However much one may want to believe that someone or some group has all the answers about Religion and God, we can be sure of one thing: they don't. Whether they are Traditional/Historic Seventh-day Adventists (SDA's), Progressive SDA's or Moderate SDA's, each group sees only part of the picture, "a poor reflection in a mirror." The question before church members now is how they can pursue the knowledge and truth of God while not stepping on one another's personal search and convictions. Unfortunately, none of us can be all right all the time. The history of the Christian era is filled with differences of opinion, and the Adventist church has not been much different in this respect. When our church became an official organization there were still considerable differences of opinion, even among the pioneers.

What is meant by these terms--Traditional/Historic, Progressive, and Moderate? These labels are useful only for those who want to be described by them. If a label is used in a pejorative way it loses its value; it becomes another form of name-calling. But here the terms are used as categories for comparison and contrast of doctrinal positions. For this discussion the Moderate views will not be detailed, since those in this category may agree with the Traditional/Historic view in one area and with the Progressive view in another. They are somewhere in the middle. While many people may consider themselves Moderates, if they analyze their beliefs it is likely they will see that they fall more to one side or the other. In many people's minds the Moderate position is the right one. Hopefully this article will help readers clarify for themselves their own positions.

Traditional/Historic SDA's desire to hold to, and continue with, the beliefs that were instituted at the founding of the church, during the mid to latter 1800's. They view with suspicion any move away from those traditions or teachings. This was demonstrated by their rejection of the 1957 book Questions on Doctrine. They felt that the book made too great a departure from the historic position of the church. More recently they have considered that the use of drama or contemporary Christian music in worship services was worldly entertainment. The Traditionalist/Historic person desires to hold on to several "pillars" of the Adventist church, holding as key doctrines the following:

1. The Investigative Judgment, the Sanctuary doctrine (the process as begun in 1844 with a judgment of the "books").

2. The view that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is the "Remnant" (Rev. 12:17).

3. Ellen G. White as the prophet to the church, also known as the Spirit of Prophecy (presenter of the Straight Testimony, and Present Truth).

4. The Seventh-day Sabbath, with the implication that Sunday is a false day of worship (including concepts of Babylon, Mark of the Beast, and Seal of God).

At the other end of the spectrum are the Progressive Seventh-day Adventists. These could be termed liberal, except that the term "liberal Christian" generally refers to those who don't believe that Christ was resurrected nor that he performed miracles, and who hold other tenets with which most Progressive SDA's would not agree. These "liberals" are often involved in the Jesus Seminars. While some Adventist church members sympathize with these views, they would not make up a sizable proportion of the Progressive SDA's. Of the key doctrines listed above as "Pillars," the Progressive SDA's would hold to significant modifications:

1. A differing view of what the Investigative Judgment is or acknowledgment that the Investigative Judgment is not biblical. (And as such a differing view of Christ's activities from his ascension to his Second Coming.)

2. An inclusion of other Christians into the category termed the "Remnant."

3. A less rigid understanding of the role of Ellen G. White, ranging from acknowledging that she was not always correct in her teaching and understanding to denying her status as Prophet.

4. The Seventh-day Sabbath is for our benefit; true Christians can and do worship on Sunday, and Sunday observance is not now, or later to become, the Mark of the Beast, nor is keeping the Seventh-day Sabbath to be the Seal of God.

The Progressive SDA's do not feel that the church should be limited by the teachings of its founders. If errors are discovered in teachings previously held, the errors should be acknowledged and corrected. All knowledge is built upon those who have gone before us, not only those in the SDA church, but also the many Christians outside and centuries earlier. Knowledge is progressive. What seemed right a hundred years ago may not be right for today or tomorrow.

Certainly the above lists do not cover all the areas of contention, including the differing views of the Atonement, or the nature of Christ, etc. They do, however provide a good method of demarcation to establish the two sides in the discussion.

Neither Traditional/Historic SDA's or Progressive SDA's want a passive acceptance of their faith. But God has given us powers of reason. This is not merely man's reason, for God asks us to reason with him. Christ did not just ask people to do what he said; he revealed to them in his teachings and stories the why of things. He knew some people would not understand, most likely because they refused to try; others might not understand because they had created a box for God and assumed they already knew enough. But there were always people who would search the teachings, reasoning the message out and drawing conclusions that in the end led them closer to God. In the time of the Apostle Paul the Bereans were considered noble because they searched things out and reasoned together in search of truth. In fact, one of our highest goals should be to find out the truth about God. This is our calling, our mission, to search for God and as ambassadors for him to call others to pursue a relationship with him.

It is perhaps here, in this search, that the division really lies. Each of the two groups--Traditional/Historic Adventists and the Progressives--would certainly avow that they are searching for the truth about God. But the two differ vastly in what they are looking for and how they go about finding it.

Groups may be bound together by common history or common values. A Baptist and a Seventh-day Adventist have many beliefs and values in common, and to some extent a common history. There are enough differences, however, that each may regard the other as an apostate. Inside the Seventh-day Adventist denomination the same dynamics often occur, because of differences in the way people approach the Bible.

How to Arrive at Bible Truth

What is the best way to arrive at "truth"? Is it to base your understanding on the tradition of your forefathers, or to examine your beliefs objectively and be guided by reason? Because we as a church once believed in something does not make that belief true--or false, either. Is there consistency among your beliefs, and can they stand up to objections or differing perspectives? If so, you can feel confident in claiming them as your own, as the best explanation of truth available.

The Christian church has for many centuries used the Bible as the standard for revealed truth about God. True, the Bible was not handed down in its present form by God, it was brought together by men who searched the writings of religious people of both the Jewish and Christian perspectives. Through the application of reason, logic, consistency and spiritual value the church fathers made the selections. Among these recognized religious leaders making up what is called the canon of accepted Scriptures, there was substantial agreement on all but a few books. Roman Catholics accept the Apocrypha, while most Protestants do not. In most cases these variations in accepted books do not affect doctrinal differences.

Among the beliefs which Traditional/Historic SDA's hold as pillars there is a striking similarity-none of them are really biblically supportable. For instance, there are no biblical verses that teach the Investigative Judgment as these people understand it, or its origin in 1844. There is no mention of the Seventh-day Adventist Church by name in the Bible or identification of it as the Remnant; even the concept of the Remnant is not held popularly in many churches. The Bible speaks nothing about Ellen White as the "Spirit of Prophecy" or a prophet. The term Spirit of Prophecy in the Bible refers to the Holy Spirit. The Bible says nothing of a Sunday law. It does not teach the Sabbath as the seal of God; again it is the Holy Spirit that is the seal of God.

So the question arises, how did these doctrines become "pillars"? Because, so they say, these were incorporated into the early Adventist church belief system and therefore must be true and accepted. The Progressives, on the other hand, see the adoption of those doctrines as part of our history, but not as truth for today. If they do not stand the test they have no legitimate place in the church's teachings.

The Traditional/Historic SDA's do not hold a less authoritative view of the Bible; they often speak of it as inerrant and even infallible. Some acknowledge that the existing Bible has errors not present in the original manuscripts. Of course, we do not have the originals, so what does that prove? In any case, such errors are mostly inconsequential to any important doctrinal position. The Traditional/Historic SDA's also have a second source of truth which has from the beginning of the church been used to support its teachings.

The writings of Ellen G. White are often taken by the Traditional/Historic SDA's as having equal authority with the Bible. They may even use her works in place of the Bible, though many deny that such happens. Perhaps as troublesome is the way they use her as an "inspired commentator" on the Bible. As Morris Venden wrote in his book The Pillars: "The gift of prophecy is not an authority over the Bible, but it is an authority on the Bible. Some people have trouble with the phrase, evidently coined by F.D. Nichol, 'inspired commentary.' But if you accept the inspiration of the gift of prophecy and realize the fact that it is also a commentary on the Bible, and then put the two together, you have an inspired commentary" (page 104). To call her an "inspired commentator" is to place her above the book she is commenting on. Fortunately as Venden noted there are those in the Adventist church who have trouble with such a phrase.

Traditional/Historic SDA's sometimes declare that to reject the counsel of Ellen White is to reject God's counsel, because they view her as a prophet. If she were not a prophet, then it would be acceptable to disregard her views where they seemed to vary from the Bible. And that is the stance of the Progressives.

Can the church survive with such a division? Must the Progressives accept the Traditional/Historic SDA's rigid stance, or they become more flexible?" Since both sides are in agreement about the Bible as the ultimate source of truth about God, there ought to be some common ground on which they can stand together. What is needed seems to be the willingness of each side of the debate to recognize the Christian spirit of the other. Perhaps there is a place for pluralism of this kind in the church, to help it maintain a balance between the potentially stultifying effect of a body unwilling to admit change, and the equally hazardous risk of running too fast with the winds of change. Both views have merit; can the proponents of each recognize the good in one another and not ostracize or disfellowship those with whom they disagree? In humility, each should recognize that they do not have a corner on truth; God alone knows what that really is.