You just named the progressives as part of the the SDA church. I, and the vast majority of SDAs, am/are completely at odds with that.
Those who ignore Ellen White are also not SDAs. They do not accept a lot of SDA theology and want to force those changes upon the church. Don't tell me they don't. I've spent decades watching these controversies.
Every denomination has the right to it's own beliefs and those who want to force change upon the church, say women's ordination for example, need to join a denomination that they agree with rather than try to force what they want on those who accept the church's beliefs to accept. If I did not agree with the 28 fundamental beliefs I would never have wanted to be a member of the church. I would have gone elsewhere.
I did wind up resigning from ministry and going elsewhere when I could not agree with the fundamentals. However, I knew ministers who didn't agree with the fundamentals who remained, with the goal of reform. So yes, that does happen.
Some conservative churches discipline for apostasy, but a lot, especially in urban areas from what I saw, are not willing to do so. While conferences could take action against churches for apostasy it is not that common.
From my perspective the denomination has been for some decades trying to hold together a variety of viewpoints that are a odds with one another. Even attempts to purge more liberal Adventists would likely backfire and result in the issues they raise being brought to the forefront.
And if you are saying those who ignore Ellen White are not really Adventist, I think that would be a pretty high number at this point. Removing them would have major impacts. There are already retention issues.
Is there a higher goal than baptisms?
The Adventist Church is rejoicing that since October 1,1982, it has had an average of one thousand persons per day becoming members. What is not so well known is that 278 per day officially left our church during the same period. And the church has no way of knowing how many have "unofficially" removed themselves from the fellowship of believers. Should our church change its goals as it plans for 1990? If so, what kind of goals would be most meaningful?
Nurture, retention, reclamation: Can you hear their cry?
The Seventh-day Adventist Church is losing members at an alarming rate. Even though the evangelism in our churches is winning people, we lose about 49 of every 100 baptized. This hemorrhaging of our members cannot continue. It is expected to get worse, especially in countries where soul winning is difficult; and if it continues, entire conferences maybe closed for lack of members.
General Conference Secretary G. T. Ng, in addressing this issue, made a serious statement: “This 49 percent apostasy rate is alarming and is a serious drain on the human and financial resources of the church.” Then he asked some pertinent questions: “What happens to an army with 49 percent desertion among its soldiers? What happens to a school when 49 percent of its students drop out of classes? What happens to a factory when 49 percent of its employees decide to defect?”2
It went from around 28 per 100 in the late 80s to 49 per hundred in 2019. In the North American Division, 66 left for every 100 brought in per the statistical report:
Of course, given the shaking notion, some wouldn't worry about losses in membership. But the various administrators don't seem to agree with that approach.
In the meantime if someone is a member they are part of the church. They may be out of step with some Adventist beliefs, but the church has not removed them. So Ice listing the groups is just an acknowledgment of the situation.
This idea of taking the name and refusing to accept the Biblical doctrines is ultimately rebellion against God, and not just against the church.
Of course, most of the groups in Adventism think their group is following what the Bible says. They just don't always line up with the 28. Some see the denominational structure as in rebellion.
