Quackventists

[guibox]

The last month or so I have been clashing horns with certain individuals on Facebook I call 'Quackventists'. I am finding that the more and more I discover the doctrine of grace and justification by faith, the less and less tolerance I have for these individuals.I have also noticed that in all my 23 years as an SDA, the level and amount of 'quackventists' as opposed to the normal population of SDAs seems to be growing.

Though Quackventism comes in many different forms, it usually come from a more conservatist mindset that elevates EGW to the same level as the biblical writers as it is the same Spirit that gave them all inspiration.

They believe that any deviation from what EGW and the pioneers wrote 100+ years ago is 'apostasy'. They rail against anyone who deviates from the standards of living that they believe places us closer to God and any drop in these standards is proof of the 'omega of apostasy' as foretold by Sister White.

To Quackventists, people leaving the church is evidence of the 'shaking' (meaning that people would be abandoning the standards for Babylon and ignoring God's Word) instead of realizing that it may be a self-fulfilling prophecy created by pushing people away with tightfisted legalism, lack of compromise and a cultic, paranoid apocalyptic mindset.

I have found that Quackventism is very similar to the Pharisees of their day and the Catholic Church during the Midieval/Renaissance time period. Maintaining the status quo and perserving the identity is of utmost importance.

It is Quackventism that has given the SDA church the label of a 'cult' and what is responsible for a 'gloom and doom' apocalyptic mindset that has spawned numerous cults and fringe groups.

How do you reason with such a uber-conservative mindset? How do we show that a balanced approach to EGW and doctrinal intepretation is NOT 'apostasy' or 'tearing down the standards'. It seems that the feeling is, 'It is my way or the highway'. "Either follow SDAism as we do (as it is the RIGHT way of doing it) or go your own way and follow Babylon"

Any thoughts? Anybody want to share their 'favorite' quackventist encounter?

[Gail]

I absolutely agree with you. That is coming from someone who has been in the church for 30 years.

My fear is that I've seen some of those yank themselves out of the church for various reasons. I used to wonder how I can last this long when they, persons of seeming great faith and information and obedience, could not.

[Bravus]

I don't think pejorative labelling is a way forward, so I tend to prefer to just go with 'Adventists who see the world differently than I do'. Of course, that's one of the imbalances, though: in general conservatives tend to believe that there's One True Way, that they have it, and that anyone who disagrees is wrong and possibly evil. It's kind of part of the definition. Progressives tend to believe there are many possible ways, and to consider tolerance a virtue (perhaps their only universal virtue).

But I do agree that people are forced out of Adventism by strident conservative voices - I'm on that edge myself due to responses to my beliefs around Origins - and that once they have been forced out their leaving comes to be used as evidence that they were apostate all along.

But this morning I have hope: America as a whole has convincingly turned its back on looking backward and opened its mind and heart to the future. History is full of pendulum swings: in Adventism the 50s and 60s were tightly conservative, 70s and 80s much more progressive, 90s and 00s saw a strong swing back toward highly vocal conservatism. I'm hopeful that we're headed back into more open waters.

[BobRyan]

I am guessing this "the thread" for bashing Adventists and ignoring Bible texts.

hmmm "Townhall" -- I guess that is why it is not in one of the Bible study topic areas.

[Bravus]

You really are a git, aren't you?

[guibox]

I don't think pejorative labelling is a way forward, so I tend to prefer to just go with 'Adventists who see the world differently than I do'.

[guibox]

I am guessing this "the thread" for bashing Adventists and ignoring Bible texts.

hmmm "Townhall" -- I guess that is why it is not in one of the Bible study topic areas.

Bob, I respect you and you and I have a common cause on www.christianforums.net that we both belong to. However, I must disagree. I am not 'bashing' Adventists. I am a dedicated SDA. I protest against the cultic mindset hiding behind the guise of 'following God's laws' and 'minding the standards of the church'. I protest against the joy-killing, works oriented, legalism and sectarianism that has us bordering on making EGW our Mary and expecting us to live according to seemingly concrete laws and standards set out for us by EGW and the pioneers in the 19th century.

I protest against those who feel that their brand of Adventism is the right one and that anybody who goes against what they deem as 'appropriate' or 'pillars' are branded as 'apostates' and 'heretics'. What the heck. Are we the Catholic Church in the midieval time period?

[Bravus]

But at least Bob gave us an absolutely perfect example of the phenomenon you were describing. That is, his complete inability to see the difference between his own views and 'Bible texts'.

[Bravus]

On the decades thing, I wonder whether you might have been thinking of society more broadly? The 60s were a liberal time for society as a whole, but certainly still a very conservative time for Adventism, at least in Australia where I was (good old church lagging the world by a decade ). And in many ways at least the early 70s were much more open (I'm not 100% sure what you mean by 'obscurantist' in the context of the whole church - maybe in theology specifically).

of course, both conservatives and progressives have been there all along - and were in the Adventist church long before the 50s. But it's a question of whose voices are loudest, and who feels that they are in a position to claim that theirs is the 'true Adventism' and those who don't think like them should leave.

My position is always that it is God who decides who is His and who is not, and the parable of the sheep and the goats suggests that he might have quite a few surprises in store for people on all sides. So we have no business at all judging who should be in and who out - rather, we should be about 'by all means sav[ing] all people'. 'Compel them to come in' were Jesus' words, not 'compel them to get out'.

[BobRyan]

But at least Bob gave us an absolutely perfect example of the phenomenon you were describing. That is, his complete inability to see the difference between his own views and 'Bible texts'.

As I said -- I always enjoy the rich depth of Bible texts in threads like these.

The "inconvenient detail" turns out to be "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader.

[BobRyan]

Bob, I respect you and you and I have a common cause on www.christianforums.net that we both belong to. However, I must disagree. I am not 'bashing' Adventists. I am a dedicated SDA. I protest against the cultic mindset hiding behind the guise of 'following God's laws' and 'minding the standards of the church'. I protest against the joy-killing, works oriented, legalism and sectarianism that has us bordering on making EGW our Mary and expecting us to live according to seemingly concrete laws and standards set out for us by EGW and the pioneers in the 19th century.

I protest against those who feel that their brand of Adventism is the right one and that anybody who goes against what they deem as 'appropriate' or 'pillars' are branded as 'apostates' and 'heretics'. What the heck. Are we the Catholic Church in the midieval time period?

Certainly there are those who reduce themselves to a kind of rigid formalism -- no question about that. But on the "What do Adventists believe" section of this board there is one thread that talks about "what do you mean when you say Adventist" and another thread that talks about "how much heresy and rebellion" should be included in that term.

To get to the root of what you are addressing -- we need to define terms.

There are happy Lutheran Christians -- happy Catholic Christians and happy Adventist Christians -- the question is -- what IS Adventist anyway.

And your somewhat pejorative term used for "some kind of Adventist" here - is also addressing that same topic though apparently in a less formal way.

in Christ,

Bob

[Bravus]

Quote:

As I said -- I always enjoy the rich depth of Bible texts in threads like these.

The "inconvenient detail" turns out to be "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader.

Matthew 23:

13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

[Neil D]

Right on, Bravus....

Please, don't be discourage with the quackAdventists among us here...they mean well, but they are a poor excuse for examples of Adventists....

Many don't have the ability to see thing any differently...It's a disfunction that they have aquired...and they refused to unlearn it..

May the Lord grant you the patience of a Saint.

[Woody]

Yes. Saint Patrick.

[Neil D]

Yes. Saint Patrick.

and do whatever you need to do to get that patience....even if it's to kiss some blarney stone...

[carolaa]

I am guessing this "the thread" for bashing Adventists and ignoring Bible texts.

hmmm "Townhall" -- I guess that is why it is not in one of the Bible study topic areas.

What does an observation have to do with Bible study?

[carolaa]

Any thoughts? Anybody want to share their 'favorite' quackventist encounter?

Ugh. I've had many of them, and they run the gamut. Their main thing is FEAR. They're afraid the church is "lowering the standards." They're afraid those living under grace are "getting away" with stuff that they couldn't possibly. They're afraid of losing control of the church.

You're in good company. They were wearisome to Jesus too.

[Kevin H]

They believe that any deviation from what EGW and the pioneers wrote 100+ years ago is 'apostasy'. They rail against anyone who deviates from the standards of living that they believe places us closer to God and any drop in these standards is proof of the 'omega of apostasy' as foretold by Sister White.

This comment is on the right track but not exactly correct: You should have said "Any deviation from their favorite Ellen White quotes and edititing of her quotes to fit their views" as there are many Ellen White quotes the ignore. They tend to prefer Mrs. White's ealier writings. In the White Estate vault you can come across statements from the early years of the 20th century where they would say that Mrs. White's ealier writings came from God but her later ones came from Willie and some even accused her of giving up belief in her writings. Mrs. White was dynamic, willing to grow, They see Mrs. White as static and only accept her quotes that a superficial reading appear to agree with their views and they force their views to be read into her words.

James White complained how there were some who due to their state of spiritual crisis Mrs. White was told to write some hard things to them, but that too many would read these testimonies and see them as applying to everyone and pushing every word on everyone.

They have habits of:

1. taking her early writings and rejecting later insights as she thought more and studied more what she had seen in vision and as she understood more about Righteousness by Faith.

2.A second habit they have is there are times where Mrs. White gives ballancing statements where she comes down with something strong, but has other statements that show that she was coming strong to make a point but once the point was made, or to someone in a different circumstance, she would have a more moderate view. They like to take her strong statement and when people point out ballancing statements, they argue them away.

3. A third habit is they do not see where Mrs. White is part of a larger movement, for example, there have been studies on her comments of literature where she is voicing conserns that were also being voiced by Herman Melvell and Nathaniel Hawthorn for example, about a lower level of writing that whas polluting people's minds. Traditions have built around her statements with ideas being read into them where many of the conservative Adventists accept the literature that she was warning against and rejecting literature that she was not warning against. One week of prayer in Academy the speaker, R. Lynn Sauls, told of a study where two readings would be read in Adventist Churches and the congragations asked about those stories in light of Mrs. White's statements about literature. In church after church there was one story that the congragation loved and thought she would definetely approve of, but would be fearcely upset that the speaker would defile the Sabbath by reading the other piece that they came up with quote after quote as to why that second story should not be read by Adventists on any day of the week, much less making the congragation break the Sabbath by hearing that story on the Sabbath. Then it was pointed out that the story that the Church members loved was a story that Mrs. White specifically condemmened and the story that the members hated and condemmed was from "Sabbath Readings for the Home Circle" which was a collection of stories collected by Mrs. White herself as approprate Sabbath reading. Of course, the final conclusion was that the speaker was too polluted by higher education to see the simple truth.

4. A related tradition is they take a warning statement and read into it more than what her words actually say and more than those who were able to talk with her about the statements would apply the comment.

5. This group tends to fall into those who seem to be too fearful of being lost that they are terrorfied of being wrong and need to rest on the idea that they have all the truth. They tend to be either wanting to have a lot of power over others, or followers who want someone to tell them what to do.

Mrs. White is far more flexable, dynamic, ballanced, and yes I'll even say liberal than they would have her be. If any of you can go to the White Esate vaults and read comments related to the reform dress, testimony # 11, 1888, letters to and from people like an Elder Washburn and Wilkerson (and if memory serves me correctly, there may have been an elder Watson, but I may be thinking of Washburn and Wilkerson, too many "W"s)or even discussions between Mrs. White and Stephen Haskell on Fundamentalism, you can see that James White, Ellen White, and Willie White were all pleaged by this group and upset with how they used Mrs. White's writings. If these people who claim to have such faith in Mrs. White's writings could not be changed by Mrs. White's direct criticism of them when she was alive with some very strict testimonys and some very sharp letters and discussions, how much harder it is for the rest of us now that she is sleeping and they have sainted their applications of her writings.

I hope this helps

[Nan]

Are Quackventists equivalent to Sadventists?

[Bravus]

Great post, Kevin

[LynnDel]

When it comes to conversing with those who think it their mission to criticize, to judge, and to harshly convert the "wayward" amongst us to their way of thinking - instead of caring in the way that Christ showed us, I like to remind them of the EGW advice that goes something like this: It is best when dealing with others to err on the side of love.

I've never actually seen that reminder accepted with much in the way of follow-through, but I like to hold the hope that enough of those seeds planted will result in one or two eventually growing - if fertile soil is found.

LD

[phkrause]

Good Post Kevin. Especially the last paragraph. Kind of goes with that statement that Jesus made about sending all those prophets and no believing them when they were here so why would someone believe them now.

pk

[Gail]

Thanks for the input, Kevin! Appreciate that!

[guibox]

Yes, Kevin. Right on the money. I can't even count the amount of times I've heard 'cheap grace' and 'license to sin' when the grace and forgiveness of Christ has been preached outside the law. Sounds very similar to those like G.I Butler, Uriah Smith and others in protest to the 1888 Righteousness by Faith message.

History has a way of repeating itself, doesn't it? Whether it be legalism or Pharisaism.

I believe that you are correct Kevin. EGW would have LOTS to say against those who claim to follow her as much as those who are very liberal in their standards and beliefs. Maybe even more.

[rush4hire]

Welcome to Club Adventist, guibox. I hope you find it to your liking.

I appreciate your burden, and I have a few questions, if you don't mind.

I am finding that the more and more I discover the doctrine of grace and justification by faith, the less and less tolerance I have for these individuals.