Uriah Smith and James White denied the deity of Christ. This is simply not true. The documentation package under "Point 48" and "Point 48a" gives no evidence to support such a claim.
To the contrary, it cites James White as writing in that "ultra Unitarianism that makes Christ inferior to the Father is worse. Did God say to an inferior, 'Let us make man in our image?
Smith emphatically stated that Christ is not a created being, and opposed such a teaching Daniel and the Revelation , pp. White, Smith, and others reacted against certain speculations of their time regarding the Godhead. Their reactions are assumed to be a denial of belief in what the Bible teaches about the Trinity, making this charge in the video all too common.
But such an assumption is unwarranted in light of three popular speculations about the Godhead that they reacted against. A catechism from one church and a book from another taught the following: God is composed of three persons and is "without body or parts," but the second person definitely has a body! This view was criticized in the March 7, , issue of the Review and Herald , page Early Seventh-day Adventists advocated taking the Bible literally unless there was an obvious symbol used.
They saw such views of the Godhead as not doing this, since the Bible describes God as having a [p. Just as they rejected views that spiritualized away the literalness of the second coming, so also they rejected views that spiritualized away the personality of God. The orthodox view of the Trinity includes an aspect that speculates regarding when Christ was begotten. Most believers are unaware of this aspect called the "processions. The five-strong Commission included Rev Terry Mortimer, who had been called in occasionally to resolve differences at the church.
The terms of reference spoke of a "dark period" in the church's history. It said the Commission would investigate the historical culture of the church and "take a view on whether any remnants of erroneous culture remain". It took statements from members and former members of the church. Some of these were complimentary to the leadership but many of them had appalling stories of spiritual abuse to tell.
However, on August 14 and out of the blue, Langlois received a letter from the chair of the trustees, John Shelton, informing him he had been dismissed. Two days later the church was told the whole Commission had been disbanded. Mortimer — who declined to comment for Christian Today — had become alarmed at the direction its report was taking.
He had approached Shelton accusing Langlois of various errors in his conduct of the enquiry. Shelton's letter said Langlois might be perceived as not being an impartial chair and that for the Commission's work to be effective it was vital for the "integrity of the process" to be beyond reproach. In a statement to Christian Today, Shelton referred to "significant departures from the Commission's terms of reference which, taken together, led the Trustees and Leaders to the conclusion that the Commission's impartiality had been affected by those actions".
We felt that it would be damaging to all parties to allow a process to continue that had been clearly compromised.
Follow the Author
In his response to Shelton and in communications with Christian Today, Langlois trenchantly denied all the accusations made by Mortimer. He is adamant he adhered to the terms of reference he was given and the trustees had behaved badly in dismissing him. He vigorously defended the Commission's procedures and its record in dealing with painful and difficult revelations.
Langlois and two others carried on and finished the job. Their report ran to pages as opposed to the official report's However — like the official report — it identifies spiritual abuse, pastoral incompetence and institutional failures. It refers to extreme control over members' private lives.
Former Adventist Fellowship Forum: New book by Bob Pickle
It says the church's leadership appeared to "exalt themselves rather than giving glory to God. In many cases their conduct was atrocious. The list goes on. Among the recommendations in the independent report were a clean sweep of the church's leadership, setting up a fund for those who have needed counseling and the establishment of a "truth and reconciliation committee". And what of the report of the official investigation, by Phil Hills and David Shearman? It too took submissions from 77 people, examined historical evidence and put accusations to key personnel.
See a Problem?
Hills and Shearman say the leaders and trustees cooperated with them fully. The official report reaches many of the same conclusions as the independent one. It speaks of the deliberate encouragement of spiritual insecurity as a means of control and the leaders' sense of superiority. It too speaks of pressure on members to achieve excellence and to give time and money beyond their capacity. It criticises the church's culture of secrecy and its use of rumours, lies, ostracism and humiliation as means of control. However, it does not criticise Peter Linnecar, the Senior Pastor, for personal failings.
Instead it places the blame on the church's structure and "historic culture". Recruiting someone to lead a church after a long-term pastor who has left because of a moral failing, the authors say, is extremely difficult: In his statement to Christian Today, Shelton acknowledged the difference in tone between the two reports, but denied any suggestion that it was less rigorous or honest: To say that this is a whitewash does not stand up to any scrutiny. While the trustees and church leaders have read the independent report, he said, the church's action plan would be based on the official one.
It intends, among other things, to meet and apologise to individuals, to provide financial help for people needing counselling, to completely reshape the governance and leadership structure with professional help and to build up a "culture of trust" with the help of Hills and Shearman. The fallout from Trinity's past has been profoundly damaging, not just to individuals but to the wider image of the Church.
The controversy arising from its attempt to deal with it arguably indicates just how deep-rooted some of the problems were. The Evangelical Alliance told Christian Today: Such processes are always difficult and painful.