wwc faculty responds to commission … · wwc faculty responds to commission adventist today holds...

NEWS • ANALYSIS • OPINION

MARCH • APRIL 1998VOL. 6, NO. 2

PASTOR DISFELLOWSHIPED$4.75

WWC FACULTY RESPONDS TO COMMISSION

ADVENTIST TODAYHOLDS CAMPMEETING

NPUC ADDRESSES RATZLAFF BOOK

WWC FACULTY RESPONDS TO COMMISSION

ADVENTIST TODAYHOLDS CAMPMEETING

NPUC ADDRESSES RATZLAFF BOOK

This We Believe?

EllenWhiteThis We Believe?

EllenWhite

I s a firm commitment to “the Bible and the Bible only” (BBO) the key to Adventist renewal?Maybe not. According to the Bible, “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities,for there is no authority except that which God has established…Therefore, it is necessary to sub-mit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.”

(Romans 13:1, 5) In the 1860s, in the South and North, Bible-believing Baptists and Presbyterians under-stood this passage not only to permit, but to require their cooperation in a system of oppression. But EllenWhite wrote, “The law of our land requiring us to deliver a slave to his master, we are not to obey…Theslave is not the property of any man.” (Testimonies for the Church 1:202)

Both Adventists and the fugitive slaves benefited from White’s correction of Paul (or at the very leasther correction of the common-sense Protestant and Catholic understanding of Paul). If Adventists hadsubmitted to the BBO norms of American Protestantism they would have acquiesced in slavery and citedthe Bible to justify their wickedness.

On the other hand, many contemporary Adventists have found freedom from fear of damnation only asthey allowed the Pauline message of grace to overwhelm the White-based message of last-day perfection.Theology, like life, is messy.

Samuel Koranteng-Pipim in Receiving the Word argues that authentic Adventism embraces the Bible notonly as the supreme authority but as our “sole authority.” However, the Bible does not mention tobacco orcocaine. We prohibit both. The Bible is more emphatic against overindulgence in food than it is aboutnon-indulgence in alcohol. But we outlaw alcohol for all members and tolerate obesity even among ourleaders. And Pipim vigorously affirms all these non-Biblical Adventist norms.

The weakness of BBO as the guardian of Adventism is illustrated most dramatically in Dale Ratzlaff’sThe Cultic Doctrine of Seventh-day Adventists. Ratzlaff believes a more honest commitment to BBO wouldrescue Adventism from its cultic past and bring us to full Christian maturity (i.e. evangelicalism). But BBOwas used by evangelicals in the South I grew up in to justify separation of the races and oppression ofBlacks. It is still used by many evangelicals to prove that a loving God will give the lost eternal life in helland that all Jews, Buddhists, animists, atheists, and homosexuals will experience that hellacious eternity.Eternal hell and narrowly restricted salvation are vintage evangelicalism and firmly linked to BBO; theseideas are not improvements on Adventism. One further evidence against the value of BBO: regions ofNorth America with the highest rate of this belief also have elevated rates of child abuse.

Ratzlaff and Pipim agree: the salvation of the Adventist church is to be found in a fearless commitmentto BBO. They agree that the current crisis in the church is a result of “departing from the Word.” In spiteof their agreement on BBO, however, each would see the other as a paragon of heresy. A peculiar feature ofBBO is that its advocates so confidently anathematize each other.

The Bible is a powerful tool for spiritual renewal. It is easy to document the Bible’s life-changingimpact—among cannibals, among white-collar and blue-collar crooks, among college kids. The Bible is apriceless resource. We should read it. We should help our children memorize it. We must not allow thedogmatism of BBO proponents to diminish our own involvement with the Bible itself.

Proponents of BBO often see the Bible as an adversary of other sources of truth. The Bible vs. sciencevs. experience vs. Ellen White vs. tradition vs. the church fathers or contemporary scholarship. The fact is,God speaks through all of these. And our ability to hear God in the Bible will be significantly diminishedif we ignore the rest.

Ratzlaff and Pipim both call us to renewed attention to what Christ says throughthe Word. I agree. Most Adventists need more, not less, exposure to the words of theBible. Attending to the Word will bring revival. But as we listen to God in theBible, let’s remember that above the narrow doctrinal concerns linked with BBO,God calls us to truth and love: truth beyond all simplistic formulas (including ourown) and love for those who cannot see it our way.

John McLarty, Editor

The Bible and the Bible Only?

FOUNDATION BOARDDoug Schultz, Board Chair

Keith Colburn, Secretary/TreasurerVirginia Burley

Raymond CottrellElwin Dunn

Reni DupertuisDiana Fisher

Edmund JonesJames Kaatz

Frank KnittelJohn McLarty

Lourdes Morales-GudmundssonDon ShaskyJohn SicklerErvin Taylor

David Van PuttenJames Walters

ADVISORY COUNCILKen & Jo Abbott

Robert & Kelli BlackGary & Jeanne Bogle

Antonius & Lilia BrandonTodd & Ginny BurleyRon & Anita CafferkyGreg & Dana Carlson

John & Charlotte CassellKeith & Judy Colburn

Ronald & Patricia CopleJames & Kathryn Dexter

Merlyn & Rosemary DuerksenJames Dunn

Douglas and Patricia EwingDonald & Beverly Farley

Gary & Sharon FraserGary & Annette Frykman

Richard GreenRichard & Kathi Guth

Lyndon & Linda HarderBruce Heinrich

Jim & Jackie HennebergDennis & Jolene HilliardWayne & Susan Jacobsen

John & Judy JacobsonJim & Averille KaatzElton & Marga Kerr

Dean & Dolores KinseyFrank & Helen KnittelRichard & Janis LarsenKen & Florence LorenzDon & Penny Miller

Rick MurrayT. Clint & Elaine Nelson

Thaine PriceGary & Ruthe-Marina Raines

Judith RauschPhil & Joyce ReisweigGordon & Judy Rick

Richard & Missy RouheGlenn & Cherie RouseDoug & Sandy SchultzDon & Ursula Shasky

Walter L. & Lula Ann StilsonJames & Maryan StirlingErvin & Marilynn Taylor

Bob & Karen TorreyJohn & Nancy VogtDavid Van Putten

James & Priscilla WaltersJames & Betty Webster

Tim & Stephanie Welebir

Inside Adventist Today

2 March–April 1998 ADVENTIST TODAY

VOL. 6, NO. 2MARCH • APRIL 1998

EDITOR EMERITUS:Raymond Cottrell

EDITOR: John McLarty

MANAGING EDITOR: Colleen Moore Tinker

ASSISTANT EDITORS: Cherie RouseJames H. StirlingSusan G. Walters

EDITORIAL ADVISORS: Steve DailyJames WaltersART DIRECTOR: Richard Tinker/Apollo ProductionsOFFICE MANAGER:

Hanan Sadek

Adventist Today reports oncontemporary issues of importance toAdventist church members. Followingbasic principles of ethics and canonsof journalism, this publication strivesfor fairness, candor, and good taste.

Unsolicited submissionsare encouraged. Payment is compet-itive. Send a self-addressed stampedenvelope for writers’ guidelines.

Annual subscriptions: $24 ($40/2years) for individuals$18 for students$35 for institutions(Payment by check or credit card. Add $10 foraddresses outside North America.)

Telephone: (800) 236-3641Fax: (909) 884-3391E-mail: [email protected]

Adventist Today (ISSN 1079-5499) ispublished bimonthly for $24 per year($18 for students, $35 for institutions) byAdventist Today Foundation, CalkinsHall, 225, La Sierra University,Riverside, CA 92515. Periodicals postagepaid at Riverside, CA, and additionalmailing offices. POSTMASTER: sendaddress changes to Adventist Today, P.O.Box 8026, Riverside, CA 92515-8026.

Copyright ©1998 by Adventist TodayFoundation, a nonprofit organizationdedicated to fostering open dialoguein the Adventist community.

NEWS • ANALYSIS • OPINION

Contents

A. PATRICK 19

TED LEWIS 12

B. HEINRICH 11

ROY GANE 8

3ADVENTIST TODAY March–April 1998

NEWS AND ANALYSIS __________________________________________

5 Adventist Today Holds Campmeeting5 WWC Faculty Responds to Report COLLEEN MOORE TINKER

6 NPUC Addresses Ratzlaff Book6 Changes At Adventist Today JAMES WALTERS

24 Conference Disfellowships Independent Pastor COLLEEN MOORE TINKER

LETTERS ____________________________________________________

4 Kaiser on Target4 Crisis in the Church4 Anti-Semitism4 On Doctrine and Theology4 Wonderful Story4 Timely Magazine

SOUNDINGS __________________________________________________

23 A Conversation with Benjamin BERT WILLIAMS

ABOUT THE COVER: The cover art was derived from an original pho-tograph provided by the Ellen G. White EstateBranch Office on the campus of Loma LindaUniversity.

This We Believe?

7 A Book That Is Shaking Adventism

8 Our Cherished Doctrine ROY GANE

11 Will Her Writings Stand in the Light of Truth? BRUCE HEINRICH

12 The Adventist Foundation: Pillar or Sliver TED LEWIS

14 Cultic Doctrine: Powerful but Also Unfair MAX PHILLIPS

15 Ellen G. White & Truth-Telling JAMES WALTERS

19 Re-Visioning the Role of Ellen White ARTHUR PATRICK

Kaiser on TargetMy wife and I recently read Leland

Kaiser’s article “What’s in the Future” inthe January-February, 1997 issue ofAdventist Today and believe he is right ontarget. We particularly appreciated thestatement, “The best way to save a per-son’s soul is often indirect—by first focus-ing on their felt needs.” We believe ourexperience has proven that to be true…

Robert Lee & Elsie D. LawDirectors, The Positive WayFerron, Utah

Crisis in the ChurchOn reading the latest issue of our mag-

azine I felt inspired to draw a comparisonbetween the crisis that has occupied somuch space in recent issues and othercrises with which God has dealt since theorigin of sin…

I am constrained to express my frustra-tion with your publication. I cannot seewhat possible good it is doing. The mate-rial presented usually is cast in a light todiscredit and undermine the authority ofthe church. In this day and age we needto build up and encourage and inspire theloyalty and support of our membership.What you are doing has the oppositeeffect…What a disgrace to spread beforethe people and the world the perceivederrors of God’s last church. We all knowwe are human and make mistakes, yetthe beauty of it is that God uses us inspite of our humanness. He even forgives.Can we not forgive each other and ourleaders?

In answer to that question I guess Ishall have to forgive you, but it would bewrong for me not to let you know how itaffects me.

Forrest L. Fuller, M.D.Collegedale, TN

Editor’s reply: We appreciate yourconcern for the good name of the church

and your candor in telling us of your feel-ings. Adventist Today also cares deeplyabout the Adventist church, but webelieve that the church is not well servedby people who ignore its problems. “Thechurch” today is really composed of manypeople who have a common goal inChrist but who have differing ideas onhow that goal should be achieved. In theabsence of good information people holdmisgivings about others and doubt theirsincerity. AT is trying to help all themembership know what is going on, andwhenever possible point to ways in whichthe common goals can be reached withless human suffering. Keep on readingAT; maybe you will come to agree.

Anti-SemitismAfter reading Doris (Rausch)’s letter

to the editor [AT, September/October1997, p. 7], I could not help but exclaim,“No wonder ‘my Lord delayeth His com-ing!’ Jesus, a “Jew by choice,” must be asdeeply offended by this display of anti-Semitism as I am! After all, “Inasmuch asye have done it unto one of the least ofthese my brethren, ye have done it untoMe!”

Some Jewish Adventist converts havetold us they’ve noticed the same spirit inthe SDA churches where they attend,and wonder. To those of us with Jewishties, this anti-Semitism exhibits itself as aglaring defect among Adventists.

E.R. ElkinsNampa, Idaho

On Doctrine and Theology[I] enjoyed reading [John McLarty’s]

article on doctrine vs. theology. It helpedme to understand a lot more about thetension that exists among the theologiansand the church fathers. I am glad that[he’s] taken the high road and compli-mented both parties—not easy to do inthis case…I also enjoyed reading [his]

editorial which calls for more dialogueand less condemnation.

Kelvin LohVia email

I very much appreciated JohnMcLarty’s article. His defining the bal-ance between doctrine and theology wasexcellent and helpful. More important isthe level of open-mindedness he exhibits.For such a well-educated group,Adventists often lack this quality.

Scott MillerOrlando, Florida

Just a quick note to say that JohnMcLarty’s “Doctrine and Theology:What’s the Difference?” is just the kind ofinsightful analysis we need. I found hiscomparison very helpful in sorting outsome of the overlap and resulting con-flict. A good analysis is one that lets oneclassify information in new and more use-ful ways. This one did the trick. Thanks!

Robert JohnstonLake Jackson, Texas

Wonderful StoryI just got around to reading the story,

“It’s Christmas and All You Can Do IsCry.” It’s wonderful! Please convey mythanks for the story to Max Phillips.

Dixie HileVia email

Timely MagazineThanks for your timely and enlightening

magazine [that enables us to] see the otherside of the coin. [I] especially [enjoyed]Richard Fredericks’ response to WilliamJohnsson’s November, 1997, article.

Edie Mabley


LETTERS TO THE EDITORAdventist Today, P.O. Box 1220Loma Linda, CA 92354-1220

E-mail: [email protected]


T he first Adventist Today campmeeting convened on the week-end of March 21, 1998.Beginning with the Friday

evening gathering in the fellowship hall ofthe Riverside Seventh-day Adventist Churchin Riverside, California, every meeting waschallenging and rewarding.

Adventist Today editor John McLarty con-ducted the Friday evening meeting with abigger-than-expected crowd exceeding 100people. The evening included stories and tes-timonies of people’s relationships with theSeventh-day Adventist church. The cap-stone was when Eric Bahme, pastor of theNew Life Congregational Seventh DayAdventist Church in Woodinville,Washington, told his story of becoming anAdventist at the age of 13. His decision wasindependent, and he told of the churchbecoming his “family” during his isolatedteen years. His love for the church hasremained deep and profound.

Sabbath morning Smuts van Rooyen,senior pastor of the Riverside church, inspiredthe 9:45 A.M. crowd with a sermon entitled“Spirituality: Finding the Road Again.” At11:00 Charles Scriven, president of ColumbiaUnion College, spoke on “RecoveringConviction Without Losing Your Mind.”

Preceding his sermon, Pastor Scriven par-ticipated in a special presentation to ATfounder and editor emeritus RaymondCottrell, honoring him for his 65 years ofvisionary service in the Seventh-dayAdventist Church.

The church hosted a lasagna lunch with adessert potluck following the morning meet-ings, and at 2:00 Charles Scriven presentedhis talk “The Radical View and the Renewalof the Church” followed by a question andanswer period. Brassworks, a sextet fromLoma Linda, gave a half-hour concert featur-ing music from Gabrielli to hymn tunesbefore the panel discussion at 3:30.

The four-person panel discussed the ques-tion, “The New Congregationalism: WhatGives?” Panelists were Mitchell Hensen,senior pastor of the Glendale City Church,Larry Caviness, president of the SouthernCalifornia Conference, Lourdes Morales-

Gudmundsson, chair of the department ofmodern languages at La Sierra University,and Eric Bahme, pastor of the New LifeCongregational Church of Seventh DayAdventists in Woodinville, Washington.James Walters moderated. Discussion flowedfast, candidly, and cordially.

John McLarty closed the day with a ves-per meditation comparing the AdventistChurch to a juniper bush, twisted and chal-

lenged by inclemency but still gripping thestony soil and providing shade for those whofind it.

Four tapes from the meetings are available.Tape one contains Smuts van Rooyen andJohn McLarty. Tape two includes both ofCharles Scriven’s sermons. Tapes three andfour contain the panel discussion. These areavailable for $4.00 apiece, or the whole set offour is available in an album for $15.00. Toorder tapes send your check and a request forthe tape(s) you wish to purchase to: RiversideSeventh-day Adventist Church, 4850 Jurupa,Riverside, California, 92504, attention:Oradelle Lizer. Allow two weeks for delivery.

News and Analysis

Adventist Today HoldsCampmeeting

COLLEEN MOORE TINKER

I n the fall of 1997 the Walla WallaCollege religion faculty received thereport of the Commission estab-lished to examine charges against

them. These charges resulted from differenceswhich had been festering between the facultyand the North Pacific Union’s (NPUC) topadministrators.

As reported in Adventist Today(January/February, 1998), the Commissionexonerated the faculty of all charges and alsomade some recommendations for “reestab-lishing WWC’s credibility.” Additionally,they requested a formal response from theWWC faculty at the WWC Board meetingon March 2, 1998.

In an all-day meeting on March 2,Stephen Payne, WWC vice-president foradmissions and marketing and chair of theCommission Response Committee, read theentire response before the full board. Thereaction to the reading, according to RonJolliffe, faculty senate chair and observer atthe board meeting, was “a miracle.”

“I didn’t know what to expect,” Jolliffeadmits. “We had been in such a mode ofguarding against attack that we didn’t expectthe response we got. The conference presi-dents were amazed and pleased by the tone ofthe report. They were absolutely thrilled!”

The 31-page report is neither offensivenor defensive. It states that the facultytakes the Commission’s recommendationsas a catalyst for self-examination and for

doing their jobs better. It is conciliatoryand open; it clearly states the ways inwhich the faculty will revise their programsto conform to the Commission’s recom-mendations. It further states the religionfaculty’s loyalty to the church and its com-mitment to passing Adventist beliefs toanother generation.

At the conclusion of Dr. Payne’s reading,many conference and union officials respond-ed with delight. The meeting heralded a newlevel of understanding and appreciationbetween the faculty and church leaders.

Although NPUC president Jere Patzer hasmade overtures of conciliation with the fac-ulty, he appears to have lingering doubtsabout their trustworthiness. April 15 was thedate a union-wide ministerial conferenceconvened in Seattle, Washington, at theDoubleTree Inn. All NPUC pastors hadreceived invitations to the conference, butafter the March 2 meeting, Patzer had specifi-cally requested that the WWC religion facul-ty not attend. They might, he feared, askembarrassing questions which the presentersmight find uncomfortable.

Many conference presidents, however,wanted the faculty there. As a result of theirpersistent requests, the ban was lifted onApril 7. In spite of the lack of time to planfor classroom substitutes and travel arrange-ments, all but two of the WWC religion fac-ulty attended the Seattle meetings. The fac-ulty received warm welcomes, and the localpastors attending the meetings were pleasedto meet and hear the faculty in person.

WWC Faculty Responds to Report


A ministerial conference for theNorth Pacific Union con-vened at the Double Tree Innin Seattle, Washington on

April 15. A wide range of workshops andmeetings was available, with topics rangingfrom geochronology to computer graphicsfor pastors. On Thursday, April 16, at 2:00P.M. a general session assembly met to dis-cuss Dale Ratzlaff’s book, The CulticDoctrine of Seventh-day Adventists.

Three theologians conducted the semi-nar: Angel Rodriguez from the GeneralConference, Richard Davidson from theSeventh-day Adventist TheologicalSeminary at Andrews University, and RoyGane, also from the seminary. Gane hostedthe discussion.

The meeting began with each of thethree men making positive commentsabout the book. They agreed that it wasclearly written, and they sympathized withRatzlaff’s personal experience that led tohis eventually leaving the Adventistchurch. They also agreed with Ratzlaff thatthe sanctuary doctrine is central toAdventism, although they disagreed withhim about the implications of its centrality.

They also had criticisms of the book.Davidson said he “expected at least one ortwo new arguments.” He also said Ratzlaff’s

book was “warmed-up [Desmond] Ford.”Davidson criticized the book for notaddressing any of the study or publicationswhich the church has done during the fif-teen years since Desmond Ford’s concernsabout the investigative judgment and the2300 days became public in 1981.

Rodriguez said, “This is the most disap-pointing aspect of the book. The scholar-ship is very poor. However, for anAdventist who is not informed, this bookcould be damaging.”

Gane referred to Ratzlaff’s lack of com-ment on the seven volumes which theDaniel and Revelation Committee (DAR-COM) has issued in response to Ford’s crit-icisms.

The tone of the meeting was open andnondefensive. Each of the three mendetailed his reasons for seeing the inves-tigative judgment and the sanctuary doc-trine as central to the church. They alsoexplained, with the use of many texts andreferences to sanctuary service typology,why they believe them to be biblical.

Rodriguez commented that the funda-mental issue at stake when discussing the2300 days and 1844 is prophetic interpre-tation. He said, “The method of interpre-tation we use is passé. It’s a method notused by any serious scholar outside

Adventism [today]…We’re using themethod Luther used.”

He continued by saying, “If we’re wrongabout Daniel, then we’re wrong.”

The church uses this method of inter-pretation, he says, because it’s what webelieve the Biblical text supports.

“The church is still saying, ‘This is whatthe Bible says. This is what to use,’ ” heconcludes.

During the question and answer periodfollowing the presentation, Gane read thefollowing question submitted anonymouslyfrom one of the audience: “If we believethe sanctuary doctrine as a valid conceptbut do not see any validity to the 2300days or 1844, is that a problem?”

Rodriguez responded, “Without 1844and the doctrine of the sanctuary—thismay sound strong…there’s no reason for usto exist. It has provided for us our identityand our mission…If we’re wrong there,we’re simply wrong… If we change that,we’d be transmuted into something else.

“I find it very difficult to understandhow we could really be Adventists anddeny…our birth.”

One attendee requested a comment onRaymond Cottrell’s statement that he hasno biblical basis for the investigative judg-ment. To support it, he uses Ellen Whitealone.

Gane responded by referring to the pre-vious hour’s discussion and saying that theyhad just shown in detail how it is clearlybiblical.

Another question asked how we couldmake the doctrine of the investigativejudgment encouraging instead of discour-aging.

Davidson responded, “If we’re in Christwe can long for the judgment.”

Davidson also commented on the factthat Ratzlaff and Ford teach that thejudgment is to reveal to God who issaved. “We’ve never taught that Godneeds to have [that] revealed,” hedeclared. The purpose of the judgementis to reveal to the universe why Godsaves who he saves.

Taped transcripts of the one and one-half hour seminar are available for $2.50apiece. To order call: (253) 833-3998 orwrite A & J Enterprises, 42717 188th Ave.SE, Enumclaw, Washington 98022.

News and Analysis

NPUC Addresses Ratzlaff Book

JAMES WALTERS

D oug Schultz, businessman,head elder of the GlendaleCity Adventist church andformer pastor, became the

new chair of the Adventist Today boardon May 9. He replaces Ervin Taylor, pro-fessor of anthropology at University ofCalifornia, Riverside, who ably served aschair for the last 3 1/2 years.

The Advisory Council voted on March21 to expand the board to include womenand young people. The three women areVirginia Burley, an administrator at Mt. SanAntonio College in Southern California,

Lourdes Morales-Gudmundsson, chair ofthe department of modern languages, LaSierra University, and Dianna Fisher, a grad-uate student in theology, Fuller TheologicalSeminary. John Sickler, a social worker withthe Loma Linda University Church, andRene Dupertuis, a doctoral student in NewTestament at Claremont GraduateUniversity, have also joined the board.

These changes follow the recentappointment of John McLarty as editorand the AT offices moving to La SierraUniversity campus. Adventist Today justcelebrated its 5th birthday and anticipatescontinuing growth in the future.

Changes at Adventist Today


The 1996 book The Cultic Doctrine of Seventh-dayAdventists by Dale Ratzlaff is beginning to make waves.In the two years since its first printing it has gone frombeing recommended by word-of-mouth to being mailed

to pastors in entire conferences, paid for by anonymous donors. Ratzlaff was a fourth-generation Adventist with an M. Div. from

the Adventist theological seminary at Andrews University. He wasan academy Bible teacher for seven years, and he pastored twoAdventist churches. In 1982, convinced after extensive study thatthey could not document the doctrine of the investigative judg-ment and the cleansing of the sanctuary from the Bible, Ratzlaffand his wife Carolyn left the Seventh-day Adventist church.

Today Ratzlaff pastors the rapidly growing ChristianCommunity Church in Arizona.

True Prophet or False?Cultic Doctrine is a logical, carefully documented work with no

overtones of resentment or bitterness. In it Ratzlaff explains hisbelief that the investigative judgment is not biblical. He furtherquestions the validity of considering Ellen White to be a trueprophet.

Ratzlaff lays his foundation by questioning, point-by-point, thevalidity of William Miller’s date setting. He points out that EllenWhite had visions to support the erroneous dates for the secondcoming, had further visions to support new dates, and also hadvisions which declared that Jesus wanted people to believe thewrong dates for a time.

He also looks closely at the Adventist teaching of “progressiverevelation.”

“If I understand progressive revelation correctly, a new revela-tion of truth does not contradict the first revelation of truth. Itmay add new insights, facts and understanding, but the first revela-tion of truth fits into the bigger picture of truth without being con-tradictory.” (page 355)

Judgment Linked to Major BeliefsAnother major point in Cultic Doctrine is that the investigative

judgment is closely linked to the following key points of theAdventist message: the three angels’ messages, the seventh-daySabbath, the seal of God and the mark of the beast, the Adventistconcept of the remnant, the health message, the imminent secondcoming of Christ, and the evangelistic mission of the Adventistchurch.

“The doctrine of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary andthe investigative judgment is indeed ‘the foundation and centralpillar of Adventism.’ While some SDAs would not agree with thisstatement, we will see that nearly every aspect of their unique mes-sage is tied to this central pillar, without which the other SDAdoctrines and emphases would lose some, if not much of their sig-nificance.” (page 266)

“The glue that links all these SDA messages together is theprophetic ministry and visions of Ellen White,” Ratzlaff says.(page 274)

Ratzlaff does, however, admit that the Adventist church is notteaching the same things it taught many years ago. But he lays achallenge in front of the church:

“The SDA church should not be evaluated today on the basisof what it was many years ago, but on its current beliefs and prac-tices. And here is the Adventist opportunity and dilemma. Itappears to me that there are many in the denomination who arechanging and want more change. However, they do not want toopenly repudiate past errors.…

“It seems to me that the only way Adventists can really ‘comeclean’ and move into mainstream evangelicalism is to openly repu-diate the early errors of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuaryand the investigative judgment and to drop the writings of EllenWhite as a source of authority.” (pages 354, 355)

Influence SpreadingDuring the past three months, according to Ratzlaff, anonymous

donors have paid to have the book mailed to every pastor in theOregon Conference, in the Southeastern, Southern, Central andNorthern California conferences, and in the Rocky MountainConference. Recent phone calls, he reports, have promised moneyfor more mailings.

On April 16, 1998, (see story on page 6) a general session meet-ing at the annual North Pacific Union workers’ meeting dealtentirely with the questions raised by Ratzlaff’s book.

Because of Cultic Doctrine’s increasing exposure, Adventist Todaypresents four reactions to the book on the following pages. Two areopposed to Ratzlaff’s conclusions, and two support them. These arethe personal views of people who feel passionately about theirbeliefs and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of AdventistToday. We invite you to examine your own reasons for belief or fordisbelief.

You may obtain The Cultic Doctrine of Seventh-day Adventists as well asRatzlaff’s first book, Sabbath in Crisis, by calling (800) 355-7073 or byordering from the web site www.ratzlaf.com or [email protected].

A BookThat Is

ShakingAdventism

T H I S W E B E L I E V E ?



ROY GANE

In The Cultic Doctrine of Seventh-dayAdventists, Dale Ratzlaff encourages theAdventist church to abandon its sanctu-ary/judgment doctrine and to join evan-gelicals in proclaiming the true gospel.He regards our sanctuary doctrine as a“sliver in the foot” which destroys spiri-

tuality and acceptance of grace through faith by promotingparanoid, perfectionistic legalism.

Ratzlaff, a former Adventist minister, attacks the Adventistsanctuary doctrine from several angles. He associates our inter-pretation of the 2300 day prophecy (Dan 8:14) with wild proof-texting of William Miller, whose views spawned our movement.He argues that our approach to the 2300 days is based on aseries of unverified “assumptions.” He attacks the credibility of

Ellen White, upon whose authority our sanctuary doctrine mustrest if it cannot be established from the Bible. He questions theintegrity of Adventist treatment of doctrinal issues, and hepoints out that today some Adventists are theologically dividedto the extent that they hold mutually exclusive positions.Perhaps most potent is the way in which Ratzlaff chronicles hisexodus from the Adventist church to illustrate his claim thatour sanctuary doctrine is damaging and incompatible with bib-lical salvation theology.

No Adventist can argue with Ratzlaff’s experience. It is a factthat our sanctuary doctrine as understood by him has caused himpain. Many can resonate with him. In graduate school, as a stu-dent of an authority on Leviticus, I grappled with the sanctuaryin the Hebrew text for eight years before I felt really comfortableremaining a Seventh-day Adventist. I am grateful to God that Ihad the opportunity to study deeply enough not only to have myquestions answered, but also to get in touch with Jesus where heis now, in his sanctuary in heaven (Heb 7-10; cp. Ps 11:4).

I agree with Ratzlaff when he emphasizes the foundationalnature of the sanctuary doctrine for Adventist theology.However, while his purpose is to argue for thorough reforma-tion of our theology through removal of this doctrine, I findthat sound exegesis points in the opposite direction: we shouldcherish the sanctuary because it accurately reflects righteous-ness by faith.

Our

CherishedDoctrine

Roy Gane is Associate Professor of HebrewBible and Ancient Near Eastern Languages atthe Seventh-day Adventist TheologicalSeminary, Andrews University. Specializing inancient near eastern rituals, he earned hisPh.D. from the University of California,Berkeley in 1992.


For his biblical objections to our sanctuary doctrine, Ratzlaffrelies heavily on issues raised by Desmond Ford almost twodecades ago. Ford’s questions were good ones, and they havestimulated a lot of Adventist research, such as the Daniel andRevelation Committee (DARCOM) series edited by FrankHolbrook. Ratzlaff acknowledges these works in his bibliogra-phy, but for some unexplained reason his discussion does nottake their arguments into account. Thus his critique is more areaction to the situation as it stood near the beginning of the1980s than it is an accurate appraisal of current Adventistscholarship. We have more work to do, but we are makingprogress, which Ratzlaff should recognize.

If Ratzlaff is arousing more interest in the sanctuary than theDARCOM series did, it is because his book is controversial andeasily comprehended by non-scholarly readers. The DARCOMseries is full of Hebrew and Greek exegesis which even ourM.Div. students at the Seminary have difficulty following. Inorder to bridge the gap between scholars and lay people, weneed more books like Clifford Goldstein’s 1844 Made Simple.

To support the idea that our sanctuary doctrine deserves tobe studied rather than buried, I would like to suggest some pos-sible answers to a few of the points which Ratzlaff has raised.

2300 “Days”Ratzlaff (page 176) follows Ford in questioning our interpre-

tation of “2300 days” in Daniel 8:14 on the ground that theHebrew reads literally “evening morning 2300,” which manyscholars understand in light of verse 26 (“the evening and themorning”) as 2300 half days, i.e. 1150 full days. By comparingthe syntax of Daniel 8:14, 26 with Hebrew expressions for timeelsewhere, I have found that the number 2300 applies to both“evening” and “morning” as an abbreviation for “evenings 2300and mornings 2300.” Therefore, just as “forty days and fortynights” (Gen 7:4, 12, etc.) refers to forty full days, Daniel 8:14refers to 2300 full days.

Atonement Not Completed at the CrossWhereas the Adventist sanctuary doctrine indicates that

atonement was not completed at the cross, Ratzlaff affirms theevangelical position that atonement was completed at the cross(pp. 219-222). Adventists would agree that Christ’s death wasthe one and only atoning sacrificial death (Heb 9:28; cp. Jn19:30—“It is finished”). All atonement, i.e. reconciliationbetween sinners and their God, flows from Calvary. But wasthat the end of the process of atonement? If atonement is rela-tional in that it deals with reconciliation between two parties,how can we receive atonement from a historical event whichoccurred almost two thousand years ago unless we experience achanged relationship with God on the basis of the event? Aslong as relationships are being healed, atonement is continuing.This concept agrees with the following biblical evidence:

1. Paul said: “if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futileand you are still in your sins. Then those also who have died inChrist have perished” (I Cor 15:17-18; NRSV). Christ’s resur-rection, after his death on the cross, is essential for salvation.

2. In Hebrews 7-10, Christ ministers after his ascension as

our high priest in the true sanctuary in heaven, an activitywhich was foreshadowed by the ancient Israelite sanctuary.There he appears “in the presence of God on our behalf” (Heb9:24). Having obtained eternal redemption for us by his ownblood (vs. 12), he uses his blood (cp. vs. 13—“sprinkling”) to“purify our conscience from dead works to worship the livingGod” (vs. 14; NRSV). In other words, Christ died to makeabundant provision for the salvation of all human beings, andthen he distributes/applies the transforming benefit. By way ofanalogy, Christ puts the money in the bank (by his death) andthen he writes checks to people from that account (by hismediation). For us to receive the benefit of salvation, provisionand distribution are both necessary.

3. In agreement with New Testament evidence for the wayin which we are saved by Christ’s blood, ancient Israelite sacri-fices for sin included personal involvement of sinners and

priestly mediation as essential components. A common Israelitesinner was required to bring a female goat or sheep to the sanc-tuary, lean his/her hand on the head of the animal, and slay it.Then the priest applied its blood to the altar and burned itssuet/fat on the altar (Lev 4:27-35). The ritual is summarized:“and the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall beforgiven” (Lev 4:31, RSV; cp. vs. 35). Atonement was not com-pleted by slaughter of the animal at the hand of the sinner,which pointed forward to Christ’s death. Death provided theblood which made possible priestly mediation, which is called awork of “atonement.” Mediation was part of the atoning sacri-fice. Since Christ’s sacrifice fulfills the meaning of the animalsacrifices (Jn. 1:29), we should include Christ’s mediation as anessential part of his sacrifice rather than regarding it as a sepa-rate phase. Does the idea that atonement was not completed atthe cross diminish the sacrifice and atonement of Christ?Absolutely not! We magnify what Christ is doing! Christ’s sac-

Whereas the Adventist sanctuarydoctrine indicates that atonementwas not completed at the cross,Ratzlaff affirms the evangelicalposition that atonement wascompleted at the cross.


rifice and atonement are much bigger than they are commonlythought to be!

4. When an Israelite received complete forgiveness fromGod through a sacrifice which pointed forward to Christ’s sacri-fice (e.g. Lev 4:31, 35), that was not the end of the process ofatonement. Atonement is larger than forgiveness. There was afurther phase of atonement on the “Day of Atonement” (Lev23:27-28). On this day, Israelites who had already been forgivenwere now “cleansed” (Lev 16:30) through purification of thesanctuary from their sins (Lev 16:16, 33-34). Until the Day ofAtonement, forgiven sins affected God in the sense that hecould be regarded as unjust because he had forgiven guilty sin-ners (cp. 2 Sam 14:9). But the Day of Atonement reaffirmedGod’s forgiveness by vindicating the justice of his mercy.However, Israelites who were rebellious and/or failed to accept

the provisions which he offered during the year and on the Dayof Atonement were sentenced to divine punishment (e.g. Lev20:3; Num 15:30-31; Num 19:13, 20; Lev 23:29, 30). So theDay of Atonement was a judgment which separated people whowere disloyal to God from those who were loyal. Therefore theDay was an appropriate foreshadowing of an end-time judgment(Dan 7:9-14; cp. 8:14) which benefits God’s true people (Dan7:22, 27) and condemns those who persist in opposition to God(Dan 7:11, 26; 8:25).

Faith, Works, and JudgmentRatzlaff reacts to the Adventist teaching that we are judged

on the basis of our works: “This teaching, perhaps more thanany other, undermines the new covenant gospel of grace:” (page210). What is the role of works in the context of the judgment?

First, the Bible is crystal clear regarding our salvation: “Forby grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not yourown doing; it is the gift of God—not the result of works, so that

no one may boast” (Eph 2:8-9, NRSV). Whatever the purposeof the judgment, it cannot put salvation by works in place ofsalvation by grace through faith.

Adventists teach that the purpose of the judgment is to vin-dicate God. But Romans 3:25-26 says that Christ’s sacrificealready proves that God is just when he justifies those whohave faith in Jesus. There is no contradiction, however, becauseGod is just when he justifies those who have faith in Jesus (cp.Eph 2:8). God cannot save a person who does not have truefaith or who abandons faith after receiving forgiveness (cp. Jn3:18; Col 1:23).

The judgment should identify God’s true people on the basisof their faith. But since only God can read thoughts (cp. Ps139:23), the judgment must use evidence for faith which can bewitnessed by created beings if they are to be assured that God isjust and that saved human beings will not continue to functionas self-replicating moral viruses.

Thus the judgment considers records of works (Eccl 12:14;cp. Dan 7:10) which show whether or not living faith exists(James 2:26; Gal 5:6). The point is not the works themselves,but whether or not a person has true faith.

The judgment is not about who has sinned. All have sinned(Rom 3:23), so distinctions between people cannot be made onthis basis. The judgment is about who is forgiven. For thosewho are forgiven, it is to reaffirm their assurance, not to take itaway. Compare the fact that on the Day of Atonement theIsraelite high priest did not cleanse the sanctuary by wiping offbloodstains from earlier sacrifices. Rather, he placed more blood(Lev 16:14-19), representing Christ’s blood, in several of thesame places (cp. Lev 4:6-7, 17-18, 25, 30, 34), thereby reaffirm-ing the forgiveness already granted.

Jesus expressed the need for a sinner to continue acceptingforgiveness by maintaining loyalty to him and his law of love.He said to the woman taken in adultery: “Neither do I con-demn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again” (Jn8:11; NRSV). He also told a parable about an unjust stewardwho was forgiven but repudiated his pardon when he failed toextend forgiveness to his fellow servant (Matt 18:23-34).Forgiveness which involves no moral change and which cannotreproduce itself for the benefit of others is not true forgivenessof the kind which God gives. Fortunately for us, we are not lefton our own to change ourselves. Because Christ gives us peacewith God (Rom 5:1), his love, the basic attitude of his charac-ter and his law, is poured into our hearts through his Spirit(Rom 5:5; cp. I Jn 4:8; Matt 22:36-40). Thus genuine, ongoingobedience is a gift of grace bought by the blood of Christ andreceived through faith (cp. Jude vs. 24).

In this brief response I can do little more than offer a generalreaction, give a few examples, and express the hope that peoplewill seek answers to Ratzlaff’s questions by studying the Bibleand testing Adventist study materials for themselves. I agreewith Ratzlaff that if the Adventist sactuary doctrine is anunbiblical skeleton in our theological closet, we should bury it.But thus far, the more I study the more biblical support andpractical relevance I find for the Adventist approach to thesanctuary.

The judgment is notabout who has sinned. Allhave sinned (Rom 3:23), sodistinctions between peoplecannot be made on this basis.The judgment is about whois forgiven.



BRUCE HEINRICH

I n 1997, I, Bruce Heinrich, accepted JesusChrist as my personal savior and becameborn again in him. Since that time I havefound a new, personal relationship with

Jesus, and he has opened my eyes to the truth that isin the Bible. In spite of the fact that I was a fourth-generation Adventist, I had never realized what itmeant to be born again in Jesus. I had never under-stood the truths the Bible teaches. I now know whatthe Bible means when it states in John 14:16, 17,and 26 that the Holy Spirit will guide and teach usin all things and lead us in the way of truth.

When I read Dale Ratzlaff’s book The CulticDoctrine of Seventh-day Adventists, I was skeptical ofwhat it said. Consequently, I went out and boughtEllen White’s writings on compact disc. I looked upall of Dale’s references, and I discovered everythingthat he said about her writings was true. (The onlyreferences I couldn’t verify came from early editionsof works which are no longer in print.) But the factsof her statements are there, available for anybodywho is searching for truth.

After I did my research I passed out the book tofriends and colleagues of mine. I was curious toknow their reactions. All of their responses weresimilar to each other. The most common commentwas, “The Bible also has many errors and inaccura-cies. Ellen White is no different from the Bible writ-ers; all human beings make mistakes.”

Another frequent reaction was, “Her writingswere right for her time. If we could have lived then,we would have seen things differently.” Others said,“She does say some things that trouble me, but thereare other passages that are beautiful and full of truth.”

The last common response was, “If she differsfrom the Bible, take the Bible over her writings.”My problem with that response, however, is thatMrs. White stated that her writings are either fromGod or from the devil. If any of her writings disagreewith the Bible, then by the authority of her ownclaim, I have to question the source of her inspira-tion. I can’t hold onto parts of it and let the rest go.

The questions I ask my fellow Adventists arethese: What is truth? Is it absolute or relative? Doestruth change with time? If it is one thing now, will itbecome something else later?

In Ephesians 6 it states that we are to put on thearmor of God, with the belt of truth. Does the Bible

contain absolute truth, or is it like Ellen White’swritings, laced with misstatements, plagiarism, anddiscrepancies with itself (as well as with the Bible)?Does the Bible, like her writings, have portions thatwe would like to remove because they have provento be embarrassing, contradictory, or untrue? DoesEllen White actually make us question the truthfound in the Bible?

In my study I have found that there are no real

discrepancies of truth in the Bible. If a person istruly searching for truth and praying for the HolySpirit to guide him or her to it, the Bible becomesincreasingly clear. I’ve also found that if a person iswilling to put aside the filter of Ellen White’s inter-pretations, previously confusing Bible passages sud-denly make sense.

I believe that it is time we had an open discus-sion and debate on all the points presented inRatzlaff’s book. Let each person determine for him-self whether or not it teaches truth. The Bible statesthat Jesus is the truth, and the truth will set us free.

If we Adventists are the beacons of truth to theworld, then we should be able to shine a light on allof Ellen White’s writings without fear. If they standup under scrutiny, fine. If they do not withstand thelight of truth, then we should be willing to admitour error and let them go.

Ellen G. White: Will Her Writings Standin the Light of Truth?

If any of her writings disagree withthe Bible, then by the authority of herown claim, I have to question thesource of her inspiration. I can’t holdonto parts of it and let the rest go.

Bruce Heinrich is an orthodontist practicing inSouthern California. He grew up in Loma Linda andattended Pacific Union College, La Sierra College, andLLU School of Dentistry. He and his wife Coleen havea daughter and two sons.


THEODORE S. LEWIS

T o build an enduring structure, one mustfirst lay a sturdy foundation. If the foun-dation is sand rather than solid rock, itwill not stand when tested. (Luke 6:48,

49) Ellen White defined Adventism’s foundation inThe Great Controversy: “The scripture which aboveall others had been both the foundation and thecentral pillar of the advent faith was the declaration:‘Unto two thousand and three hundred days; thenshall the sanctuary be cleansed.’ Daniel 8:14.” (page409)

But Paul said, “No one can lay a foundationother than the one already laid, which is JesusChrist” (I Corinthians 3:11). This text leads me toask, “Is Adventism’s foundation biblical? Will itstand when tested?”

In his book The Cultic Doctrine of Seventh-dayAdventists (CD), Dale Ratzlaff explores how theearly Adventists laid their foundation. He showsthat the sanctuary doctrine sprang from one ofWilliam Miller’s fifteen failed prophecies that Christwould come in 1843. (CD 64, 65) Then the faileddate was “corrected” to be October 22, 1844. Againthe prophecy failed. (CD 91) Following the secondfailure, Hiram Edson, one of the disappointedbelievers, had a vision of Christ going into the mostholy place for the first time on October 22, 1844,instead of coming back to the earth. But Ratzlaffsays this explanation is contrary to scripture. (CD98, 210)

The investigative judgment doctrine holds thaton October 22, 1844, God began a work “of deter-

mining who are prepared” for his kingdom. (TheGreat Controversy, p. 489) However, scriptures makeit clear that God knows those who are His.(Matthew 19:28; 2 Timothy 2:19)

Ratzlaff points out that Edson and O.L.R.Crosier, another pioneer Adventist, published theirnew views, including their conclusion that noatonement was made at the cross (CD 98,99), andEllen White responded to their new teaching by say-ing it was “the light for the remnant.” (CD 99)Ratzlaff quotes Ellen White as saying, “BrotherCrosier had the true light, on the cleansing of theSanctuary etc.”, and “I feel fully authorized by the

Lord to recommend that Extra [a special edition of aperiodical containing Edson and Crosier’s views] toevery saint.” She endorsed these teachings whichRatzlaff dubs “gross theological error.” (CD 102,104)He goes on to show that scriptures teach a completeatonement at the cross. (CD 219-222)

I have come to believe that the investigativejudgment not only robs me of assurance, it makes amockery out of clear statements of the Bible. EllenWhite writes that during this judgment, “everyname is mentioned, every case closely investigated.Names are accepted, names rejected.” (The GreatControversy, p. 483; see CD p. 163) In other words,the righteous who died before 1844 have no assur-ance of their salvation until the judgment. TheBible, however, clearly names many who are saved.(See Hebrews 11:13-40) God had assured these peo-ple’s salvation long before 1844.

The Adventist Foundation:

Pillar or Sliver


Theodore S. Lewis, has a degree in civilengineering from Walla Walla College andworks for the US Army Corps of Engineers.He grew up a third-generation Adventist. Heand his wife Sylvia have four children andone grandchild.

I have come to believe that the investigative judg-

ment not only robs me of assurance, it makes a

mockery out of clear statements of the Bible.


Ratzlaff further shows Ellen White’s teaching thatthe books of record determine who passes in theinvestigative judgment. “Opposite each name in thebooks of heaven is entered with terrible exactnessevery wrong word, every selfish act, every unfulfilledduty, and every secret sin, with every artful dissem-bling, heaven-sent warnings or reproofs, neglected,wasted moments, unimproved opportunities, theinfluence exerted for good or for evil with its farreaching results, all are chronicled by the recording

angel.” (Great Controversy p. 482; CD 161-163) In contrast Jesus says, “Truly, truly, I say to you,

he who hears my word, and believes him who sentMe, has eternal life, and does not come into judg-ment, but has passed out of death into life.” (John5:24; CD 217)

In the chapter “I’ve Been Acquitted!” Ratzlaffexplains that the Christian has already been judgedin Jesus Christ. “He who believes is not judged.Judgment is set forth in the context of one’s choicewhen confronted with the light of the gospel ofChrist….We begin to see that the biblical conceptof judgment is diametrically opposed to the tradi-tional SDA investigative judgment…”

“This is the judgment of justification. It takes thereality of the past historical event of Christ’s substi-tutionary life and death, which provides the right-eousness needed for us to pass in the coming futurejudgment day of God, and applies complete forgive-ness of sin and imputed righteousness to the presentexperience of the believer. Therefore, Paul could saythat we died with Christ. (Romans 6:2) We wereraised with him to newness of life, and we arealready seated with Christ in heavenly places. Inother words, the truth of justification by faith andthe verdict of ‘not guilty’ has already been given tothose who believe! And that is the good news of thegospel!” (Ephesians 2:6, CD 259, 260)

The gospel, indeed, brings better news to methan does the investigative judgment.

In several places Ratzlaff quotes Galatians 1:6-9:“I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Himwho called you by the grace of Christ, for a differentgospel; which is really not another; only there aresome who are disturbing you, and want to distort thegospel of Christ. But even though we, or an angelfrom heaven, should preach to you a gospel contraryto that which we have preached to you, let him be

accursed. As we have said before, so I say again now,if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary tothat which you received, let him be accursed.”

Ratzlaff continues: “Ellen White claims to haveseen in vision that an angel from God guidedWilliam Miller in his methods and conclusionswhich were erroneous, and she called his message a‘saving message’…. It is evident that she is claimingdivine authority for her statements. As we have seenthroughout this book, many of her statements aretotally erroneous, and here is the important point:many of them distort, undermine or contradict thenew covenant gospel of grace. If we apply the teach-ing of Paul in Galatians 1:8,9 to these early EGWstatements that distort, undermine or contradict thegospel, then Ellen White would become the focus ofPaul’s condemnation.” (CD 325)

Cultic Doctrine raises serious questions about thefoundation of the Seventh-day Adventist church.Adventism has taught that Christ was in the outerapartment of the heavenly sanctuary for 1800 years.It has taught an investigative judgment, an incom-plete atonement, and no real assurance of salvation.These things are not biblical. Even if pastors andteachers no longer present these things the sameway they used to, still the whole structure ofAdventism grew out of these beliefs. I don’t believewe can leave them behind without publiclyacknowledging that we were wrong.

Ratzlaff refers to the doctrine of the investigativejudgment as a “sliver in the foot” and says, “At times

what I have said in this book has probably cut untilit hurt. Doubtless, some have drawn back at the cut-ting knife as I did when the old country doctor triedto find the sliver in my foot. I have cut, not with theintention of causing pain, but with the hope thatthe cut would be deep enough to remove the sliver.How wonderful it would be to see the SDA churchrunning free—free from the crippling sliver, theencumbrance of past error!” (CD 356)

How wonderful it would be for every Seventh-day Adventist Christian to abandon the shiftingsand of “another gospel” and to embrace the truegospel, Jesus Christ, the rock of our salvation.

Ratzlaff refers to the doctrine of the investigative

judgment as a “sliver in the foot” and says, “At

times what I have said in this book has probably

cut until it hurt.”

The gospel, indeed, brings better news to me than

does the investigative judgment.

MAX PHILLIPS

I n The Cultic Doctrine of Seventh-day Adventists DaleRatzlaff makes a powerful point—that the historicAdventist doctrine of the investigative judgment under-mines the gospel for many Adventist and eats away at

their assurance of salvation. I sympathize with his efforts to makepositive changes as an idealistic young pastor, only to find himselfcaught in a hierarchical web of church brethren overly concernedwith maintaining the status quo.

But I also believe Cultic Doctrine is unfair to historic Adventismand its pioneers. The book is particularly unfair to Ellen White.

One example is her oft-quoted prediction: “Some food forworms, some subjects of the seven last plagues, some will be aliveand remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus”(I Testimonies 132).

“It appears,” Ratzlaff writes, “that Ellen White does not meetthe biblical tests of a true prophet. All the people present at thatgathering have been dead for many years” (p. 350).

He forgets that Jesus did exactly the same thing:“But in those days…the sun will be darkened…and the stars

will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will beshaken. And then they will see the Son of man coming in theclouds with great power and glory…Truly, I say to you, this genera-tion will not pass away before all these things take place.” (Mark13:24-30, RSV).

One could throw Ratzlaff’s own words of judgment back at him:“It appears that Jesus does not meet the biblical tests of a trueprophet. All the people present at that gathering have been deadfor nearly two thousand years.”

If, then, in Ratzlaff’s view Jesus could still appear to be a trueprophet, then why couldn’t Ellen White?

Cultic Doctrine also treats William Miller unfairly.Ratzlaff correctly points out that Miller did characterize Daniel’s

he-goat with the little horn as a beast that trod the sanctuaryunderfoot for 2300 years (not evenings and mornings).

He also faithfully reports the scholarly consensus that “thiswicked ‘little horn’ power” was “Antiochus Epiphanes IV, who pol-luted the sanctuary.”

But he passes judgment on the pioneer: “Surely this type ofreckless proof-texting and allegorizing of Scripture cannot be theresult of God guiding the mind of Miller” (p. 71-72).

One could pass the same judgment on New Testament writerswho do precisely the same thing. Matthew, for instance, quotesHosea: “[Joseph] remained [in Egypt] until the death of Herod.This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet,“Out of Egypt have I called my son” (Matthew 2:15, RSV).

Fulfill?Look at the passage from which Matthew quotes! “When

Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.The more I called them, the more they went from me; they keptsacrificing to the Baals and burning incense to idols” (Hosea11:1-2, RSV).

How dare Matthew compare Jesus to idol-worshiping peoplewho ran in the opposite direction when God called?

Again one could mirror Ratzlaff’s own word back at him:“Surely this type of reckless proof-texting and allegorizing ofScripture cannot be the result of God guiding the mind ofMatthew.”

But these kinds of comparisons lead to logical dead ends. Toavoid these we must recognize that there is more than one kindof truth.

Throughout, Cultic Doctrine recognizes only one kind: “Truthis the real state of things. Truth is what is.” (page 38) Webster’s10th has this definition, “the body of real things, events andfacts.”

But Webster’s also lists another definition: Truth is “a tran-scendent fundamental or spiritual reality.” Could “spiritual reali-ty” be the definition of truth that would make sense of our her-itage? Let’s look at some vignettes:

• William Miller, wrong in hermeneutic but right with God,sets out to herald nothing less than the Second Coming ofChrist. In this he is much like Abraham.

• Ellen White hears an angel who actually moves with herfrom legalism into righteousness by faith over the course of herlife—a miracle.

• The pioneers set in motion events that did indeed usher ina kind of Second Coming—a spiritual Second Coming—oneknown as the advent movement.

• As for the investigative judgment, it has served its purpose.It allowed those faithful pioneers a transition period. Now it’stime to let that doctrine fade away into history just as JohnCalvin’s rigid doctrine of predestination has faded away in thePresbyterian church.

Truth is more than real things, events, and facts. It is spiritualreality.



Max Phillips writes from Washington where he isa writer and editor. He holds degrees in philoso-phy and theology from the Seventh-dayAdventist Theological Seminary at AndrewsUniversity.

Cultic Doctrine: Powerful but Also Unfair

REPORT OF A PRESENTATION BY JAMES W. WALTERS

The great majority of Adventists through the years

have sincerely believed that the words they read

in the writings of Ellen G. White were her own,

or even God’s words spoken to her. In reality,

however, some direct passages and many ideas and words were

taken originally from the works of other people.

Was she plagiarizing in doing this? James Walters cites dictio-

nary definitions of plagiarism to say she was: “The appropriation

or imitation of the language, ideas, and thoughts of another

author, and representation of them as one’s own work.” (The

Random House Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged edi-

tion, 1966.)


Ellen G. White

& Truth-TellingAn Ethical Analysis of

Literary Dependency

James Walters is an ethicist onthe Faculty of Religion at LomaLinda University. He is one ofthe founders of Adventist Today.


As an ethicist, Walters approaches thequestion not to disparage her as a person,nor to excuse or condone her literary prac-tices, but to examine the problem from amature and honest perspective. Othershave publicly denounced Ellen White forwhat they had discovered in comparingher works with those of other writersbefore and during her time, and they haveproduced evidence to support their claims.Adventist historians and scholars havedocumented such instances as well.

Is it enough to say she was borrowing ormerely following conventions of “literarydependency” in excusing her actions?Walters says that to do so is to dodge thereal issue. Is there any way by which wecan separate her practice of plagiarismfrom her person and character?

Can we, in the name of objective reali-ty, acknowledge that she did plagiarize inthe full sense of the term, yet remain anauthentic prophetess?

Motive CountsWalters thinks it is possible, and that it

makes a difference in how we regard herwork. He cites examples of people whohave committed “wrong” acts for reasonswhich seemed morally defensible to them.

Further, he says that such an act couldbe committed for at least two very differ-ent reasons—1) for legitimate and morallycompelling reasons, or 2) mere human

weakness. As an example of the first casehe cites Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s participationin an assassination attempt on AdolfHitler. Bonhoeffer was deeply committedto the biblical commandment againstkilling and to a nonviolent approach toquestions of state policy and authority, butbecause he realized that Hitler posed athreat to millions of people he felt com-pelled to override lesser conventions offaith. In prison Bonhoeffer later reflectedon his decision:

“The extraordinary necessity appeals tothe freedom of the men who are responsi-ble. There is now no law behind whichthe responsible man can seek cover… inthis situation there can only be a completerenunciation of every law, together withthe knowledge that here one must makeone’s decision as a free venture, togetheralso with the open admission that the lawis being infringed and violated… Preciselyin this breaking of the law the validity ofthe law is acknowledged.” (Letters andPapers From Prison, New York, Macmillan,1962, pp. 207 ff.)

Bonhoeffer was not evasive about hispart in the attempted murder of Hitler, buthe acknowledged it and explained that hedid it to try to avert the mass extermina-tion of innocent Jews and others. Theworld would later understand and condoneand even praise him for his efforts.

Ellen White, Walters says, similarly saw

her mission as involving the saving, indeedthe eternal salvation, of millions of lives.Yet she differed markedly from Bonhoefferin her attitude toward what she had done.She never admitted, in fact denied, herabnormal literary practices. She bridled atevery suggestion of literary dependence.Since she did not advance higher moralprinciples as justification of her literarypractices, this particular avenue for clear-ing her integrity is unavailable.

The second category of wrongdoing ishuman weakness. An example of this inthe Bible is King David, who first commit-ted adultery with Bathsheba, wife ofUriah, then put Uriah’s life in jeopardy.But when confronted by the prophet,David did not try to dodge the issue; heacknowledged his sin. And he was latercalled “a man after God’s own heart,”because he showed his character in admit-ting that the common morality applied tohimself as well.

Once when Ellen White’s literary prac-tices were questioned she was indignantand accused a basically innocent and tal-ented young literary assistant of beingproud, ambitious, a “traitor,” and at times“verily possessed by demons.” (The FannieBolton Story—a Collection of SourceDocuments, compiled by the Ellen G.White Estate, Washington, D.C., 1982,pp. 41 ff.) Bolton was a recent convertwho had worked as a journalist and wasperplexed by the practices carried out inthe production of Ellen White’s inspiredmaterials. She sought counsel from MerrittKellogg, who later recalled Bolton saying:“‘Dr. Kellogg, I am in great distress ofmind. I come to you for advice for I do notknow what to do. I have told Elder Starr(George B.) what I am going to tell you,but he gives me no satisfactory advice.’‘You know,’ said Fannie, ‘that I am writingall the time for Sister White. Most of whatI write is published in the Review andHerald as having come from the pen ofSister White, and is sent out as havingbeen written by Sister White under theinspiration of God. I want to tell you thatI am greatly distressed over this matter forI feel that I am acting a deceptive part.The people are being deceived about theinspiration of what I write. I feel that it isa great wrong that anything which I writeshould go out as under Sister White’s

The pink circle represents unique Adventist values, such as the idea of God’s remnant people.The gray circle represents general societal values, such as equal importance of religious sub-groups. The overlapping area represents where Adventist and societal values are identical, forinstance, the importance of truth telling. Walters contends that Ellen White should havebased answers to her questioners on mutually shared values, not solely on Adventist values.

AdventistValues

Values In CommonSocietalValues


name as an article specially inspired ofGod. What I write should go out over myown signature. Then credit would be givenwhere credit belongs.’” (Merritt Kellogg,“Merritt Kellogg Statement,” March 1908,quoted in The Fannie Bolton Story, pp. 106,107.)

Fannie Bolton knew firsthand whatresearcher Ron Graybill would discoveryears later: “The visions simply did notprovide all the information and ideas nec-essary for books spanning Christian history,outlining health principles, advising onchild rearing and education, and handlingthe myriad individual and organizationalproblems of a growing church.” (The Powerof Prophecy: Ellen G. White and the WomenReligious Founders of the Nineteenth Century,unpublished dissertation, Johns HopkinsUniversity, 1983, pp. 203, 204.) How wasFannie Bolton to square her dawningknowledge of heavy source dependence, tosay nothing of weighty personal involve-ment in article rewriting, with theprophetess’ claims for her inspired writings?As an example of these claims, EllenWhite wrote that she wanted her readersto know that she did not have “any under-standing of anyone’s ideas and views, andthat not a mold of any man’s theoriesshould have any connection with thatwhich I write.”

Societal vs. Religious ValuesBut what about the religious dimension

of Ellen White’s literary dependency?Where general ethical norms serve to pro-mote the larger society’s well-being, therecan be times when such standards conflictwith practices which promote thewell-being of a societal subgroup. Walterssuggests that such a subgroup was thefledgling prophetic movement of whichEllen White was the dynamic center. Shebecame their prophet; she had a messagefrom God for the world, and especially forthe church.

Visions were a special but not excep-tional form of ecstatic worship in earlynineteenth century New York. EarlyAdventist believers accepted Ellen White’svisions, in part, because they were part of aknown phenomenon. Others, includingJoseph Smith, had experienced visionarystates of ecstasy. Ellen White found theexperience of a vision to be “powerful,”

and it especially impressed her as a youthof 17. With the passage of time she felt astrong religious compulsion to write herviews. She wrote, “Write, write, write, Ifeel I must, and not delay. Great things arebefore us, and we want to call the peoplefrom their indifference to get ready.” Sheattributed her views to her visions: “Thewords I employ in describing what I haveseen are my own unless they be those spo-ken to me by an angel, which I alwaysenclose in marks of quotation” (Review andHerald, Oct. 8, 1867). Her son WillieWhite spoke of her “habit of using parts ofsentences found in writings of others andfilling in a part of her own composition”(Selected Messages, book 3, p. 460).

Ellen White was not a scofflaw; sheexhorted her followers to be law-abiding

citizens and opposed falsehood and deceit.However, it appears that her first alle-giance was to her divinely founded churchand to her prophetic role in it. Herprophetic mindset may have been suchthat the ethical dilemma of truth-in-writ-ing vs. outright deception was not theissue. God had called her to be a “messen-ger” to his remnant people who werethemselves called to warn a hell-bentworld. Strict truth-telling was importantfor general Christian discipleship, but theAdvent movement would not flounder forwant of needed volumes of divinelyinspired messages. And this special calling

entailed writing, much writing. Surely, atleast at a subconscious level, Ellen White’svisions melded diverse information intocompelling impressions. The informationhad come from church discussions, person-al thinking, and wide reading. And thesegeneral divinely imparted impressions tookfurther concrete form as Mrs. White con-tinued to study her source material. Shewas obviously self-conscious, defensive andregrettably deceptive about her sourcedependence. But if she didn’t use hersources, how could she be true to herprophetic writing role, a role she saw as socrucial?

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, while in prison,addressed what is a highly instructive ques-tion in our inquiry: “What is meant by‘Telling the Truth’?” He criticizes a notionof truth-telling which is abstract andunbending and “solely a matter of moralcharacter.” Truth-telling, he says, is directlyrelated to one’s role in various relation-ships. Bonhoefer gives an illustration ofhow the different spheres in which onelives can create conflicting demands ontruth-telling:

“A teacher asks a child in front of theclass whether it is true that his father oftencomes home drunk. It is true, but the childdenies it. The teacher’s question has placedhim in a situation for which he is not yetprepared. He feels only that what is takingplace is an unjustified interference in theorder of the family and that he mustoppose it. What goes on in the famlly isnot for the ears of the class in school. Thefamily has its own secret and must preserveit. The teacher has failed to respect thereality of this institution. The child oughtnow to find a way of answering whichwould comply with both the rule of thefamily and the rule of the school. But he isnot yet able to do this. He lacks experi-ence, knowledge, and the ability to expresshimself in the right way. As a simple no tothe teacher’s question the child’s answer iscertainly untrue, yet at the same time itnevertheless gives expression to the truththat the family is an institution sui generisand that the teacher had no right to inter-fere in it. The child’s answer can indeed becalled a lie; yet this lie contains moretruth, that is to say, it is more in accor-dance with reality than would have beenthe case if the child had betrayed his

She never admitted,

in fact denied, her

abnormal literary

practices.


father’s weakness in front of the class.”(Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics, New York,Macmillan, 1968, pp. 363 ff.)

Religious JustificationInadequate

Ellen White was 57 years old whenaccusations of source-indebtedness werefirst made, and a woman who had built aprophetic career in skillfully arbitratingbetween factions and in building churchconsensus. She was a churchly-wisewoman who surely was conscious of whatshe was doing in her literary work. Herearly paraphrasing may have begun quiteinnocently, but when later accusationsarose, she was overtly confronted with theissue of deception. Her earlier and simpleroptions had vanished. Should she admitsource dependence and thus thwart thefinishing of God’s work—a work she close-ly identified with herself? Evidently thecompelling end of finishing God’s workjustified the increasingly dubious means.

The vehement behavior displayed inthe Fannie Bolton case seems to betrayEllen White’s deep ambivalence and per-haps guilt in utilizing sources as she did.However, even a sense of guilt is under-standable if one is choosing a worthyoption which involves specific wrongdoing,over another option which is totally unac-ceptable. On these grounds, speaking fromthe standpoint of a narrowly religious ethic,Ellen White’s plagiarism might be justified.

However, any ethical solution whichfinds its parameters exclusively in the reli-gious sphere is inadequate. The sphere ofgeneral ethics must always be consideredas well. Many people are so firmly plantedin the purely ethical sphere that they areunable to comprehend uniquely religiousclaims and the moral seriousness attachedto them. Other persons are so embeddedin the religious realm that societal normsare quite secondary. Fortunately, religiouspersons generally recognize a considerableoverlapping of the two spheres. Had EllenWhite made her decision on literary prac-tices in the area of religious-societal over-lap, rather than merely in the religiousrealm, two benefits would have been real-ized: 1) both church and society wouldhave profited, and 2) Ellen White’s con-ception of truth itself would have beenmore adequate.

Had Ellen White been straightfor-ward in her literary practices, the churchsurely would have profited over the longhaul. Further, her apparent belief that lit-erary candor would have had devastatingconsequences on the church is itselfquite dubious in light of the loss of suchleaders as J.H. Kellogg and L. R.Conradi,both of whom left the church in partover questions on Ellen White’s prophet-ic gift.

Regardless, society at large is the greatbeneficiary of subgroup integrity, for soci-ety’s moral fabric is but the collectivemorality of its parts. Because of EllenWhite’s moral lapse, the church and hence

even the larger society is the poorer,Walters says.

Limited Conception of TruthA second consequence of Ellen White’s

primary loyalty to the strictly religiousrealm was her limited conception of truth.Thought leaders in the broader societyhave long understood the preeminentlyethical nature of truth. A truthful person isa truth-telling individual. Truth-telling isnot an arbitrary rule conceived by the gods

or God himself in some ancient past, but isa norm which makes societal life possible.The underlying rationale for alltruth-telling is the principle of trust. Anundergirding trust in one another ashuman beings is the glue of all humanrelationships in society, church, and or forthat matter—heaven itself. Ellen White’sexpediency in serving the prophetic move-ment might have been different had sheconsidered truth’s deeper dimensions.Possibly her conception of truth was soheavily prepositional that she failed tograsp its undergirding ethical basis.Regardless, the deeper dimensions of truthfailed to inform her methodology in theproduction of “truth-filled” literature.

In the final analysis, Ellen White isnot so much at fault personally as is thecorporate church. And perhapsAdventism is not so much to be morallyblamed as empathetically understood—asa maturing religious child searching fordivine security. Ellen White did providedivine, dogmatic answers to hundreds ofgreater and lesser issues, but she wasGod’s answer to this movement’s basicallydeep need for detailed, authoritative“Thus saith the Lord.”

Walters thinks that Ellen White wasclearly wrong in her plagiarism and fur-ther compromised her integrity by deny-ing it. On the other hand, she was beingbasically true to the unique view of reli-gious reality which she and her movementpossessed. But because even the religioussphere of life can never be the primarybasis for ethical decisions, Ellen White’sdeceptive literary practices must not becountenanced, although they can be com-prehended. Unless Ellen White is seen astotally self-deluded, her literary practicesdo detract from her personal integrity.However, Walters does not believe theydestroy it. She was an insightful andcourageous woman who did have a specialand genuine relationship with her God.Further, Ellen White’s prophetic gift forthe Adventist church is authentic. Herself-understanding of the gift may not betotally ours, and her exercise of the giftwas in crucial points questionable, butWalters believes that God still used thisprophetic gift among other gifts for theupbuilding of the Seventh-day AdventistChurch.

Because of Ellen

White’s moral

lapse, the church

and hence even

the larger society

is the poorer.


Arthur Patrick, Visiting AssociateProfessor in the School ofReligion at La Sierra University,recently spoke to AdventistForum members about his

research into the way church members have respondedto new information about the role of Ellen White inthe Seventh-day Adventist Church. Some people havetaken what he calls a reversionist stance, denying thevalidity of new information and calling into questionthe motives of those who discovered and published it.Others have taken an opposite view, what he calls arejectionist position, using the new revelations as a rea-son for denouncing the whole church. Patrick, howev-er, sees a third alternative, transformationism, wherechurch leaders and members recognize both the valu-able contributions of Ellen White’s ministry and thevalidity of the new research, then reformulate theirideas to accord with new data. He says that when wecan get a consensus on this, we can resolve many ten-sions that now hinder the church’s progress.

Patrick lists seven factors that have contributed tochange in the church’s understanding of its theologyand heritage. These include:

1) The development of accredited educational insti-tutions, including some with graduate education; 2)the graduate education of ministers and teachers bypersons who had themselves undertaken universityprograms; 3) the publication of the SDA BibleCommentary between 1954 and 1957. Thereafter thechurch at large began to interpret the Scriptures morefaithfully in the light of the meaning and syntax of theHebrew, Aramaic, and Greek languages in which theywere written, and to demonstrate a growing respect forthe context and historical setting of the biblical state-ments which were quoted in Sabbath Schools, ser-mons, and church publications; 4) The efforts of twomissionaries from the United States to Africa (RobertWieland and Donald Short), to persuade the churchfrom 1950 on to begin a reassessment of its presenta-tion of the gospel, and further, during a long series ofdiscussions with evangelical Christians in the 1950s,the understanding the Adventists gained about them-selves and about their expression of cardinal doctrinesconcerning Christ and salvation; 5) the establishmentin the 1970s of an archival center at the GeneralConference headquarters and a chain of research cen-ters to serve the various geographical areas, thus mak-ing available primary sources for the study of SDA his-tory; 6) the maturation of Adventist historiography asa result of these developments; and 7) publishing bythe journal Spectrum of studies which impinged on

Arthur Patrick is visiting associate professor ofchurch history and pastoral ministry at La SierraUniversity, California. He is a native Australianand has been a pastor, an evangelist, a religionteacher, and the director of the E. G. White SDAResearch Center, South Pacific Division. He andhis wife Joan have three grown children.

Re-Visioning the Role of

EllenWhiteBeyond the Year 2000

Report of a Presentation by Arthur Patrick, Ph.D., at the San Diego chapter of the Association of Adventist Forums, January 1998


Ellen White and her ministry. Although Spectrumwas blamed for some articles which seemed experi-mental or even rejectionist, time has shown thatthe church greatly needed to keep at the forefrontof the dialogue and be involved in the processes ofdiscovery and interpretation which were occurring.

Critics from outside and inside thechurch have raised questions, particu-larly about the role of Ellen G. White.Beginning in the 1970s Adventistscholars began to publish their find-ings. For instance: 1) Richard Lewislooked exegetically at Rev. 14:12 and12:17, questioning our use of theexpression “Spirit of Prophecy”x withexclusive reference to Ellen Whiteand her writings. 2) Frederick Hardersuggested that Ellen White “was notwriting history, she was interpreting it,and that she learned history by ordi-nary means, but the activity of God inthe historical situation was seen byrevelation. 3) Roy Branson andHerold Weiss called for Adventists todiscover the nature of Ellen White’srelationship to other authors and torecover the social and intellectualmilieu in which she wrote. 4) WilliamPeterson highlighted the reality ofproblems in Ellen White’s selectionand use of historical materials relatingto the French Revolution. Then RonGraybill, after a careful analysis of pri-mary sources, concluded that EllenWhite did not engage in historicalresearch on the French Revolution;

instead she followed one major source, UriahSmith. 5) Donald McAdams carefully evaluatedmanuscripts which revealed how Ellen White con-structed sections of The Great Controversy, notingthat she made extensive use of historical sources. 6)Ronald Numbers, after an exhaustive investigationof Ellen White’s writings on the theme of health,concluded that she derived important health reformideas from contemporary health reformers. Thestrong contrary opinions which Numbers bookevoked did not invalidate this major conclusionfrom his research. 7) Late in the 1970s Walter Reabegan to press upon the church substantial butsometimes exaggerated claims of Ellen White’s liter-ary dependence.

These presentations and others uncovered alarge quantity of data previously unknown even toserious students of Ellen White’s life and writings.Indeed, by early 1982, when the first InternationalProphetic Guidance Workshop convened at the

church’s world headquarters, it was as though ahuge basket of cards containing new informationhad been dumped on the church’s corporate desk.These cards required careful sorting and interpreta-tion so that the new information could be fittedinto coherent patterns. This task is still a challenge.

During the last two decades, many in the churchhave experienced a form of bereavement due to thebreaking of their long-held and cherished picture ofEllen White as a valued source of authority in theirpersonal lives and in the church. Because churchleaders have been slow to acknowledge the newinformation, they may have prolonged the problemsassociated with this Great Bereavement. Ministers,teachers, and members urgently needed people whocould quickly grasp the implications of the evidenceand give constructive leadership in the discoveryand adoption of viable new patterns of thought.

But church leaders seemed to give a low priorityto the process, causing many members to think thatthey were either uncaring or dishonest. There needsto be an open dialogue in which lay people and spe-cialists can participate in the task of redrawing acomposite and comprehensive picture of EllenWhite and her ministry. The leaderscan facilitate this process, thoughthey cannot control it.

The Core of the Matter

A number of conclusions may bedrawn from this discussion. If thechurch’s mission is to be fulfilled,Ellen White cannot be secreted fromthe realities of the contemporaryworld as a private concern ofSeventh-day Adventists. The longlist of theses presented in many partsof the globe to credible institutions ofhigher learning demonstrates that herchildren are becoming adults. Weneed to carefully evaluate a wholerange of issues impinging on her min-istry. There is a great need to proceedwith modernizing her language if weexpect many of our youth to haveany interest in reading her writings, or if we wantmore than a few new converts to actually read herbooks. Her writings must be interpreted in their his-torical and cultural contexts. In other words, EllenWhite’s counsel on the need to consider the timeand place of her counsels is increasingly pertinent.

We would do well to take the essence of hercounsel and follow her method; for instance, beingaware of the link between health and religion, wemust go beyond her writings, to Scripture and sci-

During the last

two decades, many

in the church have

experienced a form

of bereavement

due to the break-

ing of their

long-held and

cherished picture

of Ellen White as

a valued source of

authority in their

personal lives and

in the church.

If the church’s

mission is to be

fulfilled, Ellen

White cannot be

secreted from the

realities of the

contemporary

world as a private

concern of

Seventh-day

Adventists.


ence, distilling and then implementing the bestthat is known on how to live. In place of our back-wardness in recognizing the spiritual giftedness ofall God’s children, including women, we might notethe significance of Ellen White’s ordination, which

was so apparent that no Adventistman dared lay hands upon her. Weought to ask how Ellen Whiteresponded to the issues relating tohuman values and human rights,including the treatment of individualsand groups by churches and govern-ments. Instead of engaging in endlesscontroversies about music and wor-ship, we should focus on worship ofour Creator and celebration of hishandiwork, combined with a healthyecological concern.

There is truth that lies behind andabove the errors of Ellen White’sstatements on human races and geo-

logical processes. Her concern in her amalgamationstatements was to illustrate the deep corruption andcrime into which the race fell. The message thatGod is Creator is vastly more important than anynineteenth-century notions about the earth’s crust.Ellen White has influenced, profoundly, the healthof millions of people, despite the specific limitationsof her health-related counsels. Since she learnedhistory largely by ordinary means, and we haveaccess to better sources on which to establish ourhistorical understandings, she cannot help us with

the basics of history. But, on the other hand, shecan help us in the far more important task of find-ing God in the mazes of history. We can rightlyaffirm her devotion to the Scriptures, and be chal-lenged to go to the Bible with a desire similar tohers to learn the truth. We need to be as open toconstructive change as she was, knowing we toohave many things to learn, and many, many tounlearn. Further, we do well to avoid claims whichher writings neither encourage nor sustain.

Patrick concludes that Seventh-day Adventismwould become an anachronism were we to adoptthe writings of Ellen White as the definitive andauthoritative encyclopedia of our faith and practice.In the process, we would destroy her credibility as aprophetic witness, and damage the mission of thechurch which was so precious to her. We shouldlook for a more appropriate way to portray her writ-ings. When we can get a consensus on her role aspioneer explorer, or as mother of the church whoexpects her children to grow beyond her ownunderstanding, or as a map-maker, or somethingelse, we can achieve a unity in mind and spirit thatis lacking now. He urges the church to get its schol-ars, theologians, editors, and others around theworld to participate in open discussions of the needfor change. Given that, he has faith that thedynamic nature of Adventism might yet realize itstrue potential.

Adventist Today readers may access Patrick’s 34-page paper on http://www.sdanet.org section.

Ellen White’s

counsel on the

need to consider

the time and place

of her counsels is

increasingly perti-

nent.

We’ve all heard and we all believe, I guessThat God’s hand did a strangely playful trick And covered up a grave miscalculationIn William Miller’s prophetic arithmetic.

It may well be he did that, stirred the worldWith Spirit power and hope and godly fearFor some benevolent purpose of his ownDown-playing hour and day and month and year.

Suppose that very same hand reached out againAnd covered up our faulty reckoningsOf year-days, veils and altars and of hornsAnd sevens and seventies and ancient kings.

The HandJust covered up the blunders for a whileSo we could catch our breath and build and plant.A century passed and more, it may be timeTo take away the shelter of that hand.

Well, there we are, and now it is our turnTo blush—and weep perhaps ’til morning light—Not at all unlike the farmer friendsOf Father Miller that October night.

Not “rich,” and not “increased with goods”And much in need of everything we standAnd trust in God’s reality, and blessThe blunder-covering of that nail-scarred hand!

—Maryan Stirling

The Hand

couldn’t come back, given the differencesbetween his definition of Adventism andours. He views himself as representing whatAdventism could become in the future.”

In January Eric told the conference thathis congregation had gained severalSabbath-keeping worshipers who had thegift of tongues. The church’s prayer teamwould sometimes speak in tongues duringprivate prayer sessions, but they didn’t do itduring church worship services.

After the Woodinville membershipstransferred to the conference church, theconference committee decided that theyhad to deal with Eric’s membership beforethe new committee took office on May 3.“The committee said they’d dealt with Ericfor years,” says Weigley, “and they felt it was

time to close the issue.”They notified Eric that they would be

meeting to decide his membership statuson April 21 and offered him the opportuni-ty either to attend and give his defense orto write a letter. He wrote a letter. In itEric gave four defenses for not removinghis membership: “1. No biblical groundshave ever been presented to me forremoval of my membership. I have not vio-lated any known scriptural mandates… 2.My theological understanding is not unlikemany other Seventh-day Adventists whohold active membership and denomina-tional employment…3. My theologicalposition on speaking in tongues is no dif-ferent than it was six years ago when I wasemployed by the denomination…4. Whileit is true that several of us who areSeventh-day Adventists have begun a newcongregational move, this should not beviewed as ‘divisive and disloyal’ as DaveWeigley has stated.”

Weigley says that the reason for Bahme’sdisfellowshiping is his theology, specificallyhis view of the remnant, his view of 1844and the sanctuary doctrine, and his view ofthe Spirit of Prophecy. “Equally important

is his creation of a divisive group thatcaused confusion in the community byclaiming to be Adventist,” says Weigley.“Yet it detracted from the work of thechurch by withdrawing its support from ourworld-wide work. And add to these thingsthe glossalalia and the Pentacostal drift…”

The irony, says Bahme, is that he neverdiscussed his theology with the conferencecommittee. While he had several discus-sions over the years with conference admin-istrators about tongues and the specifics ofhis church services, the committee hadnever actually discussed these stated theo-logical issues with him.

Bahme never wanted to leave theAdventist church. “The fact is that if I werein another geographical area, not only would

my church still be a conference church, but Iwould still be a member. I called three pas-tors I know in different parts of the country,and each one of them told me that, givenwhat I believe, if I were disfellowshiped theywere sure their church boards would acceptme back into the church on profession offaith.” He says, however, that he’s not plan-ning to take advantage of those offers. “If Idid, I would just be playing a political gamewith the conference, and God is never glori-fied in that.”

Weigley says that the conference will“wait and see” what will happen with therest of the New Life memberships. “Wedon’t know yet how much the newSabbath-keeping Pentecostals who’vejoined the church will change things. Willthe Adventists change or resist their influ-ence? This isn’t Adventism, and we want tosend a message that it’s not. We will haveto have strong counsel with the members ifthey adopt Pentecostal practices.”

Weigley admits that as time goes by,they may have to disfellowship other mem-bers of the New Life church. He also saidit’s possible that many members will ask tohave their memberships removed since Eric

has been disfellowshiped.Eric, however, says that New Life mem-

bers see denominational membership as anon-issue. “I don’t think they will ask tohave their names removed,” he says. “Theyjust don’t see it as important one way oranother.”

“I believe my disfellowshiping happenedbecause the church is scared,” says Bahme.“During the last year five churches havebecome independent either because thepastors were fired or resigned.” Those fiveare Bridge City in Portland, Oregon, withBob Bretsch, Grace Place in Colorado withClay Peck, Damascus in Maryland withRichard Fredericks, Potter’s Wheel inMilwaukie, Oregon, with Mike Galeotti,and the church in Medford, Oregon, withChad McComas.

Weigley stated that they felt they had todeal with Bahme’s membership because, asthe pastor, he was the one who held themost responsibility for leading his parish-ioners away from the body of believers.

“One General Conference official said,‘Congregationalism is the biggest threatAdventism has ever faced,’ Eric says. “Mygut response is that this may be the first ofmany disfellowshipings.”

“This has been a painful, painful experi-ence,” says Weigley. “We love Eric; he’s agifted young guy with lots of potential. Butbecause of his refusal to accept the councilof the body as expressed through the con-ference committee, the future of his move-ment is in question.”

“I wish we could tolerate diversity andwork together,” Eric said. “I am truly sorrythat I have been viewed as insubordinate.But maybe God is building a church that isdifferent than what we have been a part of—something bigger than the boundaries ofAdventism. Paul says the greatest gift is love.What truly is at stake is lost people. We needto lay aside our differences and work togetherto fulfill the gospel commission.

“Control can’t happen from the topdown any longer. All God’s people have avoice and a ministry. New Life and a lot ofother churches have found that their voicesaren’t being heard and their visions arebeing controlled. We need accountability,but we cannot have papal authority.

“If we ever needed to come together andseek God like never before, I believe this isthe day.”


Washington ConferenceDisfellowships Independent PastorCONTINUED FROM BACK

One General Conference official said, “Congregationalismis the biggest threat Adventism has ever faced.”


Soundings

BERT WILLIAMS

I recently had a conversation about women’sroles. It took place with one of my friendsin Kenya, my current country of residence.I had agreed to drive a bus transporting his

Pathfinder club to a rally some 100 kilometers dis-tant. He rode in the “co-pilot’s seat” so we had plen-ty of time to talk as we drove along the twisting tar-mac down into the Rift Valley toward Lake Magadi.

Our conversation was wide-ranging but continu-ally circled back to issues relating to the woman’srole in the home, marriage, and society. My friendBenjamin is open-minded and is genuinely interest-ed in trying to understand my views. He is not dog-matic, but he does view things through a decidedlydifferent set of spectacles than I do.

Among other things he was curious to know if Ithought a woman would respect her husband if hedid not beat her occasionally. I do not thinkBenjamin beats his wife, but they have been marriedfor only a couple of years, and he has received coun-sel from concerned men in his church. Benjamin,they think, needs to take steps to assure that Lilly isappropriately submissive. (These are not their realnames.)

We talked at length about “equality.” ToBenjamin, equality had seemed to mean that eachpartner would do exactly the same things. Iexplained that, to me, equality means that eachpartner’s desires and concerns should have equalvalue.

He thinks it likely, however, that a wife giventhis kind of equality would become lazy, uncon-trolled, and unfaithful. He asked how I would feel ifDonna had a higher income than I did. “Whywouldn’t I want more money?” I asked him.

After we shared a chuckle, he allowed that hedid not think such a situation could work out. Thewife would have too much prestige and wouldbecome rude, inconsiderate, and unfaithful.

I explained that I knew of good marriages inNorth America in which the wife’s earning powerwas higher than her husband’s. Benjamin clearly wasnot able to conceptualize such a relationship.

And then came the issue of trousers: he wasdiplomatic when I asked whether he thought it wasa problem that my wife sometimes wears jeans. But

he is definitely of the opinion that most women whowear pants are overly concerned about status and arepursuing a role which is not properly theirs.

He asked if I really did think it was OK.So I asked Benjamin if he thought it fair that

men should be able to stay warmer in cold weatheror to work in the garden more comfortably or to ridea bicycle with greater ease. I also asked if he thoughtit was right for Christian Maser men to wear “dress-es.” We both chuckled again.

Benjamin is thoughtful and articulate. ThoughEnglish is his third language he expresses his viewsprecisely. His questions inevitably drive to the heartof whatever issue is at hand. But we are far fromagreeing on the issues. All of which leads me tosome observations:

1. Cultural background inevitably results in blindspots and failure to see many important issues withobjective clarity. I am convinced that Benjamin’sculture has skewed his view of women and theirappropriate place in society. And so I wonder whatblind spots my own culture has bequeathed to me?How utterly arrogant to think that there are notsome serious ones!

2. If well-meaning, honest people, speaking inprivate conversation, cannot come to a meeting ofminds on issues where their cultures have placedthem so far apart, it seems very unlikely that divisiveissues confronting the world church will be resolvedthrough high-profile, politicized, public discourse.

3. Whether dealing with delegates from anotherDivision at a General Conference session, or with aNorth American teenager sporting pierced bodyparts, Adventist Christians simply must not yield tothe urge to assign motives to others whose actions orviews they do not understand.

4. It is possible for people of goodwill from differ-ent cultures to respect one another—even thor-oughly enjoy one another—despite their differences.The call for unity in diversity must displace attemptsat uniformity.

Benjamin and I will continue to converse. Welike each other and enjoy the stimulation that ourconversations provide. Our conversations give mehope that on a larger scale we can learn to genuinelyrespect one another, honestly love one another, andlearn to work side by side for the same ultimategoals.

A Conversation with Benjamin

Bert Williams teaches atMaxwell AdventistAcademy in Nairobi,Kenya.

…he was

curious to

know if I

thought a

woman

would

respect her

husband if

he did not

beat her

occasionally.

As We Go to Press

COLLEEN MOORE TINKER

O n April 21, 1998, EricBahme, pastor of the NewLife Congregational SeventhDay Adventist Church in

Woodinville, Washington, was disfellow-shiped from the Seventh-day Adventistchurch. This act culminated several yearsof tension between Bahme and the con-ference, tension punctuated by Bahme’sbeing fired from denominational employ-ment in 1996.

According to Dave Weigley, presidentof the Washington Conference, Bahmewas fired for insubordination. Throughouthis tenure as pastor of the WoodinvilleSeventh-day Adventist Church, Bahmehad not complied with certain conferencedirectives.

“We felt he was pulling the churchtoward Pentecostalism,” Weigley said. “Wehad no evidence of speaking in tongues,just a strong feeling that was the directionthey were going. And they had hired anordained Pentecostal pastor to lead theworship praise music.” According toWeigley, the conference asked him not touse the Pentecostal worship leader andrequested that he change direction withthe church, but Bahme refused.

“The Woodinville church was Bahme’sfirst pastorate,” Weigley commented. “Hehad never served under a senior pastor.The conference decided that he shouldhave a mentoring experience in which heserved as an associate under an experi-enced pastor. We offered him two differentdistricts, but he refused to go. Because herefused to accept council, we finally dis-missed him for insubordination.”

“My problem with the WashingtonConference has been an authority issue,”Eric Bahme acknowledges. “It’s been aquestion of the congregation being able tohave a voice. We had issues over thespecifics of our celebration worship style.They were concerned because I wore awedding band; because we had a non-Adventist worship leader as well as associa-tions with other ministers of different

faiths; because I experienced speaking intongues in my private devotions. Finally,when the tithe dropped to a certain lowpoint, they let me go.”

But Bahme claims he has always beenloyal to the Adventist church. He believesin the Sabbath; he believes in Jesus’ secondcoming. He believes the church should beable to accept differences in worship stylewithout trying to dictate the details of pri-vate or congregational worship.

At the time of his dismissal 140 peoplehad their names on the Woodinvillechurch books. Weekly attendance aver-aged over 100. Ninety-eight percent ofthose people went with Eric as the church

formed an independent congregation, theNew Life Congregational Seventh DayAdventist Church. This fledgling churchhas consistently returned a small tithe tothe Washington Conference, an offeringthe conference has been accepting. “It’svery important that we not harbor any bit-terness because of what’s happened,” Ericsays. “God can’t bless us if we’re bitter.”

Bahme’s name as well as the names ofmany of his church members, however,have remained on the Woodinville churchmembership roll. They have been officialmembers along with the 15 to 20 peoplewho continued to meet every Sabbathunder the leadership of their new pastorRon Preast.

This spring the conference committeerecommended that the Woodinvillechurch vote to expel itself as a full-fledgedchurch because of its low loyal member-ship. The group would revert to company

status, but the conference would make surethey continued to have pastoral coverage.The members’ names would move to theconference church roll instead of theWoodinville church roll. The conference,then, would have the authority to dealwith individual memberships.

“The conference notified me of thecoming business session,” Eric says. “Manyof New Life’s members and I were stillofficial members, and the conferenceknew we could show up and outvotethem. I told them, though, that we’d notbeen a part of the Woodinville church foralmost two years, and it would be unethi-cal for us to vote.”

Apparently the conference feared theworst. On the night of the meeting, sevenof the loyal Woodinville members attend-ed. Eric and one other member from NewLife also attended, but they sat in the back

and did not vote. The conference repre-sentatives included the president, the min-isterial director, the executive secretary,the treasurer, and the conference attorneybearing policy books.

The meeting proceeded smoothly, andthe conference administrators reassuredthe Woodinville company that they wouldprovide them a pastor and otherwise carefor them.

Weigley says that he and the confer-ence committee tried hard to reconcilewith Bahme. Last fall they invited him tojoin the Washington pastors on a historicAdventist trip to New England. He went,and according to Weigley they had goodfellowship together.

“After the trip we talked to him,”Weigley reports. “We asked him questionssuch as ‘Are you coming back?’ and‘Where are you headed?’ But Eric felt he

Washington ConferenceDisfellowships Independent Pastor

PE

RIO

DIC

ALS

CONTINUED ON PAGE 22

“The fact is that if I were in another geographical area,not only would my church still be a conference church,but I would still be a member.”