Chapter 5

David Lin

THE Seventh-day Adventist system is slowly recovering from a major operation: the removal of a malignant tumor with attendant dangers of proliferation and metastasis. In one sense we may call it a victory, because at least we got rid of this festering sore which was poisoning the whole body. But we must also confess that we were not alerted in time, but had let it develop to dangerous proportions before taking action. We have therefore suffered serious losses, and the enemy exults. It is time we tally up the score.

What are some of the basic factors involved? Since this was an internal issue, we should examine ourselves for the cause of our failure. A government official in a certain country in the Far East once had a talk with a Seventh-day Adventist and made a concluding remark which hits the nail on the head. He said, "You Adventists are overly honest." He said this because, as he saw it, we actually believe everything the Bible says and behave accordingly. Such "naivety" is rare indeed in this crooked generation. And this peculiar Adventist trait accounts for the Glacier View fiasco.

We succeeded in removing a cancer. But the process which led up to it was an exposure of our naivety. The Chinese have a saying that in a game of chess, the onlooker has a better grasp of the situation than the contestants. It might be so in this case. On one side of the chess board was Desmond Ford, and on the other the committee of 120. And after the game was over, Ford exulted over the fact that his 120 antagonists had been pulled over to his side, because "the brethren had made tremendous progress in the past few days and that the church's position was closer to his than it had ever been before. He expressed the thought that if we have come thus far in four days, imagine how far the church will go in four years in changing its position." Ministry, October 1980, pg. 9

In this four-day tussle, Ford imagined himself acting Martin Luther's heroic part at the Diet of Worms. He stood his ground and declared staunchly, "Hier stehe ich; ich kann nicht anderes!" And as the curtain drops, Ford retains his championship title among his many followers who regard the General Conference leadership as having played the part of medieval inquisitors. "Hail the master of Adventist destiny Desmond Ford!" they shout. A "Giant" Tackles 120

Upon reading the Special Sanctuary Issue of the Ministry, one is impressed with the surprising extent to which our leading brethren leaned over in order to be agreeable. In addition to being overly honest, they were overly gracious. Moreover, the much ado, long delay, and heavy financial outlay in arranging for an imposing array of scholars and theologians to tackle the problem seemed out of proportion to its magnitude. Their published reply added nothing substantial to what had already been said by the papers published by diverse parties in Australia and the United States in refutation of Ford's glaring heresies. The mustering of such a strong task force to engage a foe who was in fact already beaten polemically served only to strengthen him in his obstinacy and to lend new luster to the puffed-up image of Desmond Ford. "Behold," his rooters exclaimed, "our champion can tackle 120 men single handed!"

On October 27, 1979, at a meeting of the Association of Adventist Forums a wolf, who had passed as a sheep among us for some 30 years, at last cast off his sheep's clothing and bared his fangs. And yet strangely enough, our leading brethren would not believe his open challenge, but would give him time and help to write out his erroneous views and make sure he did not agree with us. "Let us examine you carefully," said the shepherds to the wolf. "Are you a wolf indeed?"

Now it is clear that the six-month "incubation" period played into the hands of the Fordites, who took advantage of this period of indecision to engage in extensive barnstorming, while the anti-Ford forces were handicapped by the fact that he still retained his credentials. By the end of this period he had improved his strategic position and his forces were mobilized for action, while we found our own morale weakened by the unrealistic desire to win him over by being sweet and kind. We expected him to give in on a few points and "accept counsel" in a brotherly spirit. But to our dismay he was unrelenting and aggressive. Why? Because he had already mustered a formidable backing among our ministry and laity, and was confident of victory. He was not at all in a negotiating frame of mind, but determined to force his errors upon us and to remake the church after his image. For he was already flying in the dizzy heights to which his supporters had exalted him: the only man who could save Adventism! Throughout the conflict he was on the offensive and we were on the defensive. He had much to gain regardless of the outcome, and we had just as much to lose.

The reluctance of our leaders to treat Ford as an open foe even in the face of his bold attacks against the fundamentals of our faith may be attributed in part to sentimental reasons. Old friendship ties blinded their eyes to his true identity. As we overdid ourselves in being honest, generous, and fair, it eventually dawned on us that he was employing the double-dealing tactics of the arch-deceiver. But hence we can recover some of our lost ground: We owe it to our constituency to unmask the real "Des"--to give wide publicity to all his underhand doings and foul play. This tactic will help to convince his deluded followers of their wrong course more effectively than scholarly dissertations on the meaning of "tsadak." Because many people still think he is an honest man.

Another probable cause of our excessive concessions to this dangerous apostate in giving him time and help to disseminate his heresies before withdrawing his credentials, is that his sympathizers and secret supporters in the General Conference Committee could have deliberately agitated and engineered decisions in his favor to contribute toward his success.

A third cause of our reluctance to remove this cancer before it had grown to frightful proportions is that we were deceived by appearances and worldly considerations, supposing that his "magnetic personality," scholarly attainments, and speaking ability were indispensable assets to the denomination. We forgot our dependence on the Spirit of God for true success. We admired this talented personality and allowed our admiration to benumb our sense of our duty to defend the purity of our faith. Many yielded their judgment to his, assuring themselves with the thought: "Such a learned and powerful preacher can't be wrong!"

Are we too harsh in our judgment? No. We are just putting the right tag on the right man. John did so when he called Judas a thief. John 12:6. Jesus stated the truth by calling him the "son of perdition." John 17:12. And we may truly call Desmond Ford a first-rate actor. He has acted the orthodox Adventist admirably for thirty years and gained so many fans that he now feels it is to his advantage to cast off the Adventist guise and play the part of an opponent. He can thus gain the applause of the popular churches in addition to the adulation of his Adventist entourage, and ascend another rung on the ladder to fame.

This assessment is no exaggeration. Ford himself admits he has been acting all along. He didn't believe the sanctuary truths as we do when he applied for baptism, nor ever afterwards. "In his Pacific Union College presentation Des noted that beginning in the 1950s he had said as much about these ideas as he could and had published a few articles that touched on this problem. But he knew, he said, that "if I was very frank it would never be published." Ministry, October 1980, 5. Then for about thirty years he deliberately avoided giving voice to his true thoughts, and practiced hypocrisy to win popularity. He well knew what a good Adventist should believe and say, so he carefully acted his part and waited for the opportune moment to change costumes. Anyone who doubts this assertion need only to compare the books he wrote before October 27, 1979 with his open attacks against our fundamental beliefs since then. Before 1979 he played Dr. Jekyll. Now he is Mr. Hyde. That is the reason we say he is a good actor.

But the strange thing is that after he had publicly declared himself to be our enemy, we still took him to be our friend. We still flattered him with such words as, "Please come with us, Des. For the sake of the church and its people and for your own sake. Your ministry is of great value to the church." Ministry, October 1980, 9. "Des, I know you are a man of integrity. . . . Our great desire is to see you preserved for the ministry." Ibid, 10. These words would have been appropriate before he made his open challenge. But after he has denied the doctrinal positions he held when he acted the orthodox Adventist and has demonstrated to all that he worked under an Adventist camouflage and duped us all those years, how can we still believe in his moral integrity and want to retain him in the ministry?

Look at this spectacle: one hundred and twenty men meeting in earnest, to discuss theology with a man who did not even seriously believe in God--at least not in the God we know. His "god" is a poor frustrated being whose prophecies have fallen through. The second advent of his "Christ" has been strangely delayed for 19 centuries and perhaps forever. The four-day session failed to make this "Adventist" infidel budge one inch, but only helped further to publicize his legend: "One man wins the tug of war against a hundred." "Yes," he triumphs gleefully, "I pulled them over this far in four days. Think what will happen after four years!" Can't you see the fiendish glee behind his dove-like smile? Because we still took Ford seriously and believed him an honest man, he felt encouraged in his fraudulent course, and despite that he had openly denied many orthodox views once published under his own name, and thus laid bare his naked dishonesty, he still had the nerve to say that he must "be true to his conscience. He could not lie." Did you hear that? A liar said he could not lie! Yes, but he was acting.

We come back to the game of chess: When one contestant follows all the rules of the game and the other violates them at will, then the honest man is bound to lose. That is what happened at Glacier View. Most of us had been fooled by Ford's superb acting and labored under the impression that he was a man of integrity. The words of The Desire of Ages, 719, are fitting here: All this was done by Judas in such a way as to make it appear that he was conscientious. . . . Thus in a very religious, and apparently wise way he was presenting matters in a different light from that in which Jesus had given them, and attaching to His words a meaning that He had not conveyed.

Because we treated a wolf as though he were a sheep right up to the end of our encounter with him, he artfully performed the part of a sheep. Hear this wolf actor bleating: Again he expressed his regret and sorrow for the trouble he had brought to leadership. He ventured the opinion that the relationship between himself and the church was not greatly sundered and declared he would do what he could to prevent rupture. Ministry, October 1980, 9

How kind of him! But what were his true feelings? He flattered himself that he enjoyed a big following; he took pride in his academic awards and despised the church administrators who, he thought, were poor theologians. He was planning not only for rupture, but for a sweeping takeover! His appetite was voracious.

Mourning for Absalom

When David wept for Absalom, everybody was sure he loved his son, but his love was misplaced. He should have loved God and His people more. Joab set his thinking straight with these words: Thou hast shamed this day the face of all thy servants, which this day have saved thy life and the lives of thy sons and daughters . . . in that thou lovest thine enemies and hatest thy friends. For thou hast declared this day that thou regardest neither princes nor servants; for this day I perceive, that if Absalom had lived, and all we had died this day, then it had pleased thee well. 2 Samuel 19:5-6

Desmond Ford was a typical Absalom, drawing away the hearts of God's people. His charisma was employed for selfish ends, and if it had continued to develop, the results would have been catastrophic. His departure was not to be lamented. We should rejoice that this cancerous growth that threatened our very existence has been removed. On the other hand, we must regret that our leading men did not detect and treat this malignancy before it had made such disastrous inroads into our system.

The analogy with Absalom is not, after all, applicable in every detail. Desmond Ford is not dead, but very much alive and doing his best to draw away more disciples from among our ranks. This second phase of our struggle is bound to be protracted and distracting. We must put forth intensive effort in the work of disinfection.

We need to ascertain the extent of the influence of Fordian heresies within our ranks. Why have we given Desmond Ford grounds to say that our statement of "Fundamental Beliefs" voted by the church at Dallas showed a definite shift away from Ellen White's interpretation in the area of the sanctuary? And he observed that the statement on the sanctuary voted at Dallas says nothing about two apartments in the heavenly sanctuary. Was this a deliberate concession on our part to accommodate the Fordian heresy and preserve an appearance of unity? Does this apostate still have sympathizers and secret agents among our leading men?

Our struggle with Desmond Ford reached its climax at Glacier View. Who knows there will not be an anticlimax? And even a succession of climaxes?

June 1981

RETURN TO INDEX