QOD conference bulletin three
By Richard Rice, reflecting on ThursdayIf the organizers of the QOD Conference
wanted a variety of viewpoints, they certainly got it today, with nine
different presentations, two panel discussions, and second evening
keynote address, this time from Herbert Douglass.
In the first session after the morning worship by Nik Satelmajer, Julius Nam neatly divided the various reactions to QOD into four groups—pro- and anti-Adventist Evangelicals, and pro- and anti-QOD Adventists. Among the nine observations he made following this division, was the unlikely fact that the first and fourth groups agreed that QOD represented a change in SDA theology, and the second and fourth agreed that it didn’t. Nam also noted the “tactics” of the QOD authors in excluding M L Andreasen from the preparation of the material and “finessing” the EGW material to support a position that significantly shifted the traditional view of Christ’s human nature. Describing himself as “a heart-broken member” of the SDA church, Russell Standish left no doubt about his views of QOD. It represented “compromise,” “alterations” in basic Adventist beliefs, “the destruction of this body of truth,” “this intrusion of rank apostasy,” “rank error,” as well as a misguided attempt to please “those who despised our faith” on the part of those who “suffered from a strange denominational inferiority complex.”
Another Australian, Arthur Patrick took a strikingly different approach. As he sees it, the QOD controversy as it emerged in Australia reflected in part the disillusionment that followed the end of WW2, when people who thought the end of the world was upon them found out it wasn’t. In reaction, some saw in the QOD controversy a sign of prophesied apostasy. Others saw it as a call to reconsider unexamined certainties and rethink SDA identity. Patrick issued a thoughtful appeal to SDAs to open all the QOD material to thoughtful research. Ciro Sepulveda presented the interesting thesis that the QOD discussion reflected to a significant degree demographic and economic transitions. As church members become more sophisticated and affluent, they wanted a “more enlightened theology,” to match the growth of their educational institutions and their movement into respectable society. QOD provides yet another example of the way religious movements change from sect to denomination.
Alberto Timm provided a detailed account of the QOD in Latin America, where a Portuguese translation is just about to appear. Various parts of the book were published in the form of articles. For the most part the continent was spared the controversy that engulfed the book elsewhere. The membership in Latin America is generally respectful of church leadership, and even those who opposed QOD had not even read it. He also noted, to the amusement of the audience, some critics of QOD presented their views to Brazilian SDAs in Spanish, not realizing that Portuguese was their national language.
In the first session after the morning worship by Nik Satelmajer, Julius Nam neatly divided the various reactions to QOD into four groups—pro- and anti-Adventist Evangelicals, and pro- and anti-QOD Adventists. Among the nine observations he made following this division, was the unlikely fact that the first and fourth groups agreed that QOD represented a change in SDA theology, and the second and fourth agreed that it didn’t. Nam also noted the “tactics” of the QOD authors in excluding M L Andreasen from the preparation of the material and “finessing” the EGW material to support a position that significantly shifted the traditional view of Christ’s human nature. Describing himself as “a heart-broken member” of the SDA church, Russell Standish left no doubt about his views of QOD. It represented “compromise,” “alterations” in basic Adventist beliefs, “the destruction of this body of truth,” “this intrusion of rank apostasy,” “rank error,” as well as a misguided attempt to please “those who despised our faith” on the part of those who “suffered from a strange denominational inferiority complex.”
Another Australian, Arthur Patrick took a strikingly different approach. As he sees it, the QOD controversy as it emerged in Australia reflected in part the disillusionment that followed the end of WW2, when people who thought the end of the world was upon them found out it wasn’t. In reaction, some saw in the QOD controversy a sign of prophesied apostasy. Others saw it as a call to reconsider unexamined certainties and rethink SDA identity. Patrick issued a thoughtful appeal to SDAs to open all the QOD material to thoughtful research. Ciro Sepulveda presented the interesting thesis that the QOD discussion reflected to a significant degree demographic and economic transitions. As church members become more sophisticated and affluent, they wanted a “more enlightened theology,” to match the growth of their educational institutions and their movement into respectable society. QOD provides yet another example of the way religious movements change from sect to denomination.
Alberto Timm provided a detailed account of the QOD in Latin America, where a Portuguese translation is just about to appear. Various parts of the book were published in the form of articles. For the most part the continent was spared the controversy that engulfed the book elsewhere. The membership in Latin America is generally respectful of church leadership, and even those who opposed QOD had not even read it. He also noted, to the amusement of the audience, some critics of QOD presented their views to Brazilian SDAs in Spanish, not realizing that Portuguese was their national language.
The
afternoon session, “QOD and the Evangelicals,” presented contrasting
views of the theological changes represented in QOD. Paul McGraw
detailed the vigorous objections of many Evangelicals to the view of
Martin and Barnhouse that SDAs, for all their distinctive beliefs,
should be considered fellow Christians. For vocal critics like Louis
Talbot, E B Jones, and Harold Lindsell, the distinctives of SDAs posed
an insuperable obstacle to any such judgment. For all the supposed
changes in other areas, these unique beliefs exclude them from the
Evangelical fold. Larry Christoffel gave a
straightforward affirmation of Evangelical Adventism, with its emphasis
on the central themes of Reformation theology—the Trinity, the sinless
nature of Christ, the complete substitutionary atonement of the cross,
and justification by faith alone, to mention just a few. These common
themes call for a closer alliance between Adventists and other members
of the larger Evangelical community.
Two of the non-SDA participants were notable for the differences in their views of the transition that QOD represents in SDA theology. Kenneth Samples, an Evangelical Calvinist who worked for a time with Walter Martin, welcomes the theological changes that QOD embodies, noting that EGW helped the Church toward full-fledged Trinitarianism and an orthodox understanding of the nature of Christ. While noting the differences between traditional, evangelical and liberal SDAs, Samples indicated that Walter Martin regarded the revisionary perspective on SDAm that he encouraged as one of his most important accomplishments. If Samples sees the developments in QOD as a move in the right direction, Donald Dayton, a Wesleyan scholar, takes a different approach. He finds the familiar categories such as conservative, liberal, fundamentalism, and evangelicalism, unhelpful when one takes a close look at the origins and development of religious movements, including SDAm. For him the move away from our roots represents a loss of the distinctive insights that we have to offer the world, and the real driving force behind the SDA ethos (my expression) is eschatology. His paper concludes with this ominous caveat: “I fear that Adventism may sell its heritage for a mess of pottage.”
Two of the non-SDA participants were notable for the differences in their views of the transition that QOD represents in SDA theology. Kenneth Samples, an Evangelical Calvinist who worked for a time with Walter Martin, welcomes the theological changes that QOD embodies, noting that EGW helped the Church toward full-fledged Trinitarianism and an orthodox understanding of the nature of Christ. While noting the differences between traditional, evangelical and liberal SDAs, Samples indicated that Walter Martin regarded the revisionary perspective on SDAm that he encouraged as one of his most important accomplishments. If Samples sees the developments in QOD as a move in the right direction, Donald Dayton, a Wesleyan scholar, takes a different approach. He finds the familiar categories such as conservative, liberal, fundamentalism, and evangelicalism, unhelpful when one takes a close look at the origins and development of religious movements, including SDAm. For him the move away from our roots represents a loss of the distinctive insights that we have to offer the world, and the real driving force behind the SDA ethos (my expression) is eschatology. His paper concludes with this ominous caveat: “I fear that Adventism may sell its heritage for a mess of pottage.”
Herbert
Douglass ended the day with a long paper based on the image of clashing
tectonic plates, symbols of Calvinism and Arminianism. No summary will
do justice to the care with which his presentation was constructed or
convey the personal passion with which is was delivered. But he is
clearly dismayed at the maneuverings of those who produced QOD in
excluding Andreasen from the discussion and manipulating EGW quotations
to support unprecedented doctrinal positions, a straightforward example
of “fraud.” The greatest tragedy of the whole episode, his view seems
to be, was the missed opportunity on the part of the Church to present
to Barnhouse and Martin the great controversy perspective that is
unique to SDAs and that affects the full range of SDA doctrines,
particularly the view of Christ’s humanity and the importance of
sanctification.
I’ll have to wrap this up, since I have an early presentation of my own tomorrow morning, but I would like to see more reflection on the nature of theological change at this conference. Religious movements always change over time in lots of ways, beliefs included. But what do these changes represent? Gains or losses? Growth or decay? Refinement or apostasy? When it comes to QOD, opinions obviously vary, widely. But addressing theological change in general might help us to understand just what has been going on for the past fifty years.
What an enjoyable read! Do you think that this conference will prove to have an impact in any way similar to the initial publishing of QOD had on the church then?
Thanks!
Posted by: Johnny A. Ramirez | 26 October 2007 at 08:06
I really appreciated your talk this morning, Dr. Rice. As someone who isn't a theologian, having someone explain using "little words and short sentences" was useful. I feel like I have a much better understanding of the issues around christology and how those ideas change over time. Again, the historian in me is grateful for the articulation of context and connecting some of these ideas about Jesus to the other points of conflict in our church. I got a good education this morning.
I'm sure you'll give a good synopsis in your report, but you may not be able to communicate how helpful your talk was to those of us in the audience.
Thank you for sharing your time and ideas with us.
Posted by: Lisa Clark Diller | 26 October 2007 at 08:43
I'm seeing lots of overlap here between ideas that came up at the Adventist Forums conference in the Seeking a Sanctuary discussion and Rice's point about talking about how theology changes over time.
Who decides our theology? When do we acknowledge that it has changed? Who are the authorities in our church? How comfortable are we with diversity of theology?
At Santa Rosa we ended up talking lots about how our church is changing and this caused worry. There is also worry among the conservatives here at QOD about our betrayal of historic Adventism. It might be for different reasons, but our concern with change in general should push us to try to wrap our minds around how it actually occurs over time....
Yes, let's please have this conversation. How does theology change? How often does it really change, or is it just our words that change? Is it just the emphases that change? Who "declares" that it has changed?
Bull and Lockhart start to address these issues in their description of us--maybe we should have another conference just laying some of these ideas out of the table.
Posted by: Lisa Clark Diller | 26 October 2007 at 08:56
QOD was officially a textbook in a post-introduction Bible course at our mission college during the second half of the 60's when I studied there as an undergraduate. I took other Bible/religion courses instead so perhaps this was one reason I was spared the confusion resulting from the challenge that was mounted by the Brinsmead brothers who visited us from Australia. Because English is a second language in the country that was a former American colony, and English is still the medium of instruction in most public and private schools, it's no surprise that with the aid of free literature the "Awakening Message" (and similar contrarian movements) could spread to the surrounding Adventist community with relative ease. Fact of the matter is, a good number of educated Adventists, including ministers and several ministers-in-training, became Brinsmead followers and had began, and cocntinue to question the official teaching presented in the QOD. More puzzling, however, is how our church leadership in that part of the world has been able to seemingly contain all deviations from the official line so that there's a total silence, an information black-out, in official circles about a final generation, perfectionistic revival there, whether this stemmed directly or indirectly from the seed that was planted by Robert Brinsmead.
Posted by: Joselito Coo | 26 October 2007 at 10:01
From the bird's eye view (BTW for you progressives-8/46 in the balcony were women, not bad!)the presenters were funny, provocative, historical and pastoral(good take home points were amen-ed). Nature of Christ was addressed and many factions referred to. "nuances" were pigeon holed for efficiency's sake.
In addition to more education about how theology changes as Lisa suggested, it would also be fun (nothing stirs up the blood like impassioned theologians arguing from scripture)to have a follow-up conference looking at the scriptural texts themselves again with today's perspectives. Is the church mature enough to handle this? This friendly yet lively conference seems to indicate they may be.
Posted by: arlyn | 26 October 2007 at 10:40
It is well known that all religious movements change over time; SDA is only a "baby" in the denominational family of Christians. But the question is: do administrators ever acknowledge change or is it just something that gradually occurs with little or no fanfare? Seems the latter has been achieved through this manner.
Posted by: Elaine Nelson | 26 October 2007 at 11:06
I just added a picture at the top of Rick's bulletin -- it depicts an historical scene of Ellen White in a meeting of Adventist believers.
Although I'm only inferring from the published reports, I'm going to suggest that the QOD conference looks different than this one.
And it's not for lack of the presence of God.
Clearly Adventism changes. And it is vital that any discussion about the change discussion avoid the ahistorical tendency to aim for an wholly-divine Ur-time in our theological past.
The question I ask myself: is it possible for our church and my generation to be intentional about theological change without creating new M L Andreasens?
By that I mean the difference between contained dissent (i.e., women's ordination for the most part) and those who feel like change is some sort of metaphysical apostasy.
Posted by: Alexander | 26 October 2007 at 11:52
Right, Alex. Part of the problem is that any specificity starts causing problems, causes changes, and usually does violence to the truth. QOD, everyone is pointing out here, claimed to be "clarifying." Sometimes things are better left unsaid and unclarified. Sometimes mystery needs to be embraced. Not always. I'm deeply influenced by Julius Nam's reflections on the preamble to the 28 fundamental beliefs on this one.
I think what Rice was promoting was a discussion about how change happens, hopefully not saying exactly how and what had changed and coming away with a new statement.
This takes me back to the round table discussion Rice led during the Forums conference where we discussed the topic of "who gets to decide theology?"
Again, over and over again here, the notion has been raised that Froom, Anderson, et al. hijackd the church by doing the clarifying without consulting the larger church. So it seems like this is a big concern--elitism. I think we'd need to acknowledge that the structures of an institution/church may have a different agenda, etc in defining/clarifying/changing theology than lay people.
And "doing" theology on a daily basis--the practice of faith--is done at the lay level. Does that "count" as theology? What if lay people are "mistaken" in their ideas?
These are the issues I think would be important to discuss, among others. Not deciding if/when theology should change..... Just how it actually happens and what counts as theology.
Posted by: Lisa Clark Diller | 26 October 2007 at 12:05
As a person that wanted to attend this conference, but am unable, thank you so much for these posts and discussions...It almost feels as if I'm there. =)
Posted by: Zane | 26 October 2007 at 17:01
We had a wild and woolly discussion this evening centering around Warren's talk on "will it preach?" It was a bit of a chastisement for us scholars, reminding us that what matters for most Adventists is what they hear when sitting in the pew. Does any of this matter when it comes to worship and the life of the saints?
I think it coincides with our posts on a future discussion of how theology gets formed. The experts may not want to trust their hard-earned knowledge, full of nuance and expertise, to pastors. Might they do violence to all details and contingencies? And so our ideas end up looking like knowledge for knowledge's sake.... So maybe it should be pastors that form theology and shape it ultimately for the people. Does theology work its way from the bottom up? "the work of God interprets the word of God"?
Very fun discussion here about what happens when the rubber meets the road. A very important discussion of the disconnect between scholarship and the proclamation of the Word.
Posted by: Lisa Clark Diller | 26 October 2007 at 18:10
A young person would ask, "Does Adventism have anything to offer?" Why be different? Why worship on a different day? Why get chastised by your non-Adventist friends because you don't eat the food they eat?
The only reason a young person would live the peculiar Adventist life is if they believed the message. There has to be reasons why, or there will be no willingness to be different. I believe there are excellent reasons why.
Over the last few years, I have been saddened to see thought leaders in the church who don't believe the message of the church! We are living in an anything goes era of Adventism, I know personally because I attended SDA college recently. The popular message from the post- Ford teachers is, you can do whatever you want and still get to heaven. If that is true, why stay in the church?
Is QOD the reason that there is so much confusion on the importance of Adventism within the church? ...the reason many young people don't know what it means to be an Adventist? If it's not the main reason, I believe it was the slippery slope. Donald Dayton hit the nail on the head.
On a brighter note, Praise God for young people that have decided to ignore the "wolves in sheeps clothing" and search the Word and SOP for themselves!
Join them at GYC this year!
www.gycweb.org
Amen!
Jason
Posted by: Jason Shives | 26 October 2007 at 20:29
Lisa, perhaps "elitism" instead of Utrecht would have put more women in the audience at the AU seminary?
Alex, if I were Richard Rice I would be offended by someone posting a photo next to my article that might suggest I thought there was a relation between the scene depicted and my views as an author. Perhaps that's just me, but I think you'd have done better to post the picture in your own section of the blog. My 2 cents.
Posted by: Robert | 26 October 2007 at 20:48
I think the "where the rubber meets the road" analogy about how it plays to the pews is interesting but not the only consideration. The "official" (GC, Review, EGW estate, Pacific Press etc.) church structure will still protect and promote the institutionalized beliefs and positions, regardless of the thoughts of theologians or the reactions of the laity. The majority of SDA theologians may find a belief inaccurate or not fully developed, the majority of members may find it confusing or irrelevant, but the church structure will continue to insist it is a fundamental belief. Choose your favorite belief...there are so many that work in this exercise. It leads to a further question beyond, "How do we change?"..."Why continue to work for change when beliefs do not allign, and the organizational structure is not open to change?"
Posted by: MR | 26 October 2007 at 21:42
. . . The popular message from the post- Ford teachers is, you can do whatever you want and still get to heaven. . . .
Dear Jason, I worked for Dr. Desmond Ford at Good News Unlimited in Auburn, CA from the late eighties until he retired and returned to Australia. Even now, though semi-retired, I still pastor the group that was called GNU Fellowship in those days—now Auburn Gospel Fellowship.
Anyone with any first-hand knowledge of Des knows that he never taught that you can do "whatever you want and still get to heaven." Who these (unlikely) "post-Ford teachers" are, I do not know; but Des is a man of complete commitment to the gospel and personal Christian discipline.
Thank you, Jason, however, for your earnestness.
Now, in regards to theology changing: I suspect our personal theology will change as we grow older, or we will desert it.
As a convert to SDAm, I studied QOD when it came out, and had high hopes. Thank you, Spectrum, for the wonderful reports on the AU conference.
When we have studied, discussed, loved one another, and had a rich and rewarding life together, we shall all enter heaven rejoicing in the grace of God and the unmatched righteousness of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Posted by: Roy Gee | 26 October 2007 at 23:21
Will the papers presented at the QOD Conference be available somewhere for download or purchase ... or will CDs or DVDs be made available?
Posted by: Monte Sahlin | 27 October 2007 at 06:49
Monte, the papers were all printed out for the attendees and will be available as podcasts soon--within a couple weeks.
There was so much tear-shedding and constant re-affirmation of the Christian love that we share, that I know the Spirit moved in really powerful ways. I don't think we'll have as much difficulty coming together in the future with people we disagree with regarding the "heart" of SDA theology. Hopefully from now on people will recognize that it is too easy to caricature people you disagree with and that face-to-face prayer and study are the way to have unity and diversity.
The feeling was REALLY optimistic last night and I know all the prayer sessions and personal talks outside the meetings helped bring the Spirit to bear on the proceedings.
Over and over it was stated that we really have so much we share in common and that this WAY outweighs our differences.
Jon Paulien provided a possible way for describing the different "segments" of Adventism, avoiding the terms "conservative" and "liberal"--saying that those who are respectful biblical scholars (ie, pretty much everyone at the conference) already share way more in common with each other than they do with the average person in the pew.
For better and for worse.
I agree, Robert, that "elites" would usually make decisions that agree more with me (ie, women's ordination). I'm part of them. But as a member of the Body of Christ, I'm willing to be part of a group that includes more than "elites" and that participates in a conversation with lots of people who emphasize different visions of our mission, our theology, our ministry in the world. All members of the Body do their part to help me be better.
I think this came across loud and clear yesterday. Woody Whidden reminded us that everyone in the room "are ALL wild-eyed optimists about the grace of God." Together we can extend the kingdom. Not by name calling or judging the motivations of others.
I'm missing out on the communion service this morning and am sad about that--and it will be a very fitting ending to this incredibly fun and Christ-centered conference. I think a lot of healing happened.
Posted by: Lisa Clark Diller | 27 October 2007 at 07:53
I also appreciated the reminders from all sides that our "peculiar" lifestyle should be the one in Micah--loving justice and mercy and walking humbly after God. The community of faith will reflect God together as they love each other and do good in the world, extending the kingdom of God where they are. That is the heart of the message. No one argued for "peculiarities" of food and dress--just a heart for spreading the gospel and extending the kingdom.
I was particularly blown away by Dave Larson's talk. Along with Don Dayton, he reminded all of us to really think outside the box regarding the contributions of Adventist theology. Both of them were reflective of N.T. Wright's work on Jesus and affirmed Adventists for understanding the Hebraic context of the Word of God (both Jesus and Scripture) and our faith. We would do well, I think, to claim this aspect of our faith more overtly--and learn how to talk about it with other Christians. We use so much of our own internally-focused jargon that we really miss out on chances to bless the rest of the Christian church--not to mention the world.
Posted by: Lisa Clark Diller | 27 October 2007 at 08:00
My contribution to this discussion is a cartoon. You might find it interesting. Andy
http://adventistperspective.blogspot.com
Posted by: Adventistperspective@gmail.com | 27 October 2007 at 14:54
"Over the last few years, I have been saddened to see thought leaders in the church who don't believe the message of the church! We are living in an anything goes era of Adventism, I know personally because I attended SDA college recently." So wrote Jason.
Thanks, Jason, as mostly what I perceive in most of the posts is a definite tendency to pluralism and a "do it yourself the way that appeals to you." Certainly, this does not equate with Scripture which teaches -- Matthew 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Posted by: YourFriend | 27 October 2007 at 16:37