WORLDS APART Douglas Hackleman (written circa 1980) In 1963 Owen Barfield published an imaginary dialogue among specialists in various intellectual day Adventist. He does not have the interest of the disciplines—a biologist, a philosopher, a physicist, a Seventh­day Adventist Church at heart. There is psychiatrist, a linguist, etc.—entitled Worlds Apart. little or nothing that he may do or say that will build For Barfield the title “convey[ed] a disagreeable impression of watertight compartments.” In fact, the spiritual strength of the Seventh­day Adventist the book emerged as a result of Barfield’s “biting” Church. It is evident from the way he has approached discovery that “these [contemporary] minds never met at all.” the writing of his book and the interviews he has had that the book is designed to embarrass and divide the I have borrowed Barfield’s title, having made church.”2 the same sort of biting discovery about Adventist theologians and their tendency to swim in “water­ What is embarrassing is that Time Magazine and tight compartments” rarely meeting to discuss their The Religious News Service received copies of the theological differences. letter, presumably from some Adventist “deep throat.” It is difficult to decide who to be more disappointed ightning continues to dart and play ­­ in, the deep throat or the architects of a letter the ­­­­about Geoffrey Paxton’s The Shaking mindset of which is the sectarian equivalent of Archie “L 1 of Adventism,” I wrote the PREXAD (General Bunker. Conference President’s Executive Administrative The: polite disappointment I registered with Council) members of the General Conference church leaders expressed my concern that they had following the Anglican clergyman’s speaking tour begun to look on the heart in presuming to know the across Adventist America. The stimulus for my motives of Geoffrey Paxton. I was not attempting to missive to Adventist leaders was a position letter defend his theology. initiated in the President’s Committee and mailed, Shortly before closing, Wilson wrote reassuringly over the North American Division President’s to his highly positioned subordinates: “I should also signature, to each of the North American Union let you know that a scholarly critique of Mr. Paxton’s Presidents, requesting them to dissuade their book is being prepared so that our pastors and leaders institutional leaders from allowing Geoffrey Paxton to and others will have some way of evaluating the realize his desire “to speak in a good many Adventist content of his book and giving direction in connection centers.” with this matter.” Neal Wilson’s letter continued: “Tuesday, March The question that leaps to mind is, “If our pastors 14, we discussed this situation in PREXAD. As a and leaders and others cannot read and evaluate the result, I feel it necessary to share some things with book themselves, how will they make any sense of a you. We do not feel that it would be wise to over scholarly critique?” react, because at this point we do not feel at all Only time will tell whether Paxton has ulterior threatened and should in no way indicate any panic. motives. But his repudiation of the too­frequent “As you know, Mr. Paxton is not a Seventh­ dismissal of Adventists as a cult, or non­Christian Worlds Apart sect, is uncommon and heartening: “No, whatever we could fail to fill our end­time role as certainly as think of this or that Adventist ‘distinctive,’ we have to did the Children of Israel, and with all the attendant recognize the movement as being Christian.” ignominy. Good SDA hermeneutic demands the The appearance of Paxton and his book and the possibility: all prophecy is conditional. response of PREXAD (the requests, even demands, As most are aware, the theological doctrine lifted that Paxton not be allowed to speak in SDA centers) to attention of late by its politicization is Righteousness is an indication of the tendency for Adventist leaders by Faith. Swords cross over the nervous question of to politicize theology. The intentional separation of assurance. What is the mechanism of Salvation? Are King and Priesthood in ancient Israel should warn we saved by justification alone? or by justification and us of the compromising dangers in mixing theology sanctification? Do they occur together? Does imparted and polity. So far, for good or ill, this politicizing righteousness gradually replace imputed righteousness? has had the unintended effect of advertising books A proper concern for personal salvation inspires and broadcasting viewpoints that probably would the individual desiring assurance of a place in the not otherwise have had nearly the hearing. It is Kingdom to request a direct and clear answer to the fitting, in view of Paxton’s nationality, to say that it question, “What must I do to be saved?” In the current boomeranged. To the Adventist concerned for the discussion seemingly contradictory responses are free play of ideas, this is a positive result that over the being provided. Faced with incompatible statements, long haul may provide heuristic benefits. all given with solemn authority and spiritual fervor, This politicizing, however, also results in strongly the typical churchgoer isn’t sure really whether to polarized theological loyalties. In my immediate breathe or swallow. community there is a church where the senior pastor Among fallen human beings it is unfortunate, and one of his associates held Incompatible views on but understandable, that discussions over an issue righteousness by faith. As a result the associate pastor with such personal, eschatological significance often left without the blessing of his senior who would read become verbal duels. But the Son of Man really did him out of the ministry altogether. not come to bring a sword, but peace. Consequently, The same senior pastor has shrilly attacked one theologians—being theologians—tend to take long­ of Adventism’s prolific, old theologians both in print range, passive­aggressive pot shots at each other’s and public joust. The senior pastor maintains what theology when speaking to lay audiences, certainly some roughly label the Review and Herald position not when their theological detractors are present. (see 1976 Sabbath School Quarterly, “Jesus the A national magazine editor remarked, on hearing Model Man”), and any differences cannot rise to the that $600,000 had been allocated to gather in dignity of error. Dissent from Revelation so final can seclusion for one year twelve of America’s leading only be willful and wicked. secular philosophers at Santa Barbara just to think Meditating on this theological and political about thinking, that the expenditure of $50,000 struggle over Righteousness by Faith, the lapidary odd per year apiece towards the withdrawal from thought occurs that we who consider ourselves a public life of the average modern philosopher was prophetic—and prophetically anticipated—people a price America could ill afford not to pay. I am 2 Worlds Apart reminded, similarly, of the continuing plethora reference to my having read the leadership letter). of denominationally sponsored conferences on He reiterated his assessment of Paxton’s motive to Righteousness by Faith. embarrass the church and the fact that he was not an The most recent “consultation” was held in Adventist, going on to say that leadership’s mistake Washington, August 6­11, and included the most was not in denying Paxton access to church­owned prominent exponents (Douglass, Ford, and others) of facilities, but in acting belatedly, after appointments diverging opinion on the relationship of Justification had been scheduled. Moreover, he said that mail from and Sanctification to Righteousness by Faith. As the constituency had been running about ten to one with Middle East Summits, no agreements were in favor of leadership’s direction and counsel. Yet he reached, but negotiations will resume in February. could say, in the next breath, that truth will take care (To get a brief glimpse of the discussants’ styles of itself. and viewpoints, see the responses to The Shaking In this context I would like to paraphrase of Adventism by Herbert Douglass, Desmond Ford, Jefferson in his first inaugural address: “If there and Hans LaRondelle in the most recent issue of be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Spectrum.)3 church or to change its spiritual form, let them stand To question the value of these conferences undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which (or the thinkers who attend) is not necessarily to error of opinion may be tolerated where the Spirit pander to the “worlds apart” phenomenon, because, reigns free to combat it.” unfortunately, when SDA theologians espousing If we cannot look for freedom here In the Body tangential opinion do meet for discussion, it is at the of Christ we need not look for it long from the request of Leadership whose overriding concern is for world. This entire cosmic controversy continues, as a united front, the desire to procrusteanize diverging we understand it, over the issue of freedom—God views into a cozy bed of consensus. Besides, the desiring a universe that runs smoothly, happily, but attempt to arrive at theological consensus, rationally, freely. And what terrible lengths He has been willing via committee, is an effort to make theology (to bor­ to go to see that He is not seen as a despotic tyrant. row professor Oakshott’s phrase) “as the crow flies,” As Professor Richard Rice has pointed out, the an enterprise largely foredoomed. soteriological branch of Christian theology has hardly The freedoms the church desires to have in the found its way into the catalogue of discussions printed world, which are elaborated continually in Liberty thus far in Spectrum. That it should now appear in magazine, should the more surely be exemplified some form is more a response to continuing politico­ within the church body and its commitment to the theological debate among the leaders and theologians knowing of truth and the freedom to pursue it.