Kenneth Newport Explains the Flames of Waco

By David R. Larson

Photo by Bronwen Larson

The Branch Davidians themselves intentionally lit the fires that burned Mount Carmel to the ground near Waco, Texas, taking with them the lives of David Koresh, their leader, plus more than seventy others, contended Kenneth G. C. Newport in Loma Linda, California on Wednesday evening, November 14.  What’s more, he contended, they did this because they believed that this is what Scripture wanted them to do.

“Did the biblical text inspire this act of apocalyptic self-destruction?” he asked.  “I think it did, or at least I think that there was a direct relationship between the texts, what the Branch Davidians thought those texts meant, and what happened on April 19, 1993.”

Newport described himself as an academic administrator at Hope Liverpool University College in England and a priest in the Church of England who used to be a Seventh-day Adventist teacher in the religion departments of Newbold College, not far from London, and the denomination’s college in Hong Kong.  Before assuming his present position he earned a doctorate in New Testament at Oxford University and taught at several other universities in the United Kingdom.

This event at the Loma Linda University Campus Hill Church was the first in what will be an annual series of lectures on “Adventism and the World.”  Initiated and organized by Julius Nam, a church historian at LLU, these lectures are sponsored by the University’s School of Religion.

Newport supported his claim that the Branch Davidians ignited the fires by reviewing some of the forensic evidence.  This includes video tapes, audio recordings by “bugs” that had been implanted in the compound, much physical evidence, such as 39 fuel containers that had been purposefully punctured near the spots where it is believed that each of three fires began, the reports of those who investigated Mount Carmel after the flames had burned themselves out, and the testimony of the survivors and officers who were actually there.  His conclusion, stated in the typical understatement of an English scholar:  “One might find it difficult not to conclude that the fire was started by the Davidians themselves.”

He advanced his assertion that the Branch Davidians did this for theological reasons by reviewing their developing views about the religious significance of fire.  Victor Houteff, the founder of the offshoot from Seventh-day Adventism that after several decades and many twists and turns eventuated in the Branch Davidians, held that in an end-time battle over Jerusalem God’s true people “would be protected by God as ‘a wall of fire.’”  Lois Roden, fourth in succession after Houteff’s wife Florence and her husband Ben, taught that before the establishment of God’s kingdom “the remnant would be baptized by fire.”  This baptism, she explained, “will be literal and ‘by immersion.’”

Vernon Howell, known to the world as David Koresh, was a sexual partner of Lois Roden when she was three times his age.  He succeeded her following her death and an intense struggle with her son George, who would later die in an insane asylum.   He also made his contribution to the developing “theology of fire.”  In his “sermons,” some of which were recorded, he spoke of a short term of severe testing before the arrival of “the 200 million strong avenging army to drive the wicked from the world.”  The followers should expect death but “in that second or two before death there will be a moment of absolute, pure faith and it is this that will guarantee a glorious resurrection.” 

Steven Schneider, Koresh’s lieutenant, who in the flames would shoot him in the head from the side and back before stuffing a gun into his own mouth and pulling the trigger, went even further.  Those who would be resurrected will be “as eschatological warriors riding upon horseback—in fact they would come back as the avenging army of God spoken of in Revelation 9:  15-18.”  “You always wanted to be a charcoal briquette” Schneider comments to a colleague in one of the recordings.

In my response to Newport’s presentation, I indicated that his evidence convinces me that the Branch Davidians ignited the flames and that they did so for theological reasons.  I expressed doubt as to whether their beliefs are enough to account for what went wrong, however.  I reported my view that Waco’s horrors were caused by a convergence of very serious theological, psychological and ethical pathologies on both sides of the conflict, the Branch Davidians, on the one hand, and the representatives of the government, on the other.  I indicated my doubt “that by itself their reading of these [Biblical] texts would have caused the Branch Davidians to lite the fires.” 

If only theological considerations mattered, and if Adventist and Branch Davidian beliefs differed primarily in degree, if in effect we can picture David Koresh and Ellen White holding hands, why is it that so few SDAs (less than .00001%) were attracted to the Branch Davidians? I wondered.

I think this issue deserves emphasis.  If we have 10 million brown dogs with normal temperaments and 100 brown dogs with dangerously vicious ones, I doubt that we will try to figure out why their dispositions differ by pointing out that they are all brown.  In effect this is what Newport tries to accomplish.  But it is notoriously difficult to explain why things are different by pointing out how much they are the same.  Furthermore, in the case under consideration the two groups of dogs aren’t even the same color!

In the question and answer time, the audience asked if any Branch Davidians still exist (Yes); whether pathologies actually contributed to what went wrong (Me: Yes; Newport: It’s difficult to know.); whether the beliefs of Adventists and Branch Davidians and Adventists differed in degree or kind (Newport degree; Me: Kind, as evidenced by their diametrically opposed stances on the use of guns and other military weapons in civilian life); and whether the conclusions of Newport and me differed that much (Newport:  Silence;  Me:  That depends upon whether Newport thinks that the beliefs of the Branch Davidians are sufficient to account for what went wrong.).

Questions also surfaced about why Newport left Adventism for the Church of England (“I could no longer teach what I didn’t believe.”); whether Ellen White functions for SDAs like Koresh did for the Branch Davidians (Newport:  Yes;  Me:  No); and whether Adventism as a whole suffers from the pathologies that beset both the Branch Davidians and the government’s representatives (Newport: Silence;  Me:  In every denomination, even the Church of England, there are scary and sick people but this is not true of any community of faith as a whole.).

In addition to being the world’s foremost scholar on Waco, Newport is an accomplished specialist in the life and teachings of Charles Wesley who was born 300 years ago.  Therefore, just before the end of the evening’s event, in gratitude to Kenneth Newport, memory of Charles Wesley and praise to God, the congregation stood and sang one of Wesley’s most cherished hymns:

Love divine, all loves excelling,
Joy of heaven to earth come down;
Fix in us thy humble dwelling;
All thy faithful mercies crown!
Jesus, Thou art all compassion,
Pure unbounded love Thou art;
Visit us with Thy salvation;
Enter every trembling heart!

Julius Nam prayed the Benediction and wished us all the very best.         

Comments

[Johnny A. Ramirez]

I loved being able to attend this great talk. I have to say I was not so interested in offering an apologetic having heard Newports views on Branch Davidian theology.

Degrees was the phrase used to soften differences between the speaker and the respondent. That was helpful especially the notion that Newport was writing his book in part to react against other books which ignored the role of theology in the events at Waco.

In that respect I would agree with Newport that there is a reason Branch Davidians only recruited from within our denomination. That there is something about our theology which lends itself to the Branch Davidian vision. We should own that not run away from it.

In my opinion we can work hard to show how we're not like Koresh and his ilk or we can own our role in the development of their theology. Rather, I was thinking of ways in which his observations could be used as a corrective against tendencies within our own church to construct beliefs which promote the idea that we can somehow hasten the Lords return.

[David R. Larson]

Hi Johnny!

It was great to see you Wednesday night! Welcome home from Scotland!

I think I see what happened at Waco somewhat differently than you. "There is something about our theology which lends itself to the Branch Davidian vision," you write. "We should own that, not run away from it."

If this is in fact the case, over the last 150 years or so our theology should have been developed by other groups with equally terrible results. That this has not happened, that no group of SDAs or former ones that I know of has ever come within our distance from the moon of doing what David Koresh and his followers did, strongly suggests to me that whatever theology they inherited from us was not the decisive variable.

We SDAs have no history of burning people alive. To the contrary, we are well known for building clinics, hospitals, primary and secondary schools, colleges and universities, publishing houses and food factories al over the world. I think I see a difference.

It is instructive to me that until his visit to Loma Linda Newport had never been to one of our medical centers: Loma Linda, Hinsdale, Orlando, Kettering, etc. Not even one. His views of us might have been different if he had visited such places, I think.

I would not be surprised if the ratio of Branch Davidians to SDAs around the world at the time approximated the ratio of those who wore cowboy boots at Mount Carmel to the number of those who wore them within the city limits of Waco.

The cowboy boots worn at Mount Carmel and those worn in Waco looked a lot alike. One can also trace the history of both sets of boots way, way back to some common source(s). So, yes, there is a correlation here and even a historical connection. But I doubt very much that examining cowboy boots is the best way to identify the decisve variable that resulted in the flames of Waco.

After our meeting Wednesday evening, a husband and wife introduced themselves to me and others as Branch Davidians who now live in Orange, California. They told us that they rejected Vernon Howell, aka David Koresh, long before Waco's fires because they viewed him as a manipulating fraud.

To this day they still adhere to Branch Davidian theology but they hold that Koresh did not truly represent it.

There are Davidians, Branch Davidians and Living Water Branch Davidians, the group closest to Koresh in thought and life. This couple rejected the third and still adhere to the second.

If they can "run away" from Koresh, as they do, why can't we?

In his book, Newport discounts the claims of others that the decisive variables are that Koresh was, to use his words, "mad or bad" or both. He does not say that these pathologies also contributed to what went wrong but that in his book he is only concentrating on the theological ones. His is the stronger claim that the beliefs of the Branch Davidians provide the keys to understanding what happened.

Contrary to what our friend Jim suggested on Wednesday evening, Newport's views about what happened and mine differ in kind and not merely degree.

I think theological, psychological and ethical pathologies on both sides of the conflict converged to ignite the flames. Newport identifies only one of the six of these, the theological pathologies among the Branch Davidians.

Thank you, Johnny! It will be interesting to read what others say, if anything!

Dave

[Dick Larsen]

There is a part of Adventist Theology that attracts radicals. This can be seen in reactions to Amazing Facts Evangelistic campaigns. At the last AF meeting I attended, maybe 5 years ago, they were still handing out, supposedly secret Jesuit vows to dismember Protestants. These type of approaches along with conjured end time play by play scenarios will attract radicals.

The Waco and Koresh tale has given itself to no end of speculation and conspiracy stories. Some believe they were killed by the government (read United Nations and Jesuits) because they kept the Sabbath and wouldn't be compromised or something. For me the story has had two disturbing lessons. If power and spiritual abuse combine, there is no controlling limits. At least at that time the US Government seemed completely inept at dealing with radical fundamental religious beliefs (that does not seem to have changed).

[Johnny A. Ramirez]

When I saw Jesus Camp scenes from the "Kids On Fire School of Ministry" calling on children to purify themselves as their generation is key to Christs coming back, I think of our own final generation theology.

I would agree with you that it is incorrect to say there is something uniquely Adventist about the Branch Davidians. There exists within American Christianity a strong apocalyptic vision which springs from places other than William Millers heresy. In that sense I would agree with you that there are qualitative differences between the eschatological visions of Adventism and Branch Davidianism.

But I wouldn't say that denies a relationship of degree even if that degree could merely be said to be the basic idea that we are a group set apart from Babylon which has a distinct or "special" role to play in the eschaton.

I was thinking that there has to be some kind of pathology shared between the Pentecostals in Jesus Camp and the Adventists at AYC/GYC events. That is not a negative statement just an observation that there are impulses common to them both. Are these psychological? Theological? Ethical?

Or is focusing on one or the other aspect useful only up until we begin negating the other two factors? If I remember the discussion that was a point of agreement between you and Newport- that these were not exclusive claims but a preference to emphasize one over the other. That was the suggestion I heard from Jim. That neither felt one aspect or actor was singularly responsible but that these were all factors.

The question then becomes
a. What was the role of Branch Davidian theology in the events at Waco?
b. How pertinent is the Branch Davidian experience to Seventh-day Adventists?

A faith community informs more than just beliefs. Perhaps we are socializing our young people to be overly disposed to authority figures? Or our group world view makes Branch Davidian psychological and moral pathologies more accessible?

I'm not interested in implicating Adventism but rather learning from and gaining perspective within ourselves because of their experience. In that sense I look at Waco as a useful corrective against beliefs (and psychological and ethical pathologies) which either lend themselves or lead to the complex scenario at Waco Texas.

If I am concerned about such impulses on pastoral, moral, psychological and social grounds and I see such beliefs as having negative impacts on the former areas then the Waco story is interesting to me not because of why we are unlike them but precisely because of how we are like them.

It is that pastoral responsibility which informs my perspective- the idea that Adventist community is so strong that Keith Newport says he hasn't been able to get away- we welcome him as we should as our brother. He is our brother. David Koresh is also our brother and I can't help but feel we failed him. There is a difference between culpability, negative responsibility and positive responsibility. I think we as Adventists lose, and Davidians suffer, when we make them the other instead of calling them brother.

Thanks!

[David R. Larson]

Well said, Johnny. Very well said!

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

Back in the QOD days they were referred to as the "lunatic fringe". The end time beliefs of the Latter Days Saints are even more frightening. A dentist fiend and an LDS has a basement stocked with five years of food. He has a 50 cal machine gun retrieved from a B17, he has serveral BAR's, 22's for each of his children and a double barreled 12 gauge shot gun for close up work! He fully expects to use them. Tom

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

Back in the QOD days they were referred to as the "lunatic fringe". The end time beliefs of the Latter Days Saints are even more frightening. A dentist fiend and an LDS has a basement stocked with five years of food. He has a 50 cal machine gun retrieved from a B17, he has serveral BAR's, 22's for each of his children and a double barreled 12 gauge shot gun for close up work! He fully expects to use them. Tom

[Johnny A. Ramirez]

Ken Newport himself is worth reflecting on. His short and honest (and so appreciated!!) account of his experience.

Yes I agree. In my opinion Adventism is, as a progressive present truth church, broad enough to accommodate Ken Newport. While there are those who seek to take Adventism away from its non-creedal roots there are those of us faithful many (instead of faithful few) who experience and create Adventist community in conversation with itself- the kind of community which hosts Ken Newport.

He said he left because he was being asked to teach things he didn't believe in. He says the Anglican church is broad enough for him. I agree with you that Adventist community is broad enough to accommodate the factors he said forced him out.

He said he hasn't been able to leave. His heart reinforced that as in various moments Freudian slips came through and he spoke of "we" and "they".

He didn't come to attack us, he himself, an "ex-Adventist Anglican priest", felt a sort of pastoral responsibility he couldn't escape for his Adventist kin, the Branch Davidians.

[David R. Larson]

Johnny

I repent for agreeing so quickly!

I think we sentimentalize things when we do not squarely face how dangerous Koresh was and how diametrically opposed to SDA thinking his views were at the relevant points of comparison.

It would be odd to say that two cars who have a head-on collision are actually traveling the same direction because they both have four wheels. Comparisons have to made at the pertinent points.

From Houteff on down it has been the teaching of the Davidians that God will slaughter and leave lying in their own blood all SDAs who do not accept their message.

It is difficult for me to seen this doctrine as an elaboration, extension of intensification of our own.

Jim did suggest that Newport and I disagree in degree, not kind. My answer, as I recall it, was that I beleive that Adventist beliefs and Branch Davidian doctrines differed in kind. The other part of my answer was that if Newport agreed that the theological factors were not enough to explain what happened at Waco, that the psychological and ethical variables must also be factored in, then we differ in the degree to which we emphasize each of the variables; however, if it is his contention that what the Branch Davidians believed is sufficient to explain how they behaved, then I differ with him in kind.

I do not remember hearing a response from him on this specific matter. Do you? If so, this might account for our somewhat different reactions to his presentation.

Thank you!

Dave

[johnny a ramirez)]

dave,
you are correct- are these mutually exclusive or do they live together in tension?

[Bill Cork]

On a recent trip through Waco we stopped at the Branch Davidian compound. The current group no longer include SDA in their name (thank goodness). There's a new church building on the property, with a museum. There's a grove of crepe myrtles planted in memory of those who died, along with a stone memorial. They have said they welcome visitors (hence the museum), but no one was around--and we felt a bit creeped out, so didn't stay to look for anyone. At the entrance is a welcome sign--but it says TX DOT (Department of Transportation) employees will be considered trespassers (the current folks think TX DOT has been after their property since before the siege for a new highway corridor).

[Pat Travis]

Well,

At least consider the positive...they kept the Sabbath and were vegetarians!...Just forgot what it meant to be a Christian!

Can we just accept the fact that there are are "nuts" in the world?

[David R. Larson]

Yes!

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

David

Yes there are nuts out there, but why encourage them?

Any end-time scheme brings them out of the wood work.

I think our commission was to the preach the Gospel. The Gospel of Revelation is the Jesus Christ reigns. He is in charge. All this get ready! Be ready! leads to a defensive not a victorious way of life. Tom

[Neville]

Tom,

I have no issue with Adventists' emphasis on "getting ready, being ready", and end-time scenarios that account for Jesus' instructions on how we are to "occupy until he comes".

Healing the sick, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, helping the widows, orphans and "the least of these" are encouraged; building bigger barns, hoarding, trying to forecast the time of Jesus' return and setting time lines, and "arming ourselves for the final conflict" are not.

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

Neville: Right on. Please cite one Power Point evangelistic series that defines getting ready, being ready in your terms of Matt. 25. It certainly didn't come out of the popular Oregon Conference series. Beasts, Horns, Seals, ghostly horses, and Gore. They pale faced lily white hands raised to received "their Lord". Tom

[Pat Travis]

Tom and Neville,

Matt.25:40 “And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’

I would suggest that proper exegesis of the text is referring to those "brothers" that had accepted Christ as savior.

One may choose to enlarge it to the general community but I suggest that is not the focus of the passage.

Regards,

Pat

[David R. Larson]

Pat
This is interpretation surprises me. What more can you say on its behalf?
Thank you!
Dave

[Pat Travis]

Hi Dave,

I happened to look back on this site. My old Spectrum address now sends me to the new site.

Perhaps the question might be, "Who is my neighbor and who is my brother?"

I recognize that the good samaritan helps any who need him...and is a good neighbor.

I think "brother" is nuanced differently however in the examples offered here in Matthew and Mark.

He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” Mt.12:48-50

42 And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward.” Mt.10:42

15 “If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16 But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. Mt.18:15-18.

41 I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward. Mk.9:41.

I believe the "focus" is on assisting His disciples and those professing Him here.

Pat

[Maggie Bockmann]

The "world's foremost scholar on Waco" is convincing us with "forensic evidence" from the burned and razed compound?

Where does one go from there....

Well, I'm not an expert on Waco, but I did know and was friends with Vernon Howell. My then-husband was one of the elders who disfellowshipped him from the Tyler, Texas SDA church.

Vernon and I were friends because we probably spent more hours a day reading the Bible and Ellen White than anyone else in the church.

We were intensely into Ellen White, and very alarmed that the rest of the church was seemingly so indifferent to her. I never joined his cult, but I know how religious and into Ellen White he was. And how emotionally troubled.

If you want to know what I think, I think Waco was a shot across the bow of Adventism.

Only Adventism could create a Vernon Howell, I believe. The Thundering Prophet template is securely in place and comfortable as an old shoe. People are primed to respond to it, if they are temperamentally vulnerable.

SDA evangelistic methods make sure that lots of temperamentally vulnerable people join SDA ranks, IMO, and the Testimonies and social environment in many churches will do their work, once they get in.

They may not burn up on your TV screens, but they are self-immolating right under your noses, if you have eyes to see.

You will have eyes to see if you're interested in seeing past public relations disasters and into the effect SDA and Ellen White have on actual lives and families.

Oh, in order to see many of them, you may have to turn your eyes to the vast SDA Shadow Church, those who have left because they are "bitter." You know the ones.

Someone e-mailed me TODAY, in the midst of black depression, describing an inclination towards a multiple-member family suicide, and felt SDA influence was a primary and insurmountable destructive force in their lives.

When what Arthur Patrick calls the Great Bereavement in Adventism hit, i.e., the Ellen White "fall," I became extremely depressed and incapacitated for many years.

My youngest son committed suicide on the tenth anniversary of Waco, leaving a three-year-old daughter. There was a note in his car that said, "My religion made me crazy," and spoke of his dream of creating a movie in which all the religiously abused people of the world united and set the world free.

There is no way to run away from this. It is what it is. Please take it seriously!

The Great Controversy Theme has waxed old like a garment, I believe.

Perhaps, like Hamlet's Mill, it ground out peace and plenty at the beginning.

In my youth it was decaying and grinding out salt.

With the events at Waco, it is evident to me that it is now at the bottom of the sea, grinding out rock and sand and has created a vast whirlpool, the Maelstrom, which leads to the land of the dead.

It's time to stop being apocalyptic and start being responsible for the earth and each other. The Second Coming is not an exit strategy.

In the end, what matters is not whether Vernon did or did not start the fire. What matters is if Adventism is supporting the development of its people. I believe it is not.

Adventism is a developmental disaster for many, many people, and that is a crime against God.

[Dick Larsen]

This would be a good time for all involved in Adventism to sit quietly and grieve.

[Professor Peter S Marks]

As a former student and classmate of Prof Ken Newport at Newbold College as well as a friend of several residents at Waco I have more than a passing interest in the topic of the evening.

I well remember where I was when I heard the news that Waco was burning.

You will permit me some personal reflection on a very tragic episode.

I remember Ken as a clear thinking academic. It is most unfortunate that the Adventist Church was unable to provide the nurturing environment he needed or so it seems to me.

Ken taught several students who were in the Waco fire. I knew one of them in particular. He was a gifted artist, a new Adventist, (the only one in his family), and was searching for a hyper style of Christianity. He was dissatified with spiritual mediocrity and rather negatively disposed toward the Adventist Church. He certainly was a sitting duck for Koresh and his crony when they visited the Newbold community several days after I departed Mother England for the antipodies.

All it took was a series of small steps from a hyper spirituality before Koresh and his flock were on the slippery slope toward a demonically inspired destruction. (The Devil, after all, is past master at using small footholds in our minds, that we all give him, and pushing us toward a sometimes pathological and demonic religion).

The Apostle calls us to be sober-minded (balanced in our judgement). This sober-mindedness is surrendered by degrees. This is exactly what happened.

God grant us in the Adventist Church pastors and teachers who can assist all of us toward the development and maintaining of such sober-mindedness.

[Elaine Nelson]

Maggie and Peter have dared say what many of us believe: evangelical Adventists have fostered and promoted "end-time" apocalyptism and triumphalism that aided and abetted those who haven't the maturation and stability to withstand such enticements.

One has said that either SDAs or JWs will get the ones who desire all the answers for the future. Humility should deter us from making such future predictions as GOK (God only knows) how events will play out in the future; otherwise we become charlatans and worse.
Anyone recall that 1914 was predicted by Adventists as Armageddon and the pronouncement that Israel would never become a state? We should humbly eat crow and cease and desist from such predictive nonsense.

[Pat Travis]

Peter,

I appreciate this statment of yours, "All it took was a series of small steps from a hyper spirituality before Koresh and his flock were on the slippery slope toward a demonically inspired destructionement."

It seems that "perfectionism" always ends up comparing ourselves among ourselves and then isolating.

Both Hyper spirituality on the one hand or a Hyper Vision for mankind/nation/world on the other have seemingly always been associated with both religious or secular fanaticism and ultimate failure and destruction.

Eccl 7:16-18. "Do not be excessively righteous, and do not be overly wise. Why should you ruin yourself? 17 Do not be excessively wicked, and do not be a fool. Why should you die before your time? 18 It is good that you grasp one thing, and also not let go of the other; for the one who fears God comes forth with both of them."

Regards,
Pat

[Pat Travis]

Elaine,
I would take issue with your comment, "evangelical Adventists have fostered and promoted "end-time" apocalyptism and triumphalism that aided and abetted those who haven't the maturation and stability to withstand such enticements."

My view is...Adventist evangelism was generally completely lacking in the "good news" in our presentations and instead almost totally focused on our understanding of Daniel and Revelation. People were often attracted to "prophecy" and not to Christ...the one who justifies apart from the works of the law.
"Adventist Evangelism" and Evangelical are not necessarily the same!

[Elaine Nelson]

I was speaking of the typical prophetic-centered meetings held by AF and others to exite and entice an audience. Where did Christ come in? It was the end-time events and the Sabbath which seems to have been most prominently emphasized. Neither of which have any salvific value.

Perhaps you can define "Evangelical" and "Evangelism" as they relate to Adventism.

[Pat Travis]

Elaine,

I did not necessarily disagree with you on what the outcomes of much of our " prophetic evangelistic series" has been.

I would suggest 90% of the time being focused on what it means that "Our God Reigns" and the fact that He sent His Son to be our savior for the forgiveness of sins. Then...in light of that,how should that affect our lives on a daily basis as each of us use our gifts in a different way for His glory...then 10% focused on how the blessed hope is always our ernest expectation and He will eventually deliver true Christians when they are "hated of all nations for His name sake" weather it occurs in our lifetime or not.(The consummation)
That is what Revelation is there for... because that day will arrive.

[Peter S Marks]

Lest I be misquoted and misinterpreted let me clarify my former comments.

Pat certainly understands where I am coming from.
Unfortunately, Elaine has misunderstood me. I have long accepted the basic features of the Adventist prophetic message. I am uncomfortable both with those who would radically modify, sanitize, sophisticate and truncate its basic feature as much as with those who would hype and distort these features.

I rejoice with those who have helped us refine and express our message in a clearer, more Christ centred way. I refer here to people like Hans LaRondelle, Jon Paulien and Dick Davidson.

Christ himself referred to the Gospel as 'the Gospel of the Kingdom.' This is a clear reference to the Old Testament Kingdom prophecies in general, and to Daniel's prophetic outline in particular. The phrase 'the gospel of the kingdom' is also a clear reference to the Great Controversy teaching that God's kingdom will be victorious over the kingdoms of this world.

The Bible contains several incentives for me to make a particular study of the books of Daniel and Revelation. Jesus himself instructed those who read of the abomination of desolution spoken of by the prophet Daniel (Daniel 8 no less) to understand. Secondly, it has always fascinated me that the two people noted in the Bible as 'greatly beloved' of God are none other than Daniel and John. And God gave both of them a prophetic message like no other.

The Book of Revelation rightly understood is exactly what it says - a revelation of Jesus. The Book of Daniel is too. Daniel 9 is the key to understanding Daniel 8. That is, the work of Christ as Sacrifice is the key to understanding the Danielic teaching of judgement.

Theology, rightly understood is most fundamentally a formation of our worldview. Both the books of Daniel and of Revelation are worldview books par excellence. We would be much poorer and theological neophytes if we neglect these books.

I grew up in Australia, round Avondale College with my twin brother, Dr Paul Marks, MD (Loma Linda), SM (Harvard). As a teenager I was excited to listen to several great Australian Adventist evangelists. I really appreciated their initial archaelogical approach to the Bible which then morfed into a presentation of prophecy and the gospel of the kingdom. In a most powerful way this was worldview formation. This also was a very muscular and virile form of Adventism. I know little of the work of American Adventist evangelists but fear that it has often surrendered to a much tamer version of the Gospel.

Have we learnt to see the big issues of the Gospel and to present them in a much clearer light since that time? Certainly! Do we do it as much as we should? Certainly not!! I refer here to issues such as whom do we worship - the King of the kingdom and the Lord of the Sabbath
or the little horn who has sought to change times and the Law - Daniel 7. The issue is not one of days - Saturday v Sunday. Ultimately, the issue is one of allegience - Who has our allegience, Christ, the horn of our salvation or the little horn.

Enough of me. Let's get back to the gospel of the kingdom.

[Peter S Marks]

Hi!!

Yes, the gospel net as much as the Adventist net catches both good and bad.

Are we really surprised that our evangelists have attracted "those who haven't the maturation and stability to withstand such enticements?" (quote Elaine).

We are all broken, fractured people.They that are whole don't need a physcian. The Gospel is powerful. We are all healing throughout our Christian experience else Christ and the gospel is ineffective. Let the strong help those who are weak. This is our Christian duty.

Instead of frustratedly wishing that those who are weaker would disappear somehow let us each take the spiritual gifts given us to build up the body.

Any brokenness we discover in others is a small reflection of our own brokenness. And it is a call to service and not to navel grazing.

So much ink has been spilt in the Adventist church by those who love to beat up on their fellows. They love to be in their ivory towers sending sophisticated missives to the institutional church rather than being committed to real service to individuals.

We are each personally accountable for the way we live our lives before God. However, He will also hold our leaders, our pastors and teachers most accountable for the spiritual immaturity of their fellows.

What happened at Mt Carmel, to some extent at least, is an indictment NOT OF OUR DOCTRINE but of those who are charged to preach it.

[Dick Larsen]

"Any brokenness we discover in others is a small reflection of our own brokenness. And it is a call to service and not to navel grazing."

I have heard og "navel gazing" but am not sure I want to know what "navel grazing " is.

[Maggie Bockmann]

I hope serious consideration will be given to the thought that it is irresponsible to teach apocalyptic doctrine *at all.*

I know SDA has a long history of investment in this type of thinking, but I believe looking at Waco squarely will change that trajectory.

Otherwise, what has been learned? That some people are "nuts?" That the preachers should preach their apocalyptic doctrine more responsibly?

I submit that there is NO WAY to preach apocalyptic doctrine responsibly, and especially not to the "weaker members" SDA seems so eager to attract.

If the "strong" want to help the "weak," don't bait them with apocalyptic doctrine to begin with, I would say, and ABANDON it yourselves.

I know that is radical, but my life in SDA has made me so.

But, I'll not trouble you further.

[Elaine Nelson]

I agree with Maggie 100%. What good is it to preach a "soon coming" that has already been preached for 2000 years? We should focus on helping others, not seeking rescue for ourselves from this world but making our present world better by helping those less fortunate. Isn't that what Jesus did? He also said that we "do not know the day nor hour" which should preclude all apocalyptic utterances. If they are to help us "get ready" is there anything better we can do than aiding those who are in need? Matt. 25 gives us our instructions.

[Anonymous]

David,

You said: "whether pathologies actually contributed to what went wrong (Me: Yes; Newport: It’s difficult to know.)"

I agree with Newport. Dr. Paul R. Martin in an article "Dispelling the Myths" here: http://wellspringretreat.org/resources/index.php?item=1&page=22
argues that there need be no psychological problems prior to joining a cult. "My own clinical research, along with a number of other studies, shows that not all cult members had prior psychological problems. In fact, the proportion of those with prior problems (about 1/3) to those without is only slightly above the general population (about 1/4)."

Guessing about whether or not David Koresh actually had a disorder or not is, as Newport noted, very difficult to know. We cannot test a dead brain, and there can be no definitive conclusions unless we test. We are left with theory.

[Anonymous]

To Everyone,

There is a general consensus on this board that those who belonged to the Branch Davidians were spiritually lacking. Undoubtedly some were, but many were being emotionally and spiritually controlled. It was essentially battered-wife syndrome, which has deep psychological implications. My opinion is that the eschatology was a tool to give the cult control, not the problem in and of itself. The beliefs were batty, but I could say that of other eschatologies that produce many well-rounded, good, kind, not genocide prone men and women. The Branch Davidians were insular and cultic, and if any church, be that church Anglican or SDA, can become the same way regardless of the belief systems. The problem that led to the awful climax was emotional and psychological abuse; the spiritual, as I've said, was a tool to create total control, not the problem in and of itself.

[Anonymous]

A triple-post now.

The main issue here is that I see everyone on this board sliding into a theology of fear, a "we mustn't make the same theological mistakes Branch Davidians did so we'd best stick close to the way we believe now" mindset. That puts our spiritual life in a fear-box which can only bring bad things. In some cases it is leading to judging someone's spiritual and intellectual life as lacking. And I see this largely as liberals judging conservatives, amusingly.

To answer David's philosophical question about how much Adventists are similar to Branch Davidians my personal response would be: Inasmuch as the Adventist church is insular, controlling, and cruel, it is similar to the Branch Davidians. Queries into our similarities in theology is interesting, but will not lead us to a realistic answer of how cultic the Adventist church is, and how much risk we have of igniting ourselves sin the asbestos suit. The Catholic church, the Baptist church, the Mormon church, Buddhists, Muslims, we all have that capacity--irregardless of doctrine--of becoming a cult.

[Maggie Bockmann]

The Branch Davidians of Waco: The History And Beliefs of an Apocalyptic Sect

By Kenneth G. C. Newport

http://books.google.com/books?id=64mkTaGV4o4C&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=%22dennis+hokama%22+koresh&source=web&ots=SjyRciRO_f&sig=Iqyaij2EpEIV_MCgkAaNs-CMwBg#PPA137,M1

Dennis Hokama talks about his interesting experience with David Koresh and his SDA seminary-trained father here:

http://www.atoday.com/magazine/1993/05/koresh-ellen-white

Dennis--please publish those unpublished papers!

[Peter S Marks]

I worship the Christ of the Apocalypse and the living Christ of history. I have the blessed hope in my heart and am one of those who love His appearing.

The Books of Daniel and the Revelation were given to outline the big issues and save us from the Devil's deceptions. If Christians today and in the future didn't face spiritual deception we wouldn't need to understand these books and apocalyptic doctrine.

I am priviledged to belong to a long line of saints and martyrs, many of whom proclaimed apocalyptic doctrine with their blood. The Protestant Reformation was motivated and driven by apocalyptic doctrine. Please don't give me your gopher theology that has little historical perspective.

Do we still believe that "the dream is certain and it's interpretation sure?" (Daniel 2) And if the ABC's of Bible prophecy in Daniel 2 are sure and certain, can't we with confidence build our worldview on such reliable foundations. "Cast not away therefore your confidence, which has great promise of reward. For you have need of patience, after you have done the will of God, you might receive the promise. For yet a little while and He that shall come, will come, and will not delay. (Hebrews 10).

Many in this world may believe that all you need is love. The Bible tells us only that it is the greatest. Faith and hope are lesser but abiding virtues for the Christian.

[Maggie Bockmann]

I do not mean to be disrespectful, but Mt. Carmel burning was hard enough to watch.

I cannot fathom looking forward to the death of billions of people...twice...and blood to the horses' bridles.

I cannot love to see that on a global scale.

I am incapable of loving that.

No matter how much I beat this talking donkey, it says the same thing.

I cannot love a violent God.

[Anonymous]

Peter,

You just demonstrated my point perfectly. Thank you.

[Peter S Marks]

Annonymous

I don't believe I have adopted a theology of fear ie. fearing that since I don't want to make the same mistakes as the Branch Davidians I should cling to the way I have always believed.

I believe that my theology of hope has been engendered through my listening to the still small voice of the Spirit. I have vigorously studied and proclaimed that theology of hope for well over 30 years. I was given great pause for thought by Waco. After all I knew at least 5 of those who perished. But it didn't shake my confidence in my apocalyptic doctrine for one moment.

I don't intend to denegrate anyone's spiritual or intellectual status. However, this blog exists so all contributors can sharpen and clarify the ideas and spirituality of our fellows. May the truest ideas win.

[Maggie Bockmann]

By Maggie:

This is my last post on this site, if that helps, and I am not intending to be disrespectful or inflammatory. No need to close this on account of me (if that's what happened), as I'm leaving.

Regarding "HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE," it seems to me that Christianity has yet to connect the dots between its bloody doctrines and its bloody history. In this, Waco was a shot across the bow of Adventism, it seems to me.

We all KNOW why Vernon saw himself squared off against the United States government. We took it in with mother's milk. The guns were a function of his pathology. The US government being against him, well, he didn't make that up out of whole cloth, did he?

(That's a huge topic, but I'll leave it to the rest of you to discuss. Sadly, my children used to say to me, "Mommy, when are the bad men going to come to kill us and we'll have to run away to the mountains?" Where did they get that? Where did I get that?)

I see Adventism as a tempest-in-a-teapot recapitulation of Christian history, and Adventist destiny as transcending Christian history.

Historical perspective, in my understanding, indicates that the Bible wasn't very helpful in the nineteenth-century abolition of slavery struggle. On the contrary, the Bible made that struggle much more difficult. See, for example:

MUTUAL RELATION OF MASTERS AND SLAVES AS TAUGHT IN THE BIBLE. A DISCOURSE PREACHED IN THE FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, AUGUSTA, GEORGIA,
On Sabbath Morning, Jan. 6, 1861, BY JOSEPH R. WILSON, D. D., PASTOR.

http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/wilson/wilson.html

The Bible View of Slavery
by John Henry Hopkins, 1864

http://www.southernslavery.com/articles/bible_view_slavery.htm

To this day, it would be difficult for moderate Christians to mount a Scripturally-based defense against those extreme Christians who would reinstitute slavery, it seems to me.

I fully believe that "THE TRUEST IDEAS WON" in the slavery issue in American history. Unfortunately, it's difficult to demonstrate those ideas directly from Scripture.

Ellen White called slavery a SIN and a CRIME, but nowhere does the Scripture do so, in fact two Commandments refer to the institution.

I like to think that, in that instance, she was "weaned from the milk" and speaking out her "HEART RELIGION," the only "TRUE RELIGION," according to her (though her "defender" says she was just condemning bad treatment of slaves--we may never know).

In any case, I am speaking out my "heart religion" regarding preaching apocalyptic doctrine.

My "heart religion" regarding apocalyptic doctrine is not Scriptural (far less "intellectual") any more than Ellen White's calling slavery a sin and a crime was Scriptural (in my preferred interpretation of her words).

But, does anyone doubt slavery is a sin and a crime now, in 2007?

So, if we're talking about historical perspective, in my view, lots of dots between doctrine and deeds have yet to be connected, and Waco is a tremendous opportunity to start doing so.

Apocalyptic doctrine can be intellectually developed and refined infinitely, no doubt, and has a long historical tradition.

But apocalyptic doctrine, with its blood to the horses' bridles, paints a picture of a God that I find simply impossible to love, and especially now, after watching Vernon and Rachel and Cyrus and Starr and all the rest burn.

Bottom line: I THINK BETTER OF GOD.

Happy Thanksgiving, goodbye, and may you all be blessed in your beliefs.

[Dick Larsen]

Maggie, it would be hard to quantify what your few comments have meant to me. Thanks.