Last month the Evangelical Theological Society held its annual meeting (for the first time online virtually) which I attended, and I also presented a paper. The Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) is the premier scholarly society of evangelicals in North America (more broadly it also attracts evangelicals globally). Founded in 1949, it publishes a quarterly journal, the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS), and also holds national and regional meetings in both the US and Canada.
What will be eyebrow-raising to many former Adventists is the fact that the Adventist Theological Society (ATS) has for many years now held its annual meeting in conjunction with ETS. This is all the more so, given that only two other societies beside ATS are officially affiliated with ETS according to its website: (1) the Evangelical Philosophical Society, and (2) the Near East Archaeological Society.
To give a bit of background: The Adventist Theological Society was birthed in 1988, partly in response to the perception among traditional Adventists that “key biblical doctrines…within Adventism and the Christian church at large…[were] under attack” (quotation from the ATS website). To some degree, ATS is seen as a counterweight to yet another Adventist scholarly community, namely the Adventist Society for Religious Studies (ASRS), which is perceived as being more “liberal”. Essentially, the broad spectrum of Adventist theological perspectives is reflected to some degree by its competing scholarly societies.
Conferences from ATS and ETS have been conducted jointly for well over two decades now. Although I researched the matter as best I could online, I could not find a document (from either organization) justifying the original cooperation, though I believe it goes back to around 1994. This was also the year that noted Andrews professor of Old Testament, Gerhard Hasel, died in an automobile accident. He was deeply involved in both the Adventist and evangelical scholarly communities, and many well-known evangelicals wrote affectionate obituaries after his untimely passing (and as recently as two decades later in a 2014 ETS/ATS conference session).
In other words, part of the work and activity of the Adventist Theological Society is aimed specifically at easing evangelical concerns with Adventist doctrines.
The motivations for Adventist cooperation with evangelicals are no hidden secret. According to the ATS website, “scholarly meetings held in connection with the Evangelical Theological Society have provided not only time for SDA scholarly collegiality but also opportunity to fellowship with, and dispel misconceptions and subsequent prejudice of, Evangelical scholars who often attend our sessions [emphasis added].” In other words, part of the work and activity of the Adventist Theological Society is aimed specifically at easing evangelical concerns with Adventist doctrines.
This year, many talks at both ETS and ATS followed the theme announced by the Evangelical Theological Society: Islam and Christianity. However, I observed quite a contrast between both societies in terms of how they treated this theme. One Adventist, familiar with Muslim practices for many years, highlighted ways that “Muslim followers of the Messiah” can be brought to become “part of an end-time movement preparing to meet Jesus.” Another scholar examined worship practices among Adventists, evangelicals, and Muslims during the current pandemic, and concluded his talk with a syncretistic prayer for unity. By contrast, the ETS plenary sessions were devoted to understanding Islam apologetically, so as to give a defense of the truth of the Scripture and the gospel. It is surprising to me that two theological societies can cooperate in such a parallel fashion.
It seems that evangelicals today, far from having negative misconceptions about Adventists and Adventism, are simply uninformed and ignorant about the history and theology of the church. This misunderstanding, however, is despite two decades of joint scholarly conferences between ETS and ATS. Certain consequences of the cooperation between ETS and ATS are quite revealing, and they go back quite far. In this light, I’d like to explore one particularly significant issue which arose in the early 2000s that is illustrative of the problem.
The challenge of Open Theism at ETS
Without a doubt, one of the biggest crises the Evangelical Theological Society has faced in recent decades is the challenge of “openness” theology, brought to the forefront by a number of ostensibly evangelical scholars. The main architects of this view advanced their ideas in the 1980s and 90s, and included scholars such as Clark Pinnock and John Sanders. A lesser-known fact is that the prominent Seventh-day Adventist theologian Richard Rice was one of the main pioneers in this movement. It was he who coined the term “open theism”. Rice, Pinnock, Sanders, and two other authors co-wrote The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God in 1994 that essentially launched this movement.
In everyday language, God simply doesn’t know what will happen in the future, since the future hasn’t happened yet.
Open theology posits that the future is somehow “open”, meaning by this that future events are completely contingent on the free actions of human beings. One implication of this openness is that God’s knowledge of future events is thereby constrained (since the future has not been “fixed”). In everyday language, God simply doesn’t know what will happen in the future (at least not exhaustively), since the future hasn’t happened yet. Far from being the author of time itself––including all past, present, and future events––God (according to open theism) is Himself subject to time, and He experiences time along with His creatures.
It should not take long for biblically-minded Christians to discern that such a view of God is utterly at odds with what Scripture states about Him and how He is portrayed in His interactions with His creatures. Simply put, this theology is humanistic in origin, and it portrays God in a demeaning light. Furthermore, it destroys any coherent notion of biblical prophecy. Just think of the millions of free actions that had to take place in order that Jesus would be prophesied being born of a virgin in Bethlehem, ministering in Galilee, riding on a donkey into Jerusalem, being betrayed by a close friend, beaten by the Romans, and mocked by the scribes and Pharisees, ultimately being hung on a tree. And yet Scripture plainly declares that Jesus was “crucified before the foundation of the world” (Rev 13:8). Our God is not only sovereign over His creation, He is sovereign over time itself––indeed, He created time!
When the issue was brought up for a debate at ETS in 2001, all five authors of the aforementioned book on open theism were invited. Seventh-day Adventist Richard Rice was initially unable to participate because he was not a member of ETS. Why? Rice had to explain to the committee that he objected to the society’s views on biblical inerrancy. This declaration is made in the (rather bare) statement of faith which all members of the ETS are required to affirm as a condition of membership:
The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.
Because of this, the committee at ETS in turn suggested that he become a member of the Evangelical Philosophical Society (EPS), which does not require its members to affirm inerrancy. The fact that one of the architects of open theism regards Scripture as being less than fully trustworthy should have been an open-and-shut case for rejecting such theology. Furthermore, the fundamental conflict between the ETS’s statement of faith and the views of Seventh-day Adventism regarding inspiration should long have been noticed. Notwithstanding these discrepancies, however, Rice acted upon the invitation of the committee and become a member of EPS. When the issue finally came up for a vote, a non-binding resolution opposing the doctrine of open theism was adopted on a vote of 253 in favor, 66 opposed, and 41 abstentions.
A few years later, another vote took place at ETS regarding whether or not Clark Pinnock and John Sanders should be allowed to retain their membership in light of their advocacy of open theism. A two-thirds majority is required for someone to be removed from ETS, and both Pinnock and Sanders narrowly retained their membership when the votes were totaled. Again, we see here, that as with the ongoing collaboration with ATS, there appears to be a disconnect between the openness of ETS to accept certain individuals or institutions, yet at the same time to ostensibly reject (or ignore) their particular problematic theological views.
In our modern world, the rejection of a person’s views is often taken to imply a personal––even spiteful––rejection of them.
In the time since this resolution was adopted, debate about this theological view has died down considerably at ETS (part of this decline is due to Clark Pinnock’s passing away in 2010). It has by no means disappeared, however. Earlier this year, Loma Linda university professor Richard Rice published a new monograph titled The Future of Open Theism: From Antecedents to Opportunities with InterVarsity Press, a well-known evangelical publisher. He appeared on the OnScript podcast recently to discuss his book. The podcast is hosted by several broadly evangelical academics and conducts conversations on current biblical scholarship.
Defending evangelical convictions
In our modern world, the rejection of a person’s views is often taken to imply a personal––even spiteful––rejection of them. This rejection also can apply to institutions, as we have seen. It seems that vigorously opposing particular theological perspectives is tantamount even to denying the humanity of the person who espouses them. Nevertheless, the model given for us in Scripture presents no such dichotomy. We do not have to choose between being loving and rebuking false teaching. Consider Paul’s opening charge to his protégé Timothy. He first commands him to “remain at Ephesus so that [he] may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine” (1 Tim 1:3). Yet what is the basis of this strict charge? Paul gives the answer in verse 5:
The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.
False doctrine is dangerous. It is dangerous to those who are exposed to it, and it dishonors God. Furthermore, it is not loving to let alone false teachers and institutions propagating such teachings. Martin Luther, the doctrinaire Reformer, stated: “Take away assertions, and you take away Christianity.” The gospel and our very understanding of the true and living God is rooted in assertions, doctrinal claims. If we care about the gospel’s power to transform human beings, and if we have a right appreciation for the glory of God, we must resolve to stand firm against people and institutions which contradict sound biblical teaching. †
- Overthrowing the Son: How Adventism Denies God His Glory - May 2, 2024
- Coming To Grips With the Deceptive Nature of Adventism - March 14, 2024
- Truth Led Him Out. Truth Led Him Home. - January 11, 2024