Talk:Last Generation Theology

For the sake of clarity, I believe that a statement that Last Generation Theology (LGT) is not generally endorsed by the leadership and scholarship of the Adventist church, is required in the first paragraph. There is a statement saying it is a "significant" viewpoint, so for balance I believe it needs to be said that it is not mainstream or officially supported.

Perhaps something like this quote from near the end of the article would suffice, "Although exceptions exist, most official Seventh-day Adventist Church resources published since the late 1970s have opposed the concepts identified as LGT." Colin MacLaurin 05:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colin et al, A satisfactory case can be made for leaving the introductory paragraph as is rather than adding the statement about official dislike of LGT, as follows.

Let's keep in mind that at the root of SDA teaching is its current set of Fundamental Beliefs. There have been four major sets (1872, 1931, 1980, 2005) with varying degrees of significance. The 1872 statement was not approved by a GC session for example. Nevertheless, it should be kept in mind that the 1980 statement for the first time included a hamartiological element that formally endorsed the view of sin found in LGT. In 1980 this was placed in Fundamental Belief #7, which included this: "The image of God in them [Adam and Eve] was marred and they became subject to death. Their descendants share this fallen nature and its consequences. They are born with weaknesses and tendencies to evil." This denominational stance on the doctrine of sin is starkly in contrast to the Augustinian conception of original sin that reigns in most segments of Western Christianity. The fact that the SDA denomination actually went out of its way to incorporate such a statement in 1980 is an indicator of the strength LGT viewpoints have in the church. Moreover, the list of belief statements was not changed for 25 years, and in 2005 when an additional belief was added, the statement mentioned was not changed, but was in essence reaffirmed by the General Conference delegates in session.

Add to this other factors, such as the continued and expanded publishing of Ellen G. White's writings by the church, in which she affirms that sin is best understood in terms of 1 John 3:4 more than 166 times. Again, one of the most widespread Bible study sets in use in the church for many decades now, the Amazing Facts Bible Studies, after 1980 added as the second study, just after the first one establishing the trustworthiness of the authority of Scripture, a study on sin, affirming the same understanding as given above. Realize, this is the second element in a set of 28 studies. Establishing this doctrine of sin as the baseline for a whole Christian denomination is taking a marked step.

A denomination of 14+ millions like the SDA does not change its doctrines at the drop of a hat or on the turn of a dime. Nor does it take a step such as creating a statement like the aforementioned and standing for it in stark contrast with other evangelical bodies. Furthermore, during the floor debate at the GC session in 1980 at least one delegate sought to modify in the fundamental belief statement to include rthe idea of original sin, that was not done; the statement as currently offered then prevailed.

It should be noted that books by Priebe and Douglass were published in the late 70s and 80s also on denominational presses--not independent publishers, upholding LGT views.

Add to this, that LGT viewpoint authors mentioned in the article (J.R. Zurcher in __Touched With Our Feelings__ in 1999 and Herbert E. Douglass, __Messenger of the Lord__, in 1998) have been sought so recently to publish major books on denominational presses, and we see further evidence that within Adventism, LGT or at the minimum particular core elements of it, retain even today significant influence within the upper echelons of the church.

It is sufficient that at the end of the article it is indicated that today, within "officialdom" the LGT viewpoint is generally opposed. Indeed, the case for a currently negative official view may be overstated in the article. Certainly, within the current youth revival there is no question that a very significant segment stands in wholehearted support of LGT, although documentation of this doubtless is sparse. In summation, the evidence makes clear that within the church, both views are significantly supported. My recommendation would be to leave the statement where it is at the end of the article; do not add it to the front, as it would overstate the case for official antipathy to LGT. Indeed, the article may be improved by removing altogether the statement about official antipathy towards LGT. (Added 17 July 2006).

The first paragraph read: LGT "is the designation given to a line of theological emphasis connected with the Seventh-day Adventist Church". I am concerned that this sentence could be misleading. It could easily be misunderstood to mean that LGT is an "Adventist" teaching. To maintain NPOV and clarity for an uninformed reader, I believe it is essential to clarify in the first paragraph that LGT is not an Adventist teaching, in the sense that it is not taught by the mainstream church. Hence I just changed it to clarify that it is a minority movement within Adventism.

Having said that, I acknowledge and agree with your points that it is a real movement. I also agree with your points that submovements help to define the identity of a religious group. But it must be made clear that this is just one such movement, and a minor one at that. There are other minority movements, such as Adventists who don't believe in the trinity (a small minority - but an organised group I suspect; one walked into my church and started talking about it just this year) or Adventists who don't believe in the prophetic ministry of Ellen White, for example. It would need to be stated that these are not typical of the church.

Please explain the statement, "...the 1980 statement for the first time included a hamartiological element that formally endorsed the view of sin found in LGT." It may be compatible with the LGT understanding, but surely it does not "formally endorse" it?

(In respect for your request that the "currently negative official view" not be overstated, I have cut and pasted the appropriate comment to keep just a single statement, rather than copy it into both locations.) --Colin MacLaurin 17:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, the first sentence as it appeared in the statement (LGT "is the designation given to a line of theological emphasis connected with the Seventh-day Adventist Church") is neither misleading nor likely to cause "LGT" to be construed as an LGT teaching in some official capacity. Your change of the opening paragraph actually operates against NPOV by unduly injecting your perception that LGT is a minor viewpoint within the church. To say something is "connected with" and then explain the connection as the article does is just about as NPOV as you can get.

The sentence (as it was before you changed it) does not assert that LGT is an Adventist teaching. However, in fact, it is most definitely an Adventist teaching and finds its origination in Seventh-day Adventism. The article nowhere asserted that LGT was/is an official teaching. However, what the article suggested, (and offered several reference points for historically in terms of leaders of the church, writings, and even officially published statements) was that historically the concepts frequently since 1937 called "LGT" within the church have been meaningful to many Adventists.

Look even at what SDA Theological Seminary professor historian Dr. George R. Knight (no darling of conservative or LGT SDAs!) has to say:

"The publication of Questions on Doctrine did more than any other single event in Adventist history to create what appear to be permanently warring factions within the denomination" (Questions on Doctrine, Annotated Edition (2003), p. v).

"...in a recent poll [c. 1955] of several Adventist leaders Froom himself had discovered that 'nearly all of them' 'feel that Christ had our sinful nature.'" (Ibid., p. xv).

"Andreasen... had been the denomination's most influential theologian and theological writer in the late 1930s and throughout the 1940s..." (Ibid., p. xviii).

"M. L. Andreasen, the most influential Adventist theologian of the 1940s..." (Ibid., p. 277, footnote).

"[What Andreasen taught about Christ's humanity had] become the belief of the majority of Seventh-day Adventists in the first half of the twentieth century. That teaching was so widely accepted that it no longer needed to be argued in Adventist literature. It was accepted as a fact. It was upon that teaching that M. L. Andreasen would build his final generation theology" (Ibid., p. 519).

"By the 1940s Andreasen had become the most influential theologian in Adventism and his final generation theology had been accepted by a large majority of Adventists" (Ibid., p. 519, footnote).

These references from Knight (I have probably missed a few more) demonstrate that LGT teachings (such as concerning Christ's humanity), and the atonement and other points offered to Adventists in revised form in QOD were extremely prominent, even majority positions, and that Andreasen is considered by Knight, as having been the "most influential" Adventist theologian of that era. He speaks repeatedly throughout his notes in the book of long-term singificnat division between significant groups within the church. Minority position?

True, that was then and this is now. However, I think that without meaning to, you have under-estimated the current size of the those holding these positions. Knight wrote of something so strong that it had the staying power to exist as one of two "permanently warring factions within the denomination."

Equating the LGT viewpoint with other minority movements such as the current crop of resurgent antitrinitarians is unconvincing and a poor comparison. Antitrinitarianism today exists among a small subset of folks, many of whom have completely abandoned the SDA denomination and their church membership. There are no significant SDA writers or scholars or administrators upholding the antitrinitarian position. We know of no pastors, teachers, or administrators presently employed by the denomination who espouse the antitrinitarian position. There is not even a claim to a lineage of antitrinitarian teachers existing in the church for any long period connected to contemporary times.

In contrast, those who have taught the concepts in LGT within the church have been employed all through the ranks, whether we are thinking of prominent writers like Andreasen mentioned above, or other writers and theologians like H. E. Douglass, or men like General Conference President Robert H. Pierson. These men were all credentialed, employed church workers functioning within the denomination. Today there continue to be pastors, writers, and workers working in the church and teaching these concepts.

I appreciated your question about 1980. What I had in mind is found in Fundamental Belief #7, wherein it is stated with reference to man's nature after the Fall, that "When our first parents disobeyed God, they denied their dependence upon Him and fell from their high position under God. The image of God in them was marred and they became subject to death. Their descendants share this fallen nature and its consequences. They are born with weaknesses and tendencies to evil." The latter line, the teaching that men after the Fall are born "with weaknesses and tendencies to evil"--not with guilt, condemnation, or original sin, is the most definite statement on the topic in the whole list of 28 beliefs. (Check this at: http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html). This position is decidedly in contrast with general Christian viewpoints held by most other Christian or Protestant groups, which almost inevitably affirm guilt or condemnation in some form. So, it would be more correct to say that in 1980 the church for the first time offered to the onlooking world an expression of its hamartiology (doctrine of sin) that was exactly compatible with the views that have since come to be discussed under the commonly accepted term "last generation theology" or "LGT." Hence, the church did not in 1980 endorse LGT per se, but a key doctrinal view that is the underpinning of it. The church endorses the view in FB#7, which exactly harmonizes with the same views expressed in LGT14 points #1 and #2.

I appreciate, Colin, your desire to get this right. However, I think that in making the changes you have made, that the factual picture has been substantially blurred. I would like to see the material revisited so that it stands closer to what was before. For it is true that LGT is "connected" with the SDA Church, even as the article at that time also stated that in recent years the viewpoint had not been the preferred viewpoint of officialdom. As I indicated, in reviewing the page then, I felt that the earlier material was too pessimistic in tone. Actually, the church today, regardless of the reticence of its "official" publications in general to be favorable to LGT, has beliefs that continue to dovetail with it most smoothly. This is very unlike the situation with the antitrinitarians you mention, who are mostly if not entirely outside the denomination and who soon leave behind their faith in the work of E.G. White because in the end they cannot reconcile her strong three persons in one God statements with their new belief system.

Please don't be offended if I or someone else comes along and changes the entry again. However, I will hold off for now. I think that you can adjust the entry again perhaps, taking some of these thoughts and references into consideration and bring it to a more even-handed place than it is now. JT Aug. 8, 2006.

Some of the biographical details of LGT proponents are unnecessary and fall outside the context of the article - particularly the church employment details of Andreasen, Pierson and Douglass. The intention seems to be to build the credibility of these figures. I suggest much more concise statements, with details reserved for separate Wikipedia articles on each of these figures. The other alternative would be to also give full biographical details for Froom, Gulley, Knight, Johnsson and the other opponents of LGT. Yet I maintain that this would be out of the context of the article, and reduce the clarity. Colin MacLaurin 05:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]