 GCO Mission and Goals | GCO Ministry Testimonials | Projects | Resources/Donations/Contact | SEARCH | |
Faulty Deductions
Reflections On a Recent Editorial On Why Seventh-day Adventists Leave Their Church
Presenter: Kevin D. Paulson
Location: Internet
Delivery: 2006-04-07 19:02Z
Publication: GreatControversy.org 2006-04-07 19:02Z
Type: Review
URL: http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-fd.php
A recent editorial in a prominent Adventist magazine, by a well-known contemporary Adventist author, raises the issue of why certain ones leave the church and how both prevention and cure should be applied to the situation (1).
For starters, I sense that this author and I are probably on the mailing list of the same ex-Adventist newsletter. This publication specializes in departure tales by former Adventists who claim to have questioned the integrity and Biblical faithfulness of key denominational doctrines—the investigative judgment, the Spirit of Prophecy, the Sabbath, etc—thus causing their eventual exit from the church. Without exception, those telling these stories and raising these objections claim to have rejected what they perceive to be “legalism” in their erstwhile spiritual home, and to have consequently found “grace” and the assurance of salvation in a justification-centered, holiness-marginalizing view of the gospel.
Few could argue with a number of the author’s points. His claim that legalism is a problem in any conservative religious community that upholds standards, his puzzlement at the strange conclusion of so many ex-Adventists that all Ten Commandments but one remain binding, the need to instruct believers in the strictly Biblical basis for every doctrine we teach, and above all the need for love in dealing with the erring—all are appropriate and sound observations.
Beyond this, unfortunately, the editorial (perhaps unwittingly) fosters illusions and perpetuates a problem of understanding sadly familiar in the contemporary church and in the author’s own writings.
Reasons For Leaving
The editorial begins as follows:
In my early days as a Seventh-day Adventist I heard this mantra, “No one ever leaves the Seventh-day Adventist Church over doctrine; only over personality disputes or the like.”
Keep dreaming, folks. People leave us, all the time, over doctrine. We fool ourselves, consoling ourselves into believing otherwise.
Everyone’s an exception, so who can pigeonhole anyone? But from the stories I hear, and the from testimonies (that’s a new spin on the word, eh?) given, the scenario’s often like this: A third- or fourth-generation Adventist, educated in our schools, and with strong ties to the church, struggles with legalism and the assurance of salvation. Over time he or she discovers grace, gets an understanding of justification by faith, and before long—usually with help from the Internet—starts throwing out one after another of our beliefs: the pre-Advent judgment, the Spirit of prophecy, and the Sabbath (2).
We will leave our discussion of the gospel and justification till later. For now we need to consider the question of why most former Adventists have found themselves outside the church.
Sadly, the statement quoted by the author sets up a straw man by first posing an assertion few if any would defend: “No one ever leaves the Seventh-day Adventist Church over doctrine” (3). No one? That’s quite an extreme statement to start with! It’s really not helpful to even address such a frivolous premise. Of course there are those, and always have been, persons who have left the church for doctrinal reasons—going all the way back to Dudley Canright, A.F. Ballenger, John Harvey Kellogg, L.R. Conradi, and many more.
The real issue worth examining is twofold: (1) What evidence exists that doctrine has played, or continues to play, a significant role in causing people to leave the church? and (2) is there evidence in such cases that doctrinal motivation, even when given as the reason for departure, is not in fact the true reason?
The author of this editorial is perhaps unaware that those who believe doctrinal objections play a minimal role at best in causing people—especially the youth—to leave the church, base their conclusions on the careful research of more than one individual. Shortly before the author in question became an Adventist, one book detailed a wide variety of reasons given by young people as to why they had ceased to be active in the church. One researcher quoted in this book listed ten such reasons, after which the book’s author observed, “No one gave doctrinal reasons for leaving the church” (4).
The author of the editorial under discussion may protest that this book, written in 1978, is far out of date. But from my own perusal and analysis of the reasons given by ex-Adventists for having left the denomination, I have long since concluded that the spiritual pilgrimage of such persons is not the result of an objective, “clean hands” study of the Bible, from which irreconcilable differences with Adventist belief and practice are allegedly found. It’s not as if one day—calmly, dispassionately studying the Bible as Adventists—they suddenly encounter verses and concepts they can’t reconcile with Adventist beliefs. Rather, their decision to leave Adventism is generally the climax of an odyssey filled with negative experiences and bad choices for which their religious paradigm seemed unprepared, thus leaving them spiritually and emotionally devastated. Assertions from such folks as to how they subsequently “found the gospel” and discovered Adventist doctrines to contradict that gospel, give every evidence of being less of a testimony to serious Bible study than to the fact that caring persons, haphazard events, and often a new relationship found them at a vulnerable moment, thus opening their minds to ideas they might never have otherwise considered.
Had Jehovah’s Witnesses, Scientologists, or followers of Hare Krishna found such persons at a moment like this, rather than proponents of the mainstream evangelical gospel, they might well be bearing witness to a far different view of ultimate reality.
The ex-Adventist newsletter described earlier is not my only source for data on the issue before us. I have personally observed a number of individuals, some very close to me, who left the church in the early 1980s to follow the “gospel-oriented” objections to Adventism posed by Desmond Ford and his associates. Ask them why they left the church, and they will give glowing testimonies of how “grace” and the “New Testament gospel” rescued them from the “legalism” of Ellen White and the Adventist way of thinking and living. But only one intimately familiar with their spiritual journey is able to tell “the rest of the story”—the fanatical tendencies, unbalanced personalities, and destructive forms of family and institutional government with no basis either in Ellen White or classic Adventist theology, but for which the latter seem always to wind up taking the blame.
When I read of these departures from Adventism—of their multi-generational ties to the church, their education in our schools, and all the rest—I am reminded of the 1952 radio debate between Senator Joseph McCarthy and then-Congressman (later Senator) Eugene McCarthy. In the course of this exchange, Joseph asked Eugene what the latter thought of America’s “loss” of China to the Communists. Eugene replied, “I don’t think you can say we have lost them. We never had them” (5). I am tempted to say much the same regarding the loss of those educated and ensconced in the culture of the church during the past several decades. The decline in doctrinal, prophetic, and lifestyle emphasis in modern First World Adventism has been so pronounced, the failure to educate the young in the church’s theological mission so egregious, that one must truly ask if many of these departing souls ever understood the beauty, practical relevance, or even the theory of the original Advent message.
From my own research and observation, together with careful study of the numerous ex-Adventist testimonies I have read, I am led to conclude that while such journeys away from the church often climax with doctrinal objections, they do not begin with them. Negative experiences, often dramatic ones such as divorce or some other major loss, are the main driving forces in producing the unsettled circumstances which then invite the introduction and acceptance of radically new ideas.
Where Are They Now?
The editorial in question continues with the following comment:
Also, despite the notion that those who leave become atheists, demon worshippers, or homeless degenerates, many join other Protestant churches and, it seems, are doing just fine, thank you (6).
I hope this author would consider that just because he (or I, for that matter) haven’t read testimonies from ex-Adventists who frankly admit their spiritual life has come to an end since their departure, hardly proves such persons to either be non-existent or to not form the largest percentage of those who leave the Seventh-day Adventist Church. While hard data on this subject may presently be lacking, one must again look beyond the glowing reports found in glossy newsletters or on well-crafted Web sites. Those seeking to lure Adventists away from their orthodox faith into the evangelical fold are certainly going to put their best cases forward. Most assuredly they aren’t going to feature those former Adventists who now find themselves atheists, uncaring secularists, wife-swappers, or Satan worshippers!
What might be more than slightly informative is a study, for example, of those who left the church in the wake of Glacier View and the Desmond Ford challenge, together with others who have left for similar reasons through the years. Where are they now? Where do they worship? What is their present faith? Just because someone writes at a given time of how happy they are in a new religious setting, doesn’t mean they will still be found in that setting—much less happy—five, ten, or twenty years down the line.
Of the inactive and former Adventists of my acquaintance, I have known very few who have become active, enduring members of some other religious community. I was most fascinated by the comment some years ago of a friend of mine, who described a conversation with a girl whose family had left the church after Glacier View to follow the teachings of Desmond Ford. My friend asked her how many of those she knew who had left Adventism at that time were still professing Christians of any stripe. The girl responded, very honestly, that only her family and one other she knew of still professed or practiced any form of Christianity.
It is like the saga of the exiled physician in Mika Waltari’s The Egyptian, who declared, “He who has once drunk of Nile water will forever yearn to be by the Nile again; his thirst cannot be quenched by the waters of any other land” (7). Those who leave Adventism, it seems, never get very far. They usually stay within a stone’s throw—and throw stones they do! One might have more respect for them if they simply left their former church alone and got on with the spiritual life they have chosen elsewhere. But in a strange way, perhaps their staying close by—even for reasons of criticism—is itself an acknowledgement of the lingering conviction and drawing power of the faith they once professed. I recall the words of one of my college teachers regarding Mark Twain: “Anyone who spills that much ink attacking God believes in Him.”
Perhaps the same is true of those who currently spill so much ink attacking the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
Justification, and the Gospel
The author in question has written much regarding his view of the gospel and salvation. (For those interested in a more involved critique of this author’s theology on this point, a paper by the present writer is available (8).) For now we will confine our comments to the specific points made in the editorial in question.
The author writes:
Many who leave complain about Ellen G. White statements that (taken out of the broader context of her writings, I might add) seem to sound in conflict with justification by faith. But one can do the same thing with the Bible, especially with statements by Jesus Himself (see Matthew. 19:17; Matthew. 12:37; Luke 13:27; Matthew. 18:23-24; Luke 14:33; Luke 6:46-49) (9).
None will deny, of course, that both Scripture and Ellen White statements can be taken out of context to support error. But there is only one reason why verses such as the above could possibly be viewed as out of harmony with justification by faith, and that is if one misconstrues justification as being: (1) a legal declaration only; and (2) the sole ground of the believer’s salvation. The above passages teach very plainly that obedience, empowered of course by the Holy Spirit through conversion (Matthew. 19:26; John 15:5), is the condition of our salvation. In no way does this teaching contradict the Bible doctrine of justification by faith. The Bible is clear not only that God’s forgiveness must be preceded by the believer’s forsaking of sin (2 Chronicles 7:14; Proverbs 28:13; Isaiah 55:7); it is also clear that this forgiveness, or justification, is only a part of the Christian’s salvation. While justification is very much a part of Biblical salvation (Romans 3:24; Ephesians 1:7), sanctification and the transforming power of the Spirit are also a part (2 Thessalonians 2:13; Titus 3:5). This internal change is what makes possible in our lives the obedience declared by Scripture to be the condition of salvation (Matthew 19:17; Luke 10:25-28; Romans 8:13; Hebrews 5:9).
In short, the verses quoted by the author in question from the words of our Lord pose no problem for the Bible doctrine of justification by faith. They do, however, pose a very serious problem for the popular evangelical doctrine of justification, which both limits justification to a judicial verdict and claims this legal verdict—apart from the Spirit’s sanctifying work—to be the sole ground of salvation.
The author goes on to say:
First, we have to place the gospel, salvation by faith in Christ alone, as the absolute center of all our beliefs. Though great progress has been made here, we still have a way to go. Christ our substitute, whose righteousness is credited to us by faith alone as our only hope of salvation, must permeate every doctrine. There’s a power in the gospel not found in the health message or in teaching about the scapegoat (10).
Certainly the message of salvation through faith in Christ alone must be found at the center of all our beliefs. But as we have seen from Scripture (2 Thessalonians 2:13; Titus 3:5), salvation by faith in Christ alone includes sanctification as well as justification, Christ’s work in us as much as His work for us. Not only must the message of Christ our substitute permeate every doctrine; so must the message of Christ our example. The unscriptural theology of salvation by forensic justification alone has not been a source of spiritual progress to the church, but of spiritual decline. The neglect and scorning of lifestyle standards follows in the wake of justification-alone salvation as surely as night follows day. And it is this very doctrine of justification which logically produces tension with, and eventually the denial of, fundamental SDA doctrines such as the sanctuary and the Sabbath.
What, after all, is biblical salvation? “Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21). The process of saving from sin includes every Bible doctrine and every divine command, including health and all other reforms enjoined by Inspiration. Rightly understood, there is no tension or even distinctness between the Biblical message of salvation and any other Biblical message. In Ellen White’s words:
All truth is to be received as the life of Jesus. Truth cleanses us from all impurity, and prepares the soul for Christ’s presence (12).
Ellen White is clear that health and temperance are an actual part of the gospel, not merely the results of accepting the gospel:
When temperance is presented as a part of the gospel, many will see their need of reform (13).
The Lord has given instruction that the gospel is to be carried forward; and the gospel includes health reform in all its phases (14).
And how can one possibly distinguish the gospel from the Biblical message about the scapegoat? According to Scripture, the exile and death of the scapegoat are part of the process of atonement itself (Leviticus 16:10). This is because the reconciliation of man with God cannot be complete until the originator of evil is finally destroyed. How is this something different from the gospel?
Again, it is true that any Bible doctrine can be presented in a lifeless, merely theoretical manner. But any Bible doctrine presented from the standpoint of collective Bible truth, permeated with the message of God’s forgiving and transforming power, cannot be seen as anything but part and parcel of the gospel itself.
Conclusion—Faulty Deductions
In sum, the editorial in question fails to consider both the deeper causes of current doctrinal objections by former Adventists, as well as the full-orbed Bible truth of how men and women are saved. The “gospel” of pseudo-grace and justification-alone salvation—teachings as foreign to the Bible as they are to Ellen White—create the logical imperative of consequent objections to 1844, Ellen White, the Sabbath, the remnant church theology, and the lifestyle witness of classic Adventism. If we would stop the continuing hemorrhage of precious souls from the church, we must demonstrate before all the Biblical basis of every doctrine we teach, together with the beauty and power of these doctrines in the light of the true gospel as taught in Holy Scripture.
References
- Clifford Goldstein, “Deductions,” Adventist Review, Feb. 23, 2006, p. 16.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Roger L. Dudley, Why Teenagers Reject Religion And What To Do About It (Washington, D.C: Review and Herald Publishing Assn, 1978), p. 77.
- Eugene J. McCarthy, Parting Shorts from My Brittle Bow: Reflections on American Politics and Life (Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing, 2004), p. 7.
- Goldstein, “Deductions,” Adventist Review, Feb. 23, 2006, p. 16.
- Mika Waltari, The Egyptian (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1949), p. 4.
- See Kevin D. Paulson, Beyond the Word of God.
http://www.greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/pau-btwog.php3. - Goldstein, “Deductions,” Adventist Review, Feb. 23, 2006, p. 16.
- Ibid.
- Ellen G. White, Our High Calling, p. 208.
- ________, Testimonies, vol. 7, p. 75.
- ________, Medical Ministry, p. 159. GCO
© 2006 by GreatControversy.org. GCO grants permission to individuals, wholeheartedly encouraging them to copy and reproduce documents and files appearing on this site, in an unaltered state, and for non-commercial use, unless otherwise noted. All other rights reserved. Other groups or entities wishing to reproduce these materials are encouraged to contact us with reproduction requests.
