Ministry Magazine 2000 December, gives some interesting thoughts on this.



Too many times Progressive Adventist groups seek to step outside of this core concept which destroys the coherence of Biblical subjects and sends the church back into the age-old divisions that have plagued Christianity for centuries.

Anything progressive that attempts to destroy any of the pillars of the SDA Church is actually regressive.

Agreed. However, there are those who want to present things in the same old way and are upset with progressive methods that support our pillars.

This book finally arrived today. Been going through the index and looking up different names and references that caught my eye. Thus far the book is fantastic!!! One point that surprised me was that there was only one reference to Lynn Harper Wood; and all it said was that when he was President of Southern Missionary College, that his theology/religion department was so extremely conservative that professors he invited to join his department were afraid to come.

Lynn Wood was one of the major players in a, pillar confirming, but still progressive Adventism from the years that he taught at the Seminary and the influence he had on students when he gave week of prayers at different colleges. Lynn Wood was one of our first PhD's and archaeologist. While there were Adventists who came to similar views before him (such as an Elder Fifield, who was a good friend of the Whites) who came to an understanding that "Hell Fire" is seeing the glory of God in person, and not the same substance that we get when lighting a match or seeing a volcano. This lack of information on Lynn Wood is missing the powerful influence over the thesis of this book. While I don't know about Elder Person himself, some of those who he enlisted to "fix" the church had the goal of destroying Lynn Wood's influence over the church. Probably the first generation of influencers in progressive Adventism would be A. G. Daniels, W. W. Prescott and Willie White. The next generation would be Lynn Wood (in Valentine's book on Prescott he refers to how Prescott and Lynn Wood had a lot of thoughts they agreed upon). The third generation would include Lynn Wood's students, especially Paul Heubech, and W. W. Prescott's student Edwin Hepenstal.

Except for this one surprise that there was only that small comment about Lynn Wood,, this book appears to be fantastic!!!! I highly recommend it!!!

https://www.amazon.com/Ostriches-Canaries-Coping-Adventism-1966-1979/dp/B09SNSNQW1/ref=sr_1_1?crid=AFWKX6U2X2C0&keywords=Ostriches+%26+Canaries&qid=1655834757&sprefix=ostriches+%26+canaries%2Caps%2C177&sr=8-1

I don't know if I made this clear in my posts. I see three groups here. Now I don't like the terms "Conservative" and "Liberal" as both groups are ultra conservative but in two different ways. One group is focused on our traditions, and the thought of people such as Elder Washburn, Elder Wilkinson, and Elder Andresen. The other group wants to be traditional evangelicals and are focused on Reformation theology. This would include Desmond Ford, and some of the ideas you mention about downplaying the Sabbath, being very critical against Mrs. White, or at best seeing her as merely an "inspirational" or "pastoral" prophet, and wants us to give up 1844 and the Investigative Judgment.

The third group are very accepting of our pillars, but approach them from newer discoveries in say archaeology and linguistic studies. They have different understandings of the nature of hell fire from the traditions. They support our pillars, but don't necessary support our traditions. Both of the above groups are critical of this third group. As one of my college professors used to say "If you preach the truth everyone hates you, everyone just wants to hold on to their partial truths."

Who, for example, are the known people promoting this group's type of thinking?

If you have access to the SDA Bible Commentary, about 1/2 to 2/3 of the contributors would have considered themselves in this group, and a number of them were worried that Elder Person would remove them. Also: George Rice, James Valentine, when John Wood was teaching at AUC, Dean Davis, Edward Heppenstall. I think that we can include Jacques Doukhan. Alden Thopmson. Paul Heubech, Gerald Wheeler. Of course I already mentioned Lynn Wood and he was also a contributer to the SDABC Back in the 1800s we had an Elder Fifield, early 20th century A. G. Daniels, W. W. Prescott and Willie White.

How is this for starters?

Oops, can't forget HMS Sr & Jr

In what group would you place The GC President, Elder Ted Wilson?

It seems that putting people into these supposed three "groups"isn't really fair.

Evangelical traditionalists, basically throw out everything that doesn't fit into the evangelical way of thinking. Though they hold the Sabbath (in much the same way evangelicals hold Sunday), they strip it of Adventist beliefs, etc. They aren't "progressive Adventists", they are retreating back and limiting themselves to reformation theology.

A.F Ballenger is an example of that type of reasoning. I'm sure he would say he was still holding the "pillar" sanctuary doctrine, but his misguided Bible study brought in changes that undermined that pillar. The theological foundations for our "pillars" were NOT haphazardly built by our pioneers. Brother Ballenger, even with his perceived discoveries of Bible facts, wasn?t wise to step off it. Though some might think he was "progressive".

EGW wrote: Brother Ballenger: "You are bringing in confusion and perplexity by your interpretation of the Scriptures. You think that you have been given new light, but your light will become darkness to those who receive it" (Manuscript Releases 760, p. 10).

Adventist Traditionalists?

Anyone who is a true seeker of God's Word will EXPAND their understanding. The Bible continually brings new insights and depth to our understanding.
That is as it should be.
Yet these advances should not challenge the pillars and should be advanced into only with much prayer and bible study. We see Jones and Waggoner expanding the churches understanding of righteousness by faith. This was sorely needed. We see the church moving from a "pagan" understanding of the "continual" in Daniel 8, to seeing the "continual" as Christ our high priest continually mediating for His people. Thus bringing verse 14 more fully into the context with the whole chapter speaking of the sanctuary. We also see the earlier concept of Christ as a created divine Being changing to a realization that Christ is fully God, One with the Father.

Yes there are some who resist these ideas. But these ideas don't undermine the pillars or change the pillars, they enhance them and make them more precious.



But what do you mean by "accepting the pillars" yet apparently redefining them.

Of particular concern is redefining the prophecies, especially the ones upon which the pillars are built.