Will the REAL Adventist position please stand up

I was reviewing the CRI position on Adventism again and it reminded me of how difficult it is to pinpoint the true Adventist position on so many themes. When it comes to the exact Adventist teaching there are several perspectives:

• Historic/Traditional Adventists (see Ellen White)
• Evangelical Adventists
• Administrators
• Former Adventists
• Non-Adventists

Each of these has a different source and different perspective. The traditionalists derive most of their theology from reading Ellen White. They have, at a minimum, read the five books of the Conflict of the Ages series. If you want to know their position it is mostly EGW, primarily the "traditional" or conservative parts. They resist those quotations that sound like "cheap grace". Further, they often have read and follow the late Joe Crews.

The Evangelical Adventists span from grace-oriented traditionalists to mainstream Evangelicals. Those leaning toward historic Adventism understand grace and that we are not saved by works, but they can be somewhat schizophrenic by both emphasizing grace and law.

Administrators tend to take a political or marketing approach, and craft their language depending on their audience. At campmeetings, where may traditionalists attend, they speak traditional language. If speaking to a non-Adventist or more "liberal"/Evangelical audience, they speak in more grace-oriented language.

Former Adventists often wrongly attribute all manner of evils toward Adventism, primarily because they tend to group all Adventists under the extremes of traditionalism. Finally, non-Adventist writers will portray Adventist depending on which "camp" they have been most exposed to.

This, of course, makes it very difficult to identify the true Adventist position. If one chooses a traditional/Ellen White position many modern Adventists will retort with "Well, I don't believe that". When they see a refutation of an Adventist doctrine they discount it because they feel that the writer has wrongly portrayed the Adventist position.

Adventists in other countries were recruited into the church through the traditional views and materials (which are still used in the U.S in prophecy seminars). As a result, though the North American church would mostly be happy to permit ordination of women, the much larger world congregations prevent it due to their traditional views.

So, what is the "official position"? 27 Fundamental book? I had professors bluntly tell me that the book should not have been written, is not official, and should not be taken as dogma. Ellen White? Many Evangelicals today simply do not understand the extremes she or church founders took. Current "historic Adventists"? California Evangelicals? Questions on Doctrine?

Each camp will not only hold to a particular position on a specific doctrine, but they will differ in their emphasis. Obviously, Evangelical Adventists tend to emphasis grace more while traditionalists strongly upload the law of God and His requirements. Perfection of character over perfect peace. (I once heard a conservative declare "peace is for the dead".)

So what is the true Adventist position? Ultimately it must be whatever Ellen White clearly taught or affirmed. This is because at the end of the day very few Adventist leaders will dare to blatantly defy her publicly and the traditionalists capitalize on the leverage her writing affords them with many members. How do the more Evangelical handle this? By emphasis. They emphasize what they can support and ignore what they can not or what is unacceptable to Evangelicals as a whole. But in practicing this the "crazy uncle" is still in the attic waiting for another generation to discover him and bring him back to the party.