The Source of Theological Conflict in Adventism
I hope that readers will not mind, but I’d like to focus once more on the Seventh-day Adventist context and the book Questions on Doctrine. Readers from outside the Adventist tradition may find analogies to their own situation, but I will be addressing the Adventist context directly in this blog.
Recently at Loma Linda University, several presenters repeated their contributions at the Questions on Doctrine conference in October (along with a couple of new presenters) in an attempt to share that experience with the Loma Linda audience. We were reminded of the long history of inner-church conflict precipitation by the publication of the book.
It dawned on me during a panel discussion that there are several inner forces at the core of Adventist belief that will inevitably spawn conflict. In other words, the core values of Adventism tend to work against each other somewhat in a dynamic tension that can be invigorating and fruitful, when people are open and affirming, but can be destructive when people focus on one or the other value at the expense of the others.
The first of these values is a strong concern for the "landmarks" of Adventist faith. There is the sense that Adventism has made some significant contributions to the world of faith and no amount of doctrinal development can or should change that. Those who see this value as central to the neglect of the other two will tend to be overcritical of change of any kind.
The second core Adventist value that can create conflict as well as positive change is what I call restorationism. This is the idea that Adventists are called to restore the values of the New Testament (such as Sabbath and sanctuary) that have been lost in the course of Christian history. This value was a major driver of change in the first two generations of Adventist doctrinal development. Related to this is the idea of "present truth," that Adventism at its best will be constantly evolving in its relevance. People who adopt this value as central to the neglect of the other two will tend to promote change at the expense historic Adventist views.
The third core Adventist value is mission, the sense that Adventists have a message for the whole world. But as the Adventist world president said recently, "Theology is being driven by mission." The challenges of reaching out to a world filled with Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and many others is causing God-fearing people to reconsider how the gospel can best be expressed in settings other than the Western, Christian world in which Adventism came into being. So mission is becoming an increasingly powerful engine of doctrinal change and re-expression. But the great danger of a theology driven by mission is syncretism, where true faith is diluted by accommodation to world views that may not be compatible with the gospel.
Each of these core values is thoroughly Adventist. Yet the confluence of these core values will inevitably lead to conflict whenever one is privileged over the others. The more we become aware of our own natural biases, the more sympathetic we will be to perspectives that differ from our own natural tendencies.
In looking at myself, I think my theological work has been driven by mission, restorationism and fidelity to the landmarks in that order. All three have been important to me, but I realize that I may not have given the "landmarks" perspective as much weight as mission in the development of my own understanding of theology. But self-awareness here is half the battle. And to the degree that I keep all three values in balance, my own understand of God and faith will be richer and more helpful to others.
So when it comes to discussions such as those surrounding the book Questions on Doctrine, conflict is inevitable due to people’s natural tendency to emphasize one or another of the basic Adventist core values. But when we discover that there is more than one right way to think, we will find ourselves enriched by those we have disagreed with in the past.
I am curious as to how the reception of this entry will be handled by the movers and shakers of the corporate church. Anyone who has a computer can search for issues on the SDA Church and see the conflicts we have, not only the fundamental Christians, but with our own members. It appears that there may be more than two sides to these issues.
Older Adventists or those who don't use the computer tend to feel comfortable with their firmly established opinions whether or not they were based upon truth or lies. But just attempt to enlighten them with 'new truth' and you had better step back or see 'fur fly'!
Take one of my recent experiences for an example. I was asked to teach the main church Sabbath School the week the lesson quarterly's issue was on the Bible as being the "Word of God". And yes, one of the 28 fundamental doctrines is that the Bible IS the Word of God and don't mess with it! You must understand that this class holds many dyed-in-the- wool elderly Adventists. To even question the validity of this doctrine places one in jeopardy of being shunned, not to mention being called a kook.
My question to them, and to anyone who calls himself a Christian, is this: IF one says that the Bible IS the Word of God, or the Inspired Word of God, and IF anything in it actually is not, then would you be calling God a liar? After all, didn't Jesus give us a story to show us that He would be the sower of truth (wheat) and that Satan would sow lies (tares) (by the way of writers of books found in the New Testament) and that the New Testament is the field? I am not saying that the word of God is not found in the bible for that would mean that it would be impossible to find truth.
I presented to them two eggs, one hard-boiled. I asked if anyone would mind if I tested the eggs by breaking one on their head. Of course they said that would not be acceptable. Why not? Where is your faith for choosing the right one? Yes, there is a simple test, the 'spin test' to find the one that is hard-boiled. But what is the true test of what is fact or fiction regarding things written in the Bible (New Testament), or for that matter, all 28 fundamental doctrines of the SDA Church?
What I am saying is this: We can argue until the 'cows come home' about lots of issues, but what if we could have a test, a real test, (not simply if 'it' agrees with scripture because scripture just might be incorrect), then perhaps we could have that wonderful UNITY that Jesus prayed for in John 17? My Internet live radio show called "THE BIBLE ON TRIAL" was established because of this dilemma. Perhaps I should have another one called "THE ADVENTIST CHURCH ON TRIAL"? It now appears that this test is the straight testimony of Jesus given to us by His eyewitnesses only. John 14:26
Reply to this
I think there are not so many real conflicts in doctrine. Now that the Adventist Bible has been published, supporting the core doctrines has become much easier!
http://adventistsnotcult.blogspot.com/2008/01/roots-of-ratzlaff-error.html
Reply to this
When discussing the QOD controversy I think it does well to discuss the state of the church just prior to its publication.
Sometimes the critics of QOD think that the state of the church during the 40's and 50's was idyllic. But from my experience in interacting with many of our faith who grew up during those years it was anything but perfect. Legalism seemed to be the order of the day. People were disfellowshiped for coming out of a movie theater, etc. It was a time in which the SOP trumped the Bible in the pulpit. In other words, our theological malaise didn't start with QOD, it was already there.
Granted, errors may be fostered in QOD on the nature of Christ, and the issues of the atonement. Perhaps the authors were to beholden to the evangelical standard of orthodoxy of the faith that they did compromise upon points of doctrine that threatens our mission and message as a movement. Then, again, maybe not. But one thing is for sure, the battle waged over the publication’s contents since the 1950's hasn’t gotten us out of our spiritual malaise. We seem to be just as bogged down and fragmented by the controversy after the book as we were bogged down and bound in legalism before the book.
Too, I think we cut too many fine points on theology in this controversy over QOD. Sin is more than a choice: it’s a condition we are all born with. We are self centered from the get go. If we make Jesus so like us He needed a Saviour, too. And we know that is not the case. We need to claim that in Christ we have total victory over all sin. The Bible teaches victor over sin, not ushering into glory over come with it. Why would we want to bring in sin to a place where no sin exists? If we are converted then sin is not acceptable in our lives and we would dare not think that we can take a bit of it with us. It was for sin that Christ died! Do we want to take lightly that which killed the Son of God?
If the cross were lifted up in our pulpits more than theological controversies, I believe we would indeed come out of our malaise and into the glory of God, and find our message and movement empowered and we would complete the mission.
Reply to this
Dr. Paulien,
Good post. As a Seventh-day Adventist pastor working in a very postmodern culture (U.K.- American ex-pat), I have recently questioned my own emphasis, asking myself if I have been helping my members with their identity as Seventh-day Adventist. I've concluded that I have not been balanced in my own and need to make some corrections. Thank you for what I take as an encouragement in that direction.
Reply to this
I've just finished reading the 2007 Spectrum blog postings on the QOD seminar you have been referring to. Good stuff. Sorry I missed it. The theological climate within the church is very different in the U.K. We are very preoccupied with postmodern and multi-cultural issues as they relate to church mission. There is no open debate, not to my knowledge, on QOD related doctrines or issues.
Personally, I follow and teach the doctrines of Christ' nature and Rigtheousness by Faith as they are currently expressed in the updated QOD. I say this meaning this is my doctrine, but sadly, not always my practice.
Since my studies at Newbold (2000-2003) I have increasingly emphasised Luther's theology of the cross, both as a doctrine of revelation and on of salvation. This isn't because such a theology runs rampant on the Newbold campus, but because this was where my research led.
I even proposed, to the University of Wales, Bangor, a doctoral thesis consisting of a comparative study between Luther's Heidelberg Disputation and the writings of Ellen White (as a normative benchmark of Adventism), to see how we faired on a theology of the cross as a doctrine of revelation.
The proposal was accepted, should we find a supervisor (we did not), but practical pastoral concerns kept me from pursuing the study. (A professor at Newbold later offered supervision).
I offer this for any who might want to use it as a means of exploring the QOD questions of Soteriology and Christology from a different angle. (Luther advocates repenting of especially our "good works"...I agree.)
Thanks again for blogging on these issues. It gives me a link to my American / Adventist roots, a salve for the occasionally homesick soul. It also provokes the occasional thought.
Reply to this
These ideas (ie. that the conflicts in Adventism stem from simply different good elements within the church, striving to carry out their designed purpose) are very similar to the ideas conveyed in the old story about the blind men and the elephant...that all were just touching a different part of the elephant, and therefore used different words to describe it.
The danger in that analogy is that there is no distinction made between truth and error. Were all the blind men really touching an elephant or were some actually touching a tiger or a pig instead? If we would then try to draw a picture of the elephant based on these different descriptions of different animals, we would come up with a monstrous beast, similar to what is described in Revelation 13:2. God forbid! That the picture of Jesus, which we present to the world, should end up being a composite beast instead?
Another way of describing this is to say that there are opposing virtues (such as caution and boldness, for example), and there are sinful deviations to these opposing virtues (such as fearfulness and wrecklessness). We can and should balance the opposing virtues, but never should we attempt to balance deviations from those virtues.
Trying to balance sin and righteousness will never work...that is what Laodicea attempts to do in her lukewarm condition (mix the hot and cold). This is what Babylon is...a strange mixture of truth and error.
The conflicts over some of the ideas expressed in QOD have gone on for over 50 years now...it is a wound that refuses to be healed, and that should tell us that something is terribly, terribly wrong. Fig-leaf arguments to cover our nakedness will not do.
For myself, I've been an Adventist for over 20 years, but the first two years found me in bondage to sin, an unwilling slave. QOD, which men wrote, couldn't help me (only left me more confused), but the 1888 message, which God gave, finally led me to freedom. Unfortunately, I had to go outside the SDA church to find that message (but NOT outside Adventism, because "salvation is of the Jews", as Jesus said).
If we Adventists will not heed the invitation of the King to "come to the wedding" and "put on the wedding garment", in just the way that the King wants that message to be given, but must instead soften it down and change it to suit our own ideas, then the servants whom the King sends will pass us by and go into the highways and byways to prepare a people for the Lord's coming. Does history have to repeat itself?
Reply to this
As for the blind men and the elephant, it is for this reason why Jesus came to make the blind see. Why is it that people refuse to open their eyes? Could it be that the "Clear Word Bible" is nothing more than a hood over the eyes?
Reply to this
Frank, I appreciate the analogical distinctions you make, but I am not clear about your belief regarding the doctrine of righteousness by faith. You say some of us are failing to give the message "just the way the King wants the message to be given". I do not doubt that. But what is your understanding of "that way"?
I know that's a big question and this is a small space. Please feel free to contact me personally.
Reply to this
Jan,
I will take up the discussion with you personally, as it would seem a bit disrespectful to use Mr. Paulien's blog comment area for personal discussions that other readers may not be interested in.
Reply to this
Very Interesting.
We, as a church, are so interested--I might even say consumed--by Adventist doctrine that we forget the main reason for being here--TO PREACH JESUS with nothing added or taken away. If we preached Jesus Christ instead of "Adventism, legalism or cheap grace" God would bless our efforts in a way that would shock and amaze us. Jesus did not tell his disciples to go out and preach Judaism or in our case Adventism. He said to spread the Good News of Jesus Christ. We are to go out and preach a crucified and resurrected Christ. I sometimes wonder if we (the church) have forgotten our sole purpose for being on this earth.
Perhaps we should reevaluate what our mission is.
Thanks for the opportunity.
Reply to this
It is evident that conflict exists withing the SDA church, just as conflict exists in the qualities of "The Gospels" that are in the New Testament. It is my opinion (all of this writing is my opinion based in the words and teachings of Jesus Christ and Him alone)that anyone that doesn't see the conflict with respect to the Gospel of the Kingdom (Matt. 24:14) as delivered by Jesus Christ to His disciples and the gospel that Paul delivered to the Church that became the foundation of the Christian church is truly blind.
This goes to the heart of the "conflict" within the SDA church, that is, we (SDA's) have forgotten who we are and what we were set up on earth to do. We have placed the "Landmarks" of Adventism have been placed in the concrete of "Tradition" such that Truth is no longer thought of as an ultimate goal (singular and absolute) that can and must be achieved for Sanctification and Salvation, but rather a process that ensures that no one need find Truth because grace is sufficient. Truth at the founding of the Advent movement was diligently sought and highly revered. (Rev.3:1-6) Today Truth is indistinct, a fluid that fills the the container of the heart and mind no matter what the condition. After all (it is said) my truth is as good as your truth and all truth leads to God. Why seek Truth when all you need is grace.
Our church must restore our devotion to the search for Truth (Rev.3:3). I have heard many use the statement that 'New Truth will not do away with old truth. New truth is always built on the foundation of what has come before." It is this attitude that prevents the SDA church from moving forward into the full light that God needs for His Kingdom to have before it can take this light to the world. (John 12:35)
In 1843-44 we as a people thought that we were the Bride, and that the Bridegroom was coming just for us. What we failed to realize then and what we refuse to understand today is that the Kingdom that Jesus speaks of in Matt. 24:1-13 is NOT the Bride, but the Bridesmaids. Their job is to get the bride ready for the coming of the Bridegroom. Thankfully the Bridegroom delayed His coming (not the coming in the clouds) to give time for the Bridesmaids to figure out who they are and what God is requiring them to do. The SDA church IS that Kingdom of which Christ speaks in Matt. 24. We are the ONLY body of believers that exactly match the identifiers that Christ states in this prophecy. And right now we are asleep, we don't know who we are and we don't care because we are asleep.
There is conflict within the church because we are asleep. But this level of conflict is nothing compared with the level of conflict that will exist in the church AFTER the "Cry at Midnight" goes out, "The Bridegroom is here (right now) come out to meet Him."
Those who do not reassess Adventist landmarks (traditional truth) will be asleep when the Bridegroom shows up.
Reply to this
This topic is probably long dead so I may be talking to the walls here but anyway.
Although this entry has focused on the QOD document I have found in my little corner of the world (South Australia) that issues raised by Des Ford are far more of an issue in Australia. I have found it difficult to gather an accurate impression of what contemporary Adventist scholars think about this issue some 30yrs on. I can say it has been my observation that in Australia most of the pastors I meet are quite advocates of Des's ideas.
This may not be the forum but do you have anything to add Jon?
Reply to this