10 The Emerging Church and The One Project

My study into the emerging church started when a pastor back East asked if I knew anything about “The One Project”. When I began to study into the history of the Project and those who started the movement, I was lead to enquire about the Emerging Church and its teachings and history. I found that it deals with much more than just “spiritual formation” and “centering prayer.”

The Seattle One Project gathering in Feb. of 2012 was the first large gathering since the One Project’s inception in the summer of 2010 (there had been a gathering in Feb. 2011 in Atlanta with ~180 people). The Project is based on the philosophy of the founders and described on their web page: “Why” (see presentation 5). This was also the first large gathering that was publicized in many church papers. What were/are the stated goals of the Project? How would/have the official church papers represent the project?

(http://the1project.org/why.html)

The Seattle One Project gathering in Feb. of 2012 was the first large gathering since the One Project’s inception in the summer of 2010. The Project is based on the philosophy of the founders and described on their web page: “Why” (see presentation 5). But what would the One Project look like in action? How would Jesus be made all?

The Seattle One Project gathering booklet was filled with the theme of making Jesus all. Advertisements from Adventist Universities, Adventist Conferences and Adventist Ministries where scattered throughout the 110 page booklet. Even Lightbearers Ministry had an advertisement page (which was possible only if someone from Lightbearers was present at the gathering). Although the emphasis on Jesus is great, what “Jesus” is/was being presented? And how did it play out in the gathering itself?

(http://www.the1project.org/resources/documents/seattle-booklet.pdf [this booklet is not longer available online])

The Seattle One Project gathering booklet was filled with the theme of making Jesus all. Taking the booklet at face value one could hardly disagree with the focus and purpose of The One Project. The claim that “no agenda but the joy of re-investing in Jesus” is a worthy claim. Although the emphasis on Jesus is great, what “Jesus” is/was being presented? And how did their sole agenda play out in the gathering itself?

In a brief history about the Project’s beginnings they compare themselves to Elijah, with many others (7000) who have the same “agenda.” Like the Andrews University News which claimed that “these seven modern-day disciples began to seek out others to join them in their renewed mission to celebrate His supremacy”

(http://www.andrews.edu/news/2011/03/one_project.html), this is a high claim. But is it true?

Page 60 of the Seattle One Project booklet lists the partners that have joined forces to support The One Project. Many conferences and Universities in the NAD top the list, along with many ministries (some officially run by the Church and others independently run). This of course gives the appearance that the Project and all that it stands for is supported far and wide amongst the Adventist church.

Page 60 of the Seattle One Project booklet lists the partners that have joined forces to support The One Project. Many conferences and Universities in the NAD top the list, along with several ministries (some officially run by the Church and others independently run). This of course gives the appearance that the Project and all that it stands for is supported far and wide amongst the Adventist church.

However, the booklet’s statement, representing the One Project philosophy, is somewhat curious in regard to their Partners. They state of their partners: “Their brave commitment to freedom in Jesus can be seen in their own stance and their support of us.” What are some/all of these “partners” doing that shows “freedom in Jesus”? Are not many of them pushing against the norms in Adventism? A closer look at many of the “partners” would reveal a very progressive/liberal trend among the Colleges/Universities, and many of the Conferences and ministries listed.

The booklet’s statement, representing the One Project philosophy, is somewhat curious in regard to their Partners: “Their brave commitment to freedom in Jesus can be seen in their own stance and their support of us.” What are some/all of these “partners” doing that shows “freedom in Jesus”? Are not many of them pushing against the conservative norms in Adventism themselves? Would a closer look at many of the “partners” reveal a very progressive/liberal trend among the Colleges/Universities, and many of the Conferences and ministries listed?

Although most of the Seattle booklet gives the impression that the Project is a mainline church supported Project, a couple of the ads give a hint at the possible direction of the Project. “Change Everything”, Really? “Re:Live” is the liberal/progressive youth ministry at Loma Linda University Church under the leadership of Tim Gillespie (See presentation 8 for more details). How have these ministries lived up to the Project’s claim: “Their brave commitment to freedom in Jesus can be seen in their own stance and their support of us”? (see Seattle Booklet pages 1, 107)

The Seattle One Project was also the first large gathering that was publicized in many church papers. What were/are the stated goals of the Project? How would/have the official church papers represent the project?

At first glance the report in the Adventist Review, gave what appeared to be a very positive version of the Project’s beginning and the gathering in Seattle. One not familiar with the background of the project leaders would have no reason to question the focus of the Project as presented in the Review.

(Ansel Oliver, “’One Project’ Focuses on Adventists’ Relationship With Jesus,” Adventist Review, March 15, 2012, pp. 10-12)

At first glance the report in the Adventist Review gave what appeared to be a very accurate version of the Project’s beginning and the gathering in Seattle. One not familiar with the background of the project leaders would have no reason to question the focus of the Project as presented in the Review.

Participants where even encouraged to read the four Gospels and The Desire of Ages by Ellen White before coming to the gatherings. One would expect then that this would be a topic of discussion, right?

The April 2012 issue of the NPUC Gleaner published two articles on the Seattle One Project gathering. The first article was published as “Washington Conference News,” and the second as “Walla Walla University News.” Both articles presented the Project in nothing but a positive light.

(NPUC Gleaner, April 2012, pp. 1, 22, 26)

The April issue of the NPUC Gleaner published two articles on the Seattle One Project gathering. The first article under “Washington Conference News,” published supportive comments by John McLarty, former Adventist Today editor, describing the Project gathering as simply making Jesus central.

Comments were also published by John Freedman, Washington Conference president, giving the impression that he along with other leaders from western Washington, were supportive of all that the Project gathering presented. As we will see however this was not the case (see slide 75).

The April issue of the NPUC Gleaner published two articles on the Seattle One Project gathering. The second article under “Walla Walla University News,” published supportive statements by students who attended.

Although many of the main leaders of the One Project have backgrounds in liberal, progressive, or contemporary church services, rock bands, and post modern approaches to worship, and although many of the Project leaders currently support such worship services in the local church congregations (see Presentations 5 through 9), the One Project appears to have been currently packaged in a much more conservative worship format.

The worship songs listed in the Seattle booklet are mostly hymns, some from the pioneer days. Young musicians were “invited” to take part who play what many would consider classical music instruments. This was a feature highly publicized in the Church papers about the One Project Seattle gathering.

(http://www.the1project.org/resources/documents/seattle-booklet.pdf [this booklet is not longer available online])

(http://the1project.smugmug.com/Gatherings/Seattle/22409901_rhnMRf#!i=1795495348&k=FdN5nQC)

(http://the1project.smugmug.com/Gatherings/Seattle/22409901_rhnMRf#!i=1795495257&k=c7MtKbw&lb=1&s=X2)

(http://the1project.smugmug.com/Gatherings/Seattle/22409901_rhnMRf#!i=1795495575&k=wBvPPFQ)

(NPUC Gleaner, April 2012, p. 26)

The NPUC Gleaner presents the worship style of The One Project as simple worship. The Project leaders even invited certain musicians to come and play for the gathering who were then “interviewed” for articles published in church papers.

Although many of the main leaders of the One Project have backgrounds in liberal, progressive, or contemporary church services, rock bands, and post modern approaches to worship, and although many of the Project leaders currently support such worship services in the local church congregations, The One Project appears to have been currently packaged in a much more conservative worship format.

The One Project was scheduled to take place not in a meeting hall but in a ball room with a stage surrounded by tables. A center stage was set up for the speakers from which to make short presentations (with large screens projecting their talks around the room). Following their presentations “conversations” were to follow at each table. The full two day gathering featured only about 4 hours of presentations and probably three times that amount of facilitated “conversation”.

(http://www.andrews.edu/focus/archives/2012-1-focus-web.pdf) page. 19

(http://the1project.smugmug.com/Gatherings/Seattle/22409901_rhnMRf#!i=1795276981&k=z4pK7wb&lb)

(http://the1project.smugmug.com/Gatherings/Seattle/22409901_rhnMRf#!i=1795288080&k=Sf6rQWb)

(http://the1project.smugmug.com/Gatherings/Seattle/22409901_rhnMRf#!i=1795495013&k=R6vDpP2)

The Adventist Review article on the One Project gathering mentions the meeting format and gives some reasons why this was chosen.

(Ansel Oliver, “’One Project’ Focuses on Adventists’ Relationship With Jesus,” Adventist Review, March 15, 2012, pp. 10-12)

De Oliveira describes how even the gathering’s format was planned based on similar conferences that he has attended (many conferences, which by the way, are driven by Emerging Church concepts). There is nothing wrong with setting around tables at a conference and nothing wrong with conversations following a presentation. But we must remember that there is a very well thought out plan and purpose that the Emerging Church movement is working off of in order to push their agenda! We should ask if this is not the same with the One Project based on the history of the gathering’s main leaders? We will look at the idea of “conversations” among the Emerging Church a little later in this presentation.

(The comment about “we didn’t want to have another event that’s packed with programming all day” may be a reference to GYC. See below).

The One Project idea was born through “conversation” and continues to promote it’s concepts based on the same plan. The One Project “conversations,” according to it’s leaders, seem to be geared for those who are questioning their own or the churches beliefs and/or those who are frustrated with the Church. Thus the Project seems geared toward the progressive Advent movement who have many an axe to grind, but while seeking to be under the auspices or support of the mainline Church itself. The Project plans to continue the “conversation” in the future. What does that mean?

The NPUC Gleaner even titles its article after the concept of “conversations.” But it seems difficult to ascertain, especially perhaps to the passive reader, just what the real substance or purpose is for generating these “conversations”. There is an undeniable sense that the Project is seeking to bring about a change, but what is this “Jesus conversation” and what is the change that is being sought?

(Heidi Martella, “Washington Leaders Join Jesus Conversation in Seattle,” Gleaner, April 2012, p. 22)

(Martin Surridge, “The One Project—Seattle,” Gleaner, April 2012, p. 26)

It is not as though the church has never sought to lift of Jesus. What is it about Jesus that the Project is presenting?

The NPUC Gleaner article on Walla Walla University News seems to offer similar nebulous insights into the idea of the what exactly these “conversations” offer. Based on Alex Bryan’s history what is it that “God is up to” and what is the “fresh conversation”? He said similar things about his Church plant in Atlanta, driven by Willow Creek ideas which he apparently has never denounced. There seems to be a real drive to pull Adventist young people into this movement. The question is, what kind of revolution are we talking about?

After looking at the Review and Gleaner portrayal of the purpose for the gathering we should allow De Oliveira to speak for himself. This 2:40 minute clip taken from the Monday morning Welcome (Feb. 13, 2012), shows De Oliveira explaining the Seattle gathering, the purpose of conversations and facilitators. He gives the impression that there is no agenda in the presentations, just conversation starters. But was the gathering really that way?

Not only were the presentations planned based on the Project leaders pre-thought-out themes, but the “conversations” taking place at each table after each presentation were guided by hand picked “facilitators” and based on the pre-published booklet with “Recalibrate” outlines for each presentation. This style of “conversation” is very popular among the Emerging Church movement (see below).

The One Project Seattle gathering booklet listed most of the 700 attendees. Their web site also listed their ~85 hand picked “facilitators” which would help guide the “conversations” following each presentation (this list has since been removed). There was also a list of “tips” in the booklet to help guide the facilitators.

The One Project Seattle gathering booklet listed most of the 700 attendees. Their web site also listed their hand picked “facilitators” which would help guide the “conversations” following each presentation (this list has since been removed). There was also a list of “tips” in the booklet to help guide the facilitators. At face value it all seems like great advice to help “facilitate” “conversations” that will help Jesus to be All in the Adventist Church. …

Again, there is nothing wrong with having a facilitator of conversations, but the One Project list of ~85 hand picked facilitators (no longer posted) could be easily seen as a who’s who of current progressive/liberal Adventist pastors, educators and administrators, many of which have spent their life energies on bringing about a grand reformation, as they see it, into the Adventist Church.

One of those “facilitators” was Washington state Pastor John McLarty, former Adventist Today editor (1997 – 2007) and blogger at liberaladventist.blogspot.com . The NPUC Gleaner highlighted McLarty in their article about the Seattle gathering, although inaccurately stating that McLarty “joined a small group discussion” instead of stating that he was the “facilitator of a small group discussion.” McLarty also wrote a very revealing article for Adventist Today about the gathering which we will take a look at below.

What was the overall direction of the “conversations” led by these hand picked “facilitators”?

(Heidi Martella, “Washington Leaders Join Jesus Conversation in Seattle,” Gleaner, April 2012, p. 22)

(http://the1project.smugmug.com/Gatherings/Seattle/22409901_rhnMRf#!i=1795495401&k=Hbz6DV5)

But before we continue looking at the Seattle gathering, we should pause and ask about the one facilitator that the Gleaner highlighted in their article about the One Project. That “facilitator” was Washington Pastor John McLarty, former Adventist Today editor (1997 – 2007) and blogger at liberaladventist.blogspot.com . What was the overall direction of the “conversations” led by these hand picked “facilitators”? We will diverge for just a few slides (4) to take a look at John McLarty's roots in Adventism (an entire presentation could probably be devoted to this topic).

During his 10 years of editorship of Adventist Today, McLarty mixed no bones about his denial of the sanctuary doctrine and his support of Desmond Ford and Raymond Cottrell (and their assault on Adventist’s foundations). In 2003 McLarty’s Adventist Today Editorial highlighted Raymond Cottrell’s challenging Adventism’s foundational beliefs (or rather his latter apostasy from foundational Adventism), describing Cottrell as a “prophet” in his own right.

(John Mclarty, “Notes From the Editor: The community and Its Prophets,” Adventist Today, Jan. – Feb. 2003, p. 2)

McLarty mixed no bones about his denial of the sanctuary doctrine and his support of Desmond Ford and Raymond Cottrell during his 10 years of editorship of Adventist Today. In 2003 McLarty’s Editorial highlighted Raymond Cottrell’s latter apostasy from foundational Adventism, describing Cottrell as a “prophet” in his own right. Cattrell had also given up the view of a literal 7 day creation.

The applying prophetic status to modern day progressive Adventists is something very common in the pages of Adventist Today over the past several years. For more documentation on this subject email: returnofthelatterrain@gmail.com.

The 2006 third quarter Adventist Adult Sabbath School lessons (written by Clifford Goldstein) was devoted to the topic of “The Gospel, 1844 and the Judgment.” So for three months (July – September, 2006), the world church studied this Biblical foundational Adventist doctrine of the Sanctuary, 1844 and the Judgment. Adventist Today, on the other hand, led by editor Pastor John McLarty, staged an ongoing assault on the topic of 1844 with its pro Desmond Ford and Raymond Cottrell anti-sanctuary stance. Yet, McLarty was one of the hand picked “facilitators” at The One Project Seattle gathering, and was also supportively presented in the NPUC Gleaner article about the Project.

The 2006 third quarter Adventist Adult Sabbath School lessons (written by Clifford Goldstein) was devoted to the topic of “The Gospel, 1844 and the Judgment.” So for three months (July – September, 2006), the world church studied this Biblical foundational Adventist doctrine of the Sanctuary, 1844 and the Judgment. Adventist Today on the other hand, led by editor Pastor John McLarty, staged an ongoing assault on the topic of 1844 with its pro Desmond Ford and Raymond Cottrell anti-sanctuary stance. Yet, McLarty was one of the hand picked “facilitators” at The One Project Seattle gathering, and was also supportively presented in the NPUC Gleaner article.

What kind of “conversation” would this pastor (and many others like him facilitating at the One Project gathering), help lead Adventist young people into?

With the above in mind we will now return to the One Project Seattle gathering.

Although the Adventist Review and the NPUC Gleaner do not give a full description of the “conversations” that were orchestrated at the Seattle gathering, Adventist Today and Spectrum magazine do give a revealing description, which is very supportive and sympathetic as well. We will now look at how these organizations described the “sermons” and “conversations” that took place in Seattle.

(http://www.atoday.org/article/1031/news/february-headlines/the-one-project-gathering-in-seattle-attracts-700)

(http://www.atoday.org/article/1322/blogs/brown-nathan/a-second-look-at-the-one-project)

(http://www.atoday.org/article/1024/news/february-headlines/the-one-project-focuses-on-the-one-at-the-center-of-adventist-faith)

(http://spectrummagazine.org/node/3799)

John McLarty, one of the gatherings facilitators and ex-editor of Adventist Today (see above), wrote and article about his experience at the Seattle gathering. His description of what took place there is much more enlightening than what appeared to be the “politically correct” written articles printed in the official church papers.

Nathan Brown, who attended both the Seattle and the Sydney Australia gathering (July 2012), shared through Adventist Today some more insights about the “conversations” at each of these gatherings. Although he was overall supportive of the movement and concepts, he did offer some gentle criticisms.

The Adventist Today News team wrote up and article on the Seattle gathering. What is most interesting is the concept that the one and only thing that people can agree on is Jesus All. Yet the gathering as we shall see, for the purpose of Jesus All, was characterized and couched as a conversation starter to take on many of the contemporary debates and controversies, most of which are held dear by the Progressive Adventist movement.

In other words, it seems to come across as: “So many are tired of the endless debates, so lets put aside all these debates and make Jesus All, … but now that we’ve made Jesus all lets take on all the controversy’s dear to us all in the name of Jesus All”!

Sam Neves is pastor of the Wimbledon International & South London Portuguese Seventh-day Adventist Churches. He came and attended the Seattle gathering and then wrote an article for Spectrum Magazine. His concepts mirrors those found in the above Adventist Today article. “Jesus All” (as we will see below) is being used as a means to push away from Adventist distinctives and doctrines that supposedly eclipse the Jesus Adventism is trying to share, yet “Jesus All” is also being used as a cloak to present that “revolutionary message” that apparently the One Project Jesus is so concerned about.

If we want to see the effect of years of such “conversations” generated by a “community of faith”, we have only to look at the fruits of Spectrum Magazine and Adventist Today. Both are built on this philosophy that community is built through such conversations. A perusal of the past forty years of Spectrum and twenty years of Adventist Today would show where many participants have been, have gone and are now headed. Is there a similar trajectory for The One Project?

Alex Bryan, one of the founders of the Project, also wrote a reflective response following the Seattle gathering, which was posted on the Project’s web page. Once again Bryan reveals much more about the “conversations” at the gathering than the official church papers did.

(http://the1project.org/blog/one-project-reflections-by-alex.html)

Alex Bryan, one of the founders of the Project, also wrote a reflective response following the Seattle gathering, which was posted on the Project’s web site. Once again Bryan reveals much more about the “conversations” at the gathering than the official church papers did.

We will consider below Alex’s list of topics discussed and his claim that there was “an absence of ill spirit toward any one or any one group” during the “conversations.”

The two day schedule featured eight scheduled presentations or conversation starters that were meant to be 20 minutes each. Thus the sum total of presentations for the gathering took up less than 4 hours. The “conversations” that followed took up at least double that time if not more. The topics were to cover “Jesus” in Adventist history, 1844, 1888, 1957, and present, as well as looking to the future and seeing Jesus in Adventist doctrines, mission and community.

However, it did not take long into the first meeting to realize that Adventist history, from 1844 to present, would not be looked upon as a golden age, but one of failure beginning to end.

As we look now closer at the Seattle gathering to see what “conversations” took place, we need to remember that indeed the last day church is described as Laodicean and sees its self in totally different terms than the heavenly Witness. Ellen White also stated many times during her ministry that had Adventists done their appointed work they would have been in the heavenly kingdom. This is all true. However, we must allow the Bible to define what causes Laodicea’s condition and what the true remedy really is, otherwise we could very well be deceived by Satan's counterfeit call to repentance and his “new reformation.”

All of this we must keep in mind as week continue. At the same time we must be clear that we are not judging the motives or sincere intent of those who sense a need for change in our church, a remedy for the Laodicean condition, but only question if the agenda of the Projects leaders as seen in their history is what our church really needs.

At the very first meeting Tim Gillespie explained that the One Project speakers would be looking at different times in Adventist history to show how the picture of Jesus had been graffitied. Yet Gillespie made it clear that there never had been a golden era of Adventism. He seemed to hold very negative feelings toward Adventism past and present and only hoped that there would soon be a change. He seemed to offer only a choice between Jesus and Adventism, as if the two were pitted against each other. (3:13 Minutes)

The feelings expressed by Tim Gillespie seemed to be held by all the speakers to a certain degree. Although they all had some good points there seemed to be many generalizations and mischaracterizations. The Millerite movement was presented as one of gross errors. Details of Adventist history were left out or misrepresented. Some speakers seemed angry, others flippant or cynical, some sincere but seemed to present with many generalizations which could only mislead. When something positive was said about Adventist history it was usually for the purpose of seeking to point out some problem with mainline Adventism today. (4:24 Minutes)

Adventism's foundational connection with Daniel and Revelation was made light of. Miller’s mode of studying the scripture to find truth was presented in a negative light. It seemed that prophetic topics could not be mentioned (past or present), without a cynical or undercutting comment being made. Details of Adventist history were once again misrepresented. (4:09 minutes)

Adventist Lifestyle was also spoken of in a negative light. When it was mentioned it was often in jest. There seemed to be an embarrassment and feelings of hindrance from Adventists stances. We need to be a dancing people. The numerous numbers of ex-Adventists were blamed on the use of the “red books”. Yet Adventists were blamed for saying “nothing” about modern day world wide abuses. (4:17 Minutes)

But if Adventism was spoken of in negative terms, past and present, there was one thing that was not criticized at the Seattle gathering and that was Emergent Church ideas, authors and books. In fact, if anything they were promoted. All the above books have received prominent exposure at Project gatherings thanks to the Project leaders. ReJesus and Next Christians were given out or sold at the Atlanta One Project gathering in Feb. 2011. A copy of Simply Jesus and I Am a Follower, by Leonard Sweet, were given to each of the nearly 700 participants at the Seattle gathering in Feb. 2012. (The book 7 Keys for Finding Jesus in the Book of Revelation (2012), by Steve Case and Daniel Wysong was also given to each participant).

For more information: ReJesus: A Wild Messiah for a Missional Church, by Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch (see presentation 5); The Next Christians: The Good News About the End of Christian America (2010), by Gabe Lyons (see presentation 5); Simply Jesus: A New Vision of Who He Was, What He Did, and Why He Matters (2006), by N. T. Wright (see presentation 6); I Am A Follower: The Way, Truth and Life of Following Jesus, (Jan. 2012), by Leonard Sweet (see presentation 4). Notice: “Leonard Sweet is a theological poet.”—Shane Claiborne. (on cover) “Its never been about leading”. (on cover at bottom).

(http://www.amazon.com/ReJesus-Wild-Messiah-Missional-Church/product-reviews)

(http://www.amazon.com/The-Next-Christians-Christian-America/product-reviews/)

(http://www.amazon.com/Simply-Jesus-Vision-What-Matters/dp/0062084399)

(http://www.amazon.com/Am-Follower-Truth-Following-Jesus/product-reviews/)

(http://the1project.smugmug.com/Gatherings/Gatherings/22376237_dK9fpF#!i=1789197460&k=hjHT2KW)

(http://the1project.smugmug.com/Gatherings/Seattle/22409901_rhnMRf#!i=1795495386&k=BRm5Sbk&lb=1&s=XL)

(http://the1project.smugmug.com/Gatherings/Seattle/22409901_rhnMRf#!i=1795495417&k=66Hn5pw&lb=1&s=L)

(http://the1project.smugmug.com/Gatherings/Seattle/22409901_rhnMRf#!i=1795495401&k=Hbz6DV5)

Other evidence was seen in the Seattle gathering booklet. Page 62 explained that such books were given to each participant paid for by registration fees. Leonard Sweet was quoted on page 105 from his newly released book, I Am a Follower. Sweet’s concepts also seemed to pop up in other places in the booklet and in the presentations at the gathering. This makes perfect sense when we remember that 4 of the 5 main leaders of the Project graduated from George Fox University under Leonard Sweet (see presentations 6 -9). The “philosophy” of the One Project is based on many of the Emerging Church authors (see presentation 5).

Yes it is true, a true leader needs to be a follower of Jesus, but Sweets concepts in I Am a Follower go far beyond that (see presentation 4).

John McLarty however, sheds even more light on this issue, indicating that Alex Bryan made it a specific emphasis of his presentation to question Adventism’s supposed culture of turning away from non-Adventist authors.

John McLarty however, sheds even more light on this issue, indicating that Alex Bryan made it a specific emphasis of his presentation to question Adventism’s culture of turning away from non-Adventist authors. Alex used the analogy of the Adventist Hymnal, which has hymns written by many non-Adventists. The question was than ask if it would be a better book without all those other hymns. Although a very well thought out presentation, it takes only a few moments of reflection to see many serious flaws begin to surface when this analogy is drawn out to mean that Adventist should therefore use and promote Emerging Church authors so prominent in the Evangelical world today in order to be relevant.

De Olivier seemed to make light of the fact that some were reading Emergent Church author N. T. Wright’s Simply Jesus, which each Project attendee received. Alex Bryan uses the Adventist Hymnal to suggest Adventists need to be more open to non-SDA authors. Obviously much more went on in the “conversations” following his presentation as seen in McLarty’s article above, drawn from this presentation. (4:07 minutes)

Alex Bryan continues to promote his view points about non-Adventist Emerging Church authors, across the country and around the globe, through the One Project and through other speaking engagements. Thursday, Nov. 1, 2012 he presented at Southwestern Adventist University assembly, and again for Friday night worship, Nov. 2. What aspects he shared about the Project’s agenda were not posted but it seems that his philosophy is rapidly spreading.

(http://spirituallife.site.swau.edu/ministries/friday-night-worship-2/)

(http://southwesterner.swau.edu/?p=4297)

(We will diverge from the One Project for a moment to look at how far the Emerging Church influence has come into the Adventist church and the response of the Review editor Bill Knott.)

Eric Anderson is President of Southwestern Adventist University. Whether he picked up on Alex Bryan’s concepts through the One Project, or through Bryan’s presentations at Southwestern in November 2012, or whether he has just come to similar views on his own, Anderson very openly expressed a culmination of Emerging Church ideas similar to that of Bryan’s in this front page article of the Adventist Review. Notice the connection of his thoughts and the amalgamation of word definitions.

Eric Anderson is President of Southwestern Adventist University. Whether he picked up on Alex Bryan’s concepts through the One Project, or through Bryan’s presentations at Southwestern in November 2012, or whether he has just come to similar views on his own, Anderson very openly expressed a culmination of Emerging Church ideas similar to that of Bryan’s in this front page article of the Adventist Review. Notice the connection of his thoughts and the amalgamation of word definitions.

Anderson has an endnote which reads in part: “‘Mystical’ and ‘mysticism’ almost always connote a nonbiblical and theoretical speculation that is opposed to the Word of God. Her insistence that each believer needs a personal spiritual encounter and relationship with God makes the term as I have defined it appropriate to describe her.” Thus Anderson has redefined the term and then applied it to Ellen White’s writings. Will this only blur the lines and confuse the reader to his not so subtle attempts to bring non-Adventist mysticism into our church?

Eric Anderson also uses the same hymnal analogy that Alex Bryan has so freely used at The One Project gatherings while promoting the idea that we need to be using non-Adventist Emerging Church authors. What are the “practices” that Anderson is talking about?

Anderson then shares his own personal experience.

Is this really what our Adventist Review readership needs to be reading? Is this the direction that Adventism needs to go? Is this the answer for our Laodicean condition?

It did not take long for responses to come into the Review against Anderson’s article. Even with the Review’s questionable policy with “Letters to the Editor” (see below), they still published several condemnatory responses.

The Online version of the Review ‘s “Letters” section had the caption for these responses as “What is a Christian?” But Anderson’s article was “What is a Mystic?” Are the two words synonymous? Anderson and the Review would apparently like us to believe so.

The Review also published several supportive Letters. The same shallow support for using mystical writers found in Anderson’s article are also found in these letters.

Its seems that letters continued to come in to the Review regarding Anderson’s article. We have no way of knowing how many others came to the Review that were not published.

Its seems that letters continued to come in to the Review regarding Anderson’s article. We have no way of knowing how many others came to the Review that were not published. Even the Associate Director of the Ellen G. White Estate wrote her disapproval of the article, pointing out that Anderson was misleading in trying to make Ellen White say that which she never did.

Two months later and letters to the editor continued to come into the Review in response to Anderson’s article. The Review published just one of these letters of concern in the March 14 print issue, but it was surrounded by two very supportive letters. This being the same week that Bill Knott’s editorial handed out scathing rebukes to the “little minds” of those who had concerns, it would seem that the “Letters” section was designed to support such a premise.

Webmaster note: Bill Knott is, or was, one of the instructors of Spiritual Formation at Andrews.

Webmaster note: Bill Knott is, or was, one of the instructors of Spiritual Formation at Andrews.

The Online edition listed this letter of concern (different from the print edition) but had the following response from the “editors”:

“Your concerns have their place. Anderson’s article clearly acknowledges the term’s potential problems. Is it not still true that in prayer and meditation we are intimately engaged with the God who is Spirit, and Who is Lord and Creator of the vast universe?—The Editors” (http://www.adventistreview.org/article/6009/archives/issue-2013-1503/web-letters)

The first letter listed in the previous slide was the only letter of concern published in the March 14 print edition and couched between these two letters of support.

The second supportive letter to the Editor listed here was found first on the online edition of the Feb. 21 issue, but was latter added to the this March 14 print edition, the same week Bill Knott shared his cynical editorial (see below). The letter was written by someone at the Seminary, and seemed to be in response to some of the letters of concern written prior. What will be the influence on future generations of young people?

Webmaster note: Bill Knott is, or was, one of the instructors of Spiritual Formation at Andrews.

This letter to the Editor was found first on the online edition of the Feb. 21 issue, but was latter added to this March 14 print edition, the same week Bill Knott shared his cynical editorial (see below). The letter was written by someone at the Seminary, and seemed to be in response to some of the letters of concern written prior. What will be the influence on future generations of young people?

Webmaster note: Bill Knott is, or was, one of the instructors of Spiritual Formation at Andrews.

This supportive Letter to the editor was posted under Web Letters for the March 14 online edition. The letter didn’t show up in print however, until the March 21^st issue (after Bill Knot’s scathing March 14 Editorial), but with some interesting editorial changes. The statement: “I commend the Adventist Review….” found in this March 14 Web Letters editions was changed to: “I highly commend editor Bill Knott….” in the March 21^stst print issue. How did Merle Whitney really write the letter? Was the letter edited like that in the March 21 issue to help buoy up the Editor after his accusatory remarks?

Webmaster note: Bill Knott is, or was, one of the instructors of Spiritual Formation at Andrews.

The Editor finally responded, obviously tired of all the letters speaking against the “What is a Mystic?” article. In the March 14, 2013 issue Bill Knott’s editorial not only took exception to the negative letters but lashed out against what he called the “simple minded,” “fringe” minority of “anti-intellectuals” who were “too afraid to read.”

(http://www.adventistreview.org/issue.php?issue=2013-1507&page=6)

Webmaster note: Bill Knott is, or was, one of the instructors of Spiritual Formation at Andrews.

His editorial was written with several quotes from non-SDA writers followed by his sarcastic remarks about those who have concerns about such authors. But his comments were built on straw men, misrepresentations, and overstatements.

Webmaster note: Bill Knott is, or was, one of the instructors of Spiritual Formation at Andrews.

The first statement was published only in the web issue for March 21^st. The second “Letter” by Daniel Winters in the March 21 print edition was a repeat of the same letter as found in the Feb. 14, 2013 print issue.

This supportive Letter to the editor was posted under Web Letters for the March 14 online edition. The letter didn’t show up in print however, until this March 21^st issue (after Bill Knot’s scathing March 14 Editorial), but with some interesting editorial changes. The statement: “I commend the Adventist Review….” found in the March 14 Letters of the Web edition was changed to: “I highly commend editor Bill Knott….” in this March 21^stst print issue. How did Merle Whitney really write the letter? Was the letter edited like that in the March 21 issue to help buoy up the Editor after his accusatory remarks?

Webmaster note: Bill Knott is, or was, one of the instructors of Spiritual Formation at Andrews.

Reading the Editorial by Bill Knott (above) leads me to wonder if the Associate Director of the White Estate, who’s letter of concern is also quoted above, is among the “minority” of “misguided fringes” of Adventism, who have “little minds” and are full of “anti-intellectualism” and “too fearful to read”? And what about the General Conference President, Ted Wilson, who had the following to say during his Sabbath sermon at the Oct. 2012 Autumn Council; is he among this shallow minded group which Bill Knott speaks of?

Webmaster note: Bill Knott is, or was, one of the instructors of Spiritual Formation at Andrews.

“On Sabbath, October 13, 2012, General Conference President Pastor Ted N.C. Wilson appealed to Seventh-day Adventists to unite in spreading the three angels’ messages to a chaotic and dying world, during a sermon at the world headquarters of the movement in Silver Spring, Maryland.”

(http://the1project.smugmug.com/Gatherings/Seattle/22409901_rhnMRf#!i=1795279844&k=xgfGZfw&lb=1&s=X2)

(http://the1project.smugmug.com/Gatherings/Seattle/22409901_rhnMRf#!i=1795284497&k=3gkSVWW)

But Alex Bryan had more to talk about at the Seattle gathering than the need for Adventists to read non-Adventist Emerging Church authors.

Playing off the ideas of George Knight Alex Bryan reviewed the history behind Questions on Doctrine. He built on the idea that in 1957 Adventism was seeking to escape the common view that we were a cult and not part of the Christian world. Bryan then suggested that QOD didn’t stir up problems as much as it uncovered a crisis in Adventism that had existed from its very beginning, a crisis of its identity. How should Adventists relate to the Christian world, being peculiar, unique and the Remnant? Now however, Bryan feels that it time to take a new direction, putting aside our questions about our purpose and identity and asking instead “who Jesus is.” He then illustrated this by suggesting that the Adventist Church is only one piece of a 3000 piece puzzle of religions that represent the total picture of Jesus. Thus we need to be concerned not on our identity but Jesus which we have common with the world.

After all the presentations, Alex Bryan’s included, the table “conversations” would continue with discussions meant to help “Recalibrate” through guided questions made available in the gathering booklet. Many of these questions carried the same theme of questioning Adventism's identity as Alex Bryan and the other One Project presenters had done.

Click here to go to Emerging Church and The One Project - presentation 10b

Site Navigation[Skip]

10 The Emerging Church and The One Project - Part 10