RAP SESSION: TOM NORRIS

Note: The opinions and views expressed in this interview are solely those of the interviewee, and do not necessarily represent the views of the blog editor or contributing writers. The interview is presented here in the interest of allowing readers another perspective on Adventist church history, theology and church ethics for open discussion and further scrutiny. We leave you to your own conclusions.
~ Editor

: : :

Biography

Tom Norris was raised as a Seventh-day Adventist in Takoma Park, MD and studied theology at Columbia Union College in the 1970's. Soon after, he spent significant time conducting independent research in the General Conference Archives and the Ellen G. White Estate, where he made a life-changing discovery - finding the hidden 1888 documents. Over the years he has interviewed a number of prominent Adventist scholars, theologians, and pastors ranging from the late Arthur White to the exiled Dr. Desmond Ford. In addition, he has amassed a large private library, which includes numerous rare books and manuscripts about Adventist theology and history. He is presently the online editor of Adventist Reform, and can be found at Adventist for Tomorrow or All Experts answering questions online about SDA theology and history as well as promoting Adventist Reform. Tom is a Real Estate developer and Builder by trade and has been married 20 years to Elizabeth Gurubatham, a 3rd generation SDA. Both attend the Capital Memorial SDA Church. His hobbies, in addition to Adventist history, include racquetball, weight lifting, and playing the board game QUINTO. He's also a Member of the Society of Mayflower Descendants.

: : :

Tom, you’re a self-proclaimed “expert” on Adventist history and the Three Angels message. You've spent many years going through the General Conference archives and the Ellen White Estate doing extensive independent research. What led you to want to conduct such massive research and what did you discover?


Tom: I was taught to believe that the Advent Movement was prophetic, special, and true, and that SDA's would play a major role in the last days. However, during the 1970's, when I was studying theology at Columbia Union College, a number of challenging issues surfaced that demanded attention and study.

Up until that point, I was naively unaware that there were divisions within the SDA church about Prophecy, Christology, and Salvation. I was surprised to learn that there were unsettling questions about the history of Battle Creek, especially about the 1888 debates. Moreover, there were even opposing versions of Ellen White emerging, one very legalistic and authoritarian; the other more Protestant, and focused on the Gospel. It was a very confusing time that caused great debate and division.

In an attempt to resolve this conundrum, I went to the Takoma Park General Conference in 1978 to research the historical records of the 1888 period. There, in the recently opened Archives, was the genuine record of the 1888 debates that had been hidden since the turn of the 20th century. Here was the historical proof about what happened in Battle Creek between Ellen White and Uriah Smith. This surprising discovery facilitated my entrance into the White Estate, over the objections of the retired Arthur White, where it immediately became obvious that he had suppressed the history of 1888 and dishonestly manipulated Ellen White's writings and theology.

It was a stunning discovery that was quickly covered up so that the leaders could go forward to attack Dr. (Desmond) Ford and the evangelicals at Glacier View. Even though the historical answers had been discovered that would have solved the debates, it made no difference to those in charge. They were determined to protect a false view about Ellen White and defend Traditional Adventism as fabricated by the Takoma Park apologists.


What motivates you to continue on this personal mission?

Tom: Although I was originally motivated to try and resolve the Righteousness by Faith debate of the 1970's and to solve the mystery about 1888, that objective has been accomplished. Now, another motivation has emerged. I am motivated to tell the truth about this massive fraud in the White Estate because it is the right thing to do. I am compelled to set the historical record straight so that the Advent Movement can stop their descent into confusion, irrelevance, and self-destruction.

The Adventist Community deserves to honestly know what happened in Battle Creek about Ellen White and her doctrinal views. They need to know that she does not support Traditional Adventism or Glacier View, or the 28 Fundamentals, as the leaders have dishonestly and incompetently taught. It is time for historical facts to overturn years of myth, tradition, and propaganda so that the Advent Movement can move forward to discharge its unique eschatological mission.

You're very busy over at Adventists for Tomorrow. What will we find there?

Tom: This independent site is the direct descendant of the AToday Forum and has remained an open and free site for the Adventist Community to discuss church history, doctrine, and prophecy. Which explains why it has over 60,000 posts.

[Here's] a good example of the type of interaction that takes place over there. A denominational Pastor posted a thread that was called: "1844 Made Simple." It was based on Clifford Goldstein's book about the IJ, and it was meant to support this Traditional Adventism and Glacier View. But things went downhill quickly, and the doctrine of the IJ could not be sustained. [read it here]

For the record, I am still waiting to interview anyone from the General Conference, or Andrews University, or the White Estate, etc, that thinks they can refute Dr. Ford and defend Traditional Adventism. But I won't hold my breath because it is impossible.


Back in 1999, you did an extensive interview with Dr. Desmond Ford which was published on the Adventist Today Forum. How was this interview received? What were its repercussions?

Tom: Many appreciated Dr. Ford's detailed and comprehensive interview. It was well received by the Online Adventist Community. However, I don't think the General Conference leaders appreciated it. In fact, after the Ford Interview went online, I personally went to the General Conference for an official reply. But no one would dare attempt such a response. Not anyone in the White Estate, Biblical Research, or the Review. Not even Clifford Goldstein, one of the leading apologists for the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment.

Today, Dr. Ford's views and positions still stand strong. Not one Church apologist, theologian, or scholar has credibly refuted him. This is because his positions are as solid and true today as they were back in 1980 when he was exiled by those who incorrectly claimed he was an enemy of Ellen White and a traitor to the Advent Cause.


Dr. Ford's exile for supposedly "disagreeing" with Ellen White over the fundamentals at Glacier View caused major division then. How has this division manifested itself in 2008 with new generations of Adventists?


Tom: The fallout from Glacier View has devastated the church and terminated its eschatological focus and ruined its doctrinal credibility. Which means that the SDA's no longer have an active, contemporary prophetic message. Moreover, few today, within or without the church, have much good to say about Adventism, which explains why the Internet is so full of angry and relentless critics, most all of which were former SDA's.

It is estimated that since 1980, 5 million members have left the North American church because of all the confusion and debate over the Gospel. Millions of SDA's have become fed up with all the doctrinal double-talk and confusion. Thus, out of the one million members on the North Americans books today, at least half of that number refuses to attend church or support the doctrines of the church.

The late 20th century debate over the Fundamentals has stopped the Advent Movement in its tracks. It left the church with a very legalistic and outdated view of eschatology that makes little sense. In fact, because SDA theology is so fractured, legalistic, and incoherent, the leaders went on to embrace a deliberate policy of "pluralism," which was meant to overlook and ignore the many anomalies and problems that were left unresolved in the rush to exile Dr. Ford and repudiate the Gospel.

Thus, confusion, cover-up, and double-talk are now the official policy of the SDA church. It is their plan to avoid the issues and pretend all is well.


Just to clarify, on a personal level, do you agree or disagree with Ellen White over the fundamentals?

Tom: I do NOT disagree with Ellen White about the true fundamentals. I agree with her that the Three Angels Messages are what defines, guides, and empowers all SDA theology and doctrine. I also agree with her that the Advent Movement is Protestant and that it must rest only on the authority of the Bible.

I also agree with her that there is to be a 4th and final Advent Message that emerges from the Adventist Apocalyptic to complete the work of the Laodicean church.

I agree with her position that the fundamental theology and history of the Three Angels Messages can never be changed or removed, even as I agree with her about the various doctrines that are embedded in each of these Prophetic Messages. Including the state of the dead and the Sabbath of the 4th Commandment.

I further agree with Ellen White's position that the 1st Angels Message is the foundation of the Adventist Movement. And that this prophetic message contains two doctrinal pillars; the Protestant Gospel and the Second Advent as the Judgment. So I agree with Ellen White that Historic Adventism never contained the IJ, and that the Judgment "pillar" of the Second Coming can never be replaced by anything else, much less a secret Celestial Judgment far away in out space.

I also agree with Ellen White that the proclamation of the Second Coming as the Day of Judgment is the prophetic fulfillment of the 1st Angels message. This is standard Adventism. But the Takoma Park apologists, in their quest for last day perfection, dishonestly revised history and created many myths in the process.

However, I repudiate the false and manipulated version of the Fundamentals that Arthur White created in the White Estate. That legalistic woman that screamed at the church through those manipulated red books symbolized all that was wrong with Traditional Adventism.

While I do not agree with Ellen White's legalistic promotion of character perfection, such pre-1888 errors about the Gospel were corrected by her after 1888. Consequently, I do agree with her post 1888 view of the Gospel, which mirrors the Protestant position and correctly repudiates Uriah Smith's interpretation about the Two Covenants and character perfection.


You've already outrightly accused the church of a "cover up" and the White Estate of "fraud" which makes a lot of people uncomfortable. If true, why do you think church leaders continue on the same path?

Tom: At the turn of the century, the Battle Creek Empire self-destructed and the leaders retreated to Takoma Park in poverty and humiliation. The SDA church barely survived this greart schism, which had its originis in the unresolved 1888 debates. This explains why the Takoma Park leaders vowed to suppress this controversial and destructive debate between Uriah Smith and Ellen White over the law and the Gospel. The Takoma Park leaders were fearful that if this debate reemerged, it would doom the fragile, relocated Denomination that was struggling to survive. So they hid the 1888 Story from in order to protect the church from further debate and schism.

In spite of their understandable intentions, the 20th century church went on to repeat 1888 anyway, and to experience the same confusion, debate and schism that had ruined the Battle Creek Empire. Thus Glacier View was a disastrous replay of the Battle Creek debates, but few knew this fact because the leaders had covered up the real story and hidden it deep in the fortress like vaults of the White Estate.

So fear led the early Takoma Park leaders to become dishonest and abuse their trust. As time went on, the hidden 1888 debates were replaced by fabrication, myth, and official propaganda.

The conservatives claimed that Ellen White did have doctrinal authority and that she embraced last day perfectionism. They also claimed that the IJ was a foundational pillar from the 1st Angels Message, and that anyone who denies this prophetic truth, like Dr. Ford, must be removed from the Adventist Community for heresy and rebellion against Ellen White and the Three Angels Messages.

But guess what? Not one of these anti-Ford positions was true, nor did they have the support from Ellen White as the leaders claimed. Although the White Estate and other conservatives were teaching that Ellen White did have doctrinal authority, the Pioneers were very clear that she had no doctrinal authority whatsoever. In addition, Ellen White does not support this idea that Jesus Nature is just like ours, nor did the mature, post 1888 Ellen White support last generation perfection, as Traditional Adventism claims. After 1888 she changed her mind about the law and the Gospel and became a true Protestant, and this information was in the White Estate all along.

The fact of the matter is that Ellen White's views on the Gospel and the Judgment, the two fundamental pillars from the 1st Angels Message, are very different from what all modern SDA's have been taught. While it is true that the SDA's in Battle Creek fell into legalism, including Ellen White, to her credit, she stood up and repudiated the false and legalistic SDA gospel during the 1888 debates. There she turned her back on Uriah Smith's version of the Two Covenants and embraced the Protestant view of the law and the Gospel. But the Takoma Park leaders not only hid this story, they re-wrote history and fabricated something else altogether.

Had the leaders not hidden the 1888 debates and just told the truth about what happened in Battle Creek, Glacier View could not have taken place nor would there have been another great schism. But the White Estate was not being honest about Ellen White or the Fundamentals. They promoted myths as facts, even as they indoctrinated generations to believe that Uriah Smiths, IJ based version of the Gospel represents authentic SDA doctrine that is supported by Ellen White.

Just to dispel any confusion so far, give us the bottom line. From your research, and according to you, what must all Adventists know happened?

Tom: All SDA's need to understand that Ellen White never taught or believed that the IJ was the Judgment in the 1st Angels Message, or that it was ever a pillar in Historic Adventism. No 19th century SDA ever took this position, even though all traditional SDA apologists claim otherwise, and Glacier View started a great schism to defend this myth. But the facts are clear, not one Pioneer ever held such a view, and this point has nothing to do with any hidden documents in the White Estate. It only takes a simple reading of the published works of Ellen White to show how the Pioneers defined the Judgment in the 1st Angels Message. Thus any SDA can go to their bookshelves and easily study this point for themselves.

This idea that Ellen White would have rejected Dr. Ford's interpretation of Rev 14: 6 & 7 is pure SDA propaganda. She would never support Glacier View as the leaders dishonestly claimed. There is a very different Ellen White waiting to speak to the Adventist Community. No one should assume that the White Estate has honestly or correctly portrayed her words or her doctrines to the church. They have not.


With the rise of postmodernism and religious pluralism infiltrating Adventist circles, where do you think the church’s traditional eschatology mission is headed? Is this movement falling on deaf ears as postmoderns seek their own personal doctrines?


Tom: Today, the SDA church has no credible or contemporary eschatology. Their 19th century obsession with Sunday laws is based upon legalism and other errors that no longer make sense for the 21st century. Moreover, there is no basis within NT prophecy to conclude that the Sunday laws will start the time of trouble as the SDA's teach. In fact, Jesus, Paul, and John the Revelator clearly refute such a position.

So the SDA's must update their tired eschatology and develop a Gospel based version that makes theological as well as empirical sense. Such a revised and corrected Adventist Message will become known as the 4th Angels message. This message will replace the present confusion and disappointment of the failed 3rd Angels Message, and unite the Advent Movement on the final message, which is anchored in Rev 18.

Until this new eschatology is developed the Advent Movement will have no credibility, peace, or hope. The SDA's must transition from the 3rd Angels Message to the 4th. This is the paradigm shift that will re-energize the Advent Movement.



Regarding the Sabbath, according to you, Adventists have it wrong because we embrace the Jewish version. In reforming this doctrine so that it is biblically accurate, how do we “observe” or “practice” the Sabbath that Jesus taught in the Gospels?

Tom: Jesus does not agree with the SDA's about how the Sabbath is to be understood, embraced, or observed. He teaches that the Sabbath was made for the benefit of mankind. It was meant as a day to "do" good. And by "doing good" Jesus meant work. Thus, Jesus, by his own authority, teaching, and example, reinterpreted the Sabbath and removed the many prohibitions that surrounded it, including the major rule against working.

Matt. 12:12 - "So then, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”

John 5:17 - But He answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.”
The Gospel Sabbath is not a law-based doctrine. Rather it is predicated on the New Covenant teachings of Jesus. Thus it is not the Sabbath of Moses that the church should follow every Seventh Day.

Although the Gospel Sabbath is still the Seventh-day, Jesus is opening the door for the New Covenant "man" to embrace a wide variety of behavioral options on the Sabbath, including the normative study of the word and the gathering to praise God and celebrate the Lord's Supper. But make no mistake about it, Jesus' injunction about "doing good" on the Sabbath has replaced the Old Covenant prohibition against work. But the SDA's have failed to figure this out as yet.

So you advocate that it's okay to work on the Sabbath?

Tom: The New Covenant Sabbath allows for people to work or play on the Sabbath so long as it is helpful, useful, necessary, and good. There is no sin in delivering the mail, pumping gas, or performing surgery on the Sabbath. Any work done on the Sabbath is permitted and lawful if it is helpful and good. But it is sin to teach Old Covenant Sabbath keeping in the church, and an even greater sin to sue innocent employers and persecute them in the name of false doctrine.

John 5:16 - For this reason the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath.

Jesus repudiated the Old Covenant Seventh-day Sabbath, even as he articulated the New Covenant "working Sabbath" for all. Why? Because God works on the Sabbath to keep the world running, so too should his children. Thus Jesus is claiming to imitate and teach God's version of the Sabbath to the Church. And this holy, New Covenant version is obviously very different from what the SDA's teach.

When the Sabbath was understood the least, Jesus came to explain it. Thus he correctly explained God's view of the Sabbath and REFORMED it for the Church. He didn't remove it, or change it to Sunday, he REFORMED it from a law based doctrine to one that rested on the Gospel. Consequently, when Jesus teaches that it is lawful to "do good on the Sabbath," he has opened the door for a wide range of human behavior--including all manner of work.

Jesus never taught that anyone should quit his or her job in order to observe the Sabbath. He never taught that it was to be a day of rules, regulations, and religious prohibitions. In fact he taught the opposite and repudiated such things. Which horrified the Jews and confounds the SDA's today.

When the church correctly understands the Sabbath teachings of Jesus, the Sunday Sabbath will become exposed as great fraud and Gospel error, and so too this legalistic nonsense about having to quit ones job in order to "obey the Seventh-day Sabbath" to please God. Jesus did not teach such a position--but the Pharisees did! Thus the SDA's have the Old Covenant Sabbath of the Pharisees. Not the reformed Gospel Sabbath of Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath.

So here is yet another area where the SDA's need major doctrinal REFORM. Who knew that they had the wrong Sabbath all these years? Who saw that coming?




Shifting gears, many of our readers have an interest in the emerging church movement and other expressions of faith, social action and church mission. What’s your honest assessment of that movement, including its leader, Brian McLaren?

Tom: Today, organized religion is so boring, confused, and politically motivated, that it is only natural that various new movements will emerge.

While McLaren claims that the church has not accurately understood Jesus' "secret message," his attempt to grasp the essence of the Gospel falls flat. He lacks, not only a credible hermeneutic, but also eschatology and Pauline theology. His movement is nothing more than another populist spin on the Social Gospel. It is not focused on the Second Coming, much less on the Protestant Gospel of Paul and Luther. Rather, his focus is to use some of the selected teachings of Jesus to improve life here and now.

McLaren thinks that the church has focused on salvation as a means to obtain "heaven after you die." Consequently, he says we should take Jesus at his word when he teaches, "the kingdom of God is here now." Such worn out doctrinal sentiments may be well intended, but they cannot qualify as legitimate Protestant theology much less some secret meaning of the Gospels. Subsequently, the "change" and reform that he seeks in the church amounts to little more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.


Let us end on a positive note. Why do you personally remain Adventist? Why should I or anyone else be proud of being and staying Adventist?

Tom: I do believe that the Advent Movement is the work of God. I think the Three Angels Messages represent the correct eschatological path for the Laodicean Church.

If Old Covenant Adventism can be transformed into New Covenant Adventism, then the Protestant Reformation can be completed and the last church prepared to face the Judgment, which is the Second Coming of Christ. If the SDA's will only return to the original formulation of the Adventist Apocalyptic, and embrace the Protestant Gospel, they will do great things. This is why I stay within the Adventist orbit. I have hope that the Adventist Movement will one day wake up and complete its unique and exciting Gospel mission.


Last question: If you were to have a nice chit chat with World Church President Jan Paulsen over at Starbucks, what would you want to tell or ask him?

Tom: I would encourage him to repudiate "pluralism" and remind him that there can only be one legitimate version of the Gospel and the Three Angels Messages.

I would also ask him to stand up and tell the truth about Ellen White and 1888. The White Estate needs to be cleaned up and the record corrected. This is what Ellen White would wish to see happen. And this is what must happen in order for the Advent Movement to go forward.

The GC President also needs to admit that there is no truth to this doctrine that the IJ is a "pillar" in the 1st Angels Message. Ellen White never supported such a position as the church has taught all these years. Thus, Mr. Paulsen is going to have to personally wrestle with this stunning point, because he too, like all SDA's, has been deceived into believing myths and legends that are not true.

I am sure that by now he has spilled his decaf, and I am being escorted to the door. But such a good confession is the only way for him to lead this church back to the Gospel and back to the Fundamentals of Historic Adventism. There is much more I would want to say, but these few points represent the initial steps that must be taken in order to reposition the SDA church for greatness and success.

: : :

Update: Ellen G. White Estate has kindly responded with an unofficial one-page statement addressing “cover up” and “fraud” allegations by Mr. Norris. Click here for the response.