|
GraceLink: Origins and Ideologies Does GraceLink add depth to our end-time Adventist
message, or does its historic development reveal an attempt to rewrite
Adventist theology and indoctrinate our youth with a counterfeit Adventism? Larry Kirkpatrick. 25 October 2001
Perusing the official GraceLink website, one
discovers this audacious claim: "You can trust GraceLink to give the
Adventist view of history and Bible teaching because all lessons have been
approved by someone in the department of Biblical Research, which is known
for being doctrinally conservative."1 Let us take such a
claim seriously. Remember now, the claim is that we can trust GraceLink. We
can trust it to give the "Adventist view of history and Bible
teaching." We are assured that we may expect this because
"someone" at the Biblical Research Institute (BRI) has approved all
the lessons, and the BRI "is known for being doctrinally conservative."
Near the end of this document, we will hear what BRI themselves have to say.
You may be surprised. In this paper's companion document, "GraceLink:
Theological Reflections and Concerns" (G:TRC), we shared paragraphs
already, outlining what we felt were not Adventist viewpoints toward
the Bible, and in another place, what were Calvinist concepts on the
salvation experience. Mention was also of certain links to Lutheran ideology
which we indicated we would be documenting in a future paper. This is that
paper. Our principle concerns with GraceLink have ever been
theological. That is why the quote with which we began this paper is so
striking. We are promised that what we are going to see is a product for our
youth giving "the Adventist view of history and Bible teaching."
Let us determine whether that assertion is borne out by the facts. Adventist Roots Recounted We should pause for a moment to recall where in the theological
spectrum our community of faith has its roots. Seventh-day Adventism arose
out of western Christianity, and Protestantism in particular. Out of
Protestantism's two main divisions, the Magisterial Reformation and the
Radical Reformation, we trace much more directly to the Radical Reformation.
The Lutherans and the Reformed or Calvinist churches arose from the
Magisterials; while the Anabaptists, Mennonites, and eventually Baptists rose
from the Radicals. Our links are predominantly to the Anabaptist strain. We
also have substantial links to Methodism and hence to the Elizabethen Reform.
Our linkage to the Magisterials is minimal in terms of structures and groups
although we do have an appreciation for many of the ideas arising there. The Magisterials were characterized by several
points, one of which was their unfortunate attitude that church-state union
was no problem. Constantine's blending of church and state early in the
fourth century A. D., was held by them to be no problem. On the other hand,
the Radical Reformationists understood what Constantine and the church had
accomplished back then was a catastrophic apostasy in Christian history -- a
viewpoint shared obviously by Adventists.2 We want to realize that any emphasis on salvation
limiting it to an objective, forensic experience only, comes from the
Magisterial wing of the Reformation. Not just the Magisterials, but also the
Radicals taught righteousness by faith, but Radicals focused on the impact of
the gospel in making believers actually right with God through the new birth
and continued Christian growth. In Wesleyan Methodism both issues received
more balanced attention. The main body of Seventh-day Adventists arose out of
the Millerite/Advent movement in the 1840s, led by a Baptist, William Miller.
Many of the early SDA preachers came also out of the Methodist Church and
some from the Christian Connexion,3 Few, if any, early SDAs are on
record as leaving Lutheranism to become Adventists. The question Magisterials
ask about salvation is, "How am I to be counted right?" The
question Radical Reformation adherents would ask is, "How am I to be made
right?" Ellen White's question in Steps to Christ is of
particular interest to us then, for she asked, "How shall the sinner be made
righteous?"4 We need both questions and both answers to rightly
live the experience of faith. But in the past century and especially the past
half-century, a strange and strong shift has been manifest in Adventism
toward the Magisterial Reform and an astonishing -- even deafening -- silence
has reigned toward our most clear and dominant roots in the Radical
Reformation. Unbeknownst to the vast bulk of our membership, certain have
launched a decided re-emphasis and rewriting of our history and identity.
Ford may have been defrocked two decades ago, yet core elements of his ideas
are being promoted with rampant glee in some sectors and publications of the
church. Perhaps then we will not be surprised to see that
great strides are being undertaken today in our youth work to bring just such
changes into being, and recast the Adventism that is being taught to our
young people. GraceLink's Anti-Adventist
Soteriology As noted in G:TRC,5 the theological
trends in GraceLink's salvation theology can be distinguished by the
following maxims:6
The upshot of all this is simple. Grace, as
presented in GraceLink, has no place for a great controversy between good and
evil. It has no place for Seventh-day Adventism. Obviously then, we must differ with GraceLink's core
conceptions regarding grace. Grace does have boundaries -- it reaches
out but it does not force. Those who refuse to respond to it cannot negate
God's loving intent, but they do negate the full application of the gift.
Grace does not license sin, or override the free will of humankind. Grace does
have a cooperative component (Philippians 2:12-13). God gives, man
chooses to accept or reject (Joshua 24:15). Grace does not make the
gospel a strictly legal and forensic affair. Grace changes us. Our salvation
includes a work of washing and regeneration accomplished by the Holy Spirit (Titus
3:5). Grace -- a free gift -- does not remove the
conditions for being saved. Still we must be willing to be made willing.
Grace is quite resistible, because God respects our choices. Grace and law
are not opposites; they work together. God's law is, in many ways, a
manifestation of grace. How directionless we would be without it! Finally, we find it most unlikely that any rational,
thoughtful, Scripture-respecting Seventh-day Adventist would propose that
grace -- really -- is entirely objective in its operation. It is true that
Jesus died a substitutionary death in our behalf; we never asked Him to.
"While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8).
Jesus' action happened outside of us. It is truly substitutional and truly
objective. But there are salvifically meaningful subjective realities; there
remain decisions to be made by the believer for receiving or rejecting the
inward work that God would accomplish in His people. Salvation means more
than a narrow transaction on the other side of the universe; it means our
embracing of God's healing spiritually of His people. The Bible connects
grace with how we live now, in a much more than forensic sense (Titus
2:11-12). Origins: The Strommen Connection The story of how GraceLink acquired its ideology
begins with a man named Merton P. Strommen. He was not and is not an
Adventist. He is a member of the ELCA, the "Evangelical Lutheran Church of America,"7
a liberal, mainline, Magisterial-Protestantism heritage denomination. In 1972
Strommen and associates of his published A Study of Generations. It
was the report from a two year study of 5000 Lutherans between the ages of 15
and 65. This extensive study's topic revolved around Lutheran beliefs,
attitudes, values, and behavior. Included among its many lines are these
words: "However, this requires that the theologians of the church carefully
work through the meaning of the message of God's grace for a value
orientation to the world."8 Several pages in that study discuss problems
Strommen and his associates associated with "Law-Orientation."9
And we would expect this. These were Lutherans. Historically, they are known
to propose a very antagonistic dichotomy between law and grace. Strommen and
associates make reference to what they call "gospel orientation and law
orientation."10 To their mind, a gospel orientation is good,
a law orientation, bad. Thus, already in 1972 we find Strommen working on
certain basic issues. He is looking at the relationship of "grace"
to "value orientation." He is also working out what he sees as the
deficiencies especially of what he calls a "law-orientation." In 1974, Strommen first published another
work, called Five Cries of Youth. In this work, reference is made to
his viewpoint regarding "rules-oriented religion." Listen in:
"A Rules-oriented religion -- which low self-esteem youth tend to accept
-- must be exposed as practical atheism by contrasting it with a gospel of
affirmation."11 Again, it would be difficult to fault the Lutherans
for being Lutherans. We will disagree with their perspective on the basis of
its incompatibility with Scripture, but we will be aware of their kind
intentions even while we and they cannot agree on such a radical and
unsciptural dichotomy making obedience suspect as atheism! In the development
of Strommen's thought, it is well to mark the sharp antagonism toward rules
and obedience that provokes him to label this area so strongly. His ideas continued to develop. Five Cries of
Youth was republished in 1979. Then, in 1985 came another
volume, this time by Mr. and Mrs. Strommen as a team, Five Cries of
Parents. Here, they expanded on their views. "One life direction or
value orientation a parent can communicate is an approach of over-strictness
that assumes that morality comes through controlling people by rules and
regulations. It results in an authoritarian, restrictive approach to
parenting and use of severe punishment. It tends to be unloving, unforgiving,
and rigid. Though it may use the words of orthodox Christianity, its spirit
is poles apart from a Christianity of grace (unmerited love). Its focus is on
external behaviors and the do's and don'ts of a personal morality. . . . A
contrasting value orientation is what Allen Keith-Lucas calls a Christianity
of grace (meaning unmerited love). This stance focuses not on behaviors but
on the underlying motivation of thankfulness for the love, the promise, the
presence of the living God."12 They added that they sought
for children to develop ". . . a faith that is liberating rather than
moralisitic and restrictive."13 Here again stands the very sharp contrast. Grace is
said to be "poles apart" from any Christianity highlighting
"authoritarian," "external behaviors and the do's and the
don't of a personal morality." Three years later, in 1988, the book was
published again in a new and revised edition. Among new lines added to the
book were the following: "The striking advance in self-regard among
church youth coupled with their lessened concern over personal faults and
their relationship to God may indicate youth's greater attention to a gospel
of forgiveness and grace. The gain is a significant one that may well reflect
a greater gospel orientation among the 1985 youth."14 Study had revealed some changes in a group of youth.
Researchers indicated a "striking advance in self-regard" among
churched youth. Strommen associated the changes as possibly reflecting
"a greater gospel orientation" in the subjects. Of special interest
though was the report that they had "a lessoned concern over personal
faults and their relationship to God." We are not as sure as Strommen
that this was a spiritual advance! The gospel is not there to beat us down,
but it is not given either to lesson our interest in obeying God or our
anxiety when we sin. Thus, by 1988 a Lutheran researcher had developed a
theological viewpoint that placed a "gospel orientation"
"poles apart" from a "law orientation." He had, in
essence, already established the key paradigm today found in the Seventh-day
Adventist Churches GraceLink materials. It was all there. Only a few
relabelings now remained necessary. 1989: Seventh-day Adventism Infected In 1989 the Search Institute, originated by
Merton Strommen, contracted with the General Conference of SDAs to
participate as key consultants for the major study of SDA youth called
"Valuegenesis." A "Timeline History of Search Institute,"
giving a detailed history of its activities and its long-term Lutheran
connections, is available on the internet. Scrolling down to 1989, you'll
find the Seventh-day Adventist Church mentioned as indicated.15 In a Seventh-day Adventist newsletter called
"Action," dated as "Spring 1989," we first spot the
phrase "grace orientation" in our own church.16 From
here on out we begin to see the phrase sprinkled through SDA literature with
ever-increasing frequency. Well, we might say, all this is interesting, but it
is all circumstantial. No, not exactly. Mr. Strommen begins showing up in
Adventist materials now more and more frequently. In May 3, 1990 we
find him giving three out of five presentations in a
"Vision-to-Action" video alongside of Seventh-day Adventist
presenters.17 In another Adventist publication we find the
now-crystalized "grace orientation" paradigm in full flower --
alongside its nemesis, the evil "works orientation." Let's read: "A grace orientation
is a belief that salvation is given to us only because of the goodness of
Jesus, His atoning death, and the perfect life He lived on earth. It focuses
completely on God's goodness in offering us this gift, which we can never
earn by ourselves, and on the wonderful promises of God."18 And here is its counterpart, "works
orientation:" "A works orientation
is a belief that salvation is given to us because we are good or have done
good works. A works orientation focuses primarily on our behavior, on how we
have obeyed the rules or followed the standards."19 We should pause here for a moment to make an
observation. Reading the definition of a "grace orientation," we
can only say, in all reasonableness, that much of what is said reflects
sentiments about grace that we all would find to be acceptable. Let us in
particular note here that the focus is on God's grace as an objective,
external gift. Even so, we also notice the qualifiers with interest. This
"orientation" will focus "completely" on God's side,
while reaffirming that we can "never" earn our salvation. Does this
begin to raise concerns? What is meant by "earn" our salvation? The
definition of "works orientation" helps. "Works orientation" is defined as a belief
that we are saved "because we are good or have done good works." It
focuses "primarily on our behavior, on how we have obeyed the rules or
followed the standards." This sounds very much like the Strommen's
antagonistic attitude toward rules and obedience noted earlier. In itself the
statement roughly is true, but too vague for us be comfortable with. We
weren't left long in perplexity however. Soon the Adventist Review
shows our concerns to be well founded. In January of 1991 they publish
the following: "We also know that a
works orientation is eroding the faith our youth have in Jesus. Eighty-three
percent of youth believe that to be saved, they have to live by God's rules.
It is a serious issue when a majority of Adventist youth presently enrolled
in Adventist schools, and a fourth of their parents, believe that salvation
depends primarily on one's behavior instead of on what God has done, is
doing, and promises to do through grace. In response to this issue, a number
of recommendations seem evident. . . . We must launch a comprehensive
educational effort that addresses the issue of grace and works
orientation."20 Should anyone doubt the transmutation here of the
Lutheran principles of Strommen into the "Adventist" principles of
Valuegenesis/GraceLink, consider that in the margin of the 1992 book Valuegenesis:
Faith in the Balance, V. Bailey Gillespie puts a quote from Merton
Strommen. The heading given there is, "What is a 'Grace Orientation'?21
Remember, Strommen called it, in his books, a "gospel
orientation," but our Adventists translated that into the "grace
orientation." This is interesting, for one of the concerns that
the GraceLink website has sought to address is the idea that some of the
writers of the materials were not Adventists.22 Apparently, some
SDAs, looking at them, were sure that the writers had not been
Adventists. The theological information provided in (G:TRC) and this paper
plainly show how that idea could have arisen. But what is interesting is that
GraceLink's core concepts trace back so obviously to mainline, liberal,
evangelical Lutheranism. The claim that the writers are all Adventists is
disingenuous, when they are writing in a manner that belies authentic
Adventist doctrines. Valuegenesis: Subtle Questions Used
to Drive Change The reference Bailey refers to is found in the
responses of Adventist young people to certain questions they were asked in
the Valuegenesis study.23 Consider these yourself as to whether
they are truth-statements:
You or I might not say that the emphasis in God's
gospel is on right rules for living. But what if we had to fill out a form
giving us opportunity to agree in gradations with that statement, say on a
scale of 1-5 or 1-7? Because that is how most of the Valuegenesis
study questions were asked. Still, you or I might not answer that with
anything but the most definite "no." But isn't it possible that
some of the youth filling out a question like this are not quite as
theologically astute as some adults might be? This is a very subtle situation
to place a young person in. How would you parse the next statement? "I must
live by God's rules in order to be saved." Here's how one Adventist
pastor (myself) answers that question: "Yes, this is true." Now I
wouldn't word the question that way were I doing the asking. And I certainly
wouldn't put a scale of gradational answers out there as options were I doing
the asking. And yet, faced with the question as asked, I would have to
give a "yes" answer. No, God may not emphasize His rules like this;
no, this might be a very crude form in which to express the salvation
question; no, the question is not worded with any emphasis upon Jesus in it
or the kind of care that should be in it. But having to answer, I would be
right there beside those who answered this as being an essentially true
statement. It is essentially true. How much I prefer Mrs. White's careful expression:
"While we are to be in harmony with God's law, we are not saved by the
works of the law, yet we cannot be saved without obedience. The law is the
standard by which character is measured. But we cannot possibly keep the
commandments of God without the regenerating grace of Christ. Jesus alone can
cleanse us from all sin. He does not save us by law, neither will He save us
in disobedience to law."24
The Valuegenesis statement, "I must live by
God's rules in order to be saved," does not say that the only aspect of
salvation is the subjective. It does not say that there are no other elements
in the salvation process or that there is no objective element. It does not
say that the only thing that saves us is "the works of the law." It
does say that "we cannot be saved without obedience." And I
happen to agree with Mrs. White, who under inspiration says the very same
thing. In our quote from her pen, notice how she goes on to point to Christ
as the Regenerating force behind the one being saved: "We cannot
possibly keep the commandments of God without the regenerating grace of
Christ." Carefully she says, "He does not save us by law, neither
will He save us in disobedience to law." While I do not think Mrs. White had any formal
training in logic, she appears to know the difference between what logicians call
"sufficient" and "necessary" conditions. A necessary
condition must be present to obtain the desired effect. A sufficient
condition automatically leads to a desired effect. Put very simply, obedience
is a necessary condition for one to be saved. But it is not a sufficient
condition. This is because there are both, objective and subjective elements
in the salvation process. I must be obedient in order to be saved, but my
obedience is not in itself sufficient to save me. Jesus died for me on the
cross, and He made a sacrifice of enough value to save me, but my acceptance
of His sacrifice for me must also be present. God designed the salvation plan
to contain the objective element (Jesus dies in our place), and we choose to
accept all that that means, the subjective aspect. All the merit toward my
salvation comes through Jesus. His merit is valuable enough to save, yet that
is but the objective portion of a two-element plan. My obedience is also
necessary, but in itself it is insufficient to save me. It is a
non-meritorious condition, a necessary but insufficient condition.
Ellen G. White might not have had a formal training
in logic, but she was a praying lady who loved the Bible. She read it
plainly. She never sought to trick young children with subtle arguments. So
what of, "I must live by God's rules in order to be saved"? Is not
"I must live" this way in order to be saved but one necessary condition
among others, like Jesus' death on the cross? Or does it speak of a
sufficient condition, in itself enough to save me? This is the very dilemma
faced by thousands of Adventist youth who sought to answer the question
without knowledge of the deep theological subtleties at hand. Their answers
would be taken as evidence that they did not understand the salvation process
and that legalism was rife among us -- a legalism desperately needing an
immediate solution! Remember, statements such as, "There is nothing
I can do to earn salvation," were presented and instead of a yes/no
answer, a graded list of options was given. Were you but a fourteen year old,
how would you have filled that out? Would you mark it as a two, or a three,
or a five? There is nothing I can do at all to earn salvation. But
there is much I must do in order to be saved. There are -- although
the Valuegenesis questions made no allowance for them -- necessary conditions
to my salvation, obedience being one of them.25 Were points such as this understood by those who
formatted the Valuegenesis questions? That is an important question. The
results of the Valuegenesis study have been used to introduce far-reaching
changes in the curriculum of the entire SDA educational system. They are
being used now to justify the introduction of a demonstrably non-Adventist
salvation understanding into the Sabbath school departments of thousands of
our churches worldwide. Those who developed the underlying philosophies of
both Valuegenesis and GraceLink were PhDs. These are not simpletons.
Generally, we may expect that they have processed all their ideas and,
whether right or wrong, they knew what they were trying to do. Gillespie
said, "We must launch a comprehensive educational effort that addresses
the issue of grace and works orientation." And the church did. We call it into question. Questioning GraceLink's Core Ideology Roger Dudley wrote the main book dealing with the
results of the Valuegenesis study. Let us consider several lines from that
book. "Something about
Adventism seems to make it likely that young people growing up within its
environs perceive salvation in terms of behaviors, good and bad. Don't
misunderstand. We have a clear teaching on salvation by grace alone through
faith. Obedience and responsibility, we teach, are the result of faith and
not its source. And yet, with the emphasis on the significance of the law and
with our concerns for the high standards of Christian living, Adventists have
a very difficult time shaking the notion that we must somehow deserve our
salvation. Accepting that salvation is a complete gift is often difficult to
communicate to youth."26 Dudley went on to share another yet more interesting
paragraph. Watch for his conclusion at its close . . . "We recently did a survey of a national sample
of adult Adventist members. One of the statements with which they could agree
or disagree was: 'A person's standing before God is based on his/her
obedience to God's law.' Nearly two-thirds of this representative sample
(65%) agreed with this statement, and about half (51%) strongly agreed.
Further, those who agreed with traditional statements of Adventist teachings
were most likely to agree with this. That is, the more orthodox a member, the
more likely the same member was to endorse 'works' righteousness."27
What he is saying is that authentic Adventism is built upon 'works
righteousness.' That is, fundamentally, Adventism is legalism. And, measured
by Lutheran conceptions of salvation, of course it is. Perhaps this explains
why Merton P. Strommen never became an Adventist! Dudley, and the ideologians of GraceLink, are quite
mistaken in their notions that sharply separate grace (what they say God
does) with works (what they propose man does in response to God's grace).
GraceLink, with its Lutheran underpinnings, removes obedience from the
gospel. Obedience becomes the negative "works righteousness."
Adventism is turned inside-out of itself. In GraceLink, this is what it has
been planned for our youth to imbibe. More Observations about Valuegenesis For years Adventists have accepted uncritically the
Valuegenesis report as valid and helpful. And for years some of us have had
serious reservations about it. But everyone is busy. Who has time to do a
full write-up, especially when (in times past) it would likely have been
viewed as just being critical? But today we are in a new place. Many of the
bankruptcies are becoming interesting to our leaders. For long years we have
traveled blindly on the roads marked out for us by the more progressive. But
many are seeing more and more that such blind marching can produce more
problems than it solves. Today we are heartened by a new willingness to
rethink and reexamine. Such an attitude is overdue. We do not have time or space here to do such an
extensive write-up. But we wish to add some additional observations about the
value of Valuegenesis. The author chosen to write-up the study and its
results found much to harmonize with in the Lutheran-tinged study and its
concepts. Professing to have been raised a legalist himself,28 he
goes on to suggest that the study shows our Adventist young people to
"support both law and grace as a means of salvation," and that they
are "unable to harmonize logical opposites [law and grace]."29 But Adventists have never -- NEVER -- understood law
and grace as opposites. As already noted, the Valuegenesis test instrument
(i.e. questionnaire) never differentiated between necessary or sufficient
conditions, and provided only a graded set of options by which to answer.
Again, the author of the book on Valuegenesis, looking at the answers
provided by the youth, concluded that those results showed "a clear lack
of understanding [by SDA test participants] of the complete work of salvation
accomplished by Christ."30 The language of the author
evidences his regrettable insistence in evaluating a whole spectrum of SDA
young people as misconstruing salvation, when it is very widely known that
historically, as far back as William Miller and pre-SDAism, we have as a
people seen Christ's sacrifice as sufficient but not completely processed at
the cross. The benefits of His death for us are today still being mediated to
us through His work for us in the heavenly sanctuary. He has yet to return,
and we are not yet what we shall become by that time (1 John 3:2). In fact, Valuegenesis: Faith in the Balance
consistently attacks, if in subtle ways, the conventional Adventist
understanding of standards. One senses that the authors realized that their
desire to see the standards changed could not be formally realized at that
time, and so they focus on urging the reader not to enforce them.31
Dudley's book raises questions about the investigative judgment doctrine, and
teaches a non-Adventist understanding of salvation traceable to the descendents
of the Magisterial Reformation rather than the Radical. The book contains
digs against "perfection," and the straw man of "absolute
sinlessness."32 Both it and the Valuegenesis study included
questions about gender equality and women's ordination too. This introduces again the question, was the student
to understand "gender equality" as meaning complete equality, or
ontological equality with gender-differentiated pre-fall roles? Did they mean
complete gender interchangeability? What did they mean?33 And on a
graded scale with seven possible answers, where would you put your mark? In case this seems like a random excursis, remember
that the Valuegenesis study and Project Affirmation served as the base
information for demonstrating that the church needed to develop the all-new
Sabbath-School curriculum called GraceLink. The history is given on the
GraceLink website.34 The Hancock Center for Youth and Family Ministry at
La Sierra university was the major administrative unit in the Valuegenesis
study and now Valuegenesis 2. It also designed the gracelink curriculum and
sold it to the North American Division of SDA.35 The discussion earlier in this paper of the
confusion of the Valuegenesis questions regarding salvation places in
question the necessity of Gillespie's 1991 call that we "must launch a
comprehensive educational effort that addresses the issue of grace and works
orientation." If any such effort should be launched, it should start
with the ideological crafters of the GraceLink curriculum and commence by
aiding them in understanding and appreciating authentic Adventist views on
salvation! Consider just two more references of interest --
these were authorized to be published in the Valuegenesis book. "In
college he [a former student of Dudley's] became enamored with the teachings
of a professor who presented righteousness by faith as composed of
justification alone. The work of salvation was completely objective --
removed from our experience. It had only to do with the cross; nothing with
daily living. . . . [after later being thrown in jail for intoxication] He
was particularly sustained by his religion. Remembering what his professor
had told him about righteousness by faith, he recalled, 'Not for a moment,
even while drunk in that dismal jail cell, did I forget that I was in right
standing with God.'" Then follows the author's analysis, and an amazing
analysis it is: "Few of us understand righteousness by grace through
faith in such a complete sense."36 The amazing conclusion above requires little comment.
It is soul-destroying error. But here are some of the author's conclusions
for us too: "I think we will have to bend over backwards, in our homes,
our congregations, and our schools, to get across a grace orientation to
salvation. . . . We have erred so long in the direction of law, we need to
begin to focus on grace completely." Continuing, Dudley adds,
"Through precept and example, we must do everything possible to clarify
grace and to break the hold of legalism."37 Actually, we need to clear the decks of the
contemporary antinomian push within our ranks that is at odds with the
message of Seventh-day Adventism. For much too long we have permitted an
untoward retreat from Adventism by those who do not even agree with its
foundations. Does BRI Really Guarantee GraceLink's
"Adventistness"? When I saw the GraceLink "BRI Guarantee of
Adventistness" mentioned at the opening of this paper, I thought I
should do something: namely, telephone the people at BRI. There, I spoke with
Gerhard Pfandel. He said there was one person at BRI who saw these materials,
and that I should call the next day when Angel Rodriguez would be in. Now I
knew that whatever else I discovered, it would include the fact that the BRI
guarantee of Adventistness meant that one person at BRI looked at some of
these materials once. While I appreciate much of the work of BRI, I must
confess that a pipe the width of one fallible person is a pretty thin pipe.
If there was something wrong and it was noticed, then something might be
done. Otherwise, the product advances down the line to the press and the
local church. Does GraceLink Give an "Adventist" View of
History and Bible teaching? I spoke with several of our people at BRI about
this. Here is what they told me about the GraceLink "guarantee."
Many of the materials, especially earlier on, BRI had never seen. Some
materials had in fact been read in pre-production drafts by one BRI scholar
who had offered observations and suggestions in the margins and sent them
back. How many of those suggestions had been implemented they could not say.
One of our BRI men suggested that several suggestions had never been heeded. On the issue of grace and obedience in particular, I
was told that in some of the materials, "the strong emphasis on grace is
almost so amazing that it is not biblical." And that, "The relation
between grace and obedience was often completely absent" when
pre-publication drafts first arrived at BRI. One recent item including a
section dealing with the "remnant" concept was thoroughly reworked
at BRI, and had to be "drowned in red ink," I was told, to make it
acceptable. So, there is your theological guarantee at work.
BRI's good name has been mis-used and their seal of approval on these
materials has been, they tell me, "vastly overstated." Not
just overstated, but "vastly" overstated. I appreciated these lucid
revelations from the churches top scholars. I had wondered whether they would
approve the materials for their own children's use. I never asked that
question, but now I think I know what answer they might give! In a way, this is good news. It would have been a
most dismal revelation were we to have found the Biblical Research Institute
supporting the overt non-Adventism found in so many of these materials. There
is another positive word too. I am told by the leadership of BRI that they
have been promised great changes in these materials. The revisions will
include substantial changes in the artwork (at last!), and a much closer
attention to sounder Adventist theology in the new crop of materials. Certain
items, not specified to me, were, I was told, actually going to be removed
from the current editions and redone before being republished. Possibly, the
materials could even become useable by Seventh-day Adventists. We
rejoice at this news. We will be watching carefully. Summary: Origin and Ideology It is not the Lutheran's or the Calvinist's fault
that we took their concepts and sought to glue them into Seventh-day
Adventism. It is our fault. We have allowed those who held views antagonistic
to our system of faith to enter its most holy place as-it-were -- the
authoritative teaching office for our precious youth -- and bring in a
theological philosophy sharply destructive of the faith once delivered to the
saints. A host of books and varied materials have been published that are
antagonistic to Adventism. Truly, our presses have run hot with "books
of a new order."38 The good news is that this was never BRIs doing. The
bad news is that for years the church has been less watchful than it ought,
and has blindly promoted the views of the Magisterial Reformers -- views
which in the department of salvation, cannot be reconciled with our faith as
portrayed in the Bible. We trace back predominantly to the Radical
Reformation -- the Anabaptist strain. This is, remember, the stream of
Christianity where our affinity for the seventh day Sabbath comes from. The
DNA of Seventh-day Adventism cannot be changed. It is what it is, and no
amount of rewriting history or stealth re-indoctrination of our youth can
change that. Conclusion Between this and our first paper (G:TRC), the reader
has had opportunity to consider something of the theological underpinnings of
the GraceLink materials. Regretably, we find sufficient evidence to conclude
that the origin and ideology of these materials is directly traceable to
those theological sources outside of Adventism that are the most incompatible
with it. Those at our presses and in the mailrooms who read this will now
have obtained, we think, a better understanding of what the fuss over these
publications has been all about. Perhaps some of us will look into some of
these points for ourselves, drawing our own informed conclusions. If this is
all that is achieved, then this paper will have done its work. And yet we hope
for more. We would like to think that the powers that be would
reevaluate the core principles upon which these materials are
constructed, and take a very sharp knife, and deftly sever them from their
place. In that place, we would like to see the much more balanced and
beautiful and biblical Adventism that made this movement, reinstated. As a
movement, we will finish successfully only if we remain truly Adventist. We
have a right to expect this. God grant our leaders courage to be Seventh-day
Adventists. God grant us materials that are not quasi-Lutheran or
quasi-Calvinist, but authentically Adventist. May He do so, starting yesterday. ENDNOTES
|
|
|
|
|
Pastor Larry Kirkpatrick is
an ordained minister of the gospel. Since 1994 he has served in the American
Southwest as pastor to several churches. He received his BA in Religion from
Southern Adventist University in 1994 and a Master of Divinity from Andrews
University in 1999 with a specialization in Adventist Studies. While in
Michigan he was employed by the General Conference at the White Estate
Berrien Springs branch office. More important than his scholastic preparation
has been his immersion in the biblical and Spirit
of Prophecy materials. He is author of the 2003 book Real
Grace for Real People. Presently he serves as Pastor of the Mentone Church of Seventh-day Adventists,
located near Loma Linda, California. Larry is married to Pamela. The couple
presently live in Highland, California along with their two children, Etienne
and Melinda. |
