Rising Adventist Fundamentalism

A review of 1922—the Rise of Adventist Fundamentalism by Michael W. Campbell (Pacific Press Publishing Association, 2022).

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at http://spectrummagazine.org/node/11807
1 Like

I am fundamentally confused.

Fundamental is that which is of central importance.

Which of “our” beliefs are of central (or essential) importance?

Is it of central importance to save adventism? Are we called to be defenders of “the faith?” Faith in what? The church or our Savior?

I will let others offer their answers.


I believe the jury is out whether or not SDA’s will split between fundamentalist versus modernist factions. It won’t be fast, notice the 10+ year split for the Methodists.

Role of women, LGBTQ, age of the earth, teaching of science, role of musical styles, acceptance of people who consume alcohol, or unclean foods or live together, etc.

Hard to see how SDA’s don’t split. Just my 2 cents.


Mostly the fundamentalists are those who think and act in a way or purpose of saving the church. Just think of the actual GC president and his endeavor. His constant stressing on SOP, literal creation week and his unpreparedness for open and honest talks on gender equality in all aspects of church life have made him the greatest destructor of the church unity even though he’s thinking the opposite.
The progressive way and approach have more chances for maintaining of faith than a constant playing on fundamentalist timpani. People get weary and used of it and in the end they will leave the church.


Speaking of contemporary leadership the phrase “Forward to the Past” unfortunately comes to mind.


Thihomir - Can you expand on your concept or approach? How will it happen exactly? A fundamentalist is essentially a definition that was created at the start of the 20th Century by the so-called “Modernist” movement to define those who believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God given to man thru the Holy Spirit. One of the issues then, which you still reference today, was the literal 7-day Creation vs Evolution.
Since then, the “progresive way” which you are defending, has introduced every social ill which is purposely used to divide and pit people and societies against each other, right into the SDA Church, demanding that they be acknowledged and accepted by the Church, even in cases where it clearly contracdicts the Bible.
At its’ core (knowgingly or not in some cases) this is fundamentally (pun intended) a question and issue of faith - we can either believe the Bible or our own opinions of whatever is going on in the world as better, but ussually not both. Since Jesus said that without faith it is impossible to please God, and Apostle Paul said that what is not of faith is of sin, how would your proposed approach work to unite and build the church, and especially “maintain the faith”?

1 Like

To my mind, this is an expression of the arrogance that typifies the left and which can only deepen their divide with conservatives who harbor a similar braggadocio regarding the “fact” that their path is the only correct one.

In other words, good luck in preventing Adventism from becoming the 35,001st and 35,002nd versions of “Christianity” in the world.

Not a prophecy. Just an observation made possible by studying history, religion, physics, etc., and thus knowing how to spot a train wreck before it happens.


It seems that the church, founded on the principle of present truth where God continues to reveal Himself little by little (progressively), came to a point where it only looked backward. The Cosplay of beards and 19th dress should not be dismissed as merely a playful acknowledgement of the past but as a demonstration of the true level of thinking of those in places of leadership and influence. The church has made itself an enemy of Gods continual revelation and change and is a prisoner of the past. Now when God reveals more truth it is rejected on its face because it does not fit into the traditions practiced and cherished today.


i think the thinking is that it’s better to hold on to what has clearly been articulated by an inspired source than to venture into unknowns and unknowables…if we are essentially looking backwards, it’s because even our most recent inspired source is in the past…

but the best readings of inspired sources accurately identify principles that transcend time and context and correctly translate them into their equivalent modern meanings…we don’t seem to have enough people who can do this…

1 Like

The fact that your most recent source of inspiration is dead over a hundred years is most fortuitous for you and for her as she cannot be called in to account for, or questioned about her hypocrisy, misdeeds and failed prophecies.

Further, one suspects that if you were able to interview EGW in person, you would understand all too well why we are cautioned against trying to meet our heroes!!!

It is also lucky for her that if and when she is resurrected, the statute of limitations will have long since run its course.

Otherwise, there would be no end to the number copyright infringement cases she’d be forced to defend.



This topic was automatically closed after 14 days. New replies are no longer allowed.