 GCO Mission and Goals | GCO Ministry Testimonials | Projects | Resources/Donations/Contact | SEARCH | |
Reflections on the Questions on Doctrine 50th Anniversary Conference, Part 1
Presenter: Larry Kirkpatrick
Location: Internet
Delivery: 2007-11-15 06:16Z
Publication: GreatControversy.org 2007-11-15 06:16Z
Type: Report
URL: http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/kir-rqodc2007-1.php
Friendly Atmosphere and Sequence of the Meeting
A few weeks now have passed since the conclusion of the Questions on Doctrine 50th Anniversary Conference. It may still be early, but perhaps a rational assessment can begin to be offered. What was achieved? What not? Are there any hints about the future? In this two part series I will tell a few experiences from the meeting. These are only my personal reflections as I try to offer some perspective. I recognize that some have come to view those pressing views seen as destructive as surely deceived, perhaps even malicious. I hope that I can show also the human side of the various parties.
As things worked out, I shared the flight from California to South Bend with Larry Christoffel and Julius Nam. Larry and I have served together in the same conference for years, but had scarcely more than exchanged pleasantries. It was interesting to share friendly conversation with him (some might say Larry and Larry are at opposite ends of the Adventist spectrum.) I found our time together pleasant. We talked about more than the weather.
Julius and I have known each other since 1998, although after leaving seminary until about 2005 or 2006 I recall no contact. Julius is one of the three organizers of the event (the others are Michael Campbell and Jerry Moon). Michael has recently moved from Loma Linda White Estate to ministry in Colorado next door to my old Utah district. I’ve known Jerry Moon since I attended Seminary in 1997-1999, although again, almost no contact between then and now.
We arrived at Andrews late on the 23rd. Although it was late, I took time to go out and walk around the outside of the Seminary building. When I finished my Master of Divinity in 1999 they were just preparing to start the expansion. I discovered that the “T” shaped structure was now a hearty “H” shape. So at midnight I circumnavigated the building—praying and pondering what might happen in the next few days.
I will not here attempt to recall all the people met the next day or every detail about the conference, but instead offer a few somewhat random vignettes. There was a brief reception before the opening meeting. I think George Knight and I walked into the room at about the same time. We shared friendly conversation. I also met several other friends and acquaintances, and several pastors and persons attending the conference.
The opening meeting was well attended, and Knight shared an interesting talk. I had not known that he had been baptized by Ralph Larson. There were two non-Adventist “evangelicals” represented in the conference. Larry Christoffel shared a room with Ken Samples next door to mine. As it turned out, I shared a room with Donald Dayton, who has a Nazarene background. Dayton was a very interesting fellow, as you’ll see in a moment.
The first full day was mostly the “evangelical” day, although Russell Standish was one of the first presenters. He cut no corners. There were other presenters including Larry Christoffel. Ken Samples told us how Walter Martin considered himself a Cal-minion (Calvinist-Arminian), and that Donald Barnhouse was the staunch Calvinist. He said that shortly before his death, Martin told him that he was planning to write a new book about Seventh-day Adventism. Samples intends to follow through.
Donald Dayton gave a fascinating presentation. He argued that because of points that I will not repeat here (watch for his paper when they are placed online in a couple of months at http://qod.andrews.edu), “evangelicals“ are not “evangelicals.” He said that it was impossible today to use the term “evangelical” coherently. In the panel discussion that followed, Dayton and Samples squared off in friendly disagreement with each other. Samples was happy with the categories as they stood, but Dayton maintained that there were substantial problems in setting out the categories in the conventional order. In the middle of the discussion one of the Standishes walked up and gave each a copy of their book, The Evangelical Dilemma.
Readers may be interested in Dayton’s take on the nature of Christ and on Adventism as well. Dayton said, “I hear a great deal of concern about the idea that Jesus could have had a fallen nature among some Adventists. I don’t really see any problem with that idea.” There was a collective gasp in the room. Dayton went on to point out that theologians like Karl Barth held a similar view and made very persuasive cases for it. Finally, at the end of his talk, Dayton told us that he found early Adventism more interesting than contemporary Adventism. He concluded by challenging us to take our beliefs seriously and said that he resonated more with historic Adventism. Again, there was an audible gasp in the room.
It is not the purpose of this paper to recount every talk, so I won’t be doing that. It was an interesting day with many interesting conversations. Herbert Douglass was the presenter that evening. His content was excellent and is very worthy reading. Something went wrong though in the copy that he had versus the copy other participants had and this made it difficult to easily follow the flow of a very extended talk. Douglass, like many of the presenters, had far more material than available allotted presentation time, so, like others, only a portion was given verbally.
I had only brought some 300 GCO books and booklets. They were gone in less than 24 hours. Some were absorbed by conference attendees, but most went to the seminary theology students. I should have brought more! There was a significant interest in our material. Just here I should point out that several times throughout the meetings, theology students, pastors, and others approached me to say “I read the website all the time,” or, “I will be praying for you when you present your paper,” and other kind and encouraging words. I was able to remind some of the existence of our LGT devoted site, http://lastgenerationtheology.org. It was a great blessing to meet some of the faces behind our long log of Andrews.edu domain visitors. (We are able to know the domain people visit our site from, but not who specific visitors are.)
One morning I had breakfast with several including Ken Samples. We talked pleasantly and he answered some questions I asked about current attitudes in evangelicalism with reference to groups often designated as cults.
Friday was “theology” day. The morning talks included Colin Standish, Richard Rice, Roy Adams, and Woodrow Whidden. Standish gave a sturdy talk. Rice offered a more or less “agree with QOD” viewpoint on the nature of Christ. Roy Adams asserted that if Andreasen had not made a noise about QOD it likely would have passed by with little notice. He also ended his talk by warning us about Last Generation Theology and the danger of our passing on bad religious ideas to our children. I wonder if he has considered the danger of passing onto our children bad religious ideas that reduce the distinctives and the great controversy theme into insignificance. It has been my observation that few of our young people today leave the church because they feel strongly about its distinctives. I am not sure what positive effect it has to prevail upon them to think that our church is mostly like the other churches. But it is not my intention here to comment at length on anyone’s theology.
Whidden’s paper was one I found very interesting. He pointedly mentioned LGT and wanted to ask several questions to its proponents. Actually, we answered most of his questions a few years ago in David Quall’s articles published on GCO:
http://www.greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/qua-qod-whidden.php3
And
http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/qua-corruptchannels.php.
David Qualls is a very thoughtful and congenial man. His presence would be appropriate for future conferences that might touch these topics. He leads a Seventh-day Adventist congregation in Oklahoma as a layperson. (If I seem like I am suggesting the participation of a friend here, I am. But because his voice is careful, reflective, and I think would help us find rational ground that many Adventists can stand on together.)
Mine was the first post-lunch presentation that day—a position that no one usually really wants. But I was glad to have an opportunity to present my material.
When I had begun work on my paper I must admit, I was a bit pessimistic about what might be offered. I wanted to be positive and yet the topic of QOD was so negative. In the end, you can see what I brought to the meeting:
http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/pdf/kir-qodconf2007amended.pdfI did not want to come and dive in on the humanity of Christ and be immediately categorized as another strident voice on that topic. It is crucially important, yes, and I have definite views, but I anticipated that others would touch it. Nor did I want to tackle the question of atonement in the 25-30 minutes I would be allotted. Many have said that the pivotal issue is the doctrine of sin, and yet few have offered serious material on that topic.
In my paper, I outlined where Seventh-day Adventists acquired our basic understanding of sin historically, then discussed the endeavor in QOD to modify it so that we would adopt the concept of being condemned for our birth-nature, then showed alternative solutions for the QOD teachings about birth-nature condemnation in Ephesians two and Romans three, then followed the most important belief statements and published works since then to reveal that the church has seemingly gone out of its way to not affirm the teaching offered in QOD. In essence, the church has rejected the QOD doctrine of sin, which must eventually mean the abandonment of the QOD views on the nature of Christ and on the atonement completed on the cross. I finished by pointing out that QOD is one problem in the church that was caused entirely by the leadership, and that it rests with the leadership to reestablish the right kind of spirit and trust within the church that they so damaged in the 1950s. Neither did I cut any corners.
My impression was that the assembled people were for the most part listening with interest. If true, that is good, for my concern revolves closely around the content of QOD.
That evening we heard the last papers of the conference. Denis Fortin the dean of the Seminary told us that the church needs to do more with the doctrine of sin (we are agreed there, but might not at the final result). He stated that they had just recently had evangelical scholars on the campus and that they had been asking the same questions that QOD was set forth to answer. “Obviously, QOD has not done its work,” he said. He suggested that we are two generations behind on doing serious Adventist apologetics written works. He also commended participants on the spirit that had been manifest. He urged us to be thoughtful about what we published “in print and on the web” after the conference, and that many would be watching to see what results the conference had produced.
Jon Paulien offered a fairly simple yet compelling paper. He suggested that there is “more than one way to think.” Years ago I might have hotly disagreed with him. But today I agree. He said he was not saying there is more than one truth, but that there is more than one way to think. Read his paper or listen to his message when it is online. See what you think.
On Sabbath we had the ordinance of humility and communion. George Knight, Angel Rodriguez, and Colin Standish officiated up front. Six of us served as deacons. On my side, it was myself, Russell Standish, and Woodrow Whidden. It was a pleasant service. There was a special meal for participants afterwards in the cafeteria. It was interesting to converse and to listen to so many, some of whom held strongly divergent views. Everyone was very friendly. Across the table from me, Russell Standish and Larry Christoffel discussed the Palmdale Conference. Later while we were leaving, Knight looked at me and said, “See, even my former students are getting grey beards now!”
Sabbath afternoon, Kevin Paulson, who had also come to the meeting, and I had opportunity to visit a bit. We walked around the new drama building in the cold two times discussing the potential ramifications of the meetings. Only just now it occurs to me to wonder what might have happened had we circled the building five more times and let out a shout.
I will stop here. Part 2 of this article, yet to come, is the problem. I feel that what I have written in it may be too optimistic to fit the facts. By splitting this article into two parts, I get to defer the last portion, praying and thinking and editing just a bit longer. But I am not alone in my optimism. I have even heard very positive reactions from Colin Standish.
I plan to complete this report in a week or two, when we post Part 2: Results and Possibilities.
Maranatha GCO
© 2007 by GreatControversy.org. GCO grants permission to individuals, wholeheartedly encouraging them to copy and reproduce documents and files appearing on this site, in an unaltered state, and for non-commercial use, unless otherwise noted. All other rights reserved. Other groups or entities wishing to reproduce these materials are encouraged to contact us with reproduction requests.
 |