I like this suggestion a lot: a regular time devoted to acquainting and instructing members regarding our Christian heritage. I attended Pastor Newman’s church once, shortly before they moved to their new location, and I was impressed by the fact that they have a required class for everyone who wishes to join their fellowship. Can’t help but compare their practice with what I’ve seen in many other Adventist churches: Fill a form and place it in the offering plate! Count yourself blessed if you were to receive a prompt reply!

Elaine,

Have you ever read George Knights book, “In Search of an Identity”? I read it a few years ago and it really helped me think about this issue. He divides the theological development of the Adventist denomination into roughly three periods, each struggling with different questions. In its first phase the question was, “What is Adventist about Adventism?” Sermons, publications, discussions all revolved around the S’s (Sabbath, Sanctuary, Spirit of Prophechy, etc.). This resulted in a sectarian mindset and followed by a second phase where the primary question was “What is Christian about Adventism?” In this phase, the church rediscovered the teaching of righteousness by faith (Jones, Waggoner, and 1888). The final phase deals with the question “What is fundamental about Adventism?” Which brings to the forefront questions about religion and science, hermeneutics, women’s ordination, homosexuality, etc. Other denominations are trying to figure this last question out as well.

If I remember, according to Knight, today the denomination is wrestling with all three questions and trying to figure out how they come together.

I think your comments helpful point out that the answer to the second question (What is Christian about Adventism?) has been neglected. Many Adventists, in fact, seem to think that the denomination’s identity is found centrally in its distinct teachings (What is Adventistm about Adventism?) and when asked by friends outside church about the Adventism will start talking about the Sabbath or the fact that Adventists don’t eat pork! This is not unusual in the sense that I think many Christians identify themselves by the aspect of their denominations teachings that make them distinct–predestination, speaking in tongues, abortion, the rapture, social justice, etc. However, if this is all that is talked about, to the detriment of other teachings, what is central to the Christian faith is pushed aside.

All this to say that I agree with your post. I’m no historian, but I think insight and emphasis into some of the key issues of church history (in the broad sense of the word, not just denominational history) would be very healthy for Adventism as a whole. Personally, I think the second question Knight lists (What is Christian about Adventism?) is the most important and understanding the answer to it takes a basic understanding of church history–once again in the broad sense.

I agree George Knight’s book is a good start, but it is essentially a narrative of Adventist heritage. It is not a history of Christianity. The closest the SDA church has to a historical overview of Christianity is The Great Controversy, which is, unfortunately if truth be told, a piece of propaganda designed to justify the SDA church as “the remnant”; it is not a thorough, rational or objective look at church history.

I should also add there is a four volume set by LeRoy Froom (sp?) that I believe is intended as an overview of Christian doctrinal development. But its four volumes appear rather cumbersome so I don’t know how accessible it is. They appear imposing enough that I haven’t bought them–and I’m pretty geeky where history and Christianity are concerned. And again, I believe Froom’s work is only a slightly more elaborate defense of SDA doctrine as opposed to being an objective treatment of Christian history and its main actors.

Hi Glenn,

I wasn’t suggesting that George Knight’s book is a good source for church history. It may even be overly simplistic but I think that it provides a helpful rubric to understand Adventism, its theological/identity development, and why certain issues are emphasized over others.

The Great Controversy, if I remember correctly, presents a perspective on church history from the Reformation onwards and then moves to eschatology in its final chapters. I think some of Mrs. White’s comments on the Reformation reflect a Protestant interpretation of it. (I think a Catholic perspective would be different, and don’t know if a “thorough. rational, and objective look” is possible…but this is a different issue.)

With this said, yes, I think the Great Controversy presents church history as if it started at the Reformation. (Does “Acts of the Apostles” count as early church history?) Obviously, even if one takes these two books as a rudimentary account of church history, there’s a big problem if it is seen as the only source. It leaves out all the creeds, controversies, etc. and their signficance. (I think this was the point of Elaine’s comments.) However, the argument could be made that reading them introduces many people today to some church history as many Christians , at a popular level at least, do not even know what the Reformation was!

I think that the comment that the Great Controversy is the only source of church history in Adventism is a bit unfair. I took two semesters of church history at an Adventist college where we used a standard text–Justo Gonzalez, I believe. With this said, only theology and history majors were required to take this. Everyone else took a class called “Adventist Heritage” which was a course on denominational history. (Which supports what I was trying to say in the previous post–many Christians define their idenity soley in reference to their own denominatioanal distinctives/history and that this is a problem.)

Thank-you Elaine for turning the spotlight on context again. I appreciated your post, and may well spend some time with my congregations on the subject (which would require some revision on my part too ).

Glenn, I thought the term “propaganda” too strong. I realise that the Great Controversy does give a very definite “Adventist” perspective on Christian History; but to use the term propaganda seems to imply that EGW was somehow devious and covert in her writing. I do not believe that she ever intended it to be a “thorough” look at church history.

Then again, are we ever truly “objective”? Especially on matters historical? What would a “thorough, rational and objective” look at church history look like?

A Christian history appreciation (as in music/humanities) class for beginners would be most helpful in my view. So with Adventist hertiage! The more advanced students should be encouraged to move on to the next level.

“I think that the comment that the Great Controversy is the only source of church history in Adventism is a bit unfair. I took two semesters of church history at an Adventist college where we used a standard text–Justo Gonzalez, I believe. ”

Interesting that you mentioned Justo Gonzalez. I have a two-volume set by him on Church history and two volumes of a three volume set on Christian thought. What did you think of Gonzalez?

My point about The Great Controversy as the only historical treatment of Christianity is that it is the only “popular” source out there. I assume theology students at our SDA schools learn more. But if you look at our bookshelves at the ABC there isn’t much there. There’s some historical stuff on the Sabbath of course. But the Adventist take on Christian history is pretty truncated. I think Elaine’s point about assuming too much in the relm of Christian knowledge on the part of new converts is well taken. Most of us are pretty under-educated on the subject.

“Then again, are we ever truly “objective”? Especially on matters historical? What would a “thorough, rational and objective” look at church history look like? ”

Probably not. But there tends to be a lot of all-or-nothing thinking when it comes to religion in general and SDAism in particular. It would be helpful if our publications were to somehow reflect some of the ambiguities that abound in history and in the development of Christian doctrine. For example, in the GC Luther is sort of treated as this saintly figure but in many ways he wasn’t particularly saintly and his version of Protest was quite a bit different than what SDA’s assume today.

I guess our approach (evangelistic/dogmatic) has limited us somewhat in this area. We tend to struggle with ambiguities, perhaps because having them would seem to imply that we cannot be as certain as we are! You are right Glenn, that we do tend to be “all or nothing” - on many levels of church life and understanding. And I believe that should I begin to expore Church History with my congregations as Elaine suggests, that I will have some awkward moments!

“We tend to struggle with ambiguities, perhaps because having them would seem to imply that we cannot be as certain as we are!”

I admit that talking about ambiguities isn’t the most inspiring thing for many, even most, people. Certainty is very important for many people and for a church’s mission.

The problem from my experience is that life seldom fits comfortably into clearly defined, irrefutable boxes and lists. I guess you can say I’m very certain about my uncertainty.

Wayne, where do you pastor?

Lately, I’ve been trying to making an extra effort to add mentions of church history, both general and Adventist-specific, into my sermons. Given the size of the congregation (around a dozen) and the average age (high), adding another class into the week just isn’t going to do.

I pastor in South Africa. My MA studies (Narrative Pastoral Family Therapy) really threw wide the question of “objectivity”, and the reality that we live with many “ambiguities” as you so aptly describe them. It is often very difficult to straddle the line between being real and being “right”. I think you know what I mean.

I am intrigued by the suggestion that Adventist pastors should regularly instruct their congregations in the fundamentals of Christianity (including Christian history). But, at the adventist college I attended, I was disappointed to find that many theology majors did not consider “Church History a vital subject. Many simply sought to pass the coursework; (memorize the names and dates); others frequently ridiculed the theologies of Christian thinkers we studied during class time. So far as I can tell (and I may be wrong), few seemed to appropriate the historic Christian tradition as their own. (This was generally NOT the case with “Adventist Heritage”).

The Religion Dept. may have upheld the importance of familiarizing future pastors with Christian history–but that’s a distant cry from actually teaching the to embrace that tradition as their own. Does the historicist interpretation of prophetic history embraced by Adventism lend itself to such an appropriation? The “Remnant Church’s” “us v. them” approach to the Roman Catholicism (for instance) colors most early Church fathers “apostates.” Every leading Adventist evangelist misuses the title “the Dark Ages” to refer to the entire Medieval era (allegedly because Europe was under the blasphemous reign of “the little horn”); how could this foster pride among Adventist youth in the accomplishments of Medieval Christianity? Finally, the Great Controversy reflects a “hidden church” historiography, which teaches that a purer Christianity was transmitted by such heretical groups as the Albigenses. Why then should Adventist pastors embrace the history of the mainstream Church as their own?

I look forward to the time when Adventist pastors do instruct their congregations in Christian heritage. But that time has not yet arrived; significant changes must first occur in the realm of pastoral formation.

Hugo,

I agree with you, the other commenters, and Elaine that Christian history has been a neglected area of theological instruction in Adventist colleges. I can clearly testify to that, having taught at four different Adventist colleges in North America.

One key problem is that myth that Adventists have harbored that we have somehow dropped down from the apostolic era, or maybe from the Reformation era. Without recognizing the broad historical stream that every single doctrine of Adventism finds itself in, we have lived under the delusion that every Adventist teaching can be directly gleaned from Scripture without the help of Christian tradition. So, yes, we must do a better job of either gratefully or grudgingly acknowledging the historical influences that have shaped Adventism. I think Adventist historians beginning with Leroy Froom (though some wouldn’t call him historian, but merely an apologist) began to do that, and more is being done.

Which leads me to my 2nd point….

We have way too many theology majors going into biblical and systematic theology and too few into church history. The result: There’s very few of us to champion historical studies….hence not enough attention given to it in undergraduate programs. I think the Andrews Seminary is a somewhat of an exception to this, but one institution alone cannot reverse the trend. The bottom line is: We need more Adventists doing church history, historical theology, and history of all kinds. In most Adventist colleges, church history is taught not by church historians, but out of History departments by those would majored in secular history but has some interest in religious history. This results often in religion/theology majors never truly owning church history and viewing it as a “cognate” or “nice addition” to their theological training.

As you can tell, this is a topic that is dear to my heart. =)

All these comments are very appreciated. It appears to be a subject worthy of discussion by the many suggestions made.

Julius, your ccoments: “Without recognizing the broad historical stream that every single doctrine of Adventism finds itself in, we have lived under the delusion that every Adventist teaching can be directly gleaned from Scripture without the help of Christian tradition.” encapsulate the theme of the article.
Not knowing of our Christian heritage, but much more of Adventist tradiion, we have robbed ourselves of appreciating the great work done by the many church fathers who spent most of their lives developing the doctrines we so casually accept today. If others are encouraged to study further, they will be greatly rewarded.

Hugo,

Your memories of church history class in undergrad mirror my own. So closely in fact, i wonder if you were in my class. Where you? lol…

Part of this attitude, I think is due to the basic immaturity of college students at this age. I remember I had a very hard time intellectually trying to take it all in. Of course, the factors you mention so succinctly played a major role as well.

It wasn’t until graduate school/seminary (at a non-Adventist institution I might add) that I began to see the importance of some of these ideas. I began to see the importance especially of historical theology. Whether this had to do with my own personal development or the style of teaching/institution is something I’m trying to figure out. =) Probably a bit of both…

Having now vented about our denomination’s lack of Christian history I feel compelled to counter myself by pointing out that SDA’s ahistorical orientation (an oversimplification but if I may use those words for the sake of argument) has also had the benefit of allowing innovation, of permitting the believer to experience the Bible with a fresh set of eyes, unbound by tradition.

And that our denomination has produced a Nathan Brown, a Julius Nam and a J.David Newman illustrates my point on this.

Of course, this “freedom in Christ” is not without its pitfalls. Mankind seems to forever be searching for certainty grounded in tradition and SDA’s through their own church history and writings of EGW reflect this tendency; where we eradicate one source of tradition, we are usually quick to erect another. where we are eager to dispense with one system of rules and barriers we are adept at creating new, equally works-oriented procedures and demands.

And naturally this spirit of innovation has led to lots of conflicts with one another as we try to be faithful to both the Spirit and the Letter of God’s Word (see Women’s Ordination).

So the result of this ahistorical orientation doesn’t always appear pleasant, but then again, neither is much of Christian history (See Inquisition; John Calvin’s Geneva). The urge to maintain consistency and orthodoxy on the one hand and to reform, to innovate, to learn, and to progress, on the other hand is a tension that is always with us.

“In most Adventist colleges, church history is taught not by church historians, but out of History departments ”

I for one believe this is should be the case: Christian history taught in our colleges and seminaries by professional historians. History taught by Adventist clergy (church historians?), tend to be approached with a providential/fulfillment of prophecy mindset. For starters, a humanities/music/art appreciation view of Christian history won’t hurt, I think..

Joselito: There’s a huge difference between clergy teaching church history and church historians. Christian history is an academic discipline that produces professional scholars specializing in different eras and subsets of church history. You say, “a humanities/music/art appreciation view of Christian history won’t hurt.” Sure, it won’t hurt, but it’s not better than having pastors teach Christian history. Neither are professionals. So to say that it’s OK for Christian history to be taught by those who specialized in, say, American Civil Rights History is to say it’s OK for New Testament exegesis to be taught by Classics professors who specialize in Cicero and Plato. Related? Sure. Helpful? Probably. But desirable? Absolutely Not!!!

One of the best known evangelical NT scholars who authored NT histories and commentaries, and successfully mentored countless NT doctoral students was the late FF Bruce of Manchester.. His educational preparation? MA in classics.

I guess it depends on the kind of teachers you have in mind. More important than content (American Civil Rights?) is method and approach. Did your history teacher teach you how to think critically?

Haha, Joselito. That’s a good example, but that’s his MA degree. Here’s an even better one. My doctoral dissertation advisor, George Knight, holds an Ed.D. in philosophy of education, a far cry from Adventist history which is what he taught in the Seminary church history department at Andrews. Of course, there are individuals who make successful crossovers, but wouldn’t you say these are rather exceptional cases? (After the crossovers, would the Classics dept at Manchester and School of Education at Andrews allow Bruce and Knight to be their sole or primary instructors in Classics and Educational Philosophy, respectively, just because each is a good, respected teacher? I highly doubt it. They would expect these teachers to return and re-specialize.)

There is a reason why there are established disciplines and boundaries. When I taught at PUC, for example, I, as a trained church historian teaching in the Religion department, didn’t even think about teaching American history or Medieval history in the History department, though I’m sure I could easily have done it. Why? Because I respect the different disciplines.

So…I’m not sure about the method and approach being more important than content. Can an art historian really teach medical history on college level because he has good methodology & approach? Can I teach journalism because I enjoy writing, blog regularly, and worked as a reporter 15 years ago … and can offer some interesting methods of teaching? Could a chemist teach PE because she’s a good athlete? There are exceptional cases, but when it comes to college level teaching, shouldn’t we seek specialists?

(You can tell this subject is close to my heart…since teaching church history is what I do. =) )

In addition to George R. Knight, may I submit a short list, just to name a few non-church historians in history departments that have contributed to a better understanding of our Adventist roots: Richard Schwarz, Floyd Greenleaf, Gary Land, Ronald Numbers, Godfrey Anderson, Eric Anderson, Donald McAdams, Benjamin McArthur, Frederick Hoyt, Rennie Schoepflin, They represent varied academic interests and historical concerns. Gottfried Oosterwal, better known as a missions specialist, was my church history teacher in an Adventist college abroad. It’s tempting to include members of our English, music and arts departments but this will do for now.

That’s a great list, Joselito. I couldn’t agree with you more. They’ve done the same for me—every single one of them, except Schoepflin whom I haven’t encountered. They all filled in a gap in an era when church historians were scarce and apologetics was the default mode for doing both theology and history in the Adventist church—and many of them continue to do so. Several of those mentioned have told me personally that they only engaged in studying Adventist history only because they saw a need. We owe a great deal to them, most definitely. Now, I think we’re entering an era, though, when we’re seeing more specialists appearing on the scene. Whether they belong to religion or history department, that’s ultimately secondary, isn’t it? We need specialists because as great as the individuals whom you’ve cited have been to Adventist or Christian historiography, it wasn’t their lifelong passion. Something else was. How do I know? Well, within the corpus of their teaching and writing, church history occupies a minor portion. But more importantly, they didn’t reproduce. Their primary interest in breeding the next generation wasn’t in church history. So I wouldn’t exactly put them in the same category with Knight whose all-consuming passion and career-defining achievement is in Adventist history, in addition to having had a hand in producing and mentoring most under-50 historians working specifically on Christian/Adventist history today—whether they went to Andrews or not.

So…you’re absolutely right in saying that so many from other disciplines have contributed to teaching and broadening the understanding of church history (including those from theology)—each from their particular perspectives. Especially in this age of interdisciplinary inquiry, they ought to continue to do so. But we do need more specialists and lifelong pursuers of church history who live and breathe it. Don’t you think?

Great comments, Julius and Joselito. For those of us who are unable to sit at the feet of great teachers in the physical setting of a university, one of the finest methods for continuing education, at least for me, is the educational lectures offered by The Teaching Company. I always have their CDs playing in my car and have finished at least a dozen courses with this method. Their instructors are the finest from many universites, all specialists in their field. While not equal to formal courses, listening to the lectures in addition to supplemental suggested reading, it is a wonderful opportotunity for anyone who desires to be a life-long student.

There are many tapes are on religion, and both testaments as well as philosophy and psychology of religious beliefs. Currently, I am listening to Early Middle Ages, one of the more neglected eras of history. Today, there is no excuse for anyone to be ignorant on any subject with such easy availability.

Zane Yi,

I took Church History from Denni Pettibone at Southern Adventist University Fall 2004 & Winter 2005. Were you in the same class?

I still haven’t figured out why someone like Gottfried Oosterwal, with two doctorates from Utrecht, one in church history and another in anthropology, should end up teaching in the business dept of AU. It’s a matter of placement and positioning, I guess. We do have Adventist historians whose interest is church history but have not been given the same opportunity as George Knight. Jon Butler and Ron Graybill are only two examples of many out there. Just like editors of denominational magazines, Adventist academics must tread a perilous journey within the church in order to survive professionally.
.
In sum, it’s subject matter not method, that distinguishes one historian from other historians. Since the study of OT and NT requires a historical approach, specialists in the discipline are no different than church historians. We can argue this point, I know. Someone in the seminary had once suggested that all theology should be historical theology!

Hugo,

Small world. I graduated from Southern in 2000, and took church history (2 semesters) from Pettibone in 1998-1999. Sounds like things hadn’t changed too much during the five years between us!