Progressive Adventism

Ervin Taylor was born in Los Angeles, attended Pacific Union College in the late 1950s, received his Ph.D. from University of California at Los Angeles, and spent most of his academic career in the Department of Anthropology at University of California at Riverside where he was the director of the UCR Radiocarbon Laboratory. He is now a UCR emeritus professor and spends some of his time as Executive Editor of Adventist Today and researching a book on the cultural history of early Adventism, while most of his time is spent devising new ways to spoil his grandchildren.

What are you more known for in the Adventist church—being a maverick anthropologist or being the executive editor and board member of Adventist Today?

That’s hard to answer. My fantasy is that I am known among a few Adventists mostly for my feeble efforts to encourage active opposition of the drift of my church back into the morass of American Protestant fundamentalism. Up until the early 1970s, our church, at least in North America, had been slowly evolving in a relatively moderate direction. However, during the last two decades, theologically reactionary movements such as that mounted by the Adventist Theological Society and Adventists Affirm have been able to undertake a strong counterattack which has been successful in reversing some of the progress that had been made.

In one place, I was characterized as a “gadfly” on the subject of Adventist creationism. In another place, it is said that I coined and first defined the term “cultural Adventist.” I can’t believe that I was the first one to use that term but I can not locate any earlier usage.

But, I must say that “maverick anthropologist” does have a ring to it! However, outside of my academic career, it is with considerable satisfaction that I look back at the small part that I played, along with many others, in the development and expansion of the journal Adventist Today over the last 15 years. I think one of its major contributions is to open still further the continuing dialogue within the Adventist faith community as to what 21st century Adventism in North America should, will, or might look like.

Let’s talk about Ervin Taylor the scientist first. What motivated you to a career in anthropology?

I was a history major at Pacific Union College in the late 1950s. I had the great fortune to be a student in the classes of the late Walter Utt. He exhibited a rare combination of scholar and first rate teacher with a great sense of humor that some thought of as cynicism. I didn’t think of it in those terms, but simply the expressions of someone being totally honest about how the church and society actually functioned. For example, he pointed out the many similarities between the political system of the Adventist Church and the old Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Both systems were justified with statements by their respective “prophets”—Karl Marx for the USSR and Ellen White for the Adventist system. Both were characterized by a pseudodemocratic administrative system (“democratic centralism” for the USSR and “a representative system” for the Adventists). There were political elites who exercised power in the name of some abstract entity (members of the USSR Communist Party for “the people” and administrative clergy for “God’s Church”) There were a number of very revealing additional parallels. (Incidentally, I was a PUC theology major for about 10 nanoseconds in my freshman year but was saved by Walter because he had great insight that this would be fate worse than death for me. He was a very smart man!)

I got interested in archaeology and did a lot of reading on the subject while at PUC. I kind of read myself into prehistoric archaeology and that’s where I encountered the early radiocarbon dating literature, and that’s why I applied to UCLA to do graduate work. Willard Libby, who had developed radiocarbon dating, had just arrived at UCLA. (He received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for radiocarbon dating during my first semester of graduate work). Since prehistoric archaeology in U.S. institutions is taught within anthropology departments, that is where I applied for graduate status. This was fortunate because in anthropology I was able to take class work and read a lot in biological and social anthropology and a little in linguistics in addition to my focus in archaeology. Along the way, I also read and did course work for an M.A. in history from UCLA in addition to my Ph.D. in anthropology.

Who were your mentors and role models, especially within Adventism, as you pursued graduate studies in anthropology?

At PUC, Walter Utt was really my only specific role model, but I was very impressed by several other faculty members who were at PUC at the time including Ted Benedict and Graham Maxwell. When I began at UCLA as a graduate student, I corresponded with the late Siegfried Horn, but did not meet him until much later.

What sort of obstacles did you face in taking this path as an Adventist?

Actually, at UCLA as a graduate student in the anthropology department, I found that there were no obstacles unless you created them for yourself. No one cared about your religious beliefs if you knew the literature in your field, received a high pass your exams, learned what you needed to know on your own, did good research, and wrote a good dissertation. Because I was part of the research group in the UCLA Isotope Laboratory while at UCLA, the only obstacles were those that I put on myself because I knew that to pass my Ph.D. written and oral comprehensives, I needed to learn a lot of chemistry, physics, and math that I had not learned earlier. (I do not recommend the way I did it. Take these courses while you are an undergraduate.)

You wrote in Spectrum in 1974 that Adventists need to “reconsider the whole problem of what constitutes a ‘biblical’ chronology,” suggesting that Adventists disassociate the events of written about in Genesis with the specific time period those events purportedly belong to. Now, thirty-three years later, what conclusions have you come with regard to the nature of events such as Creation and the Flood in Genesis?

A massive corpus of scientific evidence now exists and continues to mount that the official views espoused by institutional Adventism on Creationism can not be sustained except by the most heroic and convoluted lines of argumentation. In my view, these arguments lead to bad theology and worse science. The narratives in Genesis about a Creation and the Flood are expressions of the theological views of the ancient Hebrews, i.e. they are talking about what they thought about the actions of God in the world. We do not now accept what the Hebrews believed about whether the earth moves or not. They did not think it did and we now know that it does. In my view, one of the most important reasons that we as a denomination still hold on so tenaciously to a fundamentalist understanding of Genesis is the fear by some in positions of authority that any change in this would be the final nail in the coffin of Ellen White’s doctrinal authority. This is a sad but completely understandable situation.

How do you describe yourself then on the question of the origin of the earth? Would it be correct to classify you as some sort of a theistic evolutionist?

If by theistic evolutionist you mean an individual who believes that some Ultimate Reality or God is ultimately responsible for the existence of the universe and everything in it as well as that contemporary evolutionary biology provides the best scientific explanation for how organisms have changed over geologic time, then I suppose that makes me a “theistic evolutionist.” It seems to be that all Christians are creationists in the sense that God is ultimately responsible for all elements of the physical world. Regretfully, in popular usage, “creationist” and “creationism” has been high jacked by modern fundamentalists—including Adventist fundamentalists—who have narrowed it to suit what I view as their misunderstanding of what the Bible is saying about how God created the world.

How do you deal with the question raised by young-earth creationists that the old-earth view severely distorts the Christian concept of sin and death—that death before the human fall ultimately robs the understanding of “salvation through Christ” of its meaning?

That’s a very interesting question that has been considered for a long time by people a lot smarter than I am and much better informed on the theological issues than I will ever be. For what it is worth, it seems to me that the relationship between “death” and “sin” in Genesis, and even more so in the writing of St. Paul, are difficult to understand unless one appreciates the world view they reflect. The Biblical materials were obviously written by those with little knowledge of how the natural world works. Thus when Paul talks about this “sin and death” thing, he is working within the contours of an ancient world view. Everyone to whom he was addressing his remarks would understand and accept this world view. For those of us living in the modern world, there is a fundamental confusion of categories to link ideas about earth history with “salvation through Christ.” To answer your question directly, I don’t “deal” with this because I think it’s a problem only for modern young earth creationists and Biblical literalists. For someone like me who lacks the “faith gene,” it seems that this linkage as profoundly misdirected.

Let’s shift gears to Adventist Today. I’ve read AT’s mission statement, but I’d like to hear in your own words how you articulate the core vision of AT. And if you could also add why you personally are a believer in it.

From my perspective, the core vision of Adventist Today is to provide a place where careful discussions of issues confronting our small Christian Protestant institutionalized sect/denomination can be openly expressed and positive solutions presented. I personally believe in this vision because without rational discussion, it seems to me that my faith community could easily evolve into a museum religion within a couple of hundred years. It has happened to other faith traditions and it could happen to us. That would be a shame, because Adventism still has the potential to develop in a positive manner.

How is Adventist Today different from Spectrum? In what ways are you in competition with one another, and in what ways do you complement each other?

Adventist Today seems to me to function as the Newsweek and Time of Adventism while Spectrum is the Atlantic Monthly. Ideally, they should complement each other and not be in competition. However, because they have different histories and reflect the views of a different set of individuals, it might take some time to get them functioning in a fully coordinated, complementary manner.

In AT’s formal mission statement, it says that AT seeks to “promote the best of Adventism.” What do you consider to be the best in Adventism?

It seems to me that the “best in Adventism” is reflected in the work of the Adventist Development and Relief Agency International (ADRA) and the medical research carried out at Loma Linda University including the work at the proton accelerator facility and heart institute. The “best in Adventism” is also reflected, to some degree, in the recent statement of the current General Conference President, Dr. Jon Paulsen when he openly states in an interview by a reporter from a southern California newspaper that we must resolve the “impasse over women’s ordination” or risk “rebellion” within the church. On the other side, he appears to be forced by his conception of his office not to point out the serious moral and ethical lapses involved in the church’s refusal to ordain women. Regretfully, he apparently views maintaining church “unity” as a higher goal than coming down on the right side of a moral issue. Interestingly, his statement has not, to my knowledge, been reported in the Adventist media.

In the same statement, what do you mean by “rejecting some fundamentalist elements of historic Adventism”? Could you give me some examples of those “fundamentalist elements” in contemporary Adventism?

The view that the Seventh-day Adventist institutional church is “the” remnant church of Biblical prophecy is a classic cultic, fundamentalist position. Viewing Ellen White has having any kind of doctrinal authority I would regard as another fundamentalist element. I have already noted our official views concerning a recent (less than 10,000 years) literal 6-day creation of life and a recent world wide flood. These also are classic fundamentalist positions that are tightly wound around the church’s neck. They also, in my view, are “wounds” in the intellectual and theological body politic of contemporary Adventism.

In your view, is belief in creation of the earth in 6 days, about 6,000 years ago, count as an example of fundamentalist elements that AT rejects?

I think that it is important to emphasize that Adventist Today, the magazine, does not reject or advocate any specific doctrinal position. That is not its role or purpose. We publish the articles of those who advocate a recent creation and those who do not. The Adventist Today board, administration, and editorial team are composed of individuals who hold a wide range of theological opinions on a whole host of topics. In some cases, we agree to disagree. However, all members of the AT team reject attempts to censor freedom of expression by Adventist scholars, create climates of fear and intimidation in the conduct of church administrative operations, and limit the range of information about church affairs that is available to church members through official Adventist media channels. However, if you are asking for my personal opinion, yes, a belief in the creation of the earth in 6 days, about 6,000-10,000 years ago is an excellent example of a “fundamentalist element” in contemporary Adventism.

Let me also please note that, as I understand it, official Adventism does not insist on the “creation of the earth in 6 days, about 6,000 years ago.” Orthodox Adventist publications (e.g., those issued out of the Geoscience Research Institute) argue that it is the creation of life forms and humans that took place in 6 days about 6,000 years ago. They do not oppose the idea that Planet Earth is billions of years old. I’m not sure I understand the consistency of this distinction since it does not seem to be supported neither by clear statements of Ellen White nor in the Genesis narratives themselves.

Do you have children? How have you sought to communicate and transmit Adventism to them? What sort of challenges and struggles have you encountered in the process?

Fortunately, my two children (and four grandchildren) inherited their intelligence from their mother (and grandmother) rather than from me. I am a third generation Adventist and thus my children are fourth generation and grandchildren will decide if they want to be fifth generation Adventists. I am proud that they have the ability to think through for themselves how to relate or not relate to the church of their youth. In many respects, my children view the church largely as I do—as a human institution and thus having many problems (like all other churches) but having the potential to render help to humans in need. How my grandchildren come to view the church of their grandparents and parents will be a very interesting thing to watch.

Could you share with me your vision for Adventism’s future? In that perfect world of Adventism that you envision, what is the defining factor that binds Adventists?

In my view, Adventism, like all other attempts to deal with the great mysteries of life and death, is the product of a complex interconnection between sets of human psychological needs, personality types, wishful thinking, rationalizations, and—in some mysterious way—the constant efforts of the Infinite to move the moral sensibilities of the human species in a positive direction.

It seems to me that what should bind Adventists together is belonging to a common community with an interesting history and traditions. In my view, this community began by developing a common set of beliefs, some very good and positive (e.g., rejection of an eternal burning hell and the existence of a separate human soul), some not so positive (e.g., belief in foot washing as an important church ritual), and some simply awful in addition to not being Biblical (e.g., the Investigative Judgment). Regretfully, some time in the 1920 and 1930s, Adventist beliefs were set into concrete. Beginning in the 1960s, the dialogue began again to disaggregate the concrete and look under it to see what was there and if it could be supported. That dialogue continues in some of our colleges and universities, in Adventist Today and Spectrum and in some places on the web. However, reactionary elements seek to pour more concrete on top of the existing concrete. How the current Adventist “theological culture wars” will work themselves out will be a fascinating thing to watch.

This entry was posted on Monday, February 26th, 2007 at 12:00 am and is filed under Main. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.