Filed under: Main
This paper was presented at the 14th annual Spiritual Renaissance Retreat held in Monterey, California, on December 28-31, 2007. SRR is an event hosted by John and Joan Hughson of Pacific Union College Church and co-sponsored by the Adventist Forums and Adventist Today.
Hiram Edson of Port Gibson, New York—having wept and wept till the day dawned, lamenting the devastating reality that Christ did not return the previous day as he and his fellow Millerites had expected—and now in the morning of October 23, 1844, praying to God for answers and recounting with fellow Millerites all the steps they took to arrive at the conclusion that Christ would return on the Jewish Day of Atonement that year—came to the conviction that “light should be given” and that their “disappointment [would] be explained.” So he and a friend of his—probably O. R. L. Crosier—began to make their way across his unharvested cornfield to encourage other disappointed believers. But as Edson wrote later, he “was stopped about midway,” with a view of heaven opening before him. “I saw distinctly, and clearly,” he testified, “that instead of our High Priest coming out of the Most Holy of the heavenly sanctuary to come this earth on the tenth day of the seventh month, at the end of the 2300 days [i.e., October 22, 1844, according their interpretation of Daniel 8:14], that he for the first time entered on that day the second apartment of that sanctuary; and that he had a work to perform in the Most Holy before coming to this earth.” This experience signified for Edson “the Lord . . . answering our morning prayer; by giving light with regard to our disappointment” (Hiram Edson Manuscript). And the rest, as they say, is history.
The assessment of this event and the theological process that led to the formulation and development of the Seventh-day Adventist doctrine of the sanctuary and the investigative judgment varies widely depending on the conviction of the interpreter. Traditionally, Adventists have argued that the re-interpretation of Daniel 8:14 triggered by Edson, initially formulated by Crosier, and expanded and systematized by Joseph Bates, James White, Ellen White, and John Andrews represented the unveiling of the end-time normative understanding of Christ’s heavenly sanctuary ministry and the final message for the salvation of humankind. One Adventist scholar has even called the October 22 experience a “magnificent disappointment” that ushered in the eschatological remnant—the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
Those outside of Adventism and dissidents within have seen it very differently. One conservative Protestant writer derided Adventism’s post-disappointment re-interpretation as “a result of a predicament” (Jan Karel Van Baalen, The Chaos of Cults: A Study of Present-Day Isms [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1938], 120). Another criticized it as “the most colossal, psychological, face-saving phenomenon in religious history” and added that the doctrine was “stale, flat, and unprofitable,” on one hand, and “unimportant and almost naive,” on the other hand (Donald Grey Barnhouse, “Are Seventh-day Adventists Christians? A New Look at Seventh-day Adventism,” Eternity, September 1956, 43-45). Also, such Adventist thinkers as A. F. Ballenger, W. W. Fletcher, Louis Conradi, and Desmond Ford have questioned the tenability of the this teaching from responsible biblical exegesis.
It is not the goal of this presentation to discuss the merits and/or demerits of Adventism’s teaching on Christ’s eschatological ministry in the heavenly sanctuary. Rather, I use the Edson-Crosier-Bates-Whites formulation of this doctrine as a key example that illustrates the towering, yet under-evaluated, impact that experience has had upon Adventist theology.
Regardless of how one regards the Adventist teaching on this subject, it is a truism that the experience of disappointment forced Edson and others to search for an alternate interpretation of Daniel 8:14 and other key texts of Millerism. Yes, Miller and his cohort read Scripture plainly and honestly with an open and unbiased mind as best as they could. Yet until their clocks struck midnight in the evening of October 22, 1844, they could not see anything wrong with their interpretation. It was when they were forced by experience and the existential necessity to either reach a different reading of the relevant passages or abandon faith in Scripture altogether that the would-be Seventh-day Adventists were able to innovate and come to develop the understanding couched in the 24th article of the current Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists.
In short, Adventism is indeed a movement born out of a predicament—a crisis of interpretation. But was it just a face-saving phenomenon? Or is there some saving grace in the way Adventists have incorporated their ongoing experience in the world to their theology?
An analysis of the method that early Adventists used to arrive at their re-interpretation of Daniel 8:14 offers an insight into what might be the saving grace of that face-saving phenomenon. In coming up with an alternate reading of Daniel 8:14, early Adventists sought to preserve the authenticity of their Millerite experience and the trustworthiness of Scripture and its Divine Author. It was unthinkable for them to deny that the sweet, blessed experience that led to October 22 was not accompanied by God’s guiding hand. Validating that pre-disappointment experience was crucial for early Adventists. And that meant protecting the integrity of the biblical rationale that gave rise to their experience. Thus, their re-interpretation was one that allowed them to see God’s hand and find meaning in the full range of experiences before, during, and after the Great Disappointment. Ironic indeed for the movement heavily informed by restorationism (that sought to return to New Testament Christianity by having no creed but the Bible) who banked their raison d’etre on the sola Scriptura principle and a plain, unadulterated reading of Scripture.
At this point, it is easy to jump on the bandwagon of cynicism and condemn Adventism’s failure to keep experience from encroaching upon their application of the sola Scriptura principle. No doubt the motivation to save face was there, but the question is whose face? Because they were sure of the genuineness of their pre-disappointment experience and their ongoing relationship with God, what was at stake for early Adventists was not only their face, but the reputation of God and the trustworthiness of Scripture. As has been pointed out by Adventist writers, this is not unlike of 1st century Christians as they sought to validate their experience with and proceeding from Jesus and imbue that experience with Scriptural meaning for the present and future. The challenge for both early Christians and early Adventists was to innovate without robbing the integrity of their experience.
Adventists—like all other Christians—have continually faced that challenge. And contrary to what some Adventists think or wish, we have never stopped re-interpreting and re-adjusting. In that process, experience has always played a key role—though rarely fully acknowledged. Let’s now consider some of Adventism’s fundamental teachings and see how each has been molded, shaped and transformed by experience.
Probably the first major change to Adventist theology was the revision of the shut door teaching, a major component to the budding community’s belief on salvation, church, mission, and the end-time. Simply put, Adventists until 1850 believed that the door to salvation was closed, except for former Millerites who embraced the seventh-day Sabbath. That basically narrowed the field down to themselves. But an unexpected development in 1850forced them to change the missiological dimension of that teaching. That year, James White reported in Review and Herald that a man “who had made no public profession of religion” prior to 1845 had joined the movement. As a result, Adventists revised their shut door teaching by adding children under the age of accountability and those unknown individuals who had not “bowed to Baal.” The door remained shut to Christians who heard and rejected the Advent message and former Millerites who rejected the Sabbath teaching. But the door that was cracked ajar would open even more widely when news of European converts through literature and particularly the work of Michael Czechowski in Switzerland reached Adventists in Battle Creek in the late 1860s.
The experience of having new and unexpected converts join the church necessitated major changes to Adventist theology. First, the door to salvation was no longer shut and that the time of the shutting of that door—a.k.a., close of probation—was pushed to an unknown time in the future. Second, the exclusive self-understanding of Adventism was relaxed. If the door to salvation was still open and there still are people dying without having heard the Adventist message—and presumably some of them will be saved—being part of the Adventist community and accepting the Sabbath message were not absolute requirements for salvation. This meant that the remnant must be larger than the visible Adventist community—though, paradoxically, the identification of the community as the eschatological remnant continued. Once again, Adventists pushed into the future the clear formation of the remnant and the institution of the Sabbath message as the seal of the final judgment. Third, just as they did with the remnant, Adventists moved away from the initial identification of the eschatological Babylon as the established churches that rejected Miller’s advent message and the Sabbath message of the emerging Sabbatarian Adventist community to an entity or phenomenon that would form in the future. When it became experientially clear that time was going to last much longer than expected and that some good things were happening among the Protestant churches of America (such as the temperance and abolitionist movements and later the Fundamentalist movement), it became impossible for Adventists to continue to say, “Babylon has fallen.” Instead, the language gradually shifted to “Babylon is falling” and then to “Babylon will fall.” Such relegation of the decisive eschatological events from the past to the future allowed Adventists to experience the present with greater ease. Fourth, Adventists justified their increasingly exuberant occupying of the present by continually expanding the focus of their mission, which was once restricted exclusively to former Millerites, to include the whole world. This change, of course, has necessitated further shifts in Adventist theology. If those outside of Adventism are continually being saved, and accepting the Sabbath message and joining the Adventist church is not an absolute requirement for salvation, what is the purpose of mission? Especially in this postmodern world, this is a question that Adventists are struggling to answer, and their experiences with world’s religions and cultures are re-shaping their answers in ways that are triggering further changes not only to Adventist missiology, but also soteriology, ecclesiology, and eschatology.
Adventism’s move from anti-Trinitarianism to Trinitarianism is another example of change to theology being informed by experience. Most early Adventists, having roots in restorationism, rejected the Nicean understanding of the Trinity. Joseph Bates, James White, John Andrews, Joseph Waggoner, and Uriah Smith, to name a few, believed in a Godhead consisting of the Father, Son and the Spirit, but understood Christ as acreated divinity and the Spirit as the impersonal emanation of the Father. Adventism’s Trinitarian turn is credited to Ellen White’s 1898 statement in Desire of Ages, where she stated: “In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived” (p. 530), and referred to Christ as “the pre-existent, self-existent Son of God” (p. 469, 470). There have been a number of conjectures as to what led White to emerge as a full-fledged Trinitarian so late in her life; she was 71 when she published Desire of Ages. What is of interest to me is the impact of the theological backgrounds and influences that informed early Adventists. Unlike many other pioneers who came from the restorationist Christian Connexion movement, White grew up a Methodist who presumably believed in the doctrine of the Trinity at least until her involvement with anti-Trinitarians such as her would-be husband, James. But curiously she remained quiet about the subject until the late 1890s. That statement about Christ being “underived” is new to Desire of Ages—that is, it is found in neither the Spiritual Gifts nor Spirit of Prophecy series that led to the Conflict of the Ages series where Desire of Ages is found. Her early statements, though never anti-Trinitarian, tended to place the pre-existent Christ in a subservient role to the Father, and the Spirit is often referred to as “it” rather than “he.” Without getting into a debate on whether or not she too was an anti-Trinitarian, what I am interested in right now is the reason for her clear Trinitarianism in the 1890s.
I have two speculations. First, her experience of 1888. Something happened at the epochal General Conference session of that year that triggered a powerful paradigm shift in White’s thinking about Christ. Although she famously remarked that what A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner were saying at that session was what she had been trying to convey for the previous 40 years, what she says about Christ, salvation and Christian living thereafter shows a marked difference from what she wrote previously. The five Christocentric books that are beloved by Adventists—Stepsto Christ (1892), Thoughts from the Mount of Blessings (1896), The Desire of Ages (1898), Christ’s Object Lessons (1900), and Ministry of Healing (1905)—all come from the period following 1888. My speculation is that the gospel-centered paradigm shift that White experienced in 1888 represents the beginning of a clear Trinitarian turn, or return.
Second, her literary dependency, or acts of plagiarism, if you prefer. A remarkable fact that gets overlooked in the debate about White’s extensive use of other sources in the composition of her books is that she read, thought about, processed, and incorporated mainstream Christian writings. Well before Adventist ministers began interacting with fundamentalist Christians in the 1920s and 1930s, well before Froom, Read, Anderson and company dialogued with evangelical Christians in the 1950s and 1960s, well before professors at Andrews, Walla Walla, Kettering, PUC, Oakwood, La Sierra and Loma Linda mingled with scholars of world religions at their annual conventions, Ellen White was in deep, intimate dialogue with many of the keen, creative, interesting minds of her time and imbibed what she considered to be the best of their thoughts and interpretations of Scripture and history. She was not only literarily dependent, but also intellectually and theologically dependent, and—returning to our focus on her Trinitarian turn—I don’t think it would be a stretch to speculate that the growth in her view and expressions can be attributed to her experience with the leading conservative Christian literature of her time. Once again, experience contributed to change in Adventist theology—in this case, toward historic Christian orthodoxy in the area of the Trinity. (Another that I could have also talked about is the death of James White in 1881 that seems to have freed her theologically. You may recall Ellen White’s statement in the 1850s about the powerful men in her life who held sway over her work.)
Another example of 19th century experiences impacting biblical interpretation might be Adventism’s embrace of tithing in the 1880s, which can be said to be as much a direct result of financial need as a conclusion of careful Bible study. In fact, Adventist pioneers initially rejected tithing as an applicable biblical principle. They believed that it was an Old Testament practice that was no longer valid in the post-New Testament era. So they opted for free-will giving. In the 1850s,when confronted with an acute financial need, John Andrews was commissioned to engage in a study of Scripture to give a biblical recommendation. Interestingly, he could not recommend tithing. Rather, he devised a graded plan for giving which left much of the decision to the individual’s self-perceived ability to contribute. This greatly enhanced the growing movement’s coffers. However, after the church organized and institutions sprouted up here and there, the church experienced once again shortage of funds in the 1880s. It was then that D. M. Canright’s argument for tithing as a continually valid biblical principle was accepted. It might be said that were it not for this new plan, the tremendous expansion of mission and organization that began in the 1890s would not have been possible. Tithing may very well be a God-ordained principle of giving for all time. But there is no denying that it was the particular situation that Adventists found themselves in in the 1880s that led them to come to that conclusion.
Experience continues to be a powerful impetus for change to Adventism’s theological outlook and biblical interpretation in the 21st century. First, with the passage of time, the meaning of Adventism is taking on a broader, more diverse, and increasingly postmillennial (in a qualified sense) turn. Several factors are contributing this shift. The largesse of corporate Adventism, the vested interest (such as keeping and thriving in one’s job) and the need for maintenance of the structure have long erased the original sense of urgency for preparing for and hastening Christ’s return. Adventism of the 20th century sought in all earnestness to explain and cope theologically with the delay. In the latter half of the century, it paid at the very least lip service to the notion of urgency and soonness while feeling simultaneously guilty and uneasy with the obvious dissonance of heralding the traditional Adventist brand of eschatology. Now after experiencing the second turn of the century, Adventism seems braced for the long haul and an all-out postmillennial eschatology while nominally maintaining the premillennial (though much, much stretched) timeline. We may still expect Christ to return before the millennium, but there is so much we can and must do before the parousia to build up the Kingdom—and it looks like that will take a very long while. In the midst of all this, my sense is that the traditional meaning of 1844 will fall by the wayside and become irrelevant. Nearly two centuries of experience is clearly giving rise to a very different eschatology in Adventism.
Second, looking at the other end of history, the traditional view on the origin of life on earth is being challenged more than ever by discoveries of contemporary science. More Adventists are finding it difficult to maintain the traditional view of creation and the first chapters of Genesis and becoming convinced that evolution declares the handiwork of God. My guess is that over the next century, Adventism will incorporate the evolutionary theory in significant ways in their theology of creation and modify their reading of Genesis and other parts of Scripture to accommodate their revised view on the origin of life. Just as experience is driving Adventists to take a much longer view of the future, it is going to force a much longer view of the past. As a result, theological modifications in such areas as sin, salvation, Sabbath, and providence will be necessary to make the rest of their theology consistent with the evolution-informed theology of creation.
Third, the traditional views on homosexuality and women’s ordination are bound to change. More than any other factor (be it scientific evidence or exegesis of Scripture), the community’s experience with its own gay and lesbian members—especially the gay children—has impacted and will continue to impact its attitude toward homosexuality and its reading of Scripture on the subject. I speculate that the same has been true of women serving in pastoral ministry. In the end, witnessing and being beneficiaries of effective women pastors will lead Adventism past the tipping point on the question of women’s ordination.
To these, I can add a host of Adventist lifestyle standards that are changing because of the disconnect between the propositional claims coming from the 19th century and the empirical experience and observations of the present. When violation of these standards cannot be shown to be morally and experientially evil, more Adventists will opt to follow experiential knowledge.
I can also add the growing acceptance of the open view of God, whose foremost advocates are my colleagues, Richard Rice and David Larson. I do not want to discount in any way the philosophical and theological basis of this view. At the same time, I think what helps drive this view (of which frankly I am almost persuaded) is the experiential dimension of the presence of evil in spite of the proposed sovereignty of God and the view’s proponents’ desire to find rationale and validation for the existence and character of God. It is also deeply impacted, by way of process philosophy, by modern science that is leans heavily toward materialistic monism and deism. To put it simply, it is an attempt (like all other theologies) at constructing a theology that makes sense today, given what we know about the universe and what we intuitively believe to be good.
In all this, interpretation of Scripture is at its heart and center. What should we do when the plain teaching and the traditional interpretation of Scripture neither ring true with our experiences nor meet the real needs of our existence? And what do we do with when we can no longer speak of a common Adventist experience, but rather Adventist experiences?
My modest proposal is that we keep doing what we have been doing. To be Adventist does not necessarily mean keeping the same teaching or practice. Our history is replete with changes—big and small—to our thought and life to bring them to coherence with one another. Our tradition has been about dialoguing with both culture and Scripture—challenging the former based on our best understanding of the latter, while revising our understanding of the latter based on the challenges from the former. To be Adventist means to let Scripture read you as you read Scripture. It means being keenly in tune with life and all its experiences and doing theology actively and responsibly as a community, recognizing the lessons of our experiences as ongoing revelations of God. What is truly important is not divining what Scripture teaches and following it exactly, but thinking like the communities that authored Scripture and making the same kind of courageous decisions they made, while learning from their mistakes.
Just as William Miller was impacted by the post-French Revolution millennialist ethos as he shaped many of his contemporaries’ understanding of Scripture, just as Hiram Edson, impacted by the Great Disappointment experience, re-read Scripture and re-organized his and many others’ lives by that re-reading, just as Joseph Bates and James White revised their eschato-missio-soterio-ecclesiology when challenged by the unexpected revelation of experience, just as Ellen White broadened and deepened her view of God and Christ when confronted by her profound experience with Christ, we must actively seek God’s revelation in the experiences of our lives and be willing to re-shape, and even abandon, the beliefs of our tradition.
It may be that the temptation to save face will prevent us from changing, or that changing will seem like a desperate act to save face. But the fact that Adventism has constantly been in flux and dynamically adjusting to articulate the present truth may just be the saving grace of Adventism.
In closing, let us listen to Ellen White’s warning against hardened conservatism:
“Whenever the people of God are growing in grace, they will be constantly obtaining a clearer understanding of His word. They will discern new light and beauty in its sacred truths. This has been true in the history of the church in all ages, and thus it will continue to the end. But as real spiritual life declines, it has ever been the tendency to cease to advance in the knowledge of the truth. Men rest satisfied with the light already received from God’s word and discourage any further investigation of the Scriptures. They become conservative and seek to avoid discussion.
“The fact that there is no controversy or agitation among God’s people should not be regarded as conclusive evidence that they are holding fast to sound doctrine. There is reason to fear that they may not be clearly discriminating between truth and error. When no new questions are started by investigation of the Scriptures, when no difference of opinion arises which will set men to searching the Bible for themselves to make sure that they have the truth, there will be many now, as in ancient times, who will hold to tradition and worship they know not what” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, 706, 707).
Great stuff. Thanks for sharing.
Comment by Trevan Osborn 12.28.07 @ 6:45 pmThank you for the post. Of course, the Adventist church is changing and it is a good thing. I wonder how many of them know about it.
Comment by Dadu 12.28.07 @ 8:44 pmThanks for your thoughts. The dynamic nature of our denomonation’s roots should set a tone for our future.
Comment by Cheri Blue 12.30.07 @ 1:12 amThank you, Julius!
More than anything else I recall reading this establishes the important role of experience–one of the four sources of Christian wisdom in the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, I’ll not surprise anyone by adding–in the development of SDA theology. As you make clear, it has been crucial.
Perhaps it is possible to classify some of the different ways experience has contributed to SDA theology: confirming, disconfirming, emphasizing, clarifying, identifying, etc.
Also, as you say theological ideas that have become inadequate are rarely defeated; instead, they fall by the wayside for lack of interest.
Good work!
Comment by David R. Larson 12.30.07 @ 5:34 amThanks for a fascinating essay. I wish I could’ve been there to listen and discuss this with you at SRR. Are the changes you listed all the changes that have happened to Adventist theology? Are there any others? If so, what are they?
Comment by Andis 12.30.07 @ 1:57 pmThoughtful, stimulating, Julius. We need to more fully evaluate the role of experience as we assess Adventism’s exegesis and evangelism. You have alerted us to some of the exciting possibilities that demand frank and full discussion. Bravo!
Comment by Arthur Patrick 12.31.07 @ 10:55 pmJulius, A thought provoking article! Theology is never constructed in a vacuum. Adventist formative theology in the nineteenth century bears the signature of a modernist framework which appears to be nearing exhaustion (or at the minimum - struggling) in a post-modernist or at least significantly changing world.
Comment by Rick Ferret 01.02.08 @ 2:32 amFurthermore, the implications of your article for ongoing discussions of inspiration are noteworthy. Responsibly negotiating ‘change’ in our religious community is pivotal.
thanks again.
Fascinating presentation! Go 1892-1905 Adventism for both theology and health-care! As for evolution…the astronomical and geological record points toward long evolutionary periods…what would George McReady Price say? Remember “The New Deluvialism”? And the resulting, “Theories of Satanic Origin Originating from Howell Mountain”?! But complexity points toward special creation! Think long and hard about the human head, complete with hearing, smell, sight, a well protected brain, teeth, speach, etc., etc., etc.! I know that leaves the who made God question unanswered, but do we have to always think that we have it all figured out? Can’t some things remain mysteries?
Comment by David Vickman 01.03.08 @ 2:50 pmThere is much I have to agree with in the text. Excellent. Adventism has been changing from its beginnings and will have to continue to change even more dramatically. It has always done it though by justifying and accommodating its beginnings. This has been producing and will continue to produce a lots of cognitive dissonance in the evolution of our theology.
Comment by Tihomir Kukolja 01.04.08 @ 3:47 pmGreat article Julius! I have been following your postings for a while and I believe that you are making a great contribution digesting some paradoxes posed by our historical interpretation of scripture in a post-modern world. You only briefly mentioned the “open view of God”, which you claim to be almost persuaded. I wonder if you could point to some reference where I could satisfy my curiosity about the topic. (perhaps you may even have written an entry about this in your blog and I have overlooked it…)
Comment by Klebert Feitosa 01.04.08 @ 9:32 pmSorry for jumping in here! “The Openness of God” by Richard Rice is a good place to begin! It’s not an easy read, and it has a lot of heavy duty footnotes! It both scared and inspired me! If we don’t, and indeed can’t know the future absolutely, and still be free, then we don’t have it all figured out! That’s scarey!The future can proceed in an infinite number of scenarios! That’s inspiring! The prophecy charts are obsolete! This should make us a little less dogmatic about the future and who the bad guys and gals are! Having said that, every time I’m tempted to discard “The Great Controversy” I notice that Ellen White is right again regarding some aspect of her history of the future! The more I reject…the more I accept!
Comment by David Vickman 01.05.08 @ 2:59 pmGreat article, Julius, I have to say. Pöhler from Friedensau showed a couple years ago, how adventism had been changing, and what is more remarkable, that adventists very often have forgotten those dramatic changes of their own theology proclaiming that they hold the same positions from the very beginnings. Hopefully, it is not a case of our times.
Comment by Premek Bar 01.08.08 @ 11:08 pmKeep this way!
For a serious reconception of Adventism present and future, please see the following link: Future of Adventism
Comment by Raul Batista 01.09.08 @ 12:51 pmInteresting discussion.
This article seemed to imply that founders of Adventism were somehow less than transparent and even dishonest in their assessment of their own “misguided interpretation” of biblical truth and somehow adapted, rejected or changed their views solely based on emotional factors, the “saving face” argument.
It should be noted that the experience of the pioneers with a progressive revelation of truth does not necessarily clash with God’s way of communicating truth with his servants in all ages. In sum, their new encounter with truth after the disappointment of 1844 did not contradict previously held beliefs in regards to the Sanctuary Doctrine, rather it unfolded new ideas and concepts of the same essential truth.
I also think your argument of the acceptance of the principle of tithe by the pioneers purely on a chronological-cultural basis is weak. Financial or material needs were always a reality for God’s ministers in all ages; especially at the inception of movement with worldwide aspirations.
Finally, although I agree that truth continues to be “present”, meaning its principles are more important than their particular applications and expressions throughout time periods, on the other hand, some concepts are fundamentally opposed to an understanding of “progressive light”. One example is evolution. I think that the day Adventism embraces the ludicrous and impossible theory of evolution in any of its forms as a viable hypothesis for the origin of life, God will have abandoned this movement to the pseudo-scientific pundits and cynics of this age.
Comment by Andre Reis 01.13.08 @ 5:53 pmVery good article, Julius.
I think you’re right about the role of “experience” in the shaping of Adventist theology. When one reads EGW’s accounts of the Great Disappointment, it is pretty clear that the experience of the believers, and in particular, how their family, friends, and fellow church members responded–negatively–to them greatly impacted their views. Here is a snippet partly illustrating this from Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1, pages 168-169.
“I saw a company who stood well guarded and firm, and would give no countenance to those who would unsettle the established faith of the body. God looked upon them with approbation.
I was shown three steps–one, two and three–the first, second and third angels’ messages. Said the angel, Woe to him who shall move a block, or stir a pin in these messages.
The true understanding of these messages is of vital importance. The destiny of souls hangs upon the manner in which they are received.
I was again brought down through these messages, and saw [b]how dearly the people of God had purchased their [u]experience[/u][/b]. It had been obtained through much suffering and severe conflict. Step by step had God brought them along, until he had placed them upon a solid, immovable platform.
Then I saw individuals as they approached the platform, before stepping upon it examine the foundation. Some with rejoicing immediately stepped upon it. Others commenced to find fault with the laying of the foundation of the platform. They wished improvements made, and then the platform would be more perfect, and the people much happier. Some stepped off the platform and examined it, then found fault with it, declaring it to be laid wrong. I saw that nearly all stood firm upon the platform, and exhorted others who had stepped off to cease their complaints, for God was the master-builder, and they were fighting against him.
They recounted the [b]wonderful work of God[/b], which had led them to the firm platform, and in union nearly all raised their eyes to heaven, and with a loud voice glorified God. This affected some of those who had complained, and left the platform, and again they with humble look stepped upon it. “
Comment by Glenn 01.15.08 @ 7:53 amFrom the Spirit of Prophesy, Vol. 4, page 268, comes another statement that I think helps to demonstrate how the role of “experience” played out in the SDA founders’ understanding of their message and as a proof of God’s having led out in their work and study:
“The subject of the sanctuary was the key which unlocked the mystery of the disappointment, showing that God had led his people in the great Advent movement. It opened to view a complete system of truth, connected and harmonious, and revealed present duty as it brought to light the position and work of God’s people.”
The concluding clause of the first sentence–”showing that God had led his people in the great Advent movement”–seems to emphasize the determination of the founders that their experience, that, and how they had been led of God, drove their engagement with scripture.
Part and parcel of the founders’ experience, of course, was the extra-Biblical, revelatory ministry of EGW, which helped to confirm their experiences.
Comment by Glenn 01.15.08 @ 9:49 amSincerity of one’s beliefs, as the last comment mentions, is not necessarily an assurance of their correctness or truth. Millions of Mormons are absolutely convinced of the visions of Joseph Smith and the message the angel Moroni gave him. Evidently, a different messenger than Ellen’s.
Comment by Elaine 01.15.08 @ 12:08 pmWho is to say that Smith had a false experience? Who is to say that a ‘different’ message is a false one? Why can’t there be different claims that are paradoxically true and experienced differently? What is your standard of truth, Elaine?
Comment by Gregoire 01.15.08 @ 3:31 pmYes, Elaine, Joseph Smith’s message was very different from Ellen White’s. Let’s look at one of Joseph Smith preposterous, unbiblical statements:
“Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race. A curse was place upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures. Millions of souls have come into this world cursed with black skin and have been denied the privilege of Priesthood and the fullness of the blessings of the Gospel. [(The Way to Perfection, 101-02; emphasis added).]
There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages… The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:61, 66; emphasis added).
Alma 3:6 “And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion.
Mormon 5:15 (prophecy about the Lamanites) “for this people shall be scattered, and shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been amongst us. . . .”
Maybe Mormons missed that teaching by Joseph Smith; oh wait, maybe they still believe that??
Comment by Andre 01.15.08 @ 3:31 pmLeviticus 21:18-24 could be presumably used as a Mormon defense, particularly verse 18 in the KJV! Studying other religions and philosophies is probably a good thing, as long as you don’t get too confused! It’s a zoo out there!
Comment by David Vickman 01.15.08 @ 4:43 pmActually all of Leviticus 21 should be read to give verses 18-24 their proper context! Adventists believe in Sola Scriptura, but do they believe and practice Leviticus 21! If they adhere to Exodus 20, why don’t they adhere to Levitucus 21! Could this be progressive revelation?! Digressive revelation?! The above is an example of why I am a Red Letter Christian!
Comment by David Vickman 01.15.08 @ 4:54 pmAndre, are you saying EG White has no unbiblical statement at all? Is everything she wrote completely biblical and defensible from the Bible? I don’t think so.
Comment by Gregoire 01.15.08 @ 5:24 pmYes Gregoire, I believe she has no statements that contradicts the core message of the Bible. She unfolded many of the events in the Bible per inspiration of God, providing details and further light on God’s relationship with Bible personalities and events. You can’t prove it didn’t happen so just because it’s not in the Bible. She has given plenty of evidence of her supernatural gifts and has passed the biblical test of a prophet.
How many of Paul’s epistles were lost and are not in the canon? How much truth did we lose when those didn’t get preserved? Or the books mentioned in the Old Testament.
Even the Bible has discrepancies and factual errors and contradictions, when one author mentions a number and another says different for instance. I don’t mean to say that the Bible is totally unreliable, but I couldn’t disagree more with those who hold it as a verbally inspired, inerrant book. If you say those are copyist errors, why didn’t God prevent those just as He preserved the message?
Luke for instance was the Biblical author who did most of the “plagiarizing” by today’s standards, copying things from other gospels without reference. His book of Acts was more researched-based as he himself acknowledges than anything else. Does it demean the events or the message? No, I still think he was driven by the Holy Ghost in writing. But, he certainly didn’t get each word dictated.I think we need to keep our mind open about inspiration.
In the case of the pioneers, their experience with the truth unfolded new realities. I disagree that they changed positions to save face. Different from the Mormons who in 1978 changed their position on the negro race.
Comment by Andre 01.15.08 @ 8:13 pmYou’re free to believe that, Andre. But I don’t. And there are many Adventists who don’t either. It is perfectly possible and legitimate to disagree with a prophet.
What’s wrong with ’saving face’ being a motivating factor for change? Getting it right is what’s important, not why you change. Even if they were shamed into changing, that’s OK.
Comment by Gregoire 01.15.08 @ 10:21 pmGregoire, of course, you can even disagree with a prophet, you can even disagree with God, you’re free to do that. Your gift of free will allows that, but will it be to your advantage? Will questioning the law of gravity do you any good?
I know there are many SDA’s who don’t believe in EGW but I have a hunch that many if not most, have never read her writings, like the founder of a major SDA blog today who will remain nameless.
I’ve made an informed decision on EGW and I’m sorry many SDA’s have not had that opportunity, to the detriment of their faith. Can they still be saved? Of course, salvation does not depend on believing in EGW, it’s a FREE gift from God. But accepting the light He gave through many of his prophets will make Him less of a stranger when He appears in the clouds.
I question the validity of many of the assertions on this article when applied to our history. If God was in the inception of this movement and the pioneers were left to adapt their belief in hindsight then, for the sake of consistency, you would have to apply the ’saving face’ argument throughout the whole human odyssey with God and see where a purely human and natural cause was at the formation of certain belief. If we accept that modus operandi, many of the miracles in the Bible could be construed simply as a save-face event, e.g., the opening of the read sea.
Actually, if the save-face argument stands, you shake the very foundations of the Christian faith and for me, that’s a little too much of a change than we can afford.
Comment by andre 01.16.08 @ 1:49 amA tiny contribution to a current discussion. Something I wrote ten years ago (1998) titled “Claim That Makes a Difference”:
Can a true prophet err?
It is interesting that we had hardly ever touched this question until some 20 years ago, when suddenly a suitable theory was sought out to prove the fallibility of the Biblical prophets. The logic of the theory followed that if we proved the literal and communicational fallibility of the canonical prophets, by default this would lead to a more flexible attitude towards a contemporary prophet, namely Ellen G. White.
Recently the question was echoed again in several presentations of Dr. Allan Lindsay, Director of the Australian EGW Research Centre. He suggested that adhering to a correct view of inspiration would save us many headaches caused by the Ellen G. White critics because, as he said, “the bottom line of all those issues is the question of inspiration”.
Dr. Lindsay gave a preference to the Thought Inspiration View over the Verbal Inspiration View, because the first one provides space for human touch in the process of prophetic inspiration. The argument follows that, wherever there is a human element involved, there is a room for misinformation, misinterpretation, edition, revision - the very things, we now reluctantly admit, are being discovered in the writings of Ellen G. White.
Fair enough! For a considerable time now I too have preferred this rather flexible view of inspiration to the rigid one. Even in assessing the ministry of the Biblical prophets one has to tolerate a “surprise or two”. The Bible does provide evidence to that end. Nathan reversed his personal affirmation of David’s intention to build the temple after being instructed otherwise by the Lord (2. Samuel 7:1-17.). Jeremiah produced a revised version of the Lords instruction, after the king Jehoiakim burned the first edition (Jeremiah 36:27-32). Indeed, if one looks for a more mature interpretation of inspiration, the Thought Inspiration View would do a better job than the Verbal Inspiration View.
However, it could be very much misleading if one is to conclude that therein lies a satisfactory answer to all the major challenges presented by the Ellen G. White critics today.
The reason for this is that the Thought Inspiration View provides only a tiny hole for human manoeuvring; one that would allow only a few irrelevant mice to get through, but could never smuggle the elephants of plagiarism, confusing theological inconsistencies, contradicting or far stretched claims and unfulfilled prophecies. Otherwise, how would one ever know with certainty that the message, revelation or other information from Heaven has ever reached the targeted audience in a trustworthy, reliable and accurate manner, so that, at the end of the day, we may conclude assuredly that “the Lord has spoken indeed”? For the bottom line in our ongoing controversy is not whether the Church can provide a suitable theory of inspiration, but rather if we could trust a prophet regardless of one’s view on the nature of inspiration.
What I am trying to suggest is that within the framework of a prophetic calling, even with the Though Inspiration View in mind, there remains only a limited space for human colouring. Once the identifying signature “Thus said the Lord!” or “I was shown!” or “I saw” has been launched, there remain only two mutually exclusive options. Either “the Lord has spoken” in no misleading terms, or the prophet “has spoken presumptuously” (Deuteronomy 18:22.). No middle or compromising option is possible there where a special revelation is claimed. There would be simply something wrong if a prophet would claim: “The Lord had spoken, but sorry, I thought it meant something else!”
Let me illustrate.
There is a world of difference between the ministry of a prophet and the ministry of a pastor. If a pastor apologises one day from the pulpit for having formerly misunderstood some aspects of the Word of God, this gesture could even be interpreted as a sign of his maturity, humility and honesty to the Word of God. This is because a balanced minister would never claim the gift of a special revelation. In his case inspiration works through the ongoing Spirit led process of learning, and unlearning when necessary.
On the other hand, in the case of a prophet who has an advantage over a pastor in that he does handle the means of direct inspiration, special revelation, speaking with the Lord “face-to-face” - various forms of updating, correcting, revising and admittances of mistakes would soon become a serious problem rather than a virtue. The claim “Thus said the Lord” makes the whole world of difference, for the prophet’s source of information does not come from the Spirit led process of learning but from a direct revelation. While in the pastoral ministry, between the two extremes there is always a room for another option – a honest misunderstanding which ultimately leads to a correction, in the case of the prophetic ministry the claim to a direct revelation makes such an option a dangerous luxury.
Thus, a true prophet can err. But once he or she attaches the signature tune “Thus said the Lord!”, there’d better be as few “surprises” as possible. Otherwise one day someone may wonder if the Lord has spoken at all.
Comment by Tihomir Kukolja 01.16.08 @ 7:40 amThanks for interesting and thoughtful comments.
What I’ve attempted in this article is to highlight the neglected role of experience in theological change - not that experience is always the only, dominant factor. When there’s change, I think there’s always a mixture of motivations - never one reason.
On EGW, I agree with Andre that more ought to read her writings and take them to heart. Adventists would do well to take her seriously and follow her words carefully and thoughtfully. She moves me everyday as I teach about her and from her writings here at Loma Linda.
And, Tihomir, thanks for that article. That’s refreshing.
Comment by Julius 01.16.08 @ 9:06 amI think there is a considerable difference between how the early Adventists incorporated their experiences into an evolving theology and how the 21st century church tries to do so–the presence of what most Adventists believed to be the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the person of EGW. Put simply, EGW and the Spirit of Prophesy made change possible. Change and the melding of experience and theology in particular is proving a much more daunting task now without the legitimacy afforded by a transcendent source of authority.
Comment by Glenn 01.16.08 @ 1:32 pmJulius,
The two paragraphs you devote to how the church evolved in its understanding of the shut door is perhaps the most intriguing part of your essay.
I want to highlight one statement in the second of those two graphs in particular:
“If those outside of Adventism are continually being saved, and accepting the Sabbath message and joining the Adventist church is not an absolute requirement for salvation, what is the purpose of mission.”
I’m not sure that this is how traditional Adventists would understand things. I suspect most would say that a person could be saved outside of keeping the Sabbath if they had not been exposed to the truth of that teaching. But if they had, than I think the assumption is that one’s salvation is dependent on that choice.
Maybe I am not reading your statement correctly. But is this what you mean?
Comment by Glenn 01.16.08 @ 1:39 pmGlenn - I don’t think Adventists have ever said that knowing, willful rejection of the 7th day Sabbath means loss of salvation. I think we recognize that true Christians, after prayerful consideration, may reject the Sabbath.
What Adventists have traditionally said is that a time will come, after the enactment of the national Sunday law in the U.S., when the Sabbath will become a test issue for all Christians. It is at that time that this will become a question of loyalty to God. I personally reject this particular projection of the future, while accepting the implicit warning against all forms of oppressive Christianity.
This is another instance where I see Adventism en route to significant changes.
Comment by Julius 01.16.08 @ 1:59 pmI’m going to knowingly hang myself here! Worshiping on the “right day” (Saturday or Sunday or ?) in the “right way” should never be a test of faith or salvation by Protestants, Catholics, or ?. Every day should be a spiritual, but not a ritual, Sabbath day under the New Covenant! Perhaps coercing people to observe any particular day will be “a” if not “the” Mark of the Beast! The mark of an arrogant theocracy! Christians need to be Christ-like! Ritual, Old Testament observances are not part of the New Testament package! Having said that, the SDA church should continue to observe the seventh-day Sabbath, as Christ did! But it was never one of Christ’s commandments! Go ahead, burn me!
Comment by David Vickman 01.16.08 @ 2:49 pmDavid, trying to enforce Sabbath keeping onto Jews in Jesus’ day would be the same as enacting a law forcing americans to speak English. It’s a dud! Jesus tried to show another side of the Sabbath without necessarily rejecting it or ignoring it.
If Jesus’ followers follow the Lamb wherever he goes (Rev. 14:4), then you would expect them to enter the true rest of the Seventh-day. People will lose salvation not because of the Sabbath per se, rather for not having followed the Lamb into that particular rest, among other things. In the end, they reject the Author of the day, not only a 24-hour period.
Mission: If we allow these progressive theologizing trends to continue without reaching a balance, I see the SDA church becoming just another Evangelical Church with no “shtick” whatsoever. In that case, “what is the point of mission”?
We might as well revel in our narcissistic and self-absorbed ways…
Comment by Andre 01.16.08 @ 4:13 pm“If you love Jesus, you would do all these things, including Sabbathkeeping” is really legalism in lamb’s clothing. In this case, you’re effectively making Sabbath a condition for salvation. Why stop with the Sabbath? Why not every single command found in the Bible?
Looking so hard for your own “shtick” might just be same as reveling in your narcissistic and navel-gazing ways.
Some people still seem to be living in the shut door days.
Comment by Gregoire 01.16.08 @ 4:58 pmI don’t think SDAs ever looked very hard for our shtick. It was given by God at the inception of this movement in our very distinctive and ever so Biblical understanding of the Gospel, the sacrifice of Christ and his ministry in the Sanctuary, the Sabbath and lifestyle, to name a few.
I’d hate to see this church throw the pearls to the pigs so to speak by watering down our message with a cheap grace version of the Gospel, the one-Bible-verse Christianity we see being heralded as the solution to all our Adventist woes.
Let’s keep the flame burning!
Comment by andre 01.16.08 @ 9:20 pmYes Julius, SDAs would be so deeply blessed by taking EGW to heart. She has written so much that is so incredibly deep and spiritual and yet people keep raising objections by this or that statement that is almost always out of context and even adulterated to show how “wacky” she was.
Why don’t we do the same with the Bible? Let’s consider the God of the Bible a baby-killing monster because he ordered the massacre of heathen nations (including babies) by His people Israel. Why don’t we see those analogies from Evangelicals who attack EGW for her so-called contradictions and “heresies”.
Obviously, this is a non-starter, to the detriment of intellectual honesty.
Comment by andre 01.16.08 @ 9:28 pmIf the Lord does not come sooner (and I wish He would) Adventism in fifty years time would look radically different from the one today whether we like or not, and by then it might even become split into two or more fractions: a) one and the smallest, made of the followers of a historic/traditional Adventism, and very much out of touch with the world around, and b) a mainstream Adventism that would emerge out a compromise, providing a lip service to the Adventist origins while theologically very liberal and embracing so that it may accommodate cognitively dissonant teachings, and c) a group that would move more and more towards a mainstream evangelicalism, where observance of Saturday will be an option while EGW, Sanctuary Doctrine, clean and unclean food distinctions, and a few other traditional Adventist teachings will be out.
Comment by Tihomir Kukolja 01.16.08 @ 9:46 pmWhen I see the discussion, I must say, Julius, you have surely presented a very important topic.
Comment by Premek Bar 01.16.08 @ 11:59 pmOne remark to the prophets: Isaiah once said that Israel would not be occupied by their enemies. Then he died and another prophet came - Jeremiah. And he said that Babylonian king would conquer Jerusalem and Israelits should not fight against him. Because it was actual God’s will. But Jews believed to dead prophet Isaiah. Conclusion? It is sometime dangerous to listen to dead prophet, because he doesn’t have to have an actual massage!!!
And that is a key problem. What is actual massage for us. Who tells us?
There is something very deeply profound and spiritual in the writings of Ellen White! Having said that, as we continue more deeply into modernity, and continue to be farther and farther removed from the lifetime of Ellen White, it gets harder and harder to honestly keep saying the same old things in the same old ways…we need to choose our battles wisely…I don’t think there is a simple fix to make everything ok…all of the options are problematic…but the Christocentric Ellen White books published between 1892 and 1905 are a good place to begin…but not end…
Comment by David Vickman 01.17.08 @ 12:01 amThanks Julius, for highlighting the important role experience can play in shaping a truly Biblical theology. At the same time I, like Andre, have difficulty in viewing the post October 22 reinterpretation as less than transparent and dishonest.
Consider the real facts as to the aftermath of the Great Disappointment. Estimates vary wildly as to the number of Millerites who waited expectantly on Oct 22. Some suggest 150,000, others only 50,000 - not an insignificant percentage of the New England population of the time. After Oct 22 some veered into atheism, others returned to their former churches and their faith in the Advent evaporated, still others turned to emotionalism and fanaticism. Only about 40 or 50 brave adventists out of 50,000 - 150,000 ’stubbornly’ refused to give up their faith in the Advent of their Lord.
Certainly they did not embrace this new interpretation as “the most colossal, psychological, face saving phenomenon in religious history.” Afterall, these brave ones were the least in the kingdom. But many times our heavenly Father reveals his truth to babes because his grace is sufficient for them. These few were struggling, not for a face-saving measure. Instead they were struggling to find a ‘faith-saving’ measure - faith in the Advent and in the Christ of the Advent.
And from this small insight into truth, and in answer to the sincere prayer of a small group of the least of all his saints there grew a solid core of belief and consensus. This doctrine has never been stale, flat nor unprofitable. Instead, that faith has enabled the growth and development of a multitude of maturing, faithful Christians who good works have indeed enlightened every continent.The Gamaliel test is certainly still useful today.
Do we expect that God will use only those who are learned and who have a worldly pedigree? Yes, many times he does. For example, John Wycliffe and John Wesley were both graduates of Oxford. Still other times God uses ‘the weakest of the weak.’ We dare not despise the multitude of ways God chooses to operate!
I’m amazed at the patience of our God as He worked together with the early Adventist pioneers. It seems that God did indeed enlighten them with His present truth only as rapidly as they could bear it. The truth that lit their way corresponds in a most remarkable way to their missiological needs. For example, just as they were ready to reach beyond the Christian lands of Europe and the America’s and establish beach-heads in non-Christian lands, our Heavenly Father gave us the most precious 1888 message.
Like Andre, I also see that some concepts are fundamentally opposed to an understanding of “progressive” light.
Comment by Peter Marks 01.17.08 @ 3:21 amI have enjoyed all of the comments on this most controversial topic, but I have failed to see in all of the comments that the following is a fact. If one does not have a saving, personal relationship with Christ, it does not matter what theological retoric is spouted. Why is it that people just don’t want to “keep it simple”? Jesus taught at a level that even a child could understand!!!. Why can’t we do the same? I have been an Adventist for the past 34 yrs. and would never, ever, consider leaving the organized church for anyone or any reason. We are an imperfect people with a perfect message. I always tell people that do not agree with our message this; If we are wrong, we have lost nothing, but if they are wrong, they have lost everything! God Bless…..
Comment by Linda Taylor 01.18.08 @ 4:57 pmLinda: I appreciated your comment. See ‘The Least of These My Bretheren’ chapter in The Desire of Ages. If Satan can’t convince us to reject Christ, maybe he can confuse, disillusion, divide, and fatigue us to the point of ineffectiveness…whatever works…
Comment by David Vickman 01.19.08 @ 8:57 pmAdventism, like all human movements, must change in order to stay alive. In North America, Europe, and Australia Adventism is in the greatest danger of slowly disappearing unless it changes into something equally as potent and beneficial as it was in the past as a response to the particular situations in which it found itself in.
Comment by Raul Batista 01.20.08 @ 2:52 pmI agree, Linda. I’m disappointed by the Adventist church continuing to reject our pioneers’ historic opposition to the Trinity doctrine and continuing to persecute those of us who believe that Christ had a beginning, truly a son of God. We still believe that a personal, saving relationship with Christ is the most important thing, not whether you believe that Christ was God or not. In the end, I might be wrong or the mainstream Christians might be wrong on the identity of Christ. Theological rhetoric isn’t important. What’s important, like Linda said, is a personal, saving relationship with Christ.
Comment by Trent 01.20.08 @ 5:15 pmRaul - I’m glad Adventists changed their thinking on the Trinity. I’m glad we don’t imagine Armegeddon will happen in the Middle East anymore. Yet when you say that Adventism must change, I ask the question - change for what / change for whom.
When we think of change perhaps it is helpful also to think of style and substance. There always remains a substantive core that we call Adventism. The way we present it will vary according to the culture and the situation.
Evangelical theology has locked horns with process theology. Yet some within Adventism seek to promote this modern heresy. Adventism in most quarters rejects an understanding of atonement coloured by the moral influence theory. Yet some promote it. Adventists have every Biblical reason to be in the forefront of modern day creationists. Yet it seems that some within Adventism are busier trying to reconcile Adventism with evolution.
May God save us from this kind of substantive change.
Raul, I began my ministry in the early 80’s in Australia when every wind of doctrine was blowing. It seemed to me then, as now, that God has invited those who are gifted by His spirit as pastor’s and teacher’s to bring a steadiness to the faith of those within their influence. They are certainly not to be the creators of the winds of doctrine.
God’s people in the west will burnout spiritually, not for the lack of novelty and change. God’s people in these places will have spiritual burnout because of the lack of a maturing faith that grows in assurance, and understanding of the Word.
It disappoints me to see how many theological assertions are made on this blog without one cintilla of evidence or reason in support.
Comment by Peter Marks 01.21.08 @ 1:25 amI, too, have concluded that early Adventists developed their theology, much like all theology is developed, as a way of explaining one’s experience. We now have a lot of evidence that suggests that the Old and New Testament were put together for many of the same cultural, political, and ideological reasons that any world view is created.
These documents and ideas don’t hold up to the same standards of truth that we have today simply because we have many more ways to evaluate what is true. And this will continue beyond our lifetimes.
We really can’t claim to know anything because any explanation or story has to be based on some type of assumption that is unprovable. This is the nature of the human condition. To claim that we have a “perfect” message is either the pinnacle of arrogance and/or of ignorance. This would be true for anyone who claims this.
And to say that there is nothing to lose by continuing to believe in myths that clearly have begun to demonstrate their inability to answer is to live life from the fear of the unknown.
If experience is the driving force of understanding, then why don’t we listen to experience sooner, rather than later?
I don’t find the experience of success to be confusing. I find it to be confirming. The myths of my youth created situations that prevented me from finding better solutions, because they taught that there were no other solutions beyond them. They either directly or indirectly stated that their knowledge was God’s knowledge. In my experience this has clearly failed.
I would rather see less certainty and more curiosity and creativity.
Comment by Richard Harty 01.21.08 @ 8:17 pmRichard Harty, I really enjoyed your last comments.
We should have more doubts and less certitude. “Absolute Truth” stops all future inquiry.
Andre said: I know there are many SDA’s who don’t believe in EGW but I have a hunch that many if not most, have never read her writings”
It is because too many HAVE read her writings and were bombarded with them for many years who no longer believe that all she said was from the Lord. That preface, leaves no “wiggle room” for change or newer understanding, and can only be called “Present Truth” for a one-time date.
This site is called “Progressive Adventism” for a reason. Status quo or regression is NOT growing but eventually leads to death. Every single individual who reads the Bible, is at the same time interpreting it for himself. To do otherwise, is to abandon your only ability to make reasoned judgment and let others do your thinking,
Comment by Elaine Nelson 01.21.08 @ 8:54 pmPeter et al.
Thanks for the interesting and helpful comments. I’m not suggesting at all that early Adventists were dishonest in their re-interpretation. As I state in the paper, they did what early Christians did with their Jesus experience, i.e., re-interpret the Old Testament Christologically. And I believe this is what Christians throughout the ages have done and should do. It’s a form of typological reading that some will feel cynical about, but as I’ve said, there’s nothing wrong with what early Adventists did. Some will feel uncomfortable with my description and will take exception to it, and that’s of course their prerogative. But let it be clear that I see nothing sinister or un-transparent in how early Adventists re-interpreted Scripture based on their new experiences. I think it’s rather beautiful and indicative of their humility and openness to the guiding of the Spirit. I think it’s perfectly possible that the Spirit guides a community at one time in history one way, and then in a completely different way at a different time.
(In our dialogue, Peter, it would help if you didn’t use such phrases as “modern heresy” or “one scintilla of evidence.” Such language unnecessarily escalates the temperature of the conversation.
)
Comment by Julius 01.21.08 @ 8:56 pmJulius and everyone. Forgive me if my language is offensive. I respect your right to monitor the tone of the blog, Julius. And I value the openness we all experience in being able to contribute to this blog even if there are some like me who would not include themselves among the progressives.
I want my views to be represented and tested here. This happens best if people are prepared not only to state their point of view but also to provide the evidence on which they base that point of view. This is what I will strive to do, however imperfectly.
And thanks, Julius for your clarification. I feel more comfortable with your position now.
Comment by Peter Marks 01.22.08 @ 1:17 amThanks, Peter, for understanding and bountiful graciousness. I don’t monitor this blog perfectly. Please don’t let my concern for the tone stop you from challenging me or others on substance. btw, “progressive” is a theologically-neutral term that I use very broadly. I think one can be a deep conservative and be a progressive in seeking changes and being open and humble toward others, esp. toward those on the other side of the issue. I think one can be a liberal and not be a progressive in being entrenched so much in their own principles that they are not open to the mysterious ways of the Spirit. I don’t really know you yet, but you sure smell like a progressive to me.
Comment by Julius 01.22.08 @ 10:45 am“. I think one can be a liberal and not be a progressive in being entrenched so much in their own principles…”
Julius, that is a rather new and subjective interpretation of “liberal.” Who does that exclude, or is it all-inclusive of sincere Christians? What Christian would deny the work of the Spirit?
Doesn’t “not being progressive” sound much more like a conservative?
Given your unique interpretation of “liberal” how would you define “conservative”?
Comment by Elaine Nelson 01.22.08 @ 1:33 pmElaine,
I consider conservative and liberal as ideological labels which are helpful in describing, for example, hermeneutical differences when it comes to Scripture. I use progressive as an ideology-neutral term that could apply to both conservatives and liberals. See “About” under “Pages” in the lower left part of this page. You’ll see the definition of progressive that I’ve been using from the first day this blog was up online.
I see dogmatism or fundamentalism as standing in opposition to progressivism. Progressivism, in my mind and as I have tried to consistently use here, is an attitude of openness, dialogue and learning.
Comment by Julius 01.22.08 @ 10:17 pmJulius stated, “And I believe this is what Christians throughout the ages have done and should do. It’s a form of typological reading that some will feel cynical about, but as I’ve said, there’s nothing wrong with what early Adventists did. ”
While I don’t see this re-interpretation done by religious people as malicious, I do see it as not true in the purest sense of the word. Its not an issue of right and wrong when its your only option in terms of making sense of the world and trying to bring meaning to one’s life.
To me its quite evident that most of this stuff was simply made up to satisfy a need to make sense of the world by very simply people. What disturbs me is that we continue to give it authority and validity out of some type of misplaced loyalty.
We can admire individuals for making the best with what they were given, but this doesn’t give them authority to know how to direct other’s lives throughout the ages.
If we are going to believe in a Spirit then why not access that now? Why do we need prophets and messengers and such? They only can speak from their experience. I have observed far more confusion when we try to make sense out of words given some type of authority.
I find far more success in reading what everyone has to say, observe the outcomes of various beliefs, and then make the best decision that I can, always willing to change my mind with new information.
Comment by Richard Harty 01.23.08 @ 12:25 amElaine, well said, many have not really read her writings, rather they HAD EGW READ for them and I believe you speak for those people.
EGW, just as the Bible, can be used for all kinds of twisted views and I do acknowledge people have been using her in a abusive and biased way for decades, just as they have the Bible. That’s is not at all my experience, having grown up in a very conservative, South American SDA environment.
My experience has been that whenever I opened her books as a teenager, I felt the real presence of the Holy Spirit by my side leading me to truth, just as do when I open the Bible. On the other hand, applying the same strict reading that people apply to the Testimonies to the Bible will also lead to a rejection of the Scriptures as full of inconsistencies, contradictions and factual errors. Inspiration is a fluid enterprise, between a perfect God and imperfect mankind. Let’s not miss the core message of God’s revelations, be them Scriptures or modern prophets.
Also, EGW NEVER, EVER said that she had the absolute truth or that all inquiry must stop at her Testimonies, or even the Bible for that matter.
What we cannot do is reject past light for “present” light. I often get a sense that so-called “progressives” want to demolish, and reconstruct or “reinvent” eons of theological thought and discovery for a more “present” version of truth, one that will better fit their prior commitment with an “anything-goes” Christianity. The fact that lifestyle is at the forefront of many of the progressive’s rebellion against SDA should raise a red flag.
I agree with Julius that being progressive is being open to discussion and learning and I’m glad to be part of that group. However, simply rejecting the light that has been revealed and discovered in the past does not constitute progress.
Comment by andre 01.23.08 @ 9:50 am“My experience has been that whenever I opened her books as a teenager, I felt the real presence of the Holy Spirit by my side leading me to truth, just as do when I open the Bible. ”
This is the basic problem with the fundamentalist perspective. That is, it seeks to cast the “felt” “experience” as objective truth or as “light” that despite its highly subjective nature, must be accepted without question.
Comment by Glenn 01.23.08 @ 1:25 pmBringing an expectation of divine authority to one’s reading is a very subjective form of personal interpretation. This also precludes any critical analysis and questioning. We should always read for knowledge, but not absolute certainty.
Any writing that is held to be sacred, infallible and inerrant, leads to unthinking assent, and has been the source for religious dictatorship throughout history.
Comment by Elaine Nelson 01.23.08 @ 3:32 pm“On the other hand, applying the same strict reading that people apply to the Testimonies to the Bible will also lead to a rejection of the Scriptures as full of inconsistencies, contradictions and factual errors.”
I agree. It seems obvious that many former SDA’s who have left the church for some form of Calvinist evangelicalism on the basis of a rejection of EGW have not really read the Bible with any serious scrutiny.
The difference–for many of these folks–is that they are inclined to cut the Bible a lot of slack, as it was written many centuries ago and has a much longer history and status of legitimacy.
Comment by Glenn 01.23.08 @ 3:36 pm“What we cannot do is reject past light for “present” light. I often get a sense that so-called “progressives” want to demolish, and reconstruct or “reinvent” eons of theological thought and discovery for a more “present” version of truth…The fact that lifestyle is at the forefront of many of the progressive’s rebellion against SDA should raise a red flag…however, simply rejecting the light that has been revealed and discovered in the past does not constitute progress.”
This is, in essense, what most Protestant Christians said of the Advent movement.
Comment by Glenn 01.23.08 @ 3:39 pmComment by Glenn 01.23.08 @ 3:47 pm
Unrelated topic–I’m trying to get a handle on using the XHTML and can’t seem to get it right.
I’ve used regular HTML before but I can’t seem to figure out the instructions above.
Anyone care to walk me through some examples, would be much appreciated. Thanks.
Comment by Glenn 01.23.08 @ 3:50 pmI hope that any changes in Adventism will occur as a prayerful-careful result of psychological, philosophical, ethical, theological, and spiritual triumph…rather than as a result of apathy, carelessness, coercion, sabotage, cowardace, or corruption! If Adventists dialogue with other groups, they need to make sure that it is really a two-way street! A joint statement shouldn’t highlight the other group’s objections to Adventism!
Comment by David Vickman 01.23.08 @ 4:18 pmGlenn, please note the “present” between quotes… I’m not questioning new applications of truth or a new unfolding of old verities. We must be wary however that we do not pull the rug from under truth by trying to be hip and progressive for progress’ sake.
As far as the argument that one should read the Bible purely from a rational standpoint by scrutinizing its very word, we should be careful. I think it will be hard to sustain the belief that the Bible contains any special messages from God whatsoever without the Holy Spirit’s anointing of the reading. Without the Holy Spirit, the Bible becomes completely irrelevant, it’s just an old, unreliable and fictional record of ancient stories. It’s the Holy Spirit that lights in the fire in my heart to accept and believe what is being said, not only when it resonates with my experience but when it calls me to a higher plateau as well.
So yes, one should “feel” the tugging and gentle influence of the Holy Spirit, no matter which side of aisle is using the argument.
Although I believe that Christians and SDAs in general should have a more fluid view of inspiration, I think it’s silly to now bring only our academic glasses to the Scriptures. We need the CORE MESSAGE, not the genealogies or irrelevant details, e.g., “How many angels were at the tomb when Jesus arose? (you’ll get different numbers in the Bible).”
Finally, David, I think the change that needs to occur in Adventism is a return to the basics laid out by our pioneers and EGW: revealed truth in the Scriptures above personal opinions or traditions and Christ at the center, beginning and end of all we do and believe!!
Back to SDA basics, what a concept!
Comment by andre 01.23.08 @ 6:59 pmWhen I was serving actively as a church minister I remember repeating in many of my sermons how important it was that each generation should challenge anew what they believed in the light of the primary reference point, which is Jesus Christ as revealed in the Gospels and the New Testament. Although this might sound as a cliche, it is nevertheless the force that should move us forward. But it requires honesty to do so, and whether we like or not most of us have a major problem with acting honestly as long as our main reference point remains a steadfastness in justifying and upholding our beginnings at every detail and at whatever the cost. A true follower of Jesus Christ is called first of all to be loyal to the Master, and then to whatever tradition we want to uphold. I believe that it would be more dignifying for us Adventist to admit that there were some things at the beginning of our movement which were theologically plausible and unsound, that to keep on saving our face by cognitively dissonant theories and explanations.
Comment by Tihomir Kukolja 01.23.08 @ 9:45 pmAndre, it sounds so simple: “a return to the basics laid out by our pioneers and EGW: revealed truth in the Scriptures above personal opinions or traditions and Christ at the center, beginning and end of all we do and believe!!”
If it were only that simple. Isn’t that what practically all Christian denominations claim: to have Christ as the head of the church? How far back shall we go to get to the “basics”? The one Christian church (now Roman Catholic) chose the books of our New Testament, which all Christians now accept. The doctrine of the Trinity, which that same church decided in the fourth century, is now the Adventist’s belief. The nature of Christ was also decided in the fourth century, and is a major doctine of most Christians, including Adventists. All of these are “received traditions” from the one Christian church. However, the Adventist pioneers did not accept these as “basics” for a good while, and some never did. New doctrines are being continually added, the latest being the 28th to the Statement of Fundamentals. What was once a strange idea, later becomes “doctrine” or tradition. Surrendering of our religious freedom to another authority is the first evidence of religion becoming far too powerful.
We should NEVER abandon our personal opinions; that is, unless one believes that salvation is by a group or organization, and not individually. Isn’t this what many Jews originally thought: They were the “Chosen People” and that guaranteed them God’s favor?
Comment by Elaine Nelson 01.23.08 @ 9:57 pmTihomir,
I appreciate the reminder that you’ve brought of what Jesus did. I’m in wholehearted agreement with you! Jesus indeed showed us the way of relating to tradition–i.e., creatively re-engaging the tradition in the present without needing to follow all the particulars of the tradition.
“Following” Jesus is not adhering 100% to what Jesus did or taught and to what his first followers did and wrote; that would be doing exactly what Jesus showed us NOT to do — following the tradition of the elders. But following Jesus means to re-engage the Christian tradition the way Jesus re-engaged the Jewish tradition. I expect the same kind of continuity/discontinuity dynamic between Jesus and us as there was between Jesus and Moses.
So, sometimes being a faithful follower of Jesus can mean doing something exactly opposite of what Jesus and the NT writers did and said. By opposing, ironically, we do what Jesus exemplified for us. Sometimes, we can hold God hostage to our notion of logic, consistency and non-contradiction; so we say that God would never do this or that. But Scripture has a plethora of examples of divine inconsistencies and changes of divine injunction. As I see it, God acts in different ways in different times, and sometimes changes come through the revelation of experience as prompted by the Spirit.
Comment by Julius 01.24.08 @ 9:53 amCouldn’t 1844/IJ be defended based upon the previous comment? Didn’t EGW re-engage the Christian tradition? What would Des say? Is Sola Scriptura scriptural? Could a US President ignore the US Constitution based upon the ’spirit-led’ experience of the religious right?
The twin principles of freedom and responsibility, which are the foundation of the teachings of Jesus, are non-negotiable. The context of the teachings of Jesus is not our context, and we do have to use our brains and the internet, to make intelligent theological statements which are relevant to modernity, so as to not degenerate into pious zombies, or Godbots, if you will!
Comment by David Vickman 01.25.08 @ 1:18 amI am only now jumping into the discussion and what really intrigues me about this discussion is its relevance to a course I am teaching for upper division theology students at Columbia Union College called Faith Seeking Understanding. I am going to give a copy of this discussion to my students for their comments.
Comment by J. David Newman 01.25.08 @ 3:52 amI do agree that experience is the filter through which we interpret Scripture. A girl constantly molested by her father will have a very different view of God when she hears Him called Father than a girl who grew up in a stable Christian home.
However, experience must be tested through dialog with others, otherwise that molested girl will never discover that others have a different view of Father than she has.
I also believe that Adventism is in crisis since what it predicted has not come to pass and until Jesus comes we have failed. Because the original mission of the Adventist Church was to proclaim the return of Christ within a single generation. This is why discussions like this are vital otherwise we will continue in our unthinking ways to to live out the statement of Ellen White that we are in a Laodicean condition satisfied with where we are rather than being fervently for or fervently against. May this discussion continue in many and varied ways.
By the way I am not full time at CUC, just an adjunct professor teaching one course.
God always behaves different than we expect. Simply, we have to accept this fact. His way of revealing is unpredictable. I think that is experience of all Christians or believers at all. Why should be adventism an exception? What do you think?
Comment by Premek Bar 01.25.08 @ 4:25 amDavid, you said: “Because the original mission of the Adventist Church was to proclaim the return of Christ within a single generation.”
Hasn’t that ALWAYS been the church’s message? Didn’t the followers of Jesus, and Jesus himself predict that he would return in their generation? And hasn’t there always been believers since then who believed that he would return in “their generation.”
The perpetual hope is what either sustains believers, or causes them to appear delusional to those outside their belief system. The old cry of “wolf ” eventually ceases to excite.
Truth is, for those with hope of being resurrected with their first breath they will see Jesus.
Since it is only a hope with no human living who can tell us of what lies on the “other side” we should live here honoring Christ’s command to love our neighbor as ourselves. That is our message and obligation and if we claim to follow him we should focus more on the here and now.
Comment by Elaine Nelson 01.25.08 @ 11:42 amElaine you are right about always living in the expectation of the soon return of Jesus. But I do believe that God intended for Adventists a similar mission to what he had for John the Baptist. One man introduced the first coming but God wanted a group of people herald the second coming. We failed and now, I agree, our primary mission is to live out the love of Jesus and be true salt and light in a dying world.
Comment by J. David Newman 01.25.08 @ 7:52 pmDavid, I agree with you that we have failed in heralding the second coming in one generation. But then again, haven’t all chosen peoples failed in accomplishing their God-given mission? Also, wouldn’t that be virtually impossible considering the insurmountable challenge of reaching the whole world in a time when cars or communications hadn’t even been invented? Should we consider this injunction just another “conditional prophecy” doomed to fail?
Looking back through history, there was never a time when God’s servants individually or Israel and now the Church didn’t live on the verge of jeopardizing their covenant with God. Truth is, we haven’t and will never fully live up to God’s missiological standards for us, be them the greater mission to all nations or our menial day-to-day “missional existence” as you have suggested.
The question for Adventism is: Will God raise yet another movement to accomplish the mission of preparing the world for His coming? Wouldn’t it be pointless, considering it hasn’t worked for the last 2000 years? Or shouldn’t we just sit around and wait for the fullness of time, God’s own appointed day to judge?
Comment by andre 01.25.08 @ 9:07 pmAndre, I don’t believe that it was God’s purpose that the Adventist church do it alone. I believe that God intended us to be the vanguard within the Christian community. However, we got sidetracked by interpreting Revelation to apply soley to us and making Catholics, Protestants, and Spiritualists the enemy. We became exclusive rather than inclusive. Will God raise up someone else to prepare for His coming? I don’t know. And a bigger question is How is God going to decide when to end things? Babies are constantly being born, people are constantly accepting Jesus. God is not wiling that any should perish but all come to repentance. So how is God going to decide. I have some thoughts on this but maybe that should be another thread
Comment by J David Newman 01.26.08 @ 6:59 pmThen Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” Matthew 28:18-20 NIV
During the past 2,000 years of “Christian” history, have Christians taught people to obey everything that Jesus commanded? Or everything but what Jesus commanded? Is this insubordination?
Comment by David Vickman 01.26.08 @ 7:16 pmPr. David, I’ve always struggled with the fact that babies are being born by the thousands every day and God sure would want them to learn about Christ and the salvation plan. God’s love for babies “delays” His greater love for a restored universe. It’s the divine policy of delayed gratification. I can certainly see His point having an adorable 3-month old daughter!
Has God mellowed through the centuries…? Didn’t he wipe out “heathen” babies in Israel’s time? Is the “C” word to be applied broadly to prophecies that seem to go unfulfilled, even as the world gets to an unbearable, pre-flood-was-a-joke state?
In that case, the “C” word should invariably go hand-in-hand with the “E” word, experience. Our individual and corporate experiences with apparently conditional/failed prophecies will lead us to reshape, reconstruct and even reject past beliefs.
I’m not sure that is the case, I’ve made baby steps into that arena.
Comment by andre 01.27.08 @ 8:01 amWhy is it so hard to admit that we got some things wrong at the beginning. I fear that our identity of being Adventists first, Christians second, and the followers of Jesus Christ the last, rather than the other way round, is shaping the way we handle our theology. The way we afford to be flexible and gracious about our own misgivings at the beginning, we are not willing to afford when we think of other similar apocalyptic movements. The current dispensationalism (secret rapture, antichrist, role of Israel etc..) that runs across the entire Evangelical spectrum shares some interesting similarities with Adventism, for example. I wonder how would it develop further when the things they teach do not come to pass the way their proponents preach?
Comment by Tihomir 01.27.08 @ 9:53 amWe should not expect that during our lives we can see the results of our works for God. Jesus, when he stood before the cross, could not see it either. Would not be enough to be satisfied with God alone?
Comment by Premek Bar 01.28.08 @ 10:45 pmI think our discussion has taken us beyond the scope of the article. Thanks all for participating. God bless!
Comment by Julius 01.28.08 @ 10:57 pm