Analyzing Liberalism in Adventism

koot van wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD)

Visiting Professor

Kyungpook National University

Sangju Campus

conjoint lecturer of Avondale College

Australia

2 August 2011

The La Sierra drinking party of three of the professors opened up the question of the role of liberalism in the church and especially at our Educational Institutions and staff. A very interesting article was written by Vance Ferrell which is an excellent source to start with analyzing this phenomenon in Adventism. It is written from a Seventh-day Adventist perspective and tries to present a chronology of events between 1970-1996 in the Adventist church. The dangers outlined by Ferrell still prevail in the church and many professors and teaching staff take a careless attitude to the matters addressed in this article. He cites Ellen White from Signs of the Times February 1, 1897 and shows how she said that "man-made theories" are given to people. The truth is counteracted by error.

Ferrell then started with a Newsweek article in 7 June 1971, page 65 that there are "liberals in the SDA church who would like to recover the early Adventist tradition of dissent".

The interviewer spoke to liberals undercover in the Adventist church at that time and they were saying "you will find few seminary professors who admit to the 6,000 year theory, and many Adventists no longer believe that the days of Creation were each 24 hours long" (page 66). This was a lie. Only the liberals thought this. My recollection from that year until present is that it is a solid doctrine of the Adventist church and in fact one of the ways you can separate the sheep from the goats.

The liberals contended in the Newsweek interview that the way they will work is to reach back to dissenters in history and secondly, attempt to get people to drop a literal reading of the Bible as important.

Ferrell contended that in 1971 they were undercover but in 1994 they were open. How open are they in 2011? The lecture by Robert Bradley, one of the three fired at La Sierra, who is a biology professor, illustrate the problem as open. He is openly teaching evolution and La Sierra just yesterday apparently made a declaration in the New Paper saying that they did not fire Robert because he is teaching evolution. Our contention is that, the same as dr. Walther Veith said to us, teach both evolution and creation so that students can see both sides. No problem. But, Robert did not fulfill that second mile in his program. He should have learned from Walther Veith who's videos are on youtube.com.

Ferrell indicated that accreditation was the problem in the 1930's as well and he urge us to look into the Branson Report on Accreditation Part 1-4 [DH-25-28].

Our schools rushed to gain accreditation in the late 1930's and the Bible teachers were doing it in the late 1950's but it is in the 1960's that the change could be felt. However, says Ferrell, in the 1970's modernist trends made inroads in the schools.

Ferrell felt that there are three kinds of Bible believers: Bible believers, Bible rejecters and Bible doubters. The Bible rejecters are clear to see but the Bible doubters are working with subterfuge and deceit undercover and hidden in the privacy of their homes. They use rhetorical tools like subtle skepticism, insinuation, quibbling, ridicule, reinterpretation and doubt to be fully agents in the hands of Satan.

Ferrell outlined a number of things they are teaching:

a. Skepticism is the key to finding truth. They are moderate liberals not classical liberals who deny God totally.

b. Historical-Critical Method as a method to study the Bible whether 1) literary-source criticism, 2) Form, or tradition criticism, 3) Redaction criticism, 4) Comparative-religion criticism, 5) Historical criticism are applied to archaeology for example and when there is a secular source conflicting with the Bible, it is accepted as a better answer, 6) Structural criticism which tries to see patterns in outside literature and inside literature correlating.

The dissenter preachers in the past that Ferrell listed who were against Spirit of Prophecy were Herman Hoen in Canada, Charles Wheeling in Alabama, Verb Bates in Oregon.

Ferrell outlined five dangerous concepts by liberals in our schools and institutions:

1. Apply different meanings to commonly understood words. Empty the term from a biblical meaning and inject into it an existential modern meaning. The Bible is just as inspired as Beethoven or Shakespeare is!

2. Nothing spiritual ever occurs, everything has a material worldly basis. There is no supernatural or miracles.

3. Everyone is good and divine and God has no justice.

4. Correct theology is the latest fad, whatever it is.

5. Progressive revelation is very important for the liberal, progressive truth or present truth. Emerging truths are encouraged.

The Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutics of 1974 as an attempt to address the issues of liberals and their impact. Despite these insights the modernistic lecturers still continued their liberalism.

In 1975 Richard Coffen wrote an article supporting the use of the Higher Critical method:

"The tools [historical critical methodologies] that have been developed to help us understand the humanity of both the living Word and the written word . . .he [the scholar] utilizes them carefully" (Richard Coffen, "Taboo on Tools?" Ministry [September 1975]: 7-8).

In the same year William Johnson wrote:

"The question must not be whether we will employ historical [critical] methods (because we already do to some extent) but how far we rely on them" (William Johnson, "SDA Presuppositions to Biblical Studies", paper presented to Adventist scholars attending the American Academy of Religion/Society of Biblical Literature Convention, Chicago, Illinois, October 29, 1975: 44-45).

Ferrell pointed out that liberals frequently refer to the historical method when they actually mean historical critical method. This point is substantiated by Jerry Gladson who indicated in Spectrum that the term is interchangeable (Jerry Gladson, "Taming Historical Criticism" Spectrum [pril 1988] 34).

What Ferrell is not documenting, is that Gerhard Hasel was sent as Dean of the Seminary at Andrews University with the purpose of weeding out the chaff. He was God's Rottweiler. Many were posted. That was about the end of the 70's. Many liberals are still licking wounds from that time. Andrews University became conservative from that time on. There are still conservative good bible believing and practicing Seventh-day Adventists around there, even in 2011.

In October 1979 a liberal presentation by Desmond Ford at Pacific Union College, got him in trouble and Glazier View was called for the next summer. At that time nearly the entire staff of PUC asked Neil Wilson that Ford not be fired.

In 1981 a group of North American Bible scholars and teachers got together in Washington DC and declared that one should not worry about higher criticism. Adventists can use the descriptive parts of the method without adopting the naturalistic presuppositions affirmed by the specialists of historical critical methods. Ferrell cited Alden Thompson's article from "Are Adventists Afraid of Bible Study?" Spectrum April 1985: 58, 56 here.

The group called the meeting Consultation II and it was held between September 30 to October 3 of 1981. They reiterated that Higher Criticism can be used without using the naturalistic presuppositions. In case the reader feels here, what is wrong with that? it is wise to cite the Higher Critic applier of the early 1920's,. Ernst Troeltsch here:

"Once the historical [critical] method is applied to Biblical Science . . . it is a leaven that alters everything . . .Whoever lends it his finger, must give it a hand" (E. Troeltsch, Gesammelte Schriften II [Tübingen: Mohr, 1913], 730, 734). There is no partial use of Higher Critical methods according to Troeltsch.

Information on the liberal group and their Consultation II statements on Higher Criticism comes from Alden Thompson, "Inspiration, Hard Questions, Honest Answers" Review 1991: 271-272).

In 1986 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil a document appeared that was called the Rio Document. It rejected Higher Criticism totally and even moderate use of it was rejected as well.

Raymond Cottrell, a skeptic liberal denounced the Rio Document as "myopic" and an attempt to bring Bible teachers into bondage (Raymond Cottrell, "Blame It on Rio," Adventist Currents, March 1987: 33). Cottrell had many problems and at VAN WYK NOTE at http://www.egw.org there is an analysis of some of his problematic views.

Ferrell cited Enoch de Oliveira in 1991 who described the liberals as follows:

"They are committed believers. Many of them exhibit the beauty of Christian virtues in their lives. Most of them love the church . . .Representing a wide spectrum of religious thought, they attempt to reinterpret traditional theological Seventh-day Adventist thinking by dressing some of our old doctrines in what appear to them to be new and attractive semantic garments" (Enoch de Oliveira, "A Trojan Horse Within the Church," Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, [Spring 1991]: 7).

Ferrell then cited that Alberto R. Timm, a faithful scholar mentioned that the liberals who favored a revisionist-critical stand on the church's understanding of inspiration of the Bible and Ellen White, utilize Spectrum and Adventist Forums as their mouthpieces (Alberto R. Timm, "History of Inspiration in the Seventh-day Adventist Church [1844-1994]" a paper he read at the 1993 Scholars' Convention of the Adventist Theological Society in Silver Springs, MD, November 19, 1993, pages 57-58).

John Brunt a Bible teacher from Walla Walla College in his book, "A Parable of Jesus as a Clue to Biblical Interpretation," in Adventism in America, ed. Gary Land (1986): 226, also felt that nothing was wrong in using the Higher Critical Method of interpretation:

"The historical-critical method deserves a place in the armamentarium [weapon room] of Adventists, who are serious about understanding their Bibles". About two years before, I took him with my car one Friday afternoon to see the Stellenbosch Calvinistic Seminary in South Africa. Attending his lecture in the 1984's he pretty much covered the trends in New Testament scholarship like Hasel would have done it. What the change was in two years is hard to say. Remember him as struggling with obesity and hiding his bold head with long hair.

Ferrell addressed the issue of following just partially historical criticism:

"One can no more be a little historical-critical than a little pregnant" (Eta Linnemann, "Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology?" [1990]: 123). It is the same as we have cited supra by Ernst Troeltsch in 1913.

Alden Thompson's book which was published in 1991 by the Review is based on historical-criticism and Robert McIver who wrote in the Ministry a bookreview, pointed that out:

"Some involved in the hermeneutical debate have perceived this book as the archetypical product of historical-critical methodology" (Robert McIver, "The Historical-Critical Method: The Adventist Debate" Ministry Magazine [March 196]: 16).

This book was published, says Ferrell, in total violation of the 1986 Annual Council's position on this issue of higher-criticism.

Liberals pushed in 1995, says Ferrell, for Feminism. A book was published by them The Welcome Table: Setting a Place for Ordained Women by Bert Haloviak, Kit Watts, V. Norskov Olsen, Raymond Cottrell, Fritz Guy, Edwin Zackrison, Ralph Neil. They waited until Gerhard Hasel died in June 1994 to jump out of the closet. One wonders about the publication of Jon Paulien's book Endtime which not only follows a skeptical approach about alarming scenarios but uses preteristic methods in the footnotes. A bookreview of Paulien is on VAN WYK NOTE at http://www.egw.org.

Ferrell pointed out that Cottrell actually says that those who favored woman ordained to so on the basis of the historical critical method (Raymond Cottrell, "A Guide to Reliable Interpretation" in The Welcome Table, page 84).

1994 with the death of Gerhard Hasel, a turn of tables took place. Samuele Bacchiocchi also had his turns with a number of issues like the vicarius filii dei issue, the date 538 and 1798 and the fall of the Roman empire. Argueing with him during his lifetime and appeared after Bacchiocchi's death, is the work of Edwin de Kock (2010) dealing with some of the problems of Bacchiocchi regarding vicarius filii dei.

And now we sit with the coerced resignations of three at La Sierra University, with the university saying in the newpaper that they did not fire one of them for teaching evolution.

Source:

http://www.sdadefend.com/MINDEX-K-L/Liberalism.pdf