Dr.

Desmond Ford is an accomplished Adventist theologian and scholar who has

addressed many tens of thousands of persons through seminars, sermons and
lectures, as well as through books, magazines, radio, and television. His Gospel
ministry takes him throughout the United States and to numerous foreign countries
on a regular basis. He is also the President and Founder of Good News Unlimited,
a non-profit, non-denominational gospel ministry headquartered in Auburn,
California. Dr. Fords gospel-focused magazine, entitled Good News Unlimited, is
distributed in over 80 countries. Dr. Fords web site may be found
at www.goodnewsunlimited.org.
Over the years, Dr. Ford has written many books on the Gospel and Christian
lifestyle including separate commentaries on Daniel and Revelation as well as the
seventh day Sabbath and preventive health. He recently authored a 382-page,
easy-to-read commentary on Romans, Right with God, Right Now. Dr. Ford holds
two doctorate degrees - one in New Testament studies from The University of
Manchester in England under the renowned Protestant theologian, the late Dr. F.F.
Bruce (1910-1990) and the other in Rhetoric from Michigan State University at
Lansing.
>Prior to 1980, Dr. Ford had a distinguished career with the Seventh-day Adventist
denomination. He was head of the Religion Department at Avondale SDA College
in Australia from 1961-1977 as well as a committee member for the
Denominations Biblical Research Institute. In 1977, Dr. Ford came to the United
States to teach Religion at Pacific Union College until late in 1979 when, at the
request of the General Conference, he moved to Takoma Park, Maryland in order
to defend his "advanced" position concerning Daniel 8:14 and the doctrine of the
"Investigative Judgment." During this period, the Seventh-day Adventist
denomination had become involved in a divisive debate over the definition of the
"Gospel." Dr. Fords uncompromising defense of this historic Protestant doctrine as
reflected in his interpretation of Daniel 8:14 led to his surprising dismissal from
Denominational employment as a Theology Professor and Minister in August of
1980. His controversial termination was reported around the world by such
magazines as Time, Newsweek, and Christianity Today.
Almost two decades have passed since Dr. Ford took his courageous stand for the
Gospel. Since that time, it has become obvious that Dr. Fords teachings have led
many Christians to a better understanding of personal salvation and the Scripture.
In fact, many within the Seventh-day Adventist church have adopted his view of the
Gospel and his advanced position on the Investigative Judgment. Although it has
been almost two decades since Dr. Ford has been exiled from the Denomination,
he is still a Seventh-day Adventist who personally supports a vegetarian lifestyle as
well as such fundamental doctrines as the seventh day Sabbath, Second Coming,
Judgment, state-of-the-dead, new earth, etc. We are grateful that Dr. Ford has
agreed to participate in this AdventistToday forum interview. Dr. Ford has also
agreed to come on-line after the interview is posted to answer some follow-up
questions.

For convenience, a table of general topics has been added below.

The Interview - Part 1
AToday: Dr. Ford, I would like to explore a number of theological areas with you
ranging from the Glacier View debate and the Investigative Judgment to the validity
of the Sabbath and the authority of Scripture versus Ellen G. White. We will also
touch on such topics as the Gospel, Womens Ordination, last-day events, the 27
fundamental beliefs, and the future of Adventism in the Twenty-first century.
For the record, I should state that I have invited the White Estate, Biblical Research
Institute, and the Review to submit some official or even unofficial questions to you,
but they have all politely declined. (However, Bill Johnsson of the Review did agree
to participate in a future Adventist Today forum interview.) Considering the fact that
all these Denominational entities were so very involved with Glacier View and the
theological conflict surrounding the Gospel, perhaps they will reconsider and
submit some follow-up questions after the initial interview has been posted on
the Adventist Today forum.
So, Dr. Ford, if you dont mind, we will get started.
Dr. Ford: Fair enough.
AToday: QUESTION #1 - Dr Ford, the very mention of your name seems to stir
theological controversy. In fact, when Adventist Today initially posted information
about your forum interview, the activity increased dramatically and discussions
intensified. Some supported you enthusiastically, while others denounced you as a
heretic intent on destroying the Advent movement. To complicate matters, the vast
majority seemed truly confused about the issues surrounding this on-going
theological conflict. Please tell us: are you a friend or foe of the Advent movement?
Do you think that the Advent movement is a continuation of the great Protestant
Reformation as L.E. Froom and others have claimed? And, finally what, in your
opinion, are the core issues that make you so controversial?
Dr. Ford: First, let me say that I am a friend of the Advent movement. The
dedications of two of my books, the one written just prior to Glacier View,
entitled Daniel 8:14, The Day of Atonement and the Investigative Judgment and
the other, The Forgotten Day, written shortly after Glacier View, will help to answer
these questions. The first book was dedicated:
"To those who, believing that God raised up the Advent movement to
proclaim the truth for earth's last hour, value truth more than position,
comfort, or reputation. For such,
New occasions teach new duties

Time makes ancient good uncouth,

They must upward still and onward
Who would keep abreast of truth."
The second dedication was dedicated to the many Adventists who see "the
everlasting gospel" (Revelation 14:6) as the heart of God's last message to the
world and the touchstone of all else in doctrine and behavior."
I have gone on record many times, both orally and in print, declaring with all my
heart that I believe God raised up the Advent movement. Too many Adventists
think Miller is someone to be ashamed ofbut they are wrong. This unschooled
farmer read the Scripture correctly and recognized that it foretold the pre-millennial
return of Christ. Miller transcended most of the learned scholars of his day. All of
the major Bible commentaries used in American homes throughout most of the
Nineteenth Century taught the post-millennial coming of Christ. Who can get
excited about an event at least a thousand years off? Adam Clarke, Bishop
Barnes, and before both of them, Matthew Henry, made this same mistake. Miller
helped turn the religious world around on this vital issue that resonates throughout
every part of the New Testamentthe vibrant with the hope of the soon return of
our Lord. To cherish that hope is appropriate whether we live in the apostolic age
or now. Following the two world wars, almost the whole religious world has
followed the lead given by Miller. The fact he was wrong in following most
Protestants of his day in striving to fix "prophetic dates" does not significantly
lessen his stature.
Listen particularly to my Adventist Forum presentation given in San Diego on July
17, 1998 entitled, "My Vision for the Church." At that Forum, I pointed out how
appropriate the timing was for the essence of the SDA message. For example,
Darwin wrote his first sketch ofThe Origin of Species in 1844 and simultaneously
God revived the Sabbath truth to challenge all atheistic theories regarding life's
origin. Modern Spiritualism also emerged in the 1840s and it was countered by
Adventism's emphasis on conditional immortality. It was also in the 1840s that
Marx and Engels wrote The Communist Manifesto, affirming that "law, morality,
and religion, are only bourgeois prejudices." So, I affirm that God raised up the
Advent movement for His purposes in the last days.
As to the question about the Reformation being connected to Adventism, yes, I
believe the Adventist movement was intended by God to be a continuation of the
Reformation. In His providence, God directed the attention of the Adventists to the
ark and the mercy seat in the Most Holy placelaw and grace combining. There
can be no strong gospel without a strong doctrine of law. This is what the
Adventists were meant to offer to the world, with particular reference to the
Sabbath, which is at the very heart of the law that authenticates the whole. It is
because the law and the gospel both come from the Creator that they have validity
and meaning.

As for the controversy, the theological conflict in Adventism during the 1960s and
the 1970s revolved around the core issues of "the everlasting gospel." Is the
gospel good news or good advice? Does righteousness by faith mean justification
alone or justification plus sanctification? Did Christ have a sinful nature like ours
and, therefore, one that challenges us all to obey as perfectly as He did, or is He
primarily our Savior first and our Exemplar second? Can sinful human beings
perfectly obey a holy law or are the believing saints covered by the imputed merits
of Christ all their days and in the last judgment? Is Christian assurance part of the
gospel package, or is it presumptuous for those facing an Investigative Judgment?
Does the traditional teaching on the Investigative Judgment cohere with the
repeated emphasis in Hebrews that Christ finished the atonement at the cross and
entered immediately "within the veil"?
AToday: QUESTION #2 - How did the Righteousness by Faith debates, which
focused on the definition of the Gospel, become linked with Glacier View, Daniel
8:14, and the Investigative Judgment doctrine?
Dr. Ford: Having completed two post-graduate degrees in Eschatology, one of my
chief areas of interest had been biblical Prophecy. After handling every book in the
stacks of the Library of Congress on the Apocalypse as a culmination to decades
of prophetic study, I realized that the evidence was overwhelmingly against the
historicist mode of calculating supposedly prophetic dates following the Cross.
Furthermore, I concluded that none of these dates can be scripturally or historically
supported as a fulfillment of Bible prophecy.
Also, and more importantly, I realized that the SDA church had failed to make
Christ and the gospel central in its exposition of the prophecies. This error was
made in spite of our awareness of the prophetic key found in Revelation 19:10 that
prophecy is also all about Jesus. So, just as I had long protested against the
teachings of perfectionism and the sinful nature of Christ, I also protested in these
areas as well.
My theology is not controversial for most SDA scholars, but it is such to dyed-inthe-wool traditionalists whose time for study and research is limited by inclination
and skills. Since Glacier View, concession after concession has been made by
Church spokesmen in the areas once regarded as heretical in 1980. For example,
the Church now officially teaches the "sinlessness" of Christ's human nature; the
impossibility of perfection for sinners in this life; the fact that the Antichrist is central
in the judgment prophecies of Daniel 7 and 8; that "cleansed" is a mistranslation in
Daniel 8:14; that the word "days" is also not to be found in the Hebrew original of
that same verse; that the atonement DID take place at the cross; that Christ DID
enter the equivalent of "the most holy place" at His ascension and not in 1844; that
the Lisbon earthquake, the Dark Day, and the falling of the stars in 1833 are not
the fulfillment of Bible prophecy; that Ellen White was not a theologian, never
claimed infallibility and relied on faulty sources for her doctrinal formulations; that
Ellen White upheld the Bible as the only rule of faith and practice; that she refused
to be an arbiter in the interpretation of prophecy, etc, etc. etc.

However, I must say that most pleasing of all these quiet changes has been an in
AToday: QUESTION #8 - It is virtually impossible to discuss Adventist history or
theology without dealing with Ellen White, her authority, and her writings. Today,
there are numerous web sites that seek to discredit and ridicule her for reasons
that range from plagiarism to supposedly fraudulent behavior. Indeed, her
popularity and credibility within the Denomination may be at an all time low. I note
that your critics have routinely accused you of also being "against Ellen White" and
often cite that charge as the fundamental reason for your exile. Would you please
tell us your position regarding Ellen White? Was she a real prophet or a fraud? Are
her writings reliable and worth reading today? Can her writings be used to help us
understand the Bible and determine doctrine? Also, how do you think Ellen White
affected the debate at Glacier View, if at all? And finally, has your perception of
Ellen White changed over the years and what do you think she would have said
about this unresolved debate if she were still alive today?
Dr. Ford: In the Glacier View manuscript and in "The Adventist Crisis of Spiritual
Identity," I have discussed the role of E.G. White at great length. She had the gift of
prophecy spoken of in l Corinthians 14 which is not identical with that of the
canonical writers of Scripture (see l Cor. 14:29 and l Thess. 5:19-21 for clear
statements that the gift in our daysince the completion of the canonis not
infallible). Ellen White never claimed infallibility and her writings should be studied
as those of a great church leader and pastor but not as a "Bible."
Yes, it was my supposed threat to Ellen White that contributed to the Glacier View
debacle. I have highly valued the writings of Ellen White since my first encounter
with them. But for the last fifty years, I have accepted her own warnings that her
writings were not to be used as Scripture and that the Bibleand the Bible onlyis
our source of doctrine. Were she living today, she would say the same thing as she
said during the long theological debate over the "daily" (see SM, vol. 1, pp. 164ff).
During that debate, she told the brethren not to use her statements but to go to the
Bible.
When asked by Southern Publishing Association to write a book as a lesson help
for a series on the prophets, I wrote Physicians of the Soul. In that book, I have
several chapters on Ellen G. White in which I said essentially what I stated above.
However, I also pointed out her use of sources, listing many, including, if I
remember correctly, authors not mentioned by Walter Rea when years later he
made his revelations. My lesson quarterly on the topic, requested by the Church
and endorsed by the scholars who reviewed it, was never published because
certain administrators feared that my name being on it would arouse controversy. I
was never officially informed of this decision and found out years later after making
a series of inquiries to Church administrators.
Having researched the stacks of the Library of Congress, I know that most writers
in theology, medicine, history, science, etc. of the Nineteenth Century used other
authors freely without giving them credit. In addition, the expression, "I was

shown," was commonplace among religious writers of Ellen White's day. That
phrase did not always or necessarily mean revelation by vision. For example, the
famous book, Uncle Tom's Cabin, according to its author, came story by story to
the writer in a dream. This religious phenomenon was not at all uncommon in the
1800s.
AToday: QUESTION #9 - Lets talk about the seventh day Sabbath. Today there is
a movement within the evangelical segment of the Adventist community to
disregard the Sabbath doctrine along with its traditional eschatological significance.
Even though you have been exiled from Adventism for almost twenty years, you
have stood up and strongly defended the Sabbath as if you were still a Seventhday Adventist. In fact, you recently published a rebuttal to Dale Ratzlaffs book,
entitled The Sabbath in Crisis, and more recently defended the Sabbath with three
lectures in the Washington, D.C. area. This is somewhat confusing to everyone.
Can you explain the issues surrounding this Sabbath debate and set forth why you
still support the Sabbath?
In addition, why is it that some within the Adventist community, especially those
who accept the gospel, seem prone to rejecting this doctrine? Is the Sabbath a
"landmark" doctrine that cannot be moved or is it simply a Jewish relic and part of
the ceremonial law that has little meaning for us today? Did the early Christians
worship on the seventh or the first day of the week and why does the specific day
matter at all? Can you prove from the New Testament that seventh day Sabbath
worship is required for Christians and that it is a test for the last days? (I note for
our Adventist Today audience that your article, "Is the Seventh-day Sabbath
Christian?," can be found on the AToday web site.)
Dr. Ford: I became a Sabbath-keeper in my teens after reading all I could get
against SDAs and the Sabbath. I did so with fear, trepidation, and great reluctance
for I was an Episcopalian, who worked on Saturdays, and my immediate manager
was a Roman Catholic editor. My relatives were very much opposed to my taking
this step, but I have never regretted it. When my wife, Gill, and I attend church
where we have our memberships (PUC), we greatly enjoy the Angwin fellowship
but the same is true wherever we keep the Sabbath in many parts of the world and
most regularly here in the Auburn area (when I am not traveling). In fact, you could
say that I came to America because of the Sabbath. I was asked by the
Australasian Division to first come to this country in the 1950's after a successful
debate on the Sabbath issue with a Church of Christ minister, whose hobby it was
to challenge SDA ministers on this topic where and whenever he could.
I wrote The Forgotten Day in response to the attack on the Sabbath by Robert
Brimsmead. That was not long after Glacier View. The July/August, 1996 issue
of Adventist Today has on its cover, "DESMOND FORD DEFENDS THE
SABBATH," and pages 11-14 has my article entitled, "Is the Seventh-day Sabbath
Christian?" Beginning March, 1999 and running for several months, our Good
News Unlimited magazine (which goes to eighty countries) began a series on the
Sabbath. One of these articles is a review of Dale Ratzlaff's book, The Sabbath in

Crisis. I would like to stress that my sympathies are with Dale on the primary
matter of righteousness by faith, but I disagree with his position on the covenants
and the fourth commandment.
My recent lectures in the Washington, D.C. area were actually a defense of the
gospel for I believe it is impossible to have a well-rounded gospel without a strong
position on the law of God. These meetings were not an attack on those friends of
mine who love the gospel but see the Sabbath issue differently. Luther and Calvin
disagreed on the Lord's Supper but they were united on the Reformation gospel.
The reason some who have been Sabbath-keepers now reject the doctrine is, I
believe, because they have mainly known legalistic Sabbath-keeping, which is an
antithesis to the gospel. If I had to choose between the gospel without the Sabbath
or the Sabbath without the gospel, I would, without hesitation, choose the former.
But I see no reason for such a choice. Here is a situation where one can have
ones cake and eat it too.
I also firmly reject legalistic Sabbath-keeping as certainly as Christ himself did.
There is a difference between what is legal and what is legalistic. I hope the
marriage of those who read this is legal but I trust it is not legalistic. Similarly, there
is a distinction between what is rational and what is rationalistic. Too many SDAs
have failed to see that the Sabbath is a parable of the gospel. The ceasing from
our works to rest in God is a parable of forsaking the Pharisee's road to heaven for
the gospel way of faith alone, by grace alone, because of the blood alone, but
always evidenced by holy living. God intended that the physical rest of the seventh
day should be an emblem of the continual rest of conscience enjoyed by all those
who trust in the finished work of Christ for their salvation. See the prolonged
discussion in Hebrews chapters three and four on this topic but also the Great
Invitation of Matthew 11:28-30, which is the New Testament's introduction to the
theme of the Sabbath. (Matthew 12 is the first chapter of the New Testament to
name the Sabbath).
According to Scripture, the Sabbath is "honorable", "holy", "blessed", and a
"delight". It was made "for" man, not against him. The New Testament has no rules
for Sabbath-keeping, only principles. By His Sabbath reforms, Christ clearly taught
that works of mercy, necessity, and piety are in harmony with the fourth
commandment. Guidance can be summed up in this way: whatever is to the glory
of God and the benefit of humanity that is best done on the seventh day is right
and proper. Even the fourth commandment itself only has two ruleskeep the
seventh day holy, that is distinct, and leave alone the self-centered usual work of
the preceding days.
Many, like Dale Ratzlaff, list other Jewish prohibitions that were applicable during
the wilderness wandering but were never intended for God's worldwide church. All
sorts of regulations also surrounded other commandments of the Decalogue which
were appropriate for the Jewish era but which do not carry over into Christian
times. For example, we do not stone either disobedient children or adulterers.

Yes, the Sabbath IS a landmark doctrine that cannot be moved. It is not saving, in
and of itself, but like all other obedience to the known will of God, it is evidence of
justification. No commandment-keeping ever justifies but it reveals who is already
right with God. Those who in all honesty have observed Sunday, believing it to be
the Sabbath of Scripture, are, of course, the children of God. We are not saved by
good theology, though good theology is tremendously important. There are "things
that accompany salvation" that are not in themselves saving. Baptism and the
Lord's Supper, church-going, the study of the Bible can be included in this list. All
are important, but not one of them is in itself saving.
The Sabbath is not Jewish. It was given millenniums before there was a Jew.
Genesis 2:1-3 pictures the Sabbath as woven into the fabric of the universethe
world's birthday, Christ's rest day, for He was the Creator. One can no more
change the birthday of the world than one can change one's own birthday. It is, and
will always be, Christ's Sabbath for it is the day on which the Son of God rested
after his work of creation. It is not possible to separate the sanctification of the day
from the resting and blessing of it at creation.
Furthermore, all Bible memorials begin at the very time of the event memorialized.
If the sanctification of the Lord's Supper and its observance were to take place as
long after the first Lord's Supper as some think the giving of the Sabbath to man
was separated from Christ's initial resting upon it, we would not yet be observing it!
Mark 2:27, in the original Greek, says that the Sabbath was made for "the" man,
meaning the first man. If it was for the first man, made at the time when all things
were made, it is also for the last man, and for all men in between. Hebrews 4 also
is clear that the Sabbath rest began at the foundation of the world.
Nobody doubts that the other nine commandments were from the beginning and
were for all men and nobody doubts that the other nine commandments are moral.
Surely, the one put in the most protected position, alone prefaced with "remember,"
partakes of the same origin and quality. Man was a worker and a worshipper from
the beginning and obviously had a set time for rest and adoration. We do nothing
regularly for which there is not a fixed time. Even the heathen saw the need of
days of rest and change. We are made like a seven-day clock that needs rewinding
every week. The Sabbath comes like a caress, wiping away the strain and tensions
of the week. It becomes a window into eternity. The day of God leads to the House
of God to hear the Word of God to meet the Son of God. Jesus kept it in life and
death. Nothing can be added to a covenant after it is sealed as Scripture
repeatedly states and so Sunday-keeping or Sabbath rejection comes three days
too late.
What a boon to receive the gift of time to think about eternity! Those who cannot
now regularly spend one day with God should not plan on an eternity with Him. In
Heaven we change our place but not our company. The fourth commandment is a
blessed armistice in our battle with the things of the world. It is a truce that brings
joy as family members see more of each other, fellow-believers, and the face of
God.

On the topic of the final test, I have written at great length in the second volume of
my commentary on Revelation called Crisis! The first time the Sabbath is
actually named it is called a test. See Exodus 16:4, 28-29. In Revelation, the key
word to the last conflict is "worship" (see how often it is employed in Revelation 13
and 14). The first war of the world was over worship and so too will be the last one.
Compare Genesis 4 with Revelation 16 (Armageddon). Scholars of Apocalyptic
point out that apocalyptic literature is concerned with the issue of loyalty to the law
of God. See that illustrated in Daniel 1,3,6, 7:25, etc.
In Revelation 13, the commandments of the first table are shown to be central in
the closing conflict of the great controversy. All the world worships the beast
(against commandment one of the decalogue), makes an image to the beast
(against commandment two), blasphemes God's name
(against commandment three), and pays homage to the creaturethe beast
instead of the Creator (against commandment four). Thus those who are loyal are
described repeatedly as keepers of the commandments of God as well as the faith
(gospel) of Jesus. Thus, the fourth commandment is quoted in the warning
message of Revelation 14:7. Obedience to the known will of God, as revealed in
Scripture, will constitute the evidence of loyalty to the gospel.
Sanctification everywhere in scripture is seen as the demonstration of justification,
and sanctification is the process of ever increasing conformity to the image of
Christ through faith and obedience. The real mark of the beast is the character of
Satan and the real seal of God is the character of Christ (see Revelation 14:1) but
each seal will have its own earthly sign. Repeatedly in Scripture, the Sabbath is
declared to be that sign. See Exodus 31 and Ezekiel 2 for examples.
Revelation 12 and 13 present a false Trinitythe dragon, the beast, and the false
prophet. They will have a false law with a false mark or seal. (Observe that the
reference to the mark in the hand and forehead is an allusion to three Old
Testament texts about the law of God being in the hand and foreheads of God's
children). This false Trinity will also have a false gospel and a false Pentecost (thus
the fire coming down from heaven). Again, I refer readers to Crisis, volume 2, for
more on this theme. The gospel is at the heart of the final controversy on earth but
the evidence of committal to the gospel has always been found in obedience to the
commandments of God. See the second half of most of the Pauline epistles and
Matthew 12:50 and the closing words of the Sermon on the Mount. Christ still asks,
"Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I say?"
Church history is quite clear that Christians kept the seventh day Sabbath for
centuries after the Cross. I have documented this in my book, The Forgotten Day,
(now out of print, but which may be reprinted sometime in the future). If the
Sabbath was kept by Patriarchs, Prophets, Kings, Apostles, Christ, and the early
Church, why should not all who learn of its "delight" keep it now? As we enter into
the rest of faith we are, so to speak, transported into the Most Holy Place of
heaven. (Observe how the word "enter" is used in connection with the Sabbath in

Hebrews 4 but later in connection with the Most Holy Place in Hebrews 9 and 10
repeatedlysee modern translations.)
The central words of the decalogue are, "The seventh day is the Sabbath". This is
because that blessed institution reflects the lineaments of Christ and exemplifies
His gracious work of salvation that brings us rest of conscience. Christ is our real
Sabbath just as He is the true Bread and the true Baptism, and the true
Bridegroombut none of these glorious truths wipe out their symbols. Without
spirit, the form is dead; without form, the spirit dies.
AToday: QUESTION #10 - Although the early church expected the soon return of
Christ in the first century, they met with disappointment. Likewise, the early
Adventists expected the Second Coming and were also disappointed. Why the
delay? Why does God not put a stop to all this sin with its misery, pain, suffering,
and death? What, if anything, can we do to expedite the eschaton?
Dr. Ford: Central to this question are the plain repeated statements of Scripture to
the effect that the end cannot come until the gospel has gone to all the world.
While Matthew 24:14 is the best known of these, there are many others (see Mark
13:10; Revelation 10:1,2; 14:6; 18:1, etc.). The great controversy, which began on
earth with one family, in one place, will not end until there has been a global
demonstration of the principles involved. These were all acted out at Calvary but
are yet to be seen throughout the whole world as the controversy comes to its
close and the body of Christ, the church, goes through similar turmoil as its Head.
Ezekiel 12:22 is very relevant. "The days are prolonged and every vision faileth."
Before the first advent, many Jews had given up the hope of the soon coming of
the Messiah for they had waited so long as a nation for the predicted event. Then,
while most slept, He came. So, it will be again. The church will sleep, most will give
up their hope, and then He will come (see Luke 18:8 and Matthew 25:5). l
Corinthians 4:9 tells us that we are a spectacle to the universe (Greek original =
cosmos), to angels, and to men. Before the return, all must acknowledge that just
and true are the ways of the Lord God (see Revelation 15:3,5, etc). Then unto Him,
every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess. The searing lesson of earths
abysmal misery shall give a lesson to the myriads of sinless beings in the universe
so that never again will any try the folly of disobedience to the Creator. Tediously
long as earth's history seems to us, it is only a blip in the aeons of eternity.
Our part is to live and teach the gospel and thus hasten the return (see 2 Peter
3:12). Just as an arc can be described as convex or concave according to our
angle of vision, so Scripture teaches both the absolute sovereignty of God and the
responsibility of man. From one angle, God has fixed the exact moment of the
return of Christ. From another angle, He seeks the co-operation of His church to
speed forward that event. In most ages, the church has lapsed into legalism and
thus the good, glad, and merry tidings that make a person's heart to sing and their
feet to dance has been eclipsed. Thus, the delay is due to the slowness of the
spread of the saving message of grace, which is the world's supreme need.

AToday: QUESTION #11 - There seems to be a number of Adventists who have

gravitated towards the Messianic Jewish movement. This Sabbatarian group
accepts the Gospel and trusts in Christ as the Messiah. They focus on the Old
Testament as well as the New Testament and practice many of the Old Testament
feasts and festivals, including the Passover. They believe that the "time of the
gentiles" is about over and that the Gospel will now go to the Jews. The rise of the
Jewish State figures quite prominently in their eschatology. I know that Miller and
traditional Adventism have always rejected this popular eschatology, but is there
any truth and light to be found in this growing movement? Is it wrong for gentile or
Jewish Christians to practice the Passover and to follow other Jewish traditions so
long as they understand that Christ is their true Righteousness? Do the events in
the Middle East figure into the last day events? Your thoughts on all this?
Dr. Ford: There are many wonderful folks in these groups and I am sure God is
with them. No group, however, and no individual, is free from error. It is what
theologians call the "noetic" effect of sinsin affects the mind as well as the
character. All the Jewish feasts have much to teach us but it is not possible to keep
them according to the biblical mode because they all involved sacrifices and
sacrifices were only permitted while the temple stood.
These groups have been greatly influenced by the fundamentalist
dispensationalists of this country and the Scofield Bible. But dispensationalism is
radically in error with regard to the future. The book of Revelation constantly
quotes from the Old Testament prophecies about Israel but always applies them to
the Christian church. Jesus told the Jews that the kingdom would be taken from
them and given to a people bringing forth fruit, and in l Peter 2, we are told that this
applies to the Christian church (see also the last words of Galatians 3 and Romans
2). The Christian church has been grafted into the stock of Israel (see Romans 11).
The new covenant is also made with Israelspiritual Israel. We must take
seriously the warnings of Revelation 2:9 and 3:9. The true Israelite today is not one
after the flesh, but one who is in Christ.
Every nation has a right to its own country so providence was in the move back to
Palestinethough there are far more Jews in the U.S. than in the Holy Land. But
the Middle East does not figure in New Testament prophecy as I have documented
in my books, Crisis!volumes 1 and 2. Armageddon, for example, has nothing to do
with the plain of Megiddo, except insofar as the events that happened there are
typical of the last great conflict between good and evil soon to take place on a
world-wide scale. The words of James in Acts 15 applying the prophecy of Amos
should be closely studied. There he applies the Old Testament prophecy to
gentiles who in joining Jesus have become the new Israel. This is consistent with
the whole book of Revelation which itself opens with the symbolism of the
sevenfold Jewish candelabra symbolizing the seven Christian churches of Asia.
Also in Revelation, Jerusalem is the symbol for the Christian church.
AToday: QUESTION #12 - The Advent movement has always looked at the "time
of trouble" as a literal period of great social turmoil with all sorts of chaos,

persecution, and destruction that precedes the Second Coming. Today, in spite of
the worlds growing prosperity and the strong trend towards democracy, can we
still expect a real time of trouble? Will Sunday laws start the time of trouble as once
believed? And what about Y2K, could that problem start the time of trouble? Also,
do you think that the Bible describes or refers to nuclear holocaust in certain places
such as Revelation 8,11 and 18:8, 17 and19 as well as Matthew 24:29? Could a
limited nuclear war be the fulfillment of Thessalonians 5? Isnt this planet wired for
destruction in ways that the Adventist pioneers never contemplated?
Dr. Ford: There is to be a time of "great tribulation such as never was." This, the
Bible teaches over and over (see the Second Advent sermon and the closing
chapters of Revelation, especially Revelation 13 and Dan 12:1). I do not think it will
be exactly as SDAs have pictured it, though I believe, in principle, that the
traditional picture has value. It seems clear from the Bible picture, especially in 2
Thessalonians 2 and Revelation 13,16,17,19, that the fearful governments of earth
in their last attempt to unify will call on religion, but its lowest common
denominator. Those who will not conform will be threatened with death. It will be
exceedingly dangerous to practice the outward signs of Christianity, the Lord's
Supper, baptism, and the Sabbath.
Nobody on earth knows exactly how Y2K is going to work out. An on going series
of troubles, major and minor, can be expected. How far-reaching these will be, no
one knows. But coming events cast their shadows before, and the type of prospect
Y2K suggests will one day overtake the globe though not necessarily beginning
January l, 2000 AD.
The nuclear weapon is the only one invented by man that has not had wide and
repeated use. It seems, humanly speaking, too much to ask that it will never be
used by someone in the ever growing nuclear club of nations. Passages like
Revelation 11:18 seem to hint at that possibility (see also Isaiah 24). 1
Thessalonians 5 draws on the history of the time of trouble that came to Babylon
and tells us that there will be a global repeat of that disaster. When the nations are
sure they have guaranteed peace and safety by their worldwide enforcement of a
religion akin to New Age teachings (which already embrace about a tenth of the
world's population), then disaster will fall. See especially Matthew 24:28 which says
in effect that the world will become a rotting carcass of spiritual and moral filth on
the eve of the great denouement.
AToday: QUESTION #13 - The Advent movement has traditionally viewed the new
earth as a literal place where the saints of all ages will live after the 1,000-year
millennium. How do you envision this sinless society? We know that there wont be
marriage, but what about money? Will we see Jesus and the Apostles on the
evening news? Will we use electricity, drive cars, work in office buildings, and use
computers? Will we eat and sleep like we do now? Will there be a Sabbath every
seventh day? Please share your thoughts with us on this all too often neglected
subject, which is the point of the Gospel according to Corinthians 15:19 and
Hebrews 11.

Dr. Ford: I dont know the answer to this question for I am not a prophet. I do know
that the fact certain modern inventions appeal to me greatly is no evidence that
they will be present in the age to come. God will change our tastes when He
remakes us. I believe we will live the "Eden life" in garden and field which honestly
does not altogether appeal to me now. But it will at that time.
A wise old lady wrote these words about a century ago and I think they are
relevant: "Workers for God should not spend time speculating as to what conditions
will prevail in the new earth." It is presumption to indulge in suppositions and
theories regarding matters that the Lord has not revealed. He has made every
provision for our happiness in the future life and we are not to speculate regarding
his plans for us. Neither are we to measure the conditions of the future life by the
conditions of this life (see Gospel Workers, p. 314).
AToday: QUESTION #14 - In the last 20 years since Glacier view, the world has
changed dramatically. For example, the Berlin Wall fell and the whole world was
shocked as Communism collapsed without a shot being fired. Moreover, the world
has embarked upon a globalization process that is unparalleled. Everywhere there
are paradigm changes taking place in politics, business, communications, science,
medicine, etc.
Many observers think that Adventism is also undergoing a paradigm change that
you started by introducing the Gospel into the Third Angels Message followed by
an adjustment to Daniel 8:14. How do you view this painful struggle for change
within the Advent movement? What is YOUR vision of Twenty-First Century
Adventism? Will the movement survive? Will it be less hierarchical and change into
a more biblical, congregational model? Will the Sabbath and the Gospel survive
together as a meaningful religious package and will the health message ever play
an important role in the movement like it once did? What are your thoughts on the
future of Adventism?
Dr. Ford: The editor of the Review, a few years back, wrote a little book on the
problems within Adventism entitled, The Fragmenting of Adventism. In one
chapter, he surmised regarding the future. I believe he is correct in many of those
forecasts. For example, he said the General Conference would shrink to a mere
advisory body, that its leader would be an Asian, that the prevailing barriers
between the sexes and races would further break down, that Spanish would be the
main language spoken in the Church, and that modes of administration would be
greatly revolutionized. I commend that book.
It is possible that the denomination will split into a gospel body and a traditional
body. But one thing is certain: Adventism, as it now is, cannot continue. We work
and function and often think as a Nineteenth Century organization. We are top
heavy administratively with as many administrators as pastorswhich is crazy. Lay
participation in decision making is next to nil and major decisions are made by
Church leaders long before Church gatherings are called and the token vote is
taken. Many administrators have had little training in theology and their other duties

hinder their attention to the refinements in this, the greatest of all sciences, but one
which is also the most demanding. We have often thought any man ordained is
necessarily gifted in finance and business, which is a sheer delusion.
Yes, there must be tremendous change if Adventism is to survive. I believe the
change will come and that Adventism will survivebut hardly in recognizable form.
Congregationalism will spread around the globe. The Gospel will come to mean
more and more to one part of Adventism and only this part will grow. The health
message, which has been largely forgotten, must be revived and there will be a
great demand for it. The world of the Twenty-First Century will have a fifty percent
mortality rate from cancer. In the West, diabetes will be pandemic in the same
major centers of civilization. The original call by Adventists to simple practices in
harmony with natural law must go forth again to the blessing of millions.
AToday: QUESTION #15 - Dr. Ford, you have been exiled from the SDA church
for almost twenty years. Since that time, the Church in North America has
experienced one crisis after another ranging from gross mismanagement to
theological confusion and corruption. Many of the brightest and best have left the
Denomination in disgust, while those who remain are confused, disillusioned, and
cynical. From this sad perspective, what advice do you have for the leadership, for
those who have left the church and for those that remain?
Dr. Ford: Luther said long ago that a church stands or falls according to whether it
knows and practices the gospel. Adventists must learn that lesson or perish.
Administrators must come to a better knowledge of both soteriology and
ecclesiology. Too often they are idolaters, worshipping an external organization,
forgetting that the true church is the church invisible made up of all those who
know Christ as Savior and Lord. A movement is not the church. God raised up the
Reformation, Methodism, Adventism, etc. but none of these are the church. Today,
the biblical teaching regarding the church is practically unknown to most
Adventists, even though Ellen White wrote long ago in Acts of the Apostles (p11?)
that from the beginning of time, all faithful souls have constituted the church.
If the Church leaders are to stand guiltless before God, they must put the Gospel
where God puts itfirst. First in teaching and first in life. As for those who have left
the Church, they are either worshipping nowhere or they have discovered that
every human group has problems. I wish that they might consider afresh whatever
biblical truths that first drew them to Adventism and then as a result work to change
present-day Adventism into what it should be without its top heavy administration,
its heavy handed pastoral leadership, and its comparative silence on the gospel.
For those that remain in the gospel, I would say to them also, think on these things
and act accordingly. Remember you are by faith married to Christ not to any mere
human organization. But remember also that God does work through earthly
structures but only to the degree that they reflect His truth.

AToday:AToday: QUESTION #16 - In the final analysis, the Church is comprised

of individualsreal human beingswho have to struggle with a host of problems
and challenges in a sinful, materialistic, fast-paced world. What practical advice do
you have for those struggling with marriage and family issues, the stress of work,
children, and finances? The demands of modern-day life can be quite
overwhelming.
Dr. Ford: Regarding the daily struggle of all, Matthew 6:33 offers a great overruling
principle of guidance. As Ellen White has said, "God has a thousand ways of
providing for us of which we know nothing." "And those who accept this one
principle of making the service and glory of God supreme will find difficulties vanish
and a plain path before their feet."
I would particularly urge upon my brothers and sisters in Christ that the first
commandment requires us to love God with all the mindit is impossible to be a
mature and fruitful Christian without a very disciplined life which includes regular
time (and abundant time) for mental and physical exercise. Study is our duty and
privilege but without regard to the muscles, the nerves soon lose their tone. None
of us have perfect health for we are all the creatures of heredity and early
environment as well as our own choices. But most of us could do a lot better than
we are doing.
The Decalogue gives us guidance. It teaches that the universe is causal not
casual, that we should put first things first (and God is first), and that people are
more important than things (things come last in the final commandmentthou shall
not covet anything). When all else fails, follow the directions.
But remember this most of all: when we truly believe that God loves us, and when
we understand the Gospel gift is a perfect standing in Christ despite our sins and
mistakeswhich have no dominion over uswe can have joy and peace. Just to
understand Romans 4:8 would give us wings to fly, a song to sing, and feet to
dance. Just think about it, God does not even chronicle our faults!
AToday: QUESTION #17 - What about Womens Ordination? This topic has
recently caused much debate and discussion within the Church. What is your
opinion about this debate? Can a woman have spiritual gifts like a man and, if so,
can she be ordained like a man?
Dr. Ford: With regard to women's ordination, we should start with male ordination.
The Bible knows no such thing as a separate clergy. This was the devil's invention
so that most church members would feel off the hook of required service.
Ordination in Scripture is for special assignments, such as missionary endeavors
or for local church officers, not for a special caste of men ruling the church
universal. Such is unknown to Scripture (see the excellent book on the topic by Dr.
Olsen, former President of Loma Linda).

Of course, fifty percent of humanity cannot be excluded from Christian service be it

teaching or preaching. Scripture says, "there is no longer male nor female."
While the principles in Eden remain for marriage partners, in terms of Christian
service, let no women with obvious spiritual gifts be hindered (see Romans 16
where a woman is included among the apostles, verse 7. The second named is a
woman, not a managreed on by almost all modern scholars).
AToday: QUESTION #18 - Since Glacier View, the Church has attempted to
promote its 27 fundamentals as a representation of Biblical truth and duty for the
Advent community (see: www2.adventist.org/beliefs/). Today, I think it is fair to say
that less than a majority of the Churchs membership would support all 27 of these
supposed "fundamentals." However, it should also be noted that the Church
officially recognizes that the "revision of these statements" may be in order when
the "Church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth." In fact,
"revisions" may be allowed if "better language" is employed "to express the
teachings of God's Holy Word." My question is this, what changes would you make
to this list of "fundamentals" and why?
Dr. Ford: In Article 1 - The Holy Scriptures, I would insert the word "only" before
the word infallible. The Bible is the only infallible guide for mortal man.
In Article 2 - The Trinity, I would echo what many orthodox theologians have said
and put in the sentence: "As seen and known God is three; as seeing and knowing
God is one; He is three persons in Himself, but one person to Himself." Because
SDAs have traditionally given Christ a sinful human nature that needs to be
corrected in such a way that the wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein.
The article should say that Christ's human nature, as well as His divine, was
immaculate, holy, undefiled, separate from sinners. "In Him was no sin", "He knew
no sin."
For Article 6 Creation, it should be said that Genesis 1 is an inspired
interpretation of the mystical work of creation set forth in anthropocentric terms. It
is not intended as a scientific statement as the Bible is concerned with showing us
how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. The Genesis 1 statement is perfect
for its purpose, but its purpose is not one purely designed only for post-Darwinian
generations. It was inspired in such a way as to make sense for all generations
most of whom could not even read and who learned chiefly by narrative forms. Had
Genesis 1 been inspired in purely scientific terms, we would not yet understand it.
It would probably be only an equation and useless for all practical purposes. The
Bible does NOT teach that the world is only 6000 years old. That view is certainly
wrong and does great harm to our young people who are pursuing a higher
education.
Ellen White rightly said that the Bible was given for practical purposes and was not
intended to satisfy all of human curiosity. The view expressed above in no wise
robs the Sabbath of its place in the cosmos. Christ could take bread and use it as
the symbol of His body. Similarly, He has taken the week and used it as a divine

symbol of the divine creative work and its cessation and all this was done for our
example.
Article 10 - The Experience of Salvation: Traditionally, Adventists have erroneously
placed sanctification within the scope of the Pauline "righteousness by faith." It is
now time for a clear change to be made to correct that error. We should follow the
decision made at Palmdale Conference, which I attended in the 1970s and which
was written up in the Review as concluding that righteousness by faith meant
justification only, though sanctification was always its fruit. This will safeguard the
precious doctrine of Christian assurance.
Article 11 - The Church, we should follow the example of Ellen White who said
clearly in Acts of the Apostles that from the beginning of time, all faithful souls have
constituted the church. The distinction should be made as Questions on
Doctrines made, between a movement and the church. All who know Christ as
Saviour and Lord are members of His church, regardless of whether they be
Catholic or Protestant, dispensationalist, or nondispensationalist, charismatic or
noncharismatic.
Article 12 - The Remnant and Its Mission: This should follow Questions on
Doctrines which rightly pointed out that the remnant is yet to be developed and will
consist of all faithful Christians in the last days. I heard F.D. Nichol say at the
Seminary (in the 1950s at Potomac University) that "it was a puzzle to him that
SDAs recognize the woman at the beginning of Revelation 12 as the church
invisible but by the 17th verse they had made her remnant very visible indeed!"
Article 13 - Unity in the Body of Christ: This definition should point out that unity is
not uniformity and that true unity is only possible where Christ's words about
leadership are taken seriously: "he that would be first let him be servant of all."
Article 17 - The Gift of Prophecy: This needs rewording. The gift of prophecy has
always been in the church and was not reserved just for the remnant yet to be
developed. If I remember rightly, our early pioneers, including the Whites,
interpreted Revelation 19:10 more broadly than we have in recent decades. I think
the word, "authoritative," should be removed as it implies infallibility which Ellen
White rejected.
For the 18th article, The Law of God, the second sentence should say: These
commandments "as interpreted by Christ and his apostles" express God's love,
etc.
In Article 19, The Sabbath, it should be clearly said that whereas legalistic
observance of the Sabbath is an abomination to God, those who know it as a
parable of the gospel will find it a delight. They will observe it not as a fetish but
according to the principles taught by Christ in his Sabbath healings. This article
must stress that mere rest on its own is valueless. Unless the Sabbath observer

has ceased to depend on his own works and is trusting fully in the completed work
of Christ, his or her Sabbath-keeping is not acceptable to heaven.
Article 20 - Stewardship: The New Testament has no law about tithing. However,
the Apostles clearly taught the principles of good stewardship. See 2 Corinthians
9:6-11 and my discussion in, "Right With God Right Now," pp. 310-311. This article
should state that the New Testament takes for granted that if Old Testament
believers, with their limited privileges, could return one tenth of their increase, the
New Testament saints should be giving much more as their privileges are greater.
Again, legalistic observance should be warned against.
Article 21 - Christian Behavior: This should say that whereas since the cross, there
is no recognition by heaven of ceremonial uncleanness and that therefore the Old
Testament regulations regarding the mingling of different types of cloth, agricultural
prohibitions regarding the yoking together of diverse animals, and the outlawing of
certain foods are not to be enforced on the world wide church. Yet each set of laws
has something to teach us still. Inasmuch as part of the reason concerning the
prohibition of certain meats was for health reasons, Christians will freely follow the
hint still, without enforcing it as law upon others. Similarly, where the environment
permits, the nearer one gets to the diet of Eden, the more one can glorify God in
health and service. The New Testament offers principles of behavior and we
should not move beyond those principles in instructing others, except by way of
pointing to ideals.
Article 22 - Marriage and the Family should say that though God hates divorce
today as always, yet in some situations divorce may be the lesser of two evils. The
overruling guide is always mercy and not sacrifice. Those who misuse this loving
principle are known to the Searcher of hearts. SDAs have had church leaders with
wives suffering from incurable insanity who have sacrificially chosen celibacy as a
way of life for decades. In view of Paul's words in l Corinthians 7, it should be
recognized that there are some situations that break a marriage as surely as
adultery. Christ merely pointed out what was the characteristic sin of His time
without trying to cover all moral bases. The article should stress that the Sabbath
and Marriage are the two great pillars of society and whatever strengthens them,
blesses the world, and whatever weakens them, curses the world.
Article 23, Christ's Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary was rejected decades ago
by most Adventist scholars and should be rewarded in harmony with Hebrews
9:8,12,23,25; 10:19-20. The date 1844 should be omitted as quite unscriptural and
yet a providential date in God's timetable for raising up the Advent movement. It
should be stated that the pre-advent judgment is the matter of a moment as Christ
closes his priestly ministry (see Revelation 22:11,12). The judgment of Daniel 7
and Revelation 14:7 is judgment upon the wicked, not the saints. Compare
Revelation 18:10, which uses the same words as the earlier verse, in one hour is
thy (Babylon's) judgment come.

AToday: QUESTION #19 - As one looks more closely at the "27 Fundamental
Beliefs," it becomes painfully apparent that the Gospel did not make the list! There
are specific statements regarding "The Law of God," "The Sabbath," "Creation,"
"The Gift of Prophecy," and so on, but there is not one statement whatsoever on
the gospel! Moreover, rather than correctly explain the Gospel anywhere within
these "fundamentals," there is only a confused and unbiblical attempt, as noted in
your criticism of Article 10 entitled, "The Experience of Salvation." I will also note
for the record, that the word "gospel" appears only four times out of the 4,000
words that comprise the entire 27 articles of faith (see numbers 11, 20, 22, 24). Are
we to conclude from this glaring omission that SDAs are not very Gospel-oriented?
In addition, I note that it has been more than twenty years since the
"Righteousness by Faith" debates and your attempt to promote the Protestant
Gospel to the Adventist community. It is obvious that the leadership still cant seem
to comprehend or clearly promote this primary doctrine. Why do you think the
Denomination is so hesitant to proclaim the true gospel? Is it just an attempt to
protect the law and the Sabbath? Or is there some sinister "anti-gospel" plot that
has been put into effect years ago? Whatever happened to the Palmdale resolution
that was passed back in the Spring of 1976 that correctly defined the Gospel? How
many more decades must pass before the SDA Church realizes that Gospel reform
is the only answer for both a dying world and a dying Church? This is very troubling
and confusing to many. Please help us understand this.
Dr. Ford: The pragmatic guiding star for many busy and threatened administrators
is to keep the ship from rocking. The urgent continually crowds out the important.
There are wonderful exceptionsmen like Duncan Eva, Robert Frame and others.
I think Jan Paulsen will be faithful to the primacy of the gospel. He is a very
dedicated man and I do not think he will compromise.
No, there has been no sinister "anti-gospel" plot, though men like the Standish
brothers have worked hard to silence the truth about Righteousness by Faith. I
believe the administrators have done it honestly, out of ignorance, not out of
viciousness or malevolence. (The Standish brothers are not primarily
administrators, though they have an independent work including the school at
Hartland, Virginia).
I begged Duncan Eva not to let anything happen to the Palmdale resolutions. He
replied, "Over my dead body." But literally, it has happened. He is dead and the
Palmdale biblical discoveries have been lost. The doctrine of original sin helps to
explain many mysteries including ecclesiastical ones. Because of sin, every
institution has been corrupted to some degree and the church of every age has
found the gospel like quicksilverhard to hold. To really understand the gospel
means to distrust oneself and all things human and to depend on God alone. To be
fully dependent on God means to be wholly independent of all else and everyone
else. That's a hard hand to play unless one has been broken and learned to look
only to Jesus.

It may be, that as the Church disintegrates more and morewhich in the western
world will happen as the generation of tithe payers born before World War II die
outthat in desperation, both leaders and lay people will cry out to God and the
One who hears the song of the sparrow may graciously attend to us with showers
of blessing.
AToday:QUESTION #20 - Although you have been exiled from the Denomination
for almost twenty years now, it is apparent that you are still an Adventist at heart.
For decades now, you have strongly supported and defended the historic
fundamentals of the Advent movement such as the Gospel, the Second Coming,
the Sabbath, Bible Sanctification, the Judgment, the State of the Dead, etc. In fact,
few men today can defend the mission and articulate the message of Seventh-day
Adventism as eloquently and passionately as you!
Moreover, I note that you have beenand still area member in good standing of
the Seventh-day Adventist church ever since Glacier View. My question is this:
under what conditions would you accept the return of your ministerial credentials
so that you could preach and teach for the Denomination? Would the confusion
about the Gospel and the Investigative Judgment have to be officially repudiated?
Would the 27 fundamentals have to be revised as you have indicated? Or would
the Church have to go even further and make a major re-organizational change to
a more biblical, congregational model? Unfortunately, I do not mean to imply that
there is any such reform in the works, but as Christians we do believe in miracles,
dont we?
Dr. Ford: Charles Watson, former G.C. Vice President, asked me the same
question some years ago. "What does the leadership have to do?" My answer was,
"Be honest." But, today, I would be more detailed.
I would want to say that I have little confidence in many of our administrators and
committees. Repeatedly, since Glacier View, move after move has been calculated
by expediency and the results have been catastrophic. Gladly, I acknowledge the
presence of godly men among these same committees. But it does seem that their
counsel rarely prevails. It is not that Adventist leaders are worse than other menit
is rather, that they are no better. The biblical doctrine of depravity gives cogency to
Christ's warning "Beware of men."
So long as the Church fails to heed the warnings of the Spirit against all forms of
hierarchicalism, the Denomination shuts away from itself the blessing God so longs
to bestow. Christ made it clear that it should not be among his followers as it is with
the pagans who enshrine kings to dominate the less powerful. We were instructed
to follow his example: "I am among you as one that serves." We have never taken
seriously the gospel admonition that he who would be first, must be servant of all.
An example from my own division is the tragic loss of over 180 ministers in the ten
years after Glacier View. That exodus certainly cannot be wholly blamed upon the
administration but there is sadly little evidence that the administration greatly cared

for these men before or after their exodus. Thus hundreds of dedicated people
suffered terribly and their greatest pain was just thatthat nobody seemed to care.
In many instances, sheer ignorance, prejudice and administrative brutality was
responsible for the loss (see the documented Ph.D. thesis by Harris Ballis on this
topic printed some months ago).
Secondly, the Church does not seem to know how to repent. Rarely does it
acknowledge its doctrinal or administrative errors. So, how can there be
forgiveness where there is no confession and restitution? Where are the plain
statements acknowledging that the Church taught error on the nature of Christ for
over one and a half centuries? That it misrepresented righteousness by faith for
just as long, despite the advice of the Palmdale committee? That its own scholars
repudiated the Investigative Judgment half a century ago in response to a
questionnaire authorized by F.D. Nichol? That the action taken at Glacier View was
based on a ten-point statement not authorized by those present and not acceptable
to many including the writers? I listed over fifteen cherished errors of the Church in
a public session at Glacier View. After all these years, these errors continue to be
ignored rather than unveiled and addressed. My own "defrocking" was illegal,
according to the chief denominational legal adviser in Australia, because I was not
invited to be present as the law required. (The Church rejected the advice of its
lawyer on this point and, therefore, I could have sued the Church successfully).
More recent pronouncements by the Church regarding Ellen White are made as
though all the research of Walter Rea had been disproved when the opposite is the
case. See, for example, Herbert Douglass' recent work, The Messenger of the
Lord, which as Alden Thompson pointed out in his Spectrum review (Winter, 1999),
ignores the scholarship of the church itself on this matter. I quote Thompson:
"Messenger's handling of Rea strikingly illustrates the deliberate plan to ignore the
critics." How right Thompson is, and woe unto us!
Decades ago, James Denney in his classic, The Death of Christ, wrote: "Nothing is
more characteristic of churches than their attitude to assurance, and the place they
give it in their preaching and in their systems of doctrine" (p. 288). While Ellen
White could write, "It is insanity not to know that we are children of God," as a
Denomination, we have been scared of this gracious gospel truth. Our teaching on
the judgment and perfectionism has haunted scores of thousands of conscientious
Adventists, while others equally conscientious have given up the fight and left the
Church. This indeed is something to be repented of, but I see few signs of sorrow
and confession by leadership.
What about the calamitous neglect of the youth in our Church? Unlike the
Adventists, Southern Baptists in this country pay close attention to their youth
ministry. We lose most of our young people in the West and usually the most
talented. We have followed Nineteenth Century methods in this area as in almost
all other areas of significance. Much of our behavior suggests that we belong to
history and the ecclesiastical archives rather than the end of the 20th century.
Where is the spirit of self-sacrifice so often characteristic of our pioneer days?

When the laity hear of the salaries we give to some of the administrators in the
health arm of the Church, they are rightly horrified.
We refuse to learn from other church bodies, as we should. While key
denominations of Protestantism often give lay people at least fifty percent
participation in denominational decision making, our laitys contribution is barely a
whisper and too often decisions have been agreed upon before it has ever been
presented to a committee. The Lord says: "Shall I not visit for all this?" And visit He
will!
My wife (Gill) and I are members of the PUC church but our primary membership is
with the church invisiblethe one bride of Christ made up of all those who know
Christ as Saviour and Lord regardless of denominational affiliation. I would do
anything I could to help the Seventh-day Adventist church move towards the
gospel, but just as surely would I be glad to assist any other body of Christians
striving to exalt Christ and His truth.
No, I would not accept denominational ministerial credentials unless determined
efforts were afoot to correct such Church cancers as the above. And while I agree
with you that as Christians we believe in miracles, it may be that I am not quite as
optimistic as you are about the possibilities in this instance. May God grantand I
pray for it ferventlythat I am wrong in this instance.
AToday:AToday: Dr. Ford, I want to thank you for taking time to answer our
questions. We will post this interview in its entirety on the Adventist Today forum
website. No doubt, the Adventist Today audience will have a number of follow-up
questions. The best of these will be forwarded on to you for further comments. We
will then post both the additional questions and your response to them on
the Adventist Today website.
In addition, I would like to personally thank you for your many years of promoting
and defending the gospel and Adventism. You have done this in the face of great
opposition and challenge and you should be commended. May you, your family,
and your Gospel ministry be richly blessed.