Some might think that George Knight is only and always a liberal, but the theme of his 2008 book, “The Apocalyptic Vision and the Neutering of Adventism” was profoundly conservative. Essentially, Knight argued that although Adventism grew out of the intense prophetic interpretation of the Millerite movement, and a focus on prophecy long characterized the church, lately the church has lost its apocalyptic vision. Very few Adventist pastors preach on the subject of prophecy, and many would not be able to even if they wanted to, because they just don’t know the material. The introductory blurb states:
The Seventh-day Adventist Church was founded upon an apocalyptic message that needed to be preached to the entire world--immediately and at any cost. But does the church today preach that same message with the same urgency? Has the Adventist Church become irrelevant because it has sought to be more relevant to the world? Does the Adventist Church have any reason for existence if it has lost that which makes it different from all the rest of Christianity?
And if in fact Adventism has neutered itself, is there anything we can do--as individuals and as a denomination--to remedy this shocking condition in which we find ourselves?
Knight challenges us to go back to our roots, to examine the prophecies that fueled the early Seventh-day Adventists' determination to evangelize the world. Buried within the books of Daniel and Revelation are the only reasons for this end-time church to exist. But beware: you may have to uproot yourself from the pew in order to be truly Adventist.
My 2009 review of Knights book is below:
In this short but thoughtful book, George Knight argues that Seventh-day Adventism is in the process of de-emphasizing its historic apocalyptic message and mission, and that if it does, it will become irrelevant and wither away.
He notes that the mainline Protestant denominations traded their historic Christian beliefs for a mess of modernist pottage, and since the 1960s have been shrinking, in some cases dramatically. He notes that many younger Adventist pastors not only do not highly value the Church's historic apocalyptic message, they are not even familiar with it. If we abandon our apocalyptic message, however, Adventism will neuter itself and become irrelevant.
Knight has problems with the way some Adventist evangelists have presented the Church's apocalyptic message—in a way that is not Christ-centered—which he calls “beastly preaching.” But he argues that the basic structure of the church’s prophetic message is sound. Specifically, even though the historical method of prophetic interpretation has been abandoned in favor of preterism and futurism by virtually everyone except Adventists, the historical method is dictated by the second chapter of Daniel, and the rest of Daniel, as well as Revelation, follows from that template. Likewise, the day/year principle is grounded in the 70 weeks prophecy that accurately predicts the Messiah's appearance and death, and cannot be overthrown without deranging the entire prophetic structure.
Knight argues that the Adventist interpretation of 1844, the sanctuary, and the investigative judgment are sound, except that Adventists have used the doctrine of the judgment as an occasion for legalism, when in reality it centers around and celebrates the sufficiency of Christ’s merits on our behalf. He notes that Adventists have become ensared with arguing about chronology and about the furniture in the heavenly sanctuary to the point of losing sight of the larger truths. Knight even argues that the traditional Adventist interpretation of the three angels messages—as calling out the Sabbath truth—is sound.
So Knight has no real problem with the structure of Adventist prophetic interpretation, except that it has often failed to be Christ-centered, and hence has given our detractors an opportunity to argue that we are a cult and not true evangelical Christians.
Perhaps the real significance of this work is not so much what is being said, but who is saying it. Knight is something of a liberal, or least not a conservative, so if he is concerned that the church is losing its way with regard to its historic mission, that is an alarm bell that must be taken very seriously.
My only criticism is that, in Chapter 4, Knight commits the same mistake that has rendered so much Adventist apocalyptic preaching so annoying, namely, plugging in a pet theory as to how the crisis is upon us. In Knight's case, he mentions Paul Erlich's “Population Bomb,” Jared Diamond’s “Collapse,” and the specter of “global warming.” That is the type of alarmism that appeals to political liberals, but political conservatives dismiss those concerns as nonsense. Knight's mention of the "Population Bomb" is particularly brave in light of (1) his book's title and chief metaphor, and (2) the fact that America's birth rate is just barely at replacement level [that is no longer true; even America’s birthrate is below replacement] and many European countries’ birth rates are plunging far below replacement level. One of our most serious problems will soon be the lack of people, not their overabundance, especially in light of social welfare systems in all the developed nations that are set up like Ponzi schemes, with the younger generation paying for the support payments of the older generation.
* * *
It has now been 16 years since Knight published this book. Does anyone think the situation he complained about has improved? I rather imagine that things have gotten substantially worse!