QOD conference bulletin four

By Richard Rice

Friday, October 26, 2007

Today was the final full day of the QOD Conference, emphasis on “full.” It began with a stirring appeal from John McVay, president of Walla Walla University, based on Paul’s exhortation in Ephesians to Christians to put away all animosity and treat each other with consideration and love. The various presentations and discussions that followed were variously characterized by scholarly impassivity and spiritual fervor, giving the overall atmosphere a rather strange mix of campmeeting, testimony meeting, and academic seminar.

Roy Adams and I had the first two papers on the theology of QOD, and we both addressed the question of Christ’s humanity. Roy wrote his dissertation on M L Andreasen, so he had a lot to offer about the historical and theological backstory of QOD. But we agreed, I think, that in his human nature Christ was not subject to sin either experientially or inherently. Adams detailed the various faux pas of those who prepared QOD—the same problems noted by a number of presenters--and concluded with a critique of “final generation” theology, the view of Andreasen, Douglass and others that the last generation of God’s people on earth will attain an unprecedented level of spiritual excellence, and will thereby demonstrate conclusively that Satan’s charges against God’s character are false. “To bend theology to fit our eschatological goals and objectives,” Adams asserted, “is neither sound nor prudent.”

The other morning papers offered impassioned pleas for opposing views of perfectionism. Colin Standish, Russell’s twin and close collaborator, took emphatic exception to the two problematic elements in QOD, the affirmation of Christ’s sinless humanity, and the notion that the atonement was complete on the cross, rather than continuing with Christ’s ministry as high priest. He too railed against the authors of QOD, describing their work as “a planned attempt to reshape the beliefs of our church.” For Standish, the concept of original sin is particularly objectionable, since it describes sin as a condition rather than an act of transgression.

Woodrow Whidden matched Standish’s rhetorical flair as he talked through his paper on the “enduring theological legacy” of QOD. A historian of SDAm, Whidden finds a great deal of Wesleyan theology in the background of EGW's doctrine of salvation, and he faults “last generation” theology for a failure to appreciate the difference between sanctification and glorification. Sinlessness comes only with the latter, he argues, and not before. For Whidden, “effective forensic justification” and “penal substitutionary atonement” are the key concepts in a valid doctrine of salvation, and last generation theology is a huge mistake.

LeRoy Moore argued that it is possible to pull together competing strands from both groups by affirming the paradoxical nature of truth. In his view, Christ had “a post-fall inheritance” but a “sinless spiritual nature," resisting sin throughout his life by relying on the Holy Spirit. I’m not sure just how these pieces fit together, but I like Moore’s irenic motives and his confidence that we can all get along.

Dave Larson began his remarks with a touching remembrance of his father, the late Ralph Larson, who is well known for his extensive discussion of the issues of the conference, especially his treatment of Christ’s humanity. For his part, David believes the denominational preoccupation with the person of Christ and the question of whether the atonement was or was not completed on the cross are not worth the theological energy SDAs have spent on them. On the one hand, the whole idea of human nature is problematic, as Buddhist views of the ephemeral self indicate. On the other, there are suggestive elements in SDA thought that deserve much more attention, such as Sabbath time, God’s ongoing work of salvation throughout human history, and the affirmation of human freedom, and our concern for “the state of the living.” To those mired in a concern for the precise nature of Christ’s humanity and the precise locus of the atonement, Larson had a strong piece of advice: “Get a life!”

At the close of the day, the deans of the three sponsoring institutions, Andrews, Loma Linda and Oakwood, offered some concluding observations on the conference and its themes, along the lines of where we have been and where we might go from here.

In retrospect, the conference gave me an overload of things to think about. I learned a great deal more about the production of QOD than I ever knew; I heard from people who have been energized by its controversial themes for years, and I still have a hard time understanding why it has attracted so much attention. It is a persistent challenge to me as a theologian to relate issues of such specific denominational dimensions to some of the larger issues in Christian thought. There are other elements in Adventism, and there are certainly other elements in Christianity, that deserve more consideration.

At the same time, I recognize that doctrinal diversity includes not just conceptual differences, but emotional differences, too—for want of a better word. What is a minor matter to one SDA may be an issue of crucial importance to another. Learning to live together requires us to accept different ideas and different personalities, too, and sometimes the latter pose the greater challenge. However, in this supposedly postmodern age, in which beliefs allegedly no longer matter, it was encouraging to me as a theologian to find so many people intensely interested in doctrinal issues. It gives pause to consider the fact that virtually every theological question has been, for someone sometime, a matter of life and death.

One final note. The organizers of the conference deserve enormous credit for pulling it off. They did all they could to plan an interesting program (in the face of widespread suspicion) and to make things run smoothly, from setting an appropriate tone in the first meeting, to providing various ways for us to interact with each other, from group prayer to common meals, and for so efficiently covering all the details that no one thinks about until something goes wrong, like getting us meal tickets and parking permits. Kudos to all of them, Michael Campbell, Jerry Moon, Julius Nam, and their associates. 

Note enough QOD for you. . .check out the QOD wikipedia page.

Comments

[Felisa]

As others have said previously, thank you so much Dr. Rice for sharing the content of these meetings and your personal observations. These posts have been quite consoling as well as highly informative to one who was unable to attend the conference.

I would also like to add that perhaps Dr. Larson has a point that few, in the Adventist and non-Adventist world alike, take seriously enough.

[Adventistperspective@gmail.com]

I hope this conference makes a difference. My fear is that the “impassioned” debates will simply “let off steam”, thereby sidetracking necessary doctrinal reforms. Andy

[Pamela Maize Harris]

Thank you, Dr. Rice, for the excellent reporting and commentary. I must agree with you about focusing on issues that affect the larger Christian church. Have you considered organizing the conference on The Sabbath that you suggested might be more impactful on a larger circle? It is long overdue and a yearly conference would be beneficial in moving us forward in addressing the many layers of this topic.

The topic of perfectionism, which stems from the understanding of the nature of Christ, has been a very divisive one in our Church. Do you remember the book on Perfection, published by Southern Publishing Association in the late 1970s which featured essays on several sides of this discussion, including Herb Douglass? It seems to me the QOD discussions are still part of that issue.

Now, where can I sign up for that Sabbath conference?

[arlyn]

You know what I enjoyed? Woody said in reference to those who believed in a subjective theory of atonement, they were "on a fast track to hell!" (his adamant emphasis)

Guess he'll be one shocked guy in heaven. God loves surprises.

[Hedrick Edwards]

My attitudes toward the subject very much resonnate with thoughts expressed by three individuals in particular: LeRoy Moore, Dave Larsen, and Ric Rice.

Moore's observation that Christ had a "post-fall inheritance" seems so obvious in terms of physicality at least, and who knows what else such physicality impacts! It should be obvious, too, that Christ was without sin, and who can fully know how! Positioning one's theology around either one of these two poles, to the exclusion of the other, hardly does justice to the subject. There seems to be clear ground for confidence in Moore's "irenic" position, as Rice labels it. Unfortunately, in our culture we are prone to take sides - to singleminded obsessions rather than to eclectic understandings.

Although the central issue of Christ nature and his atonement deserves continued theological reflection, I identify rather strongly with Dave' Larsen's questioning whether the energy various factions of the church have expended seeking to unravel the precise intricacies of the subject and to justify their positions is ultimately worthwhile - in view of other critical and relevant theological issues. And in view of the fact that, both literally and metaphorically, the world is burning!

If we can find useful ways to relate the subject to the immoral seduction of an entire culture and civilization by accepting the need for the violent overthrow of nations through unending wars fought ostensibly to usher in unending peace, all in the name of faith and other popular euphemisms; to the resurgence and justification of the Dark Ages practice of the barbaric torturing of those we have made our enemies; to confronting abject poverty globally at a time of unmatched global wealth; and, at a time of unmatched overnutrition, help answer the anguished prayer for daily bread that the 800 million starving, malnourished, and castaway fellow human beings are silently praying - if we are resourceful enough to connect the subject to these urgent challenges so that it enlightens and inspires an engagment with the stark realities of our precarious planet today, even if the only means of engagement at our disposal is our pen and voice, then the subject deserves to be high on the denomination's agenda.

Without this connection, I'm afraid that, with Ric Rice, (but perhaps for reasons that may be entirely different), I will continue to have a "hard time understanding why it has attracted so much attention". Perhaps it would be wise to reflect on Dave's advice to "get a life".

Hedrick Rdwards

[Colin MacLaurin]

"check out the QOD wikipedia page" indeed, as these blogs are now linked from there! Thanks Rick for describing the conference for internationals like me who couldn't make it. I'm looking forward to reading about your open theism - congrats for teaming up with Clark Pinnock to write about it. You're probably aware that the Avondale College theology dean Ray Roennfeldt did his Masters on Pinnock.

[Bill Cork]

Hi Rick,

It was good to see you again, and to meet Julius in person (who was too busy scurrying around as organizer that we never got a chance to sit down and talk!), and to reconnect with many old friends and names from cyberspace.

A highlight for me was the spirit of prayer that pervaded the proceedings, and the communion service on Sabbath morning. This was the right conclusion--footwashing, a communion service (led by Angel Rodriguez, with George Knight on one side and Colin Standish on the other), and a sermon by Rodriguez inviting us to turn from theological debate to doxology, to stand in awe with the shepherds at the foot of the manger, before picking up again our conversations and debates.

Julius and Michael and George and Ron, and all the others responsible for both the annotated QOD and the Conference, are to be commended.

A point that mustn't be overlooked, I think, is that QOD is a 700 page book, and Andreasen, its harshest critic, was only concerned with two points. I read the entire book a few weeks ago, and found it to be a wonderful book of apologetics. Let's not forget that! Let's not just read a half dozen pages and think we know the book!

[Jereth]

These QOD conference bulletins have been very interesting reading! Thank you Dr. Rice!

I would be interested to know what the "vibe" was on the ground, i.e. at the level of the common layperson or minister in the audience.

My feeling is that this conference was definitely valuable and worthwhile, and the organisers ought to be commended. However, I also wonder if anything really changes. It sounds as if folks like the Standish's and Douglass will go away with as much zeal as ever in their opposition to modern SDA theology. True reconciliation on these issues is impossible -- we can ignore the differences of opinion, but this won't reduce their gravity and seriousness.

It is analogous, I think, to justification by faith and the Reformation, or homosexuality and the modern church -- on matters as central and emotive as these we can never expect a cessation of hostilities.

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

Certainly one must agree that Rick Rice did a superb job of reporting on the recent Andrew’s conference on QOD. It does amaze me that conservative theologians still play with the Gnostic belief there is no original sin or pit Arminius against Calvin.

Certainly these anomalies exist only because of the plague of a “Final Perfect Generation”.

It seems that the invitation of Jesus is inclusive not exclusive: “Come unto Me all ye that labor and are heavy laden.” It seems to me that the final question is not “Why does Jesus wait?” But “Why halt ye between two opinions?”

Is Jesus who He says He is or not?

I for one believe in Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, who died not only for me but for all rational human beings from Adam on. Tom

[Bill Cork]

Denial of original sin isn't a Gnostic belief. I suppose if you wanted to label it you could call it a Pelagian belief--but Pelagius wasn't a Gnostic. "Original sin" for Gnosticism could be said to be the fall from spirit to matter--and they taught Jesus, as spirit, did not share our material being, but only appeared to. No Adventist would teach that.

It isn't just conservatives who have a problem with original sin--David Larson also expressed his discomfort with it.

One also must define what one means by original sin. Does it include guilt, as Catholics would say? Orthodox Christians and Protestants disagree with that.

It isn't just conservatives who pit Arminius against Calvin. This is a major divide in Protestantism. All the presenters agreed that Adventism is clearly Arminian.

The different parties have more in common than I think they realize or want to admit. All agree Christ was fully human and fully divine, and that his humanity was affected by heredity, and was the weakened, mortal flesh we share. All agree he is substitute and example. All agree as a high priest he is able to sympathize with our weaknesses. They all agree he could have sinned (something Catholic and most Protestant theologians would deny), but never wavered. All agree that while we are born separated from God, his relationship with the Father and the Spirit was never broken. All agree that Jesus is coming and that there will be a time of trouble and that those who live through it will have a very intense experience that will require them to cling closely to Christ. All agree, I think, that the Holy Spirit will continue to uphold them.

There are issues that undergird the differences that need further exploration. What is the nature of sin? What exactly do we inherit? Is sin a "substance" or "infection" that can be passed along, or is it better spoken of as a broken relationship and acts of the will? David Larson asked whether we might be operating with an understanding of the human person derived more from Aristotle and Plato than from the Bible.

There wasn’t much discussion of the larger Christian history of discussion about these issues. Douglass and an Evangelical scholar, Donald Dayton, pointed out that many theologians have shared a belief that Christ took our fallen nature (including Edward Irving, Karl Barth, and Colin Gunton). I think it would be good for some historians and theologians to explore their thought and how it compares with the thought of Adventists who share this perspective.

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

Thanks Bill Cork

A very good summary.

Tom

I just think that theology should begin with "He that has seen Me hath seen the Father" and not with Romans 8:29,30 tOM

[Arthur Patrick]

Rick Rice has done sterling service by getting these reports written so quicky and so well. The comments posted illumine the process of the conference, too. I only "found" these reports after writing a 1200-word report of the conference and I deeply appreciate their accuracy and depth. The Adventist future will be different from the past if we engage in "the dialogue and dialectic of a community" that takes into account the entire range of available information.

[Sean]

Arthur: I'd be interested in reading your report of the conference, as I imagine many other would also. Do you have it posted somewhere? Perhaps Alex would let you post it here?