that the hierarchy that the Roman church took 300 years to accomplish, was done in 150 by Adventism. Be that true or not, both are huge bureaucracies.
We can and should discuss and even argue points of doctrine and propositions of belief.
However, it seems that contemporary youth–and many adults–desire genuine personal experience. Bible study groups may be more relevant than church services. Didn’t EGW once say that our churches would have a hundred where there is now one, if they were more friendly? In all our analysis and debating, let’s realize that we humans are social beings, and the personal aspect of religion is God-ordained, in that She has created us for mutually satisfying relationships. I think of Martin Buber’s focus on the I-Thou relationship, which for him telescopes into an I-eternal-Thou relationship. As we truly experience one another we partake of the divine.
Better than studying the Bible would be to live out its precepts by helping the many around us who are in need. This would be following Christ’s example of giving aid where it is most needed. There is absolutely no difficulty in finding more than enough needs in our immediate neighborhood. Living the gospel is much more in tune with the Bible teachings than merely studying or teaching it.
Sadly enough, there is some truth in your friends idea!
However there are otehr similarities like global centralized structure, incapability to adapt theology to new findings, ….