Today, as the Seventh-day Adventist denomination stumbles into the twenty-first Century, the future of Adventism is uncertain and grim. The church in North America, at every level, seems paralyzed and unable to move forward. Cynicism and schism are clearly growing and unless the leadership can correct its various problems, the Adventist denomination is likely to repeat its embarrassing history of Battle Creek a century ago. This situation is a far cry from the Advent movement's once high and lofty eschatological mission of preparing the world for the great day of judgment and the end of the world!

Although discussion about the future of Adventism has been taking place for some time, the recent events of the Damascus Road Community Church ("DRCC") loom large, like an ominous sign reminding us that Adventism is in big and deep trouble. Could major schism be ahead? Is Adventism in danger of collapse on the eve of the new millennium? In his November article about the Damascus problem entitled, "When the Family Splits," the Editor of the Review speaks to these questions with both a no and yes. Of course he first takes the "no" position by reminding us that one church does not represent a denomination. After all "only several hundred Adventists" are affected "whereas worldwide we number about 10 million". So rest easy we are told, "let's not blow up the Damascus split to exaggerated dimensions...."

But after the obligatory denial, comes a more realistic yes, Adventism is in danger of collapse. After all, it doesn't take a visionary to figure out that if lots of local churches decide to exchange outdated methods for new models that work, like Willow Creek , the Denomination could be decimated within a very short time period. To make matters worse, the Editor further admitted that the cultural climate today is ripe for such a possibility because of the widespread ecumenical climate combined with the "rejection of authority." These and other factors--like money--could push the Adventist Church "erlong" into "disintegration." This is an alarming public admission from the Church's leading Adventist Editor. One that is probably quite true. But now that the obvious is up for discussion, just how did the Advent movement get into such a potentially fatal crisis and, more importantly, how can it be resolved so that the Church can focus on its true mission and move forward?

One obvious suggestion is to let the DRCC stay officially within the Advent community. This was the suggestion of the At Issue editor in her "Open Letter Regarding the Situation at Damascus Road Community Church and Christ Advent Fellowship" to leave the DRCC under the umbrella of the Denomination. This is a worthy suggestion that merits study within the context of a holistic strategic plan to reform Adventism. Such a Master Plan was presented to the NAD early in 1992. Had that Plan been put into action, the Church could have been years ahead in understanding the crisis and resolving its numerous complex and growing problems.

The proposed plan to save Adventism candidly discussed the fundamental theological issues that had to be corrected before the Church could move forward. Following those minor adjustments to the present Adventist paradigm, the Plan further showed how to address the numerous problems--ranging from health publishing to evangelism and church growth. It also called for the development of a new local church model--one that is historically Adventist, Biblically defensible, gospel friendly, and financially viable. Although the document was briefly discussed at the highest levels of the General Conference, the leadership chose to ignore its recommendations and follow another course. After more than half a decade, the present deteriorating situation speaks eloquently for their decision.

The DRCC situation as well as other reoccurring problems, (like the pending sale of WGTS) only demonstrate the fact that Adventism is in the grip of a potentially fatal crisis that needs real solutions and leadership. Disfellowshipping gospel-believing SDA congregations will not solve the fundamental problems that plague the crumbling Adventist empire. How can this action help the Church achieve its spiritual destiny? It will only cause more pain, bitterness, and bewilderment to the weary Advent people. After all, the denomination has probably invested close to one million dollars by way of salary and benefits in Pastor Fredericks alone over the past 22 years. So why waste such a good resource? And why disenfranchise scores of good Gospel-believing Adventist members? Isn't there a better way? While it is true that the DRCC and other evangelical Adventist congregations avoid many traditional Adventist themes like the Sabbath and the Second Coming, they are sincerely trying to present of "first importance" (1 Corinthians. 15:3) the Gospel to the Adventist community--specifically to those that were weary of the theological battles that were never resolved or rationally explained.

Moreover, it is not fair to blame those Adventist preachers who choose to focus exclusively on the Gospel when the Church itself--with all its resources and mighty institutions of higher learning--has failed to develop a modern Adventist eschatology that complements the Protestant Gospel. In fact, the Church should be grateful that the Gospel is being preached so successfully within their community. If the leaders wish to promote the church's eschatological traditions--which they certainly should and must--then they should work to develop a meaningful eschatology -- that is historically Adventist, Biblically defensible, Gospel-friendly, and economically sound. Until this is done, the Church cannot move forward.

In order to focus on real solutions, the leadership must first admit the truth that neither the Nineteenth- or the Twentieth-Century paradigms of the Third Angel's Message are now working--or will ever work in the Twenty-first Century. Adventism needs to change if it is to survive. However, this doesn't mean that the baby should be thrown out with the bath water. There is no reason to take the position that the Gospel cannot stand along side a Biblical eschatology. In fact, the point of the gospel is eschatology. The Second Coming, a bodily resurrection and eternal life on the earth made new, is the ultimate goal of the Gospel (Hebrews 11:13 and 12:2). The Apostle Paul knew this well as evidenced in his writing to the Corinthian church (Corinthians 15:12-19). If Adventism ever hopes to move forward, it must first develop an eschatology that works in tandem with the Gospel, not against it.

Today, the church is repeating the same mistakes of the 1888 era when a more Biblical gospel emerged from Waggoner and Jones, supported by Ellen White. The result of this improved Gospel understanding was an unintentional challenge to the denomination's view of its Sabbaterian eschatology of the Third Angels Message. Not surprisingly there was debate, disunity, and unanswered theological questions. While the Battle Creek leaders were careful to give lip service to the Gospel they refused to even consider the possibility of changing the then current Adventist model.

Although this refusal to adjust the traditional Adventist paradigm no doubt made sense to the Battle Creek leadership at the time, the Denomination ultimately paid a heavy price for the strategic blunder. Following 1888, the last twelve years of the Nineteenth Century saw the Adventist bureaucracy grow and prosper as never before. The health system became very successful and powerful and the Church actually evolved into a genuine empire during this time period. At first, it appeared that by ignoring the divisive 1888 issues the movement would prosper, but the illusion soon evaporated as the Denomination's administrative machinery and growing resources could not stay the tide of cynicism, schism, and finally great destruction and loss, including the loss of the Denomination's flagship health facility, the Battle Creek Sanitarium.

In humiliation and bitter acrimony, the Church leaders--those who were left--were forced to evacuate from their once proud headquarters and re-group in poverty down in the Nation's Capitol. This is specifically why the world headquarters is now located in the Washington, D.C. area.

Not only has the Denomination lost sight of it's Battle Creek history, unfortunately, it has also forgotten its recent Takoma Park history of the 1970's and 1980's. After all, it should be apparent by now that Ford and Brimsmead were the Twentieth century equivalents of the infamous Waggoner and Jones. Dr. Ford especially was the one who in our time delivered the Gospel to the Adventist community and he became the unintentional paradigm shifter who in effect rendered the traditional Adventist model of the 3rd Angel non-functional. Whether anyone likes it or not, the unresolved Ford issue is still holding back the Advent Movement . But just like the Battle Creek days, the 20th century Denominational Leaders do not wish to admit that the church's ecclesiastical model is flawed. And therefore they have not tried to meaningfully solve the fundamental problems that must be addressed if the church is to survive and move forward.

Today, the Church must reposition itself by supporting the correct gospel--which the Battle Creek leaders stubbornly refused to do--and then move forward to develop a workable unity between the Gospel and Adventist eschatology. Such a theological package, if properly developed, has the potential to unite the Advent movement and revitalize the Church, preparing it for its Twenty-first Century mission to prepare the world for the great day of judgment. However, by declaring these new "gospel models"--such as DRCC--outside of the Adventist orbit, the Church stops the dialogue and short circuits the vital research and development process that must take place in order to create the much needed and improved local church paradigm.

Regardless of one's viewpoint about the future of Adventism, it is a forgone conclusion that the Church will change. In fact, because of the introduction of the Gospel, the Church has already changed dramatically over the past two decades and there is no doubt that even more change is ahead. The only question remains is what kind of change will it be. Will the Church follow its present course of self destruction, following in the footsteps of the ill-fated Battle Creek leaders, or will the Adventist community rise up and make the necessary effort to deal honestly with its fundamental problems?

The solution is simply this: The church must now develop a new and improved version of Adventism--before it is too late. The DRCC model is not complete by any means, but if developed properly, that model, and other variations of it, could be an important part of the solution to bring true revival and reformation to the Adventist community first and then to the world. The lessons of history are clear: the church will either become great because of the Gospel or be left in ruins. Considering what happened in Battle Creek and the precarious position of the Advent denomination today, what other alternative is left? It is time for Gospel Reform within Adventism.

Tom Norris can be reached at 301-439-1068; E-mail: tlgroup@erols.com