Neutering of Adventism: A Review

Adventism: Right but no Fun

A review of The Apocalyptic Vision and the Neutering of Adventism by George R. Knight.

This book is Knight’s answer to his own question: Why be Adventist? Secondly, it is his prescription for preventing (or perhaps, correcting) the “neutering” of Adventism.

Kinght’s answer to the first question sounds like an advertisement for chemotherapy. Adventism is no fun, but in the end, it’s good for you. His answer to the second question sounds like prescription information: Make sure you get the dosage right. Too little or too much is deadly.

Knight himself does not really want to be an Adventist. In contrast to others who are Adventist because they enjoy it, Knight is Adventist because of the inescapable force of Adventist evangelistic argument. His ambivalence is epitomized by his repeated statement: I am “an Adventist by conviction rather than choice.” To paraphrase Knight in the vernacular: I’m an Adventist because I have to be. Dang it. But I’m not happy about it.

Knight is annoyed by all sorts of Adventists—cultural Adventists, mean Adventists, multi-generation Adventists, liberal Adventists, evangelical Adventists, beastly Adventists, unfriendly Adventists, legalistic Adventists, mere Adventists, and Adventists by addiction or by choice. Still, like a true son of the church, he is terrified at the prospect of the neutering of the church. That is, he fears the church will fail to multiply, expand, grow. So in this book, he offers a prescription to prevent this neutering. I think he hopes his book will serve as a kind of Viagra for tired, old Adventists. But it comes across to me as chemo.

The chemo metaphor is most apt in Knight’s writing about “beastly preaching.” In his first chapter Knight warns about the deadly consequences of muting our distinctive apocalyptic message—preaching about the beasts. If we neglect or deny our classic preaching of the beasts of Daniel and Revelation, we will follow mainline Protestantism into extinction. The beasts are good for us. Chapter 3 warns “But Don’t Forget the Beasts.” We must not forget the beasts because “God’s word doesn’t ignore the beasts. In fact, the apocalyptic books of Daniel and Revelation are big on beasts. . . . beasts are relevant. . . . it is crucial not to forget the beastly highlights of the great controversy . . .” In fact, “Connected to the beasts is the larger prophetic package related to Adventism’s distinctive beliefs, such as the eschatological implications of the Sabbath, the sanctuary, the state of the dead, and so on . . .” One of the devil’s expected tactics is tempting Adventists “to be just nice evangelicals and forget about such nasty stuff as apocalyptic.” Preaching about the beasts is our duty and the key to our survival as a church.

On the other hand, Knight warns of the deadly effects of “beastly preaching.” Beastly preaching is over-emphasis on the differences between Adventism and evangelicalism, preaching “apocalyptic or doctrine . . . disconnected from Christ and God’s love,” “being overly specific and dogmatic about the details of prophecy or overly triumphalistic.” Knight writes that “Adventism has heard too much beastly preaching” –preaching that “focused on the details and the esoteric and extremes. . . 666 and the identity of the 144,000 . . . excitement and apocalyptic fearmongering.” Toxic beastly preaching also includes classic Adventist perfectionism and legalism.

The conclusion: We must preach more about the beasts. We must avoid “beastly preaching.” It’s like chemo, too much will kill you. Not enough will kill you. You must carefully calibrate the dose. I don’t get the idea that Knight enjoys the beasts but he believes they are good for us. Maybe like eating rutabagas.

Knight describes other tensions as well.

We must resist the temptation to be merely evangelical. But evangelical theology is the real foundation for Christian life.
For Knight, evangelical theology (the contemporary, conservative Protestant take on the gospel of Paul) is the “real gospel.” Adventism adds nothing of value theologically, but because we live at the end of time, people need our theories about end time events. Knight does not evince any appreciation for the radical theological disjuncture between Adventism’s God-is-love hermeneutic and evangelicalism’s unabashed fundamentalism, between Adventist concern for the character of God and evangelicalism’s hearty advocacy of eternal torment, between Adventism’s emphasis on human responsibility and evangelicalism’s focus on divine sovereignty, between choice and predestination, between Adventism’s infallible God and evangelicalism’s infallible Bible.

Prophecy matters but is disconnected from Theology and Spiritually

I agree with the prophetic interpretations Knight presents in this book, but I was disappointed to find no serious theological or spiritual engagement with these interpretations.

Knight’s treatment of Sabbath is illustrative. He is clearly fighting to preserve the classic Adventist belief that Sabbath-keeping has eschatological significance. However, he effectively denies the heart of traditional Adventist concern with the “seventh-dayness” of the Sabbath. Knight writes, “while the day is symbolic, it is not the central issue. After all there will be plenty of Saturdaykeepers in hell. . . we need to move beyond the day to matters of the heart, allegiance, and worship.” But Knight never even hints at how “moving beyond” the day is connected with the prophetic concern for the day. His eschatology is utterly divorced from his spirituality.

Knight never transcends the trite evangelical-inspired arguments about legalism. He never integrates the classic Adventist concern for “the day” (which he is compelled to affirm) with the classic Christian concern for “matters of the heart, allegiance, and worship” (which is what he wants to affirm).

I wish Knight had explored how Sabbath-keeping—in the literal, seventh-day sense—addresses the human situation in the Third Millennium. He might have mentioned current explorations of Sabbath as a spiritual discipline. Such an exploration would have exposed failure of contemporary efforts to “reclaim” the spiritual benefits of the Sabbath without “burdening” people with its concreteness. In reality, without a corporate commitment to a literal day, “spiritual Sabbath-keeping” will never become effective for the vast majority of Christians. “Spiritual life” is always built on concrete practices. The spiritual experience of a weekly, privileged communion with God requires the concrete, physical practice of Sabbath keeping. But Knight never addresses this issue.

Knight writes, “I am a big-picture sort of person” (p. 52). The “Seventh-day Adventist pioneers had seen the big picture and put together a theological package who logical force has driven Adventism to every corner of the earth” (p. 53). Another way to beastify and thereby neuter the apocalyptic message is to claim too much. We need to avoid the temptation toward being overly specific and dogmatic about the details of prophecy. . .” (p. 58). Knight glosses over the reality of Adventist history. Our pioneers delighted in and battled furiously over minute details of historicist interpretation. He defends the date, 1844 (a defense I agree with). But to get to this date requires confidence about interpretation regarding tiny details in an obscure passage. Knight’s “great controversy” interpretation of Revelation 12 and 13 (a novel and unhelpful use of “great controversy”) again requires attention to and confidence in one’s interpretation of details. One man’s “unimportant detail” is another’s crux of the argument.

Knight’s claim to be a “big-picture sort of person” is further undermined by his claim “the best books on eschatology are not even put out by Christian publishing houses” (p. 83). He’s referring in this instance to doomsday books like Paul Ehrlich’s Population Explosion (1968) and Jared Diamond’s Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed (2005). The best books on the last days are secular works filled with detailed doomsday predictions?

Apocalyptic in the Synoptics

I was rather disappointed with Knight’s treatment of apocalyptic in the synoptics. He focuses appropriately on Matthew 24-25. “The passage running from Matthew 24:42 to 25:46 . . . informs us about how to live the apocalyptic vision in daily life” (p. 90). If only Knight were willing to take this Bible passage seriously.

In Matthew 24-25, Jesus clearly teaches his disciples that times and breath-taking events are not the proper concern of his followers. Chapter 24 begins with the disciples asking when? Jesus begins answering their question and steadily moves the focus away from time and dramatic events.

The last parable in chapter 24 pictures someone foolishly dismissing the idea of the Master’s return. With disastrous consequences. The next parable, Ten Virgins, pictures five people who “know” the Lord is coming soon. With disastrous consequences. Knight turns this parable on its head. He says the foolish ones are those who think they have lots of time and delay their preparation (p. 93). The obvious meaning is precisely the opposite.

In the next parable, The Talents, the burning question is what do you think of the Master? In the last parable, the Sheep and Goats, the crux is how did you respond to people in need. According to Matthew 24 and 25, the best preparation for the end is theology—knowing God—and service. We do not get ready for the end by studying the end. After surveying these two chapters Knight’s primary point is to caution against taking them as a mandate for living. He is worried that we will get so caught up in serving the poor and needy that we will forget to preach the beasts. Maybe.

A Long Loose End

Knight writes: “Adventism has only one real theological problem—Jesus hasn’t returned.” He speaks to the issue a bit in his chapter on the parables of Matthew, but his main point in this chapter is that Matthew’s apocalyptic is not a safe guide for Adventists. I was puzzled. Why write a book on the loss of authentic apocalyptic vision and not address “the only real theological problem”—the failure of that vision to materialize in real time?

Ecclesiastical Adolescence and The Church as Mother

Many of Knight’s readers will take delight in his cheeky scolding of Adventists who mute or deny the classic Adventist focus on the end of time. Knight offers a nice, broad brush summary of the major themes in Adventist apocalyptic preaching. I agree with his summary. However, I would not want to join his church. According to Knight, it is right but no fun.

Knight has not found a happy home in Adventism. He is constantly chafing against the reality of Adventist people and Adventist preaching.

I am one of those Adventists Knight despises. I grew up in the church. I am happy in the church. I am an eccentric, liberal, post-modern theologian, but I happily recognize that my eccentric orbit is given definition by the classic Adventist center. Many of my friends, most of my education, most of my family is Adventist. (All of my enemies are Adventist.) I am under no illusions that my church is perfect. Like all families, it has its share of dysfunction, but it is my family. I eagerly and happily recommend it to others, not just because it is right and necessary as the essential preparation for a scary, theoretical future, but because I have found here a satisfying home.

In many ways, Knight sounds like a typical adolescent, far wiser and more sophisticated than his mother, the church. He doesn’t wish his mother ill, but he is sure, if she would just listen to him, he could make her so much more attractive, relevant, intelligent and healthy. Maybe. But I’m not so sure. I, too, can see Mother is not perfect, but I have given up my own adolescent convictions that given the power, I have the wisdom to perfect her.

Knight’s concern is the failure of the church in the developed world to multiply and expand. However, if the best we can say about our family is that we are RIGHT, the world is unlikely to beat a path to our door. Attractive families are right and fun (and crazy and painful, at times). That has been my experience in Adventism. From reading this book, it would appear Knight has not yet found the fun in being Adventist.

Maybe in his next book.