Ten Years of Adventist Today:JOHN MCLARTY

21 adventist

or ten years Adventist Today has re-ported "on contemporary issues ofimportance to Adventist church mem-bers." We are convinced the churchwill come closer to its ideals if the ac-tions of its leaders and committeesare held up for public scrutiny. Any

hierarchical system affecting the lives of mil-lions of people needs the check on power thatcomes from a free press.

But we are more than reporters. We are ad-vocates-for justice, humility, mercy, truth. Forthe removal of ideological barriers to womenserving in the church, for accountability ofchurch presidents, for openness to humanscholarship and experience, for church mem-bership that holds together loyalty andrespectful dissent, for a spirituality that con-nects with real life and the rich resources ofChristianity, for Adventist theology and practiceand for the idea that compassion and integrityare greater virtues than any uniquely Adventistidea or practice.

We are reporters; we are advocates. And weare pastors. Beyond issues of church gover-nance and theological debate, we seek tofoster spirituality rooted in a hunger for inti-macy with God, touched by an awareness ofhuman pain, and open to human experience.Healthy spiritual life is not characterized by abreathless fascination with what God will do at"the end of time." Instead, it focuses on whatGod is doing now and how we can participatein that divine purpose.

Why Adventist Today? The church is facingdecisions with potentially huge consequences.Changes in the salary structure for clergy andcollege teachers. How tithe income is distrib-uted. Funding for Adventist higher education.Declining Anglo membership in NorthAmerica. Divorce and remarriage policies.

These issues may not affect you personally,but they will affect your church.

Why Adventist Today?Because of theology. Howdoes the passage of decadesaffect preaching aboutJesus' "soon return"? Whatto do about the disagree-ment between the church'sscience employees and its

1 volume 10 issue 2

A Retrospectivepublic statements about science? What aboutdoctrines that are largely disbelieved or disre-garded by the pastors of our larger churches?How much human brokenness can we toler-ate in God's spokespersons or God'smessage-biblical or modern?

The more of the church engaged in the con-versation, the more likely we will discern themind of God. Through Adventist Today youwill hear distinctive voices speaking to theseIssues.

Why Adventist Today? When your experi-ence and learning contradict what you'vealways believed, how do you find a spirituallife that includes your experience without dis-carding God? When you are for a new pietythat includes an awareness of scholarship andtranscends it, it's helpful to connect with fel-low pilgrims. Our authors can serve asguides and companions as you learn to affirmGod's involvement without trivializing the un-answerable questions. You will be challengedto do more than talk about your faith.

To celebrate our first ten years, we are pub-lishing this retrospective issue featuring someof our best articles from previous issues.Some were selected because they evoked alot of mail, some because they represent cru-cial ideas, some because they are historicallysignificant.

For those of you with good memories, I askyour indulgence. For those who havememories like mine, I invite you to take upand read. These articles are so good, youwill wonder how you could have ever forgot-ten them.

If you are not a subscriber of Adventist To-day, I invite you to pick up the phone and callour office manager, Hanan Sadek, at 800-236-3641. Give her your credit card number andask for a year's subscription. If you are a sub-scriber, call Hanan and ask for ten or twentycopies of this issue to share with members of

your Sabbath School Class, yourchildren, your pastor, fellowalumni. (This special issue isavailable for $4)

Ten years of reporting, advo-cacy, and pastoring. It's been anadventure. It's been a challenge.It remains our mission .•

PAGE 4Letters to the Editor

PAGESScience faculty vary in views on Creationism

By Floyd Petersen

PAGE 6What Adventists Can Learn From John WesleyBy David R. Larson

1

PAGE 14Folkenberg Resigns

By Colleen Moore Tinker

PAGE 17Adventist Pastor Husband Homosexual

By Anonymous

PAGElSA credible Adjudicatory System

By Raymond Cottrell

PAGE22Adventism and The American Republic By Douglas Mor-

ganReview by Bert Haloviak

PAGESDoctrine and Theology: What's the difference?By John Mclarty

PAGE 10Ellen G. White and Truth-Telling:By James Walters

PAGE 12The Charlottesville StoryBy Alton D. Johnson

PAGE 20Grand Reversal At The General Conference:An Interview With Garry Hodg~in

adventistPublisher I Elwin Dunn Executive Editor I Ervin Taylor Editorial Advisor I Steve Daily

Editor Emeritus I Raymond Cottrell Managing Editor I Diana Fisher Office Manager I Hanan Sadek

Editor I John McLarty Assistant Editor I James H. Stirling Copy Editor I Audrey Howard

adventist today reports on contemporary issues of importance to Adventist church members. Following basic principles of ethics and canons of journal-ism, this publication strives for fairness, candor and good taste. Unsolicited submissions are encouraged. Payment is competitive. Send a self-addressed, stampedenvelope for writer's guidelines. Annual subscriptions $29.50 ($50/2years) for individuals $18 for students $40 for institutions (Payment by check or credit card. Add$10 for address outside North America.) Voice I (800) 236-3641 or (909) 785-1295 Fax I (909) 785-1595 E-mail I atoday@atoday.com Web site I www.atoday.com

adventist today (ISSN1079-5499) is published bimonthly for $29.50 per year ($18 for students, $40 for institutions) by Adventist Today Foundation, CalkinsHall 225 La Sierra University, Riverside,CA 92515. Periodical postage paid at Riverside,California and additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER:Send address changesto AdventistToday, Box 8026 Riverside,CA 92515-8026. Copyright @ 2001 byadventist Foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to fosteringopen dialogue in the Adventist community.

volume 10 issue 2[ adventist 13

CONTINUED ON PAGE23

you missed) were vigorous and tackledcontroversial issues. Somehow you failedto appreciate that fact. Instead, because itpresented biblical views with which youdisagree, it was "polemic."

How can there ev~r be orell di~l'ogueregarding theological issues when partieswho disagree with you are denigrated? Isit not possible that there is an horest ap-preciation for the truth of Scripture inATS, and ASRS finds that offensive be-cause they no longer regard theBible asthe word of God who cannot lie?

ASRS and ATS meetings in Denver lastNovember. You were nearly triumphal indeclaring that the ASRS meeting "ap-peared to be an open forum for theexploration of ideas," while proclaimingthe ATS meeting to be "designed to pro-mote a particular viewpoint." Since I satimmediately behind you in the ATS meet-ing, I think I can legitimately commenton the content of that assembly.

The ATS meeting was, in fact, veryopen. The discussions (several of which

Maryan Stirling's "The Cho-sen" further serves to illus-

trate the paucity of female repre-sentation in most institutions, in-cluding the SDR,and the results. Itechoes Ellen Goodman's recenteditorial on this subject recallinghow womert had often been the"moral gu~dians" of society, serv-ing as "whistle-blowers" in the re-cent Enron debacle whilethe men 'remained silent.

:.!

Adventist CoreI was saddened to see the tone of the

article (AT Nov/Dec 2001) comparing the

over enough times, people will come tobelieve it. This rule-and the idea that a"big lie" is not intrinsically more difficultto propagate if you simply repeat it moreoften than a "small lie" -was a key tac-tic of the Nazi movement in Germany inthe 1930s.

Readers of AT can read a classic ex-ample of this in the comments of EdChristian, editor of the Journal of theAdventist Theological Society (ATS). Inyour recent interview of him (AT Nov/Dec 2001), he stated thatthe ATS is "an organizationof centrist Adventist biblicalscholars." First of all, mostof the members of the ATSare not biblical scholars; thevast majority of ATS mem-bers are laypersons. Amajority of SDA biblicalscholars are members of theAdventist Society of Rei i-gious Studies (ASRS) and notthe ATS. Second, to statethat the ATS is a "centrist"organization is like sayingthat the Klu Klux Klan is"centrist" on the subject ofrace relations.

As has been well docu-mented by RaymondCottrell, the ATS actuallyrepresents a very conserva-tive reaction to the progressivetendencies exhibited in North AmericanAdventism in the 1970s and 1980s. Oneneeds only to read the requirements forbecoming an ATS member to confirmthis. However, for some strange reason,ATS wants to propagate the false ideathat it is "centrist." Only by reasoning ina manner that would make a Jesuit proudcan one argue that the ATS is anythingbut a right-wing organization adhering,with few exceptions, 'to a fundamentalistagenda.

Shame on Adventist Today for publ ish-ing this piece of ATS propaganda.James Hilton I Loma Linda, California

ATS"Big Lies"One of the rules of political propa-

ganda is that, even though a statement istotally false, if you repeat it over and

UnrepresentativeGovernance

Your latest issue (Nov/Dec. 2001) wasa winner! From John McLarty's openingeditorial to the back cover.

The report on the IBMTE illustrates thesame method used by Congress whenrushing through a favorite, but little rec-ognized, attachment at a late midnightsession: very little representation, but theeventual shocking discovery when day-light comes. We have not heard the last.As McLarty so aptly states, "What hap-pens to us in the short run will come toyou in the long run," and "not a singleperson had anything good to say aboutthis program." So much for representa-tive governance. Witch hunting willsoon follow such a poorly devisedpolicy.

Maryan Stirling's "The Chosen" furtherserves to illustrate the paucity of femalerepresentation in most institutions, in-cluding the SDA, and the results. Itechoes Ellen Goodman's recent editorialon this subject recalling how women hadoften been the "moral guardians" of soci-ety, serving as "whistle-blowers" in therecent Enron debacle while the men re-mained silent. Women do have adifferent view of the world, perhapsmore "nurturing"; but that has beensorely missing in most of the legislativesessions in the world's business and es-pecially in religious institutions. Perhapssome of history's rush into wars mightbeen delayed or diplomatically resolvedif an equal number of women thoughtfirst of all mothers' sons who were beingso callously offered to Mammon.

As young men replace their fathers inall branches of power, they will increas-ingly call on women, having longrecognized their unique ability and skillsin relationships so vital to democraticgovernance. That day cannot come toosoon.Elaine Nelson I Fresno, California

41 adventist today I volume 10 issue 2

/

Science faculty vary in views on CreationismFLOYD PETERSEN

no opinion.The results of our survey show fairly

close agreement on the nature of the Biblebut significant variation in views on theother topics. Perhaps the biblical accountof so momentous an event as Creation ispurposefully brief, allowing us the freedomto struggle over a universal reality. Wemight all be surprised when someday wehear the details explained by The One whowas there .•

Floyd Petersen is assistant professor ofbiostatistics in the School of Public Healthat Lom? Linda University.

percent were male.It was interesting to note that younger re-

spondents-under 50 years-tended to bemore conservative than older ones. Thosewho had not attended Adventist schoolsand also did not have Adventist parents ap-peared, overall, to be slightly moretraditional than others. Some attendance atAdventist schools, as a factor by itself, didnot seem to make much difference; nor didhaving an Adventist parent, as a single fac-tor.

In each area, some respondents omittedan answer or indicated they had no opin-ion. As to area of academic specialization,18.2 percent declined to answer; 7.4 per-cent did not indicate their gender. As toorigins of non-human life, 9.9 percent hadno opinion. On origins of human life, only2.5 percent had no opinion. Only 1.7 per-cent indicated no opinion about the natureof the Bible; and as to views about theFlood and the fossil record,S percent had

Adventist Today recently asked the Centerfor Health Research, Loma Linda Univer-sity, to conduct a survey of the views onlife's origins held by members of sciencefaculties at Adventist colleges and universi-ties in,North America. The accomp-anying graph shows their responses.

We mailed 200 questionnaires to teach-ers identified from the Seventh-dayAdventist Yearbook and from telephoningthe colleges, and promised to keep an-swers confidential. The response rate was60.5 percent, or 121 respondents-consid-ered good for this type of survey. Of thosereturning a completed survey, 83.5 percentheld a doctoral degree; 35.5 percent saidtheir area of specialization was the life sci-ences, 37.2 percent the physical sciences,and 9.1 percent some other area.

Of those giving their age, the mean was50.2 years, with the youngest being 31 andthe oldest 79. Of the 112 who reportedtheir gender, 8 percent were female and 92

• I •I I

God created live organisms during 6 days less than 10,000 years ago 43.0%God created live organisms during 6 days less than 100,000 years ago 19.0%God created over an unknown period within the last 100,000 years 6.6%God created first life millions of years ago and guided its development. 18.2%Life shown by fossils evolved for billions of years by natural means 3.3%

God created the first human beings less than 10,000 years ago 44.6%God created the first human beings less than 100,000 years ago 26.4%No one knows when God created human beings 16.5%Humans developed over millions of years with God's guidance 6.6%

Bible is the actual word of God, to be taken literally word for word. . 1.7%Bibf~ is God's word with human thought forms and perspectives 92.6%Bible is an ancient book of myths, history, and moral precepts 4.1 %

Most fossils result from the worldwide, Biblical flood 64.5%The Bible flood took place only in the near East. 21.5%The Bible story of the flood reflects a myth 5.0%

Life represented in the fossil record was created by God 23.1%Some forms in the fossil record were created by God; others evolved 33.1 %Some fossilized forms were created by God, others are S~tan's attempts : 15.7%Fossils show life God created and then guided as it evolved 15.7%Neither God nor Satan made nor guided life shown in fossils 6.6%

volume 10 issue 21 adventist today 15

Christian HistoryUnfortunately, this was not always the

case for all of those who were disciples ofJesus in subsequent generations. Somehistorians have found that, already in the

LARSONR •

.. .interpreted lines ofevidence from four sources:

Scripture, Tradition, Reason, andExperience. Instead of basing hisconvictions on anyone of these,Wesley interpreted and drew onevidence from all four. Ibelieve we Adventists shoulddo the same.

D A V I D

churches. For they are not permitted to disruption of their relationships. In thisspeak, but should be subordinate, as the disordered state of affairs, men often be-law also says. If there is anything they de- come more and more tyrannical. In thesire to know, let them ask their husbands same sinful state, women often becomeat home. For it is shameful for a woman to ever more skillful in the arts of deviousspeak in church" (1 Cor 14:34,35 NRSV). manipulation. The whole of Scripture

"Let a woman learn in silence with full traces this accelerating cycle of mutualsubmission. I permit no woman to teach abuse with stark and painful clarity. AI-or to have authority over a man; she is to though it is not pretty, this picture ofkeep silent" (1 Tim 2: 11,12 NRSV). things is true to life.

an Learn from ne::Sei:~~:tthis is not theend of thestory. God isactively atwork in everymoment ofevery life to

bring about healing and reconciliation.The high point of this biblical drama so faroccurred in the life, death, and resurrec-tion of Jesus of Nazareth-the One whomost clearly revealed what God is likeand what we can become. The storiesJesus told, the friends Jesus enjoyed, thesupporters Jesus appreciated, and the dis-ciples.to whom Jesus appeared after hisresurrection all included women in sur-prising and soothing ways. For Jesus,healing the wounds between men andwomen caused by sin was a very highpriority.

In view of these verses, would we letEllen White deliver a sermon in ourchurch on Sabbath morning if she werealive today? No one alive today knowsprecisely and completely why women inthe congregations to which these ancientletters were first addressed were advisedto keep silent. Some make reasonableconjectures about the matter, but it wouldbe a mistake to make such accommoda-tions to human difficulties the standard bywhich everything must always be mea-sured. Let's apply each of Wesley's foursources to this question.

BibleWe learn from Scripture that

no group of people is more hu-man or more valuable thanothers. The creation stories ofthe Bible, unl ike those foundelsewhere, declare that allgroups of humans are createdout of the same dust of theground, and that men andwomen, as symbolized by therib of Adam from which Evewas fashioned, are composed ofthe same material. Neither is in-trinsically superior to the other.Instead, men and women arecreated in the divine image as equal part-ners.

The Bible recognizes, of course, thatmen and women sin and that their faith-lessness toward God results in a

ven though John Wesley neverused the term, he is credited witha distinctive way of thinkingabout controversial issues calledthe Wesleyan Quadrilateral. Thisterm honors the way Wesley did

his theological work as leader of theMethodist revivals and spiritual grandfa-ther of Adventism. It is a method thatformulates Christian views and values by

What Adventists

interweaving interpreted lines of evidencefrom four sources: Scripture, Tradition,Reason, and Experience.

Instead of basing his convictions on anyone of these, Wesley interpreted and drewon evidence from all four. I believe weAdventists should do the same.

This method presupposes that God,though greaterthan the wholeuniverse, is omni-present. We cantherefore learnabout our Creatorfrom Scripture andfrom other sourcesas well. Wesley'smethod also pre-supposes thathumans are finiteand fallible. Wetherefore need a

system of checks and balances to keep usfrom going astray. The Wesleyan Quadri-lateral invites us to follow truth about Godand about ourselves wherever we find it.It also reminds us that, if they are all valid,our various interpretations will convergeand cohere in mutually reinforcing ways.

The Wesleyan Quadrilateral provides awholistic method of studying Scripture.Let's apply it to the vexing issue ofwomen's ordination facing the Seventh-day Adventists, Wesley's spiritual children,today.

"Women should be silent in the

61 adventist 1 volume 10 issue 2

/'

,

need to introduce this distinction, whichis not explicitly stated in the New Testa-ment, demonstrates how difficult it is toapply the Bible's rare prohibitions of al-lowing women to speak in church both

One of the basic rules ofmoral thought is that

"equals in equal circumstancesought to be treated equally!'Thisrule does not deny that peoplediffer and that these variations, ifpertinent to the issue athand, can justify treatingpeople in alternative ways.

literally and universally. If we apply theseverses literally, we do not apply them uni-versally. If we apply them universally, wedo not do so literally but introduce dis-tinctions that qualify their plain meaning. Ifind it more faithful to Scripture, Christiantradition, human reason, and our own ex-perience to interpret these verses as theyread, but to apply them only where theyfit local needs.

As these considerations suggest, I amconvinced the Wesleyan Quadrilateral en-ables us to think about the roles andplaces of men and women in the churchin helpful ways. I am also convinced,however, that this method of studying theBible is very fruitful, no matter what thetopic. Besides, as spiritual grandchildrenof john Wesley, we Adventists will do wellto preserve and promote this valuabletreasure from our own past. •

David Larson, Ph.D., Professor of Chris-tian Ethics, teaches religion courses forhealth professions students and for gradu-ate students in Christian ethics. He alsoserves as one of the teachers of a SabbathSchool class at the LLU Church.

ExperienceWe can learn what we ought to do from

our own experience as well. jesus said wecan distinguish true from false spokesper-sons for God, not by their race,nationality, economic class, orgender, but by the harvest of theirlives and words. "You will knowthem by their fruits," he said."Are grapes gathered fromthorns, or figs from thistles? Inthe same way, every good treebears good fruit, but the bad treebears bad fruit... .Thus you willknow them by their fruits." (Matt7:16-20 NRSV).

This is a most important test.An individual's qualifications forspeaking in church on Sabbathmorning rest, in large measure,on the results, good or bad, of al-lowing him or her to do so. If there isserious doubt about the matter, there is nosubstitute forgiving the individual an op-portunity to be heard, albeit at first incontexts where his or her capacity to dodamage is limited even if things don't gowell. Only in this way can we avoid thetwin errors of including people who arenot qualified and excluding them for thewrong reasons. What Gamaliel, who was"respected by all the people," said of Peterand other friends of jesus applies here aswell: "If this plan or this undertaking is ofhuman origin, it will fail; but if it is ofGod, you will not be able to overthrowthem-in that case you may even befound fighting against God!" (Acts 5: 38,39 NRSV).

The various lines of interpreted evi-dence we have considered-Bible,Christian history, reason, and experi-ence-ali lead to the same conclusion:When it comes to deciding who will bepermitted to speak in our churches onSabbath morning, our guiding phrasemust be "gifts, not gender." This outcomeis so compelling, all things considered,that if we resist it we often feel a need tointroduce distinctions that soften our con-clusions. One such distinction:allowing women to speak in church, butonly in a way that does not challenge theauthority of the male leaders of the con-gregation. But the very fact that we feel a

1st century, it is possible to trace the ori-gins of struggle between an impulse toprolong and extend the healing gesturesof jesus toward women and the contraryimpulse to keep women in subservientroles as long as possible.

It is difficult to imagine, for instance, at-titudes toward women more hostile thanthose of Tertullian in the 3rd century ormore ignorant than those of ThomasAquinas in the 13th. And yet there are oc-casions, as in some of the sermons towomen by Martin Luther in the 16th cen-tury and in remarks about marriage byjeremy Taylor in the 17th, in which thehealing impulse emerges, even if only inpartial and painful ways. It is not difficultto discern which of these impulses, thehealing or the hurtful, is more harmoniouswith the life and ministry of jesus-some-thing that should make us exceedinglyreluctant to do anything today that mightplace us on the wrong side of this ongoingand sometimes difficult struggle.

ReasonWe come to the same conclusion when

we consider the matter from the perspec-tive of that form of human reason we callmoral philosophy. One of the basic rules ofmoral thought is that "equals in equal cir-cumstances ought to be treated equally."This rule does not deny that people differand that these variations, if pertinent to theissue at hand, can justify treating people inalternative ways. It insists, however, thatthe differences be clearly relevant. For ex-ample, it is not necessary to be able to see,in order to perform as a singer; but it isnecessary to have good vision in order toserve as a surgeon. For this reason, we arejustified in excluding persons who cannotsee from surgical specialties but not war-ranted in denying them singing careers ifthey can truly perform. Likewise, differ-ences in gender, though in some contextsthey justify treating men and women differ-ently, appear irrelevant to questions of anindividual's qualifications for speaking atchurch. The burden of proof in this matterclearly rests upon us who assert otherwise.We must be able to show why the genderof a woman necessarily and automaticallydisqualifies her from being a speaker.

volume 10 issue 21 adventist 17

//

if not most, of our scholars (professionaland amateur). The reality is that if anytwo people spend enough time studyingany complex subject, they will come toat least slightly divergent conclusions.And what subject is more complex thanGod and human interaction with him?

And there was no g91den era. JamesWhite strongly dis'.lgreed with Uriah

Smith overprophetic in-terpretation.He suppressedhis views sothe fledglingdenominationwould nothave to investenergy in de-liberatingcompetingviewpoints. In

the late 1800s there was intense dis-agreement over the process of salvationand the deity of Christ.

Thinking, studying people simply can'tbe confined in a small box. Thus it hasalways been. So what is the value of thedenomination and its doctrinal state-ments? Simply this: it gives us a centerfrom which to deviate-a center throughwhich we can reconnect with one an-other in spite of our diversity. The churchneeds a formal core of doctrine that de-fines normative Adventism. Twenty-sevenstatements may be too many, but theremust be more than "1 believe in theBible" or "1 believe in Jesus."

Jaroslav Pelikan, in his five-volume TheChristian Tradition: A History of the De-velopment of Doctrine, distinguishesbetween theology-which is the thoughtof individuals-and doctrine-thethought of the church. The two alwayslive in tension. Doctrine usually is the re-action of the church to theology. That is,an individual articulates new ideas andthe church reacts. Doctrine is alwaysconservative. It expresses what the

MCLARTYJ 0 H N

c1ared to the Adventist Media Center staffthat if we were serious about gettingready for Jesus to come, we'd need to getthe victory over eating milk and eggs.

In 1989 I met a friend, RichardRuhling, M.D., outside the New Jerseycampmeeting. He was distributing litera-ture that proved beyond doubt that Jesuswas going to return before the end of1994.

Graham Maxwell wrote in Servants orFriends about a particular verse that is "akey to understanding the rest of Scriptureand God's plan to restore peace in hisuniverse. It is this offer of friendship re-corded in John 15:15 .... Friendship isthe whole purpose and meaning ofatonement."

What's the purpose of this list of"Adventist ideas"? To illustrate the hugerange of thought within Adventism. Thereare some who would like the church toreturn to a supposed golden era whenAdventism was a monolithic, coherentway of reading the Bible and understand-ing the world. To achieve this kind ofuniformity we'd have to get rid of many,

People who worked with H. M. S.Richards, Sr., tell of asking him aboutvarious challenges to historic Adventistbeliefs. Not infrequently, instead of giv-ing them the silver bullet which wouldkill their doubts, he would reply he wasaware of the difficulty and didn't have atidy answer; he just lived with the ques-tion.

I once had a devoted church memberwho was involved with the Shepherd'sRod movement. She believed that VictorHouteff was the prophetic successor ofEllen White.

Recently, a denominational official de-

never get a job as an Adventist pastor.And since then colleagues and employershave confirmed these early diagnoses,using phrases like "off the wall," "march-ing to a different drummer," "different."

So why am I glad to be an employee ofthe Seventh-day Adventist denomination?One reason is my understanding of therelationship between theology and doc-trine. More on that in a moment, but firstseveral vignettes.

I got a phone call the other day from atheologian known for his cogent defensesof the prerogatives and authority of theAdventist system. I've argued with himlong and hard, but this time I listened.He was deeply troubled. His latest re-search was leading him to question thetraditional Adventist (and evangelical)understanding of the Second Coming.What to do?

On another occasion I visited with apastor in the Southwest. As a result ofyears of study, he was convinced life onearth was at least 600 million years oldand that evolution was the process Godused to create all Iife forms.

n seminary, church ministries pro-fessor Don Jacobson called me amaverick. Ivan Blazen remarkedabout my independence when Iwrote my final exam in his class.After writing several pages

exegeting a passage in Romans, I thenwrote something like, "The above is the'right' answer. But I don't bel ieve it. Myunderstanding is as follows." Then I ar-gued again for a position Blazen hadvigorously opposed in class. Other stu-dents reported to me that one day when Iwas absent, history professor MervynMaxwell announced to the class that I'd

81 adventist I volume 10 issue 2

/'

Somehow, the right way must holdchurch and theologians together.

Church history tells us that the interac-tion between the church with itsestablished doctrine and theologianswith their personal visions of God andtruth cannot be reduced to a simple for-mula. Neither is always right; neither isalways trustworthy. But neither is super-fluous. A living, effective church needsboth theology and doctrine. If we try tosimplify things by suppressing either,we'll diminish our ability to do our God-given work .•

tween generations. If we discard our doc-trine, the church will lack the structureour children will need when it comestheir turn to pass on the faith to theirchildren.

Luther remarked that both popes andcouncils contradicted themselves andeach other. He should have added theo-logians to the list. If "the church insession" is infallible, then we must all re-turn to Rome, historically the motherchurch of western Christianity. And iftheologians have the last word, thenwhat do we say about the brilliant Ger-man theologians who advocated Nazism?What do we say about the amateur theo-logians David Koresh and Jim Jones?

On one hand, theologiansmust acknowledge that

the validity and the value ofdoctrine does not depend on thepersonal convictions of theolo-gians. Doctrine is the heritage oftheir community; it is not thefruit of their personal quest. Bytheir very nature, theologians aredriven to proclaim their conclu-sions. But their conclu-sions are not doctrine.

If we are going to have theologians-that is people (amateurs or professionals)who devote their lives to the explorationof words about God-we must expect adiversity of viewpoints. It is a denial ofthe creativity which is part of the imageof God to insist that all theologians agreewith each other or with every point of adetailed doctrinal statement.

At the same time, if we are going tohave a community (and this is indispens-able for wholesome spiritual life), wemust insist that not all the ruminations oftheologians deserve the label "doctrine."In fact, the community must be free toexplicitly label some theology as "maver-ick," "eccentric," "aberrant."

Theology divides usbecause no two theolo-gians agree oneverything. Doctrinecan unite us, even whenwe are arguing with it.The doctrinal core thatthe denomination trans-mits from onegeneration to the nextforms the seedbed fromwhich the infinite vari-ety of our thoughtsemerge. It provides thecommon ground for ar-guments among us, thecommon bond thatkeeps us from degener-ating into a looseaggregation of clever,lonely individuals. Thereis a delicious sense ofadventure in roamingbeyond the confines ofdoctrine.

One's own discoveries are so muchmore exciting than hand-me-downs. Ifwe silence our theologians, the churchwill lose the sparkle and vitality that in-terest our children in spiritual matters.

On the other hand, doctrine is an es-sential part of the glue that holds togetherthe institutions in which most of us ac-quire the skills needed to engage in theadventure of theology. Neutral ize theglue and the institutions fall apart. And ifthe institutions disappear, the church willlose a major part of the connectivity be-

church has already come to believe. Atminimum, doctrine must be supported bya majority of those present and voting,whether we're talking about the Councilof Nicea in 325 or the General Confer-ence at Utrecht in '95.

Theology, on the other hand, becauseit is the work of individuals, is inescap-ably idiosyncratic. It describes oneperson:s understanding of God. Sure, the-ologyis done in dialogue with othertheologians, doctrine, culture, etc. Butstill the finished product expresses themind and heart of one person. Doctrineexpresses the mind and heart of a com-munity.

So how do we connect theology anddoctrine? What should be the relation-ship between the church andtheologians?

On one hand, theologians must ac-knowledge that the validity and the valueof doctrine does not depend on the per-sonal convictions of theologians.Doctrine is the heritage of their commu-nity; it is not the fruit of their personalquest. By their very nature, theologiansare driven to proclaim their conclusions.But their conclusions are not doctrine.Their conclusions may lead to the forma-tion or reshaping of doctrine; but whenthis happens, it is no longer thetheologian's work; it becomes the workof the community.

On the other hand, the church mustacknowledge that the more detailed itsdoctrinal statement, the less it can re-quire theologians to affirm they arepersonally persuaded on every point. Ad-ministrators who insist both on a highlyspecific statement of doctrine AND thepersonal commitment of theologians toevery point in the statement are defininga very,small church, one that will be toosmall for many of our children.

The SDA denomination provides anideological, social, spiritual, and yes,even institutional center from which cre-ative thinkers can and will diverge. Itprovides a nexus, a connective center,through which all the mavericks, eccen-trics, fanatics, and dissidents can connectwith each other and with their parents,children, siblings, and high school andcollege classmates.

.~

volume 10 issue 21 adventist 19

/

/

IIIcause heshowed hischaracter inadmitting thatthe commonmoralityapplied tohimself aswell.

Once whenEllen White'sIiterary prac-tices werequestioned,she was indig-nant andaccused a basically innocent and talentedyoung literary assistant of being proud,ambitious, a "traitor," and at times "verilypossessed by demons." (The Fannie BoltonStory-a Collection of Source Documents,compiled by the Ellen G. White Estate,Washington, D.C., 1982, pp. 41ff.) Boltonwas a recent convert who had worked asa journalist and was perplexed by thepractices carried out in the production ofEllen White's inspired materials. She re-ported: "I am writing all the time for SisterWhite. Most of what I write is publishedin the Review and Herald as having comefrom the pen of Sister White .... I feel thatit is a great wrong that anything which Iwrite should go out as under Sister White'sname as an article specially inspired ofGod. What I write should go out over myown signature. Then credit would begiven where credit belongs." (MerrittKellogg, "Merritt Kellogg Statement,"March 1908, quoted in The Fannie BoltonStory, pp. 106, 107.)

JAMES WALTERS(AS REPORTED BYJAMES STIRLING)

II

An Ethical Analysis of Literary Dependency

weakness. As an example of the first case,he cites Dietrich Bonhoeffer's participa-tion in an assassination attempt on AdolfHitler. Bonhoeffer was deeply committedto the biblical commandment against kill-ing and to a nonviolent approach toquestions of state policy and authority;but because he realized that Hitler poseda threat to millions of people, he felt com-pelled to override lesser conventions offaith.

Bonhoeffer was not evasive about hispart in the attempted murder of Hitler. In-stead, he acknowledged it and explainedthat he did it to try to avert the mass exter-mination of innocent Jews and others. Theworld would later understand and con-done and even praise him for his efforts.

Ellen White, Walters says, similarly sawher mission as involving the saving, in-deed the eternal salvation, of millions oflives. Yet she differed markedly fromBonhoeffer in her attitude toward whatshe had done. She never admitted, in factdenied, her abnormal literary practices.She bridled at every suggestion of literarydependence. Since she did not advancehigher moral principles as justification ofher literary practices, this particular av-enue for clearing her integrity isunavailable.

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" be-

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 reasonsthat seemed morally defensible to them.

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

he great majority of Adventiststhrough the years have sin-cerely believed that the wordsthey read in the writings ofEllen G. White were her own,or even God's words spoken to

her. In reality, however, some direct pas-sages and many ideas and words weretaken originally from the works of otherpeople. Was she plagiarizing in doingthis? James Walters cites dictionary defini-tions of plagiarism to say she was: "Theappropriation or imitation of the lan-guage, ideas, and thoughts of anotherauthor, and representation of them asone's own work" (The Random HouseDictionary of the English Language, un-abridged edition, 1966).

As an ethicist, Walters approaches thequestion not to disparage her as a personnor to excuse or condone her literarypractices, but to examine the problemfrom a mature and honest perspective. Is itenough to say she was borrowing ormerely following conventions of "literarydependency" in excusing her actions?Walters says that to do so is to dodge the

real issue. Is there any way by which wecan separate her practice of plagiarismfrom her person and character?

Can we, in the name of objective real-ity, acknowledge that she did plagiarize inthe full sense of the term, yet remain firmin our belief that she was an authenticprophetess?

101 adventis! I volume 10 issue 2

/

Societal vs. Religious ValuesWhere general ethical norms serve to

promote the larger society's well-being,there can be times when such standardsconflict with practices that promote thewell-being of a societal subgroup. Walterssuggests that such a subgroup was thefledgl ing prophetic movement of wh ichEllen White was the dynamic center. Shebecame their prophet; she had a messagefrom God for the world, and especially forthe church ....

Ellen White was not a scofflaw; she ex-horted her followers to be law-abidingcitizens and opposed falsehood and de-ceit. However, it appears that her firstallegiance was to her divinely foundedchurch and to her prophetic role in it.Her prophetic mindset may have beensuch that the ethical dilemma of truth-in-writing vs. outright deception was not theissue. God had called her to be a "mes-senger" 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 divinely in-spired messages. And this special callingentailed writing-much writing. Surely, atleast at a subconscious level, EllenWhite's visions melded diverse informa-tion into compelling impressions. Theinformation had come from church dis-cussions, personal thinking, and widereading. And these general, divinely im-parted impressions took further concreteform as Mrs. White continued to studyher source material. She was obviouslyself-conscious, defensive, and regrettablydeceptive about her source dependence.But if she didn't use her sources, howcould she be true to her prophetic writingrole, a role she saw as so crucial? ...

Religious Justification InadequateEllen White was 57 years old when ac-

cusations of source indebtedness werefirst made-a woman who had built aprophetic career on skillfully arbitratingbetween factions and in building churchconsensus. She was a churchlywisewoman who surely was conscious of whatshe was doing in her literary work. Herearly paraphrasing may have begun quiteinnocently; but when later accusations

arose, she was overtly confronted with theissue of deception. Her earlier and sim-pler options had vanished. Should sheadmit source dependence and thus thwartthe finishing of God's work-a work sheclosely identified with herself? Evidentlythe compelling end of finishing God'swork justified the increasingly dubiousmeans.

The vehement behavior displayed in theFannie Bolton case seems to betray EllenWhite's deep ambivalence and perhapsguilt in utilizing sources as she did. How-

ever, even a sense of guilt is understand-able if one is choosing a worthy optionthat involves specific wrongdoing, overanother option that is totally unaccept-able. On these grounds, speaking from thestandpoint of a narrowly religious ethic,Ellen White's plagiarism might be justi-fied.

However, any ethical solution that findsits parameters exclusively in the religioussphere is inadequate. The sphere of gen-eral ethics must always be considered aswell. 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 norms

are quite secondary. Fortunately, religiouspersons generally recognize a consider-able overlapping of the two spheres. HadEllen White made her decision on literarypractices in the area of religious-societaloverlap, rather than merely in the reli-gious realm, two benefits would havebeen realized: 1) both church and societywould have profited, and 2) Ellen White'sconception of truth itself would have beenmore adequate ... ?

Had Ellen White been straightforward inher literary practices, the church surelywould have profited over the long haul.

In the final analysis, Ellen White is notso much at fault personally as is the cor-porate church. And perhaps Adventism isnot so much to be morally blamed asempathetically understood-as a maturingreligious child searching for divine secu-rity. Ellen White did provide divine,dogmatic answers to hundreds of greaterand lesser issues, but she was God's an-swer to this movement's basically deepneed for detailed, authoritative "Thus saiththe Lord."

Walters thinks that Ellen White wasclearly ~rong in her plagiarism and fur-ther compromised her integrity bydenying it. On the other hand, she wasbeing basically true to the unique view ofreligious reality that she and her move-ment possessed. But because even thereligious sphere of life can never be theprimary basis for ethical decisions, EllenWhite's deceptive literary practices mustnot be countenanced, although they canbe comprehended. Unless Ellen White isseen as totally self-deluded, her literarypractices do detract from her personal in-tegrity. However, Walters does not believethey destroy it. She was an insightful andcourageous woman who did have a spe-cial and genuine relationship with herGod. Further, Ellen White's prophetic giftfor the 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 .•

james Walters is an ethicist on the Facultyof Religion at Loma Linda University. He isone of the founders of Adventist Today.

volume 10 issue 21 adventist I"

//

ALTON D.

Fundamentalism breeds legalismFundamentalism, as its name implies, is

concerned with fundamentals, or basics.Its thought tends to be concrete, black andwhite, literal minded. To the fundamental-ist, "relative" is a bad word. (It is

vengeance, rather than ondeepening a relationship with

Jesus/which will, of course, lead to thefruit of love, obedience, and other fruit ofthe Spirit. Similarly, political fundamental-ists are fixated on law and order, a strongnational defense, the death penalty, etc.

4. A literal interpretation of the Bible.Religious fundamentalists also believe in"verbal inspiration"-God inspired thewords of Scripture rather than the proph-ets. Thus Standish thinks he has a biblicalbasis for saying that "leadership in thechurch has been given by God to men butnot to women," and "the appointment ofwomen elders [local church elders] hasbrought great grief to God's church andterrible division" (Keepers of the Faith, pp.191,192).

Likewise, the political fundamentalistbelieves in a literal or strict ("construction-ist") interpretation of the u.s.Constitution.

pendence on one"s own good works tomake one good enough to be saved. Suchindividualism can lead to paranoia, legal-ism, and literalism.

2. Paranoid tendencies-"see are therighteous few against the big corrupt Gov-ernment or Denomination."

3. An unbalanced emphasis on "lawand order". To the fundamentalist, the"law" is the "ultimate standard." It be-comes the main inspiration for a person tobecome one's own Saviour: "If I can obeythis standard perfectly enough, then I willbe saved." The focus of the fundamentalistis also on resisting temptation, the punish-ment of sinners, and God's retribution and

Adventist Fundamentalists: more fit forheaven, or just fitting a profile?

As I continued my study and observa-tion of the practices and teachings of theHartland staff and students, a fundamen-talist profile began to take form. Thisprofile characterizes not only Hartlandand others in the right wing of Adventismbut also the "religious right" and the "po-litical right." This syndrome includes:

1. A strong individualism, which canlead to spiritual isolationism (or politicalnationalism) and do-it-yourself-ism. Thisfosters a "saving oneself" mentality-a de-

dent Adventist fun-damentalistministry in Kansas.

Comparing noteswith other pastors, I discovered thatHartlanders were generating controversynot only in my church but in all the localAdventist churches they were attending.(The staff and students di9 not attend aHartland church on Sabbaths; they dis-persed into the Adventist churches in theregion.) As I read Hartland literature, par-ticularly articles by Standish in Our FirmFoundation, it soon became apparent thatnot only was Hartland's spirit exclusiveand intolerant, but its theology was alsooutside the Adventist mainstream.

elder, who was on the staff at Hartland,preached sermons about the "trend in theAdventist church toward worldliness andapostasy." He cited "a west coastAdventist pastor who practiced mass hyp-notism on his congregation," a conferencein the Pacific Northwest that "held a cer-emony to burn E. G. White books," andother such wild allegations, as "evi-dences" of the Adventist church'scondition. During my tenure, the elder left

and was later "or-dained" as anAdventist minis-ter by Steps toLife, an indepen-

hortly after I began pastoring theCharlottesville, Virginia, AdventistChurch, I learned that more thana dozen of my members werestaff and students from a nearbyself-supporting Adventist college

I"d never heard of-Hartland Institute. Itadjoined my church district; so I touredthe campus and met the president, ColinStandish, and other staff members. At thattime Hartland, though unaccredited, hadan enrollment of about 100 Adventist stu-dents from around the world. It offeredclasses in religion, business, education,and other basics.

I was impressed with the earnestness ofboth staff and students and invited Dr.Standish, a former president of ColumbiaUnion College and West Indies College,to preach in Charlottesville. I looked for-ward to working together with Hartlandstudents in community outreach.

Unfortunately, my dreams never be-came reality. I began to hear strange anddisturbing stories and discovered that themorale of my members was low. They sawthe Hartlanders as "carpet baggers" fromout of town who imposed their standardsof morality on the church. Hartlanderscontrolled the church board, SabbathSchool, even church potlucks and socials.Some of my members complained thatHartland students and staff were "running

the church" and "driving people away"with their sincere yet judgmental confron-tations of members and visitors regardingjewelry, dress, make-up, etc. Others toldof a young student from Hartland who, onone or two occasions just before I arrived,had, from the pulpit, enlightened themembers regarding his ongoing battlewith "secret sin." The members and Ifound the spirit of many Hartlanders divi-sive and detrimental to a spirit of love andunity in our local church family.

For example, in my absence, my head

121 adventist today 1 volume 10 issue 2

/

Hartland members because their new pas-tor was young, unordained, and withouttheological training in either an Adventistcollege or seminary. Hartland must havetherefore assumed he would not be in-fected with the New Theology theybelieved to be rampant in Adventist theol-ogy departments. One of the reasonsHartland was founded was to restore andteach the "pure" Adventist doctrines.

At first I could not understand why thePotomac Conference would allow the Or-ange congregation (the majority of whomwere Dr. Standish and his followers) tohave a controlling voice in determiningwho was to be or not to be their pastor,when it was contrary to the recommenda-tion of the North American Division thatHartland not be allowed a controllingvoice in local church decisions. UltimatelyI assumed it was easier for them to transferme out than to "transfer" Dr. Standish andhis followers.

Disheartened and uprooted fromCharlottesville, we moved to our newchurch assignment and began house hunt-ing. However, a few months later, whenmy wife's old job as an editor at a univer-sity became available, she and I left thePotomac Conference. I am no longerpastoring.

Fundamentalism, religious or political, isa permanent segment of the spectrum ofhuman thought and behavior. Of course,not all Adventist fundamentalists are sym-pathetic to Hope International or HartlandInstitute. In many churches, the moremoderate fundamentalists quietly endurewhat they consider to be the too-liberalways of their church-patiently waiting forthe final sifting of the tares from the wheat.

Wherever we may be on the spectrum-Iiberal, moderate, conservative,fundamentalist, or points in between-weshould take to heart the E. G. White coun-sel from Mind, Character, and Personality:"We should love and respect one another,notwithstanding the faults and imperfec-tions [too liberal, too strict] that we cannothelp seeing" (vol. 2, p. 635) .•

Alton Johnson has been a pastor andchaplain in the U.S.A and has been a"dark county" evangelist in Canada,where he and his wife established twochurches.

Crisis at Colin Standish's HomeChurch: Orange, Virginia

When the church at nearby Orange, Vir-ginia, lost its pastor, a General Conferenceauditor had been receiving mileage topreach and cover the Orange church onSabbaths. When the auditor was fired bythe General Conference for alleged mis-conduct, the Orange church was withouta pastor.

The Potomac Conference annexed it tothe Charlottesville church, a thirty-minutedrive away. Although Charlottesville mem-bers were willing to share their pastorwith Orange, the feeling was not mutual.This action by the conference created amajor uproar among Hartlanders who at-tended the Orange church, includingsome who had attended Charlottesvilleuntil they heard my "heretical" series onjustification by faith alone. As further fuelon the fire, a Hartland sympathizer hadmade a videotape (without permission) ofa seminar I'd presented in another churchon this subject. My emphasis was on jesusand his grace-the Root of our salvation.The video was circulated among Hartlandmembers and staff. Colin Standish and hisfollowers were in a furor that this "new-theology, saved-by-faith-alone" pastormight become their spiritual leader.

The conference ministerial secretary in-formed me he would meet with theOrange church the next Wednesdayevening and invited us to attend. Whenmy wife and I arrived at the church, wewere told to wait outside until we werecalled for; but we weren't called in.

Hartlanders spoke out at the Orangemeeting. After the meeting, I was "traded"(against my wishes and the wishes of theCharlottesville members) with the pastor ofanother church-we swapped districts. Thismove pacified Colin Standish and the

don'ts (works and standards) as virtuallythe means or root of attaining heaven waschanging to a grace orientation-a grate-ful spirit, thankful that jesus is the Root ofour eternal life. They saw that when He isin the heart and in the Church, then worksof loving obedience are the natural fruit ofsalvation-but not he root of justification.All was well, until a scandal broke at theGeneral Conference.

Reviving the Charlottesville ChurchMuch of the controversy Hartlanders

were arousing in the churches they at-tended centered upon their insistence that"faith plus works equals salvation." I de-cided to preach a series on this subject,delineating the theological similarities be-tween the apostle Paul, the reformers, andEllen G. White on the one hand (salvationis by grace through faith alone); and, onthe other, Hartland, Our Firm Foundation,and the Roman Catholic church (salvationis by faith plus works). By the end of theseries, very few Hartlanders were still at-tending. They said I was preaching the"New Theology," shook the dust off theirfeet, and left to reform other churches. Anew, peaceful, happy family spirit-asense of relief-was now pervading thecongregation. Members who had beendisplaced and sidelined were once againassuming responsibilities. The preoccupa-tion of the church with lists of do's and

"anathema" [Keepers, p. 75].) Fundamen-talism gives undue weight to the OldTestament concept of "obey and live, dis-obey and die." Since Adventistfundamentalists believe that E. G. White isa true prophet, they would do well toheed her statement that "in order to berightly understood and appreciated, everytruth in the word of God, from Genesis toRevelation, must be studied in the lightwhich streams from the cross of Calvary"(5BC 1137). It is through this revelationthat we must understand and interpret allthat the Old (and New) Testament sayabout God, law, and obedience.

Adventist fundamentalists will selectfrom E. G.White's writings astatement suchas, "We have aheaven to winand a hell toshun." At the

same time, they will minimize her state-ments that express unselfish love for Godand others, a love inspired by his love forus.

Fundamentalists will virtually say wemust love perfectly in order for God tosave us. But apart from jesus, we cannotlove.

--------------------------------]______________ I iI '

, i

II

I

volume ,1a issue 2\ adventisttoday 113

//

obert S. Folkenberg, presidentof the General Conference ofSeventh-day Adventists, re-signed Monday, February 8, ata special meeting of the Gen-eral Conference staff at 11:00

a.m. Eastern Standard Time.Folkenberg, the Gen-

eral ConferenceCorporation, and theInter-American Divi-sion were served asummons and com-plaint with a charge offraud during the lastweek of December1998. Also named as defendantswere Walter Carson, a member ofthe General Conference (GC) le-gal department who once servedas legal counsel and director fora nonchurch organization that hadbusiness dealings with the plaintiff;Ben Kochenower, an accountant notemployed by the church; two busi-nesses: Kanaka Valley Associates (aCalifornia limited partnership; and Shar-ing International, Tennessee), and [John]"Does" 1 through 50.

James E. Moore, a Sacramento entre-preneur, filed the suit on August 21,1998, in the superior court of Californiain Sacramento County.

According to Neil Wilson, formerpresident of the GC, Moore, a non-Adventist, donated shares in some landto the church in the mid-1970s.Folkenberg, who was then in the Inter-American Division, facilitated the gift as

141 adventist today 1 volume 10 issue 2

a benefit to the Inter-American Division(lAD). The lAD felt that the arrangementwas "not reputable," according to Wil-son, and suggested the shares be put intoa small corporation. Folkenberg was partof the resulting corporation established inTennessee for the purpose of safeguard-

COLLEEN MOORE TINKER

ing the property for possible benefit tothe church.

During the ensuing years, Folkenbergcontinued to have business dealings withMoore. According to Wilson and to an-other church representative whorequested anonymity, Folkenberg was in-volved in the establishment of severalmore corporations-some of which grewout of the original deal, and some ofwhich were related to different projects.

In 1989, according to the GC and Wil-son, Moore was convicted of felonygrand theft involving some land dealsand served two years in a state camp.

When Folkenberg became president ofthe GC in 1990, he gave up his officerstatus in the corporations he had formedwith Moore. He continued, however, tohave personal dealings with Moore eventhough he knew of Moore's convictionand sentencing.

Moore's lawsuit was the catalyst thattriggered the discovery of Folkenberg'scontinuing dealings with Moore.

Complicated SuitThe suit-which is complicated and

difficult to understand-says that Mr.Moore "owned an interest in the Kanaka

Valley Associates," which "owned realproperty in California." In May 1993, thesuit states, Moore made a written agree-ment with the defendants and also oneRobert Dolan. (According to a limitedpartnership status report which AdventistToday obtained on January 27, 1999, Mr.

Dolan is the agent andthe fi rst general partnerof Kanaka Valley Asso-ciates.)

Moore agreed to sellhis interest in KanakaValley Associates fortwo promissory notestotaling $8 million. Ac-

cording to the agreement,the two notes were to be trans-

ferred to an offshore corporationcalled Sharing International, Bar-

bados. From there the shareswere going to be distributed to

two other corporations. Fifteen per-cent was going to go to an

organization called Sharing Interna-tional, Tennessee; and 85 percent wouldgo to a corporation called VicariatusUrbis Foundation. (Folkenberg had beenan officer in Sharing International, Ten-nessee, before he became GC president.)

The suit claims that Moore agreed togrant Sharing International, Tennessee,15 percent of the shares because of thedefendants' promises to issue 85 percentof the shares to Vicariatus Urbis Founda-tion. The defendants, alleges the suit,never issued the 85 percent to VicariatusUrbis Foundation. Moore learned of theirfailure to issue the money on or beforeAugust 21, 1996 ....

Ad Hoc Committee Reviews EvidenceAn ad hoc committee appointed by the

GC Administrative Committee met at theDulles Airport Marriott Hotel in Washing-ton, D.C., on Monday and Tuesday,January 25 and 26, to review issues thatwere brought up as a result of the lawsuitand, that could affect the world church.These issues, said Neil Wilson and othersources, involved the nature ofFolkenberg's continuing business deal-ings that grew out of the initial contactwith Moore. The committee's directivewas to examine the evidence and to

/

make a report with recommendations tothe Administrative Committee and the

.world division presidents.On Wednesday, January 27, the divi-

sion presidents joined the GCAdministrative Committee in WashingtonD.C. to hear the results of thecommittee's work and to review theirfindings.

According to a highly placed sourcewho attended all three meetings, the adhoc committee in concert with the divi-sion presidents and the administrativecommittee agreed that the evidence wasserious enough to refer action to the GCExecutive Committee. The AdministrativeCommittee does not have the power tomake decisions regarding the GC presi-dency; only the GC Executive Committeecan do that. The next meeting of the GCCommittee was scheduled for April, butthe church "couldn't wait until April," ac-cording to our source.

A special meeting of the GC ExecutiveCommittee was set for March 1, at whichtime it would make a decision about thepresidency.

In the meantime, our source says, theassembled committees unofficially ad-vised Folkenberg to take time offbetween their meeting and March 1 to bewith his family and to look for work.

Folkenberg "knows it's over," stated oursource. But even though he was on unof-ficial leave, Folkenberg was still presidentof the Gc.

General Conference policy states thatin the absence of the president the secre-tary is next in authority. If there had beena disaster, stated our source, the GCwould have tried to get in touch withFolkenberg. For ordinary business, how-ever, they looked to secretary RalphThompson until March 1.

Folkenberg ResignsOn Monday, February 8, Folkenberg

read a short resignation speech addressedto G. Ralph Thompson, Secretary to theExecutive Committee, in a special meetingof the GC staff convened in the chapel atGC headquarters at 11 :00 a.m. He saidthat the controversy resulting from thelawsuit was detracting from God's work,so he would step down from his office.

liTo avoid additional pain and conflictto my family and the church I love, I amremoving myself from the controversy bytendering my resignation through you tothe General Conference Executive Com-mittee," he said. "I will continue to givemy all to advancing the mission of thechurch, and I pray that through this ac-tion the church can maintain its focus onthe task our Lord has entrusted to us.1I

Thompson, in Loma Linda, California,

for meetings later the same week, spokeat a denominational retiree's luncheon inthe Loma Linda Civic Center on Wednes-day, February 10. In a .short address hebriefly outlined the events leading up toFolkenberg's resignation. He mentionedFolkenberg's continued involvement withMoore. He stated that, among otherthings, Folkenberg had personally (as op-posed to officially) introduced certainAfrican church leaders to James Moore,

but that he had made these introductionson GC letterhead. This action, he said,gave the appearance of a conflict ofinterest.

In a short question-and-answer periodfollowing Thompson's talk, one luncheonguest asked if the GC Executive Commit-tee would elect an interim presidentwhen they meet in March or if theywould elect a president eligible for re-election.

Thompson replied that the committeewould elect a president who would thenbe eligible for re-election in the year2000.

An Adventist Today representativeasked whether the GC would deal withthe employment of Walter Carson, one ofthe associates in the GC legal departmentwho is also named as a defendant in theMoore lawsuit.

Thompson replied that such actionmight be "down the road," but that theGC had no plan to do anything to changeCarson's employment since he "was justthe legal counsel to a corporation thatwas involved."

Legal UpdateThe General Conference Corporation

and the Inter-American Division have re-tained Sacramento attorney PhilHiroshima to represent them. Hiroshima,an Adventist, has handled many of theGC's sensitive cases over the past twentyyears.

Hiroshima has filed a demurrer, whichis a request to the court to dismiss thelawsuit on the grounds that the complaintis insufficient to sustain the claim againstthe GC and the Inter-American Division.

The court will hear the demurrer onFebruary 26, 1999, and in all probabilityit will allow Moore to amend his com-plaint in order to state the.case with morespecificity. If the church or any other de-fendant can show that it or he is notlegally liable lor the charges broughtagainst it or him, the court can dismissthat party from,the lawsuit even if otherparty defendants remain."

Folkenberg's attorney has requested anextension to file a responsive pleading,but the church wants to pursue its defensewithout delay .•

volume 10 issue 2 I adventist today 115

//

ANONYMOUS

grew up in an Adventist home inthe Midwest. From the time I wasa teenager, I knew I was different.I always got along better with thegi r1sthan with the guys, so I hadlots of girls who enjoyed my com-

pany. But I had no desire to know themsexually; they were just close friends.Because I was sensitive to others, I didspend a lot of time in elementary schoolwith a classmate who had been crippledby polio. Not surprisingly I did not ex-cel in sports.

By the time I reached college, I hadexplored sex with those of my genderbut not with the opposite sex. I knew Iwas different and that it wasn't some-thing I could talk to my friends about,but I still did not know that the churchconsidered this to be sin or even thatwhat I felt had a name-homosexual.

I was also pondering what Godwanted me to do with my life. In theeighth grade I had decided to become aheart surgeon, but then during a weekof prayer my senior year in academy Ifelt called to the ministry. Not yet fullypersuaded, the next fall at college I reg-istered for premed classes. By themiddle of that first semester, the conflictbetween my desire to be a surgeon and

the persistent sense of call to the minis-try came to a head. I was confused andasked God to give me unambiguous di-rection. I needed an A in chemistry toget into med school at Lama Linda. If Ididn't get it I would know I was calledto the ministry. (This was one of twotimes in my life that I have asked Godfor a sign, and his answers seemed to beclear both times). When the gradescame out, I had missed an A by 12 outof ~ total of 1000 points possible.

161 adventist today I volume 10 issue 2

To be a minister I had to be married.For the next two years I dated a differentgirl every week or two. By the end of myjunior year I was steadily dating the girlwho would become my wife. But I wasconcerned about my same-sex feelings.When I sought answers I was told it wasjust a phase, and that when I met theright woman everything would fall intoplace.

I did marry a wonderful girl, but theorientation did not change. I went toseminary then into a pastorate. I wasvery successful and loved my work morethan words can describe. But still, I hadmy orientation to deal with.

Over the next fifteen years, nearly ev-ery week I was in the office of a pastoror psychologist looking for help tochange my orientation. I tried fastingand prayer. I tried behavior modificationtechniques in a highly touted changeministry. I even tried exorcism. But noth-ing worked. I often left a "help" sessiononly to find the struggle more intensethan ever.

Finally, my wife, seeing that nothingwas going to change, filed for divorce. Itwas the end of the world. My marriage,my close relationship with my son whowas the joy of my life, and my ministrywere all finished. I attempted suicide.

Unsuccessful the first time, I madeplans for a second attempt. However,

when it came time to follow through, Icouldn't. Sitting there, I decided that mylife would end in God's time, not mine.

During the twelve years since leavingthe pastorate, I have gone through tre-mendous struggles to know who I amwhile holding onto my faith in God anda relationship with the church. Aftertwenty-five years in desperate pursuit ofthe miracle of "change," I eventuallyhad to accept the fact that I am a homo-sexual. Whatever relationship I havewith God and his church must of neces-sity include that inescapable fact. I haveheard stories of "change," but I can onlybear witness of what God has done forme. He has not changed me. I prayedand fasted, sought counseling and thehelp of the most highly recommended"change" ministry. Others prayed forme, supported me, anointed me, evenperformed an exorcism. But God did notchange me. Instead he loved and ac-cepted me.

To be sure, there have been times whenI wondered if God was really there andcared and whether the Adventist churchwas really a place for me to find spiritualsupport. But I am grateful for where I amnow-at peace with God and living a ful-filled life-balancing work, an active rolein my local Adventist church (somethingmany gay Christians find impossible), andservice to my community .•

systeconstituency. That article was eventuallyeliminated from the document because ad-ministration feared it would lose control.

The Tempe case underscores the urgentneed for an independent judiciary at eachlevel of church government to resolve oth-erwise unresolvable issues without bias orfavoritism, in a way that is not only fairand just but also is perceived to be fairand just. Such a system would enhancerather than diminish the role of adminis-tration in the life and mission of thechurch. It would prevent conflict-of-inter-

included an article that provided for an in-dependent judiciary composed ofdedicated, competent, respected persons tobe elected at the same time and in thesame manner as other conference officersand like them, to be responsible to the

est situations. It would spare administra-tion the unhappy necessity of makingdecisions that tend to undermine respectand confidence in church leadership. Itwould enhance confidence in the integrityof administrators and thus tend to unifythe church.

An independent judiciary has been amajor factor contributing to the success ofthe American system of government; itcould do the same for the church. As his-tory has demonstrated, the twin autocraticprinciples-"the divine right of kings" and"the king can do no wrong-" are incom-patible with democratic principles and ademocratic society. As the Tempe lawsuitunfortunately demonstrates, they areequally inappropriate and counterproduc-tive in the governance of the church .•

Raymond Cottrell is the Editor Emeritusof Adventist Today.

On .catoreconflict of interest that would tend auto-matically to result in a decision againstAC. The effect of this conflict of interestbecame painfully evident at the AC con-stituency meeting early this year.

Why, then, did the litigants not appealto the next higher echelon of church orga-nization-the North AmericanDivision-to mediate or adjudicate thedispute? The answer is simply that there isno adequate mediation or adjudicatorymechanism in church polity by which thedivision or even the General Conferencecould do so.

The United States constitution providesfor a separation of powers-legislative,administrative, and judicial-with a sys-tem of checks and balances that preventsanyone of the three from exercising arbi-traryauthority. Each is independent of theother two, yet subject to them. This inde-pendence invests the verdicts of theSupreme Court with a level of credibilitywe accept as a practical working arrange-ment even when we dislike its decisions.

In striking contrast, the Seventh-dayAdventist hierarchical system of churchpolity gives administrators almost com-plete legislative and judicial, as well asadministrative, authority. There is no effec-tive separation of powers. Those whomake policy administer it; and whenquestions arise as to whether they havedone so properly, they are the ones whosit in judgment. There is no independent,and thus credible, adjudicatory apparatus.

Why has the church not developed acredible adjudicatory system? As a mem-ber of the Southeastern CaliforniaConference Constitution Committee from1986 to 1992, I was asked to draft theconstitution under which the conferencehas operated since 1989. My original draft

entities of the Pacific Union Conference(PUC), why was the PUC not able to re-solve this issue in a way acceptable toboth? One reason is that the president ofthe PUC is also the chair of the AHS/Wboard, a fact that inevitably gives rise to a

RAYMOND COTTRELL

ur July-August issue presentedstatements by the Arizona Con-ference (AC) as plaintiff andAdventist Health System/West(AHS/W) as defendant in a casebefore the Maricopa County Su-perior Court in Phoenix.

Each claims jurisdiction over pro-ceeds of the sale of TempeCommunity Hospital (TCH) to St.Luke's Hospital of nearby Phoenix.

In essence, the crux of the issue iswhether the arrangement by which thehospital became a member of what isnow AHS/W in 1973 involved a transferof ownership (as AHS/W maintains) or anagreement by which AHS/W was to oper-ate the TCH for the conference (as itmaintains).

Both Iitigants agree that proceeds fromthe sale were dedicated to the medical!health outreach of the church in Arizona.Subsequently AHS/W invested the pro-ceeds in an Arizona project that failedfinancially. AHS/W maintains that thefailed project fulfilled its responsibilitywith respect to investing the proceeds inArizona; the AC maintains that in accept-ing management of the hospital, AHS/W

is still obliged toestablish and op-erate a medicalor health-ori-ented facility inArizona as origi-nally agreed, orreturn proceedsof the sale to theAC for that pur-pose.

There are sev-eral as yet

unresolved questions, and a judicial deci-sion in the case has yet to be made. In themeantime it is appropriate to ask why theconference considered it necessary totake AHS/W to court-why the issuecould not have been resolved amicablybetween thelitigants themselves, or by arbitrationwithin the church. This is probably thefirst time one entity of the church has en-tered into formal litigation with anotherchurch entity.

Inasmuch as AC and AHS/W are both

volume 1O"issue i I adventist today 117

/

he Challenge"Either you think or you be-

lieve; you can't do both."Says who?Powerful voices in our cul-

ture, maybe the whole culture,that's who. For Adventists, it's a dilemmathat looms, haunts, lurks and mocks-you pick the verb. It's an urgent issue onevery Adventist campus, a tension felt inevery Adventist home.

I've heard the "educated" voices. I'veread their views in print:

"It's no longer necessary to convinceeducated Englishmen of the 20th cen-tury that..."

"I didn't think even Evangelicals be-lieved that any more ... "

"As every schoolboy knows ...""Carl Sagan says that only those with

an IQ between 85 and 120 can believe.If you're lower than that, you're notsmart enough to believe; if you'rehigher, you're too smart..."

"Either you pursue the truth and de-stroy the church; or you give up thesearch for truth to preserve the church."

Those were all educated voices, somequite sophisticated. C. S. Lewis notedthat the company of unbelievers makesfaith harder, even when their opinionson any other subject are known to beworthless. True. And when the unbeliev-ers' opinions are known to be highlyvalued instead of worthless, we feel very

vulnerable indeed. None of us takeskindly to condescension or scorn. No-body wants to be dumb. Nobody.

In some ways, the tension betweenthinking and believing is a modern phe-nomenon; at least the stakes are muchhigher now than they used to be. In thepast, great th inkers were revered asgreat men of God; the scholar and thesaint could happily live inside the same

lsladventist today I volume 10 issue 2

ALDEN THOMPSON

skin: Jerome, Augustine, Wycliffe,Luther, Calvin, and Wesley. Now, itseems, one has to choose.

I don't like the choice. Not at all. Iwant to think and believe. And I believewe can do something about it-morethan just huddling together after dark totalk about this funny business of beingeducated and Adventist.

But before we consider ways of savingthe marriage, a glimpse of history willhelp us understand how the two part-ners have drifted apart. And it's not justan Adventist problem. I don't know ofany church that has a tidy solution.Church historian Mark Noll, one of thefirst "evangelical" scholars to gain re-spect in the "secular" academiccommunity, bluntly addressed the prob-lem in his book, The Scandal of theEvangelical Mind (1994). Noll arguedthat believers simply haven't developedgood universities.

For me the issue was cast into bold re-Iief several years ago when theacademic dean from Whitworth College(Spokane, Wash.) told our faculty that ofall the Presbyterian colleges founded inthe 19th century in the U.S., onlyWhitworth has retained an explicitChristian identity. All the others havegone secular. In our own town,Whitman College is a constant reminderof that phenomenon: a respected liberalarts college with a handsome endow-ment-a kind of west coast ivy-leaguecampus.

Ironically, the most persistent echo of

its Christian past is in the name of itsathletic teams, the Whitman "Missionar-ies."

Adventists still have a cluster of col-leges and universities. Some are at risk;each is struggling in its own way. Buteach is still fully bonded to the church.That's good. The challenge is significant,however, and deserves our careful atten-tion.

Diagnosis: Historical PerspectiveOur dilemma can be variously de-

scribed: faith vs. reason; grace vs. freewill; divine sovereignty vs. human free-dom. In the end, the tension is rooted inthe ambivalent human response to au-thority: from fear and submission on theone hand to hostility and rebellion onthe other. If fear destroys the spirit of in-quiry, rebellion elevates it to the point ofarrogant independence. Thus the bibli-cal ideal of authority as something thatliberates and enables is replaced by aview of authority as something that re-presses and restricts. On such a view,authority must either be passively ac-cepted or totally rejected. But todescribe the biblical ideal positively interms of "enabling" already betrays mybias; the rebel sees only "repression" ("Itis time this scriptural tyranny was bro-ken," shouts a cover blurb onDeceptions and Myths of the Bible,1975, 1995). And the war rages on.

At the risk of oversimplifying, it canbe said the fruit of the medieval periodwas a church that restricted human in-

/

---------------------------------------

,

cusing on the importance of the indi-vidual experience. That's good.

Finally, I would suggest that the realreason for the war between faith and rea-son is the powerful impulse from bothright and left to take Scripture as a finaland absolute revelation of God. Both ex-tremes assume that if God were to revealhimself, it must be in absolute terms. Theleft rejects such a position and the rightdefends it, and neither one is really hear-ing Scripture.

Adventists can walk a middle way.When Ellen White said that "God andheaven alone are infallible," she was rec-ognizing that Scripture points towardGod but is adapted to catastrophic hu-man circumstances and limited humanunderstanding. Some may say that "suchan expression is not like God." No prob-lem, for "God has not put Himself inwords, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in theBible." And that's because God inspired

the "person," not the "words." Scripturepoints to God but is never the same asGod.

The brokenness in our world touchesall authorities, and they fall short of per-fection. But they are still our authorities.The Bible is no exception. If Adventistscan make peace with the Bible, we canhelp the world make peace with theBible-and thus find peace with God, aGod who took human flesh so that wemight live forever.

That's an exciting mandate forAdventist education .•

Alden Thompson, PhD., is Professor ofBiblical Studies at Walla Walla College.

It would appear that whileGodwas willing to risk his

own name by'allowing repentantsinners to work for him, the churchis more concerned to protect its"good name!' If God gives men andwomen a second chance,why can't the church?

capitalize on significant cultural trendsthat are making it easier to think and be-lieve.

Two British authors deserve a greatdeal of credit: G. K. Chesterton and C. S.Lewis. Lewis described Chesterton's TheEverlasting Man (1925) as "the bestpopular apology for Christianity." Thoughcertainly no Fundamentalist, Chestertonwrote just as Fundamentalism was reach-ing its peak and provided believers withunderstanding as well as ammunition.He noted that the drive against traditionalreligion was fueled by "a particular moodof reaction and revolt," with predictableeffect on the ability to be evenhanded:"An iconoclast may be indignant; aniconoclast may be justly indignant; butan iconoclast is not impartial. And it isstark hypocrisy to pretend that nine-tenths of the higher critics and scientificevolutionists and professors of compara-tive religions are in the least impartial."

Beginning in the 1940s,first by radio and then inprint, the brilliant and de-vout university man, C. S.Lewis, introduced millionsof readers to the Iife-trans-forming power of Jesus inhis Mere Christianity. Hehimself had once been anatheist and spoke candidlyof the uncertainties on bothsides of the divide: both thebel iever and the atheist havetheir moments of terrorwhen the other's positionseems so temptingly true.

Today, I see several hopeful impulses inthe broader culture: a touch of humilityamong scientists, a renewed interest inmystery and spirituality, a readiness tohear the message of Scripture without in-sisting that it be merely a human book onthe one hand or an absolute reflection ofGod on the other.

Adventists, Iike other conservativeChristians, are inclined to focus on theerrors of dominant cultural trends. Yetthese trends often correct previous ex-cesses. Just as the Enlightenment helpedbreak the hammerlock of church author-ity, so Postmodernism is loosening thegrip of Enlightenment rationalism by fo-

Rescue and Rehabilitation?Can the marriage be saved? Indeed.

And I believe Adventist education can domuch to brighten the corner where weare. We can't go far if we go it alone. Butour unique heritage, our commitment to"sanctified reason," will enable us to

quiry in the name of God. In 1633Galileo was forbidden to see what hehad already seen, and Galileo was

. "wrong" until Rome finally declaredhim "right" in 1992. No wonder the En-lightenment announced theindependence of human reason, rulingthe divine out of court.

Culturally, however, believers stillheld the upper hand. At the beginning ofthe 19th century, atheism was seen asalmost a form of insanity. With referenceto the Bible, Sir Walter Scott could say:"Better had they ne'er been born, thatread to doubt or read to scorn."

But by the beginning of the 20th cen-tury, the tables had turned in "educated"circles: atheism was assumed; belief wasscorned. Speaking of the Bible, the greatAmerican poet Wallace Stevens ex-claimed: "I'm glad the silly book isgone." By the 1920s, Fundamentalismhad sent "believers" and "thinkers" intoopposite camps. We're still paying theprice.

The Adventist scene is particularlystriking, for our schools were estab-lished right in the middle of this war,shaped by a prophetic mandate in thename of God. Ellen White called for therule of "sanctified reason." Fundamen-talism has left its mark on us, to be sure.But I'm convinced that without the pro-phetic ministry of Ellen White,Adventists would have no schools andwe would simply be a tiny sabbatariansect with a footprint similar in size tothat of the Advent Christian Church orthe Seventh Day Baptists.

Instead, Adventism is a tumultuous,unruly body, struggling with problems ofdiversity and church polity, burgeoninggrowth and unsettling decline. I think allthis tumult and frenzy is linked in partwith Ellen White's dictum, that "Christcan be best glorified by those who servehim intelligently."

volume 10 issue 21 adventisttoday 119

//'

I was extremely disappointed that thechairman of Wednesday morning's sessionchose to prevent delegates from makingany further amendments. I know he hadgood intentions, but it had the effect ofsuppressing discussion that needed to takeplace. I was unhappy about that and com-plained about it on the floor. I had to missthe afternoon session and was very disap-pointed to learn that the whole thing hadbeen sent to St. Louis without any kind ofa vote.

AT: Do you think that the documentcould have been finished if they had con-tinued to proceed through it the way they

started underKloosterhuis the daybefore? It was goingquite slowly.

GH: Yes, I do. Ofcourse there was alot of disagreement;but as I saw it, almostall of the oppositionrevolved around justtwo sticking points:First, I Corinthians7:10-15, which refersto abandonment by anonbeliever as a ba-

sis for divorce; and second, concern bysome that the document lacked an under-standing of role differentiation inmarriage.

If we had justdealt with those twoissues head on,rather than trying toevade them or sup-press discussion, Ithink the rest wouldhave been fairlyeasy. I was certainlyready to accept thechurch body's deci-sion on those two issues either way.

AT: So you return after the Wednesdayafternoon business session only to dis-cover that the matter has been tabled untilSt. Louis. What happened next? Did any-one contact you from the North AmericanDivision?

GH: No.AT: Do you know anybody on the di-

vorce and remarriage commission?

HOKAMADENNIS

floor during the business sessions of Thurs-day and Friday Uuly 6 and 7) have had adramatic impact on this session, and possi-bly on the world church. Your actions wereobviously well planned, because thegroundwork for your motion on Fridaymorning was laid down on Thursday after-noon. As we watched events unfoldingfrom the press box, we could not help butwonder just how much planning went intothis, and what you were expecting to ac-complish. Samuel Pipim characterized theseries of events as a "slick parliamentarymove" from the floor a few minutes afterthe divorce and remarriage amendmentshad been passed due to your actions.

GH: Well, the issue of divorce and re-marriage is one I have had to deal withcontinually throughout my ministry. It is anissue that cuts across all cultural, racial,and geographic lines. I felt it was crucialthat we made progress on our biblical un-derstanding as well as the practicalministerial procedures of dealing with thisissue.

motion to cut off all debate, even as an-other delegate stood at another mikeready to propose an amendment to it.Both motions passed with little opposi-tion. A document that had been left fordead after two days of intense wranglinghad been resurrected and passed in aboutten minutes.

On Sabbath afternoon, July 8, AT spokewith Garry Hodgkin about his role in thedramatic events of the previous morning.Elder Garry Hodgkin is the President of theSouth New Zealand Conference in theSouth Pacific Division.

AT: Elder Hodgkin, your actions on the

Icountries in the Seventh-day AdventistChurch.

Much to the chagrin of many NorthAmerican Division (NAD) delegates, thedecision on the divorce and remarriageamendments to the Church Manual hadbeen deferred for another five years onWednesday afternoon of July 5. The "GCBulletin" for July 5 trumpeted this decisionunder the heading "Meet Me in St. Louis:Divorce and Remarriage Document Re-ferred."

But during the business session on theafternoon of July 6, Hodgkin announcedfrom the floor that he would move to re-scind that action and give delegates achance to vote the entire document up ordown. The announcement was evidentlynoticed by very few of those who hadbeen most vocal in opposition.

Hodgkin was the second person to themike at the business session on July 7. Hismotion to rescind passed with little oppo-sition. His subsequent motion to pass thedocument was swiftly followed by another

n July 18 Garry Hodgkin was atthe epicenter of the most electri-fying moments of the 2000General Conference (GC) ses-sion. He was the architect of thedramatic reversal of the decision

to refer the divorce and remarriageamendment to [the 2005 GC session in]St. Louis. Although the specific issue overwhich this dispute took place was divorceand remarriage, perhaps this incident,more than any other, symbolized the ten-sions between the East and West, betweenliberals and conservatives, between thedeveloping countries and developed

GRAND REVERS L AT THEGENERAL CONFE ENCE:

20 ladventist today Ivolume 10 issue 2

//'

your motion (i.e. explaining confidentlythat the motion to repeal needed only asimple majority because it had been an-nounced previously), he seemed to have

been expecting it.CH: I had provided a notice

of intention to move such amotion (the floor was expectingit); therefore, I was not sur-prised that the chair was also"ready with his ruling."

AT: When you went to themike, did you already havesomeone prepared to secondyour motion?

CH: Yes. By then, somepeople in my division wereready to second my motion.

AT: So you were surprisedthat all debate on the issue wascut off after you made yourmotion to accept the divorceand remarriage document?

CH: Yes I was! When I cameto the SkyDome that morning, Icertainly expected more dis-cussion than actually occurred.

As far as the conclusion of debate isconcerned, I am really looking forward toseeing written record of the dialogue inthe Adventist Review. I am very interestedin observing the process that leads to the

final ization of this debate.AT: The vote then was passed with little

opposition. How did you feel then?CH: I was very surprised. I had recog-

nized that there were those who wouldnot support my motion. I had not at-tempted to "enlist support" from any otherdivision and had spoken to no more than6 to 8 people in my own division, yet themotion passed .•

Dennis Hokama was the AdventistTodaynews editor at the time this article waswritten.

not provided], the other side of the coin isthat those who might oppose the proposi-tion have opportunity to prepare theircase and ensure delegates are present. I

CH:I had provided a no-tice of intention to move

such a motion (the floor wasexpecting it); therefore, I was notsurprised that the chair was also"ready with his ruling." AT:When you went to the mike, didyou already have someone pre-pared to second your motion?CH:Yes. By then, some people inmy division were readyto second my motion.

believe this is fairer than moving an"unnotified" rescind motion.

AT: Judging from comments made bydeveloping-country delegates from thefloor subsequent to that action, and theapplause they got from the stands, it is ap-parent that they think they weresnookered. So far I have heard at leastthree delegates-Pipim from African In-dian Ocean, Louny Morales and HectorHernandez of Inter-America- complainabout what they feel was an unfair vote. Ihave heard both Hernandez and Pipimsay that only about 150 delegates werepresent out of the 2,000; whereas therewere at least 600 when it was referred tothe manual committee.

CH: Yes, I know that some feel this way;however I must emphasize that this wasnot an attempt to "snooker" anyone. Thatwas the opposite of my intention. How-ever, I reject the number of 150. I believethe number to have been much closer tothe 500-600 that appeared to be presentat most of the business sessions.

AT: On Friday morning you made yourmotion as planned. Judging from the wayFollett made his comments upon hearing

CH: No. Nobody contacted me aboutit. I had a burden for this issue, andwanted to return home feeling as if I haddone my job as a delegate. Leaving a mat-ter as important as this unresolved foranother five years without even givingthe delegates a chance to vote on it was,in my opinion, unacceptable. So Idrafted a motion of what I thoughtneeded to be said. Then I consulted withLaurie Evans, my Division president, asto the wording. Finally I consulted withAthal Tolhurst, the secretary of the consti-tution and bylaws committee, to makesure that I was on sound parliamentarygrounds. I spoke with nobody else. Therewere two parts to my announcement onThursday afternoon.

First, I announced my intention tomake a motion to rescind the actiontaken on Wednesday afternoon to referthe proposed divorce and remarriageamendment to the manual committee. Ifthat motion passed, it would put thatdocument on the floor in the condition itwas prior to its referral. Second, I an-nounced my intent to call for a vote toapprove that document in its entirety. Thatmeant the document as it had beenamended prior to the start of the businesssession on Wednesday morning.

AT: Did you think that your motions hada reasonable chance to pass?

CH: No, I didn't. I assumed they wouldbe crushed. But I wanted to go home feel-ing I had done my job.

AT: At the time you made your an-nouncement on Thursday, I understoodthe basic idea of what you intended, but Ihad no idea of its underlying parliamen-tary significance. That was very clever.

CH: (Hodgkin shakes his head in frus-tration) I must emphasize that this actionwas not intended as a "parliamentary tac-tic." I believe very strongly in open, fair,and complete debate. In the preamble tomy "notice of intent," I observed that notall delegates were present; therefore, Iasked the chair for permission to providenotice to the session of my intended mo-tion.

Providing notice is a "two-edgedsword." While it is true that a "notified"rescind vote requires a simple majority,[as opposed to 2/3 majority if "notice" is

volume 10 issue 21 adventisttoday 121

/

BY BERT HALOVIAK

America's right-wingfundamentalists.Adventists believedthat thegovernment's rolewas to protect free-dom, not to enforcerei igious moral ity.

Morgan in the TrenchesIn total, Morgan offers a trenchant cri-

tique of a detailed, eschatologicalpredictive scheme. Here are a few Mor-

Some limitationswithin the SDAPredictive Focus

While the Adventist eschatologicalschem.a has tilted the balance somewhatfavorably toward positive ethical contri-butions to the American Republic, itsfocus upon a detailed predictive schemeof last-day events has resulted in somefailures of ethical responsibility:

1. Adventist predictive eschatology leftno possibility for a nuanced relationshipto Roman Catholicism.

2. Adventist predictive eschatologyprecluded political activism in reactionto slavery. Convinced that America'smoral state was irreversible, slavery wasfated to exist until the parousia. Adventistwork, in contrast to rhetoric for formerslaves, did not begin until the 1890s.

3. Adventist predictive eschatology inthe 20th century, inhibited desegregation,bred complacency toward racism, fos-tered sexism, denied equal wages forwomen, and fostered harmful attitudestoward eschatological "revisionists."

Some Positive Contribu-tions of the SDA"Pre-dictive" Schema

Here are a few of thepositive contributionsnoted by Morgan:

1. Adventist predictiveeschatology led to con-cern for oppressedminorities andmarginalized groups inAmerican society. This fos-tered strong andconsistent action in behalfof rei igious liberty.

2. Adventist predictiveeschatology thrustAdventists into the midstof some of America'sgreatest ethical dilemmas."From slavery to imperial-

ism to Prohibition, Adventists hadsomething to say about what faithmeant," says Morgan(p 71).

3. Adventist predictive eschatologykept the church from aligning itself with

REVIEW

God's people, overwhelms all relation-ships between Adventists and America.

It is this interpretation of Scripture thatunderstands the United States as an ulti-mately evil entity that has both spurredand hindered ethical involvement.

As Morgan's subtitle-"The Public In-volvement of a Major ApocalypticMovement" -suggests, Seventh-day Ad-ventism has not retreated to anentrenched position but has made enor-mous positive contributions to the world.

,

ok re

, , I believe Morgan's handlingof Ellen White offers us a

way out the cycle of Adventism'spredictive eschatological scheme.While Morgan has noted that EllenWhite places a lasting, authorita-tive stamp on Adventism's apoca-lyptic view, in his analysis, Morganoffers an extremely helpful per-spective of Ellen White herself notbeing bound by her ownwritings.outlined, an ugly, frightening beast over-powers, almost swallows the twostructures.

Adventism's interpretation of theUnited States as a destructive power, sup-posedly predicted by Scripture to oppose

n a succinctly written history ofSeventh-day Adventism inAmerica, Doug Morgan weavestogether two major themes thatprovide a basis for understand-ing and evaluating Seventh-day

Adventism.The Adventist predilection for fore-

casting the future through a detailedapproach to eschatology becomesone grounding theme for studyingAdventist history from 1844 to thepresent.

Morgan's second theme examinesAdventist history through the lens of itsethical involvement in society.

In his handling of the interrelationshipbetween those two themes-Adventism'sapproach to eschatology and its involve-ment in ethics-Morgan has made alasting contribution to understanding theessence of Seventh-day Adventism.

The jacket design of Morgan's book un-derscores his themes.

While the U.S. Capitol and Washing-ton Monument stand tall and carefully

22!adventist today I volume 10 issue 2

/

gan-in-the-trenches quotations:1. "The Great Controversy remains a

thoroughly antipapal document-not justwith reference to the past but in its de-piction of an end-time conspiracy againstliberty-and thus offensive to many, nomatter how presented" (p. 186).

2. "The billboard embarrassment didnot deter the Adventist mainstream fromthe course it had pursued .... In regard toapocalyptic prophecy, then, the differ-ences between the far-right fringe ofAdventism and the mainstream leader-ship were more methodological thansubstantive" (p. 187).

3. "Defense of the controversial book(The Great Controversy) indicates that thechurch's theology of history perpetuates asectarian distance from the dominantculture" (p. 195).

Morgan and the Progressives orRevisionists of Adventist Apocalyptic

I consider Morgan's chapter 6, "A Plu-ralistic Remnant," encompassing theyears 1976 to 2000 as the most "fun"part of a provocative book.

Here come such "revisionists" as Rich-ard Coffen, Jonathan Butler, Charles Teel,Roy Branson, Chuck Scriven.

They are shown by Morgan as movingto revise the traditional Adventist apoca-lyptic scenario to give it ethical relevancein today's needy world.

Morgan considers them "voices callingfor a new and progressive involvementwith social issues" (p. 125). And theymade themselves heard.

These well-educated, progressivescholars "reappropriated" the Adventistapocalyptic heritage by emphasizingtheir view of apocalyptic eschatologythat did not center upon eschatologicalprediction. They utilized apocalyptic as a"resource for social ethics," says Morgan(p.182).

How that story works out in its chal-lenge to the church leadership tendencyto focus upon the so-called "distinctive-ness" of the church's identity isfascinatingly told by Morgan.

Possible Discussion Issues1. Morgan omits discussion of shut-door

theology of the 1844-1851 period. Wouldnot such analysis somewhat explain whyJ. N. Andrews and the rest of Adventismsaw no reform possible for the two-hornedbeast? Had not the U.S. political systemal ready passed its period of probation?

2. Morgan seems to place the Adventistapocalyptic schema on a level of doctrine.Should the Seventh-day Adventist systemof interpretation be seen within that per-spective?

3. In his last paragraph, Morgan speaksof the Adventist "commitment to libertyand a pluralistic public order" that definedtheir vision of a truly "Protestant" America(p.212).

How is limiting Adventist commitmentto liberty for "Protestant" America reallypluralistic?

Morgan and a New Paradigm for SDAApproach to Eschatology

I believe Morgan's handling of EllenWhite offers us a way out the cycle ofAdventism's predictive eschatologicalscheme.

While Morgan has noted that "EllenWhite places a lasting, authoritative stampon Adventism's apocalyptic view" (p. 25),in his analysis and handling of variousepisodes, Morgan offers an extremelyhelpful perspective of Ellen White herselfnot being bound by her own writings.

Ellen White implied a recasting ofapocalypticism in her responses to the ex-tremism of A. 1. Jones regarding Africanland grants, in the issue of the presentnessof the formation of the image to the beast,and to the issue of not directly challengingSunday legislation by urging Adventists toavoid intentionally working on Sunday.

In his concluding remarks, Morgan callsfor an in-depth analysis of The Desire ofAges in tandem with that of The GreatControversy. If taken up, such analysiswould cert~inly pave the way for a greatlyneeded Christological perspective withinthe Adventist approach to eschatology. Hisdream for an Adventism of the future is foran Adventism built upon a more healthycorrelation between its apocalyptic ori-gins and an optimum future for the worldbuilt upon the eschatology inaugurated byChrist. •

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 4The SDA church is founded on the

principle that God has revealed him-self to us in the Bible. It is ourresponsibility to carefully consider hisword and to act in accordance withits requirements. It is not a "nice"book that can be read selectively forself-help, while parts of it are re-garded as fable because they seeminconvenient. If one sentence is de-clared to be less than true, thenwhere do you stop? Is the next sen-tence true? Or should it be thrownout as well? Since the standard forthis is the opinion of finite man, theword of Infinite God becomes of noauthority.

If any part of the Bible is not true,then you have no assurance of salva-tion. That rests on the trustworthinessof God. If he lied in his Word aboutpast eyents, then how can you besure that he told the truth about Jesus'atoning sacrifice? Your assurance de-pends on the utter truthfulness of theBible. And this is what ATS upholds.

By contrast, Alden Thompson'sbook Inspiration declares that parts ofthe Bible are not true. And this is thepattern of the articles in Adventist To-day. The Creation account is relegatedto the dustheap of fiction, eventhough there is good evidence for itstruthfulness. (See my article, "A Sci-entific Paradigm for the GenesisFlood," in the latest Journal of ATS.)Faith is only as valuable as the truthof its object. If you believe in the fal-sity of Genesis 1-2, then your faith inthe cross is worthless.

I do not say these things to beharsh. Rather, the truth is unyielding.God makes exclusive demands, aspointed out by Ravi Zacharias in"Jesus Among Other Gods." I know inwhom I have believed. Do you?

Ted Noel, MD I Maitland, Florida

volume 10 issue 21 adventist today 123

/

clean unworthyRICHARD TINKER

ne of my earliest memories is my mom tellingme to get ready for Sabbath. I had to pick up mytoys, change my sheets, shine my Sabbathshoes, layout my Sabbath clothes on the foot ofmy bed, and most important of all, take mybath. I scrubbed off all the accumulated dirt of

the last couple of days, and even had to wash my hair. Iwas squeaky clean. Friday night I would crawl in.be-tween those fresh sheets in my clean pajamas feeling soclean and pure-so ready to be in God's presence atchurch the next day. It really felt good.

The next morning, after a hearty breakfast, lwould putmy Sabbath clothes on. These were clothes that I onlywore to church on Sabbath. I had a Sabbath suit, shirt,tie, shoes, and even socks that never saw the light of dayexcept on Sabbath. Soon I was alLdressed up and evenhad Brill Cream in my hair forthat great, greasy look. Iwas all ready to go to church. I had not a spot or blemishanywhere. I was perfect.

Is our focus on being cleaned up when we go tochurch teaching us something that isn't true? I would liketo propose that for some, this practice of cleaning up forchurch has taught that God only accepts people andtheir worship if they are good-on the inside and theoutside. They spend a lot of time making their outsideslook clean and spotless so that they can come into God'spresence. At church, everyone looks so righteous. Whoneeds Christ's robe of righteousness when we all look sogood?

Nowhere does the Bible say that we have to purify our-selves, to become clean on the inside or outside, beforecoming to Christ. But many don't want to be in Christ's

presence if they feel unworthy. They don't realize that inJesus' presence they can rejoice in the gift of the whiterobe of righteousness that he gives freely to anyone whowi II accept it.

Jesus' parable of the wedding feast illustrates howfreely he offers his righteousness to cover our blemishes,and how free of conditions is his call to us.

"Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding banquet isready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. Go tothe street corners and invite to the banquet anyone youfind.' So the servants went out into the streets and gath-ered all the people they could find, both good and bad,and the wedding hall was filled with guests. But whenthe king came in to see the guests, he noticed a manthere who was not wearing wedding clothes. 'Friend,' heasked, 'how did you get in here without weddingclothes?' " (Matthew 22:8-13).

Both good and bad people were at the wedding ban-quet. The condition for being there was not theirgoodness; it was their acceptance of the free weddingclothes.

From beginning to end, the Bible tells of God's love forus and of his longing to make us clean. He doesn't ask usto clean ourselves. Rather, "the Spirit and the bride say,'Come!' And let him who hears say, 'Come!' Whoever isthirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him takethe free gift of the water of life" (Revelation 22:17).

Jesus opens his arms to all and says come. Come withyour dirty insides and outsides. Come with your unwor-thy feelings. Come with your pain. Come as you are. Hehas the perfect solution for our dirt: his perfect, whiteand clean robe of his righteousness. he says, "Come." •

/'