I heard both of Des Ford’s lectures and the extended panel discussion in the afternoon (in which Fritz Guy, Kendra Haloviak, Larry Christoffel and Jon Paulien joined Des on the platform). At the end of both sessions Des fielded questions submitted by the audience.
1. I did not hear a single word yesterday that suggested any shift in Ford’s opinions. He stuck to his theological guns, defending his version of forensic justification. Of course it’s a metaphor, he admitted, and we need the many other salvation metaphors to complete our understanding. He even credited the moral influence theory as having some validity for us, but not an adequate framework to explain the horrors of the crucifixion.
2. Ford was unfailingly kind and generous, even affectionate, in his references to the Adventist Church. This attitude of graciousness has been his hallmark despite unkind treatment he has received over the years. He still comes across as regarding himself as a faithful Adventist, simply trying to continue the process of restudying and tidying our biblical understandings after a sincere but unscholarly beginning by William Miller. He described Miller as a man led by God to wake up a spiritually dead continent and direct the world to the promised Second Coming.
