From Canyons to “the Gulf and the Abyss”
Note: This is an “in-house” piece for Seventh-day Adventists. Tread carefully if this is not for you.
There was a question asked by a well known Seventh-day Adventist pastor who preaches the basic, long standing, Biblical doctrines of our church but who is now considered “controversial”:
(Paraphrased) “Why are so many Seventh-day Adventist silent on issues of religious liberty and Christian Nationalism?”
The answer is, we developed a habit of following the wrong influences long ago. It wasn’t always like this.
I’ve been a baptized member of the SDA church for over 41 years.
My family learned and put into practice the prophetic principles of religious liberty which attract so much controversy today.
- My mother was literally persecuted on her job, by the union and management, for being a Christian and advocating for her ability to observe the Sabbath.
- I chose to quit a job I needed in college, where everyone knew I kept the Sabbath, when my direct supervisor kept holding critical meetings on Saturdays and threatening to write me up when I didn’t show up.
- For the past 14 years I’ve advocated and organized at the local, state, and federal level to protect true religious liberty and separation of church and state.
Our church, especially the Black SDA church, once taught deep abiding truths on these issues within an historist context. Many SDAs who are committed to these truths are firmly root, grounded, and settled in the Biblical understanding of Bible prophecy.
I’m glad this pastor and others are preaching and teaching these things which were once basic Adventism but are now controversial.
Despite appearances they are not alone in promoting these principles and encountering stiff opposition for doing so.
There have been a number of conflicts and trends which have steadily but surely disrupted our unity and divided our ranks.
Hopefully this provides additional perspective to those struggling in this moment.
The Devices
So how did we get here? Via devices.
These “divide and rule” devices of the enemy, activated before I was born, manifest in multiple ways and do not appear related to prophecy or religious liberty. But they are the root causes of the current divisions in our church over prophecy and it’s fulfillment.
This piece attempts to put some of our current problems in context. This isn’t exhaustive but hopefully its comprehensive enough to shed some light.
Such Small Things
Our mistakes started relatively small. A book here, a guest speaker there. Organizationally we took our eyes off Biblical models and started and search out new counselors.
Looking to sectarian evangelicals for organizational and spiritual guidance:
Adventist using evangelicals as ministry and doctrinal role models did not start with MAGA.
It started with “mega.”
From Willow Creek to Rick Warren to TD Jakes and “The Prayer of Jabaz,” to PromiseKeepers and “the emerging church” in the 90s and early 2000s if there was an evangelical bandwagon, Adventists jumped on it.
I remember concerns being raised about chasing after the latest books and schemes by mega-churches, their pastors, and affiliated ministries.
Purpose Driven Church to “fix” our local church structure.
Purpose Driven Life to fix your personal direction.
Willow Creek study guides and methods. Rick Warren sermon notes. Liturgy calendars from used by popular ministries.
We were encouraged to consider the spiritual disciplines of Richard Foster, implement the youth ministry ideas of Leonard Sweet and use spiritual gift inventories modeled on Myers-Briggs to discover God’s will.
The SDA pastors who embraced these trends denounced any concerns and labeled those expressing them as troublemakers. Didn’t matter that spiritualism was promoted in the books or that the Bible was directed contradicted by the techniques. It was step up or shut up.
Not only did these techniques not work well (no one even mentions these organizations or books any more) the problems they were meant to solve got worse.
Most importantly not only were the initiative themselves divisive but how these initiatives were introduced and promoted also divided the church.
And even after these trends ran their course the habit of looking to evangelicals and Sunday churches for guidance and alliances became more acceptable and common.
There is nothing wrong with collaborating on points of agreement which are consistent with the Bible. But when plain, doctrinal principles are being overlooked in favor of an outcome or organizational relationship and your own members are treated as outsiders, bad seeds are planted.
We’re reaping the harvest now.
Two Churches in One Body
This following after evangelicals was pervasive through out the North American church but there was a divergence in how this habit played out in regional and state conferences.
I don’t have time to go into this long standing divide between Regional (Black) and State (White) conferences. This racial fissure is itself a profound weakness. But that’s not my topic today.
Here are ways (related to the current political divide regarding Christian Nationalism) where evangelical influence effected these separate but unequal parts of our church.
In State Conferences:
Many Adventists began identifying as “conservatives” and forming relationships with politically active, conservative evangelical leaders and activists.
Started with books and friends then Bible conferences, talk radio, music, and conservative media until many SDAs in state conferences begin to relate more and more to “conservatives” outside of the SDA church than to the “liberals” inside the church.
Race plays a subtle but major role.
So does the desire to maintain the “old landmarks” of the faith which were challenged or downgraded in other parts of the church. But the desire to “conserve” values under threat went from prayerful concern to ideological wedge issue as many grew closer to Republicans and more distant from other Adventists.
Many didn’t seem to notice that they themselves were gradually moving further and further away from the landmarks they thought they were upholding.
“Country living” was conflated with “rural” and “prepper” identity norms and some SDAs adopted NRA gun culture while emphasizing “flag and country” in ways which were not common in years past.
Racism, always a problem, was expressed more openly though thinly veiled with neutral sounding language or with quotes by Black people adapted to agree with their sentiments.
Anyone who disagreed was first mocked, then ignored, then labelled. To encourage any form of tact or courtesy was dismissed as “political correctness.”
For a time there didn’t appear to be many harmful contradictions between being theologically conservative and politically conservative.
Money is a very powerful and decisive influence. And the most wealthy tend to be the most fiscally conservative. But as fiscal conservatism merged with social conservatism in political circles, those moneyed influences in the church began to advocate for similar connections within Adventism.
Many conflicts in the church were often between those conservatives who thought “the liberals” in the church were compromising doctrinal standards.
But over time political conservatism moved further away from Biblical principles into religious pretense. Many SDAs, following those lines of thought, abandoned their former theological standards in favor of a merged political-religious identity. “Pro-life,” tax policy, state’s rights positions replaced love and the Sabbath as “signs” between God and His people.
And political doctrine replaced Bible teaching as the proof of all things.
In 2016 I attended a large conference sponsored by a conservative supportive ministry of the church. During lunch a very friendly lady struck up a conversation with me.
She was a sixth generation SDA with relatives and friends fully integrated into Adventism. But when she started telling about a prophecy concerning the upcoming election I was thrown off.
She watched this “fireman who is a prophet” on YouTube predicting that not only would her chosen candidate win but that he would usher in a great, prosperous age.
This dear sweet, intelligent lady who regarded me as somewhat of a novelty, thought believing in a false prophet and being a Seventh-day Adventist was entirely consistent.
Turns out she was far from alone.
In Regional Conferences:
Along with the “church growth” and “purpose driven” trends, many regional conference churches turned away from what was stereotyped as “Adventist tradition”: people went from thinking Sister White was Black to believing she was a racist.
And just like in State conferences, the Spirit of Prophecy was embraced when it supported a position, ignored when it disagreed.
The health message was mocked (until it became trendy to abandon the SAD diet). For a time it was not popular to speak against meat eating. Doing so could get you labelled as a “fanatic” as could believing or teaching that the SDA church represents the “remnant church of Bible prophecy.”
Referring to joining the church as coming “to the truth” was said to be arrogant and exclusive.
When I was child Black Seventh-day Adventism set the standard for musical excellence. Choir directors from other churches came to us to learn. By the time I was a young adult we mostly imitated those around us, seeking their leadership and counsel on how to worship. One time a church leader invited a Catholic composer to lead a musical rendition of the mass in church on the Sabbath.
Preaching was replaced with sermonizied self-help affirmations. During church services political candidates were virtually endorsed from some pulpits (just like in some State churches).
Any correction, no matter how lovingly and skillfully offered, was rejected as “judgment.” Where once there may have been too stern a reaction to serious mistakes there developed an almost celebration of mistakes.
Pastors sought to change church structure and organization in ways completely inconsistent with both the Bible and the church manual.
Where once the pillars of our faith were consistently preached there started to be a turning away from anything that seemed “irrelevant.”
Music and youth ministries were key aspects driving these changes. Nearly every worship trend happening in Black Sunday churches, many regional conference churches embraced.
When “mega” and “giga” churches, developed from a congregationalist model, were at the height of influence some regional pastors tried to implement the sounds and sights (and sermons) of this model in order to grow the church.
It often ended in tears.
Youth ministries stopped being about service and more about “performance.” No longer “missionary volunteers” youth outreach became a “society” and the expectation developed that youth needed to be kept engaged so they stay rather than “trained” so they serve.
The lines between the sacred and the secular blurred and anyone who expressed concern was labelled a “conservative.”
Once during a church growth rally in the late 90s, a Seventh-day Adventist pastor said “I don’t need no 2300 days, all I need is Jesus!” In fact that was his mantra as he said this frequently.
It was part of a trend to downplay any thing which made us distinctive (the Sabbath was enough) and adopt the customs and language of other denominations.
Gradually over time less time was spent studying with new believers. This “technique” streamlined the baptismal process with the assumption being they would “catch up” later. Since we no longer saw ourselves as distinctive, why would there need to be any further preparation?
I remember at my local church long ago a newly baptized member brought a pork dish to a potluck. When they were informed that we don’t eat pork because its unclean they were embarrassed and shocked. No one had told them about this. They left angry and never returned.
“By Beholding…”
Pastors in many parts of the Adventism became the power center of the church, following the evangelical trend. Once, clergy and laity understood that for the work to be finished we had to all work together. Power and responsibility is shared.
Get Standing Room Only’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
In fact, we avoided the terms “clergy” and “laity” because of concerns over the top/down relational dynamics implied by the language.
Over time those concerns were realized as pastors insisted on more control and more members believed that pastors (and “leaders”) should do everything since they are “the professionals” and “we pay tithes.”
So its difficult to foster advocacy in a culture where leaders feel isolated and members feel unqualified. In such an environment competition and suspicion discourages the vulnerability which cooperation and trust require.
The models we emulate will be the past we imitate.
Many of the mainline churches have declined in influence and strength for decades, riven by internal conflicts, outside influences, and abuses of power. So far our problems have not reached an obvious boiling point.
But we’re close.
The roots of the problems we see in our church didn’t begin with partisan politics but that’s what we’ve come to, via devices.
A Yawning Canyon: Multiplying Divisions
And so as the different parts of the church looked across at one another they increasingly saw people who represented the polar opposite of what they believed.
My effort here is not to split both ends against the middle and say “both sides” are equally to blame.
That’s the problem though, there aren’t just two sides. We’ve adopted the worldly mindset that sees everything in partisan terms.
The SDA church is the most culturally, ethnically, and racial diverse church in the world and in the United States. This variety, unified on a platform of Biblical truth is our strength, is our wisdom.
But we in the North American church have fallen into the same trap as everyone else, narrowing our worldview to conform to binary political movements.
This distorts understanding of the Bible and frustrates church unity as all sides spent more time correcting the “extremes” of the “other” than setting aside temporal interests and striving together to finish the work.
There were and are exceptions of course but this is an overview of dominant trends not an exhaustive history. These are not simple “disagreements” but deep, abiding fractures which grow deeper over time.
These divisions played out at every level of the church in different ways. And as fissures erupted in secular national politics, those same conflicts developed in our church too.
Emerging first as small cracks and then, when we failed to repair them, serious breaks.
Conservatives and libertarians assail government as “the problem not the solution.”
They’ve gone from advocating for “small government” to supporting an insurrection. They either win or they’ve been cheated.
Nothing that anyone who disagrees with them is legitimate or done in good faith.
A similar spirit pervades our church and not always along self-selected political or cultural axis.
SDAs begin to see as illegitimate any General Conference president who did not loudly and proudly reflect the views of their faction.
If a local church or conference disagrees with the voted position of the world body, then that position is simply ignored.
Friendships among workers and among members in the pew do not survive disagreements with political undertones.
And today everything has political undertones.
Divergence
So failing to experience much belonging in the church, people did a variety of things: Some left. Some stayed but engaged very little in the life of the church.
Others got closer to outside movements and organizations which seemed to embrace them and sought to “reform” the church from within.
Meanwhile people were sounding alarms at every level.
Few listened.
And often those of us expressing concerns were punished in various ways. Ignored. Gray listed. Black listed. Shunned. Attacked from the pulpit. Misrepresented.
Even though the SDA church has the perfect structure coordinate advocacy and ministry at every level (international, national, regional, state, local community) these divisions prevent collaboration across a broad spectrum of the church.
“Conservative” SDAs have their own publications, conferences, funding streams and media channels. “Liberals” and “moderates” have their’s.
And Adventist networks, which were once a great strength of the church, have become an abiding weakness.
If you are new to the church, have a small family, didn’t attend Oakwood or Andrews or Pine Forge or Loma Linda; not a pastor or a doctor, singer, musician, high level executive, or you are not to invited into those circles, you basically are left out because “no one knows you.”
Doesn’t matter how faithful you are.
And woe to you if you provoke the ire of anyone in those networks.
These various SDA networks have become more and more exclusive and they diverge along ideological and ethnic lines.
And just as our fellowship is fragmented along arbitrary lines so our understanding of prophecy, church unity, and organization is fragmented along vain distinctions that God does not recognize.
Forty years ago, even while these trends were developing, one could go to just about any SDA church and hear (basically) the same principles regarding end time prophecy, separation of church and state, and civil liberties.
Not so today.
Cultural, racial and ethnic divisions in our church, reflected in geography and nurtured by organizational custom and structures, were adapted into stark doctrinal and political breakages, via devices.
SDA conservatives use the religious liberty language of political conservatives, seeing matters including prophecy in nearly the same light.
SDA progressives, turned off by the misuse of the term “religious liberty” by Republicans, avoid it as much as possible in favor of the language of “public affairs” and “civil rights” used by cultural progressives, seeing matters of church structure, worship, “the body of Christ” in nearly the same light.
This divergence has stark implications for Adventism.
And many who are unaligned with either faction are often confused, frustrated, discouraged, and wounded.
Attitude Reflects Followership
There are profound divisions among the religious liberty advocacy establishment in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which mostly functions at the Union, Division, and General Conference level.
There is almost no grassroots mobilization or organization, particularly at the state level, in wide sections of the country.
There are people who have been in religious liberty positions for decades advocating for Sabbath observance accommodation letters but do little else.
But when members are publicly attacked and fired from public sector jobs for preaching on Sabbath things which are consistent with our mandate, they can not count on the church to help, support or defend them.
Attorney’s representing our church file amicus briefs in support of conservative legal positions which erode the Establishment Clause and empower organizations and movements working to undo all that true Protestantism has wrought.
Meanwhile most local church members have no idea what the church does regarding religious liberty, who the leadership is, or it’s policy priorities. There are some GC/NAD sponsored events, occasional sermons and a religious liberty emphasis day every January but that’s about it.
There is little to no training of local religious liberty leaders and no efforts to get churches in the same state to work together to protect separation of church and state.
Twenty years ago this would have been a daunting but possible task. Now? Nearly impossible.
Most of the state level advocacy is done by church affiliated or conference sponsored entities that receive varying levels of official support. Many do good work. But our religious liberty advocate culture is very territorial, lawyer-centric and elitist.
The first time I attended a church religious liberty conference the leader said in no uncertain terms that they were only interested in working with young people from elite ivy league or SDA institutions with law degrees or pursuing advanced degrees in other policy disciplines.
Not very encouraging for the rest of us.
Advocates, even those who are embraced for a time by this establishment, often burn out before long. The statue quo is thoroughly entrenched.
I attended a church sponsored religious liberty event in Washington DC nearly every year for over ten years. Few people returned from year to year but there were no efforts to keep in contact, organize, and train these people committed enough to our cause that they traveled so far at their own expense.
See a pattern?
We as an Advent people fail to see value in the same ways God sees value. In some ways we are very transactional outside our factions and “clicks.” Therefore we squander opportunities, relinquish strategic advantages, and fail to cultivate talent in our midst.
Even among those preaching a Biblically correct message on these issues there is little urgency for further action.
But you can not win a polemical conflict through rhetoric alone.
Counteracting the enemy’s devices requires more of us.
So many SDA members are confused and are mostly left to fend for themselves.
More members are getting their understanding of politics and prophecy from influences inconsistent with the heritage of our church and the principles of the Bible.
We’ve become the tail and not the head, divided by a canyon of differences. And some of us have turned away from this canyon toward the gulf and abyss.
Dumb Lambs or Deaf ears?
So why aren’t more SDAs speaking about this?
- You can only talk about what you know.
- You can only be heard if you’re allowed to speak.
- You can only cooperate with people willing to work.
I realize this almost rhetorical question is posed mostly to well known SDA leaders with national and international platforms.
But therein lies the problem.
People have been speaking up for years and years.
We are mostly ignored, pushed out, sidelined, undermined, worn out, or retired. Though willing to work there are few if any opportunities in the church to do so.
So there are people who have not been silent. “7,000 who have not bowed the knee to Baal, nor kissed his face.”
But most Seventh-day Adventists just refuse to listen.
Note: I love the Seventh-day Adventist Church and the members of this end time movement. I speak because of love and concern not grievance or bitterness.
This loyal dissent is not an attack on anyone or on the church. I remain a committed member and believe whole heartedly that the SDA movement is where I belong.
