<<<

The Sanctuary Review Committee and its New Consensus

Spectrum magazine, vol. 11, no. 2 (Nov. 1980), pages 2-26.

© 2003 Spectrum/AAF. All rights reserved.

by Raymond F. Cottrell

Raymond F. Cottrell, formerly associate editor of the Review and Herald and of the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, was a member of the original Daniel Committee and the Sanctuary Review Committee.

The meeting of the Glacier View Sanctuary Review Committee (referred to here as the Sanctuary Committee) Aug. 10-15,1980, was the most important event of this nature in Adventist history since the 1888 General Conference in Minneapolis. With sober thoughts, its 115 members from around the world converged on Glacier View Ranch, located in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains northwest of Denver. Despite very real differences of opinion and some tense moments, an atmosphere of openness, freedom and mutual confidence prevailed; an atmosphere that could not have been possible ten, five or even two years ago.

The principal product of the conference was a 15-page consensus statement (see pp. 68-71) presented to the full assembly Friday morning, when it was debated, amended and duly voted. Although the document did not represent the thinking of every delegate on every point, the vote did accurately reflect a reasonable working consensus of the group as a whole. A document of nine pages, a ten-point critique that set forth in considerable detail points of agreement and disagreement with Dr. Ford's position paper, was read to the Sanctuary Committee, but not duplicated or placed in their hands. The full committee that had been working all week long to produce and vote its approval of the consensus statement was not asked to debate or vote, for or against, the ten-point critique. This document is not a product of the committee, nor does it reflect the thinking of the committee.

The Conference

Overview. The Sanctuary Committee studied issues whose roots extend at least as far back as the Minneapolis General Conference.¹ Albion F. Ballenger, 75 years ago, was the first person of record to identify the specific issues subsequently raised by numerous others, such as L. R. Conradi, W. W. Fletcher, Harold Snide, R. A. Greive and of course, most recently Desmond Ford.

Dr. Ford traces his concern with the sanctuary doctrine back to 1945. Since then, he has sought unsuccessfully in papers, articles and books to persuade church leaders to face up to what he regards as serious non sequiturs in the traditional Adventist in-[3] terpretation of Daniel 8:14 and Hebrews 9. From 1962 to 1966, the select General Conference Committee on Problems in the Book of Daniel had given protracted attention to these problems without being able to reach a consensus with respect to them.² The 1970s witnessed implementation of a policy that reserved decisions in theological matters primarily to administrators, which made it impossible to resolve a growing tension about the sanctuary through normal scholarly study and deliberation.

Desmond Ford, chairman of the theology department at Avondale College in Australia, had been serving as exchange professor at Pacific Union College in Angwin, California, when he accepted an invitation to speak to the local forum chapter on October 27, 1979. Subsequently, he was granted six months' leave at General Conference headquarters to write his reasons and conclusions, in consultation with an ad hoc guidance committee chaired by Richard Hammill, a vice president of the General Conference and a Bible scholar. The purpose of this committee was not to control Ford's research, but to assist him in preparing his formal statement of problems and solutions.

The resulting document, "Daniel 8:14, The Day of Atonement, and the Investigative Judgment" (see for a summary, pp. 30-36), provided the basis for the Sanctuary Committee's deliberations. This nearly 1,000-page document reviews the history of Adventist debates over the sanctuary during the past 75 years, examines the biblical evidence in detail, and presents Dr. Ford's own conclusions. In his manuscript, Ford contends that, at several points, the traditional Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8:14 and Hebrews 9 lacks an accurate, adequate basis,³ and Ford proposes what he calls an apotelesmatic⁴ solution. In varying degrees, most contemporary Adventist Bible scholars, including those in attendance at Glacier View, agree with his analysis of the exegetical problems, but not with his proposed solutions to them.

Several weeks before Glacier View, the General Conference provided each participant with copies of not only the 991-page Ford document, but 11 others of 849 additional pages—a formal reading assignment of 1,840 closely reasoned pages. A few additional papers were distributed during the conference.

The Sanctuary Committee was representative in composition. The administrative and biblical scholarly communities of the church were dominant. With some overlapping of categories, the 111 regular delegates and four "special invitees" included 56 administrators, 46 Bible scholars, five editors, six pastors, six graduate students, six members of the former committee on Problems in the Book of Daniel, and 14 retired persons. Administrators included virtually all the church's top world leaders. Nineteen were members of the General Conference headquarters staff. Nine of the ten world division presidents were present, along with 11 union and three local conference presidents. Thirty-four were from divisions outside North America. Minority racial groups and third-world nations were liberally represented.

The daily schedule provided for seven small study groups, consisting of 16 to 18 members each, which conversed for three and a half hours each morning. The full assembly met an equal length of time for discussions in the afternoon, and then met for lectures each evening. Each day the study groups and full assembly followed an assigned agenda.⁵ Each study group drew up a consensus report on the topic for the day, for presentation to the full afternoon assembly. An official tape recording of proceedings of the full assembly was made by Dr. Donald Yost, General Conference archivist; individual records were limited to handwritten notes.⁶

Original plans for the conference did not provide for Dr. Ford to address the group or to answer questions publicly. Many delegates, however, wanted to hear him and thought that he should be given the opportunity to speak. Accordingly, the last hour of the last three afternoons (Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday) was devoted to this purpose. At some points, the questions and comments were very direct and explicit, and [4] there were tense moments. But even the most emphatic speeches were made in a spirit of deep earnestness and sincerity.

Two identical opinion polls of delegates on the substantive issues were taken, one before the committee entered upon its task and the other at the close, with a view to evaluating the effect of study and deliberation on the thinking of the participants. Each poll consisted of 21 questions dealing with hermeneutical principles, points of exegesis and attitudes concerning relevant sections of the recently revised Statement of Fundamental Beliefs. A tabulation of responses to each of these polls was read to the delegates. The most noteworthy difference in responses to the two polls was a measurable trend toward a higher level of consensus on some of the key questionnaire items of the latter poll.⁷

Sunday Evening: The General Conference President Speaks. The opening meeting of the conference Sunday night featured an address by Neal Wilson, president of the General Conference and chairman of the committee that had assisted Dr. Ford in the preparation of his position paper. In his keynote remarks, Elder Wilson traced the historical background of concern with respect to the sanctuary doctrine and commented on the purpose and objectives of the conference.

WILSON: There never has been a meeting quite like this. It is not going to be an easy meeting, but we are optimistic and believe it will prove to be a blessing to the church. Between 1961 and 1966, the General Conference Committee on Problems in the Book of Daniel gave study to the same problems that bring us together here at Glacier View. Its 45 study documents have never been released. Its members, six of whom are with us tonight, were in agreement on ultimate conclusions but could not reconcile their differences of opinion as to what they considered adequate evidence on which to base these conclusions. These problems continue to fester, and it is unhealthy for the church that more has not been done to resolve them. Discussions of a confusing nature continue to multiply, and this is why we are here tonight.

Last October 27, our friend, our brother, our fellow minister Desmond Ford addressed a large meeting of the Adventist Forum at Pacific Union College, and some interpreted his remarks as a challenge to the church. There was a strong reaction which led the Pacific Union Conference and Drs. Cassell and Madgwick—president and academic dean of Pacific Union College—to take the initiative in bringing the problem to the General Conference. The brethren planned an approach they thought would be consistent with Christian principles, and arranged for Dr. Ford to have a leave of six months in Washington to research his position thoroughly and to write a statement of his views. If he is teaching error, we ought to know it; if he is right, we should stand by his side.

Ellen White has told us that we should study the truth for ourselves, that we are not to take any man's word for it, and yet we are to be subject to one another. Some have felt that investigation should not be permitted, but she wrote that when no new questions or differences of opinion arise there will be a tendency to rely on tradition. We are not to think our opinions infallible, but we are to be teachable and prayerful as we study. We are not to study in order to find support for our preconceived opinions, but to hear what God has said. God would have all of our positions thoroughly examined.⁸

If the church has been remiss in the past, it has an even greater obligation to provide responsible leadership for our people today. Ignorance is no excuse. We are thankful for our Bible scholars, hermeneuticists, theologians, and exegetes.

HAMMILL: One of the crucial problems facing the church today is the interpretation of cleansing of the sanctuary beginning in 1844, as set forth in Daniel 8:14. It has become evident that we need better answers to some of the contextual problems. The guidance committee⁹ did not force its views on Dr. Ford. Its role was to point out what seemed unclear and to aid him in securing the documents he needed. The committee met in a spirit of love and good will. The resulting paper of nearly 1,000 pages is Ford's. His paper touches on areas for which the Adventist church needs to give careful study. In such study, it is vital that none of us runs off [5] on our own. Ellen White has said that people with strong minds must work with great care.

WILSON: I want Des Ford, his wife Gill, and their son Luke to know that we love them very much, and that we appreciate all that he has written. This is, and is not, a Des Ford meeting. Des is not on trial before this group, though some of his views are on trial. He is not a member of this group; he is here to answer questions and to clarify his position.

It will be our endeavor to be fair and open. We will work toward a consensus, but not a majority vote. We need to find out if we do have problems, what is central, and what needs more study. Please be honest and say what you think lest people misunderstand you. Here in this meeting, you will have immunity. We greatly appreciate the work of our Bible scholars on the new Statement of Fundamental Beliefs adopted at Dallas.¹⁰ They will be partners of ours in reaching decisions on doctrine.

Some have suggested that several articles in the Adventist Review¹¹ in recent months were biased, prejudiced, and that they prejudged the case: I assure you that there has been no calculated strategy. The editors have done what the leaders expect them to do—to affirm and defend Adventist positions. It is not the role of the Review to give contrary views equal time, or to promote "new light" before that light has been studied by responsible groups. The Seventh-day Adventist Church is not on trial. It has a clear position on certain points; we are not here searching for a position, but we are reaching out for answers.

The bottom line, of course, is the role of Ellen White in doctrinal matters. This is central. Dr. Sakae Kubo, now president of Newbold College, has identified the great issue that will come before the church during the 1980s as the role of the Spirit of Prophecy. It will be the issue, he says.

It is our earnest prayer and hope that as a result of our deliberations here at Glacier View, God's church will prosper and the coming of our Lord will be hastened.

Monday Morning: The Small Study Group. The planning committee had drawn up an agenda for each day of the conference, Monday through Thursday, covering the problems relating to the sanctuary doctrine as presented by Dr. Ford in his position paper. The topics for the four days were: Monday, "The Nature of Prophecy," Tuesday, "The Cleansing of the Sanctuary and the Investigative Judgment—1," a consideration of the linguistic and contextual problems in Daniel; Wednesday, "The Cleansing of the Sanctuary and the Investigative Judgment—2," a consideration of the sanctuary in the book of Hebrews; Thursday, "The Role of the Ellen G. White Writings in Doctrinal Matters." Each of the seven study groups was composed of administrators, Bible scholars, and other delegates.

The various groups of 16 to 18 members met in appropriate locations throughout the camp. As already mentioned, remarks here attributed to each speaker give the gist of his comments, in his own words. These comments are reported in the order in which they occurred, but it should be remembered that a speaker is not necessarily responding directly to the one who preceded him, and that the bare gist of his remarks may, in some instances, tend to obscure continuity. The chairman of each group was a vice president of the General Conference; its recording secretary was elected by the group. Item by item, each group debated the agenda for the day and agreed on a consensus response to each. The secretary recorded these responses and combined them into a formal report which the group approved for presentation at the general assembly in the afternoon.

A detailed report of proceedings in all seven study groups, or of any one group over the four days, would be repetitive, tedious and longer than space permits. Instead, a virtually complete but considerably condensed report of the Monday morning discussion in Group 2 will provide an adequate concept of [6] the general nature, scope and tone of the group discussions. Group 2 chairman was Charles Bradford, vice president of the General Conference for North America, and the secretary was Kenneth Strand, professor of church history at Andrews University.

The agenda for Monday called for a discussion of "The Nature of Prophecy." That topic was subdivided into seven specific questions. A. Could all the Old Testament prophecies have been fulfilled within the time of the covenant with Israel, i.e., by the time of the first advent of Christ? If so, what effect does this have on our interpretation of the time prophecies of Daniel?¹²

WADIE FARAG (pastor-evangelist, Alberta Conference): The Encyclopedia Judaica quotes the Midrash as recognizing a sanctuary in heaven, as well as one on earth. Accordingly, it is not possible to prove that Daniel did not know about a sanctuary in heaven.

MERLE MILLS (General Conference field secretary): We can give this question a decisive "no."

FRED HARDER (retired executive secretary of the General Conference Board of Higher Education): If the prophecies were based on how the Lord knew things would work out, He would not have given them in the form He did.

KENNETH WOOD (editor, Adventist Review): The prophecies could not have been based on God's foreknowledge. Had they been, the Lord would have been prejudging the result.

BRADFORD: Perhaps we should reword the statement by omitting the word "all."

A. N. DUFFY (ministerial secretary, Australasian Division): The predictive prophecies of Daniel are unconditional.

FARAG: Daniel's prophecies are definitely unconditional.

WOOD: If we take the question as it reads, our answer must be an absolute "no." Some Old Testament prophecies could not have been fulfilled within that time frame.

A. A. ALALADE (graduate student at Andrews University, on study leave from the Adventist Seminary of West Africa): We need to recognize that many of the Old Testament prophecies have a dual application. (Some voices called for an emphatic "no"; others for a qualified "no.")

FARAG: Predictive prophecy is a declaration based on God's foreknowledge.

WOOD: We have wrestled with the idea that prophecy is an expression of God's foreknowledge; some consider it to express God's purpose rather than His foreknowledge.

HARDER: Our perspective does not preclude the idea that the prophecies all had a meaning for former ages.

WOOD: Ellen White said that they were more for our day than for former ages.

JAMES COX (professor of New Testament, Theological Seminary; under appointment as president of Avondale College): Are we saying "no" to this question from our point of view, or from that of the author? Daniel evidently did not envision multiple fulfillments of his prophecies, but the ongoing people of God have always considered the prophecies applicable to their own situation. From the author's perspective, we would have to answer "no." The predictive prophecies had meaning for the people of the time in which they were given; there was something that could have been applicable. But time has gone on.

STRAND: There are two types of prophetic literature—classical and apocalyptic—and this makes a difference. It is not proper to attribute multiple fulfillment to apocalyptic prophecies, as Dr. Ford does.

BRADFORD: I fear we would be giving the prophecies a wax nose.

B. Does the Old Testament set forth the two advents of Christ separated by an interim of many years?¹³

DUFFY: The Old Testament did not foresee two advents separated by 2,000 years.

FARAG: There is an Old Testament indication of two advents.

BRADFORD: The Old Testament recognizes a heavenly sanctuary. We want revelation, not speculation.

DUFFY: If we did not have the New Testament, what would we conclude about there [7] being a second advent, from the Old Testament?

CLYDE 0. FRANZ (retired secretary of the General Conference): If we had only the Old Testament, we would not have much information about what we call the second advent. The difference in our perspective is a result of the fact that 2,000 years have elapsed.

BRADFORD: Our consensus, then, is "no."

DUFFY: There has been a progressive unfolding of the prophecies.

MILLS: Daniel clearly sets forth two advents, with a time interval between them.

WOOD: The question is not whether Daniel sets forth two advents, but whether what he wrote is perceived as indicating two advents. The question before us is, does Daniel set forth two advents with a time interval between them?

COX: That is a specious argument. We are stuck with perception.

HARDER: It is clear from Matthew 24, which Christ Himself based on the prophecies of Daniel, that neither He nor the disciples envisioned a long time before He would return.

FARAG: Spiritual things are spiritually discerned.

C. Is the New Testament church predicted or acknowledged in the Old Testament?

BRADFORD: I think our answer will have to be "no." (No objections.)

D. Does the New Testament indicate the likelihood of a first-century return of Christ?¹⁴

VOICES: "Yes." (No objections.)

Recess.

E. Is the year-day principle a biblical teaching?¹⁵

JEAN ZURCHER (secretary, Euro-Africa Division): We cannot prove it from Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6. We need another principle. I believe the year-day principle is based on the sabbatical year and the jubilee system. (He presented evidence for the jubilee system as a basis for the principle.)

JOHN W. FOWLER (president, Ohio Conference): The jubilee system in addition to Numbers and Ezekiel.

HARDER: We will have to recognize that the day-year principle does not apply in Daniel 9.

COX: I do not use Numbers and Ezekiel at all. But it is a biblical principle; I just say, "A day symbolizes a year," and let it go at that. Let us not use specious arguments when it is not necessary to do so.

HARDER: Ezekiel does not satisfy me at all. We need to provide something that we can rely on.

BRADFORD: We are saying that the day-year principle is valid.

MILLS: Are we to tell our people that we have been wrong? Doesn't Sister White use this argument?

FRANZ: It is a biblical datum.

ALALADE: There is no problem in recognizing that we have been wrong. We believe in progressive revelation, and that implies progressive understanding, does it not?

WOOD: Ellen White speaks of an "unfolding." The word "progressive" has evolutionary connotations. This church has a lot to lose by being iconoclastic with the pioneers. We should build on, and enrich, their insights.

STRAND: I am with Jim Cox on shabu'ah ("weeks" or "sevens" of years).

COX: Why should we insist on using arguments that are weak?

STRAND: Our consensus, then, is "yes," but that we need to base it on better reasons than we have in the past.

DUFFY: We should not use negative expressions in our report.

STRAND: The crucial issue is how Ellen White used these texts (Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6). God always communicates with His people in terms of their own time.

F. Do the time prophecies of Daniel contain conditional elements, or are they exclusively unconditional?¹⁶

[8]

There was no discussion; all in this group agreed that Daniel believed his prophecies were unconditional. Group 2 adjourned its morning session half an hour late and there was not time to discuss the last question.

G. To what extent do the prophecies of Daniel permit application to multiple situations or fulfillments?

Group 2 took this item up first the following morning, and there was unanimous agreement that Daniel makes no provision for multiple fulfillments.

Monday Afternoon: The Full Assembly. Each afternoon, the secretary of each of the seven study groups presented its consensus report. With a few minor variations, there was remarkable agreement. Monday afternoon, the consensus of all seven groups concerning the questions was approximately as follows:

A. Some, but not all, of the Old Testament prophecies could have met their fulfillment in connection with the first advent of Christ.

B. There is no consensus as to whether the Old Testament presents two advents separated by an interval of many years.

C. There is no Old Testament intimation of the New Testament church.

D. The New Testament clearly indicates the likelihood that Christ could have returned in the first century of the Christian era.

E. The year-day principle is biblical, but there is some uncertainty as to the best evidence for it.

F. The time prophecies of Daniel are unconditional.

G. The prophecies of Daniel are not susceptible to multiple fulfillments.

After the group consensus reports were read to the full assembly, discussion began. In response to a request from Group 2, Dr. Jean Zurcher repeated the evidence for the sabbatic year/jubilee system as a basis for the year-day principle in Bible prophecy, which he had presented to the group that morning.

HAMMILL: All Old Testament prophecy could have been fulfilled in an end-time back there.

RICHARD LESHER (director, Bible Research Institute): God's foreknowledge imposed a sealing of the prophecies of Daniel.

FARAG: There is a difference between application and fulfillment. God's people may, at times, apply a prophecy to their time that is not to be considered a fulfillment.

R. L. ODOM (retired, member of former Daniel Committee): The classical prophecies could all have been fulfilled in ancient Israel, but not the apocalyptic time prophecies of Daniel.

BEATRICE NEALL (professor of theology, Union College): The outcome of Israel's probation was conditional. There were two possible outcomes of Daniel 9 and the 70 weeks.

ODOM: Let us get something positive.

LESLIE HARDINGE (dean of the seminary, Philippine Union College): We are wasting time on speculation. Let us cut off the "ifsies." (A loud chorus of Amens.")

Afternoon recess.

V. N. OLSEN (president, Loma Linda University): Old Testament eschatology is realized in the New Testament.

A. L. WHITE (retired secretary of the Ellen G. White Estate): On page 472 of Patriarchs and Prophets, we read that God, in His foreknowledge, opened the future to Moses down to the end of time.

FRED VELTMAN (chairman, department of religion and biblical languages, Pacific Union College): The New Testament clearly expected an early fulfillment of the promised return of Christ. We cannot use the same arguments as we have in the past.

JAN PAULSEN (secretary, Northern Europe-West Africa Division): We need to consider the "ifs." Let us refer the matter of conditionality back to the groups for further study.

NEALL: We should consider the possibility that the Old Testament prophecies have been reinterpreted by later-inspired writers.

[9]

HARDER: In Matthew 24, Christ interpreted the prophecy of Daniel to His disciples, and in so doing explicitly assigned their fulfillment to the generation of the apostles.

HAMMILL: For twelve years, I have had the uneasy feeling that the eschatological prophecies of the Old Testament could have met their fulfillment in New Testament times. Was the New Testament church deluded in its belief that Christ could have come in that generation? Clearly, the Lord could have come in that time, and if so, the Old Testament prophecies would have met their fulfillment then. Daniel 7 does present the sweep of history, but not to A.D. 2,000.

JAMES LONDIS (pastor, Sligo Church, Takoma Park, Md.): Some of us are not as certain as others seem to be on the matter of conditionality. Are we saying that God intentionally deceived His people for 2,000 years?

GERHARD HASEL (professor of Old Testament, Theological Seminary): It was not a delusion. God's only intention in Daniel 8:14 was to point forward to 1844. (Chorus of "Amens.")

JOHN BRUNT (associate professor of New Testament, Walla Walla College): I second Drs. Hammill and Londis. The book of Revelation, at the very close of the New Testament, repeatedly speaks of the time of Christ's return as near. We need a hermeneutic for Daniel that does not have God playing games with people.

STRAND: Our consensus on the book of Daniel seems to be in conflict with our consensus on the book of Revelation. We are raising questions that were irrelevant in Bible times.

LEROY MOORE (coordinator, Native American [Indian] Affairs): God intended that His people should receive comfort from an application of the prophecies to their time, though the application may not have been a fulfillment. The sealing of Daniel provided for a positive fulfillment at a later time.

K. G. VAZ (ministerial director, West Indies Union Conference): We need to make a distinction between application and fulfillment, and between the classical prophecies and apocalyptic prophecy. It is of great importance that this committee leave us with confidence in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

ROBERT ZAMORA (chairman, department of religion, Columbia Union College): We must listen to what the writer himself is trying to say. This subject needs much more study.

HARDER: There is no question as to what "this generation" meant to the people who heard Jesus speak.

NORMAN YOUNG (professor of theology, Avondale College): The distinction some make between classical prophecy and apocalyptic prophecy is not valid. The book of Revelation interpreted the book of Daniel, and Revelation emphasizes the imminence of Christ's return at that time. The principle of reinterpretation should be given further study.

Tuesday Afternoon: The Heppenstall-Ford-Wilson Encounter. For his assigned hour, Dr. Ford stood at a small lectern on the main floor immediately in front of the platform, where the chairman and his assistants sat. The substance of Ford's remarks Tuesday afternoon was as follows.

FORD: The day of atonement is clearly reflected in Daniel 8 and 9. The prayer in Daniel 9 is a day of atonement prayer and Daniel 9:24 is stated in day of atonement terms. Vindication is the keynote of every chapter of Daniel. The motif of judgment is clearly reflected in Daniel and, in fact, throughout the Bible, but not an investigative judgment. Daniel 8:14 and 9:24 refer to the same event at the end of the 70 weeks. Many Adventists fear judgment even after their sins have been forgiven, because of the way in which the investigative judgment is presented. The book of Revelation makes clear that Christ's kingdom could have come in the first century of our era, and Daniel 7 could have been fulfilled then.

I fully believe that God raised up the Seventh-day Adventist Church in 1844.I believe in the year-day principle, but not on the basis of Numbers and Ezekiel. When that which could have happened did not happen, God led people to apply the year-day principle to Daniel's prophecies. I believe that God spoke to Ellen White miraculously. This church would have been ship-wrecked without her. But we have misused Ellen White.

[10]

Inspiration comes to us today as Christ came—in the culture of our day. As Donald McAdams and Walter Rea have demonstrated, our usual views of inspiration have been wrong, Ellen White was a creature of her time, as the twelve disciples were of theirs. None of this in the least degree detracts from Ellen White's gift of inspiration. It does prove, however, that "inerrancy" is not the correct word to describe her inspiration.

Highlight of the Ford hour Tuesday afternoon was the result of a question addressed to him by E. E. Heppenstall, emeritus chairman of the department of theology, Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary; Dr. Ford studied with Heppenstall in classes 25 years ago.

HEPPENSTALL: Des, what took place in heaven in 1844, in relation to the judgment of Daniel 7:9-14? Do you see in this a new phase in Christ's ministry in the heavenly sanctuary?

Misunderstanding Dr Heppenstall's intention, Dr. Ford responded with a lengthy disquisition. Later, after talking with Heppenstall, he understood that Heppenstall's intention was to affirm his own loyalty to the Adventist understanding of the judgment, and to give Ford an opportunity to join him in doing so. He apologized to Ford for the misunderstanding. Some delegates construed this verbal exchange as evidence that Heppenstall, a long-time friend and supporter of Ford, turned against him. Heppenstall, however, denies that he has changed his attitude toward Ford and says that his remarks on this point have been misconstrued. After Ford's disquisition had continued at some length, Neal Wilson, chairman of the session, who was seated behind a table on the platform, interrupted.

WILSON: You mentioned that you have changed your mind on some things and that you could be wrong. You have stated your great affection for Ellen White. Her counsel is that you should present your opinions to the brethren, and that if they see no light in them, you should lay them aside. Dr. Heppenstall has appealed to you to do so. Do you accept his counsel? You never listen to your brethren. If you believe in Ellen White, and the brethren tell you what they think, you had better practice what you preach. If you are not willing to accept the counsel of your brethren. . . .

FORD: I appreciate your counsel.

While the final housekeeping remarks of the session were being made, Dr. Ford gathered up his papers and left the lectern. This challenge to Dr. Ford's integrity brought Tuesday afternoon to an abrupt halt, and the Sanctuary Committee to its moment of highest tension. To be sure, the lengthy disquisition Neal Wilson interrupted was not one of which even Ford's most ardent supporters could be proud; in fact, it was the nadir of his performance at Glacier View. Even so, many members of the committee were taken completely by surprise, and were at a loss to understand why the president of the General Conference had considered it necessary to speak in such uncharacteristically strong language. For the first time, some of the scholars began to wonder if their presence at Glacier View had been intended to provide support for a decision concerning Ford that had been already determined.

Wednesday Afternoon: Exchanges with Ford.

FORD: I am sorry that I misunderstood yesterday. My response was not as positive as if I had understood. I have told the brethren many times that I am fully prepared to be quiet on the issue. I have no wish to crusade in this area. I have published many hundreds of pages on the subject over the past 23 years. I believe in our sanctuary message, but the way in which we have expressed it has not always been the best way. I am perfectly happy to accept the counsel of the brethren on this matter. Since October 27, I have refused to speak on the judgment, and I have no intention of speaking on it until the brethren have studied it. I long for the insights of my brethren. Many invitations have come to work outside the church, but I have had no wish to accept them. I cannot go against my conscience, and I am sure you do not want me to.

WILSON: The statement Des just made brings great rejoicing to me. I believe it is an answer to prayer. I accept your statement, [11] Des, at full value. At no time has this church endeavored to control minds. It gives considerable latitude for opinions, but this carries with it an enormous sacred responsibility. It does not give latitude to create doubts, to undermine faith, or to muffle the message of this church. We cannot afford to confuse others' minds with our personal opinions. When a person becomes a minister, he accepts a commitment to preach and teach the message this church has to give. Des, you are not only to be silent on certain things; you have a message to proclaim to the world. All I was trying to say yesterday was: Think through carefully the counsel of brethren of experience. You are teachable, yield to their judgment. I am accepting your statement at full value.

FORD: The church has not really put its act together. Some of the opinions we have heard expressed the past few days are very different from our published statements. Our published literature had denied that Hebrews 9:23 refers to Calvary. The investigative judgment and the cleansing of the sanctuary are not identified in Hebrews 9. As Dr. Heppenstall has pointed out, blood never denies, but cleanses. The New Testament clearly uses the language of last things to describe the first advent and events that followed it. This is what I was taught at the seminary. It has been published in The Ministry. The question is, do we want the best answer or the traditional answer? I have made many mistakes, and I may be wrong again.

G. RALPH THOMPSON (secretary of the General Conference): We do not have all the answers to all the problems, but it is our duty to proclaim the accepted beliefs of the church when we preach. We are safe when we stay with these beliefs. Further study in groups is O.K.

FORD: The things I have been saying are set forth in the article on "The Role of Israel in Old Testament Prophecy" in volume 4 of the SDA Bible Commentary. I did not invent them. Also, the book of Revelation is crystal clear on the subject.

LONDIS: I am puzzled about your use of the term "pastoral" in referring to the writings of Ellen White. Is it not fair to say that she is one doctrinal authority?

FORD: Of course, she has teaching authority. Again and again she urges us to base all our teachings on the Bible. Her writings can be used doctrinally when what she writes is clearly supported by Scripture.

K. S. PARMENTER (president Australasian Division): I hold Des Ford in the highest esteem. He is a man of God, a man of high moral principles, a man of much ability who has had a powerful ministry. He has potential to help this church as a minister. But unless there is pastoral concern along with his ministry, it will prove to be a power for evil. Our friendship has been on a most cordial, friendly basis. We are still supporting Dr. Ford fully, and it is my responsibility to protect his name. Des, I urge you to listen to, and accept, our counsel. Lay your views aside. For six years you have been appealing to the General Conference for a hearing, and you have implied a dereliction of duty on its part for not giving you such an opportunity. But you have changed your position; your manuscript and your book do not agree.

FORD: You must look at the problems, and then you will see that the two are in agreement.

PARMENTER: I greatly appreciate your acceptance of the counsel of your friends. The dialogue this afternoon has been good. But it is not enough to say that you are willing to be silent on some things. Your document has gone everywhere in Australia, and we have a pastoral problem of tremendous magnitude there as a result. As I read your document, morning light turns to midnight. Is there any shift in your position? I refer to such things as conditionality in the prophecies of Daniel, to your apotelesmatic principle, and to the idea that Christ could have come in the first century of our era.

FORD: I have not changed my position on [12] conditionality. I abide by what the Bible Commentary teaches on that subject. It is also clear from Scripture that if the Jews had been faithful Jerusalem would never have been destroyed. Nineveh would have been destroyed if the city had not repented. Look at what the prophecies of Daniel meant to the people who first read them. No, there is no shift in my position on conditionality.

Thursday Afternoon: Statements by Pierson, Blehm and Provonsha. The first item of business Thursday afternoon was the reading, by retired General Conference secretary Clyde 0. Franz, of a lengthy letter from Robert H. Pierson:¹⁷ "An Appeal to the Sanctuary Review Committee." In substance the letter read:

Glacier View is a historic convocation in Adventism. I hope it will create a new awareness of the hour in which we live. The papers prepared for the conference are thought provoking. I believe in the need for change in appropriate circumstances, but there must be valid reasons for change. Some change is good, some is hurtful.

As I read the conference papers, I saw lights flashing—some green, some amber, some red. I come, in all sincerity, to raise certain vital questions. I am deeply concerned that so many of our distinctive doctrines are being questioned. As I read Dr. Ford's manuscript, I felt a sense of abandonment. Is our message to be tested by the norms of unbelieving theologians and scientists? Are we to be asked to accept an emasculated view of Ellen G. White? Is it intellectually honest to affirm faith in Ellen White and then attack what she wrote? Are we to reassess our position on the judgment? Are we to jettison or update our sanctuary truth because some challenge it? Brethren, I protest.

Desmond Ford has been teaching and preaching this doctrinal position for many years, and he is sadly wrong. No one has a right to teach or preach such things while he is being supported by the church. It is morally and intellectually dishonest for a person to accept financial support if he is undermining the church. If he is not in harmony with the church, he should be honest enough to withdraw to a climate in which he feels comfortable. Academic freedom and responsibility, yes, but not academic license.

Later Thursday afternoon, W. D. Blehm, president of the Pacific Union Conference, spoke in a similar vein:

BLEHM: I see better today than ever before that the meaning of the past is correct. I accept what I believe to be a divine communication through Ellen White. It is our privilege to improve the pillars of the faith, but not to change them. Dr. Ford's challenge has already borne fruit in the Pacific Union—split congregations, doubts in the minds of pastors leading them to give up their credentials, divided faculties. Anything that divides this church or leads to doubt is wrong. Some of our theologians are hotbeds of doubt. Let us get our act together. We have an obligation to go back and get our churches moving for God. We need each other today as never before. We've got to forget our suspicion of administrators. This is where I stand.

In an attempt to heal the rift between Dr. Ford and the Australasian Division, Dr. Jack Provonsha commented on the importance of healing as a prelude to a question he intended to put, in turn, to Neal Wilson, K. S. Parmenter, and Desmond Ford.

JACK PROVONSHA (professor of ethics, Loma Linda University): As a physician, I am more concerned with healing than I am with surgery. In 1910, Ellen White advised that graduates of Loma Linda should be fully qualified medical practitioners. This led to the accreditation of Loma Linda, of our colleges that prepare students for Loma Linda, and of our academies that prepare students for our colleges. It led, eventually, to higher education for our ministers and to accreditation of schools in which they are trained. The church has never been quite the [13] same since that fateful statement by the messenger of the Lord in 1910. It has enabled us to fulfill the message of Revelation 14:6-7 more fully than we ever could have otherwise. Except for Ellen White's insight, our witness would have remained on a more limited level.

As a result of higher education there is, today, a broad spectrum of thought in the church. I believe in the 2,300 days, in the heavenly sanctuary, and in the investigative judgment, but these words have a different content for me than when I was a child. I cannot accept the literalism of my father, but we can all stand on the shoulders of our fathers. They would not be happy with what I have to say. But at the same time I do believe in continuity with our fathers and with what they believed. The church is like a tree that springs from seed; as one of the branches, I belong to the roots of the tree. I believe in continuity. There are depths yet undreamed of in the sanctuary and the investigative judgment. There is a very real progression in our perception of truth.

(Addressing Elder Wilson, Dr. Provonsha continued:) The other day Des stood on the spot where I am now standing. If you asked me to put my convictions in my pocket, I would have to reply, "I am sorry; I can't do that. My personal integrity is more valuable to me than credentials or church membership. I can't put my integrity in my pocket. But if you asked me not to speak publicly on certain matters, I could put them in my pocket. I will do what I can to overcome tensions." If I sent you a letter in which I gave this assurance, would you accept it in good faith?

WILSON: Yes, I would accept that.

PROVONSHA: The reason for the tension we all feel over this matter is that we have not been meeting together, as we have here at Glacier View. I must agree with most of what Des Ford is saying. (Then, turning to Elder Parmenter, Dr. Provonsha addressed to him the same question to which Elder Wilson had just replied in the affirmative.)

PARMENTER: Your statement should also affirm that you stand loyally by the church. This church is not led by one man; we have committees. I would want you to write out your statement.

WILSON: One further small step is needed, I think. You should add, "I stand by the position of the church; I am committed to it." Dr. Provonsha has given us something very important; Des Ford is a man worth saving.

PARMENTER: I take my stand with Elder Blehm. Des, if you are honest, you will pass in your credentials and do so without being asked.

PROVONSHA (turning to the audience): All of you, would you do that? If you ask people in this room to turn in their credentials, not a few would have to do so on the same basis that Ford is being asked. Integrity is more important than church belief. The real question is, am I a man of integrity? If you brethren can't think more about healing—surely there must be other ways of dealing with this. I could not sell my soul in order to be a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

PARMENTER. Healing must be on a wider basis. Our churches in Australia are severely polarized. Healing must reach further than just one man.

PROVONSHA: This meeting is bigger than Des Ford. We need to find a way of keeping this broad spectrum of thought together; we need something that will keep us together.

JOE BATTISTONE (pastor, Fletcher, North Carolina): It has been a great blessing for me to be here. I am stunned at the thought that a number of my colleagues in the ministry are considering turning in their credentials if Des Ford has to surrender his. I am stunned at the idea of split, polarized churches. If they are polarized, this serious state is not the result of the present crisis, but of something much more basic. We, as ministers, have not been nurturing our churches as we should. That is why the churches react as some are doing today. What you refer to is a symptom of a much greater crisis.

FORD: Some confuse loyalty with not asking questions. I am not committed to all the church has taught, nor are you. None of us believes everything the church has taught [14] down through the years. On that basis, we all ought to be excommunicated.

GEORGE W. BROWN (president, Inter-American Division): Dr. Heppenstall directed your attention to 1844 and the judgment. Ellen White endorses the sanctuary as the foundation of our message. How do you reconcile your rejection of this doctrine with your appeal to Ellen White?

FORD: I believe Ellen White's messages regarding 1844 and the heavenly sanctuary. I believe God gave us the sanctuary message. The problem is with our way of saying it; we need to find a better way.

A. H. TOLHURST (president, Trans-Tasman Union Conference): You have limited access to the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary in the era of ancient Israel, and you imply that Christ has no first apartment ministry in the heavenly sanctuary. How do you reconcile this discrepancy between the earthly and heavenly sanctuaries?

FORD: In the comparison of Hebrews 9, the service in the first apartment of the earthly sanctuary stands for the entire Mosaic era, and that in the most holy place of the ancient earthly sanctuary stands for all of Christ's ministry in the heavenly sanctuary since His ascension.

H. E. DOUGLASS (book editor, Pacific Press Publishing Association): In support of your position, you have repeatedly appealed to the SDA Bible Commentary article on "The Role of Israel in Old Testament Prophecy" in volume 4. As I remember, Ray Cottrell, you wrote that article. I would like to ask you how you reconcile Ford's understanding of that article with this sentence in it: "This rule does not apply to those portions of the book of Daniel that the prophet was bidden to 'shut up' and seal,' or to other passages whose application Inspiration may have limited exclusively to our own time" (p. 38).

RAYMOND COTTRELL (retired book editor, Review and Herald Publishing Association, and member of former Daniel Committee): Yes, I wrote that article, but Elder Nichol added the sentence to which you refer, during the editorial process. Ask him. (General laughter.)

LOUIS VENDEN (pastor, Loma Linda University Church): Des, I have profited and benefited from your inquiry. I would like to ask, however, did something change in heaven in 1844?

FORD: In 1844, God set the third's angel's message in motion.

D. P. GULLON (professor, River Plate College): Then there is really no room for 1844 as we have understood it?

FORD: Yes, there is; the church teaching on the sanctuary is not all tentative.

GERARD DAMSTEEGT (pastor, Fairfax, Virginia): We need to distinguish between inaugurated and consummated eschatology.

HAMMILL: The interpretation of Hebrews 9:8's making the earthly first apartment figurative for the entire Mosaic dispensation, and that of the second apartment figurative for the entire ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary, seems contrary to the author's intent. On certain key doctrinal issues, you differ from the rest of us. You seem to do away with the intercessory ministry of Christ in the first apartment. Most of the people here would not agree with you. We do not ask you to do something contrary to your conscience, but a minister must be able to win people to the church, to prepare candidates for baptism. Are you clear in your own mind that you could prepare candidates for baptism?

FORD: Certainly.

MILLS: I appreciate Dr. Provonsha's healing message. The sanctuary is not really the main issue, but the gift of prophecy. Dr. Ford, you do not really believe in the Spirit of Prophecy. Ellen White's teaching about the sanctuary is one of our main pillars. How, then, am I to relate to Sister White?

FORD: I am not against Ellen White, but against a misuse of Ellen White. The problem has to do with a person's view of inspiration.

MILLS: How can I know what part of the Spirit of Prophecy is still good today? Can I be selective? In order to accept progressive light, I do not have to reject former light. How can I accept new light if it contradicts former light?

FORD: I am not against the church, nor Ellen White nor this message.

WILSON: Tomorrow morning we will [15] study two statements, one addressed to our people and the other a response to Des Ford's document. Then PREXAD and the Australasian Division will sit down and talk with Des. The church deals honorably and sympathetically with people. It may make mistakes, but it intends to be fair. Des, you have made a contribution to our lives and to the church.

FORD: "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity."

PARMENTER: The Australasian Division will work in close harmony with the General Conference. The patient himself must help in the healing process. I agree with Neal Wilson; we will work closely with the General Conference and accept their advice.

After the reading of the consensus reports from the small study groups on "The Role of Ellen G. White in Doctrinal Matters," discussion continued.

WILSON: There is clear harmony in these reports. It is beautiful.

WALTER R. SCRAGG (president, Northern Europe-West Africa Division): How close the statements are!

HARDINGE: There are no errors in Ellen White's writings. Beware of historians.

HARDER: The church is a living community. This group is an instrument of God's revelation. We should recognize the authority of the church. The church does not control Scripture. The church would not have retained the investigative judgment without Ellen White.

OLSEN: Our joy here reflects the fact that things have not been as they should be. This meeting is a unifying factor, an evidence of the unity of the church. The seven groups have all come to the same conclusions. This is our best understanding at the present time. As a result of setting up creeds, Protestantism stagnated.

Friday Morning: Adopting the Consensus Statement. As the close of the conference approached, a drafting and screening committee combined the seven-group consensus reports for all four days into a unified consensus statement for the committee as a whole. The 15-page consensus statement consists of two parts: "Christ in the Heavenly Sanctuary," and "The Role of Ellen G. White's Writings in Doctrinal Matters."¹⁸ All present, including Dr. Ford, found the statement viable, some because it affirmed the traditional interpretation and others because it recognized the problems and need for further study.

Another document, a ten-point critique of Ford's position paper (see pp. 72-75) was read the same morning to the full assembly in "the spirit of love and a desire to heal," and with the intention of being "fair to Dr. Ford, to his position paper, and to the church." The drafting committee of six expressed appreciation for Ford's many years of service to the church, for the example of his personal lifestyle, for his talents as a Bible scholar and for his deep concern for an accurate exposition of the Bible.

Drafted overnight, this document was considered "preliminary" until Dr. Ford and the General Conference could review the accuracy with which it reflected Ford's position. Elder Wilson explicitly told the delegates that they were not being asked to express their approval or disapproval of the document. In other words, although formulated at Glacier View, it does not reflect the thinking of the Sanctuary Committee, which did not discuss it or to vote on it. After the reading, one of the delegates, Dr. Louis Venden, specifically called the chairman's attention to the fact that the Sanctuary Committee had not "approved" the critique. Another delegate, Dr. Fritz Guy, professor of theology at the seminary, asked if orthodoxy would be determined by the ten-point critique. Elder Wilson replied that "no, the document would not be used in that way." Both it and the consensus statement would be considered "working documents."

Soon after one o'clock, the Sanctuary committee adjourned sine die.

Friday Afternoon: General Conference and Australasian Division Leaders Meet with Dr. [16] and Mrs. Ford. At four o'clock Friday afternoon, three hours after the Sanctuary Review Committee had concluded its deliberations, Dr. and Mrs. Ford were summoned before an ad hoc committee of nine, chaired by the president of the General Conference. Early in the meeting, the president told Dr. Ford about the small committee that had worked on the ten-point critique and showed him a copy of the document to make sure it included accurate summaries of Ford's main points. The president urged Ford to admit, after reading the critique, that his positions were tentative. After the president's initial statement that included, according to J. R. Spangler's account in Ministry, a discussion of not only Dr. Ford's theology, but also his attitude and judgment, other members of the group questioned Ford.¹⁹

In his responses to the ad hoc group, Dr. Ford said that apart from wording on two points, he considered the critique to repeat accurately his positions before it attempted to refute them. He also assured the group that he was "pleased" with the consensus statement and that he could live with it and preach it—not that it was perfect, but that it was far in advance of any previous statement which Adventists had put out.

Later in the meeting, Keith Parmenter read a handwritten draft of a letter to Dr. Ford containing much of what appeared in the subsequently typed letter (see p. 76). The extent to which the handwritten letter was more demanding than the later typewritten version is a matter of some dispute, as is the nature of the discussion that followed the reading of the letter. Spangler and other members of the ad hoc committee insist that at no time were Dr. Ford's credentials called for.

Dr. Ford remembers the handwritten version as being so differently worded from the later version that he was justified in thinking that he was being asked to surrender his personal convictions on the exegesis of Daniel and Hebrews, and on the basis of the ten-point critique to declare publicly that he was in error and ready to change his views. He agrees that he was urged to take time to consider his answer, and that, instead, he said, "You have made it very easy for me, brethren. I cannot do what you ask. We don't need time to think it over. You may consider this our final answer to your conditions."

Ford also remembers asking, "Are you asking me to lie?" and Parmenter replying, in substance, "No, we don't want you to go against your convictions. But if you can't affirm these requirements, I shouldn't have to ask you for your credentials—you should be giving them to me." He further recollects that at the close of the meeting, Elder Parmenter told him and his wife Gill that the Australasian Division would pay their fare back to Australia and that they would receive six months' severance pay. "There was no doubt in our minds that the decision was final," the Fords have subsequently said.

While this session was in progress late Friday afternoon, members of the Theological Consultation were arriving for the second Glacier View meeting, which began that evening (see pp. 26-30). The Fords remained at Glacier View until Sunday, August 17, when they returned to Washington, D.C.

After Glacier View: Dismissal of Ford. While in Washington, the Fords received Elder Parmenter's typed version of his letter. In the letters dated August 26 and September 1 (see pp. 77-78), Dr. Ford replied to Parmenter's letter stating specifically how he could and could not comply with the requirements being made of him.

At the direction of the president of the General Conference, W. Duncan Eva continued to meet with Dr. Ford in an endeavor to find common ground that would make it possible for Ford to retain his credentials and continue to serve the church. The president of the General Conference met with Dr. Ford for more than an hour on the morning of August 22. There appeared to be every indication that the General Conference was attempting to mediate between Dr. Ford and his home division, and for two or three weeks it seemed that this attempt at mediation would be successful.

The climax came when the President's Executive Advisory Committee (PREXAD) met September 2. Dr. Ford was informed of its decision two days later. PREXAD recom- [17] mended to the Australasian Division that Dr. Ford be given the opportunity to withdraw voluntarily from the ministry of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. If he chose not to do so, the Australasian Division should relieve him of his responsibilities and withdraw his ministerial credentials. The first reason for this action was PREXAD's judgment that Ford had failed to use clear, concise, unambiguous, unqualified answers in his letters to Elder Parmenter. The second was that the Sanctuary Committee had rejected his arguments and conclusions on the heavenly sanctuary, the investigative judgment and the role of Ellen G. White as insufficient to cause the church to change its distinctive teachings in these areas. Third, Dr. Ford had not accepted the advice of administration, the guiding committee, or the Sanctuary Committee in areas vital to the church, and had failed to sense his responsibility for the divisive effect of his speaking, writings and recordings. Fourth, Dr. Ford had repeatedly declined to disassociate himself openly and specifically from activities considered to be subversive to the well-being of the church. This was generally acknowledged to refer to the activities of Robert Brinsmead and his associates.

Two weeks after PREXAD's action, on September 18, the Australasian Division Committee and the Board of Avondale College implemented the recommendation of the General Conference. Meanwhile, on September 10, the Fords had taken up residence in Auburn, California, a small community in the foothills of the Sierras 35 miles northeast of Sacramento, with friends who had offered him employment as chaplain of the Health Education and Research Foundation.

Evaluation of Glacier View

The Conference. At the opening session of the conference Sunday night, the president of the General Conference said: "It will be our endeavor to be fair and open. . . . Please be honest and say what you think lest people misunderstand. Here in this meeting you will have immunity. . . . The scholars will be partners of ours in reaching decisions here on doctrine."

How fully and effectively was this assurance of academic freedom implemented, how fully and effectively did the Bible scholars participate, and were they heard? To what extent do the consensus statement and the ten-point critique reflect their contribution to the conference? And even more important, to what extent has their point of view been taken into consideration in subsequent administrative proceedings regarding Dr. Ford?

There was general agreement that all proceedings of the conference, including the small study groups and the full assembly, were conducted in a "free and open" manner. With one exception—the presentation of the ten-point critique Friday morning—there was no indication of any attempt at control. It is also fair to say that the small-group consensus reports to the full assembly each day, and the consensus statement voted at the close of the conference Friday morning, were honest attempts to express the consensus of the groups and the committee as a whole. By no means is this to say that every delegate found the consensus statement an accurate expression of the truth; it is to say that each delegate found his own convictions reflected in it, and voted for it as the best statement that could be expected at the time and under the circumstances.

A Crucial Difference in Methodology. In order to understand theological differences between church administrators and theologians, one must recognize a fundamental difference in their respective methods of interpreting Scripture. Until about 1940, practically all Adventist Bible study relied on what is known as the proof text method. Today, most non-scholars in the church still follow that method, whereas almost all Bible scholars follow the historical method. The SDA Bible Commentary in the fifties (1952-57) was the first major Adventist publication to fol- [18] low the historical method as its guiding principle.

The proof text method of Bible study consists essentially of a study of the Bible in translation (English for instance), of reliance on the analogy of Scripture on the verbal level with little if any attention to context, of giving, at best, inadequate attention to the historical setting of a statement or message and what it meant to the people of its own time, and of permitting subjective preconceptions to control conclusions arrived at deductively.

By contrast, the historical method consists of a study of the Bible in its original languages, of accepting the literary context of every statement and message as normative for its meaning, of determining what the messages of the Bible meant to the various reading audiences to which they were originally addressed, in terms of the intention of the inspired writer and the Holy Spirit, of accepting that original meaning as a guide to an accurate understanding of their import for us today, and of reasoning inductively, arriving at conclusions on the basis of the evidence.

Use of the historical method by the decided majority of our Bible scholars, and of the proof text method by most non-scholars, has been responsible for practically every theological difference of opinion over the past 40 years, including that posed by Ford. The traditional Adventist interpretations of Daniel 8:14 and Hebrews 9 were formulated by the proof text method.²⁰ Prior to about 1940, a very few Adventists—among them A. F. Ballenger, W. W. Prescott, L. R. Conradi and W. W. Fletcher—had begun to use some elements of the historical method; it was this that made them aware of some of the problems of exegesis of our traditional interpretation, and precipitated their individual crises.

Let it be clear that Adventist Bible scholars using the historical method all accept the validity of 1844, Christ's day-of-atonement ministry in the heavenly sanctuary, an eschatological "restoration" of the heavenly sanctuary to its "rightful state" (or "vindication"), and a pre-Advent judgment, but they reject the proof text method reasoning on which these tenets of Adventist belief were originally based. Dr. Ford's apotelesmatic principle for interpreting Daniel 8:14 is one of the several²¹ that have been proposed in an attempt to build a bridge between a valid historical understanding of these passages, and the objective realities to which the traditional Adventist interpretation points. Before we criticize Ford's proposed solution to the exegetical problems, we have an obligation to offer a better one.

From a hermeneutical point of view, the basic flaw in our thinking at Glacier View lay in assuming the traditional Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8:14 and Hebrews 9 as the norm for measuring Ford's position paper. With this as our norm, it was inevitable that we would find his position defective. But if we had been willing, and able, to let the Bible itself, and the Bible alone, serve as our norm, we would have come to a somewhat different conclusion. The consensus statement sets forth several new and seemingly plausible reasons for retaining our traditional interpretation, but at no point does it face up to even one of the exegetical and hermeneutical problems posed by Ford or make an attempt to deal with it on the basis of "the Bible, and the Bible only, as our rule of faith and doctrine." In the thinking of the majority at Glacier View, Adventist tradition was the norm for interpreting the Bible, rather than the Bible for tradition.

Dr. Leslie Hardinge aptly described this approach when he said to the full assembly Wednesday afternoon, "I search the Bible for evidence that our message is true." This comment elicited a loud chorus of “Amens." In contrast, a majority of the Bible scholars present would have said: "I search the Bible to hear what is it saying, in order that my presentation of our message may be true to the Bible."

A common commitment to the historical method resulted in the majority of the biblical scholars at Glacier View concurring with Ford's identification of the problems of exegesis and interpretation. One attempt to ascertain the views of members of the Sanctuary Committee was the use of polls [19] conducted at the beginning and end of the conference. On a series of items, the questionnaires provided a choice between the traditional interpretation and the position taken by Ford. Many have challenged the value of the results of the poll because of ambiguities in the wording of a number of the questions. However, my personal acquaintance, both at Glacier View and over a period of many years, with the thinking of approximately three-fourths of the Bible scholars present, indicated that four-fifths of this number (24% of the 115 delegates) acknowledge the same problems in interpreting Daniel and Hebrews to which Ford has called attention. That is almost exactly the proportion of the total committee that sided with Ford's positions in the reported tabulation of the final poll taken at Glacier View.²²

Further corroborating evidence for this is provided by the scholars' speeches reported above. In a typical debate of the full assembly Monday afternoon, 11 of the 15 speeches by scholars supported one aspect or another of Ford's position.

Furthermore, some points of view expressed by the majority of the Bible scholars in the study groups were lost in the group consensus reports, and as a result, in the final consensus statement of the conference as a whole. This was probably not intentional on anyone's part; it was simply that the majority of the Bible scholars constituted a minority of the whole. Here is one illustration of several that could be given—the first item on Monday's agenda:

Could all the Old Testament prophecies have been fulfilled within the time of the covenant with Israel, i.e., by the time of the first advent of Christ?

At least 16 speeches were made Monday morning in Group 2 affirming that all Old Testament prophecies, including those of Daniel, could have been fulfilled not later than the first century of the Christian era, and that Christ and the eschaton envisioned by Daniel could have come at that time. It is significant that this and other majority points of view lost in the process were favorable to Dr. Ford's position. In other words, although the consensus statement does accurately represent a majority consensus of the 115 delegates taken as a whole, it does not fully reflect the extent to which the majority of Bible scholars at Glacier View concur with Ford's identification of problem areas in Daniel and Hebrews.

Why then, did the scholars vote for the consensus document? To them it represented a major step by the church in the direction of an objective consideration of the facts, it cautiously recognized the reality of the problems in our traditional interpretation, and it opened the door for further study of these problems. To the scholars, this document represented the best that could be expected at the present time. On the other hand, if the ten-point critique of Ford's position paper had come to a vote, the majority of the biblical scholars would doubtless have rejected its evaluation of Ford's position.

The Documents. Comparison of Ford's position paper, the consensus statement, and the ten-point critique of Ford's paper reflects the significant fact that the consensus statement identifies the same points in our traditional interpretation as less than convincing and in need of further study, as Ford's paper does. For this reason, the very dogmatic ten-point critique of his paper stands in tension with the consensus statement. The consensus statement clearly affirms that there is no doubt in our minds as to what we believe, but tacitly admits that we are not at all certain as to why we believe as we do. It explicitly acknowledges that our supporting evidence lacks a clear exegetical basis on a number of points, and this ambivalence gives rise to an internal tension within the document itself.

Both the consensus statement and the critique emphatically reaffirm the validity of the traditional Adventist interpretations of Daniel 8:14 and Hebrews 9. The consensus statement deals with the substantive issues wholly apart from Dr. Ford's paper, while [20] the critique deals with them specifically in relation to his paper. But there is an implicit dichotomy between the two documents: whereas the consensus statement explicitly recognizes the problem areas in the traditional interpretation as problems, the critique ignores them as problems. In fact, the critique—which was never formally adopted as a consensus of the Sanctuary Committee, condemns Dr. Ford for the very things the consensus statement, which was formally adopted by vote as reflecting the consensus of their thinking, implicitly commends him. In other words, the critique requires him to be positive at the very points at which the consensus statement realizes we cannot be all that positive. This dichotomy implies that we can be reasonably objective when dealing with the issues, but not with the person who brought them to our attention. While the critique censures Dr. Ford for speaking to the church about these problems, the consensus statement acknowledges that there is substance to what he has said and written on the subject. This ambivalence in the Glacier View statements makes evident that the church itself, and not Dr. Ford, is responsible for the persistent ambiguity between what we believe about the sanctuary and why we believe it.

Knowing that he and the majority of Adventist Bible scholars are in substantial agreement with respect to the exegesis of these passages, Dr. Ford feels that he cannot conscientiously say that he is wrong in this respect without forfeiting his personal integrity as a Seventh-day Adventist Bible scholar. This is especially true, inasmuch as, the SDA Bible Commentary, and now the Glacier View consensus statement, acknowledge the same exegetical problems he does. His firmness in this area has been construed as intransigent unwillingness to accept the counsel of his administrative brethren, who are not Bible scholars. On the other hand, he has volunteered to abandon his apotelesmatic principle of interpretation if somebody can find a better one.

Polarization. In his position paper, Ford emphatically and repeatedly affirms his personal confidence in the sanctuary doctrine and in Ellen White (see pp. 35-36). Addressing the Sanctuary Committee, he reaffirmed this confidence:

I fully believe in 1844 and that God raised up the Seventh-day Adventist church. . . .

I believe in the year-day principle. . . .

I believe that God spoke to Ellen White miraculously. . . .

Of course she has teaching authority. . . .

Only a dedicated Seventh-day Adventist could make statements such as these.

The magnitude of the doctrinal issue and the fact that knowledgeable Adventists around the world are deeply concerned about it, inevitably focuses attention on the person who has become identified with it as a result of his Adventist Forum remarks. Even before that lecture, his years of teaching in Avondale College, his numerous articles and books published by the church, and his participation in the ongoing debate on righteousness by faith, had made him a world figure in Adventist theological circles.

For perhaps ten years, there has been increasing tension in Australia with respect to Dr. Ford, especially regarding righteousness by faith. Hundreds of students who have sat in his classes—many of them now ministers—appreciate his contribution to their lives as an inspiring teacher and spiritual leader. On the other hand, the responses of some veteran ministers to what they consider his innovative theological concepts are emphatically negative. The result today is acute polarization: congregations are divided, a number of younger ministers have threatened to turn in their credentials if he has to surrender his, and all this has confronted church administrators "down under" with a traumatic problem of "tremendous magnitude," as Elder Parmenter described it to the Sanctuary Com- [21] mittee. Add to this the fact that a greater percentage of Australian Adventists seem to get more deeply involved in theological discussions than do Adventists in other parts of the world.

Long before Dr. Ford became the Avondale exchange professor at Pacific Union College three years ago, polarization was developing—over the past decade—in North America between administrators and the Adventist academic community. Here, as in Australia, Ford has been both widely and appreciatively received as a teacher and speaker, but also opposed by a few theologians and a number of ministers, editors, and administrators, all of whom take a dim view of certain aspects of his theology. Probably none of the Bible scholars and theologians agrees completely with his application of the apotelesmatic principle to Daniel, but they are deeply concerned that he be treated fairly.

The majority of Adventist Bible scholars feel personally involved in the issue because censure of Dr. Ford on the exegetical points inevitably implies censure of them also, inasmuch as they recognize the same exegetical problems, although they differ as to the solution to these problems. Beyond that, any real or apparent miscarriage of justice with respect to one member of the Adventist academic community would inevitably be felt by the community as a whole.

With a charismatic personality, Dr. Ford unintentionally tends to polarize his auditors, many of whom appreciate him as an inspiring spiritual leader, whereas others resent him as if he were an evil genius. His deep convictions tend to antagonize those who differ from his point of view. One factor in this is his intense personal dedication to truth that finds expression in his manner of speaking—his naturally incisive, dynamic delivery, which those who do not know him well sometimes misconstrue as egocentric histrionics. He does not intend to be as dogmatic as he sometimes appears to be, but he does tend to overemphasize certain points in an endeavor to get them across. There may also be a touch of jealousy on the part of some who lack the luster of his charisma.

The Academic Community. The abrupt and unexpected turn of events of the first week in September 1980 came as a seismic shock to the academic community of the church around the world. Why did the General Conference, which everyone had been thinking of as the attorney for the defense trying to work out a mutually satisfactory solution between Ford and his home division, suddenly appear in court as the prosecuting attorney, demanding a professional death sentence?

The academic community could understand Australia's pressing its charges all the way. In the first place—judging by past events—that would be in character, and in the second place, an extremely traumatic situation has developed in the academic community over Ford. In extremis, a physician will sometimes resort to procedures he would not attempt at other times. But why should the General Conference choose to be an accomplice in the deed, instead of letting the brethren "down under" chart their own course—or, better yet, to continue working on other alternatives? This action is particularly inscrutable in view of the following considerations:

1) The Glacier View consensus statement acknowledged a valid biblical basis for every significant point of exegesis to which Ford had called attention, and that the church must give these points further study.

2) The consensus statement represented a clear and unquestioned consensus of the entire Sanctuary Committee, and Dr. Ford himself had explicitly accepted that statement. With one or two minor exceptions, he said that he could preach and teach it with conviction.

3) The ten-point critique, which was specifically used as an indictment of Ford's position, was not produced by the Sanctuary Committee. That committee was explicitly instructed not to debate it or to vote on it, as with the consensus statement. Yet the critique was used as if it did reflect a consensus against Ford.

4) On the floor at Glacier View, and in his August 26 and September 1 letters to Elder Parmenter, Ford had made clear beyond any quibble that he accepted the counsel of the brethren and that he would remain silent on the issue for as long as they might deem necessary in order to give it study. He had [22] offered to comply with all the requirements imposed upon him, except that of repudiating his conscientious convictions with respect to the problems of exegesis, whose validity the consensus statement recognized.

5) Ford is by no means alone in these convictions; most of the convictions are either stated or implicit in the SDA Bible Commentary, which has been in use for 25 years without challenge; some of the points he had learned at the Theological Seminary. Except for a few relatively minor details, the decided majority of Adventist Bible scholars were in agreement on the point of exegesis.

At Glacier View, the Bible scholars had expressed themselves freely on all of these points, in the study groups and in the full assembly, and in the guarded language of the consensus statement. The ten-point critique did not emerge out of the week-long, painstaking process of consensus building, and was not voted by the Sanctuary Review Committee. Since Glacier View, the Bible scholars have been represented as saying the precise opposite of what they actually did say there—emphatically and repeatedly. Little wonder that many scholars feel betrayed by being represented as willing accomplices in condemning Ford, and that many of them have drafted letters of protests. All but two members of the department of theology at Southern Missionary College signed a letter to the president of the General Conference asking a series of questions that reflects their dismay at steps to discipline Ford. Thirty-nine signatures appear at the end of an "Open Letter to President Wilson from Concerned Pastors and Scholars at Andrews University Seminary and Graduate School" (see pp. 61-62).

The Future. The long-range significance of Glacier View for the church is that, for the first time, a large group of administrators and Bible scholars entered into meaningful dialogue, reached a working consensus on substantive matters reasonably acceptable to both, and agreed to continue the dialogue. The consensus statement not only recognizes certain problems and summons the church to give them further study, but indicates the direction this future study should take. It not only reaffirms the doctrine of the sanctuary as essential truth for our time, but recognizes that this truth has much larger dimensions than we have realized before.

Those larger dimensions came into clear focus Tuesday night in a paper presented by Dr. Fritz Guy of the Theological Seminary (see pp. 44-53). This paper met with instant and enthusiastic approval from all the delegates. It rose serenely above the confusing exegetical problems and focused attention on the ultimate reality to which the sanctuary doctrine points. This focus looks beyond our traditional thesis and its exegetical antithesis, to synthesis on a higher and more mature level of understanding than we have heretofore attained.

Guy's paper reflects the fact that we have been relying on the day-of-atonement symbols to explain the apocalyptic symbols of Daniel, and that this second set of symbols is not altogether compatible with the first set. We have been engrossed in working out so exegetically precise a correlation between the details of the two sets of symbols—which do not in fact match in all respects as precisely as we would like—that we are in danger of losing sight of the reality to which each set was designed to point. Dr. Guy's approach is right. To translate one coded message into another code (in this case, to interpret the cryptic apocalyptic symbols of Daniel in terms of the day-of-atonement symbols of Leviticus and Hebrews) still leaves the message encoded; what we need is a translation into the everyday language of the real world. With the sanctuary, that reality is not a structure on earth or even one in heaven, but is what Christ has done for us at Calvary, what He is doing for us now, and what he will yet do for us at His second coming. God gave us these symbols of salvation to point the way [23] to the reality of salvation in Jesus Christ, in anticipation of His Son coming to restore all things to their rightful state.

By their enthusiastic acclaim of Dr. Guy's paper, the administrators and Bible scholars at Glacier View made evident that they were in full agreement on this ultimate reality to which both sets of symbols point. If we, individually and as a church, can rise above the symbols into the clear sunlight of reality, we, too, will find that unity for which Christ prayed. We have much to lose by measuring one another's orthodoxy in terms of these symbols of salvation instead of by the ultimate reality to which they point.

By recognizing the inadequacies of our traditional supporting evidence for the sanctuary doctrine at several points, the consensus statement tacitly acknowledges that Dr. Ford had valid exegetical reasons for raising the questions he did. There may be differences of opinion as to the wisdom of the way in which he did so, and there may be reason to censure him for that. But are we consistent, honest, fair, or responsible if we censure him for raising questions whose validity our own consensus statement acknowledges? After all, Dr. Ford did not invent these questions. One person after another has been raising them for 75 years.²³ As a church, we have dealt decisively with the people who did so, one by one, but we have done little or nothing yet by way of providing the church with viable answers to the questions they asked. We have treated the questioners as if they were trouble-makers, and the questions as if they did not exist, except in someone's perverted imagination. It would be difficult to defend this longstanding default on our part as a responsible, Christian way of relating to what we all recognize as a major theological problem. Perhaps we should all censure ourselves for this dereliction of duty: Mea culpa!

But this is no time to weep over past mistakes; we now have an opportunity to relate responsibly to the issues that have brought us to this kairos in our history. We have no reason to be vindictive—1 Corinthians 13 forbids that—even when there may seem to be due cause. Vindictiveness is a clear denial of the gospel (1 John 3:10).

Wednesday afternoon, Dr. Ford told the Sanctuary Committee, "I have made many mistakes." Doubtless the delegates all agreed, though not all for the same reasons. Dr. Ford might have chosen to leave the church on account of certain ambiguities in our sanctuary doctrine, as others have in the past, but instead he has sought to enter into responsible dialogue with the church concerning them.

Is it ethical, or even in our own interest, to blame a competent physician for an unwelcome diagnosis and for prescribing an unpleasant remedy? Or is it ethical to hail him into court for malpractice when he has sincerely exercised his best professional judgment—even if he may at times make honest mistakes of judgment—as we all do? Those who bring problems to our attention are not enemies, but friends.

Nor is the Australasian Division to be blamed for its justifiable pastoral concern. It is the duty of administrators to be concerned about the health and well-being of the church. For attempting to do what it believed to be its duty, it deserves our understanding, our appreciation, our prayers, and our intelligent support—not our criticism and opposition. Nor are "the brethren" in Washington to be blamed. They did not originate the problem. But when Pacific Union College did not deal with it as a scholarly problem to be solved on campus, but instead passed it to church administrators, they did act responsibly and wisely in working toward a solution that would be right and fair to all concerned. They, too, deserve our understanding, appreciation, prayers, and intelligent support. Our leaders in both Wahroonga and in Washington would be the first to acknowledge that they can, and sometimes do, make mistakes. But so do we all. To acknowledge a mistake, honestly made, inspires confidence and loyalty, and especially so when appropriate remedial measures are taken to redress the wrong done.

For at least 20 years, a decided majority of Adventist Bible scholars have recognized the hermeneutical and exegetical problems in Daniel 8 and Hebrews 9 to which Dr. Ford [24] has recently called attention, but because of neglect on our part to deal realistically and responsibly with these problems, there is, as yet, no consensus concerning a viable solution to them. This is an important part of the unfinished business of the church. Unless we proceed to care for this unfinished business—as the Glacier View consensus statement proposes—our children will have to wrestle with the same problems all over again, and they will blame us and not Dr. Ford for their plight.

Fortunately, we do agree with respect to the ultimate reality to which the sanctuary and its day-of-atonement symbols point—what Christ did for us on the cross, what He is now doing for us in heaven, and what He will yet do for us when He comes again. If our relationship to Him and to one another is as it should be, we will all find a ready entrance through the pearly gates irrespective of how we may understand the symbols of Daniel 8 and the sanctuary. Our salvation depends on how we relate to that ultimate reality and to one another in our endeavor to understand the symbols that point to it, not on the precision with which we are able to exegete and interpret them.

But if we depart from the agapé principle of 1 Corinthians 13 and make our particular interpretation of these symbols a shibboleth by which to test one another's integrity, we will all find ourselves quarantined outside the pearly gates—permanently. But if there is room in heaven for a person irrespective of his understanding of the symbols, there should be room for him as a minister of the church here on earth as well—so long as he does not make an issue of his particular views and insist on them as a standard to which he requires other people with equally sincere convictions of their own to conform. And this applies to the rest of us as well as to Dr. Ford.

We all realize that something needed to be done, both with respect to finding a viable solution to the points of exegesis to which Dr. Ford called attention in his forum address at Pacific Union College, and to the situation that resulted from that address. But a decided majority of Dr. Ford's peers in the Adventist community of Bible scholars believe that there was a much better way of resolving both these problems—a way that would not have hurt anyone and that would, at the same time, have preserved the unity of the church for which Christ prayed. The proverbial mills of the gods do not always grind as fast as we impatient mortals might like them to, but they do grind. And if God can be patient with all of us in our mistakes, we can well afford to be patient with one another while we await the solution to which the Holy Spirit will lead, if we do not sabotage His purpose by our petulant impatience.

We believe that God overrules in the affairs of men, and that in His own good time He will restore the present unhappy state of affairs—as well as the sanctuary of Daniel 8:14—to its rightful state. In the meantime, let us use all available stones to build the temple of the Lord, not to slay one another and thereby forfeit the ultimate reality to which the symbols of salvation point. If mistakes have been made by Dr. Ford, by the folk in Wahroonga, Angwin, or Washington, or by any of the rest of us, it is now time to redress these mistakes, to forgive and to forget, and to go forward together to finish the task Christ has entrusted to us.

The one we elected at Dallas to lead the world church opened the final session of the Glacier View conference with the ultimate question: "How do we stay together all over the world?" Dr. Guy's Tuesday night paper offers a viable answer to that question, an answer that can bring us all together and keep us together. The solution to our problem will come when we learn to see through the symbols to the reality they represent. That paper spontaneously unified those present at Glacier View, whatever their opinion about Daniel 8:14, 1844, and the investigative judgment. Is this not tangible evidence of [25] what can happen to the church as a whole if we follow where his paper points the way? In so doing, we will find unity and strength for proclaiming the message God has given us, in a way even the bitterest critics of Adventism cannot successfully assail on biblical grounds. If we follow through with the spirit and the letter of the Glacier View consensus statement and Dr. Guy's paper, we will more convincingly witness to our faith in the soon coming of our Lord, and so hasten the day of His return.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. See, for example, Bert Haloviak, "Pioneers, Pantheists, and Progressives: A. F. Balenger and Divergent Paths to the Sanctuary," a Glacier View document.

2. See Raymond F. Cottrell, "Sanctuary Debate: A Question of Method," SPECTRUM, 10 (March 1980), 16.