Progressive

[Dathen]

I've heard many people say that they like how our church has the same beliefs around the world. To be honest, if you difffer greatly from the beliefs, how are you an adventist.

Progressive and liberal SDA members who may question, have newer interpretations of, or do not hold to the official 28 beliefs.

that is what the summary of the forum is. I personally. To me a proressive church doesn't change the beliefs, but rather does things different. For example my church
it believes all the doctrines of the SDA church, from the Bible, but is progressive because the Sabbath school is the childrens program and we use modern music to worship instead of hymns. Do you see what I mean? Post your opinions.

[Sophia7]

Most of the progressive Adventists here at CF do consider themselves progressive because of their beliefs, especially their views on some of the 28 fundamentals. See this article (http://newprotestants.com/traditio.htm) that was posted in the thread Am I a Progressive? (http://www.christianforums.com/t3712457-am-i-a-progressive.html) for a description of some of the basic differences between traditional and progressive Adventists.

In my opinion, both belief and behavior are involved although belief is the more foundational element. In other words, the differences in beliefs among Adventists are what lead to differences in how we view behavioral practices. For example, a progressive Adventist who does not accept Ellen White as a prophet or a source of authority would not be as likely to follow her counsels on many lifestyle issues as a traditional Adventist.

I don't think that using contemporary music in worship necessarily makes a church progressive. Our church uses modern music sometimes and has done a few unconventional things with Sabbath School, but most of our church members are about as traditional as you can get. Two of our churches (my husband pastors three) have also traditionally not been very outreach-oriented. What makes a church progressive is perhaps a somewhat different subject than what makes an individual Adventist progressive.

[Dathen]

Two of our churches (my husband pastors three)


That would not be easy. How does he manage that?

[RC_NewProtestants]

What makes a church progressive is perhaps a somewhat different subject than what makes an individual Adventist progressive.

I actually do not know of any Adventist church which would be defined as Progressive. However at ever church I have attended for any length of time I have found Progressive SDA's and usually at least one Sabbath School class that is Progressive. Sometimes as in the Sabbath School class I attend now the two teachers who alternate weeks, one is progressive the other is traditional. Ultimately how well that will work I don't know especially with two rather controversial subjects such as the Investigative Judgment and then the creation and flood stories. One thing is certain, in a class like that traditionalists will be kept on their toes.

[Sophia7]

I actually do not know of any Adventist church which would be defined as Progressive. However at ever church I have attended for any length of time I have found Progressive SDA's and usually at least one Sabbath School class that is Progressive. Sometimes as in the Sabbath School class I attend now the two teachers who alternate weeks, one is progressive the other is traditional. Ultimately how well that will work I don't know especially with two rather controversial subjects such as the Investigative Judgment and then the creation and flood stories. One thing is certain, in a class like that traditionalists will be kept on their toes.

I think it's good that people can discuss different points of view in that way. Both sides can be kept on their toes. ;) I hope it works out well. In our area, all of the Sabbath Schools that I have attended are very traditional. Sometimes that's good, and sometimes it's bad.

[Sophia7]

That would not be easy. How does he manage that?

I just realized that I never answered your question. Sorry about that. He preaches at two churches each Sabbath. He goes to one church first during what would normally be Sabbath School time. (They have SS after church on the weeks that he is there.) Then he drives to the second church (which is in the town where we live). Then the next week, he goes to the third church first and then comes back to the second church again. So he's at one church (our largest church in our largest town) every week and at the other two in alternating weeks, if that makes any sense. It's kind of hard to explain, but it works out pretty well most of the time. Having three churches means a lot of driving, but we've gotten used to it.

The only bad thing is that he hardly ever is able to go to SS unless we are at one church the whole time, which happens occasionally--usually in months when we have communion. I usually go to just one church (the one in our town), so the kids can have Sabbath School and don't have to rush back and forth all the time. They still get to hear their dad preach every week. ;)

[Dathen]

My churches pastor is flat out with one church and conference work. So it's hard to imagine how he does that and has spare time, like being in CF.

[Riddick]

my definition of "Progressive/Alternative/Underground SDA" is one who, on occasion, smokes, drinks, goes clubbing. or likes bands like Korn, Green Day, U2. other than those things, my base is still the 27 fundamental beliefs.

my lord told me to "occupy myself" while i wait for his return, and that is what i will do, with a wider latittude of interpretation.

[Dathen]

I've never heard that view before!!

[Jimlarmore]

In Oklahoma City we have some "Celebration Churches". These are churche's where the members have split off of a traditional SDA church and meet on Sabbath on their own. They have no problems with having meat at their pot lucks and they may have someone dismiss themselves during a service to go out and smoke a cigaratte. It's kind of strange in a way but they still call themselves Seventh-day-Adventists. They are just not sanctioned by the Conference.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

[ChristianCandy]

In Ontario, we also have a "Reformed" SDA chuch. It is a progressive SDA church.

I have many difficulties with the "traditional" SDA church being very legalistic in the enforcement of their beliefs. I have seen my pastor discharge many members from the church because of smoking, gossiping, etc., which in my opinion is against God's will that ALL should come to know Him.

I also have difficulties with the arrogance of the traditional SDA church, thinking they are the only "remnant". I believe this also is erroneous. Just as the Jehovah's Witnesses believe they are the only "remnant", they are erroneous also & it is a type of "pride" that leads them to believe so. The "remnant" will be who God chooses them to be. Those who are closest to His heart & obeys Him the way He instructs them. Like King David, who did not belong to any denomination, a man after God's own heart. That will be the remnant.

God does not tell us who the "remnant" will be, only that there will be one. We are presumptuous to think that we are "it". Many SDA's, like all Christians, are prone to human error in behaviour & therefore, none of us can claim that right & privelege. It is only for God to decide.

I am a firm believer however in the 7th Day Sabbath, which is the only thing that keeps me in the SDA church altogether. We do not have 7th Day Baptist or 7th Day other denominations here, just SDA's, so I remain SDA for the 7th Day Sabbath alone.

Am I wrong?

[dg153l]

Hi, i'm wondering, whould i be considered progressive if i ever questioned about any of the beliefs of the church [not just the fundamentals] i mean, just by thinking that some of the things that must people believe are part of culture for exemple, sometimes represents for some people a "dangerous point of view", but i think that around the world, the church differs right?, maybe not in the fundamental beliefs of course :) , but in others...

i dont know..what do u guys think??

[Sophia7]

Hi, i'm wondering, whould i be considered progressive if i ever questioned about any of the beliefs of the church [not just the fundamentals] i mean, just by thinking that some of the things that must people believe are part of culture for exemple, sometimes represents for some people a "dangerous point of view", but i think that around the world, the church differs right?, maybe not in the fundamental beliefs of course :) , but in others...

i dont know..what do u guys think??

I agree that the church differs on certain things around the world, even on some aspects of the fundamentals. For example, most Adventists agree that keeping the Sabbath is important, but Adventists in different parts of the world (and even in different parts of the U.S.) have different ideas about how to keep the Sabbath.

I don't think that simply questioning makes you progressive. Questioning can lead you to study more to find out if your beliefs are true. We should all be doing that. For the purposes of this forum, progressive is defined as not agreeing with all 28 of the fundamental beliefs.

[DrStupid_Ben]

I voted for differing with fundamentals. After thinking about this issue and reading on this forum, I believe that most of the time it all comes down to views on inspiration, and interpretation of scripture. I was thinking about this over the last few weeks studying Ecclesiastes in Sabbath School, in particular, questions about its authorship. About half the class for Solomon, and the rest just playing it safe by only refering to "the author".


There are some that hold to verbal inspiration, and others to thought inspiration (maybe progessive is even furthur than that, I don't know)

[Sophia7]

The progressive spectrum encompasses a wide range of views on things like theology, the nature of inspiration, lifestyle issues, etc. We can't fit everyone into a neat little box and slap a label on it. I've always considered myself traditional in most respects, but I can't accept a few of our fundamental beliefs anymore because I don't believe that they are supported by Scripture. That makes me a progressive on our forum, but I'm far from a liberal Christian. Actually, I think very few Adventists could be considered theologically liberal.

[DrStupid_Ben]

The progressive spectrum encompasses a wide range of views on things like theology, the nature of inspiration, lifestyle issues, etc. We can't fit everyone into a neat little box and slap a label on it. I've always considered myself traditional in most respects, but I can't accept a few of our fundamental beliefs anymore because I don't believe that they are supported by Scripture. That makes me a progressive on our forum, but I'm far from a liberal Christian. Actually, I think very few Adventists could be considered theologically liberal.
You're right there. I remember having a conversation with a friend who said to me that even some of the most liberal SDA's are conservative in the bigger picture.

In my own thinking on this subject I have tried to pinpoint some fundamental difference in theological methodology between conservatives and liberals. (I had to do a couple of essays on it as well for class) Nancey Murphy, a Christian philosopher, explains the liberal-conservative difference as a question of epistemology - your approach to inspiration, scriptural inerrancy and human language problems.

However, in the big picture, you're right - very few Adventists could be considered theologically liberal.

[.chrys.]

Liberalism and progressivism are two different paths. Sometimes they intertwine, but they are different, nonetheless.

In my opinion progressive Adventists are those who do hold to the 28 fundamental beliefs, but are not tethered to them. Progress means growth. Over the course of history, Christianity has grown by leaps and bounds. Likewise, Adventism has grown through the ages.

Progressive Adventists look for truth, and life more abundantly! They are open to the possibility of new light and search for personal meaning in the scriptures. They do not necessarily discard the "lesser light" wisdom given to us by God through Ellen White; but rather, examine it in the pursuit of a deeper relationship with the Lord. Neither do they discard new light given to them by the Holy Spirit through prayer and study.

~Witness

[Sophia7]

Most of the progressives here disagree with some of the 28 fundamentals.

[icedragon101]

I still favor Evanglical Adventist over Progressive. It has a less humanistic sounding name. Evanglicals Still hold to the lifestyle issues, that is called discipleship. They still Hold to the 6000 year or so creation. Jesus is still the creator.
Which do they disagree with, currently I disagree with.
1. the Investigative Judgement.
2. Ellen White as a prophet.

others my have more but that is it.

[Sophia7]

Yes, others may disagree with more. When the Traditional and Progressive subforums were set up (before I became a moderator), they set the standard at the 28 fundamentals for determining who could post where. It's an imperfect system, but it's the simplest way of defining it in terms of upholding the rules of our forum and keeping peace. I prefer to avoid labels personally.

[.chrys.]

Sorry to have misunderstood the purpose of this thread. I thought it was intended to discuss what the term Progressive Adventism means in general, not specifically to these fora, and sub-fora.

For purposes of discussion on these fora, I will operate under the assumption that Progressive Adventism is defined as outlined by the forum moderators/administrators.

My apologies,
~Witness

[Sophia7]

The OP was written in the context of the forum definitions, but this discussion also encompasses other aspects of the issue. You haven't done anything wrong.

[freeindeed2]

I still favor Evanglical Adventist over Progressive. It has a less humanistic sounding name. Evanglicals Still hold to the lifestyle issues, that is called discipleship. They still Hold to the 6000 year or so creation. Jesus is still the creator.
Which do they disagree with, currently I disagree with.
1. the Investigative Judgement.
2. Ellen White as a prophet.

others my have more but that is it.
My list is many points longer than yours. I grew up in a staunchly conservative/traditional SDA home (4th generation). I went to SDA schools, including 3 different universities over 8 years of higher learning. I worked for the church for over 10 years and was an SDA for 35 years.

IMO, being a progressive SDA means that you differ with traditional SDAism on one or more of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs. My question is how many can you disagree with and still be an SDA? And how many of the are absolutely essential?

[Sophia7]

Good question.

[DarylFawcett]

How does it read in the baptismal vows we raised our hands to prior to our being baptized?

[freeindeed2]

How does it read in the baptismal vows we raised our hands to prior to our being baptized?
The baptismal vows I took are different than the one's people take today. They've changed along the way, significantly in some areas.

[Sophia7]

When I was baptized, I wasn't asked to raise my hand or even state whether I agreed with all Adventist beliefs. Even now, many pastors don't ask people to affirm publicly the baptismal vows or the 28 fundamentals.

[DarylFawcett]

Last summer at our campmeeting, those who were baptized were not publically given the baptismal vows in which they were to raise their hands in response, however, it was done that way all the previous campmeetings. I would assume though that it was done in a more private setting?

[freeindeed2]

When I was baptized, I wasn't asked to raise my hand or even state whether I agreed with all Adventist beliefs. Even now, many pastors don't ask people to affirm publicly the baptismal vows or the 28 fundamentals.
True. I'm not sure how many baptisms I did over 10 years, but I never once had them agree to SDA beliefs or the vows publicly. In my mind, I never baptized them into membership of the SDA church either. However, technically they did still sign the vows, which means they did accept them including the fundamentals, and by signing they did get their names added to the book of life--I mean SDA membership books!:sorry:

So, maybe I didn't accomplish anything, but I felt much better only baptizing them into Jesus Christ than into a denomination. And even though they still signed the statement, I felt better about not having them state publicly that they accepted all things SDA. Thankfully we are saved by grace and not a denomination.:)

[.chrys.]

Thankfully we are saved by grace and not a denomination.:)

:clap: :amen: :clap: