Print
Primary Sources
This past spring Navy chaplain Lieutenant Commander Nathan Solomon learned that the Taliban had convinced local Afghani citizens that the Afghan soldiers deployed alongside Americans on a base in Helmand province weren’t Muslims. It wasn’t true, of course. But the rumor was destabilizing, for the purpose of the joint deployment is to build the citizens’ trust in the Afghan military so they can eventually be left in charge.
Chaplain Solomon responded by broadcasting the salah, the five daily prayers, through loudspeakers in the camp for the Muslim soldiers, but also overheard by the local people. But the real problem, he realized, was that many Muslim people didn’t (or couldn’t) read the Koran for themselves. Explains Brian Mockenhaupt in a story in the September 2011 Atlantic, “that makes it hard for them to deeply understand the Koran and the tenets of Islam,” so the Taliban can easily spread its version of “the duties of good Muslims.” Chaplain Solomon got educated imams to teach the Koran, helping local Muslims see that “Islam doesn’t say ‘Kill the people, bury IEDs in the road, and ambush the Afghan army.’ Islam doesn’t say ‘Do suicide attacks against other Muslims.’”
I’m proud that someone in our Armed Forces had such insight. It occurred to me that Afghan Muslims aren’t the only religious people who are out of touch with their primary sources.
I’m remembering a Sabbath School class I attended recently. The discussion was reassuring, but unchallenging. It was generally about Scripture and Ellen White, but served in tasty Adventist portions for and by the participants. The methodology, in summary:
• “Ellen White says…,” without attribution or context
• Edited bits of Scripture, also sans context, in the proof-text method favored by Adventist Bible studies
• Points read directly from the lesson study, as though it were a final authority
• General beliefs stated as deep wisdom, such as “The Lord helps those who help themselves” or “The way the world is nowadays, everyone thinks they should be free to do whatever they want.”
The result was not much actual learning, because there was little courageous thinking. Were someone to throw out an insight that was seen by even one or two class members at odds with a generally-accepted Adventist view, it would land like a brick. Like the Muslims mentioned above, we were mostly regurgitating ideas that were given to us, many good and useful—but some just as surely unhelpful, for the number and age of the congregants told of a dying congregation.
Unexamined beliefs serve us fine in ordinary circumstances, but fail us in crisis. That’s happening now. We face unprecedented challenges, yet find it nearly impossible to have any new discussions. And without that, we’ll not find any better answers. It seems to me one problem is that we’re frightened of delving deeply into our primary sources, so we’ve let ourselves be led in tight clockwise circles. No one knew Scripture as well as the religious leaders of Jesus’ day. But there was little courageous Bible study. They repeated the interpretations they’d been given by earlier rabbis, so that to men who had most of the Torah memorized Jesus could truthfully say, “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.”
Given the limitations of our brains some of this is probably inevitable. For the sake of carrying on with life, we make simple doctrines of complex situations—and not only in religion. When I was a child most of us believed that America was all good, moral, and honest, while all Russians were lying, murderous and corrupt. Today many believe that all Muslims are terrorists who are keeping us from cheap oil that rightly belongs to us. Domestically, it is the conventional wisdom that Republicans always lower taxes and the national debt, that the needy and oppressed always benefit under Democrats, that the government could balance the national budget by cutting services that won’t affect me or my community, and that if you let the rich keep more of their money they’ll reliably invest it in strengthening the American middle class.
Ye do err, not knowing history, either.
Tension between change and stability has shaped Protestant history. On one hand, when anyone can read the Bible, anyone can create doctrine—and sometimes it seems most everyone has. The roughly 38,000 different Protestant denominational groups speak to that. Yet once those teachings are accepted, we get remarkably stable doctrinal islands where fresh, meaningful interaction with either the Word or the world declines. Any new take on the traditional views is anathema—never mind that every church (including ours) was started by people who set aside what they’d been told, read Scripture for themselves, and then thought the theologically unthinkable. We begin our religious journey by reading the Bible, and we end up still reading it, but no longer understanding it except through filters we’ve grown so accustomed to that we hardly know they’re there.
Those of us who attended Walla Walla College in the 60’s through the 80’s took Bible classes from Professor J. Paul Grove. His teaching method was to assign a chapter of Scripture and ask us to create what he called a “point chart”, which was our own short summary of each paragraph in the passage without recourse to commentaries or other writers. For many of us it was a revelation: that an ordinary person can read the Bible, and by noting themes and transitions, understand it without having to be told by someone else what it means! The Bible is, it turns out, a mine of accessible wisdom, and while we’re grateful for Bible scholars who can dig deeper, there are plenty of diamonds right on the surface for us ordinary people to gather.
Of course, we cannot be thinking new thoughts all the time, nor constantly doing the untested and untried, for how would we ever get anything done? But I do wish we would be a little more diligent in exploring the primary sources of our faith, rather than defaulting to pathways already marked out for us. The Bible and the writings of Ellen White are radical documents that have occasionally turned the world on its head, not the tamed, tranquilized, tightly-girdled things that we churchmen have made them. If we’d look beneath the overlay of a century of organizational interpretation we might again find them living documents, with wisdom for today that we didn’t know was there. Through fresh eyes we might see that both sources have more to say than is summed up in 28 Fundamental Beliefs, a 4-week evangelistic series, or a fat five-level organizational structure.
And could we set aside the demand that we shoehorn every word into the received framework, we might come to terms with the rich and fascinating contradictions in these sources, and be able at least to question the usefulness of some of the word-literal exegeses we repeat. We may also learn that through its history the doctrinal stream of Seventh-day Adventism hasn’t run straight and whirlpool-free like water in a concrete canal, meaning variations on what a Seventh-day Adventist is are inevitable and necessary.[1]
More basic is to ask whether we might have let the doctrines that define us, such as the Sabbath, Creation, or the Second Coming, eclipse deeper and more foundational Biblical principles: that we must be humble in our doctrine making for we cannot, and never will, grasp the fullness of our Infinite God; that people are therefore to be respectful toward and patient with one another even when they cannot agree; and that the church fails when it is so opinionated that anyone who doesn’t see it our way is shown the door.
[1] This isn’t easy. As we’ve seen on this forum, anything out of the mainstream is frightening to some. But their continued, impassioned participation here, rather than sticking to those forums that agree with them, proves what William Hazlitt once wrote: “When a thing ceases to be a subject of controversy, it ceases to be a subject of interest.” Even traditionalists like to be where new thoughts are being expressed, though the only response they muster is anonymous outrage.
User login
Recent
- victor Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- WC Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- victor Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- Rescued LSU Responds to Biology Professor Lee Greer
- Defender of THE Faith Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- Roger S The Dark Fantasy World of Walter Veith
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- George Tichy Pacific Union Conference Calls Special Constituency Meeting to Authorize Equality in Ordination
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- dl LSU Responds to Biology Professor Lee Greer
Newsletter
Organizations
Sat, 09/08/2012
|
San Diego Adventist Forum
Sigve Tonstad, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Religion, Loma Linda
University
Current Issue
Not yet a subscriber? Subscribe today!
Thoughtprovoqking, smart and to the point. Great article.
Article covers a hole with sand!!!
This is the same procedure used by Adventism for its entire history: Direct our message to Christians but who are largely biblical illiterate and quote them certain proof texts explaining their meaning; decode the apocalyptic books of Daniel and Revelation which are a mystery to most, and voila! they have found the truth and are ready to be dunked in the tank.
Then, they are instructed what to read via the SS Quarterly and EGWhite books and now they are Adventists!
Elaine
I had just returned from the South Pacific to my home in Berrien Springs. I took a trip to Detroit to visit an uncle. I attended his SS class. A senior citizen was the teacher. The lesson was about the Good Samaritan. The teacher pointed out that the wounded man was the world. The Samaritan was Christ
His promise to return in two days meant that Jesus would return in the year 2000.
I turned to the Scripture which says only: "when I return----" I pointed that out to the teacher.
The teacher responded---he meant two days! The class glared at me and my uncle patted me on the knee and quietly shook his head a slight NO. This was a class in which one listened--contributions or questions were not appreciated. I guess he really meant--"WHEN I RETURN All the principals in the story but me passed away before the year 2000. Tom Z
This article started with a timely and relevant story about the power and wisdom of interfaith understanding. This is good stuff, I thought: How should Christians respond to the spiritual traditions of others, especially in a time of war and tension? A quarter of the way through, I was already thinking of where I would repost it. I thought of peacenext.org which promotes mutual peacemaking efforts between different faiths.
But then you took the story in a intra-faith direction, and I was disappointed. Here was an opportunity for creativity and a chance to reach out to others, instead of engaging in tiresome Adventist self-flagellation.
I wonder, Loren, if you would be willing to write another column, rewriting and going with the thrust and context of the story?
Graeme
An interesting book recently published by Christian History:
"Reading Genesis by Ronald Hendel
A new tool explains how to study the Bible effectively
A recently published book of essays edited by Ronald Hendel puts forward, in the voices of ten different Biblical scholars, new and enlightening ways to read and understand some of the most well-known stories in the Book of Genesis. Reviewed by Kent Harold Richards, this latest compendium of Biblical scholarship furthers our understanding of Genesis Bible study and demonstrates through each essay how to study the Bible effectively. Richards warns, however, that this book is not for the beginner. While he credits Ronald Hendel with concisely but thoroughly providing proper context for the essays, Richards warns that Ronald Hendel's new book is predicated upon an understanding of Genesis Bible study, including both basic knowledge of the text and familiarity with traditional critical approaches."
Perhaps worthy of future book review?
Elaine
I agree with what you say that “people are to be respectful and patient with one another even when they cannot agree; and that the church fails when it is so opinionated that anyone who doesn’t see it our way is shown the door.”
Yet from my experience, it is very difficult to discuses new theological or lifestyles ideals when EGW is widely regarded as “the Testimony of Jesus.” She often referred to her visions through expressions such as “I saw,” I was shown,” “God said to me,” “God told me,” “the Lord told me,” “my guide,” “the Lord has shown me,” “the Lord has revealed to me,” “the Lord wants you to,” “the angel said to me,” “light God has given to me,” “God wants you to…,” “the Lord wants you to…,” and “God demands…” ?
In most SDA’s churches, open disagreement with EGW is not acceptable; those who do so will find themselves outside of leadership. Support for EGW runs strong throughout the heartland of America, in ASI conventions, Camp Meetings, Conference sponsored events, most SDA pastors, 3ABN, Faith for Today, VOP, Amazing Facts, Weimar, Wildwood, and dozens of other independent evangelic ministries—EGW is “present truth.” In these ministries, it is unacceptable to openly disagree with the “Messenger of the Lord.” Going back the sources for many is to study the Testimonies of EGW, which they believe prosperity and success depend.
Loren Seibold said: "Any new take on the traditional views is anathema—never mind that every church (including ours) was started by people who set aside what they’d been told, read Scripture for themselves, and then thought the theologically unthinkable."
The implied assumption that I perceive and wish to highlight in what you said there, Pastor, is that, in order to think the "theologically unthinkable," one must "start" a new church.
And, isn't that historically true? When has thinking the theologically unthinkable not caused schisms, if not brutal executions?
Is Adventism unique?
Now, Dr. Thompson, whom I deeply respect, may think that since I kicked up so much dust on his recent thread (I will leave him the last words) that I don't share his passion for community, proven, in part, by the fact that I use the word 'evolution' in a conservative community.
If so, that would not be the case. I believe we can talk about evolution in this kind of milieu without drawing lines in the sand, and indeed, I think this is the only setting that we dare talk about provocative issues with all candor. I would never on God's green earth go into an Adventist church or home and utter the 'e' word and risk upsetting the delicate ecosystem unless I were very, very sure of my relational standing there.
True, I can talk with my very traditional SDA ex-husband about anything, but we've been through earthquakes, fires and floods together, and somehow learned to respect each other. The rest of us aren't there yet. But we can be, if we will it. Will we? I don't know.
I'll tell you what I think, though (and I could be wrong): I don't think the Adventist Church can hold the Great Advent Movement. It's going to get away from you, and there's nothing you can do about it if you stay rigid.
And let me just say, I'm not rigid about evolution, or the Big Bang. There are huge issues with evolution and cosmology, and who knows how they will affect the scientific enterprise as a whole when we see into things better in the future? Certainly I don't know, and I don't think anyone does.
So I just try to keep Beginner's Mind and keep everything brewing in as big a 'RAM space' as I can muster, with my limited brain power.
I agree, Pastor, that learning takes courageous thinking. But we want to do more than learn courageously, we want to come to a knowledge of the truth. That takes creative thinking, because our mechanical minds can only rework what we suppose we already know.
True revelation, from the creative Source of Life (talk about Primary Sources!), is available to all of us. Perhaps especially in Adventism, that is a courageous, theologically unthinkable thought.
But, as John McLarty recently said:
"The Spirit is alive and what he says today is at least as interesting and is definitely more important than what the Spirit said to a European audience hundreds of years ago."
I think the point about knowing our primary sources thoroughly is well taken. Really studying for ourselves, rather than simply repeating what we've heard since we were kids, is both rewarding and eye-opening. As Ellen White famously said, we should be thinkers, not mere reflectors of other men's thoughts.
"But then you took the story in a intra-faith direction, and I was disappointed. Here was an opportunity for creativity and a chance to reach out to others, instead of engaging in tiresome Adventist self-flagellation." --Graeme Sharrock
This makes it seem that we Adventists have such profound familiarity w/ our own primary sources that further encouragement for it is a luxury. Before there is respect enough & desire enough to understand other faiths, there has to exist integrity in coming "to terms with the rich and fascinating contradictions in our own." (Seibold)
If we're not interested in our own complexity, why should anyone else's matter?
____________________________________________________
"be reverent in behavior, not slanderers nor enslaved to much wine, teachers of that which is good" titus 2:3
"there has to exist integrity in coming "to terms with the rich and fascinating contradictions in our own."
There is danger in encouraging members to "come to terms" with their own doctrines. By studying and reading about the origin of many of its unique doctrines, they may discover that the "emperor has no clothes." That there is little Bible support for its most treasured doctrines which cannot be supported except by selective use of texts, eliminating others, and mostly using the OT to the neglect of the New.
This is a well-known problem in Adventism. Speaking with someone my junior who also attended 16 years of SDA education, he also conceded that the OT was the source for major doctrines. And I believe that Loren, in an essay a number of months ago, wrote the same thing: The four unique "pillars
of Adventism come straight from the OT and none can be supported by the NT alone. How does that work for a Christian church?
Elaine
I agree with this. I always like Pastor Seibold's articles.
I remember the first time I studied the Bible and came up with a conclusion that was different to what I had always heard in church. For a long time I told no one and felt guilty (heretical even). Adventists are not taught to come to their own conclusions (and yet they are taught that they should study for themselves).
My experience with total Adventist education is that I was treated as a vessel into which "the truth" was poured. Even in non-religious areas, I don't recall ever being taught to question anything or think for myself. Of course this was 60-some years ago, and I have learned to think in the meantime - and no doubt Adventist education has improved in this area, too.
From my recent experience Carrol, it's not much different. Perhaps it depends on where you go to school.
---
1 Corinthians 13:13
Carrol,
This was likely the experience of all those in that era. However, it would be appreciated if younger students who have completed their SDA education within the last 30 years could tell us how their experiences compare to ours.
I also found questions were never asked that raised the slightest doubt in anyone's mind--both students and teachers. I doubt that the teachers would have been able to answer as they were only to indoctrinate.
Elaine
Too often we make the mistake of equating doubt with weak faith. Nothing could be further from the truth. Doubt it humble; it takes mountains of faith to confront doubt.
---
1 Corinthians 13:13
I remember the first time I studied the Bible and came up with a conclusion that was different to what I had always heard in church. For a long time I told no one and felt guilty (heretical even). Adventists are not taught to come to their own conclusions (and yet they are taught that they should study for themselves).
***************
Trinidad...
I've experienced much the same...and it ain't fun. That's why I've come here to share. You can air your ideas and thoughts without the threat of being stigmatized or ostracized.
What you state is classic double bind thinking. Think for yourself when studying the Bible, but only as far as it agrees with what we say is correct interpretation. IOW, don't really think for yourself. It is little short of spiritual schizophrenia. The irony is that this is exactly how movements like Adventism, and going further back, the Reformation, took flight. People dared to approach the Bible, and think outside the box of the traditional and prevailing view of the day. Now, this is no longer kosher in Adventism...excuse the pun. :)
I do see value in learning how to study the Bible and how to understand it contextually. Uncontrolled proof texting can lead to real doctrinal aberrations. I also see wisdom in the adage,"Think for yourself, but not by yourself." But, who one includes in their circle to bounce ideas is another story.
Thanks...
Frank
Long string of interesting pieces. What's your point?
As some of you have mentioned, it isn't easy to look at our primary sources in new ways. Many of Ellen White's key ideas, in particular, are deeply enculturated, almost beyond our being able really to study her books at all. That's why I mention in the penultimate paragraph that personal study will also bring into focus some of the contradictions in EGW and the Bible—not for use as evidence of their being unreliable, but as an invitation to deeper understanding of what God was saying in various times and places.
My friend Fritz Guy, when someone asks him what Ellen White says about one thing or another, replies, "Which Ellen White?"—realizing that Ellen White had some contrasting views through her life. How often do you hear someone say, "This is what Ellen White said when she was young… here's how her attitude changed when she grew old"? Occasionally among scholars, but rarely elsewhere. Doing that alone would be a helpful hermeneutic, a step deeper than proof texting. We take steps to better understanding (and perhaps greater appreciation of our sources) each time we are able to admit that we'll have to look beyond a simple decontextualized sentence to gain spiritual truth.
Elaine, I don't think that will mean we'll all agree. There would still be people who would find there the very conservative ideas that haven't worked for you. Nor are progressive SDA's immune to abstracting a few pet ideas and popping off about them without nuanced study. Perhaps this is just a silly dream, but I'd like to think that the process of studying our sources might even make us a bit more respectful of one another in our differences.
To Graeme: I'm sorry you were disappointed. What you suggest based on that opening story would also make a good piece. (Although I hope you concede it is rather cheeky to say, "I want you to go back and write what I would have written if I were you.") I do agree that our SDA self-inspection gets a bit tiresome, and I am guilty of it as much as anyone; I think it is a stage in our collective "family therapy," and though I understand your being weary of it, perhaps it does us some good. I assure you that were you in the world where I live and work, you'd find these issues much less resolved that they apparently are for you now.
Loren
“Islam doesn’t say ‘Kill the people, bury IEDs in the road, and ambush the Afghan army.’ Islam doesn’t say ‘Do suicide attacks against other Muslims.’”
But the Qur'an does say, "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them with every stratagem (of war)" (9:5)
"Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture yet believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, [Christians and Jews] until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low." (9:29)
"Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain." (9:111)
"O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)." (9:123)
Unfortunately, in the struggle with Islamic militants, the primary sources are not helpful to us. The so-called "war on terror"---which is really nothing but us trying to defend ourselves from a resurgent Islam---has not, alas, been some ghastly misunderstanding in which the Muslims didn't understand their own primary sources. They perfectly understand their own sources, and the Qur'an clearly says to "Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book [Christians and Jews], until they pay the Jizya [a capitation tax on non-believers] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (9:29)
It is poor, deluded Westerners, like George Bush, Barack Obama, and Lt. Commander Nathan Solomon, who don't understand the Muslim source documents, and keep insisting that Islam is really just Methodism with funny headgear. We're in trouble. We're not making much progress in the "war on terror," and we're getting a lot of very fine young people killed in godforsaken places like Afghanistan, because our governing elites--i.e., the dingbats who've been mis-educated at Harvard and Yale--don't understand that our enemy in the war on terror is not Arabs or Paks or Afghans or Persians or Kosovars, but Islam itself--the vicious 7th Century religio-political ideology that is making a remarkable comeback in the 21st Century.
Did Commander Solomon stop to think whether there might be any textual basis, in the "primary sources" no less, for the Taliban to convincingly argue that the Afghans working with the American soldiers were not true Muslims? How about these Qur'anic passages:
"How can there be a league, before Allah and His Apostle, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? . . . How (can there be such a league), seeing that if they get an advantage over you, they respect not in you the ties either of kinship or of covenant? With (fair words from) their mouths they entice you, but their hearts are averse from you; and most of them are rebellious and wicked." (9:7-8)
"Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them..." (3:28) This last part means that the Muslim is allowed to feign friendship if it is of benefit. Renowned scholar Ibn Kathir states that "believers are allowed to show friendship outwardly, but never inwardly."
"O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people." (5:51)
""You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement [Hell] shall they abide." (5:80)
Just as the "primary sources" are extremely unhelpful to us in places like Afghanistan, Spectrumites will find that the primary sources of Adventism, especially if defined to include Ellen White, are not helpful at all in their project to new model the Adventist religion along more progressive lines.
David, aren't you a Spectrumite yet? I think you're one of us now.
In David Read we have an example of Adventists who deny complexity in our own sources in order to conclude they're the Truth, & deny complexity in another faith's sources in order to conclude they're Evil.
Our proof-texting past is hard to discard. As are our notions of a one true church, & that we are it.
____________________________________________________
"be reverent in behavior, not slanderers nor enslaved to much wine, teachers of that which is good" titus 2:3
hopeful, I'd be more than happy to deny and ignore the Islamic source documents, if we could get the Muslims to do so, as well. (In fact, I, along with most of the rest of the world, was blissfully ignoring them until, oh, about ten years ago.) Lately, however, it seems Muslims won't ignore them. To the contrary, there seems to be a trend in the Muslim world to obey the source documents more zealously than they have been obeyed for a very long time.
What possible connection to Islam does the SDA church have that one must compare them? Is it because the SDA church is not as bad as Islam? To quote verses from the Koran which has no relevance to the topic under discussion is a total waste of time. What is that supposed to accomplish?
Elaine
Loren illustrates the real problem of quoting and relying on quotations from EGW as well as the Bible. Like real estate where the three most important facts are: location, location, location; just so in references to the Bible and EGW: context, context, context.
If one found a home with the price listing of years ago, how would that offer be accepted? If one quotes from EGW or the Bible, with the time and context not indicated, it may, and often is, entirely erroneous.
The difficulty: There is no dating apparent in EGW's writings. The Bible is a little easier as we know the OT preceded the NT and there were many changes even in the OT, but the NT was a completely new system--Christianity--which was inaugurated. This was a drastic change in the entire system of Judaism. Ignoring these changes has been one of Adventism's major deviations from the Christian world in adopting many of its major doctrines from the OT, while ignoring the many changes that are found in the NT.
Elaine
Loren: Your piece was well-written and on-target for those you know well and serve. I 'm sure it is true that "in the world where I live and work, you'd find these issues much less resolved that they apparently are for you now."
Yes, I concede that I should have better expressed my hope, than suggesting a different version from you.
Let me express it a different way....
Many intra-SDA conversations and concerns are a hall-of-mirrors, with no way out, no resolution. I wonder what would happen if those so concerned about all these intra-SDA tangles would spend more time in genuine conversation with those of other faiths. I believe it might do some good and provide a new perspective. It might even drive many back to their own "sources" again, to see them in a fresh way, which is also what you want.
P.S. Can you share a little about where you live and work, and to whom you pastor?
Graeme
I suppose if we're making an intellectual project out of faith, we need to get all hermeneutical about it, but how well has that ever worked for us? Are we making this too hard?
The letter kills and the Spirit makes alive. The Spirit is the Primary Source.
I don't have any illusions whatsoever about how this will go over, but let me just throw out an EGW quote with no explanations about her maturity or the context or any of that, just a willy-nilly quote that came to mind because I love it:
The Truth in Christ is Measureless
"As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me."
-- John 6:57.
Truth in Christ and through Christ is measureless. The student of Scripture looks, as it were, into a fountain that deepens and broadens as he gazes into its depths.
Not in this life shall we comprehend the mystery of God's love in giving His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. The work of our Redeemer on this earth is and ever will be a subject that will put to the stretch our highest imagination. Man may tax every mental power in the endeavor to fathom this mystery, but his mind will become faint and weary. The most diligent searcher will see before him a boundless, shoreless sea.
The truth as it is in Jesus can be experienced, but never explained. Its height and breadth and depth pass our knowledge. We may task our imagination to the utmost, and then we shall see only dimly the outlines of a love that is unexplainable, that is as high as heaven, but that stooped to the earth to stamp the image of God on all mankind.
Yet it is possible for us to see all that we can bear of the divine compassion. This is unfolded to the humble, contrite soul. We shall understand God's compassion just in proportion as we appreciate His sacrifice for us. As we search the Word of God in humility of heart, the grand theme of redemption will open to our research. It will increase in brightness as we behold it, and as we aspire to grasp it, its height and depth will ever increase.
Our life is to be bound up with the life of Christ; we are to draw constantly from Him, partaking of Him, the living Bread that came down from heaven, drawing from a fountain ever fresh, ever giving forth its abundant treasures. If we keep the Lord ever before us, allowing our hearts to go out in thanksgiving and praise to Him, we shall have a continual freshness in our religious life.
Our prayers will take the form of a conversation with God as we would talk with a friend. He will speak His mysteries to us personally. Often there will come to us a sweet joyful sense of the presence of Jesus. Often our hearts will burn within us as He draws nigh to commune with us as He did with Enoch. When this is in truth the experience of the Christian, there is seen in his life a simplicity, a humility, meekness, and lowliness of heart, that show to all with whom he associates that he has been with Jesus and learned of Him.
In those who possess it, the religion of Christ will reveal itself as a vitalizing, pervading principle, a living, working, spiritual energy. There will be manifest the freshness and power and joyousness of perpetual youth.
--Christ's Object Lessons, pp. 128-130
Happy Sabbath. :)
One writer above used the word "vessel" into which was poured "the Truth" to describe their experience of Adventist education. That perfectly describes my feelings, too. I remember it being a warm, secure experience growing up, but time and life experience added other insights, leading to 20+ years estrangement. It is ironic that if I were now wanting to join the church I would have to declare myself sola scriptura and that would exclude me from membership. Talk about scriptural schizophrenia! When the corporate church maintains that we are sola scriptura but must also accept EGW as God's inspired messenger they are asking us to swallow an oxymoron, an impossible double bind.
I am currently reading Ron Numbers' Prophetess of Health, third edition, that includes a transcript of The Secret 1919 Bible Conference. I am struck by how all this anguish could have been easily avoided if when the early questions of what should be considered "inspired" and what was "advisory" in nature--as well as the question of her "borrowing"-- if these honest inquiries had not been summarily swept under the rug and hidden in the White vault for 40 years. It appears that our leaders were so afraid of shaking member's faith that they forgot to hand the problem over to God and let him work it out. He could have solved the dilemma in his own wise way. Instead, they tried to solve the problem in their own power; hence the shaking continues to this day and has resulted in many more losing faith.
Patti Cottrell Grant
Sometimes when I am contemplating what I believe it is difficult to tell if it is something I learned from the Bible or if it is something that came from EGW. Is this anyone else's experience?
Patti Cottrell Grant
SDA: Sad, Disillusioned Adventists could be numbered by the thousands; unknown and unnoticed by the official church.
Elaine
Posted by Patti Cottrell Grant - Sat, 09/17/2011 - 12:17
I am struck by how all this anguish could have been easily avoided if when the early questions of what should be considered "inspired" and what was "advisory" in nature--as well as the question of her "borrowing"-- if these honest inquiries had not been summarily swept under the rug and hidden in the White vault for 40 years. It appears that our leaders were so afraid of shaking member's faith that they forgot to hand the problem over to God and let him work it out. He could have solved the dilemma in his own wise way. Instead, they tried to solve the problem in their own power; hence the shaking continues to this day and has resulted in many more losing faith.
Yes, I am forcefully struck by how the anguish could have been avoided too, Patti. Sometimes I wonder if my son might not have committed suicide if things had not been so crazy-making in Adventism. He left a note in his car that "My religion made me crazy."
Everything is overdetermined, so I am not blaming Adventism per se, but still...I wonder sometimes....
But really, that is of no use. We all did the best we could - I know I did, dismal as it was, and I believe everyone else did as well.
I was reading EGW yesterday about the experience around 1844, how everyone was in sweet communion with God and all that, and how we need to be that way now, and I thought:
Holy Cow, Woman! God was about to burn alive most of the people who have ever lived and all you guys were thinking about was "sweet communion?"
Maybe we can do better than that? I hope so, but, in the present climate that old song keeps coming back to mind:
Here I go down that wrong road again,
Goin' back where I've already been,
Even knowing how it will end,
Here I go down that wrong road again.
Seibold honestly describes the situation for many of us who faithfully attend and participate in churches week after week. I, as a multi generational SDA want to base my religious beliefs on more than what the SS quarterly says or what Sister White said. He spells out my dilemma as I want to be honest, teachable, humble and respectful in my denomination.
I agree 100% with Seibold's focus on the impact of time and history and context in the construction and support of beliefs. His call for us to rely on the primary source of a personal Bible study is relevant. I would even say the ultimate primary source for truth would be the record of Jesus Christ as recorded in the gospels. The gospels are the filter through which all truth must pass.
Moreover, I personally have a burden for our church to corporately allow for nuance as we realize a very large God is capable of reaching a diverse humanity in ways that account for numerous personality types and cultural milieus.
I just experienced this morning what Loren described in his article. I too was really struck in SS by the denominational filters through which we as Adventists read the Scriptures. Nothing was read in context (proof text galore), and the SOP or the quarterly commentary was superimposed over the reading of just about every passage.
We may not think we do because of the party line that says we are people of the book, but we have a very hard time of reading and allowing the Scriptures to speak for themselves.
Thanks...
Frank
David, I'm sure you know that the Jewish/Christian tradition also have their texts of terror, just as Muslims do. I happen to know a few Muslims, and none of them would agree that the above texts are representative of their faith and practice--just as Jews and Christians ignore Psalms 109 and many other texts without the loss of faith in the meta-narritive of Scripture.
Let's be honest: The only Muslims most of us ever hear about are the suicide bombers and their muderous ilk. That's hardly representative of more than a billion muslims around the world.
Regarding Ellen White's teaching authority: I am reasonably certain that everything St. Paul, the gospel writers, St. James, et al wrote was not preserved. I have no doubt that some of the early Christian writers probably wrote some silly stuff that is immaterial to orthodox Christian faith and practice.
Ellen White's problem for the church is that EVERYTHING she wrote was preserved and continues to be viewed by the majority of Adventists as "sacred text", no matter how silly many comments appear today.
We stand on the shoulders of a cloud of witnesses to the faith, from ancient times until today. It is the burden--and the unqualified duty--of the church (our little sub-division) to come to terms with what White wrote that is inspired, what is cultural, and what is, to put it kindly, nonsence. Admittedly, that's tough sledding, hard work. Luterans and Presbytarians have had the good grace to focus on what was good in Luther, Calvin, etc. I hope someday our church mothers and fathers will have the good sense to do the same, instead of lobbing verbal hand-grenades at one another. To do otherwise is to turn the sacred into the silly.
Shalom!
Jeris E. Bragan
Face it. The founder of Islam was a warrior. He led by example. He was always militant toward polytheists. He was originally tolerant toward Christians and Jews (adopting theology from some of their heterodox followers). But after he was kicked out of Mecca and returned with an army to conquer it, his opinion toward Jews and Christians became far more militant. In general, the last portions of religious text are considered superior to the earliest. The pre-Hijra portions of the Quran are trumped by the post. If you add the 'Hadith' into the mix, then all manner of militant theology is attributed to Muhammed.
Christians consider the New Testament to be the final word on revelation.The New Testament and words of Christianity's founder Jesus, are peculiarly pacifistic - resulting in the non-violent martyrdom of millions. Muslims follow the writings of a warrior who became increasingly intolerant and militant toward non-muslims. Christians follow a non-violent messiah martyr who exhorted his followers to love their enemies, not kill them. When Muslims become violent and intolerant it is difficult to argue that they do so contrary to their founder and his writings. When Christians advocate violence it is very easy to say they do so in opposition to the faith.
Adventists are not taught to inductively study the Bible. When they are, they can find it to be thrilling. Our original doctrinal pillars were hammered out in just such an experience (the 'Sabbath Conferences'). Some forget however that those pioneers were prevented from being tossed to and fro by every weird wind of inductive doctrine when God intervened with the gift of prophecy (after they had done all the inductive study they could do and some clung to erroneous opinions). If our inductive study, and hermeneutics, leads us to abandon this formative historical advent experience - then maybe we are off track.
I suppose it is my own fault that I used an example about Muslims to begin this piece and thereby inciting some to display their opinions of that group. I want to clarify that this piece isn't about Muslims, but about us—about how we lose touch with our own primary sources.
As for the Muslims, didn't Jesus say something about not trying to remove the speck from someone else's eye while you have something larger in your own? We Christians have quite a history of unkind behavior in God's name. Yes, some of the worst of it happened in the reasonably distant past—inquisitions and such. But even with respect to the wars happening right now in the Middle East, the president who led us into them was clear that he was doing this because God wanted him to—and the war was, at the beginning, wildly popular among Christians.
Lowest credible number for Iraqi civilian deaths alone: 850,000. That's vengeance of Old Testament proportions for the approximately 4000 deaths in the Twin Towers.
Just seems to me we'd do well, in light of Jesus' cautionary warnings, to be reticent to speak against others.
frank7 said,
"We may not think we do because of the party line that says we are people of the book, but we have a very hard time of reading and allowing the Scriptures to speak for themselves."
Well said, Frank.
"The People of the Book". I grew up w/ our assumed sobriquet. I worried about being able to remember & find all the proof texts that would convince others that we Have the Truth. We could base all our beliefs on the Bible. We knew the Bible, unlike those wishy-washy apostate other churches.
I've come to realize that what we thought was great knowledge was using the Bible mostly like a telephone directory. We could locate info to make our case, but was it really what God wanted to tell us? Pastor Seibold's article reminds us to be humble & diligent in our search of God's word.
____________________________________________________
"be reverent in behavior, not slanderers nor enslaved to much wine, teachers of that which is good" titus 2:3
"Christians consider the New Testament to be the final word on revelation."
Well, most Christians do. Adventism's major pillars and on which it began a new denomination are all straight out of the OT.: Sabbath, tithing, dietary laws and the IJ. This is where their final doctrines were formed and considered the final word.
As for violence: No one rivaled the Hebrews in their violence following the Exodus. To claim otherwise is to read only the NT. Maybe that would be a good practice.
Elaine
Posted by hopeful - Sun, 09/18/2011 - 08:40
I've come to realize that what we thought was great knowledge was using the Bible mostly like a telephone directory. We could locate info to make our case, but was it really what God wanted to tell us?
Well, it depends on what "case" we really want to "make," I would say, Hopeful.
No wait...does God tell us stuff so we can "make a case?" Does He just want us to make a better theological case? Hmmm....
So...if Adventists got their hermeneutical ducks in a row and came up with an SDA Summa Theologica of doctrinal correctness, straight from the Bible, wouldn't it face the same danger of turning to a pile of straw in the face of direct experience as did the Thomist version?
Elaine
One Biblical scholar I read 30 years ago concluded his wrtten remarks as follows: " The Old Testament tells us He is expected. The Gospels tells us his came, serve, died, and rose again.
The Epistles tell us for what purpose. The Revelation tells us He is coming again. I can live with that.
Tom Z
@Loren,
Do Adventist's advocate warfare? I thought they were non-combatant humanitarians? Those 'Christians' who were responsible for the deaths in Iraq need to go back to their primary New Testament source and get a pacifist reorientation. Perhaps they also need to hear the good old Adventist primary source message.
Might it help, or at least be a starting point, for Adventist worship services to include a substantial reading from scripture, as some other churches do? What we get now, in most places, is a snippet or two.
Don
Don, I remember an Episcopalian friend of mine, whom I was trying to tell how wrong he was about the doctrines he believed, saying, "Well, how much Scripture actually gets read in your church service?" I said that we studied a passage or two. He pointed out that in each of their services they read the equivalent of several chapters! Of course, that doesn't mean that people are attending to it or understanding it. But it may say something about why we understand things as we do that we look at small bits under a microscope rather than taking a big picture view that might show arcs and trends and directions.
Victor, I believe our attitude toward war has changed substantially. I was raised believing we were noncombatants, opposed to war, but I suspect you'd get a pretty hard time from at least some church members if you said that now.
Exactly, Maggie.
____________________________________________________
"be reverent in behavior, not slanderers nor enslaved to much wine, teachers of that which is good" titus 2:3
Well put, Loren; but at least when you read chunks of scripture in worship you are letting the Word speak for itself.
Do you think that people are attending to your sermons more than they would to a scripture reading? Maybe they do if you give them enough one-liners and soundbites to satisfy their attenuated attention spans!
In my youth I was always told that detailed and extensive reading of scripture was something to be done at home, in one's closet as it were. I know there are people who do that. But I've done just enough editorial work recently that I know that when I read text silently, I miss things that I catch when I read it aloud.
Hearing scripture read aloud is quite a different experience than reading it silently. And hearing scripture read, and then receiving a commentary on it, has even more impact. There's wisdom in the format --a practice which goes back a long way.
While I'm at it, I'd like to put in a plug for the use of the Psalms in worship, too. The significance of this was first pointed out to me by my late friend Jim Wideman. Don
Loren
They tell the story that during the War Between the States, a chaplain prior to a major battle, attempted to reassure the troops by saying: If killed in battle this day, remember you will be eating dinner with the Lord! Then the chaplain rode up to the lead of the column with the Division Commander. However, at the first sound of gun fire the Chaplain turned his horse around and galloped to the rear. As he galloped past the troops, they yelled out: "What's the matter Chaplain? Not hungery?"
Today's Adventist is all flag waving barracks talk--very few are signing up. Tom Z
Churches that follow the Liturgical Year will read the entire Bible through in three years - then they do it all over again. And again, and again. There is always an Old Testament passage, a New Testament passage, and one from the Gospels and one from the Psalms (which is often sung) These passages are chosen because they all deal with the same topic, i.e. giving of Manna in Exodus will be paired with Jesus sermon on Bread of heaven...
Vatican II mandated that the pastor giving the homily - explain the passages read in the service.
I really enjoy listening to the passages being read aloud... The person doing the readings - are to practice readings so that they are read understandable - and in a modern speech translation.
We could learn much from our brothers/sisters in other faiths.
hopeful,
"The People of the Book". I grew up w/ our assumed sobriquet. I worried about being able to remember & find all the proof texts that would convince others that we Have the Truth. We could base all our beliefs on the Bible. We knew the Bible, unlike those wishy-washy apostate other churches.
I've come to realize that what we thought was great knowledge was using the Bible mostly like a telephone directory. We could locate info to make our case, but was it really what God wanted to tell us? Pastor Seibold's article reminds us to be humble & diligent in our search of God's word.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That was my experience too.
And when I saw the vast number of proof texts that there are it was a daunting task to comprehend. It was really discouraging because this was long before the Bible was available in soft copy. The sheer amount of page tuning used to discourage me.
Several things are different now. I am demanding that the SDA distinctives speak well of God and bring hope to people. I am convinced that there has got to be more to our doctrines than just idiosyncratic weirdness.
The Character of God message (Maxwell) has done a lot for me in this regard--along with other fresh perspectives.
Maggie said,
Well, it depends on what "case" we really want to "make," I would say, Hopeful.
No wait...does God tell us stuff so we can "make a case?" Does He just want us to make a better theological case? Hmmm....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is what I began to wonder.
We were making a case but I didn't know many people who wanted to hear it. I was not excited about sharing it with others--and although I felt "safe" because I had the right information--that was it.
It all felt like what Ed Dickerson calls "Authentic Lunar Green Cheese". I mean it's authentic alright, but who do you know that's clamouring for it?
P.S. There are all kinds of people in the world. People at various stages of belief. It works for many (although maybe up to a point). I am not arguing that the church is not making converts. The Holy Spirit is working.
Adventists have used "proof texts" because they had them all memorized and could confront people with a text or texts for ever SDA doctrine. What day should we keep? Check Ex. 20, and the Gospels where Jesus also observed sabbath, ergo, that is the day God wants us to keep?
Never were Paul's letters to Galatians, Romans, or Colossians read because they would raise too many questions about the validity of the Sabbath for Christians. Best to point to the ones that were convincing, mostly from the OT.
Same with dietary rules: read Leviticus with the description of all sorts of animal life that should be avoided, and forget about the sayings in the NT that nothing is unclean, and that the Gentiles were never given more than not to eat meat offered idols or with blood.
And so it goes: keep it short and simple and get them in the baptismal tank. Add EGW later.
Elaine
I suppose it is my own fault that I used an example about Muslims to begin this piece and thereby inciting some to display their opinions of that group. I want to clarify that this piece isn't about Muslims, but about us—about how we lose touch with our own primary sources.
Loren, to the contrary, your introductory anecdote was perfect (at least from my point of view). Because just as our silly "elites" in military, government and media (whose "education" consisted of PC brainwashing at some Ivy League center of anti-wisdom) are pathetically mistaken in thinking that Islam's source documents, properly understood, might somehow be helpful to us, Spectrumite Adventist progressives are just as deluded in thinking that sending people back to Ellen White is going to advance the progressive cause. It will not. You may well be the only person who thinks it will.
Do you think that if people could actually cite chapter and verse, instead of saying "Ellen White says," then they would understand that she was really a Darwinist who wanted Genesis understood metaphorically? Ellen White was strongly behind a creation in six literal, contiguous, 24-hour days a few thousand years ago. She strongly supported the 1844/sanctuary doctrine. Please don't trust me on this; go back and read the source documents.
Just as, in the "war on terror," our only hope lies in getting Muslims to ignore (or read metaphorically) their source documents, the progressive's only hope for a new-modeling of Adventism is to get Adventists to ignore (or read metaphorically) our source documents.
So, if Muslims could only read the Koran metaphorically, it would assure us?
While if Adventists were also read the Bible metaphorically is would make them all progressives?
Is metaphorical interpretation good for Muslims but bad for Adventists?
Elaine
David Read, I've never seen someone so willing to twist everything you see, read and hear to put down Muslims as you are. Did your mother catch a glimpse of Yassar Arafat when she was pregnant with you? That would leave one with permanent scars.
Add your comment