Denis Fortin was dean of the faculty of theology at Andrews University, and he is currently teaching ecumenism for more than 25 years. His ecumenical approach and now his defense of the liberal views introduced in the 1919 Biblical Council in our church, after the death of E. G. White, shows us the extent of his increasing departure from our Seventh-day Adventist mission heritage. Here I will bring up some of his latest trends.
I. DENIS’ VIEW ON ECUMENISM
1. In an academic speech he gave not too far ago in Europe (July 2019), Denis offered his view on ecumenism which contains positive things but also concerning facts. Among the positive issues he dealt with was the need of dialogue we have with other churches. He also referred to our ecumenism with the Bible Societies to distribute the Bible. Another positive point is our agreement we have with many churches in our defense of religious freedom. An additional point had to do with an ecumenical confederative association [required sometimes by some states for recognition], where our independence is respected.
Denis shared also a list of dialogues that our church has been holding with different churches, including the Roman Catholic Church. He reported that the Presbyterian Church met with the North American Division, and the outcome was to name a Seventh-day Adventist leader with voice and vote in their administrative meetings. The same did in reciprocity the North-American Division with one of their leaders.
In our view, some of the negative issues he developed in that meeting are the following ones,
1. Denis openly affirmed that he does not share the ecumenical vision of the SDA church, and weighed the ecumenical spirit of the SDA church in Europe in a way that brings him closer to state churches. While praising the European ecumenical approach of our church, he regretted the anti-ecumenical spirit that characterizes our church in North America. In his view, our European brothers had to live for centuries with different religious conflicts in that continent. For this reason, he believes that our brothers in that continent are in better conditions to understand the importance in sharing modern ecumenism, because it is embedded in the European culture.
2. Christ's call to be one, as the Father and the Son are one, does not refer—according to Denis—to a “superchurch” which is above other churches, for God did not give the gospel only to the SDA church. It involves all Christianity. He understands in that way John 17, and 1 Cor 12:12-13; Eph 2:19; 4:4-6. He literally said, “to be Christian is to be ecumenical.” He made no reference to Rev 12:17; 14:12.
3. According to Denis Fortin, Christian churches are not yet Babylon, but “perhaps” they will be it in the end, as maintained by our eschatology. So, in his view, it is unfair to treat the other Christian churches today as being Babylon.
I agree that we have to treat with sympathy to people of different faiths. But, does this friendly approach have to deprive us from warning the world on what is happening, and the kind of union we are seeing? The gospel is a matter of life or death. We are therefore compelled to ask ourselves if the view of Denis on this matter is not reflecting an increasing abysm between teaching and evangelism in our church.
4. There was no warning in the academic discourse of Fortin on the Babylonian union that is taking place among churches and religions today. He also believes that “the false prophet” has not yet appeared. If this is so—we ask—is it therefore not appropriate to call the people to leave the Babylonian confusion of churches and religions that can be easily witnessed today? What is the mission of our church? In the view of Denis, should we then tell other creeds that we know they are authentically Christians and therefore they don’t need to leave their churches which don’t keep God's Commandments?
5. What a disappointment! No warning is found in the speech of Denis on the current ecumenical movements! He told that he was invited to give an academic talk at an ecumenical center where he spoke of the three angelic messages. In his testimony, one of the attendees told him, “I hope that your Christ will allow me and you a place in your kingdom.” That impressed Denis and led him to change his concept of ecumenism.
- My question is, why did Denis miss the opportunity to answer that Christian leader, with the same sympathy of Jesus shown toward the rich young man: “if you want to enter life, keep the Commandments” (Matt 19:17).
6. In a symposium held in Friedensau, Germany, from April 23-26, 2018, on Contours of European Adventism, “Fortin stressed that Adventists in Europe play a crucial role in the portrayal of Adventism as a complement to mainstream Christian belief instead of as a substitute”. So, are we really a complement, a movement among many other religious movements, not a people with a distinctive and unique message to the world, which makes us constitutionally a separate religious entity from the rest of Christianity? Are we not the remnant of the true Christian seed in the midst of hundreds of religions which don’t have the characteristics of Rev 12:17?
7. Denis also reacted in behalf of an SDA pastor in Italy who was reprimanded by the Division and the Union for signing an ecumenical document with other churches, including the Roman Catholic Church, without consulting the leaders of our denomination
II. DENIS’ SUPPORT TO THE SPIRIT OF OPENNESS OF THE 1919 BIBLE COUNCIL IN OUR CHURCH
1. This council of 1919 questioned openly, by the first time, the prophetic inspiration of E. G. White, and our interpretation of the prophetic dates of the 1260, 1290, 2300 days, as well as the prophetic dates of the fifth and sixth trumpets. Denis Fortin regrets that at that time, our church was narrow in opposing this critical openness, and that the same narrow attitude is maintained by many today which in his view, is a sign of hypocrisy which leads us to still keep traditional denominational errors in theological and historical matters.
2. Denis completely neglects the document of Arthur White on the role of W.W. Prescott in these issues. Denis doesn’t take into account either the letters of E. G. White to Prescott, that the devil was behind him pushing him to try to correct her testimony. As a matter of fact, E. G. White rejected the proposals of Prescott regarding some changes he wanted to do in the second edition of the book The Great Controversy, such as the aforementioned prophetic dates. You can find on my webpage the problems of Prescott and the problems on that council of 1919. I considered these issues in a pastoral retreat of the Michigan Conference, in connection to the Trumpets of Revelation. See that document, especially from p. 6.
3. Denis misinterprets the statement of W. White (son of E. G. White), on the role of the Spirit of Prophecy in historical matters, as I could also see in several current liberal theologians in some Adventist centers, reasoning in the same way as Prescott did so early at the beginning of the 20th Century…, etc.
Conclusion
I agree that the task of approaching other churches from an ecumenical perspective is not easy. Those who have to interact especially with leaders of other churches run the risk more than other people, to be assimilated by their beliefs and practices. “It is a law of the human mind that by beholding we become changed” (PP 91). No doubt we need God’s wisdom. But we need more. We need also to be firmly anchored in our prophetic faith as not to be ashamed of our divine commitment. More than looking for an acknowledgement of the religious world today, we have to be concerned for God’s acknowledgment. In 1890, E. G. White wrote:
“Deceptions, delusions, impostures will increase… There will be one fierce struggle before the man of sin shall be disclosed to this world, who he is and what has been his work. While the Protestant world is becoming very tender and affectionate toward the man of sin (2 Thess 2:3), shall [not] God’s people take their place as bold and valiant soldiers of Jesus Christ to meet the issue which must come, their lives hid with Christ in God?” (MR 1121).
Dr. Alberto R. Treiyer was born in the Adventist community of Libertador San Martín, Entre Ríos, Argentina. Dr. Treiyer is an author, and has a doctoral degree in theology from the University of Strasbourg, France. He has served as the director of the theological department at the Adventist Antillian College in Puerto Rico, where he taught for six years. He has also taught at the University of La Sierra, and Columbia Union College, as well as theology in Costa Rica and Columbia. Alberto is now a retired pastor, giving seminars, and writing books and papers that support our distinctive message.