Print
A Dynamic Theology
One of the benefits of studying church history is that it helps you see how much change there has been in Christian teachings through the years. By “church” I mean not just this denomination, but the whole sweep of Christianity that Ellen White reviews in The Great Controversy. In each era there are the faithful and the enemies of the faithful—and of course the whole point of that book is that in the end, the enemies lose and the faithful get their reward.
But what’s surprising is that if you study the faithful, you find them quite different from one another. A Venn diagram of the major Christian traditions would show only a small common area, but in that overlapping zone is what we Christians should agree is most important: the infinite attributes of God, his interaction with us in human history, the Bible as the source of spiritual truth, Jesus Christ as the key to our salvation, moral behavior, the importance of the church in acting out God’s goodness and faithfulness, and eternal reward.
But beyond that, there’s a lot we wouldn’t understand about one another. I’ve met people who seem to think that if they could use Mr. Peabody’s WABAC machine to visit Christians in earlier eras, they’d find little groups of Seventh-day Adventists singing hymns just like ours, sounding like us, eating like us, looking like us, organizing church the same way.
But beyond a few central teachings (and even settling on those was a stormy process) we’d have a hard time feeling entirely comfortable with those ancient believers. I doubt we’d enjoy attending church with them. We know from Paul that early worship was louder and less reverent than most of us would enjoy, their Sabbath School discussions drifted into things like gnosticism, and their music, liturgy and dress would simply puzzle us. And most of us wouldn’t eat what they served at potluck.
But, some say, that all changed when Seventh-day Adventists came along. We are the final step of that ladder of doctrinal development. They all contributed something, but we’ve finally got it all right, thus stabilizing Christian doctrine once and for all before Jesus comes.
I will only say this: that in the process of our maturing, we’ve changed, too, in matters both small and great.
I thought of this recently when I picked up Uriah Smith’s Daniel and the Revelation, a book that Ellen White endorsed.[1] Much of it would be familiar to Seventh-day Adventists today. But there are other items there that have nearly disappeared from church discussion.
In Uriah’s time, and as late as 75 years ago, Turkey was a country frequently mentioned in our discussions of Bible prophecy. When’s the last time you heard Turkey come up in a sermon or Sabbath School discussion? Changes in boundaries and power structures have brought new Middle Eastern countries into the news (if not into prophetic interpretation), but no one still fears Turkey as the King of the North.
Back then, people would have massive debates over who was meant by Gog and Magog, the actual identity of a countable 144,000 Seventh-day Adventists, and who precisely were the seven heads and ten horns of the beast of Revelation 13. Heard much about that lately? My father once told me that when he was a child, a staple of time-of-the-end sermons was that Israel would never again be a nation. For obvious reasons, our preachers have said very little about that since 1948.
One of the bigger changes has happened during my lifetime—and it happens to have been a belief of my church of which I was especially proud. I remember going with my father to the Selective Service Center in Jamestown, North Dakota, where I filled out some papers and received my Selective Service ID card. It classified me as 1-A-0—a conscientious objector to combat, but available for alternative military service. It was granted without question when I identified myself as a Seventh-day Adventist. (Conscription ended before I was called up.) I’d received a pamphlet from the General Conference that, as I recall, told me that I must register this way and then wait to be drafted (I must never enlist) if I were to have any religious rights as a soldier. The military was depicted as a place where navigating through with your faith and the Ten Commandments intact was nearly impossible, and you should take any advantage your denomination could provide you.
Virtually all of my Adventist friends asked for the same classification. It was understood back then that Seventh-day Adventists did not carry guns or fight wars. While our non-combatancy wasn’t exactly pacifism, it faced in that direction: we intended to follow the commandments, including that sixth one, which meant we didn’t like the situation war put us in.
When’s the last time you heard a sermon about non-combatancy? Or read an article about it in the church press? The last time I preached a sermon against war, citing passages from Jesus that have always seemed to me pretty clearly pacifistic, a few church members told me I was being political in the pulpit and to cut it out.
We hear folks bemoaning the loss of certain Seventh-day Adventist teachings and practices that we wish would come back, such as conservatism in dress and worship, better Sabbath standards, daily family worship, sending our children to church schools. But it’s interesting what we’ve let go, mostly unremarked.
Some, like demoting Turkey from its place in our Bible prophecy schema, are an example of keeping truth “present”. But are we really better off for having abandoned that one bit of investment we had in pacifism? I don’t think so.
You can probably think of other examples. In any case, it will be interesting to see (should time last that long) what Seventh-day Adventism will look like another 50 years hence.
User login
Recent
- Joe Erwin Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- dl Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Anonymouswon Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- dl Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- dl Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Carrol Grady Should Seventh-day Adventists be Republicans?
- Sirje Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Fred Eastman The Role of Institutions in Evangelism – A Call to the Adventist Business Community
Newsletter
Organizations
Fri, 08/31/2012 - Sun, 09/02/2012
Job Dybdahl, Sigve Tonstad, Harri Kuhalampi
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!
"Some, like demoting Turkey from its place in our Bible prophecy schema, are an example of keeping truth 'present'."
Actually, "demoting Turkey from its place in our Bible prophecy schema" is one of the signs of the precariousness of the historicist approach to Biblical apocalyptic. Historicism is an eternal desert of shifting sands. There have been several dozens of historicist applications of the 1260 "days" in the last 500 years, for instance. And the one Adventists still hold on to has been long discredited (even by Adventist scholars).
Once again, Bogdan dazzles us with his apostasy.
One's apostasy is another's enlightenment :)
"In each era there are the faithful and the enemies of the faithful—and of course the whole point of that book is that in the end, the enemies lose and the faithful get their reward.
But what’s surprising is that if you study the faithful, you find them quite different from one another. "
Loren, Thanks for a thought provoking article.
How we define the "faithful" depends an awful lot on how we see the world. Often it seems The "faithful" are those who think like I do and the "enemies of the faithful" are those who disagree with me.
For example, looking back on the Reformation, we Protestants see ourselves as those who were faithful to the Bible. But to those who stayed in the Catholic faith, we Protestants were the "enemies of the faithful" who were tearing the church apart and nullifying 1500 years of church history.
In our own denominational history we might look at the Millerites who saw themselves as the faithful for preach the 2nd Coming, while other Protestants said we were heretical.
Defining who are the faithful and who are the heretics depends on who's telling the story.
It seems to me that one way around this is to focus on faithfulness to God and loving our neighbor as ourselves (Deuteronomy 6:4,5; Leviticus 19:18; Mark 12:28-34). Rather than on adherence to an ideology. When ideology trumps relationships (Divine and human) we are in trouble. I think it is very informative that Jesus' description of the faithful in the final judgment are those who practiced the two great commandments and did it "unto the least of these" rather than those who hold a particular theological perspective or ideology (Matthew 25:31-46).
If this were how we defined the faithful, the various shifts in theology that you discuss would be far less urgent. It would go along way in healing the rifts in our church today.
Blessings,
Mark
Shellback...I saw the dazzle also, but to me it looked more like a forked light coming from heavens way
I wonder what will happen in THIS administration, i.e., Ted Wilson, with pastors like Loren Siebold who are not afraid to put their opinions on paper/screen.
Do you, Loren Siebold fear being "held accountable" for going against the current initiatives of the church to obscurantize the SDA church?
A piece like this could easily be construed as critical of the church's doctrine. I'm ALL for Loren's Siebold writing, I'm just curious to know what the "official" position is on these texts.
Kevin
What evolved is a doctrine looking for Scripture and bending the Word of God to fit a preconceived notion. The Cross of Christ is a faithful commentary on Scripture that the heroes of Great Controversy prior to Miller would rejoice in. But enough--for the sake of your flock I pray for your enlightenment.
If you refuse to read Stott then at least read Heppenstall and Jim Coffin. They have a refreshing attachment to Scripture alone. You might even read Maxwell Safe to Save and How God won His Case.
At 87 years, I place my full confidence in the Finished Work of Christ. I am deeply concerned that
dogma will dull the senses of some very dear friends of mine. So I challenge any false application of the plain Word of God.
To use or abuse Scripture for one's own ends is not the meaning of Sola Scriptura.
Tom Z.
It seems a shame to me that our distinctives have shifted from such vital, contemporary issues such as non-combatancy roles in wars to petty, outdated disagreements with our fellow Christians, or desperate attempts to hold onto increasingly unstable nobo-daddy doctrines!
So Loren, so some Seventh-day Adventists really believe that ultimate true doctrine was only reached in the 19th century when Adventism came along? In that case, they have invented something that is bigger and better than Jesus! Jesus and the New Testament must always be the norm by which we measure doctrine - which is why the canon closed with Revelation.
Bob, that's a common belief, that they didn't have the understanding that we do now. (A conversation I once heard in a Sabbath School class: "But why wasn't Jesus a vegetarian?" "Jesus didn't have the Spirit of Prophecy, like we do.") Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, etc. were just steps in the process of getting to us. There's a certain truth there: that inspiration is progressive, that God helps each generation to see his truth in the context of their times. But it can also come across as proud or even arrogant. I just thought it would be good to note that even our doctrines are evolving over time.
Congratulations, Odysseus, that's the very first time I've heard someone use Nobodaddy in a sentence!
How have we ever lost our emphasis on non-combatancy/pacifism?!
It was a principle at the founding of the church, by which the pioneers appealed to the government for exemption from armed military service.
"Obtaining governmental recognition formalized the church's commitment to pacifism, which though widely held, had not been systematically delineated or expressed in a generally agreed-upon form prior to the war. A resolution voted by the General Conference session of 1865 declared: "While we thus cheerfully render to Caesar the things which the Scriptures show to be his, we are compelled to decline all participation in acts of war and bloodshed as being inconsistent with the duties enjoined upon us by our divine Master toward our enemies and toward all man-kind."
http://www.adventistreview.org/2003-1535/story5.html
Adventist identity long included this belief, rejecting not only soldiering but also police work. But little has said about the waning emphasis. We've heard more hoopla over clapping in church or wedding rings. It'd be a far greater witness to return to this historic stand than any revision of Fundamental Belief #6. How sad to show how little we care about the commandments or the example of Jesus.
____________________________________________________
"be reverent in behavior, not slanderers nor enslaved to much wine, teachers of that which is good" titus 2:3
The Life Style of the Forgiven
1.A Christian is a person who acknowledges that the claims or assertions of Christianity are true. I. John 1: 4-3; Acts 16: 29-31; Luke 12:8
2. Such an acknowledgement explicitly accepts the personal need for salvation and the necessity and sufficiency of the Christ Event as the essential for his or her personal redemption. Romans 7: 24,25; 1 John 1: 7-10
3. A: The commission assigned one who takes the name of Christian is to be a witness to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
Christians Are Not Lazy. They are about Their Father’s Business “Go ye therefore and teach all Nations—(Teaching as one having Confidence in the Source of Their Salvation. Confidence expressed the Life Style of One whose Debt has been Paid in Full.) They work as sons and daughters not servants or wage earners but as the Redeemed!
3. B: The duty of a witness is to give unimpeachable testimony that Jesus Christ is worthy of worship: Rev. 4:11; Rev. 5:9
4. Therefore: the challenge of a Christian is to live the life style of the forgiven! Romans 5: 15-17; Matt. 25: 33-40; James 2: 1-13
The forgiven accept themselves. The forgiven live with the assurance that God the Father has accepted them upon the merits of Jesus Christ. Thus, guilt and self loathing are washed away.
The forgiven have a sense of humor. They can laugh at themselves. Those who make fun of others are not humorists, they are sadists. The hockey puck brand of humor is to laugh at someone else’s expense. The forgiven understand that they are no longer the butt of Satan, and they know the pain of self condemnation, and will avoid inflicting needless pain on others.
The forgiven are cheerful. The core of their being is at peace, so the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune are mere peccadilloes. [minor irritations]
The forgiven are patient. Patience is a godly trait. The forgiven understand the patience that the Holy Spirit extended and continues to extend to them. Seventy times seven!
The forgiven are kind. There’s a kindness in God’s Justice that is more than liberty. By beholding the forgiven have been changed. They no longer see their neighbors or coworkers as competitors. They extend mercy to those in need.
The forgiven have the ability to rise to the occasion when adversity strikes. If God be for us who can be against us?
The forgiven are open to diversity. There’s a wideness in God’s mercy, like the wideness of the sea. If they are so bold as to address God as Father, they certainly are so bold as to accept all others as kin.
The forgiven are conscious of the needs of others. With their inner needs met, the forgiven can be about their Father’s business—Ye are my Witnesses, Feed my sheep.
The forgiven have a conscience that is educated by the Word of God. Yet they don’t major in minors. They are not nit pickers. They can identify with a cause greater than themselves. They can be about their Father’s business. In as much as ye have done it unto one of the least of these, ye have done it unto me.
The forgiven don’t keep score. Remember that old chewing gum commercial. “If he kissed you once, will he kiss you again?” Keeping score is gamesmanship not love. If God has dropped our sins into the depths of the sea, why should we hold a grudge against a neighbor? Remember the line in the Lord’s prayer? Forgive us our debts as we forgive or debtors.
Fruits: [Talents to all the forgiven.]
GAL 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, [23] gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. [24] Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. [25] Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. [26] Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.
Gifts:
5. Therefore the challenge of a Christian is to accept each person as his or her kin by creation and redemption. Ephesians 2:12-22
6. The challenge of a Christian is to be moral, generous, and forgiving as to be accepted as a credible witness: 1 Timothy 4: 11-16
7. The challenge of every Christian is to use their talents in productive useful service that is worthy of hire, for the benefit of mankind and to the Glory of God. Luke 19: 12-27; James 1: 27
8. Leave the rest with God! 2 Timothy 1:7; 2 Timothy 1:12
Yes, it is interesting what the Adventist church no longer speaks about. I have used the Turkey example with many people who are so sure that what the church teaches is locked in cement. It is only in cement until something shows up to contradict what we have taught for years. Adventism is continually changing even if some are unable to admit it. When other ideas are discussed in our church that bump up against what the church teaches, it is a reminder that theology is dynamic. However our church at one time believed in this dynamic theology, but some where along the way we've given that idea up. At some level, the church has moved towards a static theology grounded in a sense of infallibility.
ESR, in the book *Seeking a Sanctuary* the authors argue that Ellen White kept the church's message dynamic and changing; that it only got set into cement after she died.
"... in the book *Seeking a Sanctuary* the authors argue that Ellen White kept the church's message dynamic and changing; that it only got set into cement after she died."
That'd be due to believing that God no longer had a spokesperson. While EGW lived there could be new revelations. Once she died we wanted to do like Peter & camp where the light had been, rather than going forward trusting fully in the presence & guidance of the Spirit.
Matt 17:4, 'Then Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here. If You will let us, we will build three altars here. One will be for You and one for Moses and one for Elijah.”'
____________________________________________________
"be reverent in behavior, not slanderers nor enslaved to much wine, teachers of that which is good" titus 2:3
When EGW wrote that age will not make error into truth and truth can afford to be fair, she was talking about doctrinal error. There is no excuse for taking the position that all our expositions of scripture are without error. Etc. [Paraphrased from memory.] Unfortunately, she called down the wrath of heaven upon anyone who identified candidates for correction.
Historic Adventism taught for a decade that Sabbath always starts at local 6 p.m. Historic Adventism taught for seven years that probation had ceased for non-Adventists. Historic Adventism taught that Jesus planned to come at the end of the 2300 days. Historic Adventism taught that the Catholic Church was established in 538 and was abolished in 1798.
Going back to historic Adventism would be like going back to historic dentistry; there's no upside.
Harry
"Going back to historic Adventism would be like going back to historic dentistry; there's no upside." -- Harry Elliott - comment above
"I’ve met people who seem to think that if they could use Mr. Peabody’s WABAC machine to visit Christians in earlier eras, they’d find little groups of Seventh-day Adventists singing hymns just like ours, sounding like us, eating like us, looking like us, organizing church the same way. But beyond a few central teachings (and even settling on those was a stormy process) we’d have a hard time feeling entirely comfortable with those ancient believers." -- Loren Seibold - article above.
---------------------------------
So true, guys. Which is why I get continually fed up with the calls by the conservatives for a return to "primitive godliness". Just what do people who use this term think it means? In my opinion, they have a "Pollyanna" mentality where they imagine that at some point in the past, everybody was perfect and we just have to get back to that. It is NEVER a good idea to go backwards rather than forwards. If you succeed in your aim for primitive godliness, by definition you will be PRIMITIVE. Does that appeal, anybody?
“Some, like demoting Turkey from its place in our Bible prophecy schema, are an example of keeping truth “present.”” -- Loren
Loren:
Your article is somewhat edgy, you seem to lean in that direction, but it’s a mix of edgy and obvious.
Obvious: “But what’s surprising is that if you study the faithful, you find them quite different from one another.”
Edgy: “I’ve met people who seem to think that if they could use Mr. Peabody’s WABAC machine to visit Christians in earlier eras, they’d find little groups of Seventh-day Adventists singing hymns just like ours, sounding like us, eating like us, looking like us, organizing church the same way.”
Obvious: “I will only say this: that in the process of our maturing, we’ve changed, too, in matters both small and great.”
Edgy: “We are the final step of that ladder of doctrinal development. They all contributed something, but we’ve finally got it all right, thus stabilizing Christian doctrine once and for all before Jesus comes.”
I could go on, but you get the point. Maybe it’s necessary to state the obvious before you get to the edgy stuff, whatever. But, your statement quoted above: “Some, like demoting Turkey from its place in our Bible prophecy schema, are an example of keeping truth “present”" reveals the classical Adventist mind-set (notice the quotations marks). This is not edgy stuff.
Let’s take a look at this keeping truth “present” comment. You place the quotation marks around the word present (“present”) instead of the word truth (“truth”). Why? Well, we all know why. Present has to do with relevance, and we SDA’s certainly want to be relevant. To be relevant you simply stay up with the times. As long as there’s no major conflict -- no harm, no foul. But truth, that’s an entirely different matter.
We don’t want to touch that word now, do we? We as SDA’s maintain that we are The Remnant and therefore by default have the “truth,” pure and simple. We teach the “truth.”We preach the “truth.” We have the “truth.” Don’t kid yourself. Our official church stance is indeed: “We are the final step of that ladder of doctrinal development… we’ve finally got it all right, thus stabilizing Christian doctrine once and for all before Jesus comes.”
If we’re ever proven wrong, for whatever reason, we simply shift to our default language. We call it “present truth.” This apologetic only works within our little Adventist community. Those on the outside don’t buy it.
For example: If we teach and preach that Turkey is part of bible prophecy, which you acknowledge that we did for years, and then “[c]hanges in boundaries and power structures have brought new Middle Eastern countries into the news (if not into prophetic interpretation)” and now Turkey is out, those on the outside call it a false teaching (a.k.a. we were wrong.) They don’t call it keeping truth “present” or keeping “truth” present or “present truth” or anything combination thereof. If we were honest, we wouldn’t either. We’d admit we were wrong and move on. But, the Remnant can’t do that.
You also mention Israel: “My father once told me that when he was a child, a staple of time-of-the-end sermons was that Israel would never again be a nation. For obvious reasons, our preachers have said very little about that since 1948.” Yes indeed, for obvious reasons we don’t teach that anymore either. So, is this keeping truth “present” or is it something else – like wrong again?
Our church started out Arian. All of our founders were Arian. We switched to Trinitarian. Imagine that. Why? Is it because we are keeping the truth “present,” or is it something else – like wrong again?
And the list goes on. When will we ever admit we were wrong? How does "wrong" fit within "Dynamic Theology?"
I enjoyed your article. I’m not being critical. I’m simply interested on your perspective of "wrong."
tg
Robert, the term I've always heard is "historic Adventism", which I find even more problematic than "primitive godliness."
I think the term primitive godliness is a work around term for getting back to the fundamentals, but since the liberals have made any reference to fundamentals synonymous with religious terrorists there really are no better terms for discribing getting back to core principals.
I had the temerity to seek a 1-O classification, conscientious objector status, and was told by my academy leadership that I had shamed the church by doing so. The 1A-O classification, I was told, would have put me in a status that could more rightly be called a conscientious cooperator.
I recall during my credulous days as an attendee at evangelistic meetings (the 1960s) being told repeatedly from the pulpit that the Common Market was an attempt to unite Europe, an attempt that was doomed to failure. God's prophetic book had so decreed. There would never be a united European government. The ten toes of the Daniel image proved it. While the EU could still fail, it is remarkable in its successes in the face of prophecy.
"While the EU could still fail, it is remarkable in its successes in the face of prophecy." -- exandglad
------------------------
Yeah. Assuming, of course, that the 10 toes actually did have anything to do with Europe... :)
"Robert, the term I've always heard is "historic Adventism", which I find even more problematic than "primitive godliness."" -- lorenseibold
-------------------------
I'll concede that one Loren. And it's not dissimilar to "classic Adventism", which is the preference of one or two regular commenters on this site :)
"I think the term primitive godliness is a work around term for getting back to the fundamentals, but since the liberals have made any reference to fundamentals synonymous with religious terrorists there really are no better terms for discribing getting back to core principals." -- Anonymous 4042
-------------------
Terrorist or not, if you're a fundamentalist, wear the term with pride! Oh by the way, did you mean principals or principles? I don't know anything about core principals, but I got caned by a HARD core principal when I was a kid in school! (I must have deserved it..) :)
When it comes to "primitive godliness" and what it was, you need look no farther back in history than the fall of 1844. According to EGW the Millerite doomsday crusade represented the greatest revival of "primitive godliness" that the world had seen since the days of Pentecost. If you ask me, that lowers the bar considerably, as far as the spirituality of early Christianity is concerned.
As for change over time, there is a lot of truth to Heraclitus old dictum that "All entities move and nothing remains still." The Adventism I left more than 30 years ago, is not the same one that you encounter every Sabbath. When I was in the church in the 1970s EGW's authority was absolute. Students at SMC, when I was there, could be expelled for working at a coffee bar or going to movie theaters. Theology back then was the science of reverse engineering EGWs dogmas so that they would match the Biblical data. In the 1970s you could become a traveling guru if you were able to cobble together her many diverse and self-contradictory statements on salvation into one understandable message. Today, it seems to me, from my distant perch, that such characters as Robert Wieland and the early Brinsmead and a handful of others whose theological universe was that of EGW, are unimaginable. Adventists today sympathize with EGW, they patronize her and all but few doom her with faint praise. Today there seems to be no real buffer between Adventism and the Bible.
Over the years the biggest change for Seventh-day Adventists has not been in doctrine, although that has been considerable, but in the mentality of the church, and you don't need a time machine to experience what it was like in the 1860s. Just go to the nearest Kingdom Hall where Adventism's historical cousins, the Jehovas Witnesses are. The Jehovas Witnesses today is a sophisticated version of what Adventism was back then. It's still Arian, still revers the digit 4 (originally 1874, Russel's recalculation of 1844, and now 1914, which is Rutherford's recalculation of Russel and Miller), insists that Jesus returned invisibly to Earth when prophecy failed, denies everlasting hell and believes that salvation is a Bible quiz and woe to those with a low score. For years they used Uriah Smith as their guide to Daniel and Revelation (see the Studies in Scripture series from the early part of last century). And the reason why SDAs morphed from a version of the Jehovah's Witnesses to that of an Evangelical church was Ellen White.
JWs and Adventists have a common father, William Miller, but Adventists had a different mother, and ultimately that brought about a change in mentality within the church that set it on a course that would take it towards the mainstream of Christianity. It's true that Adventism hasn't shed all vestiges of sectarianism, and that you can still see that it came out of a tradition that viewed religion as a cognitive pursuit of the perfect algorithm, but Adventism also came to embrace the Evangelical world's devotion to the Gospel. That was EGW's doing. When she talked about doctrines as dry as the hills of Gilboa, she was talking about her dissatisfaction with the Jehovah's Witness approach to religion. She herself had been an Arian and a rank sectarian, and yet there came a time when she tired of it and began supporting those who were attracted to the world of Dwight D. Moody. She was a bundle of contradictions, part unregenerate sectarian and open-minded Evangelical, but she crafted a new course for the church. With the book Desire of Ages (1898), with its homage to Trinitarianism, a constantly widening gulf opened up between Adventists and the world of the Jehovah's Witnesses.
I find it ironic that the very person blocking the SDA taliban from returning to their roots, is their revered prophet.
Aage
PS. Another change is the Superbowl--which is going on as I write. Notice how New England and the Giants have brought this website to a near shut-down. In today's Adventist world, where David Reed quotes lines from Ferris Buehler as if they were Scripture, the overlap with today's popular culture seems total. It's hard to hold on to fundamentalism when you fraternize. To me it seems as if pop culture and not theology has woken SDAs up to the fact that we're all one humanity and that we enjoy the same things when we step off our soap boxes. I find that a good thing, even though I wish the quality of that common entertainment was better (and that Superbowl XXX-whatever was between Barcelona and Manchester United.)
Aage
I'd be watching that Superbowl, Agee.
____________________________________________________
"be reverent in behavior, not slanderers nor enslaved to much wine, teachers of that which is good" titus 2:3
"I find it ironic that the very person blocking the SDA taliban from returning to their roots, is their revered prophet."
Astute analysis. I would add that on the flip side there is some irony to the fact that Ellen White's most bitter foes in the church are Adventists who are essentially mainstream evangelical and want the church to move in that direction. There is no gratitude for the fact that she is largely responsible for the fact that they are now in a largely mainstream church. I have pointed this out to this out to one of the Evangelical Adventists or ex-Adventists, and they denied it.
I think the reason for this is that the way orthodox protestants view Scripture and dogma they need to believe that any group of people would come to orthodoxy with the Bible by itself, and that is the only direction they could go in. This myth seems necessary in order to hold onto orthodox dogma and Sola Scriptura at the same time. History, however, proves difficult for the viability of such a view. Both the Arians and the Trinitarians who accepted Tertullian likely thought of themselves as following Scripture (as much as a cannon and Sola Scriptura existed back then anyway; that's another potential problem for Protestant orthodoxy), and yet Scripture wasn't what ultimately settled the debate. Pelagians and Augustinians also probably both considered themselves faithful to Scripture. Certain things, like a Frankish king marrying a Trinitarian, probably had more to do with which theology won out then orthodox theologians would like to admit.
Protestants who hold to orthodoxy might like to imagine that Luther and the reformers developed their orthodox theologies from the Bible and the Bible alone. However, it seems a difficult assumption to prove, that Luther would have gone the route of Augustine and Tertullian over Pelagius and Arius, had he not been steeped in the tradition of the former. One who holds to a strict Sola Scriptura as well as to a strict idea of conservative orthodoxy is put in the difficult position of believing that if you drop a sincere believer into the maze of Scripture consisting of sixty six theological writers spanning millenia, out the other side will come a Christian who holds to the orthodox creed. The history of radical restorationist movements like SDAs, LDS, and JWs, coming out of the maze not exactly orthodox or needing a Prophet to get them to orthodoxy is a frustrating reality to one with that conception.
This should either challenge the notion of orthodoxy or the notion of not needing tradition. It my mind, it may be a little of both. We may need to make orthodoxy a little less important recognizing that people are going to come out of the maze a lot of different ways depending on where they spent the most time. Instead of looking at this diversity as contradiction we can see that it brings out the fullness of truth which cannot be captured in the mind of one individual. We also may need to recognize that tradition serves as valuable guide in this maze, we do not need to relive the all the theological conflicts of the past, but rather can appreciate some of things that have been found by those who trod the maze before us.
All of this may require us to get out of our modernist thinking of putting truth into a neat tidy box of yes/no logical propositions. We can see theology a little less like math and science and a little bit more like art or a dance. A wrestling with God. This will change how we view the "bundle of contradictions" that is Ellen White's experience, and whether we pretend that the sixty some authors of the Bible present any less of a "bundle of contradictions." We can see that truth is too large to be perfectly captured in a simple propositional way that all fits neatly together like a math equation. Perhaps a bundle of contradictions spanning different human experiences with God over millenia, is the best way to express an infinite truth to finite man. The first clue that theology was not about reducing everything into neat logical ideas, should have been when we found that Truth was not an idea but a flesh and blood man; but one that was with God and was God. Not only is truth not an idea, it is a paradox.
John Mark: you write "All of this may require us to get out of our modernist thinking of putting truth into a neat tidy box of yes/no logical propositions. We can see theology a little less like math and science and a little bit more like art or a dance."
I'm not sure what you just described is exactly 'modernist', but whatever. I substantively agree with you (and I'm old enough to probably be labeled modernist just by virtue of my demographic) but I'm wondering if you are familiar with and perhaps have read Alden Thompson's 1990ish book Inspration. It was controversial in its day and I'm not sure we've come much farther in the 20+ years since it was published.
But in that book he differentiates between a 'codebook' vs 'casebook' approach to the Bible. And I think that is very similar to what you have articulated. Thompson, again demographically, might be labeled a modernist as he is in his mid/late 60s. But the church struggled with his idea then because Adventism has a heritage I think of looking at the Bible propositionally, which in its worst form devolves into proof-texting.
Rich Hannon,
Yes I read that book (it was an Alden Thompson book on inspiration anyway, so I think it was the same one), a couple years or so ago at Union College, it was required reading for our Prophetic Guidance class. Thompson's insights are indeed very good. I wish more people would take his approach, but it takes time.
Aage..and i don't think that Ellen would have evolved to that point, except for the fact that she could not stay away from other Christian writers. They were like a light to a moth. She was a bundle of contradictions, but it was the reading of other Christian writers, that kept her evolving, because she was forever coming across nuggets of truth, that were essentially antidotes and at the same fed her soul. It was spoonfuls of sugar that she added to her trajectory, She was not able to erase the beginning of her trajectory and it still stained the sugar.
Aage & hopeful - My Husband and I watched an exciting game yesterday - between Chelsea and Manchester Unt. - REAL Football!
And yes, Religion is a Social Science like art, dance & literature - to nail it to the floor is to stifle the creativity that comes from it; to insist on one right way only is to rob it of its power to transform.
John Mark
I agree with what you write, especially the following:
" Certain things, like a Frankish king marrying a Trinitarian, probably had more to do with which theology won out then orthodox theologians would like to admit."
Our faith or lack of such tends to rest more on the realities of geography--where in the world or the country you grew up--than on any other factor. We all would have been Muslims, had we been born in Pakistan.
In an ideal world, people should be able to turn on a dime, if evidence called for it, but that's not how things go. EGW was converted to the Evangelical view of the centrality of the Gospel, but she was never unconverted from her old sectarianism. She tried to create a synthesis out of the two so as to remain true to her roots as well as her heart. Some things are only resolved by the passage of lots of time.
You mention the doctrinal wars over RbF of years gone by. The driving force behind that crusade was also an unresolved theological conflict, this one between Christianity as Gospel and Christianity as a cognitive cult. Brinsmead's Reformation crusade of the 1970s was, in my opinion--and I was part of it--a form of theological perfectionism. The implication was that those who were not theologically astute enough to distinguish between imputed and imparted righteousness had betrayed the Gospel. He preached salvation by grace through faith, not as a reality, but as a dogma, as if theological perspicacity somehow was a requirement for eternal life.
Fay
I think you're right with respect to EGW being converted to an Evangelical outlook by the authors that she and her book editors, Marion Davis and Fanny Bolton, selected. Ironic, isn't it, that she who had warned church members so insistently not to read non-SDA literature was the one who succumbed to its allure.
Aage
Dear L. Seibold,
:-)
Dear Fay,
Bold it is to say the name Ellen just three words before.... that word. I salute you. :-)
Dear Donna,
Dance! Dance, little sister, dance!
Dear Aage,
Oui, Frere. Merci. :)
I'm Dave Langworthy, and I approve this message.
The fact that the SDA church still thinks it's Gods last day chosen movement still astounds me!
"He preached salvation by grace through faith, not as a reality, but as a dogma, as if theological perspicacity somehow was a requirement for eternal life."
This has been something I have also been concerned about. It seems to me that this kind of intellectual theological perfection is the legalistic ditch that the liberals are prone to fall into. The faith we are saved by ends up being not so much faith as it is an intellectual assent to a perfect understanding of Pauline soteriology as Martin Luther interpreted it through the lenses of St. Augustine. Essentially their legalism is insisting that no-one with a trace of legalism can be saved. I think this perhaps explains why we see people spend hours on end arguing against the IJ. It has puzzled me why someone who doesn't believe the IJ would be passionate one way or the other, but if they believe clear theology is essential to salvation, it makes more sense.
I have a problem with this approach because it sets up theology as some kind of survival of the fittest game. Take my Grandmother, she's a sincere believer who's follows what's right to the best her knowledge. However, many Evangelicals and Evangelical Adventists, including myself, would probably consider her to fall onto the legalistic side, and to not have a fully matured understanding of the relation between justification and sanctification. I wish she and other Adventists who grew up in her era had that understanding so that they could feel more peace. However, many of them are simply not capable of making that kind of shift in understanding those issues in their old age, and I do not think God will fry people because of that lack. If we're truly saved by grace and no human merit, than God is fully capable of saving legalists.
John Mark, I'm not sure I agree with you completely. I have known liberals who are who are just as angry and opinionated as their opponents about these individual SDA issues, but the progressive folks to whom I'm attracted (and I know quite a few of them) to are less concerned about doctrines like the investigative judgement, and more concerned about simply making Jesus Christ most important, which at best leads to a less judgmental attitude, more accepting of differences, more desirous of the kind of Christian freedom Paul spoke about. At times I think they may get forced into arguing about these doctrines, but would prefer to agree to disagree and let it alone, were that an option.
Of course, I must also say that I've known a few people who hold very traditional Adventist doctrinal ideas and lifestyle, but are at the same time kind, accepting, Christlike. Which is to say that the kind of Christian I admire (and seek to be) doesn't necessarily line up with a set of doctrinal opinions, but is more about being a Godly, forgiving, grace-filled person.
Loren
Adventist 'liberals' are far far from being Liberals in any sense of the word's meaning outside of the church.
Loren,
That is true and I probably should have been more clear that with my sweeping generalization I was pointing out a ditch I think liberals are more prone to fall into rather than saying all or even most liberals fall into that ditch. Just like conservatives are more prone to fall into behavior centered legalism even though I think many if not most are actually just grace based Christians who have a more traditional lifestyle and outlook.
Grace,
You are absolutely right. A more useful categorization of the church would be Traditionalists, Evangelicals, and Liberals. Many who are called liberal because of their positions on perfectionism, a more contemporary lifestyle, maybe questioning things like the IJ and the SOP, etc; would line up almost perfectly with conservative evangelicals and are nigh fundamentalist. These make up the majority of who gets called a liberal, and the most crucial identifying factors are one's devotion to Adventist lifestyle issues. Now there are a few actual liberals out there who question creation, the authority of the Bible, the supernatural, etc; but this group is really just a small fringe. Sometimes I try to use the more descriptive characterizations of Evangelical, traditional, and liberal, but above I succumb to the common terminology of Conservative/liberal as it is understood within denominational lingo.
John Mark
As you acknowledge, Grace is right. There was nothing 'liberal' about Robert Brinsmead in the 1970s, and there is nothing 'liberal' about people such as Pat (where are you?) and Tom. They are progressive within the SDA context, but not soft on inspiration. The ones who are called liberals within the SDA church have a different agenda. Their liberalism consists in believing, as far as I can tell, that people are more important than correct formulations of dogmas. They also believe that wrong-headed and immoral acts attributed to God in the Bible are just that--attributed, as opposed to actual. They also believe, it seems, that faith was not meant to be a tool that would allow you stare down indisputable facts, such as the FACT that there was no world-wide flood in the forth or third millennium BC. (For the record, I'm not a liberal SDA or even a liberal Christian, but I'm comfortable with the view of Adventist 'liberals'.)
When it comes to the role of theology, I think you hit upon its pastoral justification when you said:"I wish she and other Adventists who grew up in her era had that understanding so that they could feel more peace." For people, like Luther, who are tormented by guilt and fear, a Pauline/Reformed view of salvation will probably help them sleep better at night. Maybe all good theology will. Good theology, I would argue, sets itself apart from bad theology, by providing its adherents with peace of mind and dignity of discourse and behavior towards others.
Aage
The theological divisions of Adventism and how we label it really is quite fascinating. For example, you could be a Young Earth Creationist and believe in a literal flood, but if you drink caffeine and watch P.G. Television...then you're a liberal.
Even the Evangelical wing of Adventism is split. To oversimplify it, I'd call it the Leroy Froom wing and the Desmond Ford wing. Froom and co. articulated a theology that was mainstream evangelical enough to win acceptance by some of the sharpest critics from Evangelicalism, and yet it still upheld the Adventist distinctive doctrines. Ford and others, however, believed we were still not close enough to the mainstream and launched an attack on the distinctive doctrines, rather than simply accepting the re-framing of them in an Evangelical way.
Interestingly there seems to be a good deal of tension just between these two camps of Evangelical Adventism. I think an example of this would be Clifford Goldstein. Around here, Goldstein is labeled a classical Adventist and a traditionalist. However, from what I have read and heard of him, this is more because of where he has aimed his fire then his actual position. I have never seen him speak in favor of perfectionism, last generation theology, the sinfulness of Christ's nature, or other such things that define the pre - QOD Classic traditionalist Adventism. Indeed I seem to recall him condemning that thread of Adventism. However, since he focuses on the Ford wing of Adventists/ex- Adventists, and on the very small actually liberal wing; he is classed as a traditionalist. There's sort of a "the enemy of my enemy..." thing going on, and it's all made more complicated by the fact that most people try to class all the theology by the conservative/liberal paradigm.
John Mark, your nuanced understanding of Cliff Goldstein inspires me to say something I have often thought of saying here. Cliff is a friend of mine (this may surprise some people!) with whom I talk on the phone and pray from time to time, with much personal warmth and respect, and who I've invited to speak at my churches. I can aver that Cliff is more open in his thinking than he has demonstrated here. I'm not sure what it is about this setting that brings out the defensiveness in him, and I'm actually quite sad that people here haven't been able know the thoughtfulness he's capable of in person. He could contribute so much to an intelligent discussion of Adventist history and doctrines in a group like this. But he doesn't in this setting (and I've said this directly to him) seem to be able to say, in careful way, "Here's how I see it; I understand you see it differently," which he does in person with his friends. Something will tip him into an insulting mode, he'll fire off both barrels (and I know that he'll regret it later) but then be very hurt when people respond to him in kind, which we've seen on this forum.
I think that a good part of it is that Cliff has spent his entire time in this denomination working behind a typewriter/computer, always in the General Conference office. He doesn't know the conflicts and contradictions in the daily life of a lay church that some of us do, or at least he doesn't see them in the same pastoral frame. It's a bit like the professor in the ivory tower, who knows the theory but hasn't had to try it out in extended relationships with people in the real world. In his case, it may be an occupational hazard of the professional writer, one who has never done anything else. What has made me the kind of Adventist I am is not just intellectual understanding, but living everyday life with laypeople in dialogue with our doctrines and ideas, and finding so often that the most rigid, neat formulations simply don't have enough depth to help them live well-rounded, happy Christian lives. The beliefs and behaviors they cling to, even if basically good, can't save them. If you've not seen that day in and day out, as some of us have, I suspect your view of the church would be quite different.
So I do want to come to Cliff's defense. I wish he had spoken in more measured terms to people on this forum. He could make thoughtful, intelligent arguments for a more traditional point of view, if he were able to respond respectfully to opponents even when they aren't necessarily speaking respectfully about the church he loves. I suspect that by now he knows his weakness and is just going to stay away.
But I wish that some of you who have had bad exchanges with him in writing could meet him in person. In fact, I suspect all of us would be nicer in person, with real faces, than we are here.
Loren
John Mark, I've appreciated your perspicacious comments. I think I'm pretty close to Cliff Goldstein in theology, and it is true that, while I'm cast here as the arch-conservative because of my non-negotiable creationism, the pre-QOD Adventists see me as a liberal, because on core gospel issues I'm closer to Froom, Morris Venden, and the post-QOD Adventists. Everything is relative, I suppose.
... and I'm a liberal in the beyond SDA sense, in many ways. But be ause this is my tribe of origin I pop by to see how it's going. If I hadn't been born and bred in the system I would never have joined or had any inclination to have anything to do with it.
... but as for the version of Jesus that resonates with me - ahhh, that is a very different story... and very very liberal as well!
Loren,
I can completely relate Goldstein's problem on this site. I too am abstract ideas oriented person (according to a personality test on a 1-10 scale of concrete to abstract I rate a 9.5), and can overlook people in my attack or defense of an idea. I have been similarly taken aback by the extreme pure negativity toward the church expressed by some, and the extreme dogmatism. I've also shared the perplexity Goldstein has of why people who hate Adventism don't leave it instead of trying to convince the church to not teach it. From an extreme analytical prospective one just wonders why people don't leave and focus on more positive pursuits.
All that said, as I've spent way too much time on here I've come to see the people behind the ideas and attitudes that inflame. I find that Tom Zwemer main passion is Jesus first, center, and last; and his beef with the church is that it has not upheld this. I find that George T. is another ex-Cello playing tea lover like myself. :-). The internet is great for allowing free expression, but the anonymity hurts community. A wider experience with the church which is partly what you're talking about as a pastor has also helped me understand this community. I, like Goldstein have had a very positive experience with the church and was blessed to have been raised in a very balanced church and conference. It helps when I understand that others were not so fortunate, but I still have to remind them that the church has brighter spots as well.
David Read,
Thanks, I learned a new word tonight. :-) Sometime you should debate Kevin Paulson's theology and build a little cred with the liberals.
John Mark, I think there are a lot of us who can attack before thinking about it. Long experience, though, keeps reminding me that there are real people behind the ideas—wrong as they are!
Still, "love it or leave it" isn't a realistic prescription, either. Because mostly it is "love it exactly the same way and for the same reasons I love it, or leave it."
Loren
John Mark,
You most probably didn't learn anything "from me" but I am glad that you at least learned something "about me" (Cello & tea...) :):)
I have been studying with racvenfe the history of the calenders and how and when they were changed from God's time keeping to our present day Gregorian calendar and time keeping. I have been very shocked at the things I have learned. Everyone knows that the Gregorian calendar is even named after the Pope who authorized it's use. That it does not continue from the creation and does not follow God's Holy time, yet we go right on using it anyway. Why would we not want to keep the Sabbath the way God wants us to, like we'll need to during the times just ahead of us!
The Sabbath is a concept that doesn't have to necessarily be tied to a certain time.
Since the weekly sequence was lost, so what do we do? I bet nothing happens without God allowing it to happen. May be this is his lesson to us: It's the concept that's important, not a certain piece of time.