So there would appear to be guilt enough for everyone. What shall we now say to the world?
It is doubtful that Seventh-day Adventist world leaders can adequately deal with a problem of this magnitude by making the traditional scholarly statement that we are " not comfortable" with the conclusions reached by Dr. Froom. The seriousness and the scope of the misunderstanding that has been created would seem to require an announcement that while we recognize that Dr. Froom and his companions set before the world a statement that. they believed to be correct, nevertheless continuing investigation and research have rendered their conclusions untenable.
What shall Dr. Martin say to the world? We will not presume to speak for him, but it appears that some kind of a corrective statement is indicated. Will he then proceed to re-designate Seventh-day Adventists as a "cult"? That question must be settled in his own conscience. For my part, I must confess that my powers of comprehension are not equal to the challenge of understanding the thinking of a theologian who would read the following Bible verses and then denounce the members of a Christian group who desire to accept them as they are written, without emendation, as a cult.
Concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh. (Romans 1:3)
God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh (Romans 8:3)
For both H e that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one; for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren. (Hebrews 2:11)
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same. (Verse 14)
He took on Him the seed of Abraham. (Verse 16)
Wherefore in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren. (Verse 17)
For we have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but was in all points tempted like as we are. (Hebrews 4:15)
... was made in the likeness of men. (Phil. 2:7)
Those who question whether Paul's expression in Romans 8:3, in the likeness of sinful flesh, might mean only an apparent likeness and not a real likeness should ponder carefully the results of consistently applying that interpretive principle to Phillipians 2:7. The church struggled with this question in the Christological controversies of the early centuries of the Christian era and finally, firmly rejected the idea of apparent but not real likeness as a faulty Christology, resulting from a wrong understanding of Paul's word " likeness," and not compatible with the true Christian faith. Should we gratefully accept their interpretive principle , that Paul's Greek word homoioma means real and not only apparent likeness, as we look at Phillipians 2:7, then reject the same principle as we look at Romans 8:3?
The conclusion that these verses may be properly understood to mean that Christ came to the earth in the nature of fallen man, rather than the nature of the unfallen Adam, appears to me to be not an unreasonable, much less a cultic conclusion. But I must live with my conscience and let others live with theirs.
And what shall the present generation of Seventh-day Adventists say to the world? We may avoid direct primary responsibility by pointing out that we were not party to the original discussions and conclusions. But what is our responsibility now?
At the risk of offending the non-Adventist readers of this paper, I would like to introduce an illustration that I think will be meaningful to my Adventist readers. When we Adventists discuss our understanding of the Sabbath with non-Adventists, one of the questions most likely to be asked is this:
What of my grandfather (or grandmother, or father or mother, etc.)? He (she) was a sincere Christian, but did not keep the Sabbath. What about him (her)?
Times without number, we have answered the question with an illustration that is hoary with age, yet still effective. It goes like this:
Let us suppose that your grandfather owned a country store, and that on a certain counter he had a mark for measuring off yards of cloth. He sold yardage according to this measurement for twenty years. Then you inherit the store and sell yardage in the same way for ten more years. But one day a customer returns to the store and complains that the yard of cloth she bought from you was only thirty-five inches long, not thirty-six.
You are indignant. You point out, with feeling, that your grandfather sold yardage according to that mark for twenty years, and yourself for ten years, and that no one has ever made such a complaint before. Your customer replies that she is not impugning the moral integrity of either your grandfather or yourself, but she would appreciate it if you would check that measurement on the counter.
From another part of the store you secure a yardstick, lay it on the counter, and experience a shock. It is true. The "yard" measurement is only thirty-five inches long! The carpenter who installed the counter had apparently made a mistake. So now we ask:
Was your grandfather guilty? No. He didn't know.
Have you been guilty? No. You didn't know.
But now, what is your responsibility? How many more thirty-five inch yards can you sell without being guilty?
The self-evident answer is always quickly forthcoming. Not one. Not a single yard.
As I see it, the responsibilities of the present Seventh-day Adventist scholarly community are these:
1. Verification of the findings of this paper. The conclusions of one person should not be accepted without question, even though they are my conclusions, lest we run the risk of repeating the same regrettable experience that now confronts us. In order to facilitate this work, I have been careful to include magazine column numbers in my documentation. I feel that the process of verification can therefore be done in a relatively short time.
2. When these findings have been verified, a properly corrective statement should be presented to the world.
3. An extensive re-education process within the Adventist church should be undertaken without delay. The dimensions of this problem are indicated by the fact that the erroneous statement was first prepared and published by seminary professors, and that they and their successors presented it to students who are now teaching in Seventh-day Adventist colleges and preaching in Seventh-day Adventist churches. Thus the confusion has been compounded. Yet I believe that an adequate correction could be made within a relatively short time . It has taken almost thirty years for the situation to reach its present degree of tension. I doubt that more than a year or two would be required to set the matter straight. Our church members, generally speaking, have not been caught up in this misunderstanding to the extent that our seminary and college communities have been.
But it will be necessary for us to address ourselves to an awesome question: Are we capable of admitting that a mistake has been made? Human nature recoils from such a responsibility.
Let us, while struggling with this question, consider the example of some of the Jewish leaders in the time of Christ. According to Ellen White's analysis, they first rejected the shepherd's story about the birth of Jesus from conviction, believing that it could not be true. But later events convinced them that it had to be true. Yet, rather than accept the humiliation of admitting that they had been mistaken, they chose to crucify Christ. To such lengths human beings may go in order to protect their reputations.
Are we capable of admitting an error?
Think it over, brother scholar, brother teacher, brother preacher. Think it over.
Special Note For Church Members
If you who are members of the Seventh-day Adventist church are convinced, as I am, that the situation before us needs to be corrected, will you please reflect with me about the manner in which the correction can be accomplished.
Can we expect our administrators to take the lead? Not really. They are like the rider who comes into the circus ring standing with each foot on the back of two different horses. Naturally, their chief concern is that the horses stay together. To initiate an action that they would see as a potential danger to the unity of the church would be very difficult for them.
Our church pastors? They are between a rock and a hard place. Even though they might be convinced by the evidence that a correction is needed, they also know that if they try to initiate a change without administrative support, they will be branded as "controversial " and " divisive," and this can be professional suicide.
Our educators? Of all our church workers, they are the most deeply involved in the problem. The error was transmitted to them through academic channels, apparently with the stamp of denominational approval. They have passed it on to their students. Administrators and pastors might be able to stand aside from the issue, but educators cannot. Their students pose questions that they must answer, and so they have made public and written statements defending Questions On Doctrine. It would be deeply embarrassing for them to now retreat from these positions.
So who is left?
You.
You have freedom of action. You are not hampered by the organizational restrictions that limit the freedom of our church workers. My hope is in you. Ours is a democratic organization, and we should all try to move together.
As I write these words (March, 1986), the people of the Philippines have just provided the world with an impressive example of what can be accomplished by an aroused public opinion. Do not misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that anyone take to the streets or agitate for a change in leadership. Those methods are for the world, not the church. And changing leaders at this time would accomplish little. Few, if any, administrators would be willing to move out very far ahead of their people on an issue of this kind.
What, then, can we do?
Educate, educate, educate.[1] The evidence speaks for itself. Argument is not needed. No scholar would dare to defend the procedural irregularities in the Questions On Doctrine statement about the humanity of Jesus, and the records of history cannot be controverted. Our problem is simply that we have not known these things. We have focused our attention on the thinking of Calvin and Luther and have neglected our own theological history.
And please, my fellow-believer, do not entertain suspicions that the problem before us is a lack of integrity or sincerity. In the spring of 1985 an Adventist minister from Australia spoke at the Seminary chapel in the Philippines where I was teaching. A student asked him what the Adventist ministers in Australia were teaching about the nature of Christ. As I listened to his answer, I realized that if the same question had been put to me ten years ago, I would have given exactly the same answer that he was giving. In effect he said:
If you want to know what we are teaching about the nature of Christ, look at Questions On Doctrine.
Ten years ago I would have given precisely the same answer.
The point I am trying to establish is this: Insofar as I am able to judge, I was no less earnest and sincere ten years ago than I am today . My problem was not lack of sincerity. It was lack of information. I had been given no opportunity to examine the evidence. I believe the same is true of most of my fellow workers in the Adventist church. Let us not suspect, much less accuse, anyone of insincerity. Having completed forty years of service to the Adventist church, I will here state with conviction that I regard the "workers" of the Seventh-day Adventist church as among the most sincere and most dedicated individuals to be found anywhere in the world today. I have counted it a privilege to live and work among them.
So let us educate, educate, educate. Let the evidence speak for itself. Try to avoid argument. When you have read this book, share it with someone else. Lend it to your pastor, and let him know how many of your fellow members are as concerned as you are about the purity of our faith. Let the evidence work like a leaven throughout our entire world church. When enough people have seen the evidence, we can be sure that the right things will be done. We need entertain no doubts about that.
I am optimistic about this. I believe our church is going to correct its course and go on to fulfill its God-ordained destiny . I have had the temerity to predict that there will be at least a hundred million Seventh-day Adventists waiting for our Lord when He returns. But that is another subject.
Courage in the Lord!
Note: