QOD conference bulletin two

By Richard Rice

Thursday, October 25, 2007

I got to the Seminary Chapel last evening right on time for the first meeting of the QOD conference and discovered I was late. Every pew on the main floor was filled, and I was lucky to find a seat in the small balcony. The meeting began on a decidedly religious tone, with congregational singing “I Would Be Like Jesus,” prayer and a beautiful soprano solo for special music. Jerry Moon introduced the conference and laid down some ground rules for the proceedings. There is to be no cheering (it only escalates), all questions will be submitted in writing (no speeches from the floor, obviously), and we should not expect to agree on everything. Instead, the planners want an honest exchange of views that remains cordial throughout. After brief welcoming comments from representatives of two of the sponsoring institutions for the conference, Denis Fortin, Dean of Andrews University Seminary, and Jon Paulien, Dean of Loma Linda University’s School of Religion—Mervyn Warren of Oakwood was delayed in leaving Huntsville—George Knight gave the first keynote address.

George Knight is well know to SDAs. Now retired from teaching at the Seminary after thirty years, he is the author of thirty books, with three more in production, and he has guided many doctoral dissertations dealing with SDA history. His presentation, entitled “Questions on Doctrine: symbol of Adventist Theological Tension,” gave a clear and helpful account of the background of the book. Among the major points he made was the fact that the book paradoxically held firm on many points of distinctive SDA beliefs, such as the heavenly sanctuary and the mark of the beast, and finessed the issue of the atonement—arguing that it included references to both Christ’s sacrificial death and his ministry in the heavenly sanctuary (not just the latter). It broke new ground in asserting the sinless nature of Christ’s humanity. Knight showed that this was a clear departure from the view that prevailed among Adventists through the years, in spite of later assertions to the contrary by church leaders. He also detailed the bitter conflict between M L Andreasen (pictured) and the church administrators responsible for QOD. It led to his forced retirement and the eventual lifting of his credentials. There was, however, a touching account of his deathbed reconciliation with the G C President and another church leader.

Knight’s presentation ended with a moving account of his own experience. “My life has been dominated,” he said, “by the events surrounding the QOD controversy.” He entered the church through the ministry of Ralph Larson, worked hard to achieve the endtime perfection which Andreasen called for, left the church for six for years, disillusioned with religion generally, and finally returned with a new vision of what Christ meant to him. He moved away from Andreasen’s theology, convinced that biblical perfection is not sinlessness, but mature Christian love.

Well, the sun is finally up—that means it’s after eight a.m. in western Michigan—and I’m looking at a good ten hours of meetings today. More later. 

Comments

[Lisa Diller]

About the cheering. What they mean, but don't say is "don't say loud AMENS when someone says something that not everyone agrees with but you do." And there is a bit of this going on. Not much, but a bit. I'm enjoying moving around and hearing the little conversations, especially in the back, that reveal where people stand. I think most of us are dispassionate, but the few who aren't are kind of amusing. so far, although there are a few attempts to play the crowd, everyone has been pretty well behaved.

[Alexander]

Lisa,

Thanks for adding to the commentary.

Your point about social skills seems right on to me. All too often theology is ego, a fortress for building little castles of self-representation.

Theology is essential, but it is determined by both conscious and unconscious hermeneutics and public and private histories.

I hope that this conference elucidates these sorts of contingencies so that Adventist theological disagreements for the next generation became ways that we can know ourselves better -- leading not just to private (perfection) good, but improving the common good as well.

[Lisa Clark Diller]

Someone needs to do an anthropological study of conflicts like this. As an historian, the most fascinating part of this conference is how personal the stories are. All these people were connected through college days, employment, marriage relationships. I'm hearing oral history right now, listening to their stories and perspectives. I feel like someone should connect all the threads in a sort of case-study diagram for how conflict is sparked and then spreads. It does make one wonder how much of the conflict in the world is really about ideas and how much is just sheer personality.

Herbert Douglass's talk last night, while painfully rambling and long, was beautiful in the way that he chose to talk about his love and enjoyment of all the players in this controversy. He indulged in remembering all the little details about them, acknowledging the ways they all bonded--both in pain and in life passion. I think his owning up to the way that conflict creates ties between people, which can be healing or wounding, was the best part of his talk.

Again, I'm struck by the force of personality here. Especially the personalities of those who are no longer with us--Martin, Barnhouse, Anderson, Froom, etc. Do they become bigger in death? Does the fact that they're no longer here mean that we'll never get beyond this--we've calcified, losing the dynamism that's possible with a charismatic leader?

Still having a ton of fun--although I wish people would stick to the time allotted to them!!! No fair taking up all the Q & A time by meandering on and on....

[Jason Shives]

Dr. Rice,

Thanks for taking the time to write this blog. I find this conference fascinating. I became interested in this topic while attending medical school at Loma Linda some years back. Dennis Priebe from Amazing Facts gave a detailed exposition on the history of QOD which I found to be excellent.

Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, many young people do not know the issues. I just hope and pray that people are brought to the Lord, not away from Him b/c of what happens this weekend. I am glad to see that there were members from both sides of the issue present and I hope a season of prayer amongst the participants is undertaken. Boy it is needed.

Blessings and Happy Sabbath!

Jason

[Daniel Wysong]

Rick,

Thank you for the commentary. I find it fascinating - and I personally love theological discussion and debate. I passionately believe that we will be much stronger as a church by becoming more comfortable loving people with different opinions. That said, as a youth pastor, I also find that almost without exception, our young people find this kind of debate completely irrelevant. I am developing the growing conviction that a belief which does not affect our actions is immaterial. As a church, we've got to find a stronger focus on how our beliefs affect reality - what we do. Our one Teacher went out of his way to point out that what matters most is not our beliefs, but our actions. The two groups of people left at the end are not those who believed correctly and incorrectly, but rather those who unselfishly loved and those who did not. (Matt 25) -dan

[Colin MacLaurin]

Was perfectionism ''really'' the majority view?

Interesting that Knight is a former perfectionist. As a new student to Adventist history, I am surprised to see many sources claiming that perfectionism was the majority view just before the 1950s, say. I am stuggling to come to terms with this, and do see evidence to the contrary.

For example, Desmond Ford described Brinsmead when they were students (probably late '50s): "At that time, Robert, following extreme traditional Adventism, believed that a type of perfection somehow had to be reached by the time probation closed; otherwise we would never be able to stand without a mediator." (My emphasis). "Extreme traditional Adventism" does not sound like a majority view to me. Was it really the majority view, or was it just those in power giving that perception? For example, no Catholic I have met agrees with the new Pope's statement that Protestant groups cannot be called "churches". Similarly in our church, the (official) BRI says Adventists are the remnant, but I am confident a clear majority of 15-30 year olds in Australia would disagree!

My question is, was it really the majority position back then?

[David R. Larson]

"Perfectionism" has become such a bad word in some circles that this excellent question is difficult to answer with precision.

In general, like all theological children of John Wesley, we SDAs have always put more emphasis upon increasing maturity in the Christian life than have some other Christian groups. In that broad sense we have always been and will always be "prefectionistic," though the term no longer communicates exactly what John Wesley had in mind.

The first edition of Robert Brinsmead's theology put even more emphasis than this on perfectionsim and I think that this hurt the church.

In reaction, some edged closer as a needed correction to the views of those Christians over the years who have put more emphasis upon God's forgiveness. The theology of Desmond Ford and Edward Heppenstal are often thought of as along these lines.

Meanwhile, the second edition of Robert Brinsmeade's theology switched "teams," becoming as antiperfctionistic as it had once been perfectionistic. I think that this also hurt the church, though in the opposite way.

I have been told that the third edition of Robert Brinsmead's theology is agnosticism.

Common sense and balance help in all of this. Of course, God is forever forgiving. Also, it is true that God's love always empowers us to live more mature lives, if we co-operate.

To put too much emphasis on either of these in isolation from the other is not wise.

I often think of the words of Jesus to the effect that God is at least as gracious as a good human parent. Such people do all they can to include their children, not exclude them.

Keeping this in mind, we need not worry about how God regards us. God's steadfast love endures forever!

[Pat Travis]

Colin and David,

I was born in 1945 and am a 4th possibly 5th gen.Adventist.(don’t hold it against me!) Here is my perception.
There has always existed "by labels"(unfortunate necessity...but useful) in the church during my life, "perfectionistic"(Andreason, Andrew's Univ. Maxwell Brother ,...Ken Wood and Herb Douglass of the "Review" with weekly "perfection" doses in the 70's)-Standish in Australia. A smaller number of evangelicals (Des Ford, Heppenstahl,
LaRondelle) and a segment of "liberal" leaning theologians in the church.(Graham Maxwell who doubts the need of the atonement but as a "demonstration of love" and Cottrell)

This list is not all inclusive, just some of the more visible folks. Maxwell and Douglass wrote a position different than LaRondelle and Heppenstahl in the book “Perfection” around 1974.

Brimesmead started off as a "perfectionist" and was very critical of the QOD book. He later started the Magazine "Present Truth" (around 1970)which aligns with my view because it focused on "Reformation Theology" and “Justification by Faith alone." Desmond Ford, as always, was and remains in this position.

Around 1975, Robert B. changed the Magazine to "Verdict" and it departed from "Reformed Theology" which does emphasize Sanctification but not “perfectionism” and accepted a new view perhaps much like the now Ratzlaff and His "Proclamation."(perhaps a view that is "Situationist Antinomian", that is "Spirit led New Covenant love" without the need of the ethical commands of God's Law.(Des Ford, also disagreed with Ratzliff on this and points out the place of how law and "Covenants" are fulfilled and related in such texts as Heb.9:15-28.)

This issue is NOT about INDIVIDUALS but the VIEWS they held and hold.

It is my opinion that both the fearful “liberals" and “perfectionist” “left Des out to dry” at Glacier View. For some “liberals” to do that while they themselves often reframed EGW should offer them a moment of reflection on integrity and intellectual honesty.(My view)However, most were administrators that did not know what they believed...but the status quo.

But here is the “Skinny” -bottom line of this issue.

Did Christ die as an atonement (propitiation) for sin by perfectly fulfilling the Law (Covenant) and THAT PERFECTION (his perfect life) has been “reckoned” to me when I accept Christ by Faith as my Savior? Thus, I am “considered perfect” in Christ today though yet a sinner.(That my friend offers peace and hope and love to God) Anyone who understands Calvin and Luther does not believe that this does away with the law or the growth in holiness through the Spirit (sanctification.) To say that this position does not deal with both confirms that one doesn’t understand /or accept the issue ...along with the RCC.

If not we find other ways, such as we are “made sinless holy through the Spirit” or “If we Love” we are right with God.(These ultimately are subjective and focus on "our" deeds)

This ultimately is the main issue that divides “perfectionistic” and “liberal theology ” From evangelical in the SDA church. Of course there are other issues i.e. the inspiration of scripture or “sola scriptura” that will divide evangelicals and liberals.

I have probably told you more than you would ever want to know but I have done my best to just present the “facts.” It HAS ALWAYS been a search to find the evangelical position in Adventism and it HAS ALWAYS BEEN OPPOSED)…kind of the pearl of great price.

So What? Well if one doesn’t have a high regard for scripture or the atoning cross of Christ, there is no “SO WHAT.” But, how am I to be “right” with God, said Luther. Is there a more important message to the one who sees his sinfulness?
Where there is “weak law” and a “small understanding” of our sinfulness there is little appreciation of the grace of God found in Jesus Christ.

Regards,
pt

[Joselito Coo]

Thanks, PT, for the excellent summary of the positions held and defended by a few notable persons in Adventism. Did Ray Cottrell lean in the same direction of A. Graham Maxwell regarding the atonement?

[Pat Travis]

Joselito,
Thank you for your interest. It is my understanding that he did not agree with Graham on this point. Dr. Cottrell, now deceased, in his life "had forgotten" more than I know about "scholarly Hebrew and the OT."

He disagreed with our interpretation of 1844 however by saying that Dan.8 and 9 refer to the Antiochus and Maccabeean period. He also said that Dan.9:24-27 does not refer to Christ as Messiah. Des Ford disagrees with Cottrel on this point.

FYI, Des has a great new book on Dan.9 entitled "In the Heart of Daniel."

The issues relate more to interpretation and the immediate context preventing a "messianic view."...as well as prophectic ability to forecast the future. That is why most "liberal" interpretations prefer a late date for the writing of Daniel...2nd century BC.
"prophecy after the fact."
pt

[Bill Cork]

Brinsmead's various views have been mentioned. Here are some thoughts based on lots of reading I did once upon a time, and long conversations with him, Norman Jarnes, Jack Zwemer, and others (from about 1981-1984).

Brinsmead's "Sanctuary Awakening" message was NOT traditional Adventism. Rather, he added to Adventism a belief in original sin. The question became, how then can one stand in the time of trouble after the close of probation without a mediator if one has this baggage of original sin as well as the results of your own lifetime of sin?

His response was two-fold. First, was a proclamation of good news (and I think this is where the message resonated with folks at the time): when our names come up in judgment, we are judged on the basis of Christ's imputed righteousness.

Part two was the perfectionism. He then said that the blotting out of sins at the close of the investigative judgment is not just a judicial actions in heaven but is an experiential act in the lives of believers. It is the cleansing of the mind and heart of original sin and the effects of sin. Some referred this as "Zap Day," and wondered if Christians would realize it had happened.

When he shifted around 1970, he dropped the element of the blotting out of sins as an experience, but stayed with his beliefs of original sin and the sufficiency of Christ's imputed righteousness in the judgment. So it wasn't a complete "about face," as it has sometimes been depicted.

I'd say he had four phases, not three--maybe even five! Phase Three was the period in the late 70s and early 80s when he was directly hostile to Adventist teaching, represented by "1844 Re-Examined," "Sabbatarianism Re-Examined," and "Judged by the Gospel." (Des Ford's 1979 PUC talk was an attempt to retain some significance for 1844 in the face of RDB's critique).

From this Brinsmead shifted to a critique of "Covenantal Nomism," focusing on the insights of folks like Krister Stendahl. From there he just sort of gave up on theology, turned his attention to his fruit business and to local politics, and advocated a sort of "Christian atheism." All these transitions happened very quickly--from 1979-1984. At that point, Norm Jarnes sent me about 20 boxes of books and files from the Fallbrook office of "Verdict," all their material on Adventism, since they saw they'd have no more use for it. I donated much of it to the AUC library, and over the years gave away most of the rest to other people.

This all serves to underline a point made at QOD by both Dave Larson and Larry Kirkpatrick--our definition of sin, especially "original sin," is a critical issue.

[Pat Travis]

Hi Bill,

Don't know all of the pre-70's nuances on Brimesmead but greatly appreciated all the "Present Truth" magazines in the early 70's and I saw His transitions after.

On Original sin and death and it's effects, Rom.5:12-21 deals with this. Christ is the 2nd Adam "spiritually."By one man sin entered...and by one man the "gift of righteousness" came.

"We were dead in tresspasses and sins" in our "natural state." Eph.2:1-5 When was Christ, "conceived of the Holy Spirit", presented to us in scripture in such a position?

You are correct in stating that our understanding of original sin is "essential",for if Christ had a complete nature just like us...why don't we live just like him? The driving force of "sinless perfection" is that since Christ did have a complete nature just like us ,so can we live through the Spirit just like Him.

Interestingly, the RCC says that "through the sacraments of the church and the Spirit" we can be "made perfect."...opposed to the Reformers saying being "reckoned perfect."

For me, that's a heavy monkey on my back and one I perceived under the leadership of Douglass and Woods when I faithfully read the "Review" each week in the early 70's.

So that's my "So What" in how all of this has affected me.

regards,

pt

[Carmen]

Pat,
To what/whom does RCC refer in your previous blog? Thank you.

[Pat Travis]

Carmen,
This is the position of the Roman Catholic Church..."not a slam" just past and present history.The point is that those most vocal in our church at times against RCC actually share much the same doctrine of "being made righteous."

Regards,
pt

[Colin MacLaurin]

Fascinating comments everyone. From your posts it seems that "perfectionism" is a multilayered, highly nuanced term, and perhaps we should be careful before brandishing it as a "label" (kind of like the labels "liberal", "conservative" or even "Seventh-day Adventist", really)!

Personally, I am very interested in "personal growth", and enjoy pop psychology / communication books, so perhaps in a sense you could say that I am a "perfectionist"! This trait has meant that essays I have written for Avondale College have been several times the word limit, I have repeatedly failed to meet deadlines, and am taking literally years to submit my personal testimony to the Australasian Record. So perhaps I am more perfectionistic than Brinsmead ever was - he apparently had no hesitation in asserting dogmatic opinions without adequate reflection!

My question becomes: Was it really the dominant position in the church that Christ had a sinful nature?

[David R. Larson]

Hi Colin!

It is my impression that before QOD many SDAs held that the humanity of Jesus was like our own.

Since then increasing numbers have held that it was more like that of Adam and Eve before they sinned.

A third proposal is that the human nature of Jesus was like ours in some ways but like theirs in others.

I think that we should no longer discuss the matter using the terms of previous generations because today they often leave the wrong impression.

To say that Jesus had a "fallen" or "sinful" nature is almost always to make it seem that he was ethically defective in some way. No one in the QOD discussions believes that, of course.

"Total Depravity" is another perfectly good theological expression that I think we should not use today because it often leaves a wrong impression too.

Many people who hear it in our time think it means something like "completely psychotic." This is a mistake. The expresssion actually means that every aspect of a human person has been damaged somewhat by sin.

For instance, if we think along with Freud of superego, ego and id, all three have been damaged but not entirely destroyed by sin.

I'm not advocating Freud's depiction of the human self; I am merely trying to use it to illustrate another point.

Scripture says that Jesus was tempted in all points but was without sin. I think that this is as all we need to say on the subject.

Aristotle said that we should seek no more precision than the topic under consideration inherently allows. I agree!

Thank you!
Dave