The Legacy of Neal Wilson
by Carmen Holland
Neal Wilson, president of the General Conference of SDAs from 1979 to 1990, recently passed away at age 90, and several articles in denominational journals have commented on his legacy. His son, Ted Wilson, has become General Conference president, establishing what some see as an unhealthy precedent in Adventist church politics.
I have received an email from Ronald Spencer which outlined what I feel is a well-informed and respectful commentary on one aspect of Elder Wilson’s influence on the modern Adventist Church. Mr. Spencer offers the following for readers’ consideration to which I have added one paragraph (paragraph 4 in parenthesis) containing some of my own observations:
Under Neal Wilson and prior to the Global Mission program he created, it became apparent that the Adventist Church had largely exhausted its potential to attract large numbers of converts in the First World. During the 1970s, earnest efforts to interest white middle class Americans in Adventism fell increasingly short of projections—despite earnest efforts to represent them as unqualified successes.
(Classical Adventism has never appealed to most highly educated and upper middle class professionals in First World countries. However, there was and is a sociological anomaly in Adventism because of its health education emphasis. Adventists have gone into the medical profession in much larger numbers as a percentage of their membership than any other elements of the general US population with the possible exception of those of Jewish cultural heritage. By the middle of the first half of the 20th century, Adventism had created inside its subculture an upper middle and lower upper class group of relatively affluent physicians. By the 1970 and 1980s, in larger and larger numbers, the impact of their changing lifestyles and widening intellectual horizons had eroded the loyalty of significant segments of this group to classical sectarian Adventism. Thus mid-20th century Adventism in North America created a relatively small but influential group of upward mobile individuals within First World Adventism whose sons and daughters and grandsons and granddaughters, in larger and larger numbers, were increasingly being lost to the subculture in the succeeding generations.)
A century after sending out Adventism’s first foreign missionary, it was clearly time for Adventism to focus its attention on “where the numbers are in the Third World." To accomplish this, the church needed to articulate positions and employ curricula that would specifically advance Adventism in Third World cultures. The publication of the denomination’s first edition of its fundamental beliefs was a nod in that direction, as well as an attempt to combat Desmond Ford’s evangelical emphasis, which Wilson believed would not go over as well in the Third World, where more legalistic forms of Christianity are preferred by former Muslims and Catholics. The closing of one of three North American publishing houses and the threatened closure of a second clearly signaled that in terms of preparation of evangelistic materials, it was time for North America to move over.
Global Mission was presented to the Adventist public as a plan to “reach the unreached in difficult areas” in the most populous “10/40” window of the globe, and Wilson clearly envisioned that the Islamic states (where he ministered for many years, and where it is believed he may have picked up more administrative culture than he actually imparted) possibly could be induced to open their doors to Adventism.
However, either by intent or default, Global Mission had the effect primarily of stimulating donations and maintaining the trajectory of growth already apace in the Christianized areas of the Third World, such as Latin America and Africa and, to a less degree, in several Asian countries such as Korea. Global Mission has had little appreciable impact on so-called difficult areas, except among India’s lower class, where a widespread revolt against Hindu fatalism emerged independently of Global Mission at about that time, leading millions on the subcontinent to open their arms to Christianity in unprecedented numbers. But the fact that Global Mission and this demographic revolt occurred at about the same time has given impetus and imprimatur to the Global Mission’s fundraising outreach.
Under Neal Wilson, it was deemed essential to reach the Third World before anything resembling a large middle class emerged in these countries—especially in context of the growth of Marxist Liberation Theology in Latin America and Africa. The problem was sociological. As a general rule, individuals become less receptive to classical apocalyptic Adventism after they receive higher education. But equally salient, those in lower socioeconomic groups are far more receptive to Adventism than those who have already achieved middle class economic standing.
Initially, in America and in a number of Third World countries, because of its emphasis on education (which in Third World countries often meant learning English—thus our Adventist language schools in places like Korea), Adventism was viewed as a passport to middle class status. However, it has also been noted that once a nation develops its own strong middle class, receptivity to classical Adventism decreases. Thus, there seemed to be a relatively short time window to get ahead of the curve and convert individuals before any large middle class emerged.
In America and in most First World countries which already have a strong middle class, traditional Adventism’s appeals for growth are now largely unheeded, except among recent immigrants. Both Adventism and Jehovah’s Witnesses (Watchtower Society), which appeals to the same demographic group, report the highest percentage increases in membership in the United States over the last decade. However, it is well known that almost all of that increase has been among lower socioeconomic Hispanic and other immigrant communities. To redirect Adventism toward an educated middle class in First World countries would require a sea change at places like the Biblical Research Institute, the Geoscience Research Institute, and North American publishing houses.
Such changes would clearly alienate conservatives both in North America and overseas. In North America, this would result in larger and larger diversion of funds away from the institutional church to “independent ministries.” Thus Neal Wilson’s formula persists—concentrate soul-winning abroad where the largest numbers respond best to traditional Adventism; collect resources from local First World congregations. Pay scant heed to desires of first world churches to use a chunk of that money to reach neighbors in the homeland; and continue to discourage importation of evangelical-oriented teachings and methods, partly because of their perceived undesirability in evangelizing former Catholics and Muslims.
To most traditional elements of the church, this seems to be a winning formula. To those who probe below the shining surface, however, this strategic direction may not be sustainable much longer, unless more and more money from North America travels abroad. A call for more money likely will be answered by a rebound call for greater autonomy for the North American Division—a division Neal Wilson once led, and without which his primary legacy, Global Mission, could not have been born.
That a man so concerned with church unity should have his major opus contribute to a distancing of North America from the rest of Adventism is truly a masterpiece of irony.
Ronald Spencer writes from Portland, Oregon. Ron, a former missionary, has visited and spoken in many churches, schools, mission stations, colleges, and universities in the Third World as a foreign missionary and public evangelist to the Middle Class, where he has met with success in the Third World. The recent death of Neal Wilson, whom he met several times in foreign lands as well as at the General Conference, led him to take pen in hand for these reflections.
It is an interesting conundrum here in Australia – the churches are all middle class, yet it is the middle class that is most resistant to Christianity. Without a growing immigrant group from which to gain members, we would have been in decline years ago (like most other churches). As a middle class church we don’t do well reaching out to the working classes or the upper classes, and yet our natural affinity with the middle classes results in few baptisms because the middle class as a whle tends to reject orgainised religion. In most churches, even the majority of our own youth choose not to become members. Perhaps looking abroad is the only strategy that makes sense to the church?
To some of us in the so-called First World who are of so-called Third World ancestral heritage, the continuing lament of the lack of SDA evangelistic/recruitment success among the (so-called) First World middle class is somewhat amusing. The untold story is that there is fertile ground to be cultivated among the educated in the Third World and those of us in the First World who have, or aspire to, education.
If the recent report that Seventh-day Adventism is the fastest growing Christian denomination in North America, and the growth of Adventism in the Third World, are to be believed; there are evidently significantly greater numbers among such folk than is apparently perceived.
To be fair, it would seem that to whatever extent the late Elder Wilson’s initiatives contributed to any of this (growth) should be included among his “legacy” achievements.
If you read the report in its entirety, you would have noticed that it was admitted that most of the growth was among immigrants. Lack of success among any group of people should cause us some lamentation, and also hopefully a search to devise ways of reaching those people. For all of us, it should be natural that we care deeply about the people among whom we live and to whom we belong. For some of us, that may mean more than one group of people.
We do have to face the fact that an increase in education seems to correlate with a decrease in interest in belonging to any Christian denomination. It hasn’t always been so, nor do I believe it has to be so, but at the moment it is. And it seems to be true in all areas of the world for which I have seen reports. It is no different to the statistics which show that we find it increasingly difficult to hold people with each succeeding generation – again that appears to be true world-wide. We should have put more effort and resources into understanding why that happens, and then how to minimise it.
Whatever the motivations of anyone involved in Global Mission may or may not have had, we should all rejoice in the success it has had. That does not, however, excuse us from the hard work of understanding why we are not successful in other areas.
Kevin,
The fact that the report, or more precisely, a General Conference
official’s explanation of the report’s findings, “admits” that the growth is largely due to Hispanic immigrants actually makes my point. Those of Third World ancestry or heritage who reside in the so-called First World comprise the fertile ground of which I speak.
Educational levels are not necessarily reflective of relative intelligence. The Bible refers to an individual who in “his heart” believes that “there is no God” as a “fool.” If it is true that the more “educated” people are, the less likely they are to believe in the Biblical God; then on some level “education” leads to stupidity and a terminal degree leads (literally) to terminal stupidity.
Perhaps education needs to be redefined.
Spencer writes: “However, either by intent or default, Global Mission had the effect primarily of stimulating donations and maintaining the trajectory of growth already apace in the Christianized areas of the Third World, such as Latin America and Africa and, to a less degree, in several Asian countries such as Korea.”
It was by intent. I wrote the first draft of the Global Mission initiative. The secretary of the committee was Dr. Charles Taylor who asked me to write the draft. In the first draft I set priorities. The first priority was to establish an Adventist presence (later defined as an organized church)where there were No Christians. And each presence was in a one million population center. The second priority was to place an Adventist presence where there was a Christian population. I was not involved in later drafts. After the third draft this priority schedule vanished. And as the writer states, since it was much easier to establish a presence where there were Christians that’s what we did (because we are numbers driven). The easy part has been accomplished.
On a second note I served on the GC Executive Committee for the last five years of Elder Wilson’s “reign” (which is what it was. He was a strong leader who knew how to get his own way. He was a master of the parliamentary maneuvers. It was during his administration that we finally developed an official modified set of Robert’s Rules of order to guide us. Before that the chairman of the committee had almost absolute power. The call for written rules was because of the abuse of power.
Many times when we write about others , we play God .This is what I mean , the idea that Wilson , priority became the reaching of the third world because he knew the “numbers were there ” How does the person who wrote the article knows that ? Only God knows the motives of people . We can’t judge .Maybe he pushed Global mission because he read Mathew 28.
John, So is it safe to say that higher / more education is the key to inspiration?
There is something wrong with any religion that becomes one only attractive to the less well educated. Because wide literacy has only been a recent development, religions have been far more universally practiced, even from ancient times. There were no lists of beliefs that must be accepted, only practices that most be performed at stated times. This was religion as it flourished for most of this world’s history.
It was not until the development of printing that the Bible became the most widely-read book and it was the topic of hundreds of discourses and the primary reason for many late modernity writers who were examining and testing their findings with the Bible.
Today with almost universal literacy in first world countries, there is higher educational levels and universities where students are taught to think, reason and dispute formerly accepted propositions. Skepticism is learned and there is far less gullibility. One only needs to read the authority of the church in the Middle Ages to see how religious leaders controlled the populations with the fear of hell.
No longer can religion have such a hold on educated people. There must be a different tactic and if one cannot be found to be useful, why should people accept it? How is religion beneficial to my life? Why do I need a religious belief and not my own discernment? Can such a belief enhance my life and make it happier or more productive?
“One only needs to read the authority of the church in the Middle Ages to see how religious leaders controlled the populations with the fear of hell. No longer can religion have such a hold on educated people. There must be a different tactic and if one cannot be found to be useful, why should people accept it? How is religion beneficial to my life? Why do I need a religious belief and not my own discernment? Can such a belief enhance my life and make it happier or more productive?”
What in the world are you saying here Elaine? Is it that “there must be a different tactic” developed that is “useful” in controlling today’s educated people; one that they can “accept”?
In answer to your questions: 1) religion is obviously of limited benefit to someone who is doubtful about the existence of a beneficent supernatural Creative Intelligence; 2) you don’t need religious belief—until you need it; at which time you are likely to discover that you had it all along; and 3) yes, depending of course on, what it is that you believe, and whether or not you act on your belief system.
I think there is a big problem when people think that because they have a degree that makes them experts in all areas and treat others as less educated . A guy with a phd in Anthropology thinks that he is a theologian .When someone doesn’t have the understanding for something , then he based everything on opinions .And he/she will put those opinions about evidence .And these are the ones who call themselves ” educated people.
The majority of religious believers in the U.S. were born into that culture. It was assumed by the writer that “Classical Adventism has never appealed to most highly educated and upper middle class professionals in First World countries.”
Based on this premise, the focus was on attracting new coverts to Adventism. This raises the question of what is the best way of getting their attention. What is the best method of “selling” someone with no religious heritage or affiliation that they need a savior–from what? Don’t they first need to believe that they will be forever “lost” without this savior as the first and most important step? Suggest how this could be approached to enhance the one who wishes to witness to an unbeliever.
You will never see a “Bible-thumper” who is not very selective of the texts he uses.
Doctor F, Why do people often site the stoning of rebellious children as an especially reprehensible OT doctrine? I’ve worked in juvenile corrections, read the account of a coworker who was brutally raped, murdered, and tossed into a garbage can by a rebellious child. I’ve also spent time in adult corrections and seen how they have gone through the system, only to kill or attempt murder even while incarcerated, simply for sport.
The streets of many large cities are littered with juvenile gangbangers, who think it’s cool to “cap someone in the azz.” They’re too dumb to know that a major artery runs through the “azz,” which, when damaged, can lead to loss of limb or death. They don’t care anyway.
I find the injunction to destroy rebellious children comforting, since it assures me that God really understands human nature, as well as what is required to preserve social order.
If the OT injunctions were swiftly carried out in modern society, people wouldn’t have to worry when they hear footsteps behind them at night
Desmond Ford’s Dan 8:14 views seems to be very much a ‘trojan’ used to ‘hack’ into Fundamental Adventism which seems to have followed the modus operandi of some fierce previous SDA/Ellen White/BRI/GC etc., detractors.
1] The seeds of Ford’s view were sown in stealth over many decades. Although Dr Ford joined the SDA Church, he was not fully converted on certain fundamental beliefs and therefore brought in his own views which opened the door from the ‘inside’ by providing ammo for SDA antagonists from within and without.
2] No wonder the ‘exaggerated spooky IJ’ comes up all the time: It is the ‘Trojan’ that carries all the other so-called ‘progressive’ attacks with it. Some of them are:
– Theistic evolution, evolution theory, third world is behind/can’t think/not progressive – type of racist evolution innuendos (inferior races theories). The latter been the basis of much of the modern day racism.
– No return of Jesus – well at least not very soon if ever
– ‘Sintellectualism’ (had to coin this one) – sin that is intellectualized resulting in worldly compromise and condoned/supported due to the strong influence of cultural ‘trends’ such that it is no longer perceived to be sin – this includes sexual abominations in open disobedience to God.
– Sabbath Trampling, compromised standards and loose living are taught, promoted and accepted as norms.
– Propaganda insinuating that Tithes and First World monies are poured into Third World countries (many of those plundered by neo-colonialists) which have resulted in a gross neglect of SDA’s in the First World and the mass loss of membership as a result of helping spread the Gospel in other parts of the World.
– Bitterness from these ‘maturists’ (my word for so-called progressives) towards the traditional conservative approach to SDA doctrine and belief in the Third World which often makes crass remarks about their so-called inferior understanding and cheap salvation they subscribe to notwithstanding that the same Holy Spirit is at work and the same precious Blood of Jesus washes the same sinful lives in Africa, America and around the World.
– I’m not sure about this one, but there may be some who are ‘tithes dodgers’ who also use the ‘why should we give to the low-life’s in the Third World our money and let them en-mass take conservative control of the SDA Church. These fail to realise that God is in charge and we return ‘whatever’ to Him for His Glory, Honour and purpose.
(I thank God for all those many, many, American missionaries in the past and today, who at great sacrifice went/go out into Third World countries to preach the Gospel; and not forgetting the generosity of millions of American SDA’s who give and have given so much to take the gospel to the nations of the world… God Bless!)
3] Neal C Wilson and obviously Ted Wilson as well have been targeted by Desmond Ford fans who may very well have setup this particular site in the interests of pursuing not to have Jesus as the main focus but rather to remain a propaganda tool for attacking Fundamental Adventism on an intellectual and philosophical platform which seems to be more of a Pseudo Adventist factionalism.
4] As a result there are those who have no intention of making ‘relationships with Jesus’ the central focus on this platform even though the ‘Jesus Editor’ has made an admirable effort in this regard which I support.
5] Neal C Wilson had to deal with the Ford ‘insurgence’ finally, after years of extensive damage to the SDA church from within. Many subscribe to his teachings not because they believe all as he did but because he provided them with superficial theological ammunition for anti-SDA attacks.
6] Neal C Wilson is unfairly been labelled as a ‘baddie’ for: a) saying ‘how ‘bout no to Ford’ b) for continuing the World Mission programme using US funds c) for removing Ford from leadership in the Church. Now Ted Wilson is under fire for his conservative position too which, as I see it, has set the benchmark for what liberals stand opposed to.
T
I was recently quite blessed by Gerhard Pfandl’s very positive review of the good things that Des Ford has done for Adventism in preaching justification by faith the way he did. Dr. Pfandl is an associate director of the BRI.
Anyone interested in this charitable and wise view of Dr. Ford’s positive contribution to not only Adventism but Christianity in general, can listen to Dr. Pfandl’s message at the Adventist Theological Society website.He presented at the recent RBF meetings.
Some may wonder what positive things Des did for Christianity and Adventism. One example: Des Ford’s positive gospel preaching in the Sacramento area on radio, influenced a prison chaplain to allow an attendee of Doug Batchelor’s prayer meetings to conduct gospel centered meetings in the prison chapel over the course of more than a year.
The Adventist denomination had effectively been barred from that prison for years because it was felt by the prison personnel that the Adventist message would be too divisive and compromise security at the institution.
When it was discovered by the chaplain that the person from Doug’s church had been influenced in a gospel fashion by the preaching of Des, the doors to the prison were opened. 8 prison inmates were ultimately baptized into the body of Christ as a direct consequence of that individual’s presence.
It’s difficult to quantify the positive influence that the work of Des has had. Gerhard Pfandl of the BRI spoke very well of Des’s influence in bringing gospel assurance to the Adventists, an antidote to the perfectionism which was troubling many. Dr. Pfandl, of the BRI plainly states that Des was one of the best, if not the best, theology teacher he ever had.
Just as there are uninformed Adventists who think of Luther only in terms of antisemitism or scatological references, there are some pathetic and tragic souls who define Des by one small dimension of his multidimensional ministry.
That most uncharitable view is one which people such as Gerhard Pfandl, an ATS speaker from the Biblical Research Institute, is working against. Good on Dr. Pfandl.
Trevor Hammond, referring above to Des Ford’s teachings, wrote: “Many subscribe to his teachings not because they believe all as he did but because he provided them with superficial theological ammunition for anti-SDA attacks.”
It’s amazing to see, 30 years later, that there are still some people trying to convince us that Des’ points are “superficial” or they are just “theological ammunition.” This seems to be just another attempt to make people believe that his writings are not worth reading because they are “superficial”, thus being irrelevant.
The worst, and scary, part of it is that many believe those frivolous comments! Then, instead of searching by themselves, they just distance themselves from Des’ books, in fear of being ‘contaminated by his superficial approach’.
BINGO! Mission accomplished! (to keep people far from touching Des’ books)
Well, 30 years ago I reviewed everything I had learned as a student in the School of Theology at the SDA Brazilian College (Sao Paulo), and at that time I had the courage to NOT listen to those false, deceiving comments about Des being “superficial”. And guess what? For my dismay I found out that there were actually several reasons for scaring people about Des. The main point was: DES WAS RIGHT!
The church wanted to keep the congregation in ignorance. And still does, as I can see 30 years later…
Mr George Tichy says: “DES WAS RIGHT!”
——-
I asked: “WHAT was he right about?”
T
Glen wrote. It’s difficult to quantify the positive influence that the work of Des has had. Gerhard Pfandl of the BRI spoke very well of Des’s influence in bringing gospel assurance to the Adventists, an antidote to the perfectionism which was troubling many. Dr. Pfandl, of the BRI plainly states that Des was one of the best, if not the best, theology teacher he ever had.
That may be the case, but where is it leading Adventism the sanctuary message? and the Second Coming, if there is one!! cf. the following.
Which little horn kingdom reigns for 2,300 years?
Stefanovic, Wisdom to the wise, p. 310-311. Commenting on Dan. 8:13-14: The question How long? Literally means “Until when?” putting the emphasis — on the point in time that will demarcate the end of the rebellion. — The visions main points can be summarized as follows: It speaks of the removal of the continual sanctuary services, the rebellion that causes destruction, and the surrender and trampling of the sanctuary underfoot. As in verse 11, the continual sanctuary service pertains to the whole service in the sanctuary and should not be limited to the morning and evening sacrifices. The rebellion that causes desolation is best understood as the type of aggressive rebellion that results in the destruction of the services of the sanctuary and of some of the people who serve in it.
SS Lesson P. 45. After a discussion on how this little horn would oppose truth, it is revealed that it would be allowed to do so for “two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” (Dan. 8:14).
Doukhan, Secrets of Daniel, P.125. The question remains as to why the vision of chapter 8 — omits the first and the fourth kingdoms, both considered primary by Daniel: Babylon — and Rome, the strange kingdom that would profoundly disturb Daniel (2:40; 7:7, 19).
Ibid. p. 127. Only after 2300 evenings and mornings will the destructive rampage of the little horn stop,— .
Ibid. p. 131. Chapter 8 is even more explicit: the reign of the little horn lasts 2300 evenings and mornings. — (equalling 2300years).
Gerhard Pfandl, Daniel, p. 61. In Daniel 7 the little–horn power, follows the four beasts, which together account for a reign of at least *1,000 years. The horn is the focus of the vision, since it is most directly in opposition to God. — p. 62. According to Daniel 7:17, the four beasts represent four kings, or kingdoms, — Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome, Divided Europe, Papacy, Second Advent, that rule sequentially.
*(If the 4 beasts rule for about 1,000 years, and the 4th beast represents Rome, and the little horn follows the 4th beast, then logically, the 2,300 years must apply to the little horn.).
DARCOM, Vol. 2, p. 433-434. Does the time period span the entire vision (the ram, he-goat, and “little horn” periods)? Fortunately , the text provides an answer to these questions.— In short, the time span — includes the entire range of events the prophet was shown in vision in verses 3-12. Contextually and terminologically it is not limited to the “little horn” period.
A cloud of Confusion.
As the above quotes reveal, there is undoubtedly a deep cloud of confusion associated with the little horn that is confounding the church’s understanding of the books of Daniel and Revelation today.
A question to Mr. MacLeish: What is your estimate of the percentage of Adventists in North America under 30 years of age who care about what or who the “Little Horn” is, was, or will be?
I’m going to guess that the figure is less than 5% and that even might be high. Let’s say 10% tops. I would propose that this lack of interest is a healthy thing if we want a mature Adventist Church. Would you not agree?
Amen, Erv!
Your figures may be high. Of all the church members I have known in 80 years, I doubt there were 5-6, at most who could “explain” such a convoluted doctrine (and I was a PK and knew more than the usual number of SDA pastors).
It is a non-issue for members today, and certainly for new converts. If they must understnd this Rubrik’s cube to become part of God’s body, it is a losing proposition–even a lost cause.
Like the old canard: “What does this have to do with the price of ice in Alaska” should follow with: “what could this possibly have to do with one’s salvation?” If it affects no one’s future with God, it is superfluous, non-essential, and sheer garbage! It has become Adventism’s “unique” doctrine with absolutely no relevance to anyone today. Why spend hours, reams of paper attempting to explain? Why not claim that Adventists have discovered the answer to “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”?
Hi Erv,
I have found the lack of interest generally extends right accross all age groups in the church today. It appears this accounts for the current situation that few appear to be aware of the ramifications of the current church teaching, that the little horn has replaced the heavenly host with a host of its own, or that the little horn’s host will continue there until 2838 AD.
I suspect the little horn must be scratching its head due to this change of Adventist teachings.
I do not consider any teaching that places an antichrist power in charge of Heaven can be a healthy position for the church or Christianity. I consider the apparent universal lack of interest regarding current church teachings associated with the little horn reveals Laodecia is alive and well. People do not appear to be concerned about who rules in Heaven today, or whether the events outlined in Revelation 13 may occur in the near future.
Most folks have far too many problems on a daily basis than to worry over such esoteric doctrines that have absolutely no impact on either their lives today are in the future.
It’s like understanding Einstein’s Relativity: good to know but for only one person in a thousand does it have meaning for them today. Adventism has majored in minors and answering questions no one is asking for so long that it has become a totally irrelevant system. The average person is wondering will he have a job tomorrow? Will there be any retirement for him when he must retire? How will his children go to college? Who will pay the medical bills if someone is seriously ill? The “little horn” compared to those questions isn’t worth a plugged nickel.
Hi Elaine,
You say, “Most folks have far too many problems on a daily basis than to worry over such esoteric doctrines that have absolutely no impact on either their lives today are in the future.”
Unfortunately this appears to be all too true. However Does that mean we just sit back and allow any teaching to come in unquestioned. eg. How about the new Adventist understanding that the the little horn has defeated the heavenly host, has replaced them with a host of its own, that this situation will continue until 2838. And apparantly Christ has been killed in the process?
Ronald,
We always have choices: we can get all flustered about such doctrines, are simply dismiss them as having no affect on our daily lives, which is what I have chosen to do.
It is not we who “allow any teaching” but only whether it matters to us. We can choose not to be involved and let others be the Don Quixotes, there are plenty who love the task.