Seventh-day Adventist Identity ~ Part 6: A Continuing Dialogue
by Rick Ferret
In preceding articles I have focused on Seventh-day Adventist identity including concepts such as charisma, legitimacy, charismatic routinisation and sect/church typologies. I will now attempt to briefly focus on how these concepts have impacted on the development of the Seventh-day Adventist movement.
As has been previously noted, the primary method is assessing Seventh-day Adventist identity has been limited to a theological perspective which has served to ignore the impact of sociological forces on and in the movement. A religious movement’s belief system often provides minimal comment on that same movement’s actual existence in society. Theology alone is incapable of analyzing Adventism’s sojourn in society. What a church “says†and “does†are not mutually inclusive.
Mid-19th century America was a period of history during which a number of religious movements were birthed amidst numerous political, social, scientific and cultural upheavals. Millennial movements were not uncommon during these times and generally arose in search of a new society with new orders, new ideals, new standards and a new prophet to organize these new assumptions and articulate them. It was noted (in part 2 of this series) that charisma is unable to exist independently of the charismatic leader and the followers of Ellen White arose out of a collective, communal response within a specific context, most noteably, at a time of crisis. The Great Disappointment in 1844 provided fertile soil for the Millerite movement in which the charismatic gift could flourish; it provided the milieu for the reception of Ellen White’s charismatic legitimacy (see part 3 of this series). Ultimately, White’s leadership, above all, served to calm the religious intensity and encourage the scattered and shattered Sabbatarian Adventist believers into eventually becoming an organized movement.
Within two months of the Great Disappointment (22 October 1844) Ellen White, in embryonic form inaugurated the process that would routinise (see part 4 of this series) her personal charisma. This was achieved primarily through visionary experiences declaring that the Millerite movement was not the end; rather, it constituted a stepping stone and a trial through which the remnant must pass on their way to the heavenly city. These revelations confirmed in the minds and hearts of White’s followers that she was indeed called of God, thus legitimizing her role. These revelations also served to locate Adventism in the prophetic time stream. White’s visions (including the Great Controversy Theme) pained on the Adventist canvas both broad panoramic scenes and intimate details relating to the direction in which the movement should proceed.
Consider the following:
The fledgling sectarian movement that White co-founded knew no organisational hierarchy, employed ministry was non-existent and there were no promotions, careers, appointments or dismissals. Her charismatic authority was clearly outside the realm of everyday routine and sharply opposed to rational, bureaucratic and traditional authority. Her charisma was legitimised on the basis of the supra-rational (visions) and in this sense was foreign to all conventional rules. The fact that rules eventuated was demonstrated by her marginalisation from the movement at the end of the 19th century.
While charisma is a phenomenon typical of prophetic movements in their early stages, as soon as the position of charismatic authority is established, the forces of everyday routine commence. Charismatic authority, therefore, can only exist in the process of originating. It was noted that the routinisation of charismatic authority arises from the desire of the leader and followers that the continuation of the group be maintained as a permanent community, organisation or institution during and beyond the life of the charismatic leader. The irony of charismatic routinisation, however, is that the desire to preserve and safeguard the original charisma can only be satisfied by its transformation, a phenomena readily discernable in Seventh-day Adventist experience.
Ellen White provided the key to Adventism’s eschatological timetable including the Great Disappointment. To translate her cosmic visions into everyday, earthly reality and routine, called for the cessation of the transitory nature of charisma that opposed rationality and economic gain into a phenomenon that assumed the character of a permanent, organised institution with an ever-increasing and stable membership. Adventism achieved consolidation through doctrinal development and organisational structures. While Adventist theology provided the rationale for its identity and its commission to preach the last warning message to the world, Adventist organisation provided the means to accomplish the task and in doing so created and incredible tension.
It was further observed that the routinisation of White’s charisma posed a monumental dilemma for Adventism in that her visions provided a rationale on which the development of Seventh-day Adventist organisations and institutions could be established. Her Great Controversy Theme coupled with a restorationist ideology was intended to permeate Adventist institutions with their peculiar sectarian ethos and identity. White envisaged that the establishment of organisations and institutions would prepare people spiritually, physically and mentally for the imminent parousia (regardless of how short or long imminent might be interpreted to mean).
The pressure of change (both internal and external) is monumental in religious movements founded on charisma, but it is eventually bureaucratised in the interest of orderly transmission. Growth inevitably necessitates change. To accommodate growth within Adventism, the original vibrant character of the movement was replaced by forms and structures designed for self-perpetuation. It is also evident that the emergence of these structures has caused considerable contention within the movement, particularly for the purists, who believe the integrity and identity of Adventism is being compromised. Diversity is also a result of growth, which leads to further change and contention. Seventh-day Adventism is a successful movement as a result of institutionalisation, which has also led to increased respectability in society. The irony of this transformation is that the very qualities of discipline that early Adventism in its rigor instilled, have contributed to the material success and intellectual restlessness that later revisionists have interpreted as signs of social decadence and theological heresy.
While Adventism continues to retain a number of distinctive traits that provide for the continuation of its sectarianism (i.e., Sabbath worship, theological posturing and Ellen White as a unique source of revelation), other dimensions of Adventism stoutly favour evolution towards denominationalism. These dimensions include a full time professional ministry, tertiary degrees and training for numerous professions, development of educational and health institutions that, in turn, staff schools, colleges, universities and hospitals and, as well, foster increasing upward mobility. In addition to these endeavours, publishing houses, health food companies, radio and television communication centres have all evolved in response to the movement’s evangelistic ideals on the basis of White’s counsel.
Herein lies Adventism’s paradox. In its desire to construct unique sectarian institutions conducive to separation from the world as a result of charismatic routinisation and then to utilise those same institutions to evangelise the world, Seventh-day Adventism has become poised between two conflicting extremes. The means (institution building) adopted in the attempt to reach Adventism’s desired end (successful evangelism) appears to have denied the movement’s explicit reason for its existence (preaching the imminent parousia). A major dilemma facing Seventh-day Adventism, therefore, is whether temporal goals are displacing ultimate Advent goals.
The routinisation of White’s charisma, however, initiated the process of institutionalisation within Adventism and in the process altered the nature of Seventh-day Adventist identity. No longer is it appropriate to isolate Adventism’s belief system from its conduct in the world, for both doctrine and deed operate simultaneously. In other words, Adventist identity consists of more than the sum of its collective beliefs. From a pragmatic perspective, action detached from belief must decline in effectiveness resulting in increased nominalism. This study has argued that content (beliefs) and form (structures) must be analysed concurrently rather than being isolated into matters of content or belief alone. Any determination, therefore, of Adventism’s identity must include both beliefs and structures. It appears certain, that up to the present time, the Seventh-day Adventist church has concentrated on the “truth†of belief at the expense of giving adequate attention to the “truth†of structure. In terms of identity, what Seventh-day Adventists incarnate is equally important as what they articulate.
[Note from Julius] I’d like to thank Rick Ferret for the 6-part series that he graciously penned for this blog. I hope many of you will be able to read Rick’s excellent dissertation, “Charisma, Sectarianism and Institutionalisation: Identity Issues in Seventh-day Adventism,” in its entirety.