-
Website
http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/ -
Original page
http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/2008/02/rap-session-tom-norris.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
I have struggled for 34 years within very judgmental and traditional Adventist circles. I am "born and raised, SDA be praised", as long as there are no uplifted hands, and God-forbid, "Celebration". :-) My point is this - after 34 years it has ALL fallen flat for me, including the IJ doctrine.
Discovering this blog in 2006 and a few other sites was something that my heart and my head needed, as I was considering leaving the church, but too afraid to do so for fear of experiencing hell fire and familial retribution.
Thanks for this very informative and timely interview. I am passing this site and specifically, this post, to others. I hope that it will spark discussion. Even if someone doesn't buy into the Ford thinking, at least it should get people reading their Bibles. After all, that is where we should be spending plenty of time!
God bless.
Armed2Win (Eph 6:10-18)
My heart resonates with Norris's analysis of the White Estate/General Conference's hiding of the 1888 truths. After 120 years, they still have not shared the facts.
However, Norris's analysis also falls fundamentally short. Ellen White - along with Jones and Waggoner - did not simply reintroduce Adventism to the Protestant Gospel, which is a far cry from the New Testament gospel because it is devoid of a correct understanding of the conditional immortality of the soul (thus diminishing Christ's death on Calvary) and it does not have an understanding of the sanctuary message which emphasizes Christ's continued work in heaven on the sinner's behalf. It went beyond that.
Contrary to what Norris claims, the 1888 message that they shared was firmly rooted in the sanctuary message and, yes, even the Investigative Judgment. I am not sure how anyone can read Ellen White and/or Jones & Waggoner without seeing that. Ellen White never abandoned her views of the sanctuary doctrine after 1888. On the contrary, they became all the more relevant to her in light of the Everlasting Gospel.
She didn't surrender her views of perfection (as opposed to "perfectionism," which supposes that perfection is a person's ticket to heaven). In fact, she established them, post-1888. To miss this in her 1888 writings is to miss the center of her (as well as Jones and Waggoner's) message - that Christ is in the Most Holy Place, preparing a people for His Second Coming. Again, I am not sure how anyone could spend so much time reading the 1888 materials and not see this truth.
This is what the GC/EGW Estate cannot bear. They are not afraid to give up their views of perfection because they do not believe in it in the first place. They are not afraid to give up their "post-fall" view of Christ because they do not have that view in the first place. Both of these beliefs were central to Ellen White's Christ-centered teaching, post-1888.
I'm sorry that Norris has missed all that in his wonderful analysis of the issues.
Lastly, nothing could be more true than Norris's keen observation: "Had the leaders not hidden the 1888 debates and just told the truth about what happened in Battle Creek, Glacier View could not have taken place nor would there have been another great schism." That is the sad reality.
I think he contradicts himself on the Sabbath for example; he says he accepts the 4th commandment Sabbath, which prohibits work explicitly and then turns around and says that Jesus condoned any kind of work on the Sabbath, or that Jesus totally demolished the 4th commandment view of the Sabbath...
So his position on the Sabbath is questionable. I was looking for a discussion of WORKS of SERVICE on the Sabbath which would have made his argument much more sensible and Biblical. Working as a cashier at Walmart on Saturday is hardly an altruistic, salvational, service-oriented activity [besides the fact that they now have self-service cashiers..]
Desmond Ford has some interesting points but he is stuck in 1980. He has not reviewed his position after decades of discussions with reputable SDA theologians and that is troubling. He is out of sync with modern day SDA theologians, young and old and now more than ever, should not be a point of reference for the true Gospel.
My impression is that Tom shows the very thing he's trying to overcome, the same old finger-waving, vitriolic and legalistic Adventist apologetic ways that have not work in the past, just in a new "wineskin" (non-alcoholic of course!).
more to the substance of his interview, there was a lot of insider language and short-hand allusions to stuff the details of which i am not fully familiar with. but with what was adequately explained, I could find no intellectual fault. ij has long since ceased to make sense to me, and as much as we preach the importance of it, uriah smith has never been administered the "tests of a prophet." legalism is so passé, and i've grown suspicious of almost every type of official excommunication, not just dr. ford's. i was tracking with tom right up until he glibly dismissed my friend brian mclaren with a review that clearly shows tom knows little about brian or what he purports. that simple act crystallized for me the issue i had been instinctively having, yet had not to that point been able to put into words.
though in some ways i admire his abiding commitment to reforming adventism, tom seems to have become opponent-centered or opposition-driven in a way that seems to affirm his traditional adventist upbringing. his isn't a critique that deconstructs traditional adventist theology, missiology, christology or eschatology in hopeful ways that portend the reconstruction of a more beautiful picture. rather his tone makes it sound like he has settled for wanting to be righter than the rightest right man in adventism. that's the same old debate. if nothing else, it's the same spirit that has inevitably led to same reoccurring debates.
my guess is that few, if any, have left or passed on adventism because she wasn't right enough.
GOD doesn't call us to rightness—GOD calls us to righteousness. 'righteousness' is such an unfortunately ambiguous term which brian and nt wright (mentioned in the previous post) helped me to understand is more clearly interpreted as 'justice'. thus, when jesus encourages his followers to seek first the kingdom and its "justice," he was inviting them to join GOD in bringing about her hopes, dreams and desires for world—to participate with GOD in seeking the good of all of his creation. wright goes on to reveal that the hebrew concept of justice (judgement) isn't pronouncement or retribution, but rather GOD coming to "set things to rights." and jesus invites followers in his way to be agents in this. another way of saying this is that the world should be tangibly better that followers of GOD are in it. The angels should be able to sing for us, even as they sang for jesus, "peace has come to earth and good will to all." and i'd bet good money that plenty have passed on or out grown adventism because they didn't find in her that this was true.
but far be it from me to put words in anybody's mouth. did anyone else read tom similarly? have any with sadness said goodbye to adventism simply because one too many times she abdicated the opportunity to be of good in the world?
Presently, I'm at a point where I realise that I need to reexamine my faith/beliefs. I was a Methodist who became convicted about the Sabbath truth in late 1998, hence my entrance into Seventh-day Adventism. For the most part, it has been a positive experience, although I struggled with the Investigative Judgement teaching in the beginning, and for a long time afterwards. It left me feeling severely depressed and in despair, but thank God, I got past all of that. (Well, I hope so.)
In recent years, I've observed some attitudes and beliefs in the SDA church that have saddened me. More and more, I feel greatly disturbed when I hear some folks stressing that "we have the truth", and that "our church is the true church". It has begun to feel like "us" against "them" (Sunday observers), and that for them to be saved, they need to come over on our side, or else. My eyes have become open to divisions and barriers that I never saw before, among other things that I won't get into.
Recently, I was searching for something on the Internet and came across a site that highlighted Ellen White's alleged plagiarism. Thrown into a state of confusion, I did some more searches, and what I came across made me realise that I now need to seriously reexamine my faith. Your interview has underscored this need even more. Let me add that before I read this post, I respected EW's writings, and still do, but I no longer believe that I should use them as a supplemental to my foundation of doctrine/beliefs. I no longer believe that the SDA church is God's ONLY TRUE church and that one needs to keep the Sabbath to be saved, and that Sunday observers need to come into "the fold" to be saved, or else. I love the SDA church, but I'm not so sure now about these and some of its other teachings. As such, I've already decided to stick by sola scriptura to keep myself on the safe path.
I believe that having a relationship with Christ is the key/answer, but I also need to know where to go from here, now that I'm in this thing. I don't plan to up and leave. I still love my church, and believe that God can use me to make a difference, even if it's a small one. But I'm at a major crossroads now, and I need some direction. It also feels like I've landed in a huge stinking mess. Strangely, I'm not fearful or unduly worried. Coming across all this information, as well as the ones before cannot be a coincidence. My life will never be the same again.
Any good advice/counsel would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, and God bless you!
Signed: A bit overwhelmed and disillusioned, but hopeful.
I was a Seventh-day Adventist for 32 years. In many ways I wish I still was. I enjoyed the celebration of the sabbath immensely. Quite candidly I must say I found it a necessary respite from an extremely demanding profession. I certanly was not 'into' the Sabbath with all its doctrinal accretions. I never gave much thought to the investigative judgement - once again I was simply not interested in what I would call 'that kind of nonsense'. But then again, tell me what denomination does not have some or other nonsense?
What I am very grateful for is the remarkable emphasis the SDA church places on healthful living, the opportunity for interesting debate in Sabbath school, the remarkable missionary work of the church, and it's equally remarkable education program. This all had a major influence on my life. Books published by the SDA church are in many ways the best available as far as I am concerned.
One other aspect which I much appreciated is the Sabbath School Lesson - I taught for all 32 years and always encouraged debate and an open mind. There is no other church which has such a wonderful sabbath school program.
Is it the truth more than any other church? I would hardly think so! My guess is that Tom Norris is as bound up in the 'truth' hype as much as some others may be, I find it a not very reasoned posting quite frankly.
My advice would be 'stick with it and be there to add another voice to changes whcih need to be made, without destroying the church itself. In my travels in the UK, USA, Africa and elsewhere I have found a remarkable admiration by non-SDA's (Christian and others) for the SDA church.
i would have written you directly but could not find contact info for you on your profile.
i believe i understand where you are coming from. my own moment of crisis had to do with trajectory. i became consciously adventist at age 5. i grew up in SDA schools and learned our systematic theology and arguments of primacy better than many my age. the challenge was that i also attempted to remain socially, emotionally, intellectually and spiritually honest, all at the same time. i went to college to study theology on course to the pastorate, yet grew ever more conscious of the split between the trajectory of the path God was unfolding for me and that of my denominational tradition.
then around my 3rd year in college, i just couldn't hold in tension anymore what i knew to be true intuitively about GOD and what i was being taught to believe about her systemically. it wasn't so much a crisis of faith but a crisis of socially/emotionally/intellectually/spiritually integrity and denomination allegiance. i didn't leave the church, but had to reposition myself to discover that GOD was bigger than just adventism.
i remember the evolution from a rules focused SDA culture to a emphasis on relationship that emerged in my home church in the mid-80's, and i'd like to offer this observation (this is my first time articulating this in writing so don't judge me too harshly). i believe that evolution can be easily compared to the normal maturation process that everyone goes through, from dependence to independence. the thing is, there is a third stage of maturation: interdependence. and without going too deeply into this, while institutions and other remnants of modernity are stuck in arguments of asserting one's independence (liberal vs. conservative, catholic vs. protestant, capitalist vs. communist, judeo-christian vs. muslim, etc.), there are those who have taken the brave step forward into attempts at interdependence. Out of these fledging steps have emerged some brave new intuitions about the world that are alive with possibility. these possibilities are becoming more apparent everywhere, from political landscapes to scientific frontiers to fresh creativity in the arts to increased awareness of social responsibility... on down to emerging theological impulses.
the conundrum of being stuck at the independent stage of our spiritual maturation is that it leaves us in a perpetual argument regarding what we are loathed to admit are our preferences about GOD. Is it faith or works, rules or relationship, drums or organs, pews or chairs, creation or evolution, women's rights or fetal rights, orthodoxy or orthopraxy? do we ordain women or not? do we exclude or embrace homosexuals? It's never ending!
Meanwhile, there are those who sensing the shift have moved beyond rules and even relationship--recognizing the significance of both--and have rediscovered in jesus' call the invitation to become (in keeping with our "r" theme :-) co-conspirators in revolution, ambassadors of reconciliation, agents of recreation (i haven't settled on one all encompassing description, take your pick). the short hand for this is often terms like "missional," "emerging" and "emergent". we're just friends seeking to re-imagine what it means to be followers of GOD in the way of Jesus as well as what it means to seek the good of all creation whom "GOD so loved."
you'll find a lot of the books exploring these emerging impulses in the sidebar of this blog. emergentvillage.org is an excellent way to get connected to people asking similar questions as you are. there are plenty of bloggers exploring missional ways of living both within and without an adventist context (i could hip you to the ones i frequent). and please feel free to contact me directly anytime.
may GOD bless you in this new adventure. its a rewarding one i promise you.
much love,
melvin
Gordon, I'm curious as to why you're no longer SDA. Don't mean to be inquisitive, and forgive me if I am, but I just love to learn from the experiences of others. BTW, I will "stick with it" and allow God to make me a voice/agent of change.
Melvin, I believe you DO understand where I'm coming from. I love what you said about God being bigger than Adventism. I, too, am sensing a shift in me from rules to rediscovery and revolution. I'll certainly check out those other blogs you indicated.
My email is editor2005_ja@yahoo.com
Blessings.
There are so many problems with Ellen White that having a reformed Ellen White really makes little difference to me. Reformed or otherwise she still has a fear based message and the volumes of shame based guidance far out weigh any softening of her views on perfection.
The dialog in the greater world has little to do with doctrinal fine points because the problems in the world are problems of heart and soul, not intellectual hair splitting.
It's unfortunate that those Red Books have been biased and compiled according to a certain conservative agenda and her core message has been lost. A mistaken belief in verbal inspiration in our church has also exacerbated the problem.
But to balanced Adventists who are not following any certain agenda, conservative or progressive, she will continue to be a positive influence for good.
Ellen White might be Christ centered in a Christ of her own construction and from a anthropological point of view she may be seen as progressive for her day and aspects of her work can be seen as positive.
The inconsistency comes when she is presented as something other than simply an inspirational writer with no special prophetic authority. If she is seen as only an inspirational writer then I have no disagreement with this position. In this sense one can take her or leave her and if you find her meaningful then no problem. And if someone rejects what she has to say, then no problem.
This is certainly not her position on her own writings. And the Red Books were put together with her blessing. Even with this, as long as our view of her stays in the realm of inspirational writing with no authority, she certainly has some contributions.
But, for me, as soon as what she has written is considered binding in any way, she then becomes very harmful. I think this has been well demonstrated by the various groups who have taken her as an authority and have implemented her writings in a literal way.
And from a personal experience of her as an authority on how to live my life, her writings have created the very most destructive prisons to my soul that I have experienced.
Of course we should apply literary/historical criticism to the writings of EGW - just as we do to any other literary genre - we will then conclude she was an eminently sensible, mature woman in her later years.
I think the biggest problem which the SDA church faces is that the powers-what-be will not come out and be honest about her writings.
Unfortunately the church has made her out to be what she is not - it has hurt people and led them along a path which was entirely unecessary to walk.
If Ellen White undeniably received special revelations from God (which church and non-church historians) have proved, then she is relevant and a true messenger of God.
Conversely, if we regard her writings as simply inspirational at best or wacky at worst, then we have no criteria to uphold the Bible as ultimately authoritative, since they both ostensibly contain special messages from God.
Our modern day inability to accept a prophet in our midst is the same prophets of old faced in their day. Just because a book was written 3,000 years, doesn't mean it's automatically authoritative and yet we are more ready to accept Isaiah than The Desire of Ages. What about the Apocrypha, shouldn't we accept them as canonical??
At bottom, the whole debate is really on how God reveals Himself and I think we will have many surprises in heaven about the Scriptures; we will probably find out that God is much bigger than the Bible or Christianity, in the words of Melvin Bray.
My second thought is God being bigger than the Bible or Christianity. I would urge caution with that line of thinking. Yes, I would agree that we will probably be surprised at who is or is not in heaven someday, but when dealing specifically with the Bible, John points out that, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS God....And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us!" The Bible is the living Word of God. It is the revelation of God and His character, so I have a hard time believing that God would be bigger than Himself and His revelation.
And God being bigger than the Bible, why not the Qur'an or the Vedas, writings which contradict in multiple ways the Character and Nature of God and/or Jesus Christ?
In closing, I think God Himself urges the appropriate caution through His prophet Isaiah. (Isaiah 8:20-22a NLT)
20 Look to God's instructions and teachings! People who contradict his word are completely in the dark. 21 They will go from one place to another, weary and hungry. And because they are hungry, they will rage and curse their king and their God. They will look up to heaven 22 and down at the earth, but wherever they look, there will be trouble and anguish and dark despair."
Thank God for the Bible, for it is the Word that became flesh and dwelt among us. It is the Word that died on the cross and has provided Salvation enough for all peoples throughout all the ages.
I can agree wholeheartedly with your final comment, Andre.
Jesus is greater than it all, and I think that is the reason why Karl Barth spoke of the Word of God as being Jesus himself rather than the Bible. In the final analysis it is Jesus who is the window to God, not scripture. Certainly we catch glimpses of Him in both the Old and the New Testament, and in most instances it is quite sufficient for our needs. The Bible is surely a very human expression of the divine, (somewhere or other I think EGW expresses it that way)but where we gain glimpses of Jesus, we truly do find that we have in some way or other touched God himself.
But to use it as some kind of prophetic manual (Three Angels Message/Investigative Judgement) surely stretches it beyond credibility. We only have to look at the post exilic literature and the writings of the intertestamental period - including the pesher of such groups as the Essenes - to realise just how inadequate scripture is for that purpose.
One other thing, I don't really see EGW as a "modern" day prophet.
I'm not too concerned with theological controversies such as the investigative judgment, whether it's truth or heresy. I'm in Jesus; He'll get me home. We've got a pretty fine shepherd.
But I do admit that it's good someone is keeping an eye on the organization and its pronouncements. We each play a role. That said, the article could have been improved by actually quoting EGW, rather than merely making claims about her teachings.
Now to my main point... Dismissing the social gospel and social action as "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic" blows me away. The sheep and goats parable is all about justice and social action (Matt. 25:31-46). It doesn't even mention doctrinal beliefs.
Similarly, the rich man and Lazarus parable ends with a man in hell, not because of an evil act or wrong doctrine or wrong eschatology, but simply because he didn't take care of others' needs (Luke 16:19-31).
The list could go on--Jer. 22:16; Amos 5:21-24; Ezekiel 16:49; Matt. 23:23; 1 John 3:17-18; Matthew 22:36-40.
Apparently, God has some strong ideas about moving those deck chairs closer to the pool, or giving my lounger to someone who has been forced to stand.
I'm not defending the emergent church movement or its leaders; every movement has positive and negative elements. I'm speaking of my own understanding of God's priorities (Micah 6:8).
Let's remember that love, mercy and help are the heavy-weights (1 Peter 4:8; James 2:13; Gal. 6:2).
Sure, I'm in favor of good doctrine, but Jesus showed that it's not that complicated. Do we really need the secret 1888 documents to know how we're saved (Eph. 2:8-10)?
Maybe it's a generational thing. I grew up in the SDA movement after controversies like Ford had settled. I just never hear people my age (30s) talking about those topics. Maybe it's important for those involved in the Ford/Glacier View/Brimsmead/Whatever issues to be able to work out those issues now since there wasn't a safe forum for it then.
And it is true that God has given some a passion for theology and some a passion for personal and community relevance. Somehow in the community of faith we bring the two together (The Externally Focused Church).
Most of my Adventist friends don't even read SDA books like 1844 Made Simple. We're reading Donald Miller, Rob Bell, Shane Claiborne, Anne Lamott and a host of others. I do want to include Chris Blake. A number of us have read and appreciated his words. May he live long and write much.
P.S. Melvin, your words are most appreciated.
In college I took Daniel and Revelation classes and read several books on the topic. I agree we do need to have an understanding of these issues.
However, the Bible teaches a lot more than just prophecy and end-time scenarios. We need the same balance. Adventist Community Services and Revelation Seminars are both important.