2017 Unity Conference

[Gregory Matthews]

Diversity in Adventism exists to a much greater degree than many understand.  In 2017 a Conference was held in an attempt to understand that diversity, and determine if a greater degree of unity would be appropriate.  The following link takes you to an article that discusses that Conference, and further links present the various papers that were presented at that conference. NOTE Amazon also sells a book on that Conference for $5.

https://atoday.org/the-unity-conference-an-afterword/

 

The following is an interesting quote from the 3rd day of the Conference:

Quote

 

Unfortunately, among Adventists, the conviction that liberty of conscience and of religion should be recognized as an essential right of every person is not always matched by a genuine interest in what others actually believe. Often Adventists continue to cherish stereotypical views of what other faith communities stand for, or to hold on to facts that are no longer accurate. The traditional Adventist understanding of the Roman Catholic Church and of the Protestant churches as apostate communities, has all too frequently led to disrespectful statements and unbecoming conduct towards those who believe differently from what we believe in. It would, in my view, show a mature Christian attitude if we would not just grant others the right to worship and believe as their conscience dictates, but also show respect and a greater willingness to understand what they stand for, and to give praise where praise is due.”

 

[Kevin H]

All we need to do to understand our diversity is simply look at our history. Our pioneers came from a wide variety of churches and did not simply shed off their beliefs. Many of them were kicked out of their beloved churches due to not limiting their religious thought to the individual creeds of their churches.  They decided to form a church that would have room for their different ideas, a church that they would not be kicked out of because of not toeing the line of some creed. They formed a few landmark/pillars ideas, and beyond these they were free to think and discuss and grow. From time to time they would give a more complete list of where most Adventists have come over the years; but according to A. Graham Maxwell these lists tended to be written in language that gave some room for variation in just what the terms meant. 

Adventists were early embracers of Biblical Archaeology and William Foxwell Albright's "Biblical Theology." while most theologians were focused on "Systematic Theology" and church history. This caused both approaches to have taken root in our church. 

Due to the misunderstanding of the "closed door" we were isolated from the crisis of the churches splitting into either Modernist or Fundamentalist. By the time we realized our mistake, the crisis was starting to settle down. We rejected Modernism, but had very mixed views to Fundamentalism. We ended up covering a spectrum from those who felt that Fundamentalism was just as dangerous as Modernism, to different shades of Fundamentalism, usually in a more liberal to moderate applications within the Fundamentalist movement; yet there were others who were given a two year class on how to hold evangelistic meetings and were sent out to hold evangelistic meetings, but little if any study of the Bible beyond memorizing the proof texts. These people tended to lean more towards a slightly more conservative form of Fundamentalism.

We ended up with groups represented by A. G. Daniels and W. W. Prescott who started out as Fundamentalists, and were horrified at the tasks Mrs. White gave them and they were at least trying to distance themselves from Fundamentalism. D. M. Canright who joined the most narrow Fundamentalist Church, who rejected Mrs. White because she did not meet the idea of what a prophet should be according to Fundamentalism. Stephen Haskell who insisted that Mrs. White's did indeed fit the idea of what a prophet should be according to Fundamentalism, and despite his Fundamentalist approach to Mrs. White, and despite that this did not ruin their close friendship, they had a long going disagreement in how inspiration works and what visions do and don't do for a prophet. Then there was a group where we can use the name of Elder Washburn. Washburn and his uncle Elder Butler were in full agreement when it came to their dislike of Jones and Wagner. but they were on opposite sides on the question of Fundamentalism. They both needed a break and eventually formed some sort of peace and inclusion of the ideas of Jones and Wagner. (I'd love to see a study on similarity and difference in what they came to believe about Jones and Wagner.) Washburn ended up with a mishmash of the anti-Jones and Wagner ideas with the ideas of Jones and Wagner. Washburn and those in his camp tended to like certain Ellen White quotes; especially pre 1888, and had a very strict fundamentalist "these quotes come directly from God and we need to apply them." attitude that formed into what we call "Historic Adventism" "Last Generation Perfection" "Fulcrum7" etc.  

In 1919 there was a Bible Conference looking at different issues especially the "Eastern Question" (Uriah Smith's thoughts on the role of Turkey in the last days. All of his predictions were fulfilled in World War I but they did not bring about the last days and the second coming) and the issue of Fundamentalism. 

In the 1922 General Conference there was a rejection of the 1919 Bible Conference. Elder Haskell's view of inspiration won out with Elder Washburn's coming in second. 

Thus our variation comes directly from the freedom that our pioneers were looking for and trying to build our church around. Add to these the variation in theologians who embraced Albright's "Biblical Theology" theologians who clung to "Systematic Theology" and "Church History" and thus Church Tradition over the centuries. And those who simply took the two year course on how to give Bible Studies and Evangelistic meetings. And the different ways we have embraced or rejected (or more probably trying to reject) Fundamentalism. 

Their may be other elements; but what we should study is not how to turn this lot into a less diverse group. From our background what else can we be? We can either discuss these threads and see how we can become the type of church that our Pioneers tried to form, and to look at our neurotic need to prove to the world that Seventh-day Adventists are good Baptists; including how we have been hurt by Fundamentalism.