I was watching a video by Elder Dennis Priebe about the impact Desmond Ford’s “new theology” had on the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Priebe gave Bible and Spirit of Prophecy quotes that make it clear, almost to a 6-year-old, as to why Ford’s theology was so wrong [1].
Having watched the video, what puzzles me is how this “new theology” has spread so widely and is now so solidly entrenched in various segments of the church, in spite of the plain Biblical truths that deny it.
I will not in the present context review the Bible teachings that refute this heresy, as we have just had an excellent series of articles on this site that do just that. What I want to do is present a thesis as why this theology ravaged the church—or at least certain segments of it—like a fire in a petrol refinery
Much of my evidence is anecdotal, rather than from academic sources, as the latter sources are not available to me. However, I have the testimony of former church elders regarding life in Adventist congregations during the 1950s and ‘60s. Also, my evidence is gathered from my own experience in New Zealand and Australian Seventh-day Adventist churches. The South Pacific Division (formerly the Australasian Division) and its churches have probably been more impacted by Ford than others in the Adventist world. However, I believe the principles and narrative I share here can serve as a warning to the rest of the church.
I was 29 when I was baptized into the Seventh-day Adventist Church at Mount Isa in Australia in August 1980. While I understood what is now called Last Generation Theology from having read The Great Controversy, I didn’t hear much of it through academic or scholarly presentations. But while people my age may not have known the term Last Generation Theology, they were very much aware of it in principle. They spoke of the need to overcome sin in this life, through heaven’s power, as needful preparation for the life to come.
A testimony of events
In October of 1979, Ford presented key objections to the classic Adventist sanctuary doctrine at a meeting held at Pacific Union College in northern California. In August of 1980, following a leave of absence granted him by the college and the General Conference, he was summoned to the Glacier View Ranch in the mountains of Colorado to defend his views before an assembly of church leaders and scholars. Soon thereafter, as his arguments failed to persuade church leadership regarding the alleged errors of this fundamental Adventist doctrine, Ford was asked to either repudiate his objections to this doctrine or lose his ministerial credentials. Because he refused to take back his objections, his denominational employment came to an end.
Then, to use the language of the street, all hell broke loose. To make a long story short, Ford’s attack on the sanctuary message brought into focus various cross-currents that had divided what was then the Australasian Division (now the South Pacific Division) for about two decades, due to the majority of ministers in the Division having been trained by Ford.
While we cannot discern motive, there is evidence that Ford, a brilliant scholar and teacher, had never truly accepted certain basic Seventh-day Adventist doctrines as far back as 1944 [2]. Consequently, his guidance of pastoral candidates in this territory was significantly ambivalent on key topics, progressing over the years toward the conclusions he presented at Glacier View in 1980 [3]. This progression from classic Adventism in 1961 to his 1980 denial of the sanctuary message and Ellen White’s doctrinal authority, paralleled a similar progression in the theological perspective of his students during the same period.
When one considers the training Ford gave most of the pastors in our Division during the time frame in question, their subsequent rise into positions of church leadership, together with the increasing retirement of older pastors not trained by Ford, one can see how widespread and deeply entranced Ford’s theology would become in the Australasian (now the South Pacific) Division.
A summary of the events I observed
In 1980, when I was baptized, the majority of Adventists in the Division followed, to a significant measure, the construct many today call Last Generation Theology.
During the first half of the 1980s, Ford’s anti-sanctuary theology took a heavy toll of pastors and laity. During those years about 180 pastors [4] and an unknown number of laity left the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Some left in anger over the church’s rejection of what they believed to be Ford’s “new light.” Others left because of the doubts sown by his teachings and their now-shaken faith in the identity of Seventh-day Adventism as the remnant church of Bible prophecy.
During this same time, tragically, the salvation theology of Ford and his fellow travellers, which in fact formed the basis of his rejection of both the sanctuary doctrine and the prophetic authority of Ellen White, took an even stronger hold on the church in the South Pacific Division. Unfortunately, many who recognized the errors of the Fordian gospel allowed themselves to become disillusioned with the church, and like those followers of Ford who had left, began to doubt whether organized Adventism was still God’s true church. Many started independent ministries and congregations, diminishing their influence within the organized church.
From the late 1990s until now, the conflict over Ford’s theology has largely ceased. But a situation exists where the most of the Division’s ministers and laity are settled in their acceptance of Ford’s theology, while a handful of members retain their faith in Last Generation Theology and rightly refuse to leave the church on account of Ellen White’s forecast of this very apostasy so long ago, and God’s promise through her that the church will triumph over it [##5|Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, vol. 2, p. 380.##].
To the other side’s credit, in recent times the mistreatment of those who subscribe to Last Generation Theology has largely ceased, thus producing what some might call a peaceful co-existence. While this is not ideal, it is an improvement over the methods used several decades ago.
Tragically, however, with the passing of time Ford’s errors have become deeply entrenched among the leaders, pastors, and laity of the South Pacific Division. The process of accepting Ford’s theology matured about 30 years ago, which means we now have a generation of adults in the church who, like their forebears, have accepted their theology from the pulpit rather than personal study, and thus know little or nothing about the classic Adventist teaching known today as Last Generation Theology.
The cause of Ford’s triumph in the South Pacific Division
Over the past 40 years of living in the South Pacific Division and observing changes in the churches here, I have noted reasons which I believe explain the triumph of Ford’s theology in this territory. I believe now is a good time for an assessment, as the acrimony of past events has sufficiently subsided to facilitate a fair analysis without the heat and emotions that prevailed at the time of these happenings. While I am writing specifically about events in the South Pacific Division, I believe there are principles involved that are universal, together with lessons that would be of value to the denomination as a whole.
As I said at the beginning, a puzzling aspect of the triumph of Ford’s theology is how it defies the clear testimony of both Scripture and the writings of Ellen White.
This is the first point that merits consideration. Looking back to 1979-1980, when I came into the church and was baptized, many Adventists told me that sin needs to be overcome in this life. However, on reflection, I note that many did not quote the Bible or Spirit of Prophecy writings to me, but instead were quoting what they had heard over time from sermons and other official sources. Prior to 1980, most pastors in the South Pacific Division preached sermons based on what today is called Last Generation Theology. It was the generally accepted denominational consensus.
But it was accepted because of what people heard in sermons and other popular lectures, not because of personal study. Hence one foundation of the coming problems was established: lack of personal study.
The second point I want to consider is that in the 1950s and ‘60s, despite the popular acceptance of Last Generation Theology based on the instruction most people received, many were struggling unsuccessfully to overcome sin, even though they knew they needed to overcome it. The testimony of former elders and church leaders from that era reveals that many were struggling to overcome such problems as sexual sin and covetousness. Extramarital affairs and claims of dishonest business dealings were not uncommon in those days. The helplessness felt by many against indulgences such as these generated a widespread desire for a doctrine of easy salvation, like the one Ford and his fellow travellers would soon make popular.
Put yourself in their situation. You know you are not going to make God’s kingdom as you are, but you believe yourself unable to change, despite your best efforts. You are indeed in a desperate situation. Then along comes Des Ford with a message you are longing to hear—that Jesus forgave all your sins at the cross, that all you have to do is believe in what He did, and that even though sin remains unconquerable on this earth even through heaven’s power, never fear, because you’re saved anyway. As large numbers took up this theology, the term I most often heard from such persons was, “In the old days we had no assurance of salvation.”
A perfect storm
Thus we had, in the South Pacific Division, the makings of a perfect theological storm—members struggling to overcome sin, making little or no progress, and thus a hunger for an easier way to heaven. Members who took their theology from the pulpit and other popular sources, rather than from their own study of the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy. The gradual introduction of a theology, delivered from the pulpit, that said you don’t need to overcome sin—indeed, that such overcoming lies out of the reach of even the most sanctified earthly believers.
Like fire in a petrol refinery, this theology spread through the membership.
My guess is that similar trends with similar results can be found elsewhere in Western Adventism during the same time period. Evidence of this is somewhat nuanced [6], indicating that at least in the North American Division, it has not progressed as far as it has here. But nonetheless, the Fordian gospel has succeeded in producing a clouded view of the doctrine of salvation and related topics in other Adventist regions within the developed world, and perhaps elsewhere also.
The result has been the appearance of two forces within the church, and the inevitable conflict such forces produce. The first of these is that new converts tend to come into the church as a result of personal conviction, following personal study of the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy. This is because of the church’s reputation as a cult in much of the outside world, especially in other Christian denominations. Hence a person needs to be strongly convicted that Seventh-day Adventism is Biblically sound before deciding to join, in view of likely rejection and ridicule by family and friends.
The second of these forces is the fact that most born-and-bred Seventh-day Adventists inherit their theology from their parents, pastors, and teachers. It is possible for such persons to have a casual knowledge of our doctrines and lifestyle standards without careful Bible study or opening even one of Ellen White’s books. For a long time in the South Pacific Division, and likely elsewhere, truth was handed down to successive generations through tradition. The truth component in this tradition was reinforced within the church by convicted newcomers, many of whom studied for and joined the ministry.
But truth received by tradition is a fragile thing—and one day, inevitably, the process breaks. Thus it did in the 1980s, as detailed above. As personal conviction and piety declined in the church, weakening its witness, so too did the acquisition of new blood through evangelism, which could otherwise have arrested this decline. Thus we find many churches running on tradition, albeit a different tradition from before, with very little acquisition of new members who have studied for themselves.
Where from here?
Looking at the situation described above, one can easily conclude there is no human solution to the problem. One truly wonders what methods or programs could be implemented to turn this around. The ultimate solution will take place through divine intervention, which will purge and also revitalize the church. This is alluded to in a well-known Ellen White quote:
The church may appear as about to fall, but it does not fall. It remains, while the sinners in Zion will be sifted out--the chaff separated from the precious wheat. This is a terrible ordeal, but nevertheless it must take place. None but those who have been overcoming by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony will be found with the loyal and true, without spot or stain of sin, without guile in their mouths. We must be divested of our self-righteousness and arrayed in the righteousness of Christ [##7|White, Selected Messages, vol. 2, p. 380.##].
When can we expect to see the sinners in Zion sifted out? To some extent, it is happening now, and was happening even in the 1800s. In 1862 Ellen G White wrote:
I saw that we are now in the shaking time. Satan is working with all his power to wrest souls from the hand of Christ and cause them to trample underfoot the Son of God.…. Angels of God are weighing moral worth. God is testing and proving His people [##8|——Testimonies, vol. 1, p. 429.##].
We have seen, particularly in the 1980s, an attrition of members in the South Pacific Division over the Ford controversy. But we have yet to see the perfecting of the church promised in Ephesians 5. Ellen White gives a clue as to when this purifying will take place.
The class represented by the foolish virgins are not hypocrites. They have a regard for the truth, they have advocated the truth, they are attracted to those who believe the truth; but they have not yielded themselves to the Holy Spirit's working. They have not fallen upon the Rock, Christ Jesus, and permitted their old nature to be broken up [##9|——Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 411.##].
This explanation of the parable of the ten virgins describes the time when the foolish virgins (the unconverted) eventually leave the church. A further mention of the unconverted leaving the church en masse is given in The Great Controversy:
As the storm approaches, a large class who have professed faith in the third angel's message, but have not been sanctified through obedience to the truth, abandon their position and join the ranks of the opposition. By uniting with the world and partaking of its spirit, they have come to view matters in nearly the same light; and when the test is brought, they are prepared to choose the easy, popular side. Men of talent and pleasing address, who once rejoiced in the truth, employ their powers to deceive and mislead souls. They become the most bitter enemies of their former brethren. When Sabbathkeepers are brought before the courts to answer for their faith, these apostates are the most efficient agents of Satan to misrepresent and accuse them, and by false reports and insinuations to stir up the rulers against them [##10|——The Great Controversy, p. 608.##].
The phrase “as the storm approaches” seems to indicate that this happens sometime before the great persecution actually happens, but when the church actually sees it approaching. This suggests that the described shaking begins sometime during the agitation for a Sunday law—that is, as the churches of America press for such a law, but before it is enacted:
But as the question of enforcing Sunday observance is widely agitated, the event so long doubted and disbelieved is seen to be approaching, and the third message will produce an effect which it could not have had before [##11|——The Great Controversy, p. 606.##].
As we can see, this wholesale departure of the unconverted is an essential prerequisite to the purifying of the church. We can easily see how the presence of a large mass of unconverted within the church holds the purifying process back.
After His resurrection, Christ ascended to heaven, and He is today presenting our needs to the Father. "I have graven them upon the palms of My hands," He says. It cost something to engrave them there. It cost untold agony. If we would humble ourselves before God, and be kind and courteous and tender-hearted and pitiful, there would be one hundred conversions to the truth where now there is only one. But though professing to be converted, we carry round with us a bundle of self that we regard as altogether too precious to be given up. It is our privilege to lay this burden at the feet of Christ, and in its place take the character and similitude of Christ. The Saviour is waiting for us to do this [##12|——Testimonies, vol. 9, pp. 189-190.##].
What are we to do?
Clearly we aren’t to just sit on our hands waiting for the above events. The work of the church is to go on as we utilize God’s gifts. My experience is that we are to employ our influence to bring revival and reformation to the church, and with this foundation acquire new converts with a full understanding of the truth, regardless of the apostasy going on around them, and to support them in their progress of understanding. Revival, reformation, and evangelistic fervor will do much to commence the work of purification that the final shaking will at last complete.
REFERENCES
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syjR6EmMFqs&ab_channel=DennisPriebeMinistries
2. https://musicaeadoracao.com.br/recursos/arquivos/ingles/church_growth.htm
3. https://musicaeadoracao.com.br/recursos/arquivos/ingles/church_growth.htm
4. https://musicaeadoracao.com.br/recursos/arquivos/ingles/church_growth.htm
5. Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, vol. 2, p. 380.
6. https://research.avondale.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1160&context=theo_chapters
7. White, Selected Messages, vol. 2, p. 380.
8. ----Testimonies, vol. 1, p. 429.
9. ----Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 411.
10. ----The Great Controversy, p. 608.
11. Ibid, p. 606.
12. ----Testimonies, vol. 9, pp. 189-190.
Tony Rigden, a former atheist/deist, came into the Seventh-day Adventist Church in 1980 as the result of a miraculous conversion and the reading of the book The Great Controversy by Ellen G White. He has since been a regular Sabbath School teacher, very part-time lay preacher, elder and briefly head elder. Formerly an electronics technician and computer programmer, Tony is currently still part-time programming but mostly retired. Former hobbies included diving and private flying. Currently he is a volunteer guard (train conductor) for one of New Zealand's leading vintage railways.