Chapter 6

David Lin

THE April 1981 issue of the Sligoscope published an article entitled "Can We Trust Our Theologians?" by James Londis. It represents a reaction to what he calls "the present dilemma in Adventism vis-a-vis Des Ford."

This article is unique in three respects. (1) It explicitly denies but implicitly affirms the existence of "an elite corps of theologians" in the church who comprise an "expertise" in matters of faith and doctrine. (2) It claims that "Ford's right to raise questions and offer solutions without fear of reprisal is an important one for most scholars." (3) It deplores the present state of Adventist theology as "only adequate for a certain level of discussion, the level at which Jehovah's Witnesses and fundamentalists do their work," asserting that "If we do not, so to speak, get our act together theologically, many scholars believe that Adventism will not be a viable option in the twenty-first century for anyone but the most simple-minded. Like the Amish we will be a curiosity with interesting practices that few take seriously."

Londis claims to speak for Adventist scholars, but we believe that the majority of truly learned men among us do not accord with his attitude toward conscientious Adventist youth and our brethren in administrative posts. He speaks disparagingly of "students wet behind the ears theologically and intellectually." He says, "Many church administrators do not feel at home discussing theological issues because they have not had the education preparing them for such discussion." The natural conclusion is, Our young people should keep their mouths shut on theological issues, and our church leaders should submit their decisions on doctrinal questions to our "experts" for final approval. Londis says, "On these occasions when a confrontation with the accuser does not settle the matter, church leadership must arrange for a hearing involving a scholar's peers. People out of their depth in these matters should not be deciding what to do; judgment must be reserved for one's peers and it is up to church leadership to respect and trust such a judgment."

Anyone reading these words cannot help being struck by Londis' academic pride and absolute contempt for his less-educated brethren. This attitude is not the hallmark of a true scholar. The Chinese have a saying that a full canister makes no sound, but one half-full will rattle. And the loudest rattle is this concluding remark: "Give trust and freedom to our scholars, and the uniqueness of Adventist thought may yet shine in all its brightness."

Londis labors under two misapprehensions: (1) that our scholars have no freedom and are not trusted, and (2) the "uniqueness of Adventist thought" has heretofore never shone in all its brightness, but the new elite corps of modern Adventist theologians, if given trust and freedom, will make it shine at last.

He is talking of an imaginary situation. For Adventist scholars have always been free to choose between truth and error. If any one thinks that Adventism is not the truth, he is free to repudiate it and openly to denounce it, but he should not then call himself an Adventist, or receive Adventist pay to teach non-Adventist doctrines in Adventist schools. Secondly, the "uniqueness of Adventist thought" (this is Londis' nomenclature for what we call the third angel's message) has been a shining light ever since the inception of our movement, but if any man is blinded to its light by a worldly outlook and imagines himself sinking to the depths of the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Amish, then we advise him to abandon ship before his fears come true. Face-lifting Adventist theology won't save him.

Londis is most articulate in depreciating the Adventist faith, dubbing it "a patchwork theology that is inappropriate for the main work of the church." He compares it to a "patchwork rug" that fits only in the recreation room. The implication is that this useless article should be scrapped and our theological experts should undertake the "creative, constructive theological task" of weaving a new rug that will fit in the parlor. Just how beautiful this new rug will be is a matter of conjecture, but we can get an inkling of its pattern in these words:

Many scholars will agree that Ford has raised important questions (and he was not the first to do so) that must be addressed with openness and candor, but they will also agree that the theological task arising out of these questions has barely begun. Some believe Ford's proposals are inadequate, even misplaced at times, both in areas of righteousness by faith as well as the sanctuary. They believe that the creative, constructive theological task is in the embryonic stage and that if we don't lose our nerve, Adventism's greatest days of proclamation are in the future.

From these words we gather that, if given opportunity, Londis and his like propose to base their "creative,

constructive theological task" on the "important questions" Ford has raised, make up for the "inadequacy" of his proposals, replace the "misplaced" ones and thus break out of the embryonic stage. Not a word is said about combating Ford's errors, because Londis apparently sees no errors in Ford's proposals. On the contrary, they will probably form the embryo of the new Adventist theology and eventually lead up to "Adventism's greatest days of proclamation." By that time the antiquated "rug" we now have will be relegated to the rubbish heap--if Londis' dream comes true.

Londis informs us what theology is and what it is not. It is not "merely proving a collection of doctrines from texts of Scripture." (All who do this are simpletons, not theologians.) "Theology is the task of interpreting the will of God for the whole of human existence as we experience it." (This interpreting is the task of experts; and because our pioneers did not have the benefit of such expertise, they failed to interpret the will of God for the whole of human existence as we experience it. The best they could do was to sew a patchwork rug.) Londis says, "Detailing the ritual and furniture of the sanctuary is not theology; it is biblical history. Only when we show how the symbolism of the sanctuary service helps us understand God's will for us now, helps us grasp the reality of his purposes for the whole cosmos, does the work of theology begin."

Impressive verbiage and scholarly, to be sure, but not a word about the three angel's messages and the investigative judgment. (These are just unsightly patches in that old rug.) Here Londis gives us a sampling of what we will be confronted with when and if he and his peers begin "doing theology" for us. We will have to grapple with such vague abstractions as "the whole of human existence" and "the reality of God's purposes for the whole cosmos." A liberal spate of such sophisticated verbosity will perhaps impress other theologians that we are their equals, but the third angel's message will be swamped and finally liquidated by this flood of "words of wisdom."

Londis continues his snubbing of the less educated in these words: "It may be possible that the smoke of dissatisfaction is coming from the fires of ignorance." And, "the only reason so many can assume we have all the answers is that they have never heard all the questions!" We call this mystification. And we ask him in return: "Have you heard all the questions? If so, please initiate us into one of them and tell us your answer."

"No," he would say; "if I told you, you would not understand. It is beyond your depth. You are not my peers; I discuss theology only with my peers."

To be frank, we feel chafed and humiliated. But our curiosity will not rest. He has whetted our appetite, so we must probe into these profound questions known only to experts. We insist on discovering just how mystifying they are. Are we indeed so hopelessly ignorant? Yes, Londis says, we should trust our theologians to tackle these problems, "simply because they deal with issues many do not understand." But the more he harps on our ignorance, the more eager we are to try our teeth on what the elite alone claim to comprehend. Doesn't he also say that "theology is the task of the whole church"? How then can the whole church do theology if we are barred from taking part?

Since Londis' remark about "a hearing involving a scholar's peers" has reference to Desmond Ford, we conclude therefrom that he regards himself as one of Ford's peers. For he appreciates the "important questions" Ford has raised. Here we should discover some of the matters too deep for common Adventists to comprehend.

Scanning through the October 1980 issue of Ministry, we come across a word which strikes us with awe--"apotelesmatic," the "apotelesmatic principle." Indeed, this looks like a term reserved for experts--out of our depth. The magazine explains that "This principle simply means that any given prophecy can have two or more different fulfillments in history." Now let us see how Ford employs it. On page 32 we read:

The above quotations allow for about a dozen possible fulfillments of Daniel 8:14, demonstrating that this text, according to Dr. Ford's manuscript, has come to mean everything from a revival of true religion among the Israelites to the New Jerusalem of the new earth. Its meaning thus becomes so general, and can be reapplied so many times in so many ways, that it can signify almost any good thing in the history of Israel and throughout the history of the church until the end of the millennium! The one exception that Dr. Ford excludes from the apotelesmatic application is a beginning of the investigative judgment in heaven in 1844. The imposition of such a restriction seems quite unwarranted in view of the tolerant attitude toward virtually all other possibilities.

How much true scholarship is manifest in Ford's application of this principle is self-evident. It does not

take a "scholar's peer" to recognize the complete lack of sound, honest reasoning in Ford's wild guesswork. We are sadly disappointed. Here we see no wisdom, only folly; no depth, but shallow, irresponsible thinking. Any college sophomore who has read enough history can apply the apotelesmatic principle simply by giving full rein to his imagination and thus become an easy peer of Desmond Ford, or even excel him.

Perhaps we were looking in the wrong place. Let us continue our search for the "important questions" Ford has raised. It is known that he denies that the heavenly sanctuary has two apartments. This is indeed an important question. But strangely enough, in the very next breath he asserts that the "anchor of the soul" of Hebrews 6:19 enters into the second veil. But how can there be a second veil if there is only one apartment? Perhaps he would explain that it is a figurative veil. Yet we read, "whither the forerunner is entered, even Jesus." Jesus is a real person having entered a real veil. Did He enter the first or second veil? Let Ford extricate himself. We can't help him.

Again we are disgusted with the slipshod thinking of this "peer" of Adventist theologians. If Londis, who was present at Glacier View, would seriously consider all the cases of poor methodology in Ford's use of sources, his wild, sweeping assertions and purposeful falsification of evidence (as best exposed in Ralph Larson's "Reply"), Londis would blush to own him as his peer, much less express sympathy for his lost cause. In his zeal to win recognition for the new generation of Adventist theologians, Londis has chosen a poor specimen. When we first stepped into the water to wade across this "Ford," we were fearful of being drowned in its depths, but now we know that we were intimidated by Londis' attempt to magnify the office of our "experts." Actually, the profoundest thoughts Ford can present are ankle-deep. Who knows Londis hasn't something better up his sleeve? But, I dare say, we'll be no better impressed when and if he ventures to conjure it up.

The fact that many Adventist scholars are still blind to Ford's glaring deceptions proves that it is not safe for our church leadership to trust their judgment in all cases. Are we being too harsh? No. We can easily publish a book to prove our point--by binding in one volume Ford's monumental work on Daniel and his equally monumental 990-page paper attacking Seventh-day Adventist beliefs, and entitle it, "Ford versus Ford." Therein will be portrayed a unique phenomenon--a proud "Adventist theologian" arguing against himself. "What does Ford believe?" you ask. We answer, The 990-page document reveals his true self. His book on Daniel was written by Ford the hypocrite.

The maturing of this super-charlatan among us is the result of too much freedom, not the lack of it. When Ford finished his studies in the University of Manchester in 1972 and placed a copy of his doctoral thesis in the Avondale College library, it contained these words: We have also noticed that many things can be said with certainty regarding what Antichrist is not. He is not any past personage. He belongs to the future and not to history. p. 246

We have noticed also that the lawless one appears only at the end of time." p. 242

Therefore, any interpretation which applies this passage to an individual of past history, or to a succession of such, misses the mark. p. 238

In 1978 Pastors Kent and Burnside published a document entitled "Man of Sin" exposing these false teachings. But the president of the Greater Sydney Conference condemned this document and banned the two pastors from preaching in the churches of his conference. After that the majority of our church leaders were more anxious to guard the reputation of Desmond Ford than to defend the purity of our faith. This attitude resulted in a continued spread of error over two continents.

Experience and history tell us that we should be less indulgent toward scholars who introduce specious errors among us, and give more heed to the voices of warning raised against them. Today it is clear that the church leaders who guaranteed the freedom of Ford to teach error, and denied the freedom of Kent and Burnside to warn our people, were thereby forwarding Satan's cause. If they had lived close to God and were keen to detect error and prompt to combat it, they could have saved themselves the agony of facing the hisses and the boos of Fordite rowdies in 1980 (when the Glacier View decision was announced), and God's people would not be so badly torn asunder.

Obviously Londis' plea for more freedom for our scholars is emphasis misplaced. The most pressing issue we face today is not academic freedom, but doctrinal purity. We need to heighten our vigilance and contend more earnestly and effectively for the faith once delivered to the saints. Any man among us--be he scholar, crackpot, or charlatan--who would attack the fundamentals of our faith should meet with prompt repudiation. We must not give our scholars freedom to attack us and deny ourselves the freedom to counterattack. On the contrary, enemies of the truth who hit us must be hit back and hit hard. The activities of Ford's sympathizers among us must not proceed unchallenged.

To all who appreciate the beauty of the truths entrusted to us, the Adventist faith is a pearl of great price. The value of a pearl lies in its natural beauty. Any attempt to embellish it artificially will only mar its luster. We say, "Hands off!" We will have our pearl just as God gave it, and will fight with tooth and nail to protect it from adulteration.

A common trait of most scholars is academic tolerance. lt is their credo to be objective and to judge everything from a detached viewpoint. This stance may be required in scientific research, but it is a fatal attitude for those preaching the gospel of salvation. We cannot detach ourselves from our message and take a neutral stand in matters of doctrine. Some of the men who took part in the Glacier View meeting apparently adopted this "scholarly" attitude and even now hesitate to say that Ford is in error, though many of his falsehoods are so glaring that any Adventist layman cannot help seeing them.

It is precisely this tendency to be tolerant which benumbs the sensitivity of many scholars to the encroachment of dangerous errors among us. Their contact with philosophies of every shade has the subtle effect of confusing their senses so that they say with Pilate, "What is truth?" In the halls of higher learning a firm stand on any point of religious belief is often regarded as bigotry, and our scholars take care to avoid this stigma. Before they are aware, they are sipping the wine of Babylon and find it actually exhilarating. They become adept at verbal embroidery which often serves to obscure the truth instead of clarifying it. They feel ashamed of the simplicity of the Advent message. They itch for a chance to revamp our theology and make it more presentable to the great theologians of popular churches. And because Des Ford was actively working along this line, they deplore his dismissal. It is this viewpoint which unfits many scholars to be dependable judges of their peers. Hence our church leaders must not wholly trust them in making their decisions.

Yet in the meeting at Glacier View our church administrators did arrange for a hearing involving a scholar's peers. Most of the 120 committee members were highly competent scholars, and the contents of the October 1980 Ministry were prepared by able theologians. Moreover, since none of the church leaders who participated in this confrontation were "out of their depth in these matters," they had every right to decide what to do. Judgment cannot be reserved for a scholar's peers; these decisions should be made by the men appointed by our constituency to make them.

We repudiate Londis' assertion that "right now we have a patchwork theology that is inappropriate for the main work of the church." He calls on us to be learners in theological matters and not presume to know it all. He says, "Humility is a virtue even in theology." But the example he gives us is not humility, but rank conceit, proving thereby that his brand of theology has failed to cultivate this virtue in him. However, he is quite humble when confronting the "giants" of Methodist theology, before whom he feels like a grasshopper. Hear him rave about them: "I venture to say that those holding such an opinion have never discussed Adventist beliefs with a well-trained, thoroughly informed non-Adventist biblical scholar."

Londis draws a sharp line between what he calls the "theological community" and "church leadership," thereby denying that there are theologians among our church leaders, who he thinks "should not be deciding what to do," because they are "people ill-equipped." Probably his idea of a well-equipped person is a theologian like Desmond Ford, and it would have pleased him well if Ford had won the bout and taken over church leadership.

It is disturbing to see this new development among us. Thirty years ago there was no talk about constructing "a truly comprehensive, adequate Adventist theology." Londis implies by this suggestion that our beliefs at present are neither comprehensive nor adequate, because our predecessors knew nothing of theology, so we have been shifting along all these years with a "patchwork theology" that bears no comparison with the highly sophisticated theology of larger denominations. Consequently Londis and his like, who are the only ones equipped to overhaul our theology, propose to give us a new look of respectability, so that when we step into the twenty-first century we will be found in good company.

We beg to advise this dear brother that his concern for the future of Adventism is ill-founded. A man so embarrassed with our shameful "rug" had best forsake this "Amish" curiosity altogether and waste no more time vainly imagining how he might make improvements on God's handiwork. For "Every word of God is pure. . . . Add thou not unto His words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." Proverbs 30:5-6. Whoever is enamored with the erudition of worldly scholars is free to prostrate himself before them and be their disciple. But we will pray for power to deliver God's message just as He gave it: not in enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power. We care not what men of the world may think of us. Our only concern is to carry Christ's gospel to all the world, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever He has commanded us.

Says the apostle, "Having begun in the Spirit, are we now made perfect by the flesh?" Can modern scholarship remake Adventism into something better than the Holy Spirit has fashioned? We think not. In fact we know that events will work out in line with God's purpose to choose the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, "that no flesh should glory in His presence." "In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight."

God works through those who hear and obey His voice, those who will, if need be, speak unpalatable truths, those who do not fear to reprove popular sins. The reason why He does not oftener choose men of learning and high position to lead out in reform movements, is that they trust to their creeds, theories, and theological systems, and feel no need to be taught of God. Only those who have a personal connection with the Source of wisdom are able to understand or explain the Scriptures. Men who have little of the learning of the schools are sometimes called to declare the truth, not because they are unlearned, but because they are not too self-sufficient to be taught of God. They learn in the school of Christ, and their humility and obedience make them great. In committing to them a knowledge of His truth, God confers upon them an honor, in comparison with which earthly honor and human greatness sink into insignificance. The Great Controversy, 455-456

Thus the message of the third angel will be proclaimed. As the time comes for it to be given with greatest power, the Lord will work through humble instruments, leading the minds of those who consecrate themselves to His service. The laborers will be qualified rather by the unction of His Spirit than by the training of literary institutions. Ibid As the storm approaches, a large class who have professed faith in the third angel's message, but have not been sanctified through obedience to the truth, abandon their position, and join the ranks of the opposition. By uniting with the world and partaking of its spirit, they have come to view matters in nearly the same light; and when the test is brought, they are prepared to choose the easy, popular side. Men of talent and pleasing address, who once rejoiced in the truth, employ their powers to deceive and mislead souls. They become the most bitter enemies of their former brethren. Ibid.

Events are shaping up as the prophetess has foreseen. Men honest enough to declare themselves no longer able to agree with us leave our ranks of their own accord. Then there are those who no longer believe the Advent message but have no prospect of striking roots outside our organization. They are worried over the "smoke of dissatisfaction" which hangs like a cloud over their heads. In the wake of the Ford crisis, it appears to them that a "witch hunt" is under way, and they might any day be ferreted out as "heretics." Hence this complaint about "students wet behind the ears" writing letters about questionable college professors, thereby placing them in "a precarious position." "Or pastors, attending the Seminary for the first time after years in the field, feel like fish out of water and conclude there must be something wrong with the water rather than the fish." In this way Londis writes at length about "complaints from the field," "teachers left defenseless," "a place as important as the Seminary," and demanding that a professor be "allowed to face his accusers." We get a picture of an energetic "field army" aroused by the Ford crisis engaged in "mopping-up operations."

All this agitation and unrest is quite understandable after what took place at Glacier View. It is not as Londis would have it. His idea is to have an elite corps of theologians at the helm of the boat as "resource persons to help the church do theology." He calls them "servants of the church" who "deserve appreciation for their expertise." But they talk a professional language not understood by the laity, whose part, therefore, is to sit at their feet and admire their "broader conception of theology." Then "there would be a clear understanding of where the theologians are in relationship to the present dilemma in Adventism vis-a-vis Des Ford." You see, the Ford issue is a dilemma as yet unsettled, and will be resolved only when we all learn to "do theology." The intimation is, after we have done theology, this dilemma will be settled in quite another way--apparently to the satisfaction of Ford's peers.

But now Londis deplores that things are working against him. The Ford "dilemma" is becoming his dilemma and the dilemma of all who lament Ford's departure. The youth, laity, and pastors who should submit meekly to these theological "experts" are most disrespectful, and are misbehaving. Londis calls it "lack of appreciation for theology," and he says it "grows partly out of our ignorance of what it is." Again it is our ignorance! You can almost hear him muttering in exasperation, "This people who knoweth not the law are cursed!" John 7:49

Yet the historical fact is that, generally speaking, the so-called "experts" in our institutions of higher learning represent the least sensitive sector of our church. By this we mean sensitivity to doctrinal errors. As pointed out, this insensitivity is concomitant with their scholastic approach and tolerant attitude toward the various

schools of thought encountered in years of academic training. They are in the habit of thinking objectively and are conditioned to coexist peacefully with many conflicting "isms."

On the other hand, what is the most sensitive sector? History tells us that it is the men and women in the field. Years before any of our church leaders had any suspicion that Des Ford was teaching error, many voices were raised here and there to warn God's people against this wolf in sheep's clothing. Did any of these voices come from the Seminary or any of our institutions of higher learning? The officially appointed watchmen on the walls of Zion were not the first to sound the warning. Slowly and phlegmatically, they eventually responded--but only after much damage had been done. In Australia our buglers flurried to change the tune from "taps" to "reveille," when all were already up and stirring.

History continues to speak: the least sensitive sector is also the most seriously infected. "Birds of a feather flock together." Des Ford called himself a theologian, and some of our theologians still own him as their peer. Londis' article is an example. The fact that such an article can be published in Takoma Park and applauded by many readers, indicates the seriousness of the situation.

Where then does the hope of our church lie? It lies with all who live close to God and trust not in their own wisdom and learning. They may be "students wet behind the ears;" they may be a group of retired workers living in obscurity; they may be a few lone missionaries in some distant field. They are bold to speak up in God's name against the errors endangering His church. These do not hesitate to throw a "javelin" at the Zimris and Cozbis (Numbers, chapter 25) who are bold to defy God and work folly in Israel. They represent a positive factor in our work on which God can count to initiate a much needed reform.

Londis complains that Adventists appear arrogant, because we claim to be God's true remnant people. Now in order not to be "arrogant," shall we relinquish this claim? No, that would be a denial of God's Word, for "in the book it is written of" us. We are God's commandment-keeping people and bear the seal of sanctification--His holy Sabbath. God says to us, "If thou take forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth: let them return unto thee; but return not thou unto them." Jeremiah 15:19

The Seventh-day Adventist Church is chosen of God to be as His mouth. But He tells us first to "take forth the precious from the vile." Our theology must be pure--free from the vile embellishments of worldly chatter. And when in watchful prayer we are assured that God is with us and is speaking through us, we will stand our ground and make no concessions to please the wise men of the world. God has commanded: "Let them return unto thee, but return not thou unto them." And they will return to us, if we obey God's voice.

Conscientious souls in the popular churches will respond to our call to "come out of Babylon" when they see that God is with us. "Thus saith the Lord of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you." Zechariah 8:23

Yes! Our all-consuming desire is--to have God with us!

David Lin

August 12, 1981

RETURN TO INDEX