C HALLENGES TO A DVENTIST T HEOLOGY

Ekkehardt Mueller Biblical Research Institute Introduction Challenges of established doctrines have to be expected. Probably all churches have to live with that phenomenon. To a certain degree it may be beneficial that certain positions are questioned, because it is good that people wrestle with biblical and theological issues and are not just indifferent or accept established doctrines with blind faith. Truth must stand the test. Sometimes challenges of biblical interpretations may be correct and better explanations need to be formulated. Furthermore, challenges of doctrines of the Adventist church have often led to further research and have confirmed and strengthened the position of the church. Thus, there are positive aspects. However, we also detect negative sides. It makes quite a difference, if someone wrestles with issues and is open to counsel, if someone in all humility suggests another interpretation of a passage without being dogmatic about his or her insights, or if someone vehemently attacks the church. It may also make a difference, if the person holding a divergent view works basically with the same presuppositions that the church accepts or not. In any case, if major doctrines or positions of the church are attacked, it is quite discomforting. It may lead church members astray, occupy pastors and theologian in an undue way, and may distract the church from its mission and the proclamation of its message. The church and Adventist theology do not live in a vacuum. Society and its philosophies as well as Protestant, to some degree Catholic Theology, and even non-Christian religions try to exert their influence on us. Should we allow these influences to shape us? Do they correspond with Scripture? Do they draw us away from divine revelation? Some of us think they must be espoused. Others are opposed to them. Still others hold that they may contain a kernel of truth which has been blown out of proportions. These different reactions also affect Adventist theology.

I.

Theological and Quasi-Religious Influences Outside the Adventist Church 1. Influences in Western Societies

Before we move to theological influences, we need to turn for a moment to current trends and philosophies encountered in Western societies. These trends exert an enormous influence on 1

Christians. The problem is that these philosophies are seldom directly promoted or discussed. Yet, we are confronted by them and subconsciously may accept them. They are espoused by the vast majority of the peopleeven within Christian including Adventist churches--and have become part of our cultural heritage. It is not easy to be opposed to them. These current philosophies and trends of our society include the following:1 (1) Individualism. People are interested in their own world only and tend to disregard the corporate aspect. They are driven by the desire to be absolutely autonomous. Norms and regulations imposed on them by others are normally despised or rejected.2 (2) Pragmatism. This philosophy is hardly interested in moral values and higher goods. What is feasible and doable and what benefits the individual counts, no matter what.3 (3) Materialism. Our generation lives for the purpose of enjoying life to the fullest and of fulfilling all its wishes. People believe in material goods and are willing to sell their soul for money. Whatever cannot be grasped with our senses is irrelevant (4) Consumerism. It is closely related to materialism. People in our days live most of all for the purpose to be entertained. (5) Tolerance. Although tolerance has positive aspects, it oftentimes goes so far that everything must be accepted. Although we opt for religious liberty, this does not mean that all religions are equal and no value judgment can be passed on any lifestyle. When tolerance is turned into an absolute, those who claim, e.g., that Christianity is unique are considered intolerant and must be fought. Thus, tolerance turns into intolerance against those who do not seem to be tolerant. Tolerance goes along with ecumenism and the notion of political correctness and becomes a means to enforce conformity with the position of those in charge or with the position of the majority.4
See, Peter Schmiechen, Christ the Reconciler: A Theology for Opposites, Differences, and Enemies (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), 14-15, 54-55.
2 1

This may contribute to the lack of interest in biblical doctrines and theological topics.

In applied theology the danger is to baptize and accept non-Christian models and methods without studying whether or not Scripture and theology allow for that, because they seem to work.
4

See, for example, the issue of homosexuality.

(6)

Pluralism. Closely related to tolerance is pluralism. All views are equal. All religions lead to the same god.

(7)

Relativism. Support of pluralism comes through relativism. There are no absolute truths. Nothing is certain. Nobody can claim to have found the truth.5

(8)

Ecumenism. The combination of relativism, tolerance, and pluralism allows for full-fledged ecumenism.

(9)

Emotionalism. Although rationalism is still around, emotionalism is in vogue. What counts are personal experiences. Decisions are made on the basis of what feels good, not on the basis of what may we right or good.6

(10)

Patriotism and nationalism. Although there is a strong individualism, nevertheless patriotism and nationalism coexist and strongly influence people and their world view including religious world views.7

2.

Theological Influences

At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, liberal Protestantism dominated theology. Revelation and inspiration were rejected. Scripture became a purely human product. Miracles and resurrection were unacceptable. The history of religion school proposed that the Bible consisted of Babylonian myths (Gunkel), ideas derived from Hellenistic mystery cults (Reitzenstein), or influences of the Roman emperor worship (Bousset), which were reworked. The question of the historical Jesus was raised, who supposedly differs widely from the biblical Jesus. Apocalyptic prophecy and end time events were irrelevant and strange. Men like Adolf Harnack in Germany and Walter Rauschenbusch in the United States . . . popularized the social gospel . . . 8
In churches pluralism and relativism may lead to the situation that contradictory view remain unchallenged and that nobody is any longer willing to speak up even in cases in which Scripture would require us not to be quiet or not to tolerate sin in the church. This may affect the Christian worship and especially the Christian lifestyle. Biblical positions are less important than personal feelings. This has not only led to the creation of new and independent nations, but may also reenforce the trend toward somewhat independent national churches within the larger body of an international church. Gerhard Pfandl, Seventh-day Adventist Theology at the Beginning of the Third Millennium (unpublished paper), 1. I am indebted to him for some of his material.
8 7 6 5

Liberalism was followed by Neo-Orthodoxy. The most famous representatives were Karl Barth (1886-1968), Emil Brunner (1889-1966), and Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976). Neo-orthodoxy sought to recover the insights and themes of the reformation. It stressed the transcendence of God, man's sinfulness and the uniqueness of Christ as mediator . . .9 Neo-Orthodoxy also introduced the idea of revelation as encounter. Brunner talked about the I-You relationship between God and us, an important concept. However, the idea was taken too far. According to Neo-Orthodoxy Scripture is only the report of encounters that took place between God and humans and was written down from the human perspective. Scripture is not the Word God. It may become the Word of God for an individual, if this person individually has an encounter with God. Brunner would therefore opt for evolution and against a paradise with Adam and Eve. For him most of the OT was mythology. NT history has undergone profound changes.10 Thus, even neo-orthodoxy was not orthodox in the real sense of the word but followed certain presuppositions of liberalism. Bultmann was even quite radical in suggesting to demythologize the NT. For him most texts attributed to Jesus were not authentic but were the product of the early church.11 He was also one of the founders of form criticism. At that time the historical-critical method, which had already started in the 18th century, was flowering. It is still the dominant method used today to interpret Scripture. Its presuppositions are:12 (1) The principle of criticism or methodological doubt. Humanity is autonomous and can evaluate Scripture independent of what the Bible claims. Metaphorically speaking, Scripture has to appear in front of a human court by which it is judged. It is claimed that Scripture contains errors and its parts contradict each other. Harmonization must be shunned. (2) The principle of analogy. According to this principle our present experience must be consistent with the past. When we today do not experience miracles or resurrections of the dead, then
9

Ibid., 2. Emil Brunner, The Word and the World (Lexington: American Theological Library Association, 1965), 99.

10

Therefore, scholar distinguish between up to three different so-called settings in life, the setting in the life of Jesus, the setting in the life of the church, and the setting in the life of the author of a gospel. In the very same gospel text these setting, which may extensively differ from one another, may be found. Ernst Troeltsch formulated basic principles of the historical-critical method. For a discussion, see, Edgar Krentz, The Historical-Critical Method (Philadelphia; Fortress Press, 1975), 55.
12

11

they have not happened in the past either. The present has become the yardstick to determine the past. (3) The principle of correlation. It refers to mutual dependence. Events are connected in such a way that changes in one phenomenon cause also changes in other areas (cause and effect). It is claimed that we live in a closed continuum. Supernatural phenomena do not fit in such a system. Historical events must have historical causes not supernatural ones. Thus, the divine and supernatural is ruled out.13 (4) The principles of philosophy and secular science of history. These are applied to Scripture. The tools of the historical-critical method are source criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, tradition history, and nowadays social-scientific criticism.14 The historical-critical method is also reinforced by the Catholic Church, while the sola-scriptura principle is rejected.15 Some evangelicals have reacted against the method in book form.16 Many, however, use it in a modified form. In the document "Methods of Bible Study" the Adventist Church dismisses even a moderate use of this method.17 Today we find a plurality of theologies such as process theology (J. Cobb, S. Ogden, N. Pittenger), secular theology (D. Bonhoeffer, H. Cox, P. Van Buren), radical theology (T. Altizer, W. Hamilton), the theology of hope (J. Moltmann, W. Pannenberg), the theology of history (W. Pannenberg, R. Rendtorff, K. Koch), the theology of evolution (P. Teilhard de Chardin), situation ethics (J. Fletcher), liberation theology (L. Boff, J. Bonino, G. Gutierrez), feminist theology (E.
Attempts to reintroduce the supernatural and allow for it within the method have failed. See, Peter Stuhlmacher, Peter. Vom Verstehen des Neuen Testaments: Eine Hermeneutik, Das Neue Testament Deutsch, Ergnzungsreihe, Band 6. (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979). A moderate use of the method seems to be inconsistent.
14 13

See, Ekkehardt Mueller, Hermenutik - Geschichte und Methoden (unpublished paper, March 1999).

See, Jrg Haustein, "Die Interpretation der Bibel in der Kirche: Zum neuen Dokument der Ppstlichen Bibelkommission vom April 1993", Materialdienst des Konfessionskundlichen Instituts Bensheim, 4/1994, 73-77. Eta Linnemann, Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990); Gerhard Maier, The End of the Historical-Critical Method (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1977); Gerhard Maier, Biblical Hermeneutics (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1994).
17 16

15

"Methods of Bible Study", Oktober 12,1986, General Conference Committee, Annual Council.

Schssler-Fiorenza, R. Ruether, L. Russel), and evangelical theology (C.F. Henry, B. Ramm, M.A. Knoll). Most of them follow the liberal tradition. As an example we will take Heinz Zahrnt, a theologian, whose books were printed in the seventies and who mentions already most of the basic elements that we today find in some Adventist authors. He talks about the necessity of theology to be a contemporary theology of experience. Scripture is the original translation of the Christian feeling and must be reinterpreted. He supports the historical-critical method. The patriarchs did not exist. Most of the NT letters have an author different from the one claimed in them. The authority of the biblical canon is questioned, because the Bible contains serious flaws and contradictions. Not all of it is Gods Word, and it cannot be taken literally. The Bible is not a book containing teachings but a book for life, a human book of remembrance. Even the NT does not rest on facts. It is a book of faith. Inspiration is reinterpreted. Our experiences points to the fact that inspiration happens today. Not to add or delete anything of the biblical message is comparable to primitive religions and little children that insist that a story must be told always in the same way. Zahrnt favors instead a present day continuation of the biblical message as present truth. That means that we may need to make statements that in spirit follow Scripture, although they may be quite different from Scripture. Scripture contains much straw and little wheat. Jesus was a man and a man only, who completely relied on God. Probably, he never called himself Son of God. The death of Christ is described with many different and contradictory images which today are no longer intellectually acceptable. Zahrnt also opts for a kind of pluralism.18 Because the historical-critical method has cast doubt on the biblical Jesus, the virgin birth, Jesus being the Son of God, his crucifixion, resurrection, the empty tomb, ascension, and second coming, the real question is whether or not God exists at all.19
Heinz Zahrnt, Warum ich glaube - meine Sache mit Gott (Mnchen: R. Piper & Co. Verlag, 1971), 65, 74, 83, 89-97, 105-112, 117-118, 133-139, 159. Heinz Zahrnt, Gott kann nicht sterben - Wider die falschen Alternativen in Theologie und Gesellschaft (Mnchen: R. Piper & Co. Verlag, 1970), 49-50.
19 18

II.

Theological Influences within the Adventist Church 1. Divergent Adventist Theologies of a More Liberal Nature

A number of theological views espoused by certain Adventists are out on the market and compete for our attention. Some of them rest on somewhat more liberal presuppositions. They may be proposed by authors who tend to follow at least certain aspects of the historical-critical method, who value psychology and sociology and in practice make them the norm by which biblical data must be evaluated. When Scripture and science seem to clash, a number of them may follow science instead of Scripture. Thus, they are not regarded as outdated and sectarian by contemporaries.

a.

Scripture

Among us are different views on how to understand divine revelation and inspiration. In some of these cases the human element of Scripture is stressed to an extend that the divine becomes secondary or is completely omitted. Contradictions and discrepancies are seen in many places of Scripture, and it is claimed that they should not be harmonized. According to this view, the Bible contains many errors and in addition becomes a mere casebook,20 which reminds us of Zahrnt. Scripture is robbed of at least part of its authority. Humans decide individually which commandments they want to follow and which they reject, furthermore, when and under which circumstances to obey and when not. In addition to the topic revelation and inspiration another problem must be introduced. K. Stendahl has discussed and defended an issue widely accepted in theological and scholarly circles, namely the concept that we must distinguish between what the text meant in its original setting and what the text means for us today.21 However, by drawing too sharp a distinction between what the
Cf. Richard W. Coffen, A Fresh Look at the Dynamics of Inspiration: Part 2, Ministry February 2000, 2023; Alden Thompson, Inspiration: Hard Questions, Honest Answers (Hagerstown: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1991); and the responses by Frank Holbrook und Leo Van Dolson, eds., Issues in Revelation and Inspiration, Adventist Theological Society Occasional Papers, Vol. 1 (Berrien Springs, MI: Adventist Theological Society Publications, 1992); Samuel Koranteng-Pipim, Receiving the Word: How New Approaches to the Bible Impact Our Biblical Faith and Lifestyle (Berrien Springs: Berean Books, 1996), and Ekkehardt Mueller, The Revelation, Inspiration, and Authority of Scripture, Ministry, April 2000, 21-25. See also the discussion in Ministry, March 1999, Spes Christiana, volumes 7-8, 1996-1997. Krister Stendahl, Biblical Theology, Contemporary, The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, 5 vols., ed. George A. Buttrick (New York: Abingdon Press, 1962), 1:418-432.
21 20

Bible meant and what it means today may lead to a strong emphasis on the so-called cultureconditioned nature of Scripture. It follows that large parts of the Bible are not considered to be directly relevant today and that they must be reinterpreted. We may call this the cultural-relativistic paradigm. Even the Decalogue has been rewritten, however by non-Adventists. Rolf Phler states: As nothing in this world can escape the relativity of time and place, doctrinal conceptualizations and formulations necessarily reflect a particular historical situation and cultural context. Thus, there can be no timeless and permanent doctrinal meaning, nor any immutable conceptual truth. In an open and progressive world, meaning must constantly be discovered anew from the perspective of ones own culture and world view. This requires the constant reinterpretation of doctrines and their creative translation into the thought forms and idioms of contemporary humanity. At times, this may even involve a radical reorientation and revision of doctrinal beliefs.22 One of the most crucial questions is the nature of Scripture and its interpretation. What is the norm of our life, reason, emotion, tradition, or Scripture? Do we really accept sola scriptura, or do we ourselves become the norm to which everything else must be subject? If we could agree on the self-witness of Scripture and would follow principles of interpretation derived from Scripture itself, many divergent views would immediately disappear. Because of the importance of this issue the Biblical Research Institute has published two books on hermeneutics,23 and one is in preparation. When the sola scriptura principle is given up, in practice it follows that doctrines arise, not from the Bible alone, but from the dynamic interplay between the Bible and the living experience of the church.24 Thus, Christian experience and tradition become an important source for formulating doctrines. It is no longer Scripture alone.25
Rolf Phler, Change in Seventh-day Adventist Theology: A Study of the Problem of Doctrinal Development (Th.D. Dissertation, Andrews University, 1995), 99. For a critique, see, Winfried Vogel, A Case of Revisionism: A Critique of Rolf J. Phler, Change in Seventh-day Adventist Theology: A Study of the Problem of Doctrinal Development (unpublished paper, 1996). Gerhard Hasel,. Biblical Interpretation Today. (Washington: Biblical Research Institute, 1985), and Gordon Hyde, Gordon M., ed., A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutics (Washington: Biblical Research Institute, 1974).
24 23 22

Richard Rice, Reason and the Contours of Faith (Riverside: LaSierra University Press, 1991), 90.

Therefore, sola scriptura (Scripture alone) becomes prima scriptura (Scripture first) or even--as in the Catholic Church--Scripture and tradition or something else.

25

b.

God

The so-called Open View of God or Free Will Theism or Process Philosophy is a result of Whiteheads philosophical enterprise. It is interesting to notice that Whitehead has influenced liberal Protestants such as John B. Cobb (1925-) but also more conservative theologians such as Clark Pinnock (1937-). Conservative representatives criticize some of Whiteheads views, for instance, the rejection of God as creator. To some extend the Adventist Richard Rice26 follows this process theology or process philosophy as Pannenberg calls it.27 Representatives espousing this view normally believe in a bipolar nature of God. Gods experience of this world is open and not closed. Gods knowledge is limited to the present and the past. There is no or not much room for Gods foreknowledge. God reacts to the free decisions and acts of humans directly. But in this case prophecy becomes very vague. Even God cannot help us to make the best possible decision, because He does not know the end with precision. He is neither omnipotent nor omniscient. With his approach Rice wants to preserve the free will of humanity, which for him is endangered, if God knows the future perfectly. Rice allows God to have a perfect memory. Therefore, on the basis of cause and effects He can make prophesies, which, however, are only conditional in nature.28 Its (the book's) central thesis is that reality itself and consequently God's experience of reality are essentially open rather than closed. This means that God experiences the events of the world He had created - especially the events of human history - as they happen, rather than all at once in some timeless, eternal perception. This also means that not even God knows the future in all its details. Some parts remain indefinite until they actually occur, and so they can't be known in advance. Otherwise, as we shall see, the idea of freedom is meaningless.29 Madelynn Jones-Haldeman has another set of questions regarding God and comes from a totally different direction: The belief in progressive revelation makes us aware that our pictures of God keep changing. The notion that there is harmony throughout the Bible, that is, no contradictions, has made
Richard Rice, The Openness of God: The Relationship of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Free Will (Nashville: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1980).
27

26

Wolfhart Pannenberg, Metaphysics and the Idea Of God (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1990), 113.

This conditional nature of prophecy must be distinguished from conditional prophecy as we find it oftentimes in classical prophecy. See, Jer 18:7-10. In the first case, God more or less guesses. In the second case He knows precisely the future, however, the fulfillment of that type of prophecy is dependent on the human response.
29

28

Rice, The Openness of God, 8.

us resort to all kinds of strange and nefarious circumlocutions to make God come out looking good or at least worthy of our worship. Regardless of the differences between the Old and the New Testaments' pictures of God, these images are put together in a mosaic that is said to be palatable and understandable, when in reality, the tiles do not fit together . . . There is enough internal evidence, as scholars have shown, to suggest that as one reads through the Bible, a loving monotheistic God emerges from the pantheon of warlike gods. The progressive Adventist believes that the picture of God blotting out populations either by the sword of man, or by fires, earthquakes, catastrophic storms and volcanic eruption, demonstrates that man has indeed made God in his own image. It is appropriate to think, ask questions, weigh material and not be intimidated by the words; it's inspired. No leap of faith is wide enough to bridge the chasm of these contradictory pictures of God .30 c. Creation

Although the Adventist church takes the creation account as a literal and historical account, believes in 24-hour creation days and a short chronology, opinions of church members range from espousing outright evolution, to theistic evolution, long chronology creation, short chronology creation, and various other theories found between these positions. Richard Hammill, for example. holds that animals [were] living on the earth . . . millions of years ago before these [continental] plates separated. And, moreover, as I got to looking into the geologic column, I recognized . . . that the geologic column is valid, that some forms of life were extinct before other forms of life came into existence.31 He claimed to be a progressive creationist.

d.

Salvation

Traditionally churches accepted the biblical testimony that Jesus as the sinless one died for the sinners and that his death was a substitutionary death for our sake. The idea of a substitutionary sacrifice of Christ is rejected by several Adventists and replaced by the moral influence theory. By the way, that affects also the sanctuary doctrine. In any case, Jack Provonsha after having reviewed and rejected different atonement theories claimed that salvation by the death of Jesus would also be salvation by works, namely Christs works. This, he concludes, cannot be. Nobody has to (or can) pay for it [salvation] or work for it. The cross rejects salvation by works in principle. It was a
Madelynn Jones-Haldeman, Progressive Adventism Dragging the Church Forward, Adventists Today, 2 (Jan/Feb 1994): 11.
31 30

Quoted in Spectrum 25.3 (March 1996): 27, 28.

10

demonstration, not a payment. Golgotha is not a question of whose merits earn our salvation, but a rejection of the merit-earning formula itself.32 The theory is not new, although Provonsha is supported by other Adventists such as Graham Maxwell and Charles Scriven, Peter Abelard (1079-1142) already espoused it. In the high Middle Ages a French monk, Peter Abelard, constructed what he felt described what love really means. It has come to be called the moral influence theory. Reacting against the course ransom idea of his time, he argued that in no sense was Jesus a ransom, but someone elevated. If only we could grasp the nobility of God's character, he reasoned, our self-ridden hearts would melt and be moved to repentance, and sin would be abandoned. For Abelard, Christ's death really was the ultimate demonstration of God's love, hence a description of His character. So Jesus suffered with us to set the example. He identified fully and tasted all of life. He suffered with the sinner rather than directly for the sinner. This theory reinterpreted the meaning of those texts that tell us Christ died for us. Despite its core truth, Abelard's doctrine fell far short of the full biblical picture.33 Much is based on the parable of the prodigal son. This parable talks about the love of God and his willingness to forgive, but and does not mention substitutionary atonement. But parables should not be pressed too far. Furthermore, the entire Scripture must be heard when a topic such as salvation is studied. The different representatives of this theory may have slightly different emphases. One person may focus on the love of God and the cross as a means to shock us and evoke a love response in us. Another one may stress that God forgives directly; a sacrifice is not necessary. Or one may with Scriven,34 who seems to be influenced by the social gospel or liberation theology, reject the substitutionary atonement as too individualistic (p.35) and pre-occupied with personal guilt and personal prospects (p.33). Community and justice are central to Jesus' teaching, Scriven claims.35

e.

Eschatology

Several suggestions have been made to reinterpret our understanding of the end time. Some have a problem with the resurrection of the dead and rather speak about a spiritual resurrection at
Jack Provonsha, You Can Go Home Again: An Untheology of the Atonement (Washington: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1982), 94.
33 32

George Reid, Why Did Jesus Die? How God Saves Us (biblicalresearch.gc.adventist.org). Charles Scriven, Gods Justice, Yes; Penal Substitution, No, Spectrum, 23 (October 1993): 31-38. Pfandl, 6.

34

35

11

baptism than a real resurrection at Christs second coming. Others believe that God s judgment does not fit with his love. They leave out texts that describe His wrath and judgment at the end of time. Reinder Bruinsma thinks that our understanding of prophecy as we believe it relates to Roman Catholicism is wrong and that we have to change it. The Catholic Church is no longer what she was in the past. The papacy is not the antichrist. Bruinsma is aware of the fact that this proposal also questions the inspiration and authority of Ellen G. White. Nevertheless, he is quite frank: The rapidly growing church is still remarkedly [sic] united, both organizationally and theologically, but it manifests an increasing pluralism. Unfortunately, this seems to lead to a significant degree of polarization. Where one current seeks to find ways of making Adventism more relevant to this generation, others insist that the old landmarks of the Adventist faith must be zealously guarded and are unwilling to re-think or modify traditional views. These more conservative Adventists insist that Adventism must continue to subscribe to its traditional interpretations of prophecy, with the corresponding condemnation of Roman Catholicism and other Christian churches. The more progressively inclined are increasingly open to emphasizing the common bond with other Christians and tend to feel uncomfortable with traditional attitudes.36 Sometime soon the Church must decide unequivocally whether it is a Christian church with its own unique witness amidst other Christian churches, or whether it must stand alone over against all other Christian bodies.37 Steve Daily adds: "It is a sobering and scary thought to conclude that our eschatology has been built on an unsound foundation, and that it has ultimately done us more harm than good.38

f.

Ecclesiology

In the context of ecumenism the biblical remnant concept as well as the interpretation of Babylon39 seem to be detrimental. Thus, they are altered. It is said that the church must give up its
Reinder Bruinsma, Seventh-day Adventist Attitudes Toward Roman Catholicism 1844-1965 (Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1994), 301.
37 36

Reinder Bruinsma, Adventists and Catholics: Prophetic Preview or Prejudice? Spectrum, 27.3 (Summer

1999), 52.
38

Steve Daily, Adventism for a New Generation (Portland: Better Living Publishers, 1993) , 314.

Cf., George Knight, Another Look at Babylon: Cooperating with Other Christians, Ministry, April 2002, 5-9. This is not the only attempt to reinterpret Babylon. Babylon is sometimes understood in a futuristic way. If Babylon is still completely future, no church and religion is affected, and we do not need to be afraid of ecumenical connections.

39

12

opposition to ecumenism40 and pluralism. There is a new ecumenism sweeping through much of the Christian Church today, that Adventism cannot afford to ignore."41 But when we follow the axioms of postmodernism, we have to espouse pluralism and give up any notion of absolute truth.42 This would also mean to give up any hope that the Adventist Church can maintain unity in theology, that is, unity in its message. To put it bluntly, Guy says, because the world comprises a diversity of cultural contexts, the idea of one completely homogenous, internationally identical Adventist theology is not plausible.43 He goes on to describe an Adventist theology for North America: A contextualized Adventist theology in twenty-first-century North America must be scientifically and historically informed, socially and culturally aware, and spiritually and intellectually vigorous. In general terms, it should have the following characteristics: It should be broadly focused . . . It should be imaginative, recognizing not only the legitimacy but also the desirability of exploring new understandings and applications of scripture, and regarding multiple interpretations as potentially complementary rather than contradictory. It should be modest . . . It should be ecumenical . . .

g.

Other Doctrines

Today many more doctrines of the Adventist Church are questioned from liberal circles within the church such as (1) the sanctuary, which oftentimes is falsely put in opposition to justification by faith,44 (2) the role of Ellen G. White,45 (3) the law and the Sabbath,46 (4) stewardship and Christian
See, the brochure Emergency Ministry: Information and Resource for Clergy: A Collection of Services and Prayers from Distinctive Faith Groups, produced by Adventist Chaplain Ministries, distributed by the Ministerial Association, and funded by Adventist HealthCare. In this brochure one does not only find prayers to God in the Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, and Jewish context, but also a prayer to Mary, prayers to Allah including a confirmation that Muhammad is Gods apostle, a prayer to the pagan god Vishnu, and Buddhists prayers.
41 40

Steve Daily, 312.

For a discussion, see, Winfried Vogel, Man and Knowledge: The Search for Truth in a Pluralistic Age (unpublished paper), and Douglas Groothuis, The Postmodernist Challenge to Theology, Themelios 25 (1999: 4-22). Fritz Guy, Thinking Theologically: Adventist Christianity and the Interpretation of Faith (Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1999), 233.
44 43

42

This is still a remainder of the Ford crisis.

Daily, 188. He seems to equate Ellen Whites ministry with the prophetic ministry of individuals such as Joan of Arc, Martin Luther, John Wesley, Martin Luther King, Desmond Tutu, etc. whose prophetic ministry he challenges us to recognize. The new covenant theology is suggested in their place. Cf., Dale Ratzlaff, Sabbath in Crisis (Applegate: Life Assurance Ministries, 1990).
46

45

13

lifestyle. (5) New forms of the foot washing are suggested such as anointing with oil or showing humility in another way than washing feet and ending the service with a prayer dance.47 What about baptism without instruction? Adventism is theologically fragmented, to allude to the title of W. Johnssons book.48 How far will that go?

2.

Divergent Adventist Theologies Proposed by So-Called Conservative or Orthodox Adventists

We do not only have problems with liberal influences. Unfortunately, there are so-called conservative Adventists, who take Scripture seriously and do not use the historical-critical method and who nevertheless introduce divergent views.

a.

God

A number of Adventists in different parts of the world are dissatisfied with the doctrine of the trinity. Some of them have prepared little booklets or other materials against the doctrine of the trinity and distribute them.49 In the beginning most of these Adventists were lay members. In the meantime they havemaybe unbeknown to themreceived some support by a NT scholar.50 A number of them believe that the church has accepted a Catholic doctrine which cannot be substantiated with Scripture. They want to go back to the pioneers. However, a problem arises with Ellen G. White, who has strongly endorsed the divinity of Jesus and the concept of the trinity. These opponent sometimes claim that the writings of Ellen G. White have been manipulated by the church in order to endorse a false doctrine. The point of contention is normally Jesus. Some claim with the Jehovahs Witnesses that he is a created being. Others believe that he somehow emanated from God and take the title Son of
47

Stefanie Noack-Brger, Ein etwas anderes Abendmahl, Adventecho, August 2002, 9. Cf., William G. Johnsson, The Fragmenting of Adventism (Boise: Pacific Press, 1995). For instance, Lloyd G. Martin, 100 and More Mysteries of the Trinity (Kingston, Jamaica).

48

49

Cf., Keith Burton, The Trinitarian Compromise: Seventh-day Adventist Doctrine and Public Relations (unpublished paper, 2001).

50

14

God literally. Their views have also repercussions on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit who sometimes is seen as an impersonal power coming forth from God instead of a personal being.51

b.

Salvation

Cottrell mentions four different groups within the Adventist Church, namely Evangelical Adventists and Progressive Adventists, Historic Adventists, and Mainstream Adventists.52 Historic Adventists refers to where Adventism began, namely with the pioneers. Prominent representatives of Historic Adventism are Robert J. Wieland of the 1888 movement, Colin and Russell Standish of Hartland Institue, and Ron Spear and Ralph Larson of Hope International. They are dissatisfied with the leadership of the church, because it refuses to admit that a number of unauthorised doctrinal changes, they believe, have been made largely through our educational institutions. These major changes, according to Larson, are: 1. The doctrine that we receive weakness from Adam, not guilt, now being replaced by the Calvinistic doctrine of original sin defined as inherited guilt. 2. The doctrine that our Lord came to this earth in the human nature of fallen man, now being replaced by the Calvinistic doctrine that Christ came to earth in the human nature of the unfallen Adam. 3. The doctrine of righteousness by faith, now being replaced by the Calvinistic doctrine of unrighteousness by presumption, salvation in sin. 4. 5. The doctrine of the sanctuary, now being either denied or replaced by vague uncertainties. Belief in the Spirit of prophecy, now being denied because it supports all of the Adventist doctrines listed above and firmly rejects the Calvinistic doctrines . .
.
53

These points are a misrepresentation of what the church officially stands for. They may be found in certain circles within Adventism, but it is necessary to distinguish between a view that an individual, even a prominent theologian holds and the position of the church. The theology of at least some of these Historic Adventists tends toward perfectionism. Interestingly, especially the 1888 group
51

The BRI website contains documents that deal with the issue of the trinity (biblicalresearch.gc.adventist.org). R. F. Cottrell, Adventists Today, Jan./Feb. 1994. G. Pfandl, 10-11.

52

53

15

seems also to have some problems with substitutionary atonement. It opts for universal legal justification which means that every human being was legally justified when Jesus died on the cross.54 Therefore, we do not need to accept salvation, but we can reject it. The group exploits the phrase in Christ but goes too far. Unfortunately, a book entitled The Most Precious Message from Pacific Press supports the 1888 movement.55 The attitude of these groups towards the church is at times rather harsh.56

c.

Eschatology

When it comes to the interpretation of Daniel and Revelation many strange views are proposed. Church members and pastors do not hesitate to put these in print or distribute them on CDs.57 In Daniel new ideas on chapters 10-12 are proposed. In chapter 12 we encounter three different numbers.58 Sometimes the latter two or all of them are not understood according to the yearday-principle. In Revelation we find a special interest in the trumpets and in Rev 17. Very often Dan 12 as well as Rev 8-11 are interpreted in a futuristic way, and even Babylon is. The authors are often opposed to the concept of recapitulation.59 Therefore, in their interpretation the trumpets follow the seals chronologically instead of being parallel. This makes a major difference. The trumpets are often understood literally and sometimes considered as ecological disasters or nuclear war.60
Cf., Robert J. Wieland and Donald K. Short, 1888 Re-Examined (Meadow Vista: The 1888 Message Study Committee, 1987; Jack Sequeira, Beyond Belief:The Promise, the Power, and the Reality of the Everlasting Gospel (Boise: Pacific Press, 1993).
55 54

For documents discussing in more detail the doctrines mentioned here see the BRI website.

In the first 27 pages of Russell R. and Colin D. Standish, The Sepulchres are Whited (Hartland Publications, 1993) the words "apostasy" and "apostate" are found nineteen times., e.g., on page 4: So great is the apostasy, often at high levels of our church, so widespread the abuse of the flock of God who stand for His pure truth, so rapid the spread of error and the acceptance of appalling standards, that a true minister can but tremble for his church," See, e.g., Toby Joreteg, Daniel and the Visisons about the End Time (Brushton: Aspect Books, 1998); Toby Joreteg, Revelation (Brushton: Aspect Books, 2001).
58 57

56

1260, 1290, and 1335.

For a discussion of recapitulation see, Ekkehardt Mueller, Recapitulation in Revelation 4-11, Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 9/1-2 (1998): 260-277.
60

59

Loius Mason, The Seventh Seal (manuscript 1999).

16

In Rev 13 the number 666 is intriguing. In the last months there was quite some interest. A gentleman named Ralph Myers has figured out how to count the names of the popes and comes up with the number 665.61 Probably, one pope is missing, which is the antichrist, and then the end will come. A new interpretation of the Antichrist has been introduced by S. Bacchiocchi.62 He now understands the Antichrist as the papacy and the Islam instead of the papacy only.

d.

The Gift of Prophecy

This new view on the Islam as Antichrist clashes with Ellen G. Whites understanding. Thus, Bacchiocchi must solve the problem. He considers Ellen G. White as a straightjacket anyway and now starts to reinterpret the gift of prophecy. He distinguishes between the gift of prophecy in the OT and the same gift in the NT and defines the NT gift basically by 1Cor 14:3. NT prophecy serves only for exhortation, consolation, and edification. NT prophets err. The audience must separate the erroneous views from the acceptable ones. Thus, the individual becomes the standard to determine which words of a prophet are useful and which statements are to be rejected. This principle is applied to Ellen G. White.63 Unfortunately, Ellen G. White is now attacked by someone formerly known by many to be conservative. Furthermore, the understanding of the gift of prophecy in general has been changed by taken this position.

He says that since 1798 only seven papal names have been used: Pius, Leo, Gregory, Benedict, John, Paul, and John Paul.. Each papal name stands for one of the seven mountains in Rev 17. These papal names have been used repeatedly throughout church history, e.g., you find Paul I, Paul II, Paul III, Paul IV, Paul V and Paul VI. Although since 1798 only one Paul has occurred you nevertheless add all six Pauls in the following way: 1+2+3+4+5+6=21. Pius is found 12 times throughout church history. So you add 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12=78. Leo has been used 13 times which makes 91. If you count all papal names in like fashion and add these numbers the total count comes to 665 as of John Paul II. Two antipopes, namely John XVI and Benedict X as well as John XX who is missing were not counted. John Paul II is the seventh head of the beast in Rev 17. The eighth will be the antichrist, who will use his own name, which will count one and bring the total count to 666. Ralph Myers has a group of people who support and share his interpretation. It is also claimed that a lady named Nihar Justin, a gentleman named Ron Johnston, and Ralph Myers were chosen by God to represent him as His prophets, e-mail from Ralph Myers to George Reid, September 25, 2001.
62

61

See, Samuele Bacchiocchi, Endtime Issues No. 86 (e-mail newsletter, July 2002).

See, Samuele Bacchiocchi, Endtime Issues No. 87 (e-mail newsletter, August 2002); Samuele Bacchiocchi, Endtime Issues No. 86 (e-mail newsletter, August 2002).

63

17

e.

Sanctuary

In his books on the OT festivals, especially the second volume,64 Bacchiocchi attributes to the Feast of the Trumpets, what Scripture connects with the Day of Atonement. The Day of Atonement is related to the Second Coming of Christ. In a dialogue with the members of the Biblical Research Institute Committee, which consists of many scholars around the world, he had to admit that there is no biblical support for his thesis but that he follows Rabbinic tradition.

f.

Lifestyle Issues

In his book on marriage and divorce,65 Bacchiocchi takes a stronger position than the church with regard to the texts on divorce in the Gospels. However, when it comes to 1Cor 7, he opens the flood gates. According to verses12-15 only the unbeliever can initiate a divorce. Bacchiocchi redefines unbeliever and includes church members which may be nominal Christians and life in sin. This is already problematic. Secondly, he even puts the initiative with the believer and urges the believer in certain cases to leave the unbeliever.66

g.

The Jewish Question

The number of Jews joining the Adventist church increases. However, many of them are offended by the so-called replacement theory, based on Mt 21:38-45. They do not like the idea that Judaism as the elect people has been replaced by Jesus through the Christian church and claim that this concept has contributed to the hate against the Jews and the Holocaust and therefore must be abandoned. There is no question that Christian mistreated Jews and that this is unjustifiable. However, should the Holocaust as evil as it was, determine biblical interpretation? Would we then listen to Scripture itself? In any case, it is now claimed that God throughout church history had two imperfect witnesses, namely Christianity and Judaism. Christianity pointed to Christ and Judaism to the law. Both culminate in the Adventist church which upholds Jesus and the Decalogue. It is not claimed that
Cf., Samuele Bacchiocchi, Gods Festivals in Scripture and History, Part 2: The Fall Festivals (Berrien Springs: Biblical Perspectives, 1996.
65 64

Cf., Samuele Bacchiocchi, The Marriage Covenant (Berrien Springs: Biblical Perspectives, 1991). Bacchiocchi, The Marriage Covenant, 183-189, 215-216.

66

18

being a witness means to be saved.67 However, the question is whether or not this construct is historically and theologically sound. Christianity also pointed to the law throughout the centuries, some Christians even to the Sabbath. On the other hand, Jesus and the law cannot be put on the same level, because salvation comes through Christ only. What about other religions that may have pointed to the true God in a flawed way? The concept of the two witnesses is also applied to Rev 11, however, not in an exegetical sense, but rather as a midrash or application.

III.

Towards a Solution The question that we have to address is, what can be done. By the way, let us keep in mind

that we do not just have to wrestle with divergent views. As a church God gave as also deeper insights into His Word during the last decades and years. And this should also be expected, a growth in understanding and knowledge. Recently, a good start was taken at the Theological Field Conference, namely in April and May 2002, when General Conference and Divisions leaders met, listened to papers dealing with the theological unity of the church, discussed the issue, and came up with some recommendations which now need to be implemented in the different fields. Jan Paulsens speech was printed as an insert in the Adventist Review in June 2002.68 An article by William Johnsson followed giving a report and publishing the statement that was voted. Church leaders want to be more intentional with regard to the theological unity of the church.69 The General Conference had some lengthy dialogues with groups and individuals holding divergent view. Unfortunately, in most cases an agreement could not be reached. Nevertheless, it is important to talk to each other. In some cases, further actions may need to be taken in order to protect church members. What can we do as pastors? First of all, we should pray and study and become familiar with the issues. Ellen White provides an example of her times that we in part can follow today:
Cf., Jacques Doukhan, Israel, Theology, Prophecy, Mission: A Seventh-day Adventist Perspective (unpublished paper, November 2001). See also, Jacques Doukhan, Israel and the Chruch: Two Voices for the Same God (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002).
68 67

See, Jan Paulsen, The Theological Landscape, Adventist Review, June 13, 2002. William G Johnsson, Field Conference Targets Theological Unity, Adventist Review, June 20, 2002, 18-21.

69

19

We are to be established in the faith, in the light of the truth given us in our early experience. At that time one error after another pressed in upon us; ministers and doctors brought in new doctrines. We would search the Scriptures with much prayer, and the Holy Spirit would bring the truth to our minds. Sometimes whole nights would be devoted to searching the Scriptures, and earnestly asking God for guidance. Companies of devoted men and women assembled for this purpose. The power of God would come upon me, and I was enabled clearly to define what is truth and what is error. . . When a brother receives new light upon the Scriptures, he should frankly explain his position, and every minister should search the Scriptures with the spirit of candor, to see if the points presented can be substantiated by the Inspired Word. . . We must not trust to others to search the Scriptures for us.70 We should read widely71 and counsel with others. If those who hold divergent views attend our congregations and proclaim false doctrines, we should invite them to a dialogue. In such cases it is helpful to have some witnesses and prayer support. It is crucial to preach sound doctrine. Sometimes more than milk is appropriate. We must feed our congregations well and make sure that we do not leave gaps in our proclamation that may be filled by others in a way we do not want. At times, church members must we warned of false doctrines. We should press together and support each other. All of us are called to the same work. In some cases disciplinary actions must be taken, in others the problem is so minor that no damage is done. There always needs to be some latitude, but there are also boundaries. We need discernment to know what needs to be done.

Conclusion Sometimes the challenges seem to be enormous. It is certainly not easy to deal with some of these issues mentioned above, and we can easily become discouraged. But we need to remember that it is the Lords remnant church, and He will see to it that it reaches its goal. This does not allow us to be phlegmatic or indifferent and just observe what is going on. On the other hand, we do not need to be troubled or afraid. The church may appear as about to fall, but it does not fall. It remains, while the sinners in Zion will be sifted out. . .72 It is crucial that we are right with the Lord.
70

Ellen G. White, Gospel Workers (Washington: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1915), 302-303.

It may be helpful to consult Raoul Dederen, ed., Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, Commentary Complementary Series (Hagerstown, Review and Herald Publishing Association, 2000).
72

71

Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, Book 2 (Washington: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1958),

380.

20