Questions on Doctrines conference reports

[RC_NewProtestants]

Questions on Doctrine 50th Anniversary Conference: Comments and Commentaries

Reports presented by AToday. (click link above) Not a lot in these reports other then the recount of the QOD controversy. But it appears that by Jan. 2008 the reports and podcasts of the presentations will be available and those should be interesting.

 

[NightEternal]

Hey RC. Richard Rice provided a great commentary for the conference. I will add them to this thread.

 

[NightEternal]

Reports from the Questions on Doctrine Conference
By Richard Rice
(October 26, 2007)
Loma Linda University religion professor Richard Rice reports on the conference at Andrews University in commemoration of Adventist publishing landmark Questions on Doctrine. Click here for bulletins one, two, three, and four.

 

[NightEternal]

By Richard Rice
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
“To Rick from Grandpa Klose March 25, ’58.” That’s the inscription on the flyleaf of my copy of Questions on Doctrine. My grandfather, an Adventist missionary and minister for his entire career, always gave me books as gifts, usually ones written by Arthur Maxwell. But if a study of church doctrines seems an odd selection for an eighth grader, I must admit that I was a rather serious child and my thirteenth year proved to be the most deeply religious of my entire life. So I was glad for another book to add to my growing library.
The much anticipated conference on QOD begins tonight at Andrews University. It commemorates the publication fifty years ago of the book that was supposed to build bridges between SDAs and the larger Christian world, and would up generating bitter divisions within the church. Not everyone is looking forward to the conference. In his address to SDA world leaders at annual council a short time ago, GC President Jan Paulsen expressed his own reservations about it. He hopes that the conference will not refuel the controversies that the book ignited over the atonement, the nature of Christ, and a number of other issues.
Organized by Michael Campbell and Julius Nam, young scholars specializing in Adventist history, and sponsored by several Adventist Universities, the QOD conference features keynote addresses by George Knight, a retired Seminary professor who has authored a stack of books on SDA history, Herbert Douglass, onetime president of Weimar College and associate editor of the "Adventist Review," and Angel Rodriquez, currently the director of the church’s Biblical Research Institute.
The seven sessions scheduled for Thursday and Friday will be devoted to presentations and panels on the following topics—the history and impact of QOD, the relation between Adventists and Evangelicals, the theology of QOD, and “QOD and the Church.” Along with a number of SDA scholars, the slate of participants includes scholars from outside the church, Edith Blumhofer of Wheaton College and Donald Dayton, who taught most recently at Azusa Pacific University. It also includes some people who have been highly critical of church administration and theology, such as Colin Standish.
I don’t recall reading much of QOD until I found the list of Ellen White quotations in the appendices helpful in my college theology courses. And I was only vaguely aware at the time of the clouds of controversy that Questions on Doctrine stirred up. So, idea that we should have a conference to commemorate its publication came as a bit of a surprise to me. I don’t know what the mood of the conference will be—celebration, reflection, or controversy—and I’m not sure what it will accomplish. The conveners look forward to “an engaging, reflective, scholarly dialogue.” It won’t be long till we find out if they are right.
Here is a link to the QOD conference website.
24 October 2007 | Permalink
Technorati Tags: Adventism, QOD

Comments

Thanks Richard for the Info. Helps me feel better that the legitimate "personal feelings" of Paulson did not squelch investigation as has occured under previous GC and Conference Presidents.
pt

Posted by: Pat Travis | 24 October 2007 at 15:10

Congratulations to Andrews University for hosting a conference on QOD. I understand they reprinted the book with some revision.
I hope the Conference will not be a repeat of Glacier View. At that conference it was determined that the Administrators and not the Scholars were in charge of doctrine.
It was during that era that Kenneth Woods was editor of the Review and Douglass an Associate. Woods was very direct in stating that the Book: Answers to Questions never should have been written. Not a word of apology to the memory of M. L.Andreasen.
I noticed that Herbie Douglass will be a participant. His Book: Why Jesus Waits is 99.44% M. L. Andreasen yet Andreasen was not referenced once—due obviously to Andreasen’s disciplining by the Brethren for his Letters to the Churches.
If the conference is successful in building a bridge to the community of Reform Churches from which Barnhouse came it will have to seriously revise or eliminate Fundamental belief 13, 18, and 24.
Good Luck. Tom



Posted by: Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer | 24 October 2007 at 16:18

The one thing I remember about Elder Andreasen is that, I think, it was he who promoted the idea that there must be a generation of people (presumably Adventists) who will live without sin before Jesus can return. I've never read QOD, but I guess I'd better go see if we have it in our bookcase.

Posted by: Carrol Grady | 24 October 2007 at 18:04

Ditto on your comment Tom...also good SS lesson review.
pt

Posted by: Pat Travis | 24 October 2007 at 18:25

Yes Carrol
Andreaen was the authority on the Book of Hebrews and the final generation portion of Great Controvery.
He was a very fine little man, very intense with a good sense of humor and a high ethic for historic E.G. White's end time pronouncements. An aside, In a conversation with a SDA scholar I questioned the Book "Why Jesus Waits". The reply was: Well Tom you know how perfect Herbie hair is, and his teeth,and his profile, and his grooming, and his speach, and his GPA, and his interpersonal relations with the brethern--of course there will be a final perfect generation! With Herbie at the head!" Tom

Posted by: Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer | 24 October 2007 at 18:38

Thanks Pat
For your concurence with my first entry and your complement on the SS lesson. I have had several favorable (even surprised comments) I guess they thought I had horns. Tom

Posted by: Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer | 24 October 2007 at 18:47

Tom,
Your comment on this bridge to reformed churches is so very interesting to me being that I'm currently in the UK's most conservative divinity school studying under quite neo-orthodox professors. Really it is a third way through the mistakes of fundamentalism and the relativism of liberal protestantism.
For me at least QOD was a very important book which did serve, in part, as a necessary corrective against the divergent last generation theology our church has been wise to repeatedly reject.
Thanks!

Posted by: Johnny A. Ramirez | 25 October 2007 at 02:15

Johnny,
Some of us nuance the difference between Fundamentalism, Conservative, neo-orthodox and Liberalism.Your comments may interest you in a book that I greatly value.
Christianity & Liberalism by J.Gresham Machen- Eerdmans.1923.185pp.
You may have read. "Practical read" on Issues on which Machen and other conservative profs. left "Old Princeton" and started Wesminster Theological Seminary.
Still remeber my dad and mom being excited by the printing of a book by a friend, Leroy Froom,(QOD) that was suppose to help remove our cult status with other Christian churches.
pt

Posted by: Pat Travis | 25 October 2007 at 03:56

I'm here at the QOD conference at Andrews and I think the Spirit is totally present. I'm enjoying the talks and getting a HUGE education. Sorry there aren't more women though. I know AAW is on, but we're seriously short of people under 50 and women. Can't help but think that if more women were leading our church in the 50s we might have avoided some of this.... I'm definately getting the impression lots of this could have been avoided with some basic social skills. But I'm glad to say that many of the presenters here are good at not taking themselves so seriously and I think the future of this issue is bright.
Could I hear comments from any other attendees who read this blog? Am I just a Pollyanna?

Posted by: Lisa Diller | 25 October 2007 at 09:24

I don't know who is there but if Rick Rice is there there will be wisdom, experience, common sense, and good humor present. Let us pray that God will also be there. Tom

Posted by: Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer | 25 October 2007 at 10:28

Thanks for the schedule. I'll try to attend tomorrow, and raise the estrogen level in the room.

Posted by: arlyn | 25 October 2007 at 14:56

Tom,
great SS commentary! Thanks!

Posted by: arlyn | 25 October 2007 at 15:01

Arlyn
Thanks
I have had a welcome comment from a brother, two sisters, Two sons, and a daughter, as well as several readers of Spectrum on line. I appreciate it very much. Much of the passion came from a private room in arehab center in the middle of the night. Thank God Almight! It is well with my soul!. Tom

Posted by: Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer | 25 October 2007 at 15:56

Thanks for the bulletin, Richard! For those of us in Australia who can't be at the conference, it is important to get info on what is happening. Much appreciated and I look forward to further bulletins.

Posted by: Dr Steve Parker | 26 October 2007 at 02:18

As an ex-SDA, I'm glad to have found these reports. I think conducting such a discussion is a sign of health in an organization, and I hope it will be constructive.

Posted by: Henry Neufeld | 26 October 2007 at 09:28

I was a student at PUC when QOD was published in 1957 and Andreasen's Letters to the Churches were being circulated in opposition. Roy Allan Anderson came from the Ministerial Association to our Biblical Theology Class to explain QOD. Dr. Walter Martin's evangelical response, The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism, came out in 1960. This was a period of frank and open discussion between faculity and students at PUC, and among the wider SDA community, and with the Evangelicals. There is need for frank open discussions today among SDA's and with other Christians. Too many Adventists still exhibit a "shut door" mentality. God's Truth is many-faceted. This conference, if frank and open, will offer opportunities to gain new perspectives.

Posted by: Arlin Baldwin | 26 October 2007 at 20:37

I grew up in Argentina, and in Spanish "cult" means "worship", for which reason I had a hard time figuring out why so much effort was made to avoid having our church being associated with worship. I thought it was a nice compliment!

Posted by: Nic Samojluk | 26 October 2007 at 21:49

 

[NightEternal]

By Richard Rice
Thursday, October 25, 2007

I got to the Seminary Chapel last evening right on time for the first meeting of the QOD conference and discovered I was late. Every pew on the main floor was filled, and I was lucky to find a seat in the small balcony. The meeting began on a decidedly religious tone, with congregational singing “I Would Be Like Jesus,” prayer and a beautiful soprano solo for special music. Jerry Moon introduced the conference and laid down some ground rules for the proceedings. There is to be no cheering (it only escalates), all questions will be submitted in writing (no speeches from the floor, obviously), and we should not expect to agree on everything. Instead, the planners want an honest exchange of views that remains cordial throughout. After brief welcoming comments from representatives of two of the sponsoring institutions for the conference, Denis Fortin, Dean of Andrews University Seminary, and Jon Paulien, Dean of Loma Linda University’s School of Religion—Mervyn Warren of Oakwood was delayed in leaving Huntsville—George Knight gave the first keynote address.

George Knight is well know to SDAs. Now retired from teaching at the Seminary after thirty years, he is the author of thirty books, with three more in production, and he has guided many doctoral dissertations dealing with SDA history. His presentation, entitled “Questions on Doctrine: symbol of Adventist Theological Tension,” gave a clear and helpful account of the background of the book. Among the major points he made was the fact that the book paradoxically held firm on many points of distinctive SDA beliefs, such as the heavenly sanctuary and the mark of the beast, and finessed the issue of the atonement—arguing that it included references to both Christ’s sacrificial death and his ministry in the heavenly sanctuary (not just the latter). It broke new ground in asserting the sinless nature of Christ’s humanity. Knight showed that this was a clear departure from the view that prevailed among Adventists through the years, in spite of later assertions to the contrary by church leaders. He also detailed the bitter conflict between M L Andreasen (pictured) and the church administrators responsible for QOD. It led to his forced retirement and the eventual lifting of his credentials. There was, however, a touching account of his deathbed reconciliation with the G C President and another church leader.

Knight’s presentation ended with a moving account of his own experience. “My life has been dominated,” he said, “by the events surrounding the QOD controversy.” He entered the church through the ministry of Ralph Larson, worked hard to achieve the endtime perfection which Andreasen called for, left the church for six for years, disillusioned with religion generally, and finally returned with a new vision of what Christ meant to him. He moved away from Andreasen’s theology, convinced that biblical perfection is not sinlessness, but mature Christian love.

Well, the sun is finally up—that means it’s after eight a.m. in western Michigan—and I’m looking at a good ten hours of meetings today. More later.

25 October 2007 | Permalink
Technorati Tags: Adventism, QOD

Comments

About the cheering. What they mean, but don't say is "don't say loud AMENS when someone says something that not everyone agrees with but you do." And there is a bit of this going on. Not much, but a bit. I'm enjoying moving around and hearing the little conversations, especially in the back, that reveal where people stand. I think most of us are dispassionate, but the few who aren't are kind of amusing. so far, although there are a few attempts to play the crowd, everyone has been pretty well behaved.

Posted by: Lisa Diller | 25 October 2007 at 13:55

Lisa,
Thanks for adding to the commentary.
Your point about social skills seems right on to me. All too often theology is ego, a fortress for building little castles of self-representation.
Theology is essential, but it is determined by both conscious and unconscious hermeneutics and public and private histories.
I hope that this conference elucidates these sorts of contingencies so that Adventist theological disagreements for the next generation became ways that we can know ourselves better -- leading not just to private (perfection) good, but improving the common good as well.

Posted by: Alexander | 25 October 2007 at 15:26

Someone needs to do an anthropological study of conflicts like this. As an historian, the most fascinating part of this conference is how personal the stories are. All these people were connected through college days, employment, marriage relationships. I'm hearing oral history right now, listening to their stories and perspectives. I feel like someone should connect all the threads in a sort of case-study diagram for how conflict is sparked and then spreads. It does make one wonder how much of the conflict in the world is really about ideas and how much is just sheer personality.
Herbert Douglass's talk last night, while painfully rambling and long, was beautiful in the way that he chose to talk about his love and enjoyment of all the players in this controversy. He indulged in remembering all the little details about them, acknowledging the ways they all bonded--both in pain and in life passion. I think his owning up to the way that conflict creates ties between people, which can be healing or wounding, was the best part of his talk.
Again, I'm struck by the force of personality here. Especially the personalities of those who are no longer with us--Martin, Barnhouse, Anderson, Froom, etc. Do they become bigger in death? Does the fact that they're no longer here mean that we'll never get beyond this--we've calcified, losing the dynamism that's possible with a charismatic leader?
Still having a ton of fun--although I wish people would stick to the time allotted to them!!! No fair taking up all the Q & A time by meandering on and on....

Posted by: Lisa Clark Diller | 26 October 2007 at 06:03

Dr. Rice,
Thanks for taking the time to write this blog. I find this conference fascinating. I became interested in this topic while attending medical school at Loma Linda some years back. Dennis Priebe from Amazing Facts gave a detailed exposition on the history of QOD which I found to be excellent.
Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, many young people do not know the issues. I just hope and pray that people are brought to the Lord, not away from Him b/c of what happens this weekend. I am glad to see that there were members from both sides of the issue present and I hope a season of prayer amongst the participants is undertaken. Boy it is needed.
Blessings and Happy Sabbath!
Jason

Posted by: Jason Shives | 26 October 2007 at 21:01

Rick,
Thank you for the commentary. I find it fascinating - and I personally love theological discussion and debate. I passionately believe that we will be much stronger as a church by becoming more comfortable loving people with different opinions. That said, as a youth pastor, I also find that almost without exception, our young people find this kind of debate completely irrelevant. I am developing the growing conviction that a belief which does not affect our actions is immaterial. As a church, we've got to find a stronger focus on how our beliefs affect reality - what we do. Our one Teacher went out of his way to point out that what matters most is not our beliefs, but our actions. The two groups of people left at the end are not those who believed correctly and incorrectly, but rather those who unselfishly loved and those who did not. (Matt 25) -dan

Posted by: Daniel Wysong | 27 October 2007 at

 

[NightEternal]

By Richard Rice, reflecting on Thursday


If the organizers of the QOD Conference wanted a variety of viewpoints, they certainly got it today, with nine different presentations, two panel discussions, and second evening keynote address, this time from Herbert Douglass.

In the first session after the morning worship by Nik Satelmajer, Julius Nam neatly divided the various reactions to QOD into four groups—pro- and anti-Adventist Evangelicals, and pro- and anti-QOD Adventists. Among the nine observations he made following this division, was the unlikely fact that the first and fourth groups agreed that QOD represented a change in SDA theology, and the second and fourth agreed that it didn’t. Nam also noted the “tactics” of the QOD authors in excluding M L Andreasen from the preparation of the material and “finessing” the EGW material to support a position that significantly shifted the traditional view of Christ’s human nature. Describing himself as “a heart-broken member” of the SDA church, Russell Standish left no doubt about his views of QOD. It represented “compromise,” “alterations” in basic Adventist beliefs, “the destruction of this body of truth,” “this intrusion of rank apostasy,” “rank error,” as well as a misguided attempt to please “those who despised our faith” on the part of those who “suffered from a strange denominational inferiority complex.”

Another Australian, Arthur Patrick took a strikingly different approach. As he sees it, the QOD controversy as it emerged in Australia reflected in part the disillusionment that followed the end of WW2, when people who thought the end of the world was upon them found out it wasn’t. In reaction, some saw in the QOD controversy a sign of prophesied apostasy. Others saw it as a call to reconsider unexamined certainties and rethink SDA identity. Patrick issued a thoughtful appeal to SDAs to open all the QOD material to thoughtful research. Ciro Sepulveda presented the interesting thesis that the QOD discussion reflected to a significant degree demographic and economic transitions. As church members become more sophisticated and affluent, they wanted a “more enlightened theology,” to match the growth of their educational institutions and their movement into respectable society. QOD provides yet another example of the way religious movements change from sect to denomination.

Alberto Timm provided a detailed account of the QOD in Latin America, where a Portuguese translation is just about to appear. Various parts of the book were published in the form of articles. For the most part the continent was spared the controversy that engulfed the book elsewhere. The membership in Latin America is generally respectful of church leadership, and even those who opposed QOD had not even read it. He also noted, to the amusement of the audience, some critics of QOD presented their views to Brazilian SDAs in Spanish, not realizing that Portuguese was their national language.

The afternoon session, “QOD and the Evangelicals,” presented contrasting views of the theological changes represented in QOD. Paul McGraw detailed the vigorous objections of many Evangelicals to the view of Martin and Barnhouse that SDAs, for all their distinctive beliefs, should be considered fellow Christians. For vocal critics like Louis Talbot, E B Jones, and Harold Lindsell, the distinctives of SDAs posed an insuperable obstacle to any such judgment. For all the supposed changes in other areas, these unique beliefs exclude them from the Evangelical fold. Larry Christoffel gave a straightforward affirmation of Evangelical Adventism, with its emphasis on the central themes of Reformation theology—the Trinity, the sinless nature of Christ, the complete substitutionary atonement of the cross, and justification by faith alone, to mention just a few. These common themes call for a closer alliance between Adventists and other members of the larger Evangelical community.

Two of the non-SDA participants were notable for the differences in their views of the transition that QOD represents in SDA theology. Kenneth Samples, an Evangelical Calvinist who worked for a time with Walter Martin, welcomes the theological changes that QOD embodies, noting that EGW helped the Church toward full-fledged Trinitarianism and an orthodox understanding of the nature of Christ. While noting the differences between traditional, evangelical and liberal SDAs, Samples indicated that Walter Martin regarded the revisionary perspective on SDAm that he encouraged as one of his most important accomplishments. If Samples sees the developments in QOD as a move in the right direction, Donald Dayton, a Wesleyan scholar, takes a different approach. He finds the familiar categories such as conservative, liberal, fundamentalism, and evangelicalism, unhelpful when one takes a close look at the origins and development of religious movements, including SDAm. For him the move away from our roots represents a loss of the distinctive insights that we have to offer the world, and the real driving force behind the SDA ethos (my expression) is eschatology. His paper concludes with this ominous caveat: “I fear that Adventism may sell its heritage for a mess of pottage.”

Herbert Douglass ended the day with a long paper based on the image of clashing tectonic plates, symbols of Calvinism and Arminianism. No summary will do justice to the care with which his presentation was constructed or convey the personal passion with which is was delivered. But he is clearly dismayed at the maneuverings of those who produced QOD in excluding Andreasen from the discussion and manipulating EGW quotations to support unprecedented doctrinal positions, a straightforward example of “fraud.” The greatest tragedy of the whole episode, his view seems to be, was the missed opportunity on the part of the Church to present to Barnhouse and Martin the great controversy perspective that is unique to SDAs and that affects the full range of SDA doctrines, particularly the view of Christ’s humanity and the importance of sanctification.
I’ll have to wrap this up, since I have an early presentation of my own tomorrow morning, but I would like to see more reflection on the nature of theological change at this conference. Religious movements always change over time in lots of ways, beliefs included. But what do these changes represent? Gains or losses? Growth or decay? Refinement or apostasy? When it comes to QOD, opinions obviously vary, widely. But addressing theological change in general might help us to understand just what has been going on for the past fifty years.
26 October 2007 | Permalink
Technorati Tags: Adventism, QOD

Comments

What an enjoyable read! Do you think that this conference will prove to have an impact in any way similar to the initial publishing of QOD had on the church then?
Thanks!

Posted by: Johnny A. Ramirez | 26 October 2007 at 08:06

I really appreciated your talk this morning, Dr. Rice. As someone who isn't a theologian, having someone explain using "little words and short sentences" was useful. I feel like I have a much better understanding of the issues around christology and how those ideas change over time. Again, the historian in me is grateful for the articulation of context and connecting some of these ideas about Jesus to the other points of conflict in our church. I got a good education this morning.
I'm sure you'll give a good synopsis in your report, but you may not be able to communicate how helpful your talk was to those of us in the audience.
Thank you for sharing your time and ideas with us.

Posted by: Lisa Clark Diller | 26 October 2007 at 08:43

I'm seeing lots of overlap here between ideas that came up at the Adventist Forums conference in the Seeking a Sanctuary discussion and Rice's point about talking about how theology changes over time.
Who decides our theology? When do we acknowledge that it has changed? Who are the authorities in our church? How comfortable are we with diversity of theology?
At Santa Rosa we ended up talking lots about how our church is changing and this caused worry. There is also worry among the conservatives here at QOD about our betrayal of historic Adventism. It might be for different reasons, but our concern with change in general should push us to try to wrap our minds around how it actually occurs over time....
Yes, let's please have this conversation. How does theology change? How often does it really change, or is it just our words that change? Is it just the emphases that change? Who "declares" that it has changed?
Bull and Lockhart start to address these issues in their description of us--maybe we should have another conference just laying some of these ideas out of the table.

Posted by: Lisa Clark Diller | 26 October 2007 at 08:56

QOD was officially a textbook in a post-introduction Bible course at our mission college during the second half of the 60's when I studied there as an undergraduate. I took other Bible/religion courses instead so perhaps this was one reason I was spared the confusion resulting from the challenge that was mounted by the Brinsmead brothers who visited us from Australia. Because English is a second language in the country that was a former American colony, and English is still the medium of instruction in most public and private schools, it's no surprise that with the aid of free literature the "Awakening Message" (and similar contrarian movements) could spread to the surrounding Adventist community with relative ease. Fact of the matter is, a good number of educated Adventists, including ministers and several ministers-in-training, became Brinsmead followers and had began, and cocntinue to question the official teaching presented in the QOD. More puzzling, however, is how our church leadership in that part of the world has been able to seemingly contain all deviations from the official line so that there's a total silence, an information black-out, in official circles about a final generation, perfectionistic revival there, whether this stemmed directly or indirectly from the seed that was planted by Robert Brinsmead.

Posted by: Joselito Coo | 26 October 2007 at 10:01

From the bird's eye view (BTW for you progressives-8/46 in the balcony were women, not bad!)the presenters were funny, provocative, historical and pastoral(good take home points were amen-ed). Nature of Christ was addressed and many factions referred to. "nuances" were pigeon holed for efficiency's sake.
In addition to more education about how theology changes as Lisa suggested, it would also be fun (nothing stirs up the blood like impassioned theologians arguing from scripture)to have a follow-up conference looking at the scriptural texts themselves again with today's perspectives. Is the church mature enough to handle this? This friendly yet lively conference seems to indicate they may be.

Posted by: arlyn | 26 October 2007 at 10:40

It is well known that all religious movements change over time; SDA is only a "baby" in the denominational family of Christians. But the question is: do administrators ever acknowledge change or is it just something that gradually occurs with little or no fanfare? Seems the latter has been achieved through this manner.

Posted by: Elaine Nelson | 26 October 2007 at 11:06

I just added a picture at the top of Rick's bulletin -- it depicts an historical scene of Ellen White in a meeting of Adventist believers.
Although I'm only inferring from the published reports, I'm going to suggest that the QOD conference looks different than this one.
And it's not for lack of the presence of God.

Clearly Adventism changes. And it is vital that any discussion about the change discussion avoid the ahistorical tendency to aim for an wholly-divine Ur-time in our theological past.
The question I ask myself: is it possible for our church and my generation to be intentional about theological change without creating new M L Andreasens?
By that I mean the difference between contained dissent (i.e., women's ordination for the most part) and those who feel like change is some sort of metaphysical apostasy.

Posted by: Alexander | 26 October 2007 at 11:52

 

[NightEternal]

Right, Alex. Part of the problem is that any specificity starts causing problems, causes changes, and usually does violence to the truth. QOD, everyone is pointing out here, claimed to be "clarifying." Sometimes things are better left unsaid and unclarified. Sometimes mystery needs to be embraced. Not always. I'm deeply influenced by Julius Nam's reflections on the preamble to the 28 fundamental beliefs on this one.
I think what Rice was promoting was a discussion about how change happens, hopefully not saying exactly how and what had changed and coming away with a new statement.
This takes me back to the round table discussion Rice led during the Forums conference where we discussed the topic of "who gets to decide theology?"
Again, over and over again here, the notion has been raised that Froom, Anderson, et al. hijackd the church by doing the clarifying without consulting the larger church. So it seems like this is a big concern--elitism. I think we'd need to acknowledge that the structures of an institution/church may have a different agenda, etc in defining/clarifying/changing theology than lay people.
And "doing" theology on a daily basis--the practice of faith--is done at the lay level. Does that "count" as theology? What if lay people are "mistaken" in their ideas?
These are the issues I think would be important to discuss, among others. Not deciding if/when theology should change..... Just how it actually happens and what counts as theology.

Posted by: Lisa Clark Diller | 26 October 2007 at 12:05

As a person that wanted to attend this conference, but am unable, thank you so much for these posts and discussions...It almost feels as if I'm there. =)


Posted by: Zane | 26 October 2007 at 17:01

We had a wild and woolly discussion this evening centering around Warren's talk on "will it preach?" It was a bit of a chastisement for us scholars, reminding us that what matters for most Adventists is what they hear when sitting in the pew. Does any of this matter when it comes to worship and the life of the saints?
I think it coincides with our posts on a future discussion of how theology gets formed. The experts may not want to trust their hard-earned knowledge, full of nuance and expertise, to pastors. Might they do violence to all details and contingencies? And so our ideas end up looking like knowledge for knowledge's sake.... So maybe it should be pastors that form theology and shape it ultimately for the people. Does theology work its way from the bottom up? "the work of God interprets the word of God"?
Very fun discussion here about what happens when the rubber meets the road. A very important discussion of the disconnect between scholarship and the proclamation of the Word.

Posted by: Lisa Clark Diller | 26 October 2007 at 18:10

A young person would ask, "Does Adventism have anything to offer?" Why be different? Why worship on a different day? Why get chastised by your non-Adventist friends because you don't eat the food they eat?
The only reason a young person would live the peculiar Adventist life is if they believed the message. There has to be reasons why, or there will be no willingness to be different. I believe there are excellent reasons why.
Over the last few years, I have been saddened to see thought leaders in the church who don't believe the message of the church! We are living in an anything goes era of Adventism, I know personally because I attended SDA college recently. The popular message from the post- Ford teachers is, you can do whatever you want and still get to heaven. If that is true, why stay in the church?
Is QOD the reason that there is so much confusion on the importance of Adventism within the church? ...the reason many young people don't know what it means to be an Adventist? If it's not the main reason, I believe it was the slippery slope. Donald Dayton hit the nail on the head.
On a brighter note, Praise God for young people that have decided to ignore the "wolves in sheeps clothing" and search the Word and SOP for themselves!
Join them at GYC this year!
www.gycweb.org
Amen!
Jason

Posted by: Jason Shives | 26 October 2007 at 20:29

Lisa, perhaps "elitism" instead of Utrecht would have put more women in the audience at the AU seminary?
Alex, if I were Richard Rice I would be offended by someone posting a photo next to my article that might suggest I thought there was a relation between the scene depicted and my views as an author. Perhaps that's just me, but I think you'd have done better to post the picture in your own section of the blog. My 2 cents.

Posted by: Robert | 26 October 2007 at 20:48

I think the "where the rubber meets the road" analogy about how it plays to the pews is interesting but not the only consideration. The "official" (GC, Review, EGW estate, Pacific Press etc.) church structure will still protect and promote the institutionalized beliefs and positions, regardless of the thoughts of theologians or the reactions of the laity. The majority of SDA theologians may find a belief inaccurate or not fully developed, the majority of members may find it confusing or irrelevant, but the church structure will continue to insist it is a fundamental belief. Choose your favorite belief...there are so many that work in this exercise. It leads to a further question beyond, "How do we change?"..."Why continue to work for change when beliefs do not allign, and the organizational structure is not open to change?"

Posted by: MR | 26 October 2007 at 21:42

. . . The popular message from the post- Ford teachers is, you can do whatever you want and still get to heaven. . . .
Dear Jason, I worked for Dr. Desmond Ford at Good News Unlimited in Auburn, CA from the late eighties until he retired and returned to Australia. Even now, though semi-retired, I still pastor the group that was called GNU Fellowship in those days—now Auburn Gospel Fellowship.
Anyone with any first-hand knowledge of Des knows that he never taught that you can do "whatever you want and still get to heaven." Who these (unlikely) "post-Ford teachers" are, I do not know; but Des is a man of complete commitment to the gospel and personal Christian discipline.
Thank you, Jason, however, for your earnestness.
Now, in regards to theology changing: I suspect our personal theology will change as we grow older, or we will desert it.
As a convert to SDAm, I studied QOD when it came out, and had high hopes. Thank you, Spectrum, for the wonderful reports on the AU conference.
When we have studied, discussed, loved one another, and had a rich and rewarding life together, we shall all enter heaven rejoicing in the grace of God and the unmatched righteousness of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Posted by: Roy Gee | 26 October 2007 at 23:21

Will the papers presented at the QOD Conference be available somewhere for download or purchase ... or will CDs or DVDs be made available?

Posted by: Monte Sahlin | 27 October 2007 at 06:49

Monte, the papers were all printed out for the attendees and will be available as podcasts soon--within a couple weeks.
There was so much tear-shedding and constant re-affirmation of the Christian love that we share, that I know the Spirit moved in really powerful ways. I don't think we'll have as much difficulty coming together in the future with people we disagree with regarding the "heart" of SDA theology. Hopefully from now on people will recognize that it is too easy to caricature people you disagree with and that face-to-face prayer and study are the way to have unity and diversity.
The feeling was REALLY optimistic last night and I know all the prayer sessions and personal talks outside the meetings helped bring the Spirit to bear on the proceedings.
Over and over it was stated that we really have so much we share in common and that this WAY outweighs our differences.
Jon Paulien provided a possible way for describing the different "segments" of Adventism, avoiding the terms "conservative" and "liberal"--saying that those who are respectful biblical scholars (ie, pretty much everyone at the conference) already share way more in common with each other than they do with the average person in the pew.
For better and for worse.
I agree, Robert, that "elites" would usually make decisions that agree more with me (ie, women's ordination). I'm part of them. But as a member of the Body of Christ, I'm willing to be part of a group that includes more than "elites" and that participates in a conversation with lots of people who emphasize different visions of our mission, our theology, our ministry in the world. All members of the Body do their part to help me be better.
I think this came across loud and clear yesterday. Woody Whidden reminded us that everyone in the room "are ALL wild-eyed optimists about the grace of God." Together we can extend the kingdom. Not by name calling or judging the motivations of others.
I'm missing out on the communion service this morning and am sad about that--and it will be a very fitting ending to this incredibly fun and Christ-centered conference. I think a lot of healing happened.

Posted by: Lisa Clark Diller | 27 October 2007 at 07:53

I also appreciated the reminders from all sides that our "peculiar" lifestyle should be the one in Micah--loving justice and mercy and walking humbly after God. The community of faith will reflect God together as they love each other and do good in the world, extending the kingdom of God where they are. That is the heart of the message. No one argued for "peculiarities" of food and dress--just a heart for spreading the gospel and extending the kingdom.
I was particularly blown away by Dave Larson's talk. Along with Don Dayton, he reminded all of us to really think outside the box regarding the contributions of Adventist theology. Both of them were reflective of N.T. Wright's work on Jesus and affirmed Adventists for understanding the Hebraic context of the Word of God (both Jesus and Scripture) and our faith. We would do well, I think, to claim this aspect of our faith more overtly--and learn how to talk about it with other Christians. We use so much of our own internally-focused jargon that we really miss out on chances to bless the rest of the Christian church--not to mention the world.

Posted by: Lisa Clark Diller | 27 October 2007 at 08:00

My contribution to this discussion is a cartoon. You might find it interesting. Andy
http://adventistperspective.blogspot.com

Posted by: Adventistperspective@gmail.com | 27 October 2007 at 14:54

"Over the last few years, I have been saddened to see thought leaders in the church who don't believe the message of the church! We are living in an anything goes era of Adventism, I know personally because I attended SDA college recently." So wrote Jason.
Thanks, Jason, as mostly what I perceive in most of the posts is a definite tendency to pluralism and a "do it yourself the way that appeals to you." Certainly, this does not equate with Scripture which teaches -- Matthew 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Posted by: YourFriend | 27 October 2007 at 16:37

 

[NightEternal]

By Richard Rice

Friday, October 26, 2007

Today was the final full day of the QOD Conference, emphasis on “full.” It began with a stirring appeal from John McVay, president of Walla Walla University, based on Paul’s exhortation in Ephesians to Christians to put away all animosity and treat each other with consideration and love. The various presentations and discussions that followed were variously characterized by scholarly impassivity and spiritual fervor, giving the overall atmosphere a rather strange mix of campmeeting, testimony meeting, and academic seminar.

Roy Adams and I had the first two papers on the theology of QOD, and we both addressed the question of Christ’s humanity. Roy wrote his dissertation on M L Andreasen, so he had a lot to offer about the historical and theological backstory of QOD. But we agreed, I think, that in his human nature Christ was not subject to sin either experientially or inherently. Adams detailed the various faux pas of those who prepared QOD—the same problems noted by a number of presenters--and concluded with a critique of “final generation” theology, the view of Andreasen, Douglass and others that the last generation of God’s people on earth will attain an unprecedented level of spiritual excellence, and will thereby demonstrate conclusively that Satan’s charges against God’s character are false. “To bend theology to fit our eschatological goals and objectives,” Adams asserted, “is neither sound nor prudent.”

The other morning papers offered impassioned pleas for opposing views of perfectionism. Colin Standish, Russell’s twin and close collaborator, took emphatic exception to the two problematic elements in QOD, the affirmation of Christ’s sinless humanity, and the notion that the atonement was complete on the cross, rather than continuing with Christ’s ministry as high priest. He too railed against the authors of QOD, describing their work as “a planned attempt to reshape the beliefs of our church.” For Standish, the concept of original sin is particularly objectionable, since it describes sin as a condition rather than an act of transgression.

Woodrow Whidden matched Standish’s rhetorical flair as he talked through his paper on the “enduring theological legacy” of QOD. A historian of SDAm, Whidden finds a great deal of Wesleyan theology in the background of EGW's doctrine of salvation, and he faults “last generation” theology for a failure to appreciate the difference between sanctification and glorification. Sinlessness comes only with the latter, he argues, and not before. For Whidden, “effective forensic justification” and “penal substitutionary atonement” are the key concepts in a valid doctrine of salvation, and last generation theology is a huge mistake.

LeRoy Moore argued that it is possible to pull together competing strands from both groups by affirming the paradoxical nature of truth. In his view, Christ had “a post-fall inheritance” but a “sinless spiritual nature," resisting sin throughout his life by relying on the Holy Spirit. I’m not sure just how these pieces fit together, but I like Moore’s irenic motives and his confidence that we can all get along.

Dave Larson began his remarks with a touching remembrance of his father, the late Ralph Larson, who is well known for his extensive discussion of the issues of the conference, especially his treatment of Christ’s humanity. For his part, David believes the denominational preoccupation with the person of Christ and the question of whether the atonement was or was not completed on the cross are not worth the theological energy SDAs have spent on them. On the one hand, the whole idea of human nature is problematic, as Buddhist views of the ephemeral self indicate. On the other, there are suggestive elements in SDA thought that deserve much more attention, such as Sabbath time, God’s ongoing work of salvation throughout human history, and the affirmation of human freedom, and our concern for “the state of the living.” To those mired in a concern for the precise nature of Christ’s humanity and the precise locus of the atonement, Larson had a strong piece of advice: “Get a life!”

At the close of the day, the deans of the three sponsoring institutions, Andrews, Loma Linda and Oakwood, offered some concluding observations on the conference and its themes, along the lines of where we have been and where we might go from here.

In retrospect, the conference gave me an overload of things to think about. I learned a great deal more about the production of QOD than I ever knew; I heard from people who have been energized by its controversial themes for years, and I still have a hard time understanding why it has attracted so much attention. It is a persistent challenge to me as a theologian to relate issues of such specific denominational dimensions to some of the larger issues in Christian thought. There are other elements in Adventism, and there are certainly other elements in Christianity, that deserve more consideration.

At the same time, I recognize that doctrinal diversity includes not just conceptual differences, but emotional differences, too—for want of a better word. What is a minor matter to one SDA may be an issue of crucial importance to another. Learning to live together requires us to accept different ideas and different personalities, too, and sometimes the latter pose the greater challenge. However, in this supposedly postmodern age, in which beliefs allegedly no longer matter, it was encouraging to me as a theologian to find so many people intensely interested in doctrinal issues. It gives pause to consider the fact that virtually every theological question has been, for someone sometime, a matter of life and death.

One final note. The organizers of the conference deserve enormous credit for pulling it off. They did all they could to plan an interesting program (in the face of widespread suspicion) and to make things run smoothly, from setting an appropriate tone in the first meeting, to providing various ways for us to interact with each other, from group prayer to common meals, and for so efficiently covering all the details that no one thinks about until something goes wrong, like getting us meal tickets and parking permits. Kudos to all of them, Michael Campbell, Jerry Moon, Julius Nam, and their associates.

Note enough QOD for you. . .check out the QOD wikipedia page.

27 October 2007 | Permalink
Technorati Tags: QOD, Seventh-day Adventist

Comments

As others have said previously, thank you so much Dr. Rice for sharing the content of these meetings and your personal observations. These posts have been quite consoling as well as highly informative to one who was unable to attend the conference.
I would also like to add that perhaps Dr. Larson has a point that few, in the Adventist and non-Adventist world alike, take seriously enough.

Posted by: Felisa | 27 October 2007 at 11:35

 

[NightEternal]

Oh how I wanted to be there!!!! I wasn't able, even though I had reserved my plane tickets to Michigan. Unforseen circumstances.

I would have supported my brothers:

 

[NightEternal]

In thier fight against the fundamentalist critics, enemies and haters of QOD and the Evangelial Adventist agenda:

 

[NightEternal]

Behold, the vomit that ultra-fundamentalist Russell Standish dares to spew against this glorious, groundbreaking book:

Describing himself as “a heart-broken member” of the SDA church, Russell Standish left no doubt about his views of QOD. It represented “compromise,” “alterations” in basic Adventist beliefs, “the destruction of this body of truth,” “this intrusion of rank apostasy,” “rank error,” as well as a misguided attempt to please “those who despised our faith” on the part of those who “suffered from a strange denominational inferiority complex.”

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Throw the hater out of the conference! THROW HIM OUT I say! Rid these preceedings of him and his fundamentalist rhetoric! HATER! BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! HISSSSSSSSSSS!!!

That would have been my cry from the back of the conference room. I would have gotten escorted out, but it would have been well worth it!!

 

[NightEternal]

The opposition was led by M.L. Andreasen, who proclaimed that the GC brethren had given away the store. Andreasen had been the leading Adventist theologian of his time, and he had worked out a theology of the Final Generation that will vindicate God in the Great Controversy by living in perfect obedience to God’s commandments. He took umbrage especially to QOD’s formulations about the atonement and Christ’s human nature.
Andreasen had not been involved in any way in the process that finally resulted in QOD. In fact, he felt that he had been put on the shelf and deliberately snubbed. He had been voted retirement without having asked for it. He was not even among the 250 readers to whom the manuscript of QOD had been sent for review. He launched a vigorous movement of opposition to the book and what it stood for, a stream of Adventist thought that has continued until now, with prominent exponents such as Herbert Douglass, the brothers Colin and Russell Standish, and the late Mervyn Maxwell.

I am sooooo glad they snubbed Andreason and locked him out. He was an embarassment to our church, and he would have seriously ruined the advancements made in the talks with Barnhouse and Martin.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Thanks for the posts from spectrum. I never read that blog after being told not to go on it by so called owner. A Berkley student who is politically liberal and can't stand opposing political views.