13 February 2003 Editorial:
New -- or Newer -- Theology?

Larry Kirkpatrick
Editorial #120

Origin of the New Theology

In the Seventh-day Adventist Church, unexpected changes were wrought a half a century ago. Some persons in positions of authority and opportunity began to nudge key doctrinal issues in different directions than before. Suddenly and subtly there were new and meaningful assertions about our teachings that differed from previous Adventism.

Were these changes only an attempt to make gentle cosmetic improvement to blunt the alarms our distinctive teachings set off in the minds of evangelicals -- a project that slipped out of control and actually turned into much more far-reaching changes? Or was it a more predetermined approach from the beginning? Either way, it set the parameters for an era of sometimes rousing internal conflicts. For much of the past half century this dispute, in varying intensity has held sway.

Names and entities sweep through this period of Adventist history: Andreason, Brinsmead, Froom, Larson, Standish, Ford, Priebe, Hope, Hartland, Gulley, Utt, Crews, Douglass. Nor are those the only names. Among issues discussed were the Sanctuary, the nature of Christ's humanity, Character Perfection, Original Sin, Ellen G. White, and even the gospel itself.

Among noteworthy pivots in the battle over the new theology were those that in particular dealt with the implications of SDA belief. For years discussions were lively and often circled around the nature of Christ, justification/sanctification, and the nature of end-time Christian living. All these points involved what kind of people the gospel of God makes.

Time does not stop moving; it flows ever onward, relentless, as a river down-slope to its ocean. In some respects discussion of these themes has largely ebbed away. What has happened?

These themes have in themselves a powerful doctrinal connectedness. That ground is not only what Adventism at last leads to, but where it came from. That is, as long as the discussion continued on topics obviously linked with the history and purpose of this church, it was clearer in some respects who the "good guys " were. Or at least, who was arguing for what was consistent with the Adventism known by history, and who was arguing in favor of something altogether different.

But Now a Newer Theology?

But now we propose that something has changed. There is something different in the current setting. Has the theological battleground undergone any substantial shift in recent years? We answer: Yes!

Consider the following, which we might call New theology era idea- clusters:

Pre-fall nature of Christ versus post-fall, invalidity of investigative judgment versus validity, justification and sanctification apart versus justification and sanctification together, we can never stop sinning versus an eschatological demonstration of complete obedience via God's end-time people, Ellen G. White writings compromised versus legitimized.

The issues encompassed in such discussions offer specifics, on the surface serious doctrinal discussion, and usually include Ellen G. White, in the discussion. Compare with the following, which we might call Newer Theology era idea-clusters:

Love, Grace, Justification alone, Evangelical Gospel, minimal if any Ellen G. White writings.

Notice that in that cluster there is much less of the conflict between ideas. Rather than doctrinal and Adventist grounds, the discussion shifts to a relational and evangelical arena. Specifics have been mostly reduced to generalizations. Little Ellen G. White is included in the discussion.

The debate over New Theology inevitably involved clashes on a battlefield especially difficult for those who would rewrite Adventism or sever where it is meant to go from where they preferred it to go. With, at the end of the 1970s, passage of long-term editorial control of our major church publications into hands favorable to the New Theology, the past two decades have seen a steady steering of the debate.

Moving away from the issues on which the new-modelers of Adventism would have found victory difficult, there has been a steady shift of topics. While the major church publications continued from time to time to rebut those who sought to stand for real Adventism, the perplexing issues remained in some measure in flux. But as time wore on, there was a shift. As editorial decisions removed these topics from general discussion and placed them quietly on the back burner -- way in the back -- things moved. For years now the church has been fed more and more on topics such as grace, justification, love, and the supposed gospel (with a very specifically programmed emphasis!).

Those topics are not bad in themselves. But do we come to them from an Adventist standpoint, or the indistinct standpoint of an attempt to copy -- or at least blend in with -- mainstream evangelicalism? And what's much more poignant also begins to come clear: the debate over the New Theology has been replaced by the relative calm of the Newer Theology.

Consequences of a Dangerous Ideological Swap

Before, the discussion had been over doctrinal points very close to the distinctives of Adventism. But what attains to column inches and denominational air-time now are points (at least superficially) far more removed from Adventist doctrinal distinctives. We have entered the age of a bland and generic presentation of ourselves. We are coming to the world not only dressed in their clothes, but wearing their colors and styles. That is, we are walking ever more through the religious world clothed in the drabbest, most indistinct doctrinal garb. The result has quite damaging.

Since the ground of the issues shifted, the whole church has moved sideways instead of forward. The intention of heaven has been avoided.

A farmer plants his crop with focus -- with a tangible goal in mind -- its harvest. When God planted the Seventh-day Adventist movement, He did so looking to a tangible eschatological harvest. He was looking for the culmination of the blessed hope, the preparation of a people upholding all the deep principles of His government, a demonstration of what God's love can really do. A fallen race was to show that through connection with God characters can be entirely renovated. Lives of continual obedience can be lived in fallen flesh. God's purpose is that the seeds of this message would sprout and grow to maturity. The universe awaits the ripe fruit. Only with the arrival of that fruit will the mystery of God be finished, the time when sin may be at last uprooted altogether will arrive.

This is another way of saying that the implications of Adventism are inwrought in Adventism. As the seed has in itself the mature adult plant, so Adventism has within itself the full mature plant. But detours on the path to closure prevent the arrival of the intended fruit.

Those issues which weighed so heavily in the battle over the New Theology (the nature of Christ, justification/sanctification, the quality of character expected for earth's final harvest), are all side-stepped with the move to "Newer" Theology. The current focus on Grace, Justification, Forgiveness, Gospel, and Love, while we recognize not only the legitimacy of these but the deep necessity of these, is problematic. Here's why.

First, these topics, again, not disputing their validity at all, are often approached from the standpoint of popular Christianity, evangelical theological systems and presuppositions regarding salvation. Some of our theologians, often trained in non-Adventist theological institutions, gain a substantial understanding of non-Adventist viewpoints on salvation. They bring with them, sometimes wittingly and sometimes not, these ideas all blended-in with their own conceptions of Adventism. This is what gets printed in our publications. In short, ideas incompatible with Adventism are subtly injected into the Adventist thought-stream, and often pitched as being Adventist when the points being made may not be compatible with Adventism at all.

Second, our faith has at its roots a thorough emphasis on end-time issues, but many have lost that emphasis. Heaven means to lead us to carefully examine other presuppositions we have about salvation in the light of the cleansing of the sanctuary and its implications. We should be very knowledgeable concerning God's intentions for His people at the end of time and be able to check ideas about salvation against those harvest implications of Adventism. We should be ready to reject any form of rump Adventism that would be tossed our way when it is out of harmony with the goals of Adventism.

But many years of blanding-down has left many of our people with a very indistinct understanding of these very end-time issues. Few of our people are ready to weigh ideas about salvation according to the right measure. They have not been led to study-out the prophecies, to wade into books like Great Controversy and Early Writings and acquire the kind of thorough understanding that would give the kind of ideological sieving-capacity to detect evangelical and other conceptions incompatible with our faith.

Thirdly, the second point leaves our people at the mercy of the theologians noted in the first point. When all of God's people should be Bible students in their own right, we create a bifurcation. Two classes arise: (1) theological experts and (2) common people. In this way the church looses the broader protection of her constituency and a much more restricted subclass takes the rudder. We begin to be steered by those who may not be so committed to the third angel's message as they ought to be.

In other words, the move from New Theology to Newer Theology promotes an atmosphere where non-Adventist ideas are much more easily grafted onto the Adventist tree, and where it becomes possible to maintain a small subclass who become our experts and naturally sift to the place where they have their hands on the theological steering wheel of the church.

Conclusion

We are not against theological education or deep thinking about Seventh-day Adventism. We sense however that there are reasons why Newer Theology is far more dangerous than New Theology. Newer Theology shifts the discussion away from issues about Adventist distinctives and away from the end of Adventism and the harvest of Adventism. Heaven's plan is that this church would put herself out of business by finishing the work; instead, we move sideways and hide those features of our faith in favor of a longer stay earth-side.

It is sometimes said that a certain perspective in Adventism majors in minors, that we are worried about tithing anise and cumin while we avoid the weightier mattes of the law: justice, mercy, and faith. Sometimes, we must admit, that analysis has been correct. But what others may refuse to admit is that when we speak of finishing the work, coming to the final harvest -- when a generation of believers becomes so committed to Jesus that they follow Him through the end-times and through faith in Him stop sinning -- we are in the highest degree possible sustaining the command of Jesus, making as central as conceivable justice, mercy and faith.

Serious Seventh-day Adventists need to start from the right foundation and carefully address these improvisations, dismiss their error and renew the discussion of the nature of Christ, the nature of sin, justification/sanctification, obedience in the end-time/character perfection. We need to move back toward specificity and Adventist distinctives. We must stop moving sideways and go forward again. Newer Theology as we know it today invariably sidesteps these things. Let us learn the gospel afresh from a Seventh-day Adventist perspective and then weigh every offering put forth with care, discarding every plant our heavenly Father has not planted. Thus only shall we expedite our journey out of the slippery and muddy Newer Theology swamp and onward to our heavenly home.

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.