Controversy and Crisis

Just under 50 years ago the Adventist Church was engulfed in a storm of doctrinal controversy. One of the main debates was the relationship between the gospel and the investigative judgment. One person stood out as the preeminent lightning rod. His name was Desmond Ford, and the controversy became known as the “Ford crisis.” It was painful. Churches and families split; members and ministers left the church. For those who lived through the storm, the feelings have subsided but not died; memories have dimmed but not disappeared.

During polarized times people tell simple stories to explain what is happening. Some told the hero story: Ford was a modern-day Paul or Luther, fighting bravely for the gospel. In this version the church becomes the corrupt institution run by Pharisees or prelates. Others told the villain story: Ford was an end-time Judas, a betrayer, a heretic, an apostate. A wolf driven by ill motives tearing at the helpless sheep.

These are fighting stories. They give us clean, clear-cut lines. Right and wrong sides are obvious; good guys and bad guys are easy to identify. They reflected passions but also aroused them. Talk to the people who went through those events, and you can still sometimes catch the emotion.

We are more than 40 years past that era. As the collective memory fades, the temperature has lowered. This is both good and bad. It’s good because we can hopefully look back with a more sympathetic view of all involved. It’s bad because uninformed people are vulnerable to the simple hero or villain stories that, thanks to the internet, will always circulate.

As a pastor, I know how hard it is to handle disagreement. I’m sure that the church, as a human institution, could have handled the crisis better and that mistakes were made. At the same time, it is very hard to placate opposing sides. I think when historians properly turn to address this period, they will offer a more nuanced understanding than either the hero or villain story—one with cautions and lessons for us all.

Villain Story?

My own reading leans toward being as sympathetic as I can to both the wider church and to Ford. Against the simplistic villain story, I see Ford as a deeply genuine person and a true gentleman. By all accounts, he behaved admirably toward those who disagreed with him, whether they did so with grace or with aggression and unkindness.

His two big ideas were first, that Adventists are wrong in how they approach prophecy, and second, that the investigative judgment nullifies the gospel. Even if we disagree with him, as I do, his words clearly struck a chord and responded to real needs. If we are to understand the controversy of the 1970s and 1980s, we must acknowledge that many church members did hold to legalistic and perfectionistic misunderstandings of the gospel, the sanctuary, and the investigative judgment. Ford’s singular emphasis on justification, forgiveness, and assurance brought relief to those in despair.

Distorted teaching makes people vulnerable to less objectionable alternatives. When forced to choose between church doctrine wrapped in legalism or the offer of full and free forgiveness minus those doctrines, what would you choose? It is ultimately a false choice, but this is how many people felt back then because many people had been taught defective theology. Whenever we do not teach our doctrines in the full light of Christ’s grace, critics will continue to present that false choice today.

Hero Story?

At the time, Ford was not the only one championing the joy of Christ’s justifying righteousness and emphasizing the possibility of real acceptance with Christ now. Many other Adventist pastors, teachers, and administrators were doing so before, during, and after the conflicts of the 1970s and 1980s. And so, while acknowledging the complexities of that era, I cannot accept the one-dimensional hero story either.

Uninformed people are vulnerable to the simple hero or villain stories.

I have been immensely blessed by those who were equally preoccupied with the freely given mercy of God and the joy of the gospel as Ford was—people who did so while strongly affirming the investigative judgment. I have rejoiced in the gospel-saturated works of scholars of that time, such as Norman Gulley, Hans LaRondelle, and Richard Davidson, to name just a few.

Another part of the hero story claims that the church never really responded to Ford’s questions. This is not true. It is true that the church had been struggling to answer objections to the sanctuary doctrine. Little effective scholarly work was done between the 1920s and 1960s. Our critics pressed hard against our teachings, and we tended simply to repeat old answers, even when they did not fully address the issues. Scholars even quietly worried about what would happen if significant numbers of Adventists were to publicly voice such objections within the church. With Ford, all their fears were realized. He gathered all the previous criticisms of our distinctive doctrines, but he did so with an eloquence and rhetorical power that could not be ignored any longer.

Better Perspectives

Initial responses varied in quality and effectiveness, but eventually the church gathered itself, turned seriously to God’s Word, and engaged in a fresh study of the issues. One result was the DARCOM (Daniel and Revelation Committee) volumes, a series of scholarly works that provided compelling evidence for the Adventist position. Since then, a steady stream of apologetic and constructive work has followed.[1] This is not to say that every issue has been completely resolved, but important contributions have been made, and many matters have become much clearer.

It is especially clear that the investigative judgment in no way conflicts with a Christ-centred and gospel-saturated theology. Many have explored this, but my favorite example is Richard Davidson.[2] Davidson revels in the joy-inducing, justifying righteousness of Christ, freely credited to us by faith alone, as much as Ford, and yet he sees that same righteousness not in opposition to the work of Christ in the judgment but as its centerpiece.

In the judgment Jesus declares that the believer is in Him. Their sins are forgiven. They are accepted because of His righteousness. He shows how He has borne fruit in them, how His grace has made the difference. The trusting sinner is an exhibit of His mercy and power. The confirming evidence of works is real, but it only points back to Christ as the basis for our acceptance, the source of our growth, and the one who merits eternal life for us.

This beautiful righteousness is not earned by our works. It covers us fully, brings us peace, and gives us a perfect standing before God. The fruit of holiness follows in Spirit-filled works, but works do not save. Instead, they provide evidence of our connection to Jesus and showcase how good and sufficient He is.

Davidson’s study on the covenant lawsuit in Scripture has shown that all of God’s judgment is investigative.[3] Investigation is not inherently positive or negative. It just is. The issue is not whether we will be judged; Scripture is clear that believers are to be judged (Rom. 2:12-16; 1 Cor. 4:4, 5; Heb. 10:30; James 2:12; 1 John 4:17). The issue is whether Christ is our advocate and representative in judgment or whether we have separated ourselves from Him.

The investigative judgment places the glorious saving Son of man at the center (Dan. 7:13, 14). Because believers remain in Him, they have already passed from death to life, and in the investigative judgment they will experience no condemning judgment (John 5:24-29; Dan. 12:1, 2). God doesn’t avoid judgment, but saves us in it through the One who has already borne our sins.

Our Better Story

Reflecting on our doctrinal controversies, sometimes we need better stories, stories with fewer plastic heroes and villains and more recognition that we are all human and in need of growth, humility, and learning.

When I articulate the investigative judgment—sensitive to the absolute necessity of doing so in a clearly Christ-centred, gospel-saturated way, free from legalism—I partly do so because Ford held the church’s feet to the fire on that very issue. We are not total villains, but all of us are fallen, fallible, prone to wander, and in need of renewal and reform.

Neither are we the heroes. Christ alone is. He is our better story.

[1] See the discussion in Anthony MacPherson, “Investigative Judgment (Judgement),” Encyclopedia of Seventh-day Adventists, Mar. 2, 2023, https://encyclopedia.adventist.org/article?id=7FOL.

[2] Richard M. Davidson, A Song for the Sanctuary: Experiencing God’s Presence in Shadow and Reality (Silver Spring, Md.: Biblical Research Institute and Review and Herald Academic, 2022). My favorite short treatment is Jiří Moskala, “Toward a Biblical Theology of God’s Judgment: A Celebration of the Cross in Seven Phases of Divine Universal Judgment (An Overview of a Theocentric-Christocentric Approach),” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 15, no. 1 (2004): 138-165.

[3] Richard M. Davidson. “The Divine Covenant Lawsuit Motif in Canonical Perspective,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 21, nos. 1-2 (2010): 45-84.