This volume is subtitled "an impassioned response to recent attacks on the sanctuary and Ellen White". The back cover identifies the author, Clifford Goldstein, as a "church apologist". It declares that he "examines the arguments against Ellen White and [the] pre-Advent [investigative] judgment, and responds, point-by-point". The book had been actively publicized in the Adventist Review, on the Review and Herald Web page (where you could enter a contest to receive a free copy), and was prominently featured and promoted at Adventist Book Centers.

Two decades ago, Goldstein wrote 1844 Made Simple, a book that he now characterizes as "a frenetic attempt by a new Adventists ­to defend the 1844 pre-Advent judgment" (p. 7). He states that the immediate "catalyst for writing an updated and more complete version of 1844 Made Simple was the appearance in 1996 of The Cultic Doctrine of Seventh-day Adventists, written by a former Adventist minister, Dale Ratzlaff or as Goldstein refers to him in a number of places in the book, Brother Dale.

In his introductory chapter, the author agrees with Ratzlaff about the critical importance of the heavenly sanctuary and investigative judgment to traditional Seventh-day Adventist theology. Goldstein insists that, if the classic Adventist interpretation of a single Biblical text, Daniel 8:14, is wrong, Adventism is "toast" (p. 21).

In the book's 175 pages and 7 chapters, Goldstein seeks to show that, among other points of doctrine, not only is the classical Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8:14 (Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed) entirely biblical, but also that the validity of all of the church's traditional teachings concerning predictive prophecy can be demonstrated completely and conclusively from the Bible and the Bible alone sola scriptura! For example, although he admits that "the older I get, the less dogmatic I am about almost everything, the identification of the little horn as papal Rome is something one can afford to be obnoxiously dogmatic about" (p. 54-55).

Goldstein charges again and again throughout the book that those who continue to object to conventional Adventist teachings on the investigative judgment are using refuted, outdated arguments. According to him, traditional Adventist interpretations of Daniel 8:14 as referring to the cleansing of a 'heavenly sanctuary' and pointing to this event as having begun in 1844 have successfully withstood every objection ever brought against them, using the Bible and the Bible alone. In his opinion, all critics use "recycled challenges posed by Dr. Desmond Ford about two decades ago ­[which] have long been answered" (p. 73), basing their views largely on Dr. Ford's massive (and now discredited) Daniel 8:14, the Day of Atonement, and the Investigative Judgment (pp. 73-74).

Goldstein asserts that these definitive answers had been provided by the church's "best theologians (p. 7), dozens of our best theologians (p. 18), and leading Adventist scholars (p.73). These theologians, Goldstein confidently insists, published their answers to all questions and objections during the 1980s in a series of books which he refers to as the 'Daniel and Revelation Committee Series'. In many respects, Graffiti in the Holy of Holies is a highly abstracted, popularized and recycled version of the materials and major conclusions advanced in these books from the era of the 1980s.

Goldstein's comments concerning Ellen G. White reflect how far official, orthodox Adventism has adjusted its publicly stated view of her over the last four decades. He is clear and unambiguous in his comments: "I can accept that Ellen White, even as a prophet, was fallible, both in her life and her writings. Her prophetic ministry, in my thinking, is not diminished if she made mistakes, grew in her understanding of doctrine and theology, changed her mind on doctrinal and theological issues [and] even, at one point, had an erroneous view of the Sabbath­. Inspiration doesn't automatically include inerrancy". However, Goldstein cannot abide any suggestion that she held an erroneous view concerning the interpretation of Daniel 8:14 and the investigative judgment doctrine. According to him, "considering the importance she placed upon the teaching of the pre-Advent judgment, she could not be a prophet and be wrong about that. Maybe others can [accept that she was wrong about this doctrine], I can't" (p. 14).

In his concluding chapter, "The Gift of Prophecy", Goldstein testifies to his own settled understanding of the reality of White's prophetic calling. To him, it is a given that she manifested the spirit of prophecy and that she was a messenger from God. All this he affirms is true, but he is adamant that she is not the foundation of my faith. That, he states, is reserved for the Bible alone. "As Adventists, when we wave the Reformation banner of sola scriptura, we ought to mean it" (p. 144). He admits that in his own faith journey in Adventism, it took him some time to come to the view that "not every statement, every word, every utterance of Ellen White is an eternal, terminal truth, the final word on any subject" (p. 148).

In the last section of his concluding chapter, appropriately entitled "detritus", Goldstein asks his readers to take particular note of a comment by Ratzlaff to the effect that in her more mature years, White played "a significant role in helping the Adventist church move toward theological orthodoxy" (p. 172). Goldstein finds it strange that someone like Brother Dale, who says that White "practiced deception [and] taught false doctrine", would argue in such a way. Goldstein will have none of this. According to him, either White's claims are true or she was a lunatic ?and/or a powerful liar who promulgated her insane ravings. Goldstein reminds us that she claimed to have seen people living on other planets­, claimed to have seen, in vision, Jesus in the heavenly sanctuary¡­ [and] claimed to have seen, in vision, life in the new earth, and on and on (p. 172-173). He argues that either we take her for what she was claimed for herself ­or we have to reject her as a liar, a lunatic, or someone inspired by the devil. To Goldstein, "these are the only logical [his emphasis] options" (p. 173).

He concludes by admitting that Brother Dale's book has greatly affected some among us. The reason for this, he suggests, is that many Adventists are "poorly informed" (p. 174).

Commentary

The full press efforts to promote this book should alert a reader that there are influential elements in our faith community who continue to be worried about the viability of arguments supporting at least two major elements of traditional sectarian Adventist theology. The church's most outspoken church apologist does not write a second book on a topic and have it widely advertised and promoted in official church outlets to defend something about which there is little or no internal dispute.

The traditional Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8:14, together with the associated pre-Advent investigative judgment and sanctuary doctrine, is the only Adventist doctrinal teaching that is totally unique to the Advent faith tradition. No one disputes the central role these theological positions played in the core religious convictions of the founders of the church. These include Ellen White, who had a vision in early 1845 that confirmed the convictions of the 'little flock' as to the meaning of Daniel 8:14. The formulation of the standard Adventist understanding of predictive Bible prophecy and the role of the corporate Seventh-day Adventist church in the contemporary world grew out of, and continues to be closely bound up with and connected to, this traditional Adventist interpretation of this single biblical text.

In addition, the Adventist church is the only major contemporary Christian body of believers that insists that Ellen White constitutes a source of reliable and authoritative religious information. Along with the traditional view that this church constitutes the visible 'Remnant Church' of the Book of Revelation, these three positions constitute core elements that reflect most directly the sectarian ethos of classical 19th- and early 20th-century Adventism. On this basis, no one would dispute Goldstein's insistence that the foundation and central pillar of traditional Adventism is involved in a dispute on these matters. The stakes are indeed very high.

However, the first and most important thing to remember about Goldstein and how he treats this topic is that he is a self-proclaimed church apologist. There is nothing wrong with being an apologist. It is a very honorable profession and is usually well paid, if one works for the right organization. However, it is useful to know that Goldstein uses a common but successful apologetic technique to suggest only the weakest arguments against a position he favors and minimize any otherwise strong ones, while at the same time selecting the strongest arguments he can find to support his favored position.

Goldstein's assertion that arguments against the traditional Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8:14 have been adequately answered by the church's ?best theologians ignores the fact that those who contributed to the Daniel and Revelation Committee Series in the 1980s represented, both then and now, a minority point of view within the community of Adventist professional biblical scholars. It is widely known that the authors he refers to were, like Goldstein himself, already apologists for the classic Adventist interpretations of the biblical texts, and their views were the only ones permitted in that series of books.

Is there any chance of finding common ground among differing voices in the Adventist dialogue about the most appropriate approach to interpreting Daniel 8:14? First of all, perhaps we should note that the convoluted classical Adventist system of prophetic interpretation of which the arguments back and forth concerning Daniel 8:14 constitute only one element might seem to most second- and third-generation Adventists as focused on an irrelevant and misguided agenda that long ago lost its grip on reality.

It was pointed out to this reviewer by John Testerman that the question, "so what?" should perhaps be applied to this topic before any other consideration. Even if we were to accept the questionable proposition that there is only one 'correct' interpretation of Daniel 8:14, of what possible relevance might that have on how a Christian is to live now? Only those who closely identify with classical Adventism would try to find a reasonable explanation of how it would.

However, if we assume that such a dialogue on Daniel 8:14 is of interest, it would seem most helpful if all the parties, including Goldstein, could at least get their historical facts straight. For example, when Goldstein suggests that the views of Desmond Ford were 'discredited', he grossly misstates and distorts what actually happened. Dalton Baldwin has pointed out that in the 'Consensus Document' published in the 'Special Sanctuary Issue' of Ministry in October 1980, following the Glacier View conference, careful readers discovered that a number of the statements in it move clearly in the direction of Ford's views. It is also important to note that this document was formulated and accepted by a vote as the consensus of those who attended this conference. By contrast, the 10-point 'Statement on Desmond Ford Document' published in the same issue of Ministry was neither discussed by the entire group nor voted upon by the conference attendees; a small minority produced it. That Statement most certainly did not reflect the consensus of the church's theologians and biblical scholars attending the session. Goldstein is either unaware of what happened or knowingly ignores the facts.

When Goldstein says he believes that many Adventists are poorly informed on this topic, he is right. Regrettably, his treatment of it in this book does not advance a balanced understanding of the issues. If readers are interested in a more detailed and moderate perspective, they can get it from a paper by the late Raymond Cottrell (characterized by Goldstein as a "long diatribe", p. 112). Dr. Cottrell's paper can be found at www.jesusinstituteforum.org/AssetOrLiability.html. After reading that paper, each reader can determine for him/herself which source of information to trust, Cottrell or Goldstein.

Finally, this reviewer can only guess at what Goldstein had in mind when he used the word 'graffiti' in his title. If he is thinking of the typically short-lived, ephemeral nature of such writing on the wall, then one might hope that thoughtful readers of the future will apply this characterization to his book rather than to the works it criticizes. 

R. Ervin Taylor is professor of anthropology, University of California, Riverside, and Executive Editor of Adventist Today.