25 July 2002 Editorial:
(Who's) Liking the Review Better and Better?

Larry Kirkpatrick

Editorial #108

A recent letter-writer praises the Review.¹ That author says he was "overjoyed to see three items in the July 11" edition. The first was about two young women who are not Adventists who shared their faith in Afghanistan. Then . . .

"The next item was the editor's hearty recommendation of Philip Yancey's books. With numerous other Adventists I have blessed and edified by Yancey's ministry. When you hear him in person he is just like his books. Editor Johnsson sees important parallels between Yancey's experience and that of many Adventists (including this one). Johnsson says Yancey's latest book 'makes a wonderful read. It will leave you, like me, with much to reflect on.' Amen."

His third pleasure was that in his view, our General Conference president demonstrated a "courteous, respectful attitude toward other Christians. While keeping our identity and our own convictions, we can respect others' sincerity and dedication to the same Christ we serve."

What's more interesting is his take on how these three things show something.

"These three items, taken together, suggest that we Adventists are becoming more accepting, more kind, more secure Christians. In none of the above reports is there any condescension, any repetition of the tired slogan 'we have the truth,' or any hint that the young women from Afghanistan, Philip Yancey, or any others 'don't have all the light that we have.'"

The writer closes by saying, "We have come a long way. All around us are sincere, godly Christians in many denominations. Surely we can trust God to lead them in His own way and His own time, while we remain committed to our church -- as they are to theirs."

We've shared from this letter to the editor at some length because its content make an important point that echoes one we've been considering for years. Namely, that today the Review appears so far astray from where it ought to be that often its primary supporters are wishing to subsume or entirely eradicate Adventism's distinctive voice. Sliding down the same slime trail as mainstream post-modernism, too many in our midst are aggressively opposed to any definitiveness.

Notice in the above letter that what are praised are the supposed virtues of openness (the featuring of non-SDAs), Babylonian salvation theology (Philip Yancey),² especially courteous talk concerning other Christians (our GC president), and what the author declares these are a sign of: we are becoming more accepting, more secure, and especially, less prone to claim particular insight over and above any other group. Accordingly, our flagship publication is to be praised because it does not contain "any hint" that these non-SDAs 'don't have all the light that we have.'"

We suppose that there would be occasions, at least infrequently, when the precious opportunity the Review's pages present for advancing the mission of God's end-time movement might include a feature about some non-Adventists. And we are never unhappy when those appointed to leadership speak with courtesy of other religious groups.

But we do become concerned when non-Adventist salvation theology such as that of Philip Yancey is praised or advocated, and we do take exception to the suggestion that our God has granted us no light in advance of any other people. To make such a claim would be a virtual denial of the faith.

Unless we wish to throw out all, and I mean all, of what transpired at the beginning of this precious, biblical movement in the 1840s -- unless we are ready to cash-in the second angel's message in exchange for a Vineyard Fellowship gift certificate, we cannot be accurate in making such a statement. In 1844 the churches that refused to accept the light of the angel messages of Revelation experienced a moral fall and heaven said, "Babylon is fallen," not, "Babylon is theologically and morally clear." Why establish a separate denominational printing press and print anything distinctively SDA if we have no light in advance of anyone else?

But more light is not given us because we are better. It is only that heaven has, for this hour, made us more responsible than any other group. We are members of the only movement, the only religious group in our hour that has heaven's endorsement. Heaven's specific endorsement is nothing to take lightly. Why is it that some so readily will sell-off the incredible spiritual birthright in return for a mess of pottage, a few red lentils from those heaven has condemned.

Make no mistake: heaven has condemned those religious groups that have refused to keep pace with God's truth. No matter how kind the Unitarian minister, no matter how pleasant the Pentecostal preacher, no matter how revered the Methodist right reverend, not one of these groups is spared. They all should be giving heaven's message for this hour, but who among them is? For that matter, who among ourselves are? Whatever the answer to that question, it is difficult to imagine there is not dismay in heaven when the teachings of Yancey on grace are endorsed. Amazing!

Let's be clear: the light we've been granted makes us no better than anyone else. We are not to feel ourselves superior or indulge in some ill-founded denominational pride. It is heaven's message we bear, not our own. In this message there is not one thread of human devising. How could we possibly take credit for it?

The simple fact is, the featured non-SDA women who worked in Afghanistan, Philip Yancey, nor anyone else who refuses to acknowledge or present the third angel's message today has as much light as we do. They are not as responsible as we are. Has anyone even shared the third angel's message with them? Has Yancey ever heard it when he has mingled among the Adventists? Are we the tail while others are the head today? Is that God's plan, is that a biblical expectation?

The letter writer appears to wish us to sustain our own unique identity. But are we truly maintaining our own distinct identity by flushing it away, or are those statements possibly window dressing? It may seem unkind even to suggest that, but come on; look at the whole of what was said. There is a line somewhere we cross where we pass from hoping the best of others to becoming intellectually negligent in the face of clearly destructive ideology openly expressed.

It is instructive indeed today who's liking the Review better and better. Perhaps our next editorial should be titled, "Let There Be Adventism!" for it is apparent that in some quarters there is less and still less.

ENDNOTES

1. This link may expire. It was originally accessed at http://www.adventistreview.org/2002-1531/letters.html on July 25, 2002 at 10:00AM.
2. For an incisive consideration of Philip Yancey's writing with which we do not expect the Review editor would agree, peruse Kevin Paulson's "Only Half of Grace" at http://www.greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/pau-yancey.php3.

Pastor Larry Kirkpatrick is an ordained minister of the gospel. Since 1994 he has served in the American Southwest as pastor to several churches. He received his BA in Religion from Southern Adventist University in 1994 and a Master of Divinity from Andrews University in 1999 with a specialization in Adventist Studies. While in Michigan he was employed by the General Conference at the White Estate Berrien Springs branch office. More important than his scholastic preparation has been his immersion in the biblical and Spirit of Prophecy materials. He is author of the 2003 book Real Grace for Real People. Presently he serves as Pastor of the Mentone Church of Seventh-day Adventists, located near Loma Linda, California. Larry is married to Pamela. The couple presently live in Highland, California along with their two children, Etienne and Melinda.