I thank Danny Strever and those at “Last Generation for Christ Publishing” for republishing a “Legacy Edition” of my father’s book, “The Word Was Made Flesh.” On the inside, its format is different but its contents are the same. On the outside, I much prefer its cover to my father’s.
It is rightly dedicated to "the memory and honor of Carlye Hummel-[Danny] Strever and to all those that have gone on before." This includes my father, mother, brother and sister and many others.
The book “Questions on Doctrine” in 1957 prompted discussions, which too often devolved into debates and discord, about two issues.
The first, a historical question, is whether QOD accurately reported what most SDAs did believe about the humanity of Jesus before it was published. The second, a theological question, is whether QOD outlined what SDAs should now believe.
The verdict is in on the first question. It is that QOD did not accurately report what most Adventists believed before it was published. George Knight was the jury foreman who reported its conclusion in his magnificent annotated edition of QOD.
In his “Historical and Theological Introduction,” Knight flatly declares that those who put QOD together misrepresented the historical data in order to make SDAism more acceptable to some conservative Protestant theologians with whom they were dialoguing. In his footnotes, he pinpoints precisely where they “fudged the evidence.”
The significance of my father’s book "The Word Was Made Flesh" is that it providesd much historical data that contributed to the widespread agreement that the book "Questions on Doctrine" was not always historically accurate.'
Knight’s relationship to my father was a curious one. He became an SDA before he has twenty-years old in some evangelistic meetings my father and Malcolm Maxwell held in northwestern Northern California.
According to his reports, he subsequently became so thoroughgoing a perfectionist that he vowed to become the most perfect person since Jesus Christ. This spiritually exhausted him to the point that he became an atheist.
Eventually, though, he experienced God’s loving forgiveness. He went on to become at Andrews University a prolific historian who prepared his doctoral students to become impressive historians of Adventism themselves.
Although we admired his scholarship, Knight caused my family much pain by attributing, in many presentations all over the world, the excesses of the perfectionistic chapter of his life to two or so ministers that included my father.
My own reactions to this were mixed. On the one hand, I knew for certain what my father would have said if someone had told him that Knight had attempted to become the most perfect man since Jesus Christ: “That kind of thinking is pig manure.”
On the other hand, I believed that in many of his presentations around the world my father had often been too hard on people with whom he disagreed.
One of the last things I said to my father before he died was that Knight’s own research had led him to similar conclusions about the historical accuracy of QOD. “That’s good,” he whispered.
My father intensely disagreed with some of the things I said and did. He once joined with others in an attempt to get me fired, something he announced to the whole extended family just before he offered the prayer at a Thanksgiving dinner.
I admired my father for figuring out where he stood on controversial issues and not abandoning his convictions when he was treated unfairly and abusively.
All of this has to do with the historical question. The theological issue is a different matter. The only thing I will now say about this is that we should all give to others the freedom to believe what they think is best as we wish for ourselves.
Those who try to get the whole denomination to believe what they do always cause much needless pain for themselves and others.
I end as I began with thanks to Danny Strever for his friendship and for helping to give my father’s book another life.