A Single Voice – Part 2

TimeWatch Editorial
May 26, 2016

In the opening portion of Virginia Steinweg’s book entitled: “Without Fear or Favor, The Life of M. L. Andreasen” she says the following:

“M. L. Andreasen (1876-1962) is probably best known by present generations of Adventists for his protests against church leaders during the last years of his life. This is not only unfortunate but highly ironic when one considers his long years of active and faithful service to the church and his disapproval of just such public controversy as he himself stirred up in his last years. But, greatly disturbed by what he considered to be false teachings in the book Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine, when his first protests to church leaders did not yield the results he wanted, he penned what were known as "Letters to the Churches," in which he strongly and publicly expressed his dissent. The controversy thus generated resulted in his ministerial credentials being temporarily withdrawn. Unfortunately, though the rift between himself and leaders was repaired, the controversies sparked by his actions not only did not die out with his passing, but took on a life of their own as others of like opinions gave them ever broader circulation and expression.” Virginia Steinweg, “Without Fear or Favor, the Life of M. L. Andreasen”

Now it must be clearly understood that Pastor Andreasen’s ministerial credentials were withdrawn and not restored until after his death. The withdrawal of his credentials was not the beginning of the punishment he received for his defense of the fundamentals. Julius Nam, of Loma Linda University wrote a detailed treatment of the events that took place during the time immediately following the publication of the book “Questions on Doctrine.”

“In a letter, dated December 16, 1957, (General Conference President) Figuhr stepped up pressure on Andreasen to cease his campaign by implying that his sustentation might be affected: “You are doing yourself great harm and bringing confusion and perplexity to the cause. You should not now be tearing down what, through the years, you have helped to build up. To see a retired worker, supported by sustentation of his church, actively opposing that church and breaking down confidence in its leadership cannot but make one feel very sad.”Julius Nam, Questions on Doctrine and M. L. Andreasen: The Behind-the-Scenes Interactions

So first, there was the threat to cease his sustentation. He was specifically told that if he did not stop his opposition to the book he might lose his sustentation.

“Andreasen’s entry into the conversations over the Adventist-evangelical dialogues and Questions on Doctrine came quite late in the process partly because he was living in southern California having retired in 1950 after a half century of denominational work and also because he was not one of the 250 Adventist workers selected to give pre-publication review of Questions on Doctrine.” Julius Nam, Questions on Doctrine and M. L. Andreasen: The Behind-the-Scenes Interactions

He finally had an opportunity to read the book, and the articles that accompanied the book. He was flabbergasted.

“When he first read Barnhouse’s September 1956 Eternity article, in which he declared Adventism evangelical, the 80-year-old retired theologian was living in Glendale, California. Andreasen was immediately troubled by what he read in Barnhouse’s article. His concerns centered on Barnhouse’s claims that not only were Adventists denying doctrinal positions attributed to them previously, but also were said to be in the course of changing some of their teachings such as the investigative judgment doctrine. Andreasen was further disturbed by Barnhouse’s declaration that those who opposed the “new position” taken by Adventist leaders belonged to the “‘lunatic fringe,’” and “wild-eyed irresponsibles.” According to Steinweg, Andreasen’s biographer, this latter statement seemed to Andreasen “like a return to the days of the Inquisition” and led him to consider “a call to take up sentinel duty” to protect what he believed to be historic Adventist orthodoxy.” Julius Nam, Questions on Doctrine and M. L. Andreasen: The Behind-the-Scenes Interactions

Pillar by Pillar, Andreasen proceeded with his defense of truth. There were others who recognized the errors of this new theology, but were not willing to speak out. There was a constant battle that ensued, but Andreasen stood in the defense of truth. The conflict became incredibly harsh at times, yet Andreasen remained commited to his purpose. He lost his sustentation, ultimately lost his ministerial credentials.

“By early February, faced with a dramatic decline of his health, Andreasen sought to find peace and reconciliation with his church and asked for a visit by Figuhr. Three days after his meeting with Figuhr and Bietz, on February 19, 1962, Andreasen died at the age of 85.” Julius Nam, Questions on Doctrine and M. L. Andreasen: The Behind-the-Scenes Interactions

To this day, those who share Andreasen’s point of view remain in the minority. The powerful impact of the New Theology has held domain. In the years to come, the defense of truth will be the challenge we will face. We have received important counsel on this matter. It would be wise to heed the counsel. Testimonies Volume 5 page 136 says:

“When the religion of Christ is most held in contempt, when His law is most despised, then should our zeal be the warmest and our courage and firmness the most unflinching. To stand in defense of truth and righteousness when the majority forsake us, to fight the battles of the Lord when champions are few--this will be our test. At this time we must gather warmth from the coldness of others, courage from their cowardice, and loyalty from their treason.”--5T 136 (1882)

I pray that we pass the test.

Cameron A. Bowen