For Adventists, what does “progressive” mean?
I remember years ago when I was head of the religion department at Atlantic Union College (1960-1964), a local conference president tried to get me fired as he belabored the Union President. Why? I had given a series of talks at his Workers Meeting on "last-day events." I was too liberal.
Soon, another conference president wanted me fired for four articles on the front pages of the union paper. Topic? "Why Jesus Delays His Return." That was too liberal for him.
Years later, both presidents seemed to have forgotten these incidents because they became firm supporters of my further publications, especially while an editor at the (then) Review and Herald. Life is sweet!
Of course, in those days, we were either liberal or conservative. And about as many labeled me conservative as those who labeled me liberal! I have always found this more than interesting.
But then something fascinating happened in the middle 60s. Spectrum magazine decided to change the label of "liberal" to "progressive"--a brilliant move because it fit the flow of a new era. Ever since, for many Adventists, "progressive" has assumed a new kind of stature--no longer did they feel that they had a target on their backs. The self-acclaimed moniker took on all the positive attributes of being for progress--and who isn't for improvements in all areas, including science, government and communication?
Ellen White, for example, could be appealed to: "Let the diet be progressive" (CDF:460); "Sanctification is a progressive work" (2T:472); "Those teachers who have not a progressive religious experience, who are not learning daily lessons in the school of Christ, that they may be ensamples to the flock, but who accept their wages as the main thing, are not fit for the solemn, awfully solemn, position they occupy" (Spec Test. On Education, 184); (referring to problems in Battle Creek, "When the leaders get out of the way, the work will be progressive and the church will act from a calm, simple sense of their obligations" (The 1888 Materials, 753).
Further, White wisely recognized the intent of "progressive truth: "The past should receive our careful attention. We should learn the lessons which they are designed to teach us. But we are not to rest content with them. God is leading out His people step by step. Truth is progressive. The earnest seeker will be constantly receiving light from heaven. What is truth? Should ever be our inquiry" Signs of the Times, May 26, 1881.
But she also saw the perennial tension between "new light" and "progressive truth:" "It is a fact that we have the truth, and we must hold with tenacity to the positions that cannot be shaken; but we must not look with suspicion upon any new light which God may send, and say, Really, we cannot see that we need any more light than the old truth which we have hitherto received, and in which we are settled" (CWE: 33).
In our next opportunity, I would like to discuss this staring-us-in-the-face issue that tends to divide many colleagues in various segments of our church-thinking leadership.
What really, consciously and unconsciously, undergirds those who claim the label, "progressive Adventist." Many are saying that there are many pluses as well as minuses! What may be the mine fields that separate the "progressives" [liberals] from the so-called conservatives? How can those mine fields be deactivated? Do all "progressives" have the same agenda? What is the bottom line, that irreducible premise that identifies all "progressives"?
I will look for your help in discussing these questions.
- Herbert Douglass's blog
- Login or register to post comments
-
 | Herbert Douglass | Herbert Edgar Douglass, Th.D., is president-emeritus of Weimar Institute. Dr. Douglass has held positions of Head, Religion Dept and College President at Atlantic Union College, Associate Editor, Adventist Review, and Vice President, Pacific Press Publishing Association. In 2008, he was given the Living Legend recognition at Atlantic Union College. Dr. Douglass is the author of 24 books and received his Doctoral degree at Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley, California. |
User login
Search
Connect
Translate Page
Subscribe
Comments
Re: For Adventists, what does “progressive” mean?
Of course, all such terms are generalisations and only helpful to a degree. However, most of these teams are often used only in a pejorative sense by those criticising a particular stance or attitude.
A good example of this—a step away from most religious conversations—is the epithet of "political correctness." Of course, no-one who is trying to to be sensitive to the impact of language and labelling on others, particularly minorities and the otherwise disadvantaged, described themselves as being "politically correct." Rather it is a short-hand term for an implied criticism of such an attitude that is actually more about positioning the critic and dismissing the criticised.
So too many of the labels we apply to each other in religious and theological conversations. Labels are usually defined by the labeller much more than the labelled. As evidenced in the criticism you have experienced from various quarters, once we can label someone as different from us, it is easier to dismiss them and not have to think too hard about the questions they raise.
Yet this kind of labelling is simply a reality in most conversations. We can no more resist labelling others than we can avoid being labelled ourselves. As soon as we speak up in anyway, the labels will come—paradoxically, often quite opposing and inconsistent labels from those on either side of us on whatever spectrum we might be measured.
Once this labelling begins, we can easily move from discussing the issues to trying to discuss and define the labels, which when we recognise that such labels are quite artificial anyway is not the most useful past time.
However, having said all that, I still succumb to the temptation and attempt to reclaim the term "progressive," which it seems you consider merely an attempt at putting a positive spin on "liberalism."
But for those of us of a younger generation, who are either not interested in or simply tired of the conservative–liberal fights of previous decades, "progressive Adventism" is trying to be a third way. Julius Nam described this intent well on his now-defunct Progressive Adventism blog.
But stripping it back to the actual meaning of the word, "progressive" in its purest form simply means growing. As Walter Brueggemann puts it, "a community of hope has texts that always 'mean' afresh" (Mandate to Difference).
As you suggest, by definition, Adventism must always be progressive. If it isn't, it isn't Adventism. And somewhere in that process, we need to progress beyond conservative and liberal to seeking the best of what Adventism can be and, more importantly, what it means to live as agents of the kingdom of God in our time and place.
Re: For Adventists, what does “progressive” mean?
Well said, Nathan. A related issue is always in the wings: progressive truth or unfolding truth How one defines these terms makes all the difference in any conversation.
Adventists, by definition, believe in the soon return of Jesus. Historically, on very good authority, they have understood their mission with a double emphasis: to prepare the world for our Lord's soon return and to prepare a people the world over for that return.
Their message has been and still is--preparing a people to be translated (for there will always be a last generation) is the logical extension of the teachings of Jesus, and the apostles. In shorthand, rebels, those who avoid known duty, are committing spiritual suicide (literal Greek: John 3:16).
It seems obvious that we can progressively understand more fully our personal responsibility for reflecting this mission and message. But, IMO, progressive would not mean reconsidering or rejecting this double emphasis. Cheers, Herb
Re: For Adventists, what does “progressive” mean?
Labels are frustrating and useful, all at the same time. They're frustrating when someone else applies them to me, because I'm being judged by someone who doesn't know my heart, doesn't know my intentions. If someone tells me I'm to liberal, or too conservative - or whatever it might be - I don't really know what they're saying about me, because I don't know their point of reference. What do those labels mean to them?
On the other hand, applying labels to myself is sometimes a useful, or at least interesting, project. I often wonder how to label myself. Where do I fit within Adventist theology and culture? I sometimes want to classify myself as a "progressive" Adventist, because I'm always looking for new answers, for new ways of doing things. I'm generally not happy with status quo. I think we can always learn, and find new ways of relating to God within our own cultural experiences. It is within this label that I find myself leading music at an Adventist church with a taste for contemporary music. I love the use of Christian drama in the worship service. I am challenged by people who find new ways of looking at our beliefs.
At the same time, I consider myself quite conservative in my theology. I believe strongly in most of the traditional Adventist teachings. I believe when I die, I'll sleep until Jesus comes back to take me home. I enjoy the Sabbath rest. I believe that something significant did take place in 1844 in Heaven. So, although some who are much more conservative and traditional than me would disagree, I still think my theology is very conservative.
Having said that, I challenge some of our traditional thinking. We are often too narrow in our thinking. I believe there is far more to Sabbath rest than we have allowed ourselves. Sabbath rest is much more than church in the morning, nap in the afternoon. We need to explore this. The sanctuary doctrine has been presented very narrowly - rather than focusing on the details of the service, and what happened in 1844, we need to dwell on how every part of the sanctuary service - both in the OT, and currently in Heaven - depict the work of Christ for our salvation. Every part of this doctrine should give us a better picture of Jesus! Somehow, we don't always make that clear in our presentation of this doctrine.
So am I progressive? Am I conservative? I don't know...I'm still trying to figure it out. Labels - sometimes useful, sometimes frustrating. But some labels I'll take gladly - child of the King, sinner redeemed by grace, beloved of Jesus...
Re: For Adventists, what does “progressive” mean?
Jerry, you speak my mind and I greatly respect your insightfulness. You emphasize what I said earlier, that Adventists have always been progressive in discovering new ways to express more clearly the biblical truths that determine who and what Adventists are.
The problem occurs, as in all groups through the centuries, when some think that progressive means rejecting (or neutering) established biblio-historical truths that form the group in the first place. Of course, that is all possible in a free world, but the basic truths that establish a group need freshening in each generation, not rejection. Otherwise, we may enjoy the pulpit flowers only to realize that they do not have any roots. Nothing really there for next week! Cheers, Herb
Re: For Adventists, what does “progressive” mean?
For a long time I have used this on my Progressive SDA website http://newprotestants.com/sda.htm
“We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turn, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man. . .There is nothing progressive about being pigheaded and refusing to admit a mistake." C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1952), Book I, Chap. 5, p. 22.
I like it because it sets out something fundamental between Progressive and Traditional SDA's. Traditional SDA's think they have the truth and if you think you have the truth you never examine your positions and you never turn around because you think you are going the right way. But there are so many problems with Traditional Adventism there seems to be no way out but to turn around from going the wrong way.
I do admit that the more I learn about Progressives as in the political progressives of the early part of the 20th century and today's political progressives I don't like the term at all. Sort of guilt by association. But we are really talking about religion and not politics so I continue to use the term Progressive, because in the spectrum of Adventism it has a meaning that is not really political. Though unfortunately numerous Adventist blogs think that progressive Adventist is basically political liberalism. I think they do a disservice to the rest of us Progressive Adventists but then that is the nature of terms. People will use them as they will and it is nearly impossible to change the meaning others infer to a word.
Re: For Adventists, what does “progressive” mean?
Ron, I resonate with much you say, especially in mixing up Adventist "progressives" with the cloak of "progressives" of the 20th Century--they are alive and well and in our face today.
But I am trying to follow your thinking. Do you mean that anyone who has good reason to settle and be confirmed on what they consider to be rock-botton "truth" is pig-headed? Of course, classic Adventists have moved on, correcting some statements, etc., and in that sense they must be "progressives." Right? Cheers, Herb
Re: For Adventists, what does “progressive” mean?
I think the quote is saying that if anyone is on a path going the wrong direction and they refuse to turn around then they are pigheaded. Of course in my use of the quote it is used to indicate that traditional Adventists are going the wrong way. When you say:
"Do you mean that anyone who has good reason to settle and be confirmed on what they consider to be rock-botton "truth" is pig-headed? "
Believing that you are right, so settled and confirmed in what you think is truth is not necessarily pig headed as wrong headed. It assumes facts that you don't have. To be so settled is to say that you have it all figured out and that is it. I think it is often summed up in the trite saying; "God said it, I believe it, that settles it for me". It ignores the need for interpretation, meaning and historical context. But they are settled, they are settled because they have a tradition that supplies their answers. to allow a tradition to tell us the truth is wrong headed. Tradition does not spur growth or progression in knowledge or truth.
Re: For Adventists, what does “progressive” mean?
I feel that the "progressive" label is far more misleading than it is meaningful when used to describe an attitude or any particular faction in the Seventh-day Adventist church. Sister White was clearly progressive but according to Wikipedia, those who call themselves "the progressives" use that term to mean Adventists that deny fundamental doctrine such as the investigative judgment.
If the purpose of the "progressive" label is to classify the different factions in the Seventh-day Adventist church and to pretend that there are only two (progressive and non-progressive), then I propose that Adventists consider what Sister White has written about the distinct types of Adventist believers. Have you ever read the Ellen White compilation titled, The Seven Faces of Seventh-day Adventism?
Re: For Adventists, what does “progressive” mean?
I would like to offer the suggestion that the views expressed on Herb Douglass' blog posting on the topic of "For Adventists, What Does ‘Progressive' Mean" offers an outstanding model of what exchanges on the AT web site should look like. I apologize for being a late comer to this dialogue (I've been away).
The points raised in several comments seem to me to be spot on. For example, Nathan Brown's suggestion that there is always the temptation to discuss the labels and not the substantive issues that stand behind the differences that generated the labels in the first place. Also the suggestion that "liberal/progressive" and"conservative/traditional" does not exhaust the list of contemporary Adventist "schools of thought" that currently exist is well put. There are certainly subsets of each category that provide more information about contemporary Adventism (at least in First World Adventism) that the labels seek to characterize. For example, the distinction between "lifestyle-" and "theological style-" "liberal/progressives" might be considered. There are as well other subset terms that more accurately characterize the dominant perspectives of large groups of "conservative/traditional" Adventists such as "evangelical/Pentecostal" and "historic/perfectionist." The Spring 2009 issue of Adventist Today considered four types of Adventist: "Mainstream," "Evangelical," "Progressive" and "Historic." By the way, it seems to me that labels can behelpful as descriptive terms. It is when they are used in a propaganda or evaluative mode that they lose much of their value.
There is one point that I wanted to raise with Herb. First of all, I certainly would agree that an important issue to address is the difference between "progressive truth" and "unfolding truth" In light of this, would he please explain in a little greater detail his assertion that "progressive would not mean reconsidering or rejecting [the] double emphasis [of the mission and message]." If I understand his context correctly, the reference is to his statement that the "message has been and still is--preparing a people to be translated . . .[which] is the logical extension of the teaching of Jesus . . ." It seems to me that the problem is not primarily in the "preparing a people to be translated" part of this, since, after all, it can be reasonably argued that mere Christianity includes this as an important element. The problem is in the content of the Adventist "message" which advances or mandates what a person is supposed to believe or how he/she is to behave to be "prepared" for the coming Christian Eschaton-when ever that Eschaton is supposed to take place. For example, if an important part of the "message" must include a set of propositional beliefs about a particular take on eschatology (to name just one item-there are many others within traditional Adventism), then most Adventist progressive/liberals I know (including the writer) would take issue with such an assertion. I would appreciate it if Herb would say a little more about his statement.
Erv