|
The idea of holding a 50th Anniversary Questions on Doctrine conference
emerged two years ago in discussions between as Julius Nam, who had recently
completed his doctoral dissertation on QOD, and Michael Campbell, who was
still working on a dissertation which involved this issue. Since I had
published my book, Questions on Doctrine Revisited shortly before
Julius took his doctoral orals, he contacted me to see what I thought of the
idea. I was delighted with it. Of course, all three of us realized that such a
meeting could spark intensified conflict. But we also believed it was time for
such a conference and went to work preparing a proposal to present to
representatives from the Biblical Research Department, Andrews University, and
Loma Linda, where Mike directed the Ellen G. White Research Department and
where Julius, then a professor at PUC, would soon be called as a professor in
the Religion Department.
Julius and Mike did the contact work in preparing for a mid-April, 2006
meeting at LLU with Angel Rodriquez, BRI chairman, and representatives from
LLU and Andrews. John McVay missed the meeting because of a plane delay, but
did affirm our unanimous decision to approach the General Conference for their
support and Jerry Moon, Chairman of Church History at Andrews University, with
a request that his department join Julius and Michael in organizing it. Though
at the General Conference there were fears that it would set off "wild
fires," BRI, Andrews, and LLU responded to the proposal as an idea whose
time had come and agreed that we should attempt in this way to put the
conflict of the past behind us. Though the General Conference did not feel
free to sponsor it financially, in addition to Andrews and LLU, Oakwood
College decided to help sponsor it.
Our purpose was to bring representatives from key lay groups that had been
actively involved in the conflict together with those of our various
educational institutions so as to permit each view to be clearly expressed. It
was not our purpose to seek unanimity on any issue, but to encourage
representatives of all sides to listen to each other, as well as to share
their concerns. Our hope was that each would be responded to courteously and
thoughtfully.
It was not without some fear that the meetings proceeded with very earnest
instructions that there be no clapping or other manifestations of approval or
disapproval to various speakers during their papers. However, following each,
whatever the view presented, there was a hearty clap of appreciation. Not only
did we sense the presence of the Holy Spirit, but it seems the Lord had so
prepared the hearts of participants that the initial emphasis on the necessity
for a dignified, scholarly discussion was hardly needed. Indeed, the contrast
between past experience and the serene and Spirit led discussions, which
virtually all felt were long over-due, was vividly high lighted by the
confession of one person involved in organizing and administrating the
conference that he had carefully instructed the sound people to immediately
cut the mikes in case of open conflict.
Besides keynote presentations by Herbert E. Douglass, George R. Knight, and
Angel Manuel Rodriguez, 24 papers 25 to 30 minutes in length were presented
and each segment of three to five was followed by a panel of those presenters
who responded to written questions. The first two keynote speakers reflected
different orientations; but there was an amazing underlying harmony of
understanding, indicating a broad area of agreement related to conflicting
views. More important was the unity of spirit evident as these views were
openly presented. Dr. Rodriguez’s message on Sabbath morning, after all
presentations were completed, was a beautiful call to unity in worship to
which every participant could and did heartily respond. It was based not on
the doctrines of the nature of Christ and atonement, which were the primary
issues, but was a call to contemplate the actual incarnation as Christ humbled
Himself before the entire universe in providing atonement for a fallen race.
A measure of the Spirit’s presence during the conference was His blessing
in the foot washing in preparation for the communion service. Before and
during that service a number of participants who had been involved in
conflict, each earnestly defending a vital point of truth, met together in
confession and repentance. Thus, the Lord’s supper proved to be one of the
most moving I have experienced. All I talked to felt the conference was both
timely and a success.
Since our conflict began as a result of discussions with Evangelicals and
was more or less public and since they would not only be interested but would
no doubt be reporting their opinions of it, we felt best to include
representatives from them. As a result we heard from Kenneth Samples who, as
his protege, took the mantle from Walter Martin, and from Donald Dayton, a
recently retired professor who had a friendly relationship with Andrews and
some of our men. This proved to provide an excellent balance, as the
backgrounds and perspectives of the two were very different, Dayton coming
from an Arminian background and Samples from a more Calvinist orientation. It
was good for them to listen, as well as speak, as participants freely
expressed their varied convictions in a spirit of good will and humility.
According to Sample’s testimony, this overall view of our different concerns
left them with respect not merely for those with whom they agreed more closely
but for those furthest removed from there own, also differing, positions.
Yet, as blessed as our conference was, the real impact remains to be seen.
I was blessed by each presenter and identified in important respects with all,
as each freely expressed his in some ways markedly different concerns. But
that is exactly what we wanted. Thanks to the hard work of the numerous
individuals involved in organizing it and an atmosphere testifying to the
Spirit’s presence, there was a beautiful spirit of seeking unity of persons
even where there were significant differences in perspective.
I found the degree of unity in concept, despite significant differences, to
be significant. But more important was the respect and appreciation received
by each person and each view. We will never achieve unity of theology until we
are united in heart and have as great a concern for the unity for which Christ
prayed as we do for purity of truth that, in the same prayer He declared is to
sanctify His people (Jn 17:11-23). Both are very important. Indeed, a focus on
unity without equal focus on truth can only result in a compromise which
violates truth and the conscience and, at best, can only result in temporary,
superficial unity and one not directed or approved by the Holy Spirit. But
neither can the Spirit bless a focus on truth without corresponding
determination to seek unity. He alone can lead us individually and corporately
into all truth.
Unfortunately the Spirit has long been delayed in fulfilling His commission
to lead us into a unity in truth that will prepare us to proclaim the loud cry
of the latter rain. He must wait for us to adopt His methods and permit Him to
give us the loving spirit and attitudes toward those with whom we differ. I
believe we are on the threshold of that break-through.
Yet, the battle for unity in truth is far from won. The real test came not
in the conference, but remains before us, as we each return to those who trust
us individually and have been inclined to distrust all others. Without mutual
trust there can be no meaningful fellowship. Yet trust must be earned and can
be developed only in fellowship.
The challenge is to begin by trusting the Holy Spirit so as to obey the
instructions of the Bible and spirit of prophecy in relating in love to each
other and, while sharing concepts together, making no effort to enforce our
own perspectives but, rather, praying earnestly for an openness to each other,
even as we make ever greater commitments to God’s Word as our only authority
for belief and behavior.
Meantime, we must be neither surprised nor unduly distressed if there is an
immediate flare up of conflict in some areas. Indeed, those who report the
meetings may well find themselves in conflict within their own group, which
may see a positive report without a decision favoring their concerns as
evidence of compromise. We must pray one for another, as it is almost certain
that some of our participants will both undergo serious internal tension as
they seek to comprehend the meaning of our meeting. This may be intensified by
sincere parties in their own segment of Adventism who fear compromise and may
even perceive our meeting as a means of hood winking. It is impossible that
the conflict of half a century cease as the result of one long week-end of
meetings. Indeed, if it appears that certain participants are sharpening their
theological swords and axes let us not return blow for blow, but intensify our
prayers for them and recognize that they may be in a very difficult position.
Finally, I would like to say that there must be no compromise of
convictions on any side. Seeking unity without compromising is not only
essential to the integrity of each one, but also to our corporate integrity
– as well as to the fulness of truth itself. I personally believe that each
defends vital principles that must not be compromised. I am also certain that
when these principles are expanded and placed in balance, we will find each to
be an important part of a dynamic unity of truth which, when fully rounded
out, will go to the world like wild fire, resulting in the final harvest of
souls which will permit the judgment to close and Christ to return. May we
persevere in a focus upon truth and unity that will permit God to hasten that
day.
A retrospective report written November 4, 2007
|
