At the time this editorial is being written, the events of Glacier View are being viewed from a perspective of six months, but by the time the world field receives this issue it will have been nine months or more since that meeting. Since we don't have space to print even portions of all the letters received at our office as a direct response to the October, 1980, special issue, "Christ and His High Priestly Ministry," we thought our readers would be interested in a report.
Most of the mail received has been favorable to the idea of the special issue and supportive of the position taken by the church regarding its sanctuary teaching. It was to be expected that some were neither supportive nor favorable. Whether the letters may be categorized as supportive or nonsupportive, we do value and appreciate them, because they provide a vital way for us to listen to the heartbeat of the church.
Typical comments among the favorable letters include: "Just a note of thanks for the outstanding special edition. I went through it in a slow fashion to grasp its content and message. Having done so, I wish to commend you and your staff for the fine job."
"I rejoice at the way you brethren have dealt with this matter, openly, above board, with a large group around the world. And congratulations for putting out a full report and discussion of the matter so soon, in this issue!"
"While I am not an in-depth Bible student, I appreciate the clarity with which you have written. Take away the judgment and what is left of Adventism?"
"We were overwhelmed with the October, 1980, issue. We applaud (1) your news information coverage of the Glacier View meeting, (2) your portrayal of the fellowship and unity expressed there, (3) your thorough detailing of the points of disagreement between Dr. Ford's paper and the consensus of the meeting."
The supportive letters specifically mentioned that the "Editorial Perspectives" were fair and balanced, the "Questions and Answers on Doctrinal Issues" were informative and helpful, and Dr. Ford's views were presented fairly. There was agreement also that a note of openness prevailed throughout the entire issue.
Typical comments from the non-supportive letters are: "I have appreciated your open, balanced, and candid addressing of problems and issues. It is against this background that I must say I am greatly distressed and dismayed at the special issue on the Sanctuary."
"I was very disappointed in the October, 1980, MINISTRY. Is MINISTRY trying to isolate Dr. Ford so that he appears to have no support from fellow scholars who attended Glacier View?"
"I am an elected elder of a small country church. However, as a church member, I am compelled to express my extreme distress at the attitude and contradictory presentation of Glacier View conclusions as expressed in the special October issue."
"It seems to me that the special issue of MINISTRY does not help clarify the situation. Instead, its propagandization distorts reality. What a disappointment!"
"It was a privilege to participate in the Glacier View meetings. The spirit of openness and the genuine attempt to look at the evidence and listen to each other was heartwarming. But the good results of that meeting can only be diluted by a failure to be completely fair in reporting and evaluating the issues that were treated."
"My enthusiasm for MINISTRY has cooled somewhat since reading the Special Sanctuary Issue of October last. I honestly feel that it would have been better for the image of the church had that issue never been born."
Of the specific objections raised by readers, the most often asked question was Why were the articles in the October issue unsigned? (About one third of the nonsupportive letters raised that query.) Others considered the analysis of the Parmenter-Ford correspondence to be weak, or, as one respondent put it, "a disgusting low for Adventist journalism"! The evaluation of Dr. Ford's theology in the question-and-answer section was said to be biased and one-sided. (MINISTRY should have presented the positive areas Dr. Ford has stood for and pointed out areas of agreement, as well as disagreement, a few argued.) Some thought that this special issue will have the effect of destroying Dr. Ford's ministry. (Why should MINISTRY make him appear as imperfect as possible? one correspondent asked.) Others wondered why the magazine failed to advertise three of the Glacier View papers. Several opined that the special issue seemed to have been done too hastily.
A few letter writers chose to comment upon events at Glacier View rather than MINISTRY'S treatment of the meeting. It is significant that very few letters, either supportive or nonsupportive of the October MINISTRY, dealt with specific theological issues discussed at Glacier View. Two suggested that although the heavenly sanctuary possibly does not have two apartments, the high priestly ministry of Christ could still have two phases, just as the earthly high priest's duty had a daily and yearly phase. This, they felt, would solve the dilemma of whether Christ entered the holy place or Most Holy Place in A.D. 31. Another maintained that some prophecies may have as many as three fulfillments, although he recognized the problem of controlling multiple fulfillments. Two correspondents felt that Dr. Ford did not completely abolish the year-day principle. Apart from these comments, nothing was said about either the apotelesmatic principle or the year-day principle, both of which were basic concerns at Glacier View.
Although exhibiting a dearth of comments on specific theological points, the letters agreed that the theological issues discussed at Glacier View are quite significant for the future of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Readers on both sides of the questions expressed a deep appreciation for the fact that the church was willing to expend so much money, time, and thoughtful planning to make possible the August 10-15, 1980, meeting.
Another dominant note, both in supportive and in nonsupportive letters, was deep pastoral concern for the future of Dr. Ford. As editors of MINISTRY, we publicly expressed that concern in the October issue, and we wish to reiterate the same thought now. In the past the Lord has blessed Dr. Ford in helping many to find a better way of life, not only spiritually but in the area of healthful living. We pray that the same will be true of the future. Here at MINISTRY, we have not drawn boundary lines when it comes to individuals, but we are obligated to draw boundary lines when it comes to the matter of truth. We cannot do otherwise.
In order to open an additional window on the background of the special October issue and our understanding of its purpose, we want to make available to the entire readership the following letter, which we have sent to those who have shared with us their insights and feelings regarding it.
Dear Friend in the Faith:
We value highly your recent letter because it enables us to put our hand on the pulse of the church. We, like you, feel a deep concern both about the future of the church and the future of one of its members, Dr. Desmond Ford. We will not be able to answer or respond to all of your concerns individually, so we have chosen to answer them as a group.
Some have felt the October issue of MINISTRY was a "one-sided," "distorted," "propaganda," and did not represent Dr. Ford's case aright. Yes, we agree that it was "one-sided,'' but we cannot agree that it was "distorted" or "propaganda." By coming down firmly on the side of what we consider to be truth, we were of necessity "one sided. '' Instead of criticism, we consider this observation to be a compliment. Some felt that MINISTRY should have been more of an open forum, allowing Dr. Ford and others to present his case. But the open forum had already met—at Glacier View. A conclusion had already been reached, and thus the open forum came to a close as Glacier View came to a close on August 15. It should no more be expected that MINISTRY be required to present Dr. Ford's position than it should be to expect Dr. Ford to have incorporated in his manuscript all the papers and ideas of those whose views differ from his.
Several wondered why MINISTRY failed to attach names of authors to its articles in the special issue, suggesting as a reason that we were embarrassed by what we had to say, or that we used anonymity for a clandestine cover-up operation. Let us assure you there has been no attempt at cover-up. The fact is that so many hands were involved in each article that in actuality they were staff-writ ten. As our staff presently stands, only one— Editor J. R. Spangler—had the opportunity to attend the Glacier View meeting. Therefore, we called on the assistance of others (most of whom had been participants at the Colorado meeting) until nearly a score of individuals with expertise in different areas were involved. Some, of course, were more heavily engaged in actual writing; others served more as consultants. However, each article went through numerous drafts, revisions, and discussions until it was, in actuality, the product of no one person. Because of this team effort, we decided to leave the articles unsigned with the exception of the editorial, which was a personal reaction by the editor.
Some suggested that the special issue gave evidence of being hastily done, and one expressed concern that a single man—the editor—should be assigned the overwhelming task of writing the entire sixty-four page issue! Actually, nearly twenty persons working on the one issue for a total of hundreds of man hours were able to accomplish in four weeks' time what normally could have taken months. Speed does not always correlate with a drop in efficiency and quality. We assure you that careful thought, research, and writing went into every page. (Let us say in passing, that we are grateful to the personnel of the Review and Herald Publishing Association for the extra effort they unstintingly gave and for allowing us to break every written rule of their publishing schedules in order to get the magazine out in record time!)
Some wondered whether the special issue might be construed as an attack on Dr. Ford personally, stating that we should always separate theology from personalities. We doubt that it really is possible to separate a man's theology from the man himself. Can we discuss Pauline theology without discus sing Paul? Can Lutheranism be considered apart from Luther? Thus, any discussion of Dr. Ford's 991-page manuscript is unavoidably connected with the writer of that manuscript. If any should construe our special issue as a personal attack, let it be viewed as an "attack" of genuine love and pastoral concern. The commission given to every ordained pastor is the same commission given us as editor-pastors: "Preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort" (2 Tim. 4:2, R.S.V.). We have pledged ourselves to fulfill that commission, in such a way that the spirit of Christ may be exemplified and the name of Christ might be glorified.
A few have wondered why we did not widely publicize the "important advances" made in the church's theology achieved at Glacier View. The fact is that all the official statements voted by the Sanctuary Review Committee are found within the special issue. Beginning with page 16, the October issue devoted four pages to the theological under standings reached at Glacier View in the form of the Consensus Documents.
Others have questioned why MINISTRY did not publicize all of the Glacier View papers. In preparing the compilation of materials, MINISTRY utilized lists as they were received from various organizations. Only those items listed as available from the Ministerial Association were compiled by the magazine staff. We understand that all the Glacier View papers (those by Cottrell, Damsteegt, Guy, Basel, Haloviak, Jorgensen, Salom, Shea, and Strand) are available through the Biblical Research Institute of the General Conference at a cost of $1.00 each (with the exception of the William Shea paper, which is $6.00).
Because of the notes of appreciation we have received for making available an open report on the Glacier View proceedings, we would not have done otherwise than we did. We concur with our critics that parts of it could be sharpened up, and that it has room for improvement. We hope you can forgive us for our fallabilities in trying to convey the message as clearly as possible.
Again, we thank you for your comments, which we value highly.
Yours in Christ,
The Editors,
MINISTRY
We hope to hear from more of you as you gain new insights into the sanctuary truth. May we all dedicate ourselves to a deeper study of the Word, especially the prophetic portions, as the Lord's coming draws near. —The Editors
