2008-08-28 00:58Z

Here Are They

The Adventist Identity and the Challenge of Diversity: Questions on Doctrine 50 Years Later.

Presenter: Larry Kirkpatrick

Location: Loma Linda University SDA Church, CA, USA

Delivery: 2008-01-27 01:26Z

Publication: GreatControversy.org 2008-01-27 01:26Z

Type: Presentation

URL: http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/kir-mandsconferenceqod.php

[NOTE: This presentation was given at the Mind & Spirit Conference held on 2008-01-26 in Loma Linda, California. This year the theme of Mind & Spirit was “The Adventist Identity and the Challenge of Diversity: Questions on Doctrine 50 Years Later.” The event was broadcast on LLBN. The presentation that follows below was heavily condensed to fit into the 10 minute presentation space, and perhaps one third or one fourth of what follows was presented. Following is the entire written text.]

Prefacatory Remarks

Thank you. Today I will quickly offer four sections in this short talk. First, Questions on Doctrine (QOD) in a nutshell, then what are the benefits to being identified—or not being identified, with evangelicals, then unintended lessons learned from QOD, and at last, the future of Adventism.

QOD in a Nutshell

What can we say about Questions on Doctrine? At Nosoca Pines in 1978 Kenneth H. Wood minced no words to PREXAD. He said,

I believe that the evangelical dialogues and publication of Questions on Doctrine created a climate in the church favorable to criticism, suspicion, uncertainty, rumor, and a loss of confidence in leadership.¹

Why, almost 30 years ago, would he say this?² Some of the theological reasons would include that QOD decidedly misrepresented the Seventh-day Adventist position on the human nature of Christ. Whereas Mrs. White had written that Christ took “Our sinful nature,” QOD told the world that Adventists believed that Christ “Took Sinless Human Nature.”³

On the atonement, all sides recognize that Adventists at a minimum “adjusted their language.”⁴ But the few men who wrote QOD did far more than engage in semantical obfuscation. For example, where Ellen White had written,

Now, while our great High Priest is making the atonement for us, we should seek to become perfect in Christ. Not even by a thought could our Saviour be brought to yield to the power of temptation... This is the condition in which those must be found who shall stand in the time of trouble.⁵

QOD said that

When... one hears an Adventist say, or reads in Adventist literature—even in the writings of Ellen G. White—that Christ is making atonement now, it should be understood that we [Adventists] mean simply that Christ is now making application of the benefits of the sacrificial atonement He made at the cross; that He is making it efficacious for us individually, according to our needs and requests.⁶

That is, QOD pled for Ellen White’s writings to be interpreted in a way that was not true to her intent, for in many places she states that the atonement is presently ongoing in the sanctuary above. There is a difference between a presently ongoing atonement and one that is finished. An automobile with a motor installed may as a result of that completed installation offer the benefit of giving transportation. But an automobile in which the motor is still being installed cannot offer that benefit. For an extended discussion on Ellen White’s usage of these terms in her writings, see the paper in this endnote.⁷

More than this, QOD was the seminal church publication to sanction within Adventism the teaching that humans are born condemned (an issue addressed at length in my paper prepared for the conference this past fall at Andrews University on QOD’s 50th Anniversary⁸).

There are other problems with QOD, including its methodology,⁹ its teaching on precedence of faith and works,¹⁰ and so forth. Be that as it may, underlying all this was the well intentioned but misguided attempt to make Adventism acceptable to evangelicals. L. E. Froom, R. A. Anderson, and W. E. Read were sure that if they could get a hearing from outsiders, that if they could persuade others to set aside anti-SDA bias long enough, they could persuade them of the legitimacy of the Adventist message. A noble goal! But Anderson, the evangelist and Froom the apologist trusted too much in their words.

They were out of their league theologically. They failed to grasp the deep issues of sin, salvation, atonement, free will, and how the Seventh-day Adventist position at its base line differed sharply from the evangelical position. The Non-Adventist evangelicals Walter Martin and Donald Barnhouse, on the other hand, were highly skilled in debate and rhetoric, masters of words. It is not the same to trust in the power of words as to actually have a mastery of words. Trust is sometimes misplaced. These men were outmatched. The dialogue with evangelicals eventually resulted in the publication of Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine on the Review and Herald Press.

Should Adventists Try to Be Identified With Evangelicals?

What value would there be for Adventists being identified as evangelicals in the waning 1950s? Or in 2008? In the 1950s if you weren’t one of them, and if your community of faith lacked a multi-hundred year tradition, you were counted a cult. In 1957, the Seventh-day Adventist Church was just 96 years old. We were commonly classed with Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses as being non-Christian. These labels were important in those days.

The label “evangelical” carries some positives. An evangelical takes a high view of Scriptural authority, and affirms classic doctrines seen as orthodox in Western Christianity, like the virgin birth and the substitutionary atonement. However, the label comes also, today at least, with a troubling set of negatives.

These include a teaching of forever burning hell, a teaching of the natural immortality of the soul, and warmongering. By this, I refer to the idea of an American empire, the USA as planetary policeman, and the initiation of wars such as the invasion of Iraq by the United States. That war, whatever you think of it, is seen as an evangelically-supported war. Do we really want to be identified with that? And yet, the closer that we are identified with evangelicals, the more we would be identified with their politics. When evangelicals mix church and state, and we seek to identify ourselves as being evangelical, we lose our high ground of apolitical neutrality.

There may have been some value to us in being perceived as evangelicals in the 1950s (although that could not justify the course taken with QOD). Be that as it may, the value of our being perceived as “evangelical” in 2008 is highly questionable.

Just a small sampling of books currently available on Amazon: The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience: Why Are Christians Living Just Like the Rest of the World? by Ronald J. Sider. Marks of the Beast: The Left Behind Novels and the Struggle for Evangelical Identity, by Glenn Shuck. The Great Evangelical Disaster, by Francis A. Schaeffer. The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, by Mark A. Noll. The Jesus Machine: How James Dobson, Focus on the Family, and Evangelical America Are Winning the Culture War, by Dan Gilgoff. The Tragedy of Compromise: The Origin and Impact of the New Evangelicalism, by Ernest D. Pickering. Being an evangelical in 2008 is not exactly felt to put one into the best company, at least by some quarters.

In the 1950s, homogeneity and uniformity were major values. The cold war was on. It was the age of sputnik and the family fallout shelter. Things are very different today. Non-Christians peel a very critical eye toward Christianity. That which today is highly valued in the culture is one’s being distinct, other-than, different. It would be so like Adventists for us to arrive at being “evangelical” just when it is coming under its most withering scrutiny by the unchurched. We are wiser to limit ourselves to our own liabilities rather than adding to those the liabilities of others. Therefore, some Adventists question the value of being too closely identified with evangelicalism.

Unintended Lessons

Fifty years ago, the illegitimate promotion of the doctrinal changes offered in QOD introduced an enormous friction within the church. And here we come to M. L. Andreasen.

Few know much more about Andreasen than that he complained about QOD. In fact, he made his lifework the prosperity of the church. Among his postings, he served as president of Greater New York Conference, president of Hutchinson Theological Seminary, president of Minnesota Conference, president of Union College, as a professor at the SDA Theological Seminary, and as General Conference Field Representative. Beyond which, he wrote more than a dozen volumes that in the 1930s, 40s, and 50s dominated Adventist book stores. Andreasen loved His Lord, loved people, and loved his church. This was reflected in his life. On one occasion he saved the life of a man who was being burned; on another, he plucked drowning children out of the water. Of course he objected to the perversion of truth. His pastoral heart cried out. Souls were at stake!¹¹

With news of QOD’s approaching publication, Andreasen labored in private letters to church leaders. This lasted for the better part of a year. But they refused to treat his concerns seriously or engage him in any kind of dialogue or respectful discussion. General Conference president Figuhr, L. E. Froom, and his cohorts ignored a variety of serious objections raised by several besides Andreasen.

But unlike the others, Andreasen—to his everlasting credit—brought the matter into the open.

And now, 50 years later, what have we learned? When academics planned the 50th Anniversary Conference, church administrators balked. The current general conference president went on record as questioning “the constructive value” of having the event.¹² He stated unequivocally that no restudy of the sensitive issues in QOD would come under his watch.¹³ He distanced the church from the event, and it was only long after the conference was held that a short news item was published in the Adventist Review.¹⁴ A half century ago, R. R. Figuhr sought to bury Andreasen’s concerns. Jan Paulsen distanced the church sharply from the QOD conference this past October. After fifty years, what have we learned? In Silver Spring, at least, perhaps not so much.

But how does the QOD fiasco inform our present and future interactions? Let’s list some ways. First, mistakes.

QOD was a mistake because it erected a new Adventism when the current one had already been supplied by God.
QOD was a mistake because of the process. A few men, without requisite sanction, revamped core theological elements of our faith. It was accomplished in secrecy, without serious interaction or consultation. Leading denominational scholars in the base line questions either were not consulted or their pages of careful counsel ignored. Thus, the process of QOD’s creation denied core values of Adventist community. The leadership of the denomination broke trust with its own members. We were never intended to be a church where a very few men could change our system of belief and then report back to us after the fact. But in 1957 it happened. And while the principle participants in the original conflict now molder in graveyard repose,¹⁵ here we are left in the wilderness between Egypt and Canaan.
QOD was a mistake because it did not tell the truth about what Seventh-day Adventists believed. By the mid-1950s, but few in the pew Adventists believed as QOD claimed. On the day that QOD came from the press, we may be sure that most church members who envisioned their faith were thinking much in terms of the books, Sabbath School Quarterlies, and messages that they had known before that time, such as The Great Controversy, The Sanctuary Service, Bible Readings for the Home, and The Desire of Ages. Nor was the non-Adventist community well served by QOD the fictional book. Martin and Barnhouse knew that QOD did not square with the Adventism that had gone before it. Repeatedly they noted that the Church’s 1957 position was different from the position before then.¹⁶ I say again, they had mastery of words.
QOD was a mistake because it created internal doctrinal contradictions for us. Martin, looking back at the evangelical conferences and at QOD, wrote that “The saving grace of the entire situation is that the Adventists fortunately deny the logical conclusions to which their doctrines must lead them; i.e. a negation of the full validity of the atonement of Christ, which validity they absolutely confirm, and embrace with considerable fervor—a paradoxical situation at best!”¹⁷ That is, Martin recognized that as a result of the Adventist dialogue with the evangelicals, the updated doctrines of the church were in contradiction with other core elements of Adventist belief, elements as deep as the atonement. In this, Martin rejoiced. Theological contradictions always come home to roost. He recognized that the Seventh-day Adventist Church was now set for decades of doctrinal wrangling, which he, scarcely agreeing with us on even one of our distinctives, felt would be a good thing.

QOD, thrust upon the church, not by laymen but by its leaders, generated 50 years of division—needless division. Oh, and another mistake? We took too long to talk seriously about it. We should have talked about this 50 years ago; not just three months ago.

So. What of the future? Well, QOD Adventism is already dying or dead. As elsewhere detailed,¹⁸ our denomination has rejected the doctrine of sin found in QOD. We believe that sin is not nature, sin is choice. Without the necessary doctrinal foundation, neither is QOD’s compromised view of the atonement and of the nature of Christ sustainable. QOD Adventism is built on the sand, and its foundation has been swept away. Its teaching on the nature of Christ has been revised at least three times.

Via the internet and the networked world God has unleashed forces that utterly redistribute influence and authority. Gatekeepers at every section of the human endeavor are out of business. The merits of QOD Adventism are being weighed side-by-side with the merits of pre-QOD Adventism, and the results of those comparisons cannot be crammed back into any genie bottle.

Here Are They

The power of Adventism is found in its two “T’s”—in “termination” and “transformation.” But it is at these very two places that QOD Adventism is weakest.

The Seventh-day Adventist message is all about “termination”—the end of sin and sinning, the end of suffering and evil. We are adherents of an apocalyptic faith. Does it bother you? It does not bother me. Whereas other Christian groups are left twiddling their thumbs and inventing new ways to sell church, Adventism cuts through the drear dripping rain of evil urging, “God says let’s end this!” We refuse to content ourselves living in a world of sin. That has power. Adventism is about termination.

Our message is also about the other “T,” “transformation.” This too is an attack on sin. The status quo is unacceptable. Strengthened by the helping grace of God, we are changed here and now. Our characters are changed, not by Jesus waving His hands and saying, “blip!” but with our willing surrender. Working in our lives, the Holy Spirit with our cooperation, pries our cold, dead fingers off the electric wire of sin. We pass from death to life (John 5:24; 1 John 3:14). No credit, no merit for us. But the universe sees that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16).

QOD talked about deliverance from sin but insisted on centering the atonement at the cross and in shrinking the significance of Jesus’ high priestly ministry in heaven. It also made men condemned by nature. By deformations of doctrine like these, it effectively undermined both the hope of transformation now and of there ever coming a day when sin would be terminated on terms other than an arbitrary divine declaration. Transformation and termination are the strengths of pre-QOD Adventism. But QOD undermined the very things it was claimed to help.

Be all that as it may be, the future of Seventh-day Adventist mission and message is bright. Although QOD obscured crucial distinctives, a vigorous, fresh wave of young people are thriving in the grass roots, in initiatives like GYC (Generation of Youth for Christ, AKA, General Youth Conference). Many of these energetic Adventists are motivated by an understanding very similar to that which illumined the writings of M. L. Andreasen. It is very much pre-QOD Adventism. It is alive and well. QOD has faded, but Last Generation Theology (LGT) has been growing and is renewing its energy.

Is LGT prominent in mainstream Adventism? Not so much; nor need it be. All it needs to do is continue reproducing itself in studious, Spirit-led believers. While some in the church are engaged in copying other churches and are losing cohesion, creeping toward defection, an army of young people with faith in God and a trust in the Scriptures are evangelistically primed. What’s more, they uphold the full inspiration and authority of the Ellen G. White writings. They are learning. They are growing. They are formidable.

Just as the king told that he is wearing invisible robes was actually naked, so Adventism without its message is actually naked. Just as the king felt rich in his invisible robes, so the Laodicean church feels rich. We may or may not find full unity again. But the candle is burning bright, a new generation is rising, and one day soon, God will say, “Here are they that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus” (Revelation 14:12). Here are They. In the end God wins, and the Third Angel’s Message, which so many have thrown overboard as a quaint relic foisted upon an ignorant church by Ellen White, turns out to be true. Victory over sin was just what the Bible said it was. The mission Heaven assigned to this community of faith was right after all.

And so, where do we go from here? The church is terribly divided on these points. Probably, waiting fifty years to begin to talk about it, we have waited too long. Many of us may desire fellowship, unity, oneness. I know I do. I desire it, actually not just with so-called conservatives, but with so-called progressives. But the sides are so far apart. We are divided by very basic positions concerning the authority of inspired writings. And then, even if some who write and think and theologize want unity, do those holding the opposite position want it? If a pastor has a church filled with “progressive” members, how can they be persuaded to value members of the same denomination who hold views they feel are primitive and false? And even were they persuaded so, will they be willing to spend the energies necessary to seriously seek unity with those who hold such views, rather than to directly evangelize outsiders into their vision of Adventism? I wonder.

Adventism as a church may not be in divorce with itself, but it would be difficult not to argue that we are in almost an agreed separation. And yet, all of this could have been so different. Andreasen was right fifty years ago when he wrote,

Adventists will not permit any man or group of men to make a “creed” for them, and tell them [non-Adventists] what we believe. Too much is at stake... Some of our brethren, in order to be considered orthodox, have compromised our position... I challenge their right to commit the denomination, and protest.¹⁹

This spirit of protest has never ended. Pre-QOD Adventism today is bright with energy. QOD is deceased. And that, to many Seventh-day Adventists, is viewed as a very good thing indeed. The lie is over. GCO

Endnotes

Kenneth H. Wood, “How We Got Where We Are: A review of some aspects of Adventist history since 1955,” prepared for PREXAD and invitees, Nosoca Pines, SC, Feb. 10-23, 1978, p. 2.
It is worth including here all ten points listed by Wood. They are as follows: 1. Inadequate communication with the church membership while the Martin-Barnhouse dialogues were taking place with church leaders. 2. Publication of articles in the Ministry that seemed to be modifying Adventist teachings on the atonement and human nature of Christ. 3. Giving the impression that the traditional teachings on these two points had been held by only a minority—a kind of lunatic fringe or wild-eyed irresponsibles. 4. Suggesting that people who held the ‘old views’ on these two questions would, so far as possible, be held in check. 5. Making clear that changes would be made in our publications to bring them all into line with the ‘new views.’ 6. Failing to give an adequate explanation to serious Bible students within the church as to how they could harmonize apparently conflicting statements by Ellen G. White on the atonement and incarnation. 7. Failing to state frankly to the church members that the church was in transition, gradually replacing biblical theology as normative with systematic theology. 8. Publication of Questions on Doctrine without by-lines and with the full endorsement of the General Conference. 9. Making no provision for discussion of theological questions that were being discussed privately. 10. Re-awakening old anxieties and controversies by publishing Movement of Destiny, again with full General Conference endorsement.
Questions on Doctrine, Annot. Ed., Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2003, Introduction to the Annotated Edition by George R. Knight, op. cit. p. xvi.
Ibid. p. xvii.
Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, p. 623.
Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine, pp. 354, 355, emphasis in original.
Larry Kirkpatrick, “Walter Martin’s Trump Card,”
http://www.greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/kir-qod-atonement.php3.
________, “A Wind of Doctrine Blows Through the Church: the Alternate Hamartiology of Questions on Doctrine.”
http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/pdf/kir-qodconf2007amended.pdf.
See Herbert E. Douglass, “Opportunity of the Century,” [Booklet: GreatControversy.org], pp. 30-32.
See Larry Kirkpatrick, Real Grace for Real People (Ukiah, CA: Orion Publishing, 2003), pp. 86-129.
Much, if not all of this material is available scattered here and there. However, watch for new charts and articles later this year on a new website coming, called MLAndreasen.org.
Adventist Review Annual Council report 2007, “Watch Pastor Paulsen’s Keynote Address,” http://www.adventistaudiovideo.org/d1/specials/2007-paulsen-annual-council.wmv, delivered 2007-10-13, accessed 2008-01-25.
Ibid.
Mark A Kellner, “Andrews Conference Marks Controversial Book’s Anniversary,” http://adventistreview.org/article.php?id=1551, accessed 2008-01-25. Also found in published Review, December 20, 2007, p. 18.
Larry Kirkpatrick, “The Graves of Questions on Doctrine,
http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/kir-gravesofqod.php.
A Visual Retrospective and Memorial.
Questions on Doctrine, Annot. Ed., Introduction to the Annotated Edition by George R. Knight, op. cit. p. xvii.
Walter R. Martin, Kingdom of the Cults, p. 410.
Kirkpatrick, “A Wind of Doctrine Blows Through the Church,” pp. 25-33, 43-45.
M. L. Andreasen, Letter, “The Atonement,” February 15, 1957, p. 5.

© 2008 by GreatControversy.org. GCO grants permission to individuals, wholeheartedly encouraging them to copy and reproduce documents and files appearing on this site, in an unaltered state, and for non-commercial use, unless otherwise noted. All other rights reserved. Other groups or entities wishing to reproduce these materials are encouraged to contact us with reproduction requests.

Pastor Larry Kirkpatrick is an ordained minister of the gospel. Since 1994 he has served in the American Southwest as pastor to churches in Nevada, Utah, and California. He received his Batchelor of Arts in Religion from Southern Adventist University in 1994 and a Master of Divinity from Andrews University in 1999 with specialization in Adventist Studies. While in Michigan he was employed by the General Conference at the White Estate Berrien Springs branch office. Pr. Kirkpatrick has been involved in youth ministry including the General Youth Conference and other initiatives. He is author of the 2003 book Real Grace for Real People and 2005’s Cleanse and Close: Last Generation Theology in 14 Points. He pioneered internet ministry, launching GreatControversy.org in 1997. He presently serves as Pastor of the Mentone Church of Seventh-day Adventists, located near Loma Linda, California. Larry and wife Pamela live in Highland, California along with their children. They are actively involved in foster parenting.