26 March 2003 Editorial:
A Subtle Attack

Reflections on Duane Covrig, "Called Out, but Not Crazy," Adventist Review, March 20, 2003 (1)

Kevin D. Paulson

Attacks on fundamental Adventist doctrine need not be open to be effective. In fact, the most effective of such attacks are the least open, the least direct.

A recent article in a leading church publication illustrates this principle well. Addressing what it calls the "remnant mind-set" (2), the article subtly undermines basic features of Seventh-day Adventist -- and even Christian -- belief while claiming to nevertheless uphold the Biblical idea of a faithful remnant at the end of time. Key Biblical warnings and doctrinal principles are cleverly spiritualized, and the popular but ill-defined "grace" obsession of modern Adventism bestrides the article as a dominant theme.

Like so many similar testimonies, the article is prefaced by the story of a negative experience with conservative Adventism -- a controversy (never described) which apparently divided and in time closed his home church, his being "forced" to pick a side, and his eventual "burrowing" into a "rigid" Adventism that supposedly "fixated on bizarre beliefs about food and religious duty" (3). The litany has become a familiar, even nauseating refrain in the contemporary church: An earnest young Adventist supposedly gets "trapped" by legalism, is eventually "burned out" trying to be good, and in time gets rescued by a "grace gospel" which -- at the bottom line -- offers "liberation" and a "refreshing change" by reducing doctrinal and lifestyle assertiveness.

It has come to the point in the current Adventist scene where once you hear four or five such testimonials, you've heard them all!

Accurate But Misleading Observations

In harmony with many who encourage similar doubts, the author describes problems among some Adventists which no honest observer could deny. He writes of "extremism," "bizarre beliefs and practices," and "false conspiracy theories" (4). Certainly each of these problems are real in various segments of the contemporary church. Whether they are quite the present danger the author holds them to be is quite a different matter.

Unfortunately, the author either fails to define clearly just what ideas or practices among contemporary Adventists he thinks fall into these categories, or those he specifically talks about are so far removed from mainstream Adventism as to be both irrelevant and unworthy of conspicuous mention in such a context. He describes, for example, an Australian Adventist couple recently sentenced to prison for refusing medical intervention on behalf of a malnourished baby (5). And like so many others who vaguely warn of the "extreme" proclivities of certain Adventist doctrines, the author doesn't fail to remind us of David Koresh (6) -- darkly hinting that if conservative Adventists aren't careful, they could end up the same way!

As one who has widely associated with conservative Adventists, including many their brethren might regard as militant, I can speak on good authority that people refusing medical care for a malnourished child would be considered bizarre extremists by the vast majority of conservatives I know, including those from the much-loathed "independent ministries." And while most of the Branch Davidians may indeed have come from Adventist backgrounds, to view their tragic end as in any way typical of Adventist apocalyptic interest is perverse and slanderous. (The major drawing cards of Jim Jones and his People's Temple were social justice and racial reconciliation. Does the fate which befell this group mean those causes naturally lead in such directions?)

Adventists have immersed themselves in the apocalyptic portions of Scripture for over a century and a half. The fact that one maniacal leader and a tiny core of followers decide to bring on the apocalypse with AK-47s in no way proves that a focus on these portions of Scripture naturally gravitates toward such bizarre ends!

Moreover, the author's negative but imprecise references to "rigid Adventism," "historical Adventism," and "Adventist trivia" (7), the equally nebulous talk of "grace" and "faith-based righteousness" as presumably lacking in such a religion (8), contribute to the generally unhelpful tone of the article. He writes of "a sincerity that strives for distinctiveness but cultivates only a bizarre, distorted, and graceless experience" (9). The author's comments are ambiguous enough to be taken in a variety of directions, including directions overtly hostile to the teachings of Scripture, the Spirit of Prophecy, and Adventist fundamental beliefs.

A Straw Man

The author writes at one point: "I tire of hearing Adventists declare haughtily that they have all the truth" (10).

Joseph Goebbels once observed that if a lie is repeated often enough, eventually it is believed. The above accusation is a classic example of this principle.

When, and at what time, have Adventists ever maintained that they have all the truth? Which General Conference session has ever asserted such a claim? Which of our authors, at what time in our history, have ever claimed this? And who is claiming it now? Can the author of this article cite any references, any examples? The fact is that there are none to find! But those who have long sought to doubt, question, and weaken Adventist fundamentals have repeated this lie so often that they finally believe it, and have convinced others to believe it. But it is still a lie, no matter how often stated.

Seventh-day Adventists have never claimed, at any time, that we have nothing more to learn about God or His dealings with the universe. The fact that we hold our Bible-based teachings to be entirely truthful and beyond contradiction in no way implies that there is nothing more to learn about those teachings.

The author comes close to implying that he believes -- as do many so-called "intellectuals" in the church -- in an ambiguous, open-ended search for truth which hesitates to define right from wrong or to draw lines between acceptable and unacceptable teachings or practices. The following statement from the article is especially troubling:

The really wise scholars are those who keep asking questions, keep listening, and do hard work grappling with issues. However, despite this hard work, they know they could be wrong and have much more to learn. . . . We should never stop cultivating a healthy doubt that we could be wrong, even about theological issues. That's the best way to keep learning and reinforcing the right while weeding out errors (11).

But no standard is presented as the measure for determining what is right and what is erroneous. The entire focus of the author is how "we" could be wrong and have much to learn, not considering the fact that truth and error are concepts entirely independent of the people who profess them. Whether you and I are right or wrong is not the point. God's Word is right, and all variations from that Word are wrong. And both the narrative and the doctrines of that Word are clear that the standard of right and wrong there contained is both real and knowable by finite mortals (Isaiah 8:20; Acts 17:11; 2 Timothy 3:16), and that the latter are accountable both to God and the believing community for their faithfulness to that standard (Galatians 1:8; 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15; i Timothy 1:3-4).

More than once the author describes the need to "test the spirits" and not just believe any new idea that comes along (12). But without an absolute, unerring standard of right and wrong, how is one to do this?

Again, the author's ambiguity leaves him wide open to the concern that he is encouraging doubt and variance regarding key fundamentals of the Seventh-day Adventist faith. Unspecific appeals for openness to change always leave one vulnerable in this regard. One who offers such appeals should not be surprised or offended if misunderstanding is the result.

No defender of Adventist orthodoxy, now or ever, has denied the proper place of honest questioning and even doubt. The problem arises when issues are raised while the solutions offered by inspired counsel are rejected. Curiously, religion seems to be the only sphere of human existence where some ask questions but don't truly desire answers!

Defining the "spirit of prophecy" as he sees it, the author writes the following:

It's not a magical ability to look through walls, tell people the evil details of their lives, or even predict future events. That's really not the big "stuff" of prophecy. The big purpose of prophecy is to discern God's way in the world and see how He is leading us in new directions (13).

For those familiar with the mind-set, this is vintage theological liberalism. According to this perspective, prophecy ceases to function in its Biblical role--as the upholding of an absolute duty toward God as defined by His written counsel. No longer does prophecy call for a restoration of the old paths, "wherein is the good way" (Jeremiah 6:16). Instead, prophecy becomes the art of challenging the status quo, resisting "the establishment" -- whatever that may be. Robert Brinsmead, in his infamous Judged by the Gospel, defines the prophetic spirit in much the same, unscriptural way (14).

The author writes that God's true remnant "know that they don't have to be rigid to be stable. In fact, they know that those who are most rigid are likely to distort history and then become, like many of the early Jewish leaders in Christ's time, persecutors of God Himself" (15).

But though doctrinal rigidity is a popular stereotype of the Jewish leaders who crucified Christ, Ellen White gives us a very different view in the following quotation:

But while His (Christ's) teaching was simple, He spoke as one having authority. This characteristic set His teaching in contrast with that of all others. The rabbis spoke with doubt and hesitancy, as if the Scriptures might be interpreted to mean one thing or exactly the opposite. The hearers were daily involved in greater uncertainty (16).

Again we ask, What kind of rigidity in the contemporary church is the author of this article protesting? On what issues does he think certain Adventists are too unbending? Why does he give no examples? Is he afraid to?

Conclusion

The author, moving as he does in professedly "scholarly" circles, seems sensitive to the charge of being strange or unduly different. As we noted earlier, few would argue that some in Adventism have gone to extremes here. But without greater clarity, the author's thoughts can easily lend themselves to the notions held by some in the church that faithfulness to basic Adventist doctrinal and lifestyle norms--as defined by Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy-- is in fact bizarre, extreme, and graceless.

Peculiarity for its own sake is never desirable for a faithful Seventh-day Adventist. But neither should we fear to be derided by means of such labels. Some of us seem to forget that Christ Himself was accused of being demon-possessed (John 7:20; 8:48), and that a very prominent ruler considered the apostle Paul insane (Acts 26:24).

The written counsel of God, in and of itself, is sufficient to safeguard the faithful against fanatical and extreme tendencies. Neither reducing the assertiveness of our faith, nor appealing for an undefined "openness to change," is necessary to avoid such detours from spiritual integrity.

1. Duane Covrig, "Called Out, but Not Crazy," Adventist Review, March 20, 2003, pp. 22-25.
2. Ibid, p. 22.
3. Ibid, pp. 22-23.
4. Ibid, pp. 22,24.
5. Ibid, p. 22.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid, pp. 22,23.
8. Ibid, p. 23.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid, p. 24.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid, p. 25.
13. Ibid, p. 24.
14. Robert D. Brinsmead, Judged by the Gospel: A Review of Adventism (Fallbrook, CA: Verdict Publications, 1980), pp. 195-200.
15. Ibid.
16. Ellen G. White, The Desire of Ages, p. 253.

Pastor Kevin Paulson serves on the pastoral staff of the Greater New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. Through the years he has published articles in many publications. He is also editor of Quo Vadis, a truth-filled magazine predominantly featuring the work of SDA young people. Kevin is also the speaker for "Know Your Bible," a radio program broadcast each Sunday at 5:30 p.m. on WMCA 570 AM, in Hasbrouk Heights, New Jersey. Pastor Paulson received his BA in Theology from Pacific Union College in 1982 and an MA in Systematic Theology from Loma Linda University in 1987.