Tear Down to Create

Originally from my Adventist Today Column

"Small minds have always lashed out at what they don't understand. There are those who create . . . and those who tear down. That dynamic has existed for all time. But eventually the creators find believers, and the number of believers reaches a critical mass, and suddenly the world becomes round, or the solar system becomes heliocentric. Perception is transformed, and a new reality is born." (The Lost Symbol by Dan Brown chapter 133)

When I first read those words I thought at least here is something of value from this book, aside from the interesting art mentioned like the horned Moses. What if we could create a new church, what if we could be positive and affirmative? Would we not create the very kind of church most progressive Adventists want? Here I thought is the basis for an excellent article. That lasted for about five minutes.

Like much of the material in a Dan Brown novel there is a thimble full of truth and a generous pile of garbage to make a good story. Many Adventists when they stop and think about it will recall that there are those in the church who feel that Progressive Adventists are out to destroy the Adventist church. Especially if they have read the various Adventist discussion sites on the Internet (here at Atoday, Spectrum Online and  ClubAdventist, most recently at the site called Educatetruth, as well as in numerous Sabbath School class discussion throughout the world) or read the various traditionalist Adventist writers such as Pastors Larry Kirkpatrick and Kevin Paulson who often refers to Progressive Adventists as Pseudo Adventists. Perhaps they are following the lead of Robert Folkenberg who in an excerpt from an address in February 1994 at La Sierra University said:

“In a desire to fit in, there also has developed, I believe, a pseudo-Adventist form of political correctness that ceases to talk about the truth, the remnant, the Spirit of Prophecy, the law, the sanctuary, and other distinctive Adventist contributions to Christianity.”

These writers have put forth the view that Progressive Adventism or Pseudo-Adventism as some may call it, is a movement out to destroy the Adventist church. That the Progressive movement can only destroy. The traditional distinctives are what Adventism is all about.

On my way to work there is an old house that was abandoned for years it looked like it was being torn down. They removed most of the outside of house but the frame remained and with time I see that it is being rebuilt. Creation from destruction. If only we could build over the decay, the building would look so much better, ever changing looking better all the time. But in most things especially dealing with ideas and beliefs there is no creation without destruction.

The supposed wisdom of the Dan Brown quote is that if you build an idea you may attract believers who accept and advance some idea, and at a certain critical mass the idea becomes widely tolerated by yet more converts. In the examples used (round, heliocentric earth solar system) the proponents not only presented their views but had to refute the previous views. I tried to think of some examples where you could simply positively build and affirm your ideas without refuting someone else's ideas. I could not think of anything.

Jesus came to earth and was extremely positive at times and at other times very critical of the views of his day. Martin Luther attacked the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church and his actions were a major catalyst to build the reformation. There are many examples of tearing down something to build something. I tear up the ground of my garden to plant, to build most anything components are derived from something else; to manufacture is to tear down or restructure something else. The wood to build that frame on the old house was once a growing a healthy tree.

Progressive Adventism cannot help but to destroy to rebuild. If someone thinks that man never landed on the moon I can't tell them that man did land on the moon without tearing down their belief. Even if I never mention their errant belief and only assert the facts, they are confronted with the need to re-examine their previous understanding. This is why some of us refer to the “marketplace of ideas”. People have a choice in what they are going to believe, we can't simply positively state our ideas without infringing upon some other ideas out there. The other ideas will infringe on our ideas as well. Challenge to ideas encourages critical though, which cannot exist, absent a conflict of ideas.

Progressive Adventism with its hoped intent to build does tear down and destroy...
it is not an exception to the rule.

What did Paul mean by Die Daily

One of my frustrations is the way some people make declarative statements with great confidence that are both historically untrue as well as being Biblically untrue. For example here is how it was used today in the Sabbath School Class I attended this morning. This is taken from Larry Kirkpatrick’s article on his Great Controversy Website:

After all, in 1 Corinthians 15:31 Paul says: I die daily. Is this your experience too? Every Christian needs to die daily. Did you die to self this morning? Are you converted anew as of this morning?

Another blog says:

The desires we have are not excuses to endulge, they are simply a result of our fallen state. To follow God means to choose to deny self. Paul said "I die daily."
Victory can be won, through Christ, over all out sinful desires, whatever they may be.

This type of non contextual method of interpretation has lead many Adventists to assert that Paul when he uses the expression “I die daily”, quite apart from the context of danger as he preaches the gospel to some type of metaphysical death to self daily.

Here is the text in question first from the King James Version and then from the NIV to show that there is really no significant difference between translations.

KJV 1 Cor 15:29-32

29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

30 And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?

31 I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.

32 If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.(KJV)

NIV 1 Cor 15:29-32

29 Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?

30 And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour?

31 I die every day-- I mean that, brothers-- just as surely as I glory over you in Christ Jesus our Lord.

32 If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."(NIV)

Clearly Paul is referring to his life being endangered. But where do SDA’s get the idea that Paul is dying daily to self. It is from Ellen White’s misinterpretation of 1 Cor. 15:31.

Addressed to Two Young Men

Last December I was shown the dangers and temptations of youth. The two younger sons of Father O need to be converted. They need to die daily to self. Paul, the faithful apostle, had a fresh experience daily. He says: "I die daily." This is exactly the experience that these young men need. They are in danger of overlooking present duty and of neglecting the education that is essential for practical life. They regard education in books as the all-important matter to be attended to in order to make life a success. 3T.221.003 (Testimonies Vol. 3 p. 221)

The Lord requires us to be submissive to His will, subdued by His Spirit, and sanctified to His service. Selfishness must be put away, and we must overcome every defect in our characters as Christ overcame. In order to accomplish this work, we must die daily to self. Said Paul: "I die daily." He had a new conversion every day, took an advance step toward heaven. To gain daily victories in the divine life is the only course that God approves. The Lord is gracious, of tender pity, and plenteous in mercy. He knows our needs and weaknesses, and He will help our infirmities if we only trust in Him and believe that He will bless us and do great things for us. (Testimonies Vol. 4 page 66)

The life of the apostle Paul was a constant conflict with self. He said, "I die daily." 1 Corinthians 15:31. His will and his desires every day conflicted with duty and the will of God. Instead of following inclination, he did God's will, however crucifying to his nature. (The Ministry of Healing page 452)

The Lord would have us submissive to his will, and sanctified to his service. Selfishness must be put away, with every other defect in our characters. There must be a daily death to self. Paul had this experience. He said, "I die daily." Every day he had a new conversion; every day he took an advance step toward Heaven. We, too, must gain daily victories in the divine life, if we would enjoy the favor of God. (Signs of the Times Mar. 1887 page 3)

You will notice that this view is not at all the message in Paul, as the Expositor’s Bible Commentary says:

30-32 Another argument for the resurrection is that if it is not true, then suffering and hardship for the sake of Christ are useless. By "endangering ourselves every hour," Paul seems to be alluding to peril looming up in his ministry in Ephesus (cf. Acts 19), where he was when he wrote 1 Corinthians. He is in danger of death every day (v. 31). He seals this assertion with the oath (Greek, ne, "I mean that, brothers") that this is as true as the fact that he glories over them and over their union with Christ. Paul's reference to fighting with wild beasts in Ephesus (v. 32) may be taken literally or figuratively. But since from Acts 19 we see no evidence of such punishment and since it was questionable whether a Roman citizen would be subjected to such treatment, it is best to take the words metaphorically--the human enemies he fought with at Ephesus were like wild beasts. But, Paul says, why go through all this suffering if there is no hope of resurrection? To prove his point, he first quotes Isaiah 22:13, (possibly for the benefit of the Jewish believers at Corinth) from a context of reckless living that the Lord condemns. So without eternal hope through the resurrection, men have nothing to turn to but gratification of their appetites.

From some readily available internet commentaries:

The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible

1 Corinthians 15:30

And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?
Not only they that have suffered martyrdom for the faith of Christ, and for this article of it, have acted very injudiciously and indiscreetly; but we, also, who are on the spot, whether ministers or private Christians, must be highly blameworthy, who continually expose ourselves to dangers, and are for Christ's sake killed all the day long, are every moment liable to innumerable injuries, tortures and death; who in his senses would act such a part, if there is no resurrection of the dead? such, as they must be of all men the most miserable, so of all men the most stupid.

The 1599 Geneva Study Bible

15:30 ¹⁶ And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?

(16) The sixth argument: unless there is a resurrection of the dead, why should the apostles so daily cast themselves into danger of so many deaths?

Matthew Henry Complete Commentary
on the Whole Bible

And his next is as plain to us. IV. He argues from the absurdity of his own conduct and that of other Christians upon this supposition, 1. It would be a foolish thing for them to run so many hazards (v. 30): "Why stand we in jeopardy every hour? Why do we expose ourselves to continual peril-we Christians, especially we apostles?’’ Every one knows that it was dangerous being a Christian, and much more a preacher and an apostle, at that time. "Now,’’ says the apostle, "what fools are we to run these hazards, if we have no better hopes beyond death, if when we die we die wholly, and revive no more!’’ Note, Christianity were a foolish profession if it proposed no hopes beyond this life, at least in such hazardous times as attended the first profession of it; it required men to risk all the blessings and comforts of this life, and to face and endure all the evils of it, without any future prospects. And is this a character of his religion fit for a Christian to endure? And must he not fix this character on it if he give up his future hopes, and deny the resurrection of the dead? This argument the apostle brings home to himself: "I protest,’’ says he, "by your rejoicing in Jesus Christ, by all the comforts of Christianity, and all the peculiar succours and supports of our holy faith, that I die daily,’’ v. 31. He was in continual danger of death, and carried his life, as we say, in his hand. And why should he thus expose himself, if he had no hopes after life? To live in daily view and expectation of death, and yet have no prospect beyond it, must be very heartless and uncomfortable, and his case, upon this account, a very melancholy one. He had need be very well assured of the resurrection of the dead, or he was guilty of extreme weakness, in hazarding all that was dear to him in this world, and his life into the bargain. He had encountered very great difficulties and fierce enemies; he had fought with beasts at Ephesus (v. 32), and was in danger of being pulled to pieces by an enraged multitude, stirred up by Demetrius and the other craftsmen (Acts 19:24, etc.), though some understand this literally of Paul’s being exposed to fight with wild beasts in the amphitheatre, at a Roman show in that city. And Nicephorus tells a formal story to this purport, and of the miraculous complaisance of the lions to him when they came near him. But so remarkable a trial and circumstance of his life, methinks, would not have been passed over by Luke, and much less by himself, when he gives us so large and particular a detail of his sufferings, 2 Co. 11:24, ad fin. When he mentioned that he was five times scourged of the Jews, thrice beaten with rods, once stoned, thrice shipwrecked, it is strange that he should not have said that he was once exposed to fight with the beasts. I take it, therefore, that this fighting with beasts is a figurative expression, that the beasts intended were men of a fierce and ferine disposition, and that this refers to the passage above cited. "Now,’’ says he, "what advantage have I from such contests, if the dead rise not? Why should I die daily, expose myself daily to the danger of dying by violent hands, if the dead rise not? And if post mortem nihil — if I am to perish by death, and expect nothing after it, could any thing be more weak?’’ Was Paul so senseless? Had he given the Corinthians any ground to entertain such a thought of him? If he had not been well assured that death would have been to his advantage, would he, in this stupid manner, have thrown away his life? Could any thing but the sure hopes of a better life after death have extinguished the love of life in him to this degree? "What advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? What can I propose to myself?’’

John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible

Verse 30. Why are we - The apostles. Also in danger every hour - It is plain we can expect no amends in this life. Verse 31. I protest by your rejoicing, which I have - Which love makes my own. I die daily - I am daily in the very jaws of death. Beside that I live, as it were, in a daily martyrdom.

If this subject is ever brought up to a Traditional Adventist they generally will have no answer or their answer will be something to the effect that if he was willing to die then he must have been unselfish and being unselfish means that he was daily dieing to self. Which is the classic way of reading information into the text (eisegesis) rather then letting the text speak for itself (exegesis). The funny thing is that as many times as this is explained to Adventists they often will revert to the Ellen White usage rather than the Biblical usage. The idea of dying to self is pretty hard to accept no matter how someone tries to explain it. The best thing is that Biblically there is no need to be telling people they have to die to self. If you want to tell people it is hard to follow Christ that is fine use the text about taking up your cross and following Christ.

Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. (Mat 16:24 NIV)

In that case you are not dying to self you are discipling yourself, choosing to follow Christ rather than going your own way. Or if you want to talk about killing your “old man” there is a text for that.

Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. (Rom 6:6 -7 KJV)

In any case if the point one wants to make is that following God is not simply doing as you please there are abundant legitimate texts that can be used which are contextually speaking of the subject. There is no need to rip a text out of its context to make the point. Because in fact a text taken out of context is a pretext and ultimately you are not even making a point. Unless of course you are trying to make the point to people who already believe as you do and who take things out of context as much as you do. But in all honesty what is the point of that? Sometime you are going to have to face the people who don’t believe as you do, the people who won’t accept pretexts, why not learn to speak to them properly now and speak to others in our congregations properly within the context of the scriptures now.

History and Last Generation Perfection Theology

Previously the question was asked, why are some Adventists opposed to a Grace oriented Seventh-day Adventist church? The answer to that question is found in the Law oriented Last Generation Perfection theology which is presented by those Adventists. To understand we need a bit of a history lesson.

The Adventist tradition since its inception considered itself the last generation. The Millerites thought that they were the last generation and were preparing to be translated when the Great Disappointment found them still on earth. Some sold their possessions and some let their crops rot in the field because this was the end and they were the last generation. Those who went through this experience and maintained their Adventist expectations still maintained that they were the last generation. So certain of their last generation status they developed the Shut Door doctrine:

5. December, 1844--In Ellen Harmon's First Vision, She Was Shown that the Door of Mercy Was Shut for (a) Those Millerites Who Denied That God Had Led Them in the 1844 "Midnight Cry" Movement, and (b) "All the Wicked World" Which God Had Rejected. She Was Also Shown "The Living Saints, 144,000 in Number," Waiting for Christ's Return.

If you look at the timeline (see the Shut Door article at the EGW Estate) we see that for several years the leaders of the SDA church believed in the shut door. During the years 1848-49 with the idea of publishing to the world, the idea that the door of mercy had in fact, not been shut, began to be expressed. But that did not stop the idea that Adventists were living in the last generation. We can see many examples of this idea that they were living in the last generation in the writings of Ellen White as well as other Adventist pioneers.

Some of us have had time to get the truth and to advance step by step, and every step we have taken has given us strength to take the next. But now time is almost finished, and what we have been years learning, they will have to learn in a few months. They will also have much to unlearn and much to learn again. Those who would not receive the mark of the beast and his image when the decree goes forth, must have now to say, Nay, we will not regard the institution of the beast (Early Writings, p.67).

That was written in 1850 but even much later when writing about the signs in the son, moon and stars Ellen White sees her time as the last generation.

Christ has given signs of His coming. He declares that we may know when He is near, even at the doors. He says of those who see these signs, "This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." These signs have appeared. Now we know of a surety that the Lord's coming is at hand. "Heaven and earth shall pass away," He says, "but My words shall not pass away." (Desire of Ages Page 632 published 1898)

Connected to this last generation presumption certain Adventist added the idea of perfection. The most famous of this last generation perfection comes from the 1890’s Holy flesh movement. Out of the ferment caused by the 1888 Adventist Conference in Minneapolis with E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones, teachings about the impartation of the Spirit to promote a victorious life along with Ellen White’s various statements a new view took shape. In it perfection of flesh was to be found here and now. Here are a few quotes from Bert Haloviak’s paper From Righteousness to Holy Flesh

A focus upon the actual teachings of R S Donnell, president of the Indiana Conference during the holy flesh period, quickly reveals an emphasis upon a last-generation theology. In articles circulated throughout the Indiana Conference during 1900, Donnell clearly emphasized his central focus: "To those who are preparing for translation the question with which we introduce this article [i.e., 'Did Christ Come to This World in Sinful Flesh"] becomes indeed an important one. In speaking of their condition, and what they are to be when the Lord returns to the earth to gather up His people, 1 John 3:2 says: 'But we know that when He shall appear, we shall be like Him.'" Donnell's teaching was based upon his conception of what those awaiting translation had to become. Points central to his theology are taken from his republication of his 1900 articles in his publication "What I Taught in Indiana"…

One of the statements Donnell makes:

pp 24-5: Question: "Do you teach that conversion embraces both the mind and the body, so that the body in this life is fully cleansed and is brought back to the condition of man before the fall, or is this a work that begins now, and is completed at the resurrection of the just? [R S Donnell response]: Yes. The mind surely, and also the body, so far as its life or actions are concerned. . . . With the resurrected every imperfection will be left in the grave. Thus they will be ready for the finishing touch of immortality when Jesus comes. The 144,000 must also be ready for that finishing touch, and the perfection necessary for its reception must be attained in this life." Page 30

On page 33 of Haloviak’s paper we see this from H H Haskell to Ellen White, September 22, 1900:

[On Sabbath] I took up the history of this work, and related how we had met things of this nature before, and what the outcome of them all had been. One of their great burdens is moral purity (which you know all about), and 'holy flesh,' and 'translating faith,' and all such terms, which carry the idea that THERE ARE TWO KINDS OF 'SONS OF GOD'—THE 'ADOPTED' SONS OF GOD, AND THE 'BORN' SONS OF GOD. THE ADOPTED ARE THOSE WHO DIE, BECAUSE THEY WILL NOT HAVE THE 'TRANSLATING FAITH.' THOSE WHO ARE BORN, GET 'HOLY FLESH,' AND THERE IS NO SIN INSIDE OF THEM, AND THEY ARE THE ONES THAT WILL LIVE AND BE TRANSLATED; AND, AS THEY SAY, THESE WHO ARE 'BORN' SONS OF GOD ARE NOT 'GOING TO HEAVEN ON THE UNDERGROUND RAILWAY,• MEANING THEY ARE NOT GOING TO DIE. . . . [Emphasis supplied. Focus again is not on Christology, but upon presuppositions relating to a last generation awaiting translation.]

The history then is Adventist continual belief in their being the last generation with a new twist in the 1890’s that the last generation will attain to a previously unknown level of perfection, a perfection that is likened to Christ’s earthly perfection. Through much of the early part of the 20^th century this last generation perfection theology had been dormant until reinvigorated by M.L. Andreason who it has taken on almost legendary significance due to his attacks upon the publication of the book Questions on Doctrines in the late 1950’s. Earlier he present his last generation perfection theology. Andreason writes in chapter 21 of his 1947 book The Sanctuary Service

May the church of God appreciate the exalted privilege given here “You are My witnesses, said the Lord.” Isaiah 43: 10. There must be “no strange god among you: therefore you are My witnesses, said the Lord, that I am God.” Verse 12. May we be witnesses indeed, testifying what God has done for us!

All this is closely connected with the work of the Day of Atonement. On that day the people of Israel, having confessed their sins, were completely cleansed. They had already been forgiven; now sin was separated from them. They were holy and without blame. The camp of Israel was clean.

We are now living in the great antitypical day of the cleansing of the sanctuary. Every sin must be confessed and by faith be sent beforehand to judgment. As the high priest enters into the most holy, so God's people now are to stand face to face with God. They must know that every sin is confessed, that no stain of evil remains. The cleansing of the sanctuary in heaven is dependent upon the cleansing of God's people on earth. How important, then, that God's people be holy and without blame! In them every sin must

be burned out, so that they will be able to stand in the sight of a holy God and live with the devouring fire. [He then quotes Isaiah 33:13-16.] page 115

As George Knight presented recently (QOD: SYMBOL OF TENSION) Andreason’s objections to Questions on Doctrines were centered on Last Generation Perfection theology:

There was a good reason why Andreasen was especially concerned with the teaching of a

completed atonement on the cross. He had set forth that reason in several of his earlier writings. Central to Andreasen’s theology was a three-phase understanding of the atonement. The first phase related to Christ’s living a perfectly sinless life. The second phase was His death on the cross.

Those two phases in the work of atonement were important, but for Andreasen the third

phase was absolutely central. “In the third phase,” he wrote, “Christ demonstrates that man can do what He did, with the same help He had. This phase includes His session at the right hand of God, His high priestly ministry, and the final exhibition of His saints in their last struggle with

Satan, and their glorious victory. . . .“The third phase is now in progress in the sanctuary above and in the church below. Christ broke the power of sin in His lifework on earth. He destroyed sin and Satan by His death. He is now eliminating and destroying sin in His saints on earth. This is part of the cleansing of the true sanctuary.37

It is what Andreasen calls the third phase of the atonement that became the focal point of

his theology. Utilizing the widely held concept that Christ had sinful human nature just like Adam possessed after the fall (that is, a sinful nature with tendencies to sin), Andreasen formulated his understanding of “last generation” theology with Christ being an example of what could be accomplished in the lives of His followers. That theology is most clearly set forth in the chapter entitled “The Last Generation” in The Sanctuary Service (1937, 1947). That book specifically states that Satan was not defeated at the cross, but would be defeated by the last generation in their demonstration that an entire generation of people could live a sinlessly perfect life. Christ, having taken their human nature with all its problems, had proven that it could be done. They could live the same sinlessly perfect life that He did with the same help as He had had. Through the last generation God “defeats Satan and wins His case,” “in the remnant Satan will meet his defeat,” “through them God will stand vindicated.” At that point Christ can come.38 Pages 14 and 15

Today we find people like Pastor Larry Kirkpatrick continuing Andreason’s teachings with the addition that today the Last Generation Perfection Theology (often abbreviated as LGT or LGP) is a traditional Adventist belief. As is often the case when one says something is traditional it depends upon whose tradition one means. In this case traditional is Andreason’s version of Last Generation Perfection as even among LGT proponents the Holy Flesh movement is held in distain due to it focus on Pentecostal manifestations. A website which is itself entitled LastGenerationTheology contains many of their articles.

ProgressiveAdventism.com presented an interview with Larry Kirkpatrick who is one of the leaders in the LGT. Here is Kirkpatrick’s definition of LGT:

Could you describe LGT in a nutshell? Is this essentially the same concept advanced by M. L. Andreasen in mid-20th century?

Last Generation Theology teaches that Jesus Christ is not only fully our Substitute but fully our Example, affirms that Christ overcame sin in flesh like ours, insists that the gospel plan is for Christians to cease from sin before the Second Coming (indeed, before the Close of Probation), and confesses that the close of the age has been delayed by unconsecration in God’s people but can be accelerated by their living holy lives.

LGT has tremendous pulling power, because many of those who are theologically and historically astute recognize that it represents core Adventism, particularly that which obtained for the generation that coincided with and followed Andreasen. Andreasen did much to develop the implications of Adventism, and LGT was the result.

Interestingly, Herbert E. Douglass developed essentially the very same concepts but independently of Andreasen. Douglass told me that when he was writing his editorials in the Review in favor of the same ideas, people kept suggesting that he was echoing Andreasen, but he had never read Andreasen. Finally, after these repeated questions, he did sit down and read Andreasen. He did find much commonality. But Douglass had developed his concepts–just as Andreasen had—via his careful study of Scripture and reading of the Ellen G. White writings.

Likewise, I developed most of my understanding in the same way. It was mostly by following up key ideas in the Bible that I developed my view. Of course, the Ellen White elements came strongly to the fore. I recall in one of Woodrow Whidden’s books he follows the development of Mrs. White’s theology up to about the turn of the century, and claims that he goes no further because there were no serious points of development after that time. But Christ’s Object Lessons (COL) came out in 1905 and certainly represents a further ripening of her concepts in these areas. We might even say that COL represents White’s working-out of the implications of Adventist theology—and landing with LGT.

So Andreasen, Douglass, myself, and even Ellen White, seeking to draw the strands together into a developed whole, all land at LGT. This is Adventism. We might say much more, but I would only add that we have especially developed the gospel concepts. Look again; its not the grinch under the bridge it has been portrayed as!

So where does this leave Grace? Grace is left in the dust because the goal is for Adventists to become sinless and vindicate God by perfectly keeping the law. Grace oriented religion is termed New Theology (a termed coined by Andreason) by the LGT folks. Not that the LGT people reject Grace, they simply redefine it as something God will do in the future that will give people the ability to keep all of God’s laws perfectly.

There is little doubt in my mind as well as many in the leadership in the Seventh-day Adventist church that LGT is a false gospel. What is probably equally troubling is that it is not a gospel at all, it is not good news because when people look at themselves they see that they are indeed sinners and that they are far from perfect in either their actions or the actions they do not do. But that is not history that is reality and this was just a history lesson to answer a simple question.

Valuegenesis and the Enemies of Research

When I went to the previously mentioned Adventist Forum meeting by Bailey Gillespie on the topic; Valuegenesis: What We Know For Sure... I did a little research and found that they were going to do a European Valuegenesis. What I did not realize is that there is an undercurrent in Adventism who is very critical of Valuegenesis. I mentioned something about this on an Adventist forum and one of the Traditional SDA’s responded by saying: Valuegenesis was conducted/led by outsider(s, catholics) who does not understand/share what Adventism actually teaches and whose conclusion may not reflect reality.

This view is based upon the assumption that the leader of the Valuegenesis studies both 1 and 2 is Michael J. Donahue. Since he is listed as a co-author of the book Valuegenesis 2 -Ten Years Later: A Study of Two Generations the authors of which are: V Bailey Gillespie; Michael J Donahue; Ed Boyatt; Barry Gane.

Here is a little information on Michael J. Donahue: He has posted the Valuegenesis Codebook which lists the questions used and some other data. His website also lists some of his other publications Michael J. Donahue: Publications et al. Take a look at his resume it is pretty impressive but you will notice that he was employed as lead statistician by John Hancock Center for Youth Ministry, La Sierra University, Riverside, CA. V. Bailey Gillespie, Director. Development of survey service. 1999-present

Now if it was just some conspiracy minded person who sees a Jesuit behind every corner that would be one thing but there is apparently a big name Adventist agitator who also denigrates the Valuegenesis projects though not as Catholic infiltrators but as Lutheran inflitration).

Pastor Larry Kirkpatrick of GreatControvesy.org writes:

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.

Grace orientation scary stuff there apparently the problem with Grace is that it is not works and that might be a problem if you theology is works orientated e.g. obedience generates the works needed for salvation. Kirkpatrick later relays his fear that Valuegenesis is meant to cause the SDA church to change:

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:

• "The main emphasis of the gospel is on God's rules for right living."
• "I must live by God's rules in order to be saved."
• "The way to be accepted by God is to try sincerely to live a good life."
• "I have a sense of being saved by Christ."
• "There is nothing I can do to earn salvation."

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.

If the change is to be grace oriented how would that be a bad thing? To Kirkpatrick it is bad because grace oriented means antinomian (the doctrine that faith in Christ frees the Christian from obligation to observe the moral law as set forth in the Old Testament. ) and obedience to the law is necessary for salvation in his view. In any case the Valuegenesis 2 codebook recognized the difficulty with this section and says the following:

Grace and Works
For each of the following statements, tell how much you agree of disagree.Choose one answer for each.
Items 39-55 have the following response options: (1) I definitely disagree; (2) I tend to disagree; (3) I'm not sure; (4) I tend to agree; (5) I definitely agree

39. I know that to be saved I have to live by God's rules
40. I know that God love me no matter what I do
41. There is nothing I can do to earn salvation
42. Following Adventist standards and practices will cause me to be saved
43. The way to be accepted by God is to try sincerely to live a good life
44. The main emphasis of the gospel is on God's rules for right living
45. I am loved by God even when I sin
46. I am worried about not being ready for Christ return
47. Salvation is the way God rewards us for obeying Him
48. Salvation is God's way of saying thank you for our good behavior
The following statements have to do with salvation (being saved, getting to
heaven, having eternal life). Which statement best describes your understanding of how we obtain salvation?
49. We show we are worthy of being saved by doing good to others.
50. The gift of salvation is free, yet I must keep the law to be worthy to receive it.
51. My salvation depends on whether I keep the law perfectly
52. We must be baptized church members before we really are saved
53. Salvation is God's free gift to us that we don't deserve and cannot earn.
54. We can do nothing to deserve God's gift of salvation
55. My good works are a response to God's gift of grace
Comments
The second set of these items was added after concerns that the students may not have understood the initial set properly. (Inasmuch as they address issues which have been at the center of some of the greatest controversies in Christian theology, the inability of grammar and high school students to understand them is perhaps not unexpected.)

In the original Valuegenesis reports, a "Works" scale was constructed using items 31, 42-44, and a "reversal" of item 41 (agree scored high, disagree scored low). This scale was used in the initialValuegenesis 2 reports to allow comparability with earlier data.However, with the expanded item pool, and based on item analysis,
a revised grace scale can be constructed, and it is this revised scale which would be recommended for research on these data. this revised grace scale includes items 39, 42-44, 47-49, and 51.

So here are the changes Kirkpatrick envisions:

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.

Concluding his Valuegenesis section Kirpatrick writes:

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.

So why do these objections to Valuegenesis and Grace upset people like Kirkpatrick. Stay tuned for the Last Generation Perfection Theology Review, because as we all know none of us are truly obedient to all the Old Testament Laws or the instructions that Jesus gave such as those on the Sermon on the Mount. So there must be something else that inspires such traditional SDA’s to reject Grace orientation.