REPORT: SYDNEY AUSTRALIA ADVENTIST FORUM REMEMBERS GLACIER VIEW TWENTY-FIVE YEARS LATER

Dr. Milton Hook, Immediate Past President, Sydney Adventist Forum

Twenty-five years ago Dr Desmond Ford was dismissed from his position as a theology lecturer at Pacific Union College (PUC). His ministerial credentials were also revoked. At the time it was predicted it would “be recorded in annuls of church history as a day of infamy and shame.”1

Ford had addressed a Forum meeting on the campus of PUC in 1979 in which he outlined some problems with the traditional SDA views on the sanctuary doctrine. They were well known problems to many SDA scholars and ones that Ford had wrestled with for more than two decades. He suggested some answers in the Forum meeting but those hearing the enormity of the problems for the first time were so overcome they failed to grasp his solutions.

A storm of protest quickly gathered after the meeting, blowing all the way to Washington, D.C. Ford was met with a “Please explain” by church administrators and given six months to write a defence. An evaluation took place at Glacier View Ranch, Colorado, in August 1980, when a large group of church theologians and administrators met together.

There was a general perception, among the theologians especially, that the Glacier View discussions were helpful. Even Ford himself was reasonably content with the Consensus Statement hammered out in the proceedings. But while the delegates were trundling off with their suitcases a small group of church executives were confronting Ford with ultimatums—“Admit your views, as written in your manuscript, are erroneous or lose your position as lecturer.” “Publicly denounce Robert Brinsmead as a troublemaker and heretic or hand in your credentials.”

Ford’s conscience would not allow him to renounce his manuscript, particularly in view of the fact the Consensus Statement incorporated some of his concepts. And he was well aware his academic peers agreed with the main thrust of his views. Furthermore, Ford was never going to denounce a man like Brinsmead. After years as a perfectionist Brinsmead was finally converted, publicly admitted his error, and was preaching the gospel as vigorously as Ford. To disown a fellow member in the body of Christ would be to disown the Head.

Church theologians expected ongoing discussions. However, church administrators had painted themselves into a corner with their ultimatums. There was no way out. They took steps to dismiss Ford.

These actions brought quiet rejoicing among some ultra-conservatives, a small but vocal minority. For various reasons, they despised Ford’s gospel ministry, especially those with a perfectionistic orientation. Others who had heard him preach or sat in his classes or read his articles were shattered. Scores of Ford’s peers signed letters of protest about the precipitate decisions regarding his demise. Hundreds of front-line generals in the Adventist army were subsequently fired over the next few years because they sympathised with his views. Battalions became demoralised and faded away into other employment. Thousands of thoughtful members vacated the pews. The real numbers are much higher than official estimates. One Australian was so upset he dashed off a letter to Neal Wilson, General Conference president, saying:

I didn’t go to church today. Yesterday I got the news that you axed Des Ford, and today I am staggering from the blow…

I thought that we were tolerant and pluralistic enough to handle Ford. I could tolerate Herbert Douglass’s perfectionism… I could tolerate anything, just so long as we had sermons on the Cross. And now you’ve axed the man who spear-headed the movement that brought Calvary into Seventh-day Adventism…2

The consequences of that era are still evident in the SDA church. The pain, for many, remains real. Why, then, would anyone want to revisit today the genesis of their anger and heartache? Would it be masochistic to look back from the ridge of 2005 and review the glacier of 1980? Would the blizzard that froze so many Christian joys blow in their nostrils again, almost asphyxiating their spirits? Would the memory of relatives and colleagues who dropped into crevasses, never to be seen at church again, be too painful?

Sydney Adventist Forum thought the risk was worth taking. They chose October 22 as the Sabbath to reflect on what today the senior Adventist generation calls “Glacier View.” Fortunately, Ford himself agreed to attend and rehearse some of his memories of that event.

First Presentation

Approximately 250 people attended from the eastern seaboard of Australia. Unfortunately, the first scheduled speaker, Dr Norman Young, could not be present. His fifteen-page manuscript was read to the group. Attention was intense throughout the entire reading.

Young, who had studied at Manchester University at the same time as Ford and taught alongside him at Avondale College, was one of four Glacier View attendees specifically nominated by Ford.

It was clear from Young’s paper that he was disappointed with the outcome of Glacier View.3 He first reiterated the main points Ford thrust forward at the 1979 Forum meeting: (1) No Biblical reason for applying the so-called year-day principle to prophecy; (2) Daniel 8:13,14 refers to the little horn rather than a judgment of the saints; (3) there is no linguistic link between “cleanse” (KJV) of Daniel 8:14 and the Day of Atonement cleansing of Leviticus 16; (4) sacrificial blood always cleansed and accomplished atonement rather than defilement; (5) the book of Hebrews (he could have added Revelation too) clearly depicts Jesus in the very presence of the Father immediately after His ascension rather than entering beyond the inner veil in 1844.

Ford’s position paper at Glacier View, Young said, was a lengthy elaboration on those points. Ford’s resolution of the problems lay in his proposal of an inaugural fulfilment of prophecies followed by the consumative fulfilment. Within this concept Ford demonstrated there could be recurring fulfilments, even incomplete fulfilments, culminating in the grand finale at the end of time. Ford considers this to be a legitimate method of interpretation that SDA’s can embrace without abandoning everything that traditional Adventism has to offer.

Young also spoke of his reluctant role at Glacier View, his assignment as one of six who formulated the Ten Point Summary. The document explained the more obvious differences between traditional Adventism and Ford’s answers to the problems presented by those positions. Young initially understood the six men were to write something “for the non-academic participants” at Glacier View.4 Dismayed, he now realises the document was used to axe his closest colleague. It is the stuff of nightmares.

In hindsight, Young objects to the short time given to the writing of both the Ten Point Summary and the Consensus Statement. And very few attendees were involved in writing and reviewing them. All participants, Ford included, would no doubt have benefited from further discussion and prayerful reflection.

Young confessed that his abiding difficulty with SDA prophetic interpretation “is the increasing chronological gap between 1844 and the return of Jesus.”5 SDA pioneers originally forecast the gap would be a very short period. Both the date 1844 and SDA credibility become increasingly isolated as time lengthens.

Church Service

Ford was invited to lead the Forum group in worship. He chose to speak on his area of expertise, apocalyptic prophecy. He suggested that Daniel 8:14 was central to the book of Daniel. That is, the historical chapters depict Daniel and his companions persecuted because of their continuing loyalty to the sanctuary. And each of the prophetic visions portrays the upcoming vicissitudes surrounding the sanctuary. Some critics would say it is nothing more than a homiletic concept. Nevertheless, he displays his SDA heritage with such an emphasis on Daniel 8:14 and in so doing he demonstrates to another group of critics that he is more Adventist than they would care to admit.

His sermon also highlighted the inspired re-interpretations of Old Testament prophecy. He noted that in the Olivet discourse Jesus extracted pieces of Daniel’s prophecies (e.g., “the abomination of desolation”) and applied them to His own era or immediate future. John, in Revelation, he said, draws much from OT prophecy, too, and re-interprets it in the light of a general Jewish rejection of Calvary and the Resurrection. Much of Daniel’s prophecies can be left behind as fulfilled by the first century AD. A truly Christian approach to prophecy should therefore be grounded in the New Testament.

The inspired NT writers repeatedly appealed to OT passages to prove Jesus was the Messiah. Is it not a curious fact they never applied the year-day principle to Daniel 9:24-27, or any other prophecy for that matter? If they thought the principle was valid and applied it to Daniel 9 it would undoubtedly have precipitated a Jewish conversion to Christianity en masse. Instead, the nation rejected Jesus and the OT prophecies that heralded such a glorious future for Israel were recast.

When Ford spoke of the heavenly sanctuary, heaven itself, our hearts were lifted up. Hebrews 9 is crystal clear, he said, that since His ascension there is no dividing curtain, so to speak, between Himself and His Father. (A chorus of “Amens”). Jesus has been judged worthy. We do not wait for some investigative process to determine our eternal fate. Rest assured, Ford concluded, those who are in Christ are also judged worthy. Heaven, in a sense, has already begun. (I felt an adrenalin surge as the room erupted in sustained applause). It was vintage Ford.

Afternoon Meeting

Ford spoke again after lunch, as always without notes, loading memory after memory into his rapid-fire presentation. He recalled the committee that was supposed to assist him in the preparation of his manuscript for Glacier View. Almost to a man, he said, they wrote little and said less. Only one, fellow Australian Dr William Johnsson, wrote a critique of each chapter. Was it because they had nothing significant to contribute? Did they feel it was futile to offer suggestions? Were they already silenced by fear of reprisals? Since that day a miasma of distrust has wafted through SDA academia. Scholars have learned to be extremely circumspect.

Ford also recalled the moment Raymond Cottrell came to him at Glacier View and with some foreboding said, “Des, the administrators have not read your manuscript.” Cottrell may have overstated the case but it was a disturbing observation. It is a sad commentary on church leadership of the era that many were Bible dilettantes.

One of the most revealing bursts of the day was when Ford disclosed the subterfuge that apparently drove Keith Parmenter, the incumbent Australasian Division president, to insist on his dismissal. The revelation may partly explain why Ford was dismissed and other scholars who held similar views were retained.

John Brinsmead, brother of Robert, had evidently spun Parmenter the allegation that Ford and Robert Brinsmead were in cahoots and determined to bring the SDA church down.

Added to this travesty, Ford said, was the intense pressure brought to bear on Parmenter by a group of ultra-conservative members in Australia who for two decades had criticised Ford’s theology. Laurence Naden and Robert Frame, previous Division presidents, had stood their ground in defence of Ford but Parmenter had a different spine.

The critics were a group of mossbacks who insisted the KJV was the only reliable Scripture, reading all kinds of Roman Catholic conspiracy theories into modern versions. Some still advocated a literal Armageddon. Most believed the heavenly sanctuary was a real building with furnishings and drapes and rooms with God confined to the Most Holy Room. More importantly, their understanding of Biblical sanctification was essentially Roman Catholic. It was a lifetime of becoming more righteous, not by an impartation of grace through the sacraments but by an impartation of righteousness through an indwelling Holy Spirit. For this reason they fought against Ford’s gospel preaching that was so anti-perfectionism. Parmenter capitulated to the critics and apparently accepted John Brinsmead’s allegation without verification. All indications suggest Parmenter went to Glacier View dagger in hand.

Throughout the two decades of criticism Ford treated his enemies graciously, hoping for their conversion. If someone tried to stab him in the back he would most likely say he tripped backwards and fell on the point, then shake the would-be assassin’s hand, such is his Christian disposition.

Today, Ford is content. He regards his dismissal merely as an open door to a wider audience. The SDA church officially rejected him but after 1980 thousands of souls around the globe found Christ as a direct result of his preaching. One response to Glacier View spoke for many a Christian:

We praise God for your firm stand. Your messages have brought hope and encouragement to us. We rejoice in the gospel and the forgiveness of sin. May God bless and encourage you at this time and always.6

Final Paper

Dr Arthur Patrick did not attend Glacier View but was asked to address our Forum because of his expertise in SDA church history. At the time of Glacier View Patrick was director of the Ellen G White Research Centre at Avondale College.

Patrick’s extensive footnotes in his paper are just as important as his interpretation of Glacier View. They provide documentation from much of the significant SDA press responses to the landmark event, both popular and academic.7

Parmenter is portrayed correctly by Patrick as one of the key figures in Ford’s dismissal. He makes the observation that during Parmenter’s entire eight-year presidency he never used the facilities of the Ellen White Research Centre at Avondale College and did not attend any Ellen White seminars conducted in his Division despite the fact they were initiated by the White Estate at headquarters. Parmenter, he said, also gagged the dissemination of updated views about White. He was evidently content with the traditional view of White, one of near infallibility. In other words, if she said the investigative judgment started in 1844 then it did, in his opinion, start in 1844. That mindset sat comfortably with Ford’s critics and explains why Parmenter was putty in their fingers.

Patrick’s assessment of his church today is condensed in his words, “While there is absolutely no room for triumphalism, there is a realistic glow on the Adventist horizon that presages a brighter day.”8

He makes his optimistic forecast amid some anomalies. First he asked the questions,

Did the small cluster of administrators who met on 15 August 1980 [to dismiss Ford] perceive their decision meant that tradition would increasingly take precedence over the quest for the truth of Scripture? Were they aware that informed convictions of the church’s scholars were being sacrificed?9

Switching from these negatives of the past Patrick argued for optimism by listing some recent SDA scholars who have contributed to a better understanding of the issues canvassed at Glacier View—men such as Rolf Poehler, Fritz Guy, Alden Thompson, Kai Arasola and Ray Roenfeldt. However, it is important to ask, Are the scholars only talking among themselves? Posed in a slightly different way, Are the scholars talking a language only they understand? Patrick is well aware that there is a potent ultra-conservative voice in Adventism that is educating the masses in the pew with a syllabus akin to the 1930’s. Patrick noted a recent example of this phenomenon, citing in a footnote the Sabbath School lesson quarterly, October-December 2004. It was a series on Daniel from the Biblical Research Institute perpetuating false assumptions made in exegesis, arbitrary historical dates and disingenuous arguments using the Biblical languages.

These facts raise further questions. Is the church serious about re-educating its rank and file by translating for the masses the arguments put forward by the modern scholars in the church? Or is it going to keep on popularising material that makes it a laughing stock in academia?

In view of the anomalous situation we should ask, Is Patrick’s optimism just whistling in the dark? Only time will tell. The real problem is that the SDA church does not have much time left before it becomes obsolete. The exterior of an old car can be repainted but it won’t run far if the engine is held together with rubber bands and chewing gum.

Conclusion

As Forum was dispersing for the day one fine Christian gentleman admitted to me, “Since Glacier View I’ve attended an SDA church on one occasion only.”

A former SDA minister, who was so troubled over the treatment given to Ford that it destroyed his ministry and marriage, said to me, “It took me twenty years to get back to an SDA church, with remarriage and a different career path along the way.”

Another still had questions. “Why don’t a group of church members,” he asked, “initiate the likes of a Senate Inquiry and redress the wrong that was perpetrated?” Red-hot magma still bubbles beneath his skin. However, he must accept the fact that a perfectionistic culture is disinclined to admit error. Furthermore, it finds it very hard to say, “Sorry.”

One lesson from Glacier View is certain—theology questions are not answered by shooting the questioner. Theology aside, such conduct evokes revulsion because it pierces the heart of any Christian. For that reason those of us who looked back from the ridge in 2005 hope the dagger men of 1980 sought forgiveness.

End notes

1 Mailgram, Mr and Mrs Watson to Neal Wilson, 8 Sept 1980
2 Lowell Tarling to Neal Wilson, 6 Sept 1980
3 Norman Young, “A Reluctant Participant Looks Back at Glacier View,” paper presented at Sydney Adventist Forum, 22 October, 2005
4 Ibid., p.13
5 Ibid., p.11
6 Mailgram, Irwin and Hazel Wagner to Desmond Ford, 29 Aug 1980
7 Arthur Patrick, “Twenty-five Years After Glacier View: Using the Lantern of History, Anticipating a Brighter Future,” paper presented at Sydney Adventist Forum, 22 Oct 2005
8 Ibid., p.18
9 Ibid., p.14

Materials carried in Adventist Today reflects our commitment to report on contemporary issues of importance to Adventist Church members. Adventist Today provides reliable, unfettered news reporting on events, people, institutions, and theological movements associated with the Seventh-day Adventist Church, promotes a sense of connection among people who treasure both their Adventist heritage and the on-going quest for “present truth,” and fosters creative conversations about how to preserve and promote the best of Adventism.