“Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church’s understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God’s Holy Word” (Preamble to the Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists).
Some comments as you and I ramble through the preamble:
1. The Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists are the only truly official, authoritative, and representative doctrinal statement for Adventists.
2. The statements of fundamental beliefs are, however, not a creed. Only the Bible is, says the preamble. But the same preamble does not define the word creed. The assumed definition is the one used by early Adventists (who themselves were impacted heavily by the Restorationist definition)—that it is a doctrinal statement used to establish binding orthodoxy, a standard by which members are admitted and expelled. Clearly, the 28 do not and cannot have that function, according to the preamble. The Bible is the only creed.
3. What is meant by “the Bible” is the Protestant version of the Old and New Testaments (39+27 books) without the Apocrypha, although (1) this is not clearly spelled out anywhere in the document and (2) some early Adventists did use apocryphal passages in their teachings and writings in ways indistinguishable from other biblical passages. The Protestant version is assumed. But this is a matter of tradition. There is nothing that formally prevents one from using a Catholic or an Orthodox version.
4. The preamble declares that the Bible is the only creed and the first article makes a statement on the inspiration and authority of the Bible, but nowhere is there a statement on how one should read the Bible. A literal reading of the Bible is generally assumed throughout the 28, but not explicitly promulgated. Once again, this is a matter of Adventist tradition. Yes, there is the “Methods of Bible Study” document that was voted by the General Conference Executive Committee in 1986. But it is one of several documents voted by that body over the years that do not have a clear status. It falls under “Other Documents” of the General Conference and does not even belong under the “Official Statements” of the church. Besides, even if it were an “official” statement, it would not have a creedal status anyhow.
So, how should Adventists read the Bible, which is their “only creed”? In the absence of a clear method outlined in the preamble or Scripture itself, individual Adventists are left to read the Bible as he or she wishes. No one has the right to force a particular method of reading upon another. If one did, that would be making that method a creed, which goes against the letter and spirit of the preamble. The preamble is clear that the Bible is the “only” creed. Clearly, literalistic reading has been our traditional way, but there is nothing that formally binds Adventists to it.
Alex Carpenter at Spectrum Blog writes on God the Father as part of Campmeeting 2.0: Bloggin’ the 28 entitled “Re-presenting God.”
This is how Alex begins his article:
“Here’s my premise: Fathers are not inherently more Godly than husbands, grandfathers, brothers, sisters, mothers or wives. What we call God should not be some lingo-football tossed around in the socio-political game of the sex-wars. Rather, God is the ultimate definition of Being and who God is tells us who and how we ought to Be.
“Now here’s my point: How we define God often leads to how we treat each other and it’s no small coincidence that a church that defines God as a father continues to officially subordinate its female members.
“And I respect all my family members too much to define my God by one role.”
The following is roughly the text of my presentation at the Ellen White Conference on April 2 on Loma Linda University campus. The conference was hosted by the Ellen G. White Estate Loma Linda Branch. (Click here for the program of the entire conference which featured Thomas Mostert [president, Pacific Union Conference], Jon Paulien [dean, Loma Linda University School of Religion], and Cindy Tutsch [associate director, Ellen G. White Estate].)
They call me a GenXer. We the Generation X are supposed to be the angry, rebellious, iconoclastic generation that came of age in the 1980s—though perhaps not in such spectacular ways as our older siblings and cousins, the Baby Boomers. The problem with us GenXers was that the Boomers had their glorious struggle of the 60s and 70s, but we never really did. We were a generation in search of our own epic battle, thus often became rebels for rebellion’s sake.For many of us Adventist kids growing up in the 80s, the only real battle was over lifestyle standards—movies, dancing, jewelry, dress, music, meat, alcohol, smoking, Sabbathkeeping. I remember that the big struggle for freedom during my academy years was over dancing on weekends and blue jeans on school days. (My supreme act of rebellion in those years was wearing black jeans to school, which resulted in receiving a “white card” from beloved Dr. O which I’ve kept to this day.) When I got to college, the hot issue of the moment was whether we could wear shorts on campus. Ahhh, we were dying to see dem legs!Rightly or wrongly, much of the blame went to Ellen White - that ubiquitous authority that ended all conversations and discussions. This explains the choice of Ellen White in leotard as Andrews University newspaper Student Movement’s cover model for its 1989 April Fool’s issue. The editors cleverly pasted a picture of White’s head together with the body of another. “On April 1, 1989,” the story began, “Edna B. Tuckus confirmed rumors of Ellen G. White in and around the St. Joe [Michigan] area.” “‘She looked fabulous!’” reported Mrs. Tuckus. “‘I almost screamed when I saw her! She was sitting there, big as life, holding a taco supreme and nuzzling Elvis Presley…. They just looked so happy together, and there was such an aura of love, and happiness, and peace, and eternal wonderfulness about her!’” The paper went on to report that “Tuesdays were officially set aside for Ellen G. White day” at the General Conference. Then, it quoted a fictional “William White, spokesman for the Ellen G. White Foundation” who says, “‘I don’t think one day is too much to set aside for this great lady when we have five other days to goof off.’” The article ended with the note that the General Conference was “placing approved versions of Elvis Presley’s tunes into the official Adventist Hymnal.” (more…)
On May 11-12, the Glendale Seventh-day Adventist Church in Phoenix, Arizona, hosted “Inspiration/Revelation Conference: Tough Questions-Honest Answers,” featuring Alden Thompson, professor of biblical studies at Walla Walla University, and Graeme Bradford, retired professor of theology at Avondale College. Thompson is noted for his book, Inspiration: Hard Questions, Honest Answers (Review and Herald, 1991), and Bradford for his book, More Than a Prophet (Biblical Perspectives, 2006). I’m thankful to Karl Wagner, a member of the Glendale Church, who alerted me on the existence of the recordings online of this conference. These presentations are incredibly helpful in understanding the issues of inspiration/revelation of both Scripture and the Writings of Ellen White. The presentations will play automatically once you click the title of the presentation.
Starting this Thursday, July 26, I’m teaching a course called “Christian Theology & Popular Culture” to the 40 students who have registered for the course at Loma Linda University. According to the LLU Catalog, it’s a course that “examines concepts and practices in popular culture from a Christian perspective.”
It’s my first time teaching the course, though I’ve taught something like it at Pacific Union College entitled “Postmodernism.” I’d like to solicit your suggestions on illustrative materials whether from films, TV shows (news, sitcoms, dramas, variety shows, documentaries, etc.), music (all genres), music videos, commercials, advertisements, magazines, journals, fiction, nonfiction, poetry, or just about anything that falls under popular culture (loosely defined). The way I’m approaching the course this time is to discover and analyze cultural commentaries on theological themes and concepts. For example, how various pop cultural media convey the idea of salvation, or spiritual community, or the end.
The theological themes that I’m covering are:
1. God/Spirituality/Religion
2. Jesus
3. Great Controversy (Good vs. Evil)
4. Human Condition; Sin
5. Salvation; Grace; Enlightenment
6. Church; Spiritual Community
7. Law; Lifestyle Standards; Rituals
8. End-time; Apocalypse
“Taking care of God’s creation isn’t simply a matter of using resources in a responsible manner, it means treating the earth in such a way that human impact betters our environment. Jesus drew out this principle in his parable of talents given to several servants. Clearly, when God gives, He provides opportunities for betterment and improvement of His gifts. (It’s interesting to think that even after God saw that all He had made was “good”, there was room for people to continue to improve it!) The imagery employed in Genesis of God’s spirit hovering over the earth is very similar language to the words Jesus used when he described a mother hen brooding over its chicks. The imagery is not primarily one of protection, but rather of moving over and stimulating to life and growth – making it all come alive! Considering that imagery, it seems that implicit in the account of God’s creating is a strong sense in which this creation must be preserved, stimulated and fostered. Creation care not only implies environmental stewardship, but also careful attention to all created things: plants, animals, and people.”
The Democratic candidates for the U.S. presidency had a “CNN/Youtube debate” today with most of the questions coming from citizens who submitted their video questions onto Youtube. (Click here for all the questions used.) One southern California resident asked a question on Hillary Clinton’s understanding of the term “liberal”:Here’s the transcript of her response:”You know, it is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom, that you were for the freedom to achieve, that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual. Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head and it’s been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century.”I prefer the word ‘progressive,’ which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century.”I consider myself a modern progressive, someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms, who believes that we are better as a society when we’re working together and when we find ways to help those who may not have all the advantages in life get the tools they need to lead a more productive life for themselves and their family.”So I consider myself a proud modern American progressive, and I think that’s the kind of philosophy and practice that we need to bring back to American politics.”
So, Clinton doesn’t want to be called a liberal, but a progressive. That’s a shame. She is a liberal, and she ought to be proud of it. I wish she would embrace the word and re-appropriate it in a way that highlights the best of liberalism as she knows it. That would be a really progressive thing to do. Just as a Republican, or a conservative, or a liberatarian, or whoever, ought to embrace who they are, not skirt around some words or pithy phrases, and highlight the best of whoever they are. That would be progressive, also.Conserving the good, the true, and the beautiful. Liberty to transform the good, the true, and the beautiful for the better, the truer, and … the dandier. It is through the dialectics of these impulses that we progress into the future. In my book, a true progressive—whether in politics or theology—recognizes the deep limitations of one impulse and works with and learns from the other(s)—even the wholly other(s)—in building the family whether that family is a town, a state, a nation, or a church. Without such openness, a liberal is just as rigidly fundamentalist as the conservative traditionalists that they love to deride. With such openness, I would consider even the most conservative in the field—whether it’s Sam Brownback or Sam Pipim—a progressive ally and seek to work in concert for the good of our communities.Thus, I agree with you, Senator Clinton, when you say that a progressive is “someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms….” Yes, a progressive recognizes that individuals using their rights and freedom will and do arrive at vastly different conclusions, and respects and values others for these differences. At the same time, like Clinton says, a progressive is “someone who believes that we are better as a society when we’re working together…,” even with those who disagree with him or her fundamentally. Sometimes these disagreements will be so fundamental that even a simple serious conversation will seem impossible. Yet a progressive is committed to an ongoing conversation because of the belief that honest, heartfelt, and prayerful engagement results always in good, truth, and beauty.Yeah, yeah, I’m old-fashioned, romantic, progressive … or whatever.
Rightly or wrongly, much of the blame went to Ellen White - that ubiquitous authority that ended all conversations and discussions. This explains the choice of Ellen White in leotard as Andrews University newspaper Student Movement’s cover model for its 1989 April Fool’s issue. The editors cleverly pasted a picture of White’s head together with the body of another. “On April 1, 1989,” the story began, “Edna B. Tuckus confirmed rumors of Ellen G. White in and around the St. Joe [Michigan] area.” “‘She looked fabulous!’” reported Mrs. Tuckus. “‘I almost screamed when I saw her! She was sitting there, big as life, holding a taco supreme and nuzzling Elvis Presley…. They just looked so happy together, and there was such an aura of love, and happiness, and peace, and eternal wonderfulness about her!’” The paper went on to report that “Tuesdays were officially set aside for Ellen G. White day” at the General Conference. Then, it quoted a fictional “William White, spokesman for the Ellen G. White Foundation” who says, “‘I don’t think one day is too much to set aside for this great lady when we have five other days to goof off.’” The article ended with the note that the General Conference was “placing approved versions of Elvis Presley’s tunes into the official Adventist Hymnal.”