Comments on: “Questions on Doctrine” and M. L. Andreasen: The Behind-the-Scenes Interactions http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/ Re-imagining the Adventist Vision ~ Beyond Conservative and Liberal ~ Lifting Up the Family of Adventism Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:29:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Thomas http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1987 Thomas Tue, 04 Dec 2007 23:24:22 +0000 http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1987 As Bob Burke hinted at, one question that would be interesting to ask regarding this is this. Was the price paid since the publishing of QOD worth the cost of not being automatically part of a cult trinity together with Mormons and Jehovas Witnesses in the minds of most of our brothers and sisters in other denominations? As Bob Burke hinted at, one question that would be interesting to ask regarding this is this. Was the price paid since the publishing of QOD worth the cost of not being automatically part of a cult trinity together with Mormons and Jehovas Witnesses in the minds of most of our brothers and sisters in other denominations?

]]> By: Jim Miles http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1986 Jim Miles Sat, 01 Dec 2007 15:20:44 +0000 http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1986 Sorry for the interruption... Recently, you posted here on your blog, "There’s more to Adventism than the revolving door, the theological turf wars, the institutional malaise, and the massive missiological machine. [Bull & Lockhart] discounted true believers and devoted members of the household who, according to [their] thesis, should be in the pre-exit phase of their Adventist experience but are up there in the attic, down in the basement, underneath the kitchen sink—working. It’s not that we don’t know what’s going on in the world; it’s not that we can’t make it out in the world; it’s not that we don’t understand the socio-anthropological dynamics and dysfunctionalities that continue to shape and inform our community. Yet we’ve stayed. . . " Unfortunately, I came too late to comment before you closed that thread, but I just had to tell you, "Thanks." You said something that rings very true to my experience. Now, back to what everyone else was talking about.... Sorry for the interruption…

Recently, you posted here on your blog, “There’s more to Adventism than the revolving door, the theological turf wars, the institutional malaise, and the massive missiological machine. [Bull & Lockhart] discounted true believers and devoted members of the household who, according to [their] thesis, should be in the pre-exit phase of their Adventist experience but are up there in the attic, down in the basement, underneath the kitchen sink—working. It’s not that we don’t know what’s going on in the world; it’s not that we can’t make it out in the world; it’s not that we don’t understand the socio-anthropological dynamics and dysfunctionalities that continue to shape and inform our community. Yet we’ve stayed. . . ”
Unfortunately, I came too late to comment before you closed that thread, but I just had to tell you, “Thanks.” You said something that rings very true to my experience.

Now, back to what everyone else was talking about….

]]> By: Richard Myers http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1957 Richard Myers Fri, 16 Nov 2007 18:12:58 +0000 http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1957 Very well written article on the history of the subject. Appreciate your work very much and would hope that you make your whole study available online soon. The recent activities and interest in this subject is important. While I disagree with Andreason's teaching on the gospel, I believe he was correct in his understanding that the book QOD was very injurious to our church and applaud his effort to stop its publication. It was very sad that the church did not resolve the issues in a proper manner. It makes one appreciate the fact that he has no credential to suspend. The issues regarding our faithfulness as a church to Bible doctrine remain. The conference on QOD sheds light on this failure in church leadership. My prayer is that all may see that there is a very serious problem in our church in regards to theology and the lack of unity that Christ prayed that we would have. If we had been faithful as a people, admitted our failures and learned from them, and walked in the light as Jesus is in the light, we would have gone home long ago. Let us seek wisdom from God's Word, not from the multitude of books written to explain what the Bible says. We need an individual experience with Christ. We need to drink from the pure fountain that has been opened to us, not the polluted fountains that are so highly exalted. Where can one obtain Andreason's letters to the church? Very well written article on the history of the subject. Appreciate your work very much and would hope that you make your whole study available online soon.

The recent activities and interest in this subject is important. While I disagree with Andreason’s teaching on the gospel, I believe he was correct in his understanding that the book QOD was very injurious to our church and applaud his effort to stop its publication. It was very sad that the church did not resolve the issues in a proper manner. It makes one appreciate the fact that he has no credential to suspend.

The issues regarding our faithfulness as a church to Bible doctrine remain. The conference on QOD sheds light on this failure in church leadership. My prayer is that all may see that there is a very serious problem in our church in regards to theology and the lack of unity that Christ prayed that we would have.

If we had been faithful as a people, admitted our failures and learned from them, and walked in the light as Jesus is in the light, we would have gone home long ago. Let us seek wisdom from God’s Word, not from the multitude of books written to explain what the Bible says. We need an individual experience with Christ. We need to drink from the pure fountain that has been opened to us, not the polluted fountains that are so highly exalted.

Where can one obtain Andreason’s letters to the church?

]]> By: Bob Burke http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1942 Bob Burke Sun, 11 Nov 2007 00:31:52 +0000 http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1942 I enjoyed your comments Julius. As has been mentioned there are few who have any idea about the story behind QOD. Julius, you wrote of M L Andreasen, "His final five years made him a pitied figure who lost the high respect he commanded from his active years as a professor and administrator." I guess that depends on how you look at it. I, for one, hardly see him as someone to be pitied. He was a man of conviction who was not willing to compromise. In the eyes of many he is a hero for retaining what many consider to be pillars of our faith. I think that we can all agree that Elder Andreasen certainly could have been kinder in how he opposed what he saw as error and compromise. As Pastor Larry said, "I noticed while we were at QOD Conf, and later over at SpectrumBlog, that many of the arguments offered against LGT are opposition not to LGT but to caricatures of it. I see something hopeful in this, in that perhaps our views of truth are not so far apart from each other as to be unreconcilable." Dialogue is essential but it must be engaged in it with a genuine desire to know what we really believe and teach and not just attacking one another and misrepresenting their position by setting up straw man arguments to beat down. Hopefully the recent QOD Conference has set the stage for that to begin. Dr. Larson I think we need to understand where Froom, Figuhr and the others on that side were coming from. Virtually all of Christendom at that time considered SDAs a dangerous cult. To have such influential evangelical leaders as Donald Barnhouse and Walter Martin defending us was a tremendous step forward so I think that, although they were clearly not entirely up front and honest, we should not judge them too harshly. I am unapologetically in agreement with the theology of Elder Andreasen when it is properly understood. He never taught some kind of "sinless perfection" as he has been accused of. I have been finding more and more that when I speak with others in a casual setting that many who I felt were far from me theologically are actually quite close. God Bless, Bob I enjoyed your comments Julius. As has been mentioned there are few who have any idea about the story behind QOD.
Julius, you wrote of M L Andreasen,
“His final five years made him a pitied figure who lost the high respect he commanded from his active years as a professor and administrator.”
I guess that depends on how you look at it. I, for one, hardly see him as someone to be pitied. He was a man of conviction who was not willing to compromise. In the eyes of many he is a hero for retaining what many consider to be pillars of our faith. I think that we can all agree that Elder Andreasen certainly could have been kinder in how he opposed what he saw as error and compromise.
As Pastor Larry said,
“I noticed while we were at QOD Conf, and later over at SpectrumBlog, that many of the arguments offered against LGT are opposition not to LGT but to caricatures of it. I see something hopeful in this, in that perhaps our views of truth are not so far apart from each other as to be unreconcilable.”
Dialogue is essential but it must be engaged in it with a genuine desire to know what we really believe and teach and not just attacking one another and misrepresenting their position by setting up straw man arguments to beat down. Hopefully the recent QOD Conference has set the stage for that to begin.
Dr. Larson I think we need to understand where Froom, Figuhr and the others on that side were coming from. Virtually all of Christendom at that time considered SDAs a dangerous cult. To have such influential evangelical leaders as Donald Barnhouse and Walter Martin defending us was a tremendous step forward so I think that, although they were clearly not entirely up front and honest, we should not judge them too harshly.
I am unapologetically in agreement with the theology of Elder Andreasen when it is properly understood. He never taught some kind of “sinless perfection” as he has been accused of.
I have been finding more and more that when I speak with others in a casual setting that many who I felt were far from me theologically are actually quite close.
God Bless,
Bob

]]> By: David Vickman http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1935 David Vickman Thu, 08 Nov 2007 07:28:22 +0000 http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1935 Thank-you for your articulate honesty Dr. Larson. To quote Rodney King, "can't we just get along?" Or at least be nice when we don't? Also, fence riders form splinter groups! Could someone out there in cyberspace put together an impartial biographical summary of the 100 most interesting Adventists of the past 100 years? Neither digging up nor covering up whatever dirt is there. Please! Thank-you for your articulate honesty Dr. Larson. To quote Rodney King, “can’t we just get along?” Or at least be nice when we don’t? Also, fence riders form splinter groups!

Could someone out there in cyberspace put together an impartial biographical summary of the 100 most interesting Adventists of the past 100 years? Neither digging up nor covering up whatever dirt is there. Please!

]]> By: David R. Larson http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1930 David R. Larson Wed, 07 Nov 2007 20:59:55 +0000 http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1930 I remain perplexed as to why some who also objected to QOD, albeit more privately, get so little attention. These certainly include Elders Paul Heubach, Graham Maxell, Malcolm Maxwell, Dalton Baldwin and Jack Provonsha. Although I am a little less certain of this, I believe the list should be expended to include Elders Arthur Bietz, Donald Lotzenheiser, Fred Osborne and to some degree David and Daniel Cotton. I had a good chat with Dan at the Andrews University QOD Conference. It would be interesting to interview Elder Harold Fagel on this because he might have a clear picture of what was going on at that time at La Sierra. He is Calvin Tomsen's father in law. What about Elders Cecil Hausler and Royal Sage? I suspect that Elder Walter Specht remained aloof but that his tendencies leaned the other way. Then there is a whole generation of younger SDA theologians [who are now older!] who never paid any attention to QOD. I suspect that a survey of the members of the Adventist Society for Religious Studies, and even the Adventist Theological Society, would reveal that very few have ever opened its covers. Something I recently read stated that every congregation and person in our denominaton must eventually choose to be "for" or "against" Andreasen's theology and that this choice is likely to split the denomination right down the middle. I don't see things this way. There are many possible reactions to Andreaen and many possible reactions to QOD and by far the most common one, and perhaps wisest one, is to ignore them both. Besides, the way our denomination is organized and administered makes splinters possible, but not splits. I'm giving myself till this Sabbath to comment on all this; however, once its begins on Friday evening my vow of silence about QOD begins. The utter injustice of so much of what happened on all sides is what tempts me to be bitter. This is a temptation to which I am determined not to yield, however. I remain perplexed as to why some who also objected to QOD, albeit more privately, get so little attention.

These certainly include Elders Paul Heubach, Graham Maxell, Malcolm Maxwell, Dalton Baldwin and Jack Provonsha.

Although I am a little less certain of this, I believe the list should be expended to include Elders Arthur Bietz, Donald Lotzenheiser, Fred Osborne and to some degree David and Daniel Cotton. I had a good chat with Dan at the Andrews University QOD Conference.

It would be interesting to interview Elder Harold Fagel on this because he might have a clear picture of what was going on at that time at La Sierra. He is Calvin Tomsen’s father in law.

What about Elders Cecil Hausler and Royal Sage? I suspect that Elder Walter Specht remained aloof but that his tendencies leaned the other way.

Then there is a whole generation of younger SDA theologians [who are now older!] who never paid any attention to QOD. I suspect that a survey of the members of the Adventist Society for Religious Studies, and even the Adventist Theological Society, would reveal that very few have ever opened its covers.

Something I recently read stated that every congregation and person in our denominaton must eventually choose to be “for” or “against” Andreasen’s theology and that this choice is likely to split the denomination right down the middle. I don’t see things this way.

There are many possible reactions to Andreaen and many possible reactions to QOD and by far the most common one, and perhaps wisest one, is to ignore them both. Besides, the way our denomination is organized and administered makes splinters possible, but not splits.

I’m giving myself till this Sabbath to comment on all this; however, once its begins on Friday evening my vow of silence about QOD begins.

The utter injustice of so much of what happened on all sides is what tempts me to be bitter. This is a temptation to which I am determined not to yield, however.

]]> By: David R. Larson http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1928 David R. Larson Wed, 07 Nov 2007 18:19:25 +0000 http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1928 Probably because of the recent death of my father, I'm having an emotionally and spiritually tough time with all of this. At least two things haunt me. One of these is that the "sins" of Elder Andreasen appear to have been those of an elderly man who was emotionally out-of-control whereas those of Froom, Anderson and Reed [sp.?] appear to me to have been calculating, cold and even cruel. But it seems to me that today Andeasen gets the worse press. The other thing is that a number of "historic Adentists" like my father, who don't include me in their circle of collegues for excellent reasons, have long doubted the historical reliability of QOD1 and have been harshly criticized for doing so, though not more harshly than were their criticisms of the volume in the first place. But now the annotations in QOD2 establish beyond reasonable doubt that their historical criticisms of QOD1, though not necessarily their theological ones, which are matters for a different discussion, were right all along. One response is that Elder Andreasen distorted the evidence too. But did he do so on the same scale, with the same coolness, and with the same virtual approval of the General Conference President and the Editorial Board of those who published QOD1? I doubt this. So, all in all, I think that neither side was without its shortcomings but that, as is often the case in my view, those of the relatively powerful are more troublesome than those of the relatively powerless. But that was then and this is now. How sadly ironic it would be if the recent QOD Conference healed some wounds for many and ripped some wide open for me! Somehow, I must find the moral strength not to let this happen. But I think I'm losing the battle. I don't know if those who read this believe in intercessory prayer, something that often puzzles me. But if you do, please keep me in mind. I'm struggling. Probably because of the recent death of my father, I’m having an emotionally and spiritually tough time with all of this. At least two things haunt me.

One of these is that the “sins” of Elder Andreasen appear to have been those of an elderly man who was emotionally out-of-control whereas those of Froom, Anderson and Reed [sp.?] appear to me to have been calculating, cold and even cruel. But it seems to me that today Andeasen gets the worse press.

The other thing is that a number of “historic Adentists” like my father, who don’t include me in their circle of collegues for excellent reasons, have long doubted the historical reliability of QOD1 and have been harshly criticized for doing so, though not more harshly than were their criticisms of the volume in the first place.

But now the annotations in QOD2 establish beyond reasonable doubt that their historical criticisms of QOD1, though not necessarily their theological ones, which are matters for a different discussion, were right all along.

One response is that Elder Andreasen distorted the evidence too. But did he do so on the same scale, with the same coolness, and with the same virtual approval of the General Conference President and the Editorial Board of those who published QOD1? I doubt this.

So, all in all, I think that neither side was without its shortcomings but that, as is often the case in my view, those of the relatively powerful are more troublesome than those of the relatively powerless.

But that was then and this is now. How sadly ironic it would be if the recent QOD Conference healed some wounds for many and ripped some wide open for me! Somehow, I must find the moral strength not to let this happen. But I think I’m losing the battle.

I don’t know if those who read this believe in intercessory prayer, something that often puzzles me. But if you do, please keep me in mind. I’m struggling.

]]> By: Julius http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1911 Julius Tue, 06 Nov 2007 00:23:20 +0000 http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1911 Johnny: To your 2 questions - (1) Yes, it's quite clear that Andreasen felt personally slighted (I try to show this in my diss.); and (2) there were a couple of strong criticisms of the QOD manuscript--the key one coming from Raymond Cottrell. Cottrell was downright prophetic in his remarks. Larry: I really appreciate your last comment. Not only in what you say but through who you are, you set a beautiful testimony to the power of LGT. Johnny: To your 2 questions - (1) Yes, it’s quite clear that Andreasen felt personally slighted (I try to show this in my diss.); and (2) there were a couple of strong criticisms of the QOD manuscript–the key one coming from Raymond Cottrell. Cottrell was downright prophetic in his remarks.

Larry: I really appreciate your last comment. Not only in what you say but through who you are, you set a beautiful testimony to the power of LGT.

]]> By: Larry Kirkpatrick http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1909 Larry Kirkpatrick Mon, 05 Nov 2007 23:01:16 +0000 http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1909 David, I've been pondering your reference to "the other side." I guess I think there is "an other side" but that mostly, we are, intentionally, on the same side. That is, those who might disagree with me doctrinally I take to disagree on the basis of their fairly certain sense that their view is more right according to what God wants for His people, than *what they think* my view of what is right is. I think that many Adventists, even ones seen as being on radically different ends of the Adventist pole, have similar desires and intentions to advance the kingdom. We disagree on how. Some think ew must radically abandon certain aspects of Adventism, or radically modify them. Others think that modification can occur within the range of conventional Adventist doctrinal understanding. A lot of our arguments come out of these different senses about how we should go forward. There certainly are some who are intentional about going far beyond appropriate change. In the end, then, yes, we are not all on the same side. But, perhaps more than we have thought, we are on the same side. I noticed while we were at QOD Conf, and later over at SpectrumBlog, that many of the arguments offered against LGT are opposition not to LGT but to caricatures of it. I see something hopeful in this, in that perhaps our views of truth are not so far apart from each other as to be unreconcilable. Nevertheless, it will take a high volume of energy and kindly spirit to attain significant restoration of unity in our midst. Perhaps one of the earlier tasks is to persuade the broader "left" and "right" constituencies that treating the other wing as genuine family has value. It remains a question how much time this will take (perhaps a lot!) and whether the various parties in the church can be persuaded to be intentional about it. David,
I’ve been pondering your reference to “the other side.” I guess I think there is “an other side” but that mostly, we are, intentionally, on the same side. That is, those who might disagree with me doctrinally I take to disagree on the basis of their fairly certain sense that their view is more right according to what God wants for His people, than *what they think* my view of what is right is. I think that many Adventists, even ones seen as being on radically different ends of the Adventist pole, have similar desires and intentions to advance the kingdom. We disagree on how. Some think ew must radically abandon certain aspects of Adventism, or radically modify them. Others think that modification can occur within the range of conventional Adventist doctrinal understanding. A lot of our arguments come out of these different senses about how we should go forward. There certainly are some who are intentional about going far beyond appropriate change. In the end, then, yes, we are not all on the same side. But, perhaps more than we have thought, we are on the same side.

I noticed while we were at QOD Conf, and later over at SpectrumBlog, that many of the arguments offered against LGT are opposition not to LGT but to caricatures of it. I see something hopeful in this, in that perhaps our views of truth are not so far apart from each other as to be unreconcilable. Nevertheless, it will take a high volume of energy and kindly spirit to attain significant restoration of unity in our midst. Perhaps one of the earlier tasks is to persuade the broader “left” and “right” constituencies that treating the other wing as genuine family has value. It remains a question how much time this will take (perhaps a lot!) and whether the various parties in the church can be persuaded to be intentional about it.

]]> By: David Vickman http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1907 David Vickman Mon, 05 Nov 2007 21:32:54 +0000 http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1907 Larry, your 2 comments were helpful, and reflect experience. With the church steeped in Andreasen 'style' theology, one would expect that QOD and its supporters would be on the outside, looking in. In my last comment, I didn't wish to be shrill. It's just that in the pursuit and defense of the 'truth' one must be savy regarding organizational realities which apply to both secular and sacred organizations, and are sometimes arbitrary and harsh. Perhaps trench-warfare should be avoided! Also, a devotional study of Adventist literature yields a much different view than say an Adventist/Evangelical conversation or debate. One has to wonder how much the 'other side' wishes to learn and change their thinking, and how much the 'other side' wishes to silence the unique aspects of Adventism... Larry, your 2 comments were helpful, and reflect experience. With the church steeped in Andreasen ’style’ theology, one would expect that QOD and its supporters would be on the outside, looking in. In my last comment, I didn’t wish to be shrill. It’s just that in the pursuit and defense of the ‘truth’ one must be savy regarding organizational realities which apply to both secular and sacred organizations, and are sometimes arbitrary and harsh. Perhaps trench-warfare should be avoided!

Also, a devotional study of Adventist literature yields a much different view than say an Adventist/Evangelical conversation or debate. One has to wonder how much the ‘other side’ wishes to learn and change their thinking, and how much the ‘other side’ wishes to silence the unique aspects of Adventism…

]]> By: Larry Kirkpatrick http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1870 Larry Kirkpatrick Thu, 01 Nov 2007 02:36:19 +0000 http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1870 Let's be careful. Who is the church? Is it a handful of men (Froom/Read/Anderson/Figuhr et al), or, in this specific case of QOD, is it the vast bulk of the denomination which had been nurtured for long years on the Daniel and Revelation emphasis, cleansing in 8:14, the written works of EGW from GC to DA to COL, to the more than a dozen volumes from the pen of Andreasen that appeared in the decades preceding QOD? If anyone's theology represented the church in 1957, it was Andreasen. Let’s be careful. Who is the church? Is it a handful of men (Froom/Read/Anderson/Figuhr et al), or, in this specific case of QOD, is it the vast bulk of the denomination which had been nurtured for long years on the Daniel and Revelation emphasis, cleansing in 8:14, the written works of EGW from GC to DA to COL, to the more than a dozen volumes from the pen of Andreasen that appeared in the decades preceding QOD? If anyone’s theology represented the church in 1957, it was Andreasen.

]]> By: David Vickman http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1867 David Vickman Wed, 31 Oct 2007 23:33:08 +0000 http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1867 Church politics can be very interesting, invigorating, and enlightening! And it can be very very sad and disillusioning! The story of M.L. Andreasen is all of the above. By the way, his book on Hebrews is fascinating, and sheds light on the above controversy! If the administrative actions of the church were clearly and distinctly separated from theological differences and personalities, it might avoid hard feelings. If someone is causing problems for the church while getting paid by the church, it shouldn't be suprising that when they repeatedly bite the hand that feeds them, that they may need to eat somewhere else! Another distantly related Questions on Doctrine story is that of Dr. Desmond Ford. The Ford situation is an example of someone airing the church's dirty linen in public, and seeking revolutionary rather than evolutionary change. It should have been no surprise that the plug was pulled! Although I think the church did it in a very shabby manner! Even if Ford had a better idea, he introduced it in a way sure to cause mass confusion! By the way, has there been a convincing answer to Ford's 1,000 page Daniel 8:14 The Day of Atonement and the Investigative Judgement? Little did I know that when I walked into Irwin Hall at P.U.C. on Oct. 27, 1979, that I was about to witness history in the making! Mark Martin had told me it would be another 1888...but I didn't believe him! If someone is working for a corporation, and causing lots of problems, they usually get fired...even if they're right! Church politics can be very interesting, invigorating, and enlightening! And it can be very very sad and disillusioning! The story of M.L. Andreasen is all of the above. By the way, his book on Hebrews is fascinating, and sheds light on the above controversy!

If the administrative actions of the church were clearly and distinctly separated from theological differences and personalities, it might avoid hard feelings. If someone is causing problems for the church while getting paid by the church, it shouldn’t be suprising that when they repeatedly bite the hand that feeds them, that they may need to eat somewhere else!

Another distantly related Questions on Doctrine story is that of Dr. Desmond Ford. The Ford situation is an example of someone airing the church’s dirty linen in public, and seeking revolutionary rather than evolutionary change. It should have been no surprise that the plug was pulled! Although I think the church did it in a very shabby manner! Even if Ford had a better idea, he introduced it in a way sure to cause mass confusion!

By the way, has there been a convincing answer to Ford’s 1,000 page Daniel 8:14 The Day of Atonement and the Investigative Judgement? Little did I know that when I walked into Irwin Hall at P.U.C. on Oct. 27, 1979, that I was about to witness history in the making! Mark Martin had told me it would be another 1888…but I didn’t believe him!

If someone is working for a corporation, and causing lots of problems, they usually get fired…even if they’re right!

]]> By: Johnny A. Ramirez http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1805 Johnny A. Ramirez Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:26:41 +0000 http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1805 What a wonderful read- thanks!! Do you think that Andreasen was reacting to personal slights as much as any perceived doctrinal dispute? I can't help but think that if Froom would have engaged those who disagreed with him in reviewing QOD perhaps Andreasen would not have reacted this way. My second question is- was QOD reviewed by anyone known to be antagonistic to it before its publication? Thanks! What a wonderful read- thanks!!

Do you think that Andreasen was reacting to personal slights as much as any perceived doctrinal dispute?

I can’t help but think that if Froom would have engaged those who disagreed with him in reviewing QOD perhaps Andreasen would not have reacted this way.

My second question is- was QOD reviewed by anyone known to be antagonistic to it before its publication?
Thanks!

]]> By: Larry Kirkpatrick http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1789 Larry Kirkpatrick Sun, 14 Oct 2007 23:43:29 +0000 http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1789 Andreasen used, albeit imperfectly, the avenues then available to him, to try to address the doctrinally illegitimate book. Adventism was treading new ground: doctrinal innovations not approved by the world church were being publically offered in the denomination’s name. It is remarkable what Andreasen accomplished against the enormous odds offered by pro-institution attitudes in the culture and in the church at that time. LK Andreasen used, albeit imperfectly, the avenues then available to him, to try to address the doctrinally illegitimate book. Adventism was treading new ground: doctrinal innovations not approved by the world church were being publically offered in the denomination’s name. It is remarkable what Andreasen accomplished against the enormous odds offered by pro-institution attitudes in the culture and in the church at that time. LK

]]> By: Graeme Sharrock http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1777 Graeme Sharrock Sat, 13 Oct 2007 11:32:21 +0000 http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1777 Unless I have misread them, I have always seen the language of Andreasen's theology living on in the writings of Herb Douglass, Kenneth Wood and those on the Wesleyan wing of the righteousness-by-faith debates of the 70s and 80s. The essential issue to my view has been the scope of the sanctuary imagery, how far it and in what way should it shape Adventist spirituality. But I sure hope that as a community we have moved beyond such narrow visions. After all, we are now a pluralistic and largely Gentile church for whom the intricacies of the ancient Hebrew cult are only one way of figuring the meaning of the Christ-event, and even less signifiicant for the question of who we are now and how we can live a social ethic of inclusiveness ... just the opposite of what these sanctuary theologies have meant. But maybe someone can show us how to reinterpret all this in a way that offers something liberating and transformative. Unless I have misread them, I have always seen the language of Andreasen’s theology living on in the writings of Herb Douglass, Kenneth Wood and those on the Wesleyan wing of the righteousness-by-faith debates of the 70s and 80s. The essential issue to my view has been the scope of the sanctuary imagery, how far it and in what way should it shape Adventist spirituality. But I sure hope that as a community we have moved beyond such narrow visions. After all, we are now a pluralistic and largely Gentile church for whom the intricacies of the ancient Hebrew cult are only one way of figuring the meaning of the Christ-event, and even less signifiicant for the question of who we are now and how we can live a social ethic of inclusiveness … just the opposite of what these sanctuary theologies have meant. But maybe someone can show us how to reinterpret all this in a way that offers something liberating and transformative.

]]> By: Ron Corson http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1775 Ron Corson Sat, 13 Oct 2007 03:50:44 +0000 http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1775 That is a very interesting article. Most of what I know about those incidence comes from Walter Martin and John Ankerberg interviews. I must say it makes sense that MLA was not given a pre-publication of QOD because he was retired. Interesting to see someone who I so greatly disagree with turned into a sympathetic character by the way the SDA church leadership treated him. About all he could do was to circulate letters and that was enough to upset the GC terribly. To think of the technology we have today and how MLA could have spread his ideas as well as how those who held contrary ideas could also confront his views. Still there seems to be few that really spend the time to delve into these issues. It is interesting that recently on an SDA forum someone posted fundamental belief 11 (the newest fundamental belief added, Growing in Christ as if it was a statement which backed up the idea of last generation sinless perfection. It appears to be an idea that is not only accepted by the fundamentalist but even some progressive types who hold to particular statements of Ellen White. Which as MLA said as you reported in your article all comes down to "Sister White’s leadership." Just depends upon which quotes a person wants to use. That is a very interesting article. Most of what I know about those incidence comes from Walter Martin and John Ankerberg interviews. I must say it makes sense that MLA was not given a pre-publication of QOD because he was retired. Interesting to see someone who I so greatly disagree with turned into a sympathetic character by the way the SDA church leadership treated him. About all he could do was to circulate letters and that was enough to upset the GC terribly. To think of the technology we have today and how MLA could have spread his ideas as well as how those who held contrary ideas could also confront his views.

Still there seems to be few that really spend the time to delve into these issues. It is interesting that recently on an SDA forum someone posted fundamental belief 11 (the newest fundamental belief added, Growing in Christ as if it was a statement which backed up the idea of last generation sinless perfection. It appears to be an idea that is not only accepted by the fundamentalist but even some progressive types who hold to particular statements of Ellen White. Which as MLA said as you reported in your article all comes down to “Sister White’s leadership.” Just depends upon which quotes a person wants to use.

]]> By: David Vickman http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1773 David Vickman Fri, 12 Oct 2007 21:24:04 +0000 http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1773 Why did Jesus have to be absolutely perfect? Could He have been even more perfect? How perfect does perfect have to be? Does Christianity turn the old, old story of Jesus and His love into a fairy-tale with its elaborately conflicting theories of the atonement? Was Christ a Real Man or a Super Man or both a Real Man and a Super Man? Does all of this talk turn many of us into uptight legalistic perfectionists or irresponsible hedonists? Is Christ's substitutionary atonement necessary for us to be right with God? Shouldn't we be right with God by being right with God, not simply being declared right with God? Isn't that what Jesus taught? Was the purpose of Christ's substitutionary atonement to make the Old Testament sacrificial system of ritual and bloodshed obsolete? Was the atonement symbolic and representational, rather than changing anything between us and God? Why did Jesus have to be absolutely perfect? Could He have been even more perfect? How perfect does perfect have to be? Does Christianity turn the old, old story of Jesus and His love into a fairy-tale with its elaborately conflicting theories of the atonement? Was Christ a Real Man or a Super Man or both a Real Man and a Super Man? Does all of this talk turn many of us into uptight legalistic perfectionists or irresponsible hedonists? Is Christ’s substitutionary atonement necessary for us to be right with God? Shouldn’t we be right with God by being right with God, not simply being declared right with God? Isn’t that what Jesus taught? Was the purpose of Christ’s substitutionary atonement to make the Old Testament sacrificial system of ritual and bloodshed obsolete? Was the atonement symbolic and representational, rather than changing anything between us and God?

]]> By: Zane http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1771 Zane Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:54:12 +0000 http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1771 Julius, thanks for your response. I wondered as I read this post how much of this dispute was over something personal (not being involved) and how much of it was theological. The rest of my questions had to do with the issue ecclesiology/church authority. My final three questions where unclear, but I was wondering about the official status of Andreason's "final generation" theology. Is it still something taught at the seminary? If it is not, why not? (Who decided that this?) It seems that the church should have an official statement on such an important issue. I'm wondering who that person/entity might be. If there is no official position, why not? Is it to allow a healthy amount of "pluralism" or just a pragmatic concern of not to splitting the church? Julius, thanks for your response. I wondered as I read this post how much of this dispute was over something personal (not being involved) and how much of it was theological.

The rest of my questions had to do with the issue ecclesiology/church authority.

My final three questions where unclear, but I was wondering about the official status of Andreason’s “final generation” theology. Is it still something taught at the seminary? If it is not, why not? (Who decided that this?)

It seems that the church should have an official statement on such an important issue. I’m wondering who that person/entity might be.

If there is no official position, why not? Is it to allow a healthy amount of “pluralism” or just a pragmatic concern of not to splitting the church?

]]> By: Julius http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1769 Julius Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:17:51 +0000 http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1769 Thank you, Blue, Dave, Raul, Zane and David for your comments. Blue: Adventist history IS so very fascinating once we get underneath the covers into the personal interactions. The people-story is always interesting! Dave: As far as I could ascertain, Andreasen's sustentation was never removed. It was indirectly threatened by Figuhr, but never formally. The GC Committee could've taken it away when they removed MLA's credential but, in light of the frail condition that he was in, they chose not to remove sustentation. Raul: You raise some interesting what-ifs. I do some of my own in my dissertation, as there were definite turning points and critical junctures in the QOD-Andreasen saga that could've changed the dynamics very much. But in the end, I think someone else would've taken his role as what he was championing was and has been held by many in the church. Zane: Andreasen was never "brought into" the loop. He brought himself in after reading the articles in Ministry and Eternity. In my dissertation, I point out that Froom and Andreasen held quite different views on whither Adventism should go. Moreover, it appears that the two never had a good relationship; in fact, there's always been some tension between the two. That leads me to believe that he was deliberately not included in the list of 125 or so who were sent the pre-pub. manuscript. You're asking a whole bunch of questions that are mostly answered in my dissertation in some detail, so I'm glad you're getting one :) But really briefly to the rest of your questions. > Who decided authorship of this document? : GC Committee > Why did Andreasen stop teaching at the seminary? : Because he retired in 1950 and moved to Glendale, CA. > Was it retirement? or was he let go? : Yes. No. > Who replaced him? and did his replacement have a different emphasis/theological perspective? : Don't know. > Who decided that this was better? : What do you mean? > Was his teaching/perspective ever officially condemned/denounced by the denomination? : No Thank you, Blue, Dave, Raul, Zane and David for your comments.

Blue: Adventist history IS so very fascinating once we get underneath the covers into the personal interactions. The people-story is always interesting!

Dave: As far as I could ascertain, Andreasen’s sustentation was never removed. It was indirectly threatened by Figuhr, but never formally. The GC Committee could’ve taken it away when they removed MLA’s credential but, in light of the frail condition that he was in, they chose not to remove sustentation.

Raul: You raise some interesting what-ifs. I do some of my own in my dissertation, as there were definite turning points and critical junctures in the QOD-Andreasen saga that could’ve changed the dynamics very much. But in the end, I think someone else would’ve taken his role as what he was championing was and has been held by many in the church.

Zane: Andreasen was never “brought into” the loop. He brought himself in after reading the articles in Ministry and Eternity. In my dissertation, I point out that Froom and Andreasen held quite different views on whither Adventism should go. Moreover, it appears that the two never had a good relationship; in fact, there’s always been some tension between the two. That leads me to believe that he was deliberately not included in the list of 125 or so who were sent the pre-pub. manuscript.

You’re asking a whole bunch of questions that are mostly answered in my dissertation in some detail, so I’m glad you’re getting one :)

But really briefly to the rest of your questions.

> Who decided authorship of this document? : GC Committee

> Why did Andreasen stop teaching at the seminary? : Because he retired in 1950 and moved to Glendale, CA.

> Was it retirement? or was he let go? : Yes. No.

> Who replaced him? and did his replacement have a different emphasis/theological perspective? : Don’t know.

> Who decided that this was better? : What do you mean?

> Was his teaching/perspective ever officially condemned/denounced by the denomination? : No

]]> By: David Vickman http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1768 David Vickman Thu, 11 Oct 2007 07:07:19 +0000 http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1768 It seems that much theological controversy is between extreme views on both sides, which are, in an isolated sense, entirely logical, but divorced from reality and the real world. Delusion vs. Delusion. It seems that much theological controversy is between extreme views on both sides, which are, in an isolated sense, entirely logical, but divorced from reality and the real world. Delusion vs. Delusion.

]]> By: Zane http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1767 Zane Thu, 11 Oct 2007 03:38:21 +0000 http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1767 What a spectacle! I'm wondering several things: Why was Andreasen brought into "the loop" so late? (It's seems a lot of this could have been avoided if he had been involved in the process somehow.) Was he intentionally excluded? Why was he not asked to help write the QOD? (Who decided authorship of this document?) This relates a couple other questions: Why did Andreasen stop teaching at the seminary? (Was it retirement? or was he let go?) Who replaced him? and did his replacement have a different emphasis/theological perspective? Who decided that this was better? Was his teaching/perspective ever officially condemned/denounced by the denomination? Thanks again, Julius! What a spectacle! I’m wondering several things:

Why was Andreasen brought into “the loop” so late? (It’s seems a lot of this could have been avoided if he had been involved in the process somehow.) Was he intentionally excluded? Why was he not asked to help write the QOD? (Who decided authorship of this document?)

This relates a couple other questions:

Why did Andreasen stop teaching at the seminary? (Was it retirement? or was he let go?)
Who replaced him? and did his replacement have a different emphasis/theological perspective?
Who decided that this was better?
Was his teaching/perspective ever officially condemned/denounced by the denomination?

Thanks again, Julius!

]]> By: Raul Batista http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1766 Raul Batista Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:23:40 +0000 http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1766 If brother Andreasen had never raised all those traditional and conservative objections, might the church be mostly progressive or quasi-progressive instead of as staunchly conservative as it is in the third world or in mainstream Adventism among latinos and other "people of color?" Depending on where one fits in within Adventism, one has either to thank or withhold thanks from this history-altering minister. I wonder why Adventist World or the Adventist Review doesn't cite your article? It certainly isn't saying anything untrue. Think of the millions of folk who would benefit one way or the other by having access to your very revealing research regarding the changes wrought by brother Andreasen. I've often wondered if Bill Knott reads your blogs as well as the Spectrum blog and a few others? He said he would when he first took office. I wonder if it shows in the articles he selects, or rejects, or if the New Review, as well as Adventist World, are more of the same of what's gone before. Thank you for your continuing blog ministry in whatever format you are able to offer it to us. If brother Andreasen had never raised all those traditional and conservative objections, might the church be mostly progressive or quasi-progressive instead of as staunchly conservative as it is in the third world or in mainstream Adventism among latinos and other “people of color?” Depending on where one fits in within Adventism, one has either to thank or withhold thanks from this history-altering minister.

I wonder why Adventist World or the Adventist Review doesn’t cite your article? It certainly isn’t saying anything untrue. Think of the millions of folk who would benefit one way or the other by having access to your very revealing research regarding the changes wrought by brother Andreasen.

I’ve often wondered if Bill Knott reads your blogs as well as the Spectrum blog and a few others? He said he would when he first took office. I wonder if it shows in the articles he selects, or rejects, or if the New Review, as well as Adventist World, are more of the same of what’s gone before.

Thank you for your continuing blog ministry in whatever format you are able to offer it to us.

]]> By: David R. Larson http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1765 David R. Larson Wed, 10 Oct 2007 07:32:13 +0000 http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1765 Thank you, Julius. Am I correct in understanding that Elder Andreasen's ministerial credentials were revoked, at least temporarily, but that his sustentation was never suspended? Or was he also "punished financially" for being so difficult? I've forgotten what your dissertation says about this. Thank you, Julius. Am I correct in understanding that Elder Andreasen’s ministerial credentials were revoked, at least temporarily, but that his sustentation was never suspended? Or was he also “punished financially” for being so difficult? I’ve forgotten what your dissertation says about this.

]]> By: Blue http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1764 Blue Wed, 10 Oct 2007 04:57:15 +0000 http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/08/questions-on-doctrine-and-m-l-andreasen-the-behind-the-scenes-interactions/#comment-1764 Wow Julius.... You tell it like a true historian. I didn't realize how interesting and relevant our past can be. I'm curious to know more about Andreasen's teachings and the way they "continue to impact [our] faith and belief[s]". Thanks for the enlightening exploration. Wow Julius….
You tell it like a true historian. I didn’t realize how interesting and relevant our past can be. I’m curious to know more about Andreasen’s teachings and the way they “continue to impact [our] faith and belief[s]“. Thanks for the enlightening exploration.

]]>