Inicio
Adventism opposes the Gospel PDF Imprimir E-Mail

An Evangelical Analysis of Jan Paulsen’s

“Theological Landscape” 2002 Key Note Address

To the SDA Biblical Research Committee and SDA World Leaders

 

Haroldo S. Camacho, Ph.D.

 

I am a former Seventh-day Adventist ordained minister, pastor, theology professor, and administrator. I was born in an Adventist home. My father was an Adventist pastor, evangelist, and administrator. All my formative education was in SDA schools and colleges, including my Master’s of Divinity at Andrews University Seminary (M. Div. 1972). Following in my father’s footsteps, I became an Adventist pastor, missionary, evangelist, departmental director (Youth: North Perú Mission 1975-1977) seminary teacher (CESU: Lima, Perú 1978-1980), and finally Conference Secretary for one of the largest conferences in North America.[i] At the time I was interviewed for my job as Conference Secretary I made it clear that my task would be to provide alternatives in thinking, planning, and envisioning the mission and role of the church. I was told by the interview committee that was precisely what they wished to see in the administration of the conference. At that time I was already extremely drawn to the message of the gospel in the writings of the apostle Paul. Thus I hoped to offer alternatives in the theological thinking of the church’s mission and outreach. In fact, the message of justification by faith had been persuasively drawing me with cords of love ever since my seminary days at Andrews. As part of an assignment for a Sabbath class, we had been assigned readings in Luther and Calvin to show that they had manifested strong inclinations in favor of the seventh-day Sabbath observance. Noting that one had to read much between the lines to come to such conclusions, I spent most of my time thrilling in Luther’s commentary on Romans, the Psalms and his writings on Righteousness by faith in Christ’s righteousness alone. I was inspired by these writings. Although at times I saw glimpses of these in some of the writings of Ellen White, other of her statements negated what she has written in accord with the Reformers. However, the message of salvation as I was beginning to see it in the gospels, the epistles, drew me to the ministry. I hoped to build on my father’s ministry in the SDA church, since I remembered his ministry strongly focused on the cross of Christ and the Scriptures alone.

 

As it is with countless current and former SDA pastors and concerned lay people, for years I thought the church would willingly see that the only true way for “revival and reformation” energizing the fulfillment of its mission would be the message of justification by faith through the merits of Christ alone. I thought that Christ’s life, death, and his glorious resurrection as his free gift of eternal life to all those who believe in him would come to the center of the church’s mission. This was my secret wish as I entered the ministry, and ministered alongside many other pastors, missionaries, in the work of the church. I dedicated nearly 20 years of my life to the SDA ministry in hopes that the church would reorient its ministry and theology towards the cross of Christ and his justifying merits.

 

When in 1988 I accepted the responsibility of Conference Secretary I also did so with the hope that somehow I could make an impact on the theology of the church, using my influence, gifts, and ministry to preach and teach the cross of Christ.

 

I remember just a few weeks into my leadership role at the Conference, I was taking part in a Conference officers’ planning session. The item under discussion was for each one of us to give ideas regarding ways to encourage our pastors to be more involved in what was termed “soul winning”, which was equated with the preaching of the gospel. I suggested that perhaps it would be a good idea to involve our pastors in a workers’ retreat at which the only topic for study and discussion would be the nature of the gospel. If we could get our pastors to understand and agree on the gospel, certainly they would be more enthusiastic about their soul winning. To my surprise, my idea was met with immediate and resounding silence. We went on to the next item on the agenda.

 

After the meeting, a top church administrator came to my office. I remember the moment so clearly. Waving his long finger in my face he said, “Haroldo, there is one thing you need to know about administration. If you want to be successful in administration... [and here he paused to emphasize what was coming next]... if you want to be successful in administration, don’t get involved with theology! That is the quickest way to ruin your administrative career”. “Successful administrators”, he continued sweeping his arm across a long desk, “and I’m speaking across the board in Adventist administration, don’t get involved in theology!” Even after he paused, his finger continued to wave in my face. I marveled in quiet. For there behind him on the other side of the large glass window panes of the office, was one of the largest SDA universities in North America.[ii] You could even see the church, and the buildings of the theology department. “So this is the way it is in SDA administration”, I quietly told myself. “No involvement with theology. A theological mission with no theological involvement. Hmmm.... quite a dilemma”.

 

That dilemma which I lived and eventually didn’t survive in Adventism, continues to be the dilemma for the Adventist church today, nearly 20 years since that open window into the chasm that is Adventist theology and the administration of the church’s mission.

 

Jan Paulsen’s address before the Biblical Research Committee and guests in 2002 continues to highlight that dilemma which is always resolved on the side of an administration – across the board – that refuses to deal with the theological nature of the gospel of Jesus Christ as he gave it to the disciples.

 

The SDA church’s negation of its theological mission is a challenge to the rest of Protestant evangelical Christianity, where to a greater or lesser degree, the dilemma is also played out, with other players and themes, but bordering close and at times also negating the essential gospel nature of the Christian church.

 

In the following, I will analyze as a former SDA administrator, Jan Paulsen’s address and what it means not only for the SDA church today but also for evangelical Christianity. This analysis might be deemed dated. However, Paulsen was reelected president of the General Conference in 2005, and in that capacity continues to travel world wide affirming the same declarations he made in 2002.[iii]

 

I do not write the following analysis as I once hoped that the SDA church leadership would see itself in need of theological change. The SDA church is a closed loop system to change. It will not change. Although it denounces other Christian faiths for their failure to see their errors, Adventism leads the way in obscuring the gospel of Jesus Christ with one of the most “craftily and cleverly devised fables” regarding Christian faith and practice.

 

Ever since emerging from Adventism I have seen the following principle as the key principle driving all of Adventist theology, administration, teaching, evangelism, and pastoral care. This principle is the one unifying principle within the writings of Ellen White, regardless of the sources she used in preparing her work. That principle is this: Adventism affirms a commonly held truth in order to deny it with one or more subtle and pious sub-truths or alleged applications of the truth. For instance, Adventism will affirm the work of Christ as our sin bearer only to deny it with the subtle falsehood that in the end Satan as God’s scapegoat will bear the sins of all. Adventism will affirm the work of Christ as God’s mediator, only to deny it with the subtle and pious teaching that just before the coming of Christ, believers will have to live before God without Jesus as their Mediator. Their perfect lives will sustain them before the coming of the Lord with power and great glory. In my experience, the believers’ reactions are to undervalue the work of Christ as Mediator because in the final analysis, in the most critical moment of their lives, at the coming of the Lord, they will have to stand on their own, without Christ’s intercession before the Father. Therefore if in the future at the most critical moment of their lives they will not need Christ, why should they need Him now? This is the reason why they so rigorously adhere to their law keeping and observances without regard to the blood and the life of Christ on their behalf. Talk to an Adventist about the blood of Christ, His perfect life, His merits, His obedience, the value of His merits, and they soon become bored and turn their backs on you. Talk to an Adventist about the persecution, the “preparation for the final crisis”, the fine points of Sabbath observance, the beast, the image of the beast, even about hydrotherapy, and you have them captive for hours!

 

Adventism will affirm that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone is the standard of faith and practice for all Christians, only to deny the principle of Sola Scriptura by affirming that the writings of Ellen White are also an inspired and authoritative source of truth! This principle permeates all of Adventism and as will be seen is the foundation behind Paulsen’s appeal for Theological Unity in the SDA church.

 

I write the following analysis in hopes that other pastors and lay persons will be led to see that the gospel of Jesus Christ and Adventism are not only in opposition to each other, but that Adventism is at war with the gospel. Adventism is indeed within the camp of the dragon that went to make war with the woman and her seed, Jesus Christ. That such is the case will be made plain in the analysis of Jan Paulsen’s address.[iv]

 

 

 

THE THEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

 

BY JAN PAULSEN

From April 29 to May 8, 2002, some 45 church leaders gathered to consider the topic  "Theological Unity in a Growing World Church." The group was comprised of General Conference personnel, most of the presidents of the world divisions, and several scholars. The conference was called by the General Conference and organized by the Biblical Research Institute. A series of papers on theological topics provided the structure for the deliberations.

In order to provide a biblical setting, the conference convened first in Greece and then in Turkey. The group interspersed theological discussions with visits to Athens, Corinth, Istanbul, some of the sites of the seven churches mentioned in Revelation 2 and 3, and finally Patmos. Retracing the footsteps of Paul and John proved deeply inspiring to the participants.

General Conference president Jan Paulsen gave the keynote address. After its presentation the assembled leaders requested that it be printed in the Adventist Review and also be made available for distribution as a stand-alone publication. We have therefore prepared Pastor Paulsen's  address,  "The Theological Landscape," as an insert in the Adventist Review and arranged for extra copies to be printed. Members desiring a copy of the address should contact the Biblical Research Institute, 12501 Old Columbia Pike, Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6600. -- Editors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wish to reflect on the theological landscape as I see it, with primary reference to our church and our mission. I realize that this could be almost never-ending; therefore, you will understand my need to be selective. And also, while I will give some pointers that will indicate directions, as I see them, a number of my observations will simply be by way of identifying the issues, stating why I think they are important to us, and why they should be addressed.*

The scene on which we step out as Seventh-day Adventist believers every day is no different from that of society in general. There's no "private" Adventist world, however much some may try to define small corners as such. The world we meet every day as we open the door to step out, or as we turn to the news media, is overwhelmingly secular and sometimes--particularly in the West--aggressively atheistic, and is being drawn regularly into tension with the values of religious systems. Whether this is more so today than at other times in history is difficult to say; communication has so radically shrunk the world that we not only have an awareness of what is happening everywhere else, but also feel a sense of involvement and ownership in the morality and ethics of what's happening in the remotest parts of the world. Above all, the world that surrounds us is very insecure and unstable, a reality that impacts the personal lives of our own people and speaks to the urgency of our mission as a church.

I focus on 10 areas:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. The Second Coming--Do We Still Believe?
In my view, it's important for us consciously to recognize the transitory nature of our world, its history, and our place in it. It's something that should occupy our thinking, preaching, and planning as a church. This must be very deliberate. It is to me a troubling thing when a church member walks up to me and says: "Why don't we hear more about the end of time and the second coming of Christ? Don't we now believe these things as we used to?" And sadly, I suspect there are in our community those who in truth no longer believe these things as we used to. As other Christians have found their own ways of understanding the eschaton, so many Adventists are finding nonliteralistic interpretations of the end-time more acceptable, more respectable, and less intrusive into their personal lives. In my view, unless we very deliberately attend to our teaching, preaching, and what we write, we will drift and become what we were not when we first took the name Adventists.

The preaching and teaching of the eschaton is neither paranoia nor gloom--nor is it pessimistic. We believe that the world as we know it is not repairable and is not survivable. This is not the general Christian view of the world. But it is the Adventist view of it. Have we reviewed with our ministers, with the teachers in our schools, with the writers of our books and journals, how these realities of the future are to be projected, both in our public witness and in the nurture of our own people? Do we plan to do it? For if not attended to, they will disappear, with the passing of time, from our sight and thinking.

Is it possible that with an eye to mission we have underestimated the appeal that the preaching of these eschatological realities (that lie at the heart of our message of hope) may in fact bring to very secular people--people who have no defined faith in God as such, but who have also concluded for their own reasons that our world is unstable and insecure, and are hoping that maybe, just maybe, there is something more?

And when it comes to preaching and teaching eschatology, I believe it's not a prerequisite that all things be perfectly clearly understood in order for the reality of the last things to be declared and accepted by faith. And by  "last things" I'm referring primarily to the ongoing ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary, to the second coming of Christ, and to judgment. It seems to me that at this time, post September 11, the preaching of things that testify to God's intervention in history can be a powerful witness. Is there not a hunger for a vision? Will September 11 continue to be the solitary end-time point of reference? I think not. But I would suggest that it will be a catalyst to keep us awake, sober, and sensitive without leading us to resort to what is highly speculative, overly imaginative, but ultimately disreputable.

But let me back up just a bit. I made the comment about much of the West being plagued by an aggressive atheism. I think it is there, accompanied by the depressive void that agnosticism creates. The two somehow live together, and neither of them knows God. One asserts that he is not there--that in fact we are on our own; the other, simply that we don't know.

Now, this is obviously a challenge to all Christians. But it's also a very real challenge to us as Seventh-day Adventists. The belief in the existence of God is the primary belief on which all other doctrines as well as life itself are placed, defined, and experienced. It's where faith begins; and it's the starting point from which faith asserts itself. Therefore, it's of utmost importance that as Adventists we recognize it and address it. Such is done only if it is addressed in a systematic, focused, and deliberate manner. It is not ours only to deal with. Other Christians have to deal with it also, but we must leave it to them to do what they must do. We must accept what we must do, and this is one we must address. Are you examining with your preachers, teachers, and writers how you are going to do that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. The Question of Identity
There are many things we have in common and can do in common with Christians of other churches, but we are Christians of a very specific identity. That identity is reflected in teachings, in what we value, and in our quality of life. I wonder: Have we become or are we becoming more recognizable as "Christians" than we are as Seventh-day Adventist Christians? And is it possible that this is something we'd like to see happen and, therefore, are being deliberate about projecting ourselves in this manner? To the extent that this is so, what is it that has brought us to this point? Is it a consequence of "theological mobbing"?  Is it a consequence of an inferiority complex? Is it a consequence of just wanting to blend in better?

While I am not suggesting that our pulpits should be closed and that a speaker from another spectrum of the Christian community should never be seen addressing one of our gatherings, there are times when I am genuinely perplexed and puzzled as to why such a person was invited and what he or she had to say that one of our own could not have done as well and with less confusion. Are we about to fall victim to something that we are not defining or would prefer not to spell out? I am speaking about our readiness to protect our identity.

In the second half of the 1950s there was a wind sweeping through our ranks that said we should become more "Christ-centered" in our preaching (more theologia crucis and less theologia gloria). And that has happened, and has to a considerable extent been undergirded by a better understanding of what Ellen White in her writings urged us to do. In and of itself this was good.

But as is often the case, nothing is quite as simple as it seems, and the skill of "doing one and not leaving the other undone" is compromised. For the fact is that within the larger Christian world and culture in which we as a church exist, we do have a very specific identity, which we lose to our own destruction. I am reminded of the words spoken by a lay woman member of one of our committees--spoken in rebuke to us as elected leaders: "You have to remember that being a Seventh-day Adventist is a voluntary thing!" And that is true. Even as Christians, the people who worship in our churches on a Sabbath morning could have been something else (Lutherans, Pentecostal, Anglican, Catholic), but they chose to be Seventh-day Adventists. We are a community of Christians with a very specific and defined identity. And our people have made a very deliberate choice for some very good reasons. It is important that these reasons not be made to look inconsequential or irrelevant.

So the question that every Seventh-day Adventist has the right to ask is: Do we continue to profile as we should the Adventist identity--from our pulpits, in particular, but also in the classroom and in our journals? Or is it possible that we don't even talk about it as leaders or in our professional ranks? When was this an item on the agenda of your executive committee or board? This is not a statement of doom and gloom. It's meant simply to say that if not specifically nurtured and projected, identity cannot be preserved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. The Idea of "Remnant"
Among other issues that I believe must be specifically attended to in our development as a church is the very question "What is the church?" Is it identical to the question "What is the Seventh-day Adventist Church?" We have made some very generous statements about other Christian communions, some even written into our policy book. These are genuine and sincere statements. They surface particularly when we sit in conversation with other Christian groups. And I believe that we have been sincere in affirming that God is not ours and that we are not His exclusive family. We state that those who affirm the name of Christ and bring Him as a witness to peoples and nations are indeed instruments of God in his efforts to bring salvation to all.

And yet we hold that we are something special. The remnant language comes into use, although often with hesitancy--we are not sure just how we should say it. I suspect there are many in our church who are not at ease with this idea, and who have not reconciled it in their own minds. We shun the perception of being arrogant, and we don't want to come across as being overly exclusive, but at the same time we believe that being Seventh-day Adventists has direct bearing on our salvation; that while a believer can be saved as a Catholic, I would risk my whole spiritual life and salvation were I to leave what I am now and join any other community.

Also we hold that the Adventist community is an instrument for salvation in God's hands such as no other. We hold these things, but we stop short of saying that you have to be a Seventh-day Adventist in order to be saved. And if you don't have to be a Seventh-day Adventist, why bother? some will ask. Is there something cloudy about this? My point here is, Do we seriously talk about this--particularly with our workers?

Very little is written on the subject of ecclesiology in our church. The linkage between a member's growth in knowledge and understanding and the uncompromising responsibility of discipleship is not pursued as it should be. Under-standing requires response. The fact is that one cannot as a disciple step out of what one is today and go back into a state of less knowing and less understanding. One is constantly moving forward, constantly building on what was there yesterday. Anything other than that would be disobedience and would, in my view, jeopardize one's life with the Lord. Obedience to the Lord is always obedience where one is--in time, in culture, in experience, and in history. And salvation is contingent on that obedience. This should temper any inclination to be judgmental both toward other Christian communities and toward other experiences and cultures within our own church. One has to consider where they are in their knowledge of the Lord and His truth, and in their experience with Him.

Similarly, since understanding and discipleship are dynamics that are constantly growing and moving forward, I'm compelled to share with others what I find. Those with whom I share my discoveries must also respond to Christ and dynamically move forward as the Spirit convicts and opens hearts and eyes, or their own relationship with the Lord is compromised. It's a never-ending process, and it's why we must share our understanding with Christians of other identities. An ongoing discipleship cannot be sustained without this. So we conduct evangelism among and gladly receive converts from other Christian communions. Discovery and discipleship compel us to do so. And we do this without sitting in judgment on what they were before.

So, in a sense, the "remnant" church both is and is in a constant process of becoming.