The Sanctuary Truth

Leading off the latest online edition of the Adventist Review is an article aimed squarely at young Adventists entitled, “The Sanctuary Truth”.  Written by Jennifer Jill Schwirzer, described in the biography as a “wife, mother, author, songwriter, and musician”, the article opens a new apologetic effort to salvage this oft-maligned doctrine.  In its original form, the sanctuary doctrine was the Adventist attempt to explain the events of 1844 and to describe the searching scrutiny under which professed Christ-followers would be subjected–if one unconfessed sin was found in the heavenly records, there would be no application of Christ’s blood to the sinner’s account.  With the fallout of Glacier View in the early 1980s, the focus shifted to a more palatable sanctuary doctrine whereby God was placed under searching scrutiny and His character vindicated before the whole universe.  The Adventist Review would now have us believe a third incarnation of the sanctuary doctrine.  This new “sanctuary truth” allows God to have a relationship with sinful humans.  Without a heavenly sanctuary, there would be no cleansing of sin and therefore God would not be able to draw close to sinners.  Schwirzer writes, “A bride and groom can’t be truly intimate when there’s something between them. The sanctuary in heaven is where Jesus cleanses away the sin that separates Him from His bride.” Apparently the Christian church was separated from God for its first nineteen centuries because the sin problem had not yet been dealt with and the cross was a mere prelude to what would finally begin in 1844.  Schwirzer does not stop there, but argues to reclaim the sanctuary doctrine for evangelistic use, describing an interaction with a prospective convert named Emily.  The progressive Adventist blogger Ron Corson has written some thoughts about the article here, and they are well-worth reading.

After a lengthy evangelistic encounter with her friend Emily, Schwirzer recounts a story where both are sitting in the pews, listening to a weighty Adventist sermon.  Concerned about the content of the sermon, Schwirzer thinks to herself, “She can’t comprehend what the pastor is saying...he’s using too many ‘code’ words, and the concepts are too abstract for her.” What was so confusing to poor Emily? “The subject matter of the sermon we were listening to was the final atonement as it related to the marriage supper of the Lamb–not the stuff of sermon fluff.”

One wonders if abstract sermons on the marriage supper of the Lamb are really the best material with which to introduce friends to Adventism.  It is no wonder that many Adventists are reluctant to bring their friends to church.  Imagine having to continuously parse and decode the words being preached from the pulpit, words that a Christian from any other denomination would also have serious trouble following.  Contrast this with the clarion call of the gospel and the message of the cross, a message simple enough for a child to understand and so elementary that the apostle Paul described it from the world’s perspective as “foolishness” (1 Corinthians 1:18).

Reflecting on one of her first encounters with eager Emily and their discussion of the prophecies in Daniel, Schwirzer says, “The birdie’s beak was still wide open enough to receive the parallel prophecies of the four beasts, the ram and the goat, and the little horn, and to make the acquaintance of Belshazzar, Gabriel, and Constantine. Truth built upon truth until we found ourselves hammering out the 2300-day prophecy math on a piece of scrap paper.” Again, I must pause in wonder that any basic evangelistic encounter would need to center upon a piece of scrap paper and some prophetic mathematics.  There’s no question that the study of Old Testament prophecy is a fruitful endeavor, but the goal of evangelism is not to prove that something happened in heaven on the morning of October 22, 1844, but to point the way to Jesus Christ, the fulfillment of all of the Law and the Prophets (John 5:39-40).  If presenting the gospel requires knowledge of mathematics and calculations–let’s face it–most of the world will never come into “the truth”.  Thankfully the true gospel of Scripture knows nothing of speculation about where Christ may or may not be within some heavenly structure, but that it rests upon the finished work of our Lord and Savior who is now where He was since He rose to heaven, sitting at the right hand of the Father, “waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet” (Hebrews 10:12-13).

In interpreting the sermon for her friend Emily, Schwirzer recounts, “Knowing that her appetite for depth was not matched by a grasp of church-speak, I leaned toward Emily and whispered a translation: ‘Em, what the pastor is saying is that Christ is the husband and His church is the bride. A bride and groom can’t be truly intimate when there’s something between them. The sanctuary in heaven is where Jesus cleanses away the sin that separates Him from His bride.’ Emily relaxed her brow and nodded in agreement.”

Ron Corson astutely observes that if this is supposed to make poor Emily relax, her happiness will soon turn to shock when she realizes that before 1844, the Christian church had no way to come to the Father because of their sin, as atonement for sin had apparently not yet been made.  Corson writes, “If I were Emily, that would not relax me, ‘You mean for these last 1600 years no one on earth could be intimate with their God until sins somehow in heaven are cleansed?’ ‘That’s right Em, our sins are not forgiven and forgotten when we ask God to take them away, God must store a record of our sins in heaven and then starting in 1844 He began to cleanse the record of our sins at least of the people who are dead He has not gotten to us yet.’ I would guess that this would upset Emily even more.  ‘So we can’t even now have that intimate relationship with Jesus until He has cleansed our sins in heaven?’ ‘That’s right Em, isn’t the sanctuary doctrine the most wonderful truth you have ever heard?’”

The new incarnation of the sanctuary doctrine leads us directly to this difficult conclusion, does it not?  Yet this harmonizes with much of what the early Adventists taught about so-called “apostate Christians” who had not been loyal keepers of the faith.  But in placing historic Christianity in the cross hairs of these unique Adventist teachings, the very apostolic pillars of the Christian church are also called into question as having inferior Christian truth.  After all, the apostles knew nothing of this Adventist sanctuary doctrine, apparently foolishly preaching “Christ and Him crucified” instead of “Christ in the sanctuary”, where atonement for sin was to finally be made nineteen centuries later.  The conclusion is inescapable–every Christian from the disciples all the way to Protestant Reformation and beyond lived the entirety of their lives with unforgiven sin hanging over their heads.

We learn more about this new and improved sanctuary doctrine by reading just a little further.  “‘There’s so much injustice in the world!’ Emily complained. ‘And it seems as if God doesn’t care.’ Yet the sanctuary told her otherwise, because there the most whitewashed sins are recorded with searing clarity.” Yes, the sins are recorded, even those committed after death as a result of an action committed while alive.  Even one of those, if found, will disqualify the professed believer from heaven.  Now isn’t that good news?  Of course not.

The good news is that Jesus Christ made final and complete atonement for sin on the cross (2 Corinthians 5:21, Galatians 3:10-13, 1 Peter 2:24, 1 Peter 3:18, Romans 3:21-26).  There is no “searing record” waiting to judge those who have placed their faith in Him.  Jesus has put an end to the condemnation that results from sin (Romans 8:1), making a new creation out of the helpless sinner (2 Corinthians 5:16-17).  Now this is truly good news that poor Emily can really get excited about, free of the theological gymnastics required to reconcile an extra-biblical teaching with the words of Truth.

----
Please also read Ron Corson’s thoughts.