God the eternal Son became incarnate in Jesus Christ. Through Him all things were created, the character of God is revealed, the salvation of humanity is accomplished, and the world is judged. Forever truly God, He became also truly humanman, Jesus the Christ. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He lived and experienced temptation as a human being, but perfectly exemplified the righteousness and love of God. By His miracles He manifested God’s power and was attested as God’s promised Messiah. He suffered and died voluntarily on the cross for our sins and in our place, was raised from the dead, and ascended to heaven to minister in the heavenly sanctuary in our behalf. He will come again in glory for the final deliverance of His people and the restoration of all things. (Isa. 53:4-6; Dan. 9:25-27; Luke 1:35; John 1:1-3, 14; 5:22; 10:30; 14:1-3, 9, 13; Rom. 6:23; 1 Cor. 15:3, 4; 2 Cor. 3:18; 5:17-19; Phil. 2:5-11; Col. 1:15-19; Heb. 2:9-18; 8:1, 2.)
Aside from re-arranging the texts and inclusive language, the only significant change voted in San Antonio was the addition of “to heaven” after the word “ascended.” This was intended to state explicitly what was formerly assumed, that the ascension was to heaven not some other place.
This statement is a marvelous example of the church choosing to express itself in a way that all can agree on without taking sides in the internal debates. The language here seems to deliberately echo some of the creeds in the early Christian centuries. The statement carefully balances between pre- (Jesus had the human nature of Adam before the Fall—“sinless”) and post-lapsarian (Jesus had the nature of Adam after the Fall—“sinful”) positions. It carefully leaves room for both sides to live according to their consciences while staying unified on the things that are most clear. One might wish that the same approach had been taken in regard to FB6 (Creation), where the recent action at the General Conference in San Antonio codified a more narrow position that might not prove helpful to the very people who need clarity on this issue the most (scientists).
It is interesting that FB4 states things very differently than some or most early Adventist positions. This is one of the current fundamentals that our earliest pioneers would have had a hard time signing on to. Joseph Bates, James White and Uriah Smith would probably have rejected language like “God the eternal Son” and “Forever truly God.” E. J. Waggoner, of 1888 fame, never accepted the eternity of Christ, and he flourished five decades after the Millerite movement. Ellen White never challenged the views of Waggoner and Jones on this matter, possibly preferring to protect their view of the gospel rather than challenging their deficiencies in the area of Christology in the early 1890s.
The other possibility is that she herself was still growing in her understanding of this subject. Recent historical evidence suggests that Ellen White’s own shift in regard to issues of salvation and the deity of Christ occurred in Australia in the year 1896, when she attended a camp meeting lecture series on the Gospel of John by W. W. Prescott. The series focused on these very issues and articulated positions she took in Desire of Ages (1898) and later. It seems providential that SDAs moved in this direction (deity of Christ). We would have had a much harder time engaging other Christians in the 20th Century and beyond had our views on Christ been less orthodox.
On this doctrine Adventists are very much in line with the orthodox tradition, the great creeds of the early church. But if you go back to the fourth and fifth centuries, the orthodox position on Christ was anything but sure to win the doctrinal contest. In the early centuries Arianism (the view that the heavenly Christ was not truly divine but was a created being) was more popular than the orthodox position, so the early church’s move to the full deity of Christ and the Trinity was a bit startling when it occurred. While to us many of these ancient debates seem “much ado about nothing,” early church leaders were seeking to safeguard the essence of salvation. If Jesus is anything less than God, how could He truly be our Savior? In a real sense, salvation and the nature of Christ are closely related.
It is sometimes said that heresy is the mother of orthodoxy. In the early church debates, people often explored both extremes (Christ was primarily divine or human, for example) and then the mainstream of the church reacted by saying the truth couldn’t be either extreme, it must, therefore, be somewhere in the middle. The reality is, orthodoxy is almost always more complicated than heresy. Heresy is often the result of over-simplification. The resulting orthodox view of the trinity and Christ expressed things differently than the New Testament did, but was as faithful to the Bible as possible, given the nature of the questions people were asking at the time.
Something to think about. What if Christianity had come to the United States as an Asian religion rather than a European one? What would it have been like? What would we be like? But that is a speculative point. As it is, Adventism came to embrace the full orthodoxy of the Christian church on the subject of God and Christ. Adventist uniqueness becomes visible in other points of doctrine.
God the eternal Father is the Creator, Source, Sustainer, and Sovereign of all creation. He is just and holy, merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness. The qualities and powers exhibited in the Son and the Holy Spirit are also thoserevelations of the Father. (Gen. 1:1; Deut. 4:35; Ps. 110:1, 4; John 3:16; 14:9; 1 Cor. 15:28; 1 Tim. 1:17; 1 John 4:8; Rev. 4:11.)
The only change outside of some rearrangement of the texts was replacing the word “revelation” with the word “those.” Rather than saying that the actions of Jesus and the Spirit are revelations of the Father, the focus is on the equality of the three.
A crucial text in relation to the character of God is Exodus 34:6-7. What kind of God does this text portray? The passage piles up all the words in the Hebrew language that express the idea of grace in its various applications to the human condition. It expresses that God is love in the inmost aspects of His being. The text begins by saying that the Lord God is “merciful and gracious.” The Hebrew word for “merciful” (rachum) is related to the Arabic opening of the Qur’an, where Allah is described as merciful and compassionate (rachman ir-rachim). God is also described as “long-nosed” which is often translated “slow to anger.” The Hebrew word for anger is related to the nostril, since anger is often expressed in heavy breathing. If the nose is long, it expresses the basic idea is that it takes God a long time to get angry.
There is a disturbing picture (for many) in the latter part of this passage, the idea that negative judgment would fall on four generations, one of which would be at most children at the time of the offense being considered. Our discussion noted several aspects of the larger context. For one thing all four generations would have lived in the same compound (super-extended families), so there are corporate aspects in the actions of a family’s leaders. The three or four generations is, however, in contrast with the thousands of generations to which God’s expresses love and mercy. So even when He is making threats, God leans far in the direction of mercy.
The text goes on to say that God forgives “wickedness, rebellion and sin,” but will by no means “leave the guilty unpunished.” First of all, the same word for forgive (naqqeh) is found in both sides of the expression. Literally, God forgives wickedness, rebellion and sin, but does not forgive the guilty (pôqêd). How is it that the guilty are somehow less forgivable than the “guilty.” Aren’t they all guilty? Here it is helpful to note that the “guilty” are those who are outside the covenant, in other words, outside of a relationship with God. To be outside the covenant is not something people stumble into, it is the consequence of their own choices. So the dark side of this text is not a threat to be feared. Rather, the text implies that there is lots of latitude for those who are in relationship with God. The key is not the type of sin but whether or not the person is in covenant relationship with God. Perhaps the words of Ellen White are appropriate here that it is not the occasional good deeds or misdeeds that counts, but the larger trend of the life (Steps to Christ, 57.2).
In ancient times the gods were very wrathful and arbitrary. In that context it may not have been possible for Israel’s God to gain the respect of the people without some thunder and threats. But in texts like Exodus 34, John 3:16 and 14:9, we see a picture that cuts against the grain of the violent picture of God that ancients and many moderns have held. The Bible is often more ambiguous than we would like. But ambiguity in our understanding of God is not a weakness, it is a strength, helping us to maintain humility, and humility is one of the core values of Loma Linda University.
This Fundamental Belief clearly soft-pedals the harsher aspects of how God’s judgments are sometimes portrayed, and the above examination of Exodus 34 is supportive of how the topic was handled. Adventism at its best has a beautiful picture of God.
My colleagues and I reflected on the sacrifice of Isaac and God’s strange request in that situation. Is it appropriate that a child suffer in behalf of another? Clearly God had no intention of Isaac ever being sacrificed, as he intervened the moment Abraham came close. But why then the experience? I sometimes wonder if Abraham might not have been more obedient if he had simply said “no” to God on this one. He certainly does something like that in debating with God over the fate of Sodom, and God seems to have approved of him doing so (Gen 18:25-26). Similarly, Moses argues with God in Exodus 32-34 that it is not appropriate for God to wipe out Israel and replace them with Moses and his descendants (Exod 32:11-14). Perhaps God would have been glorified even more had Abraham said no. He would be held up as an example of reasonable faith, a faith that trusts God enough to challenge what appears to be an irresponsible request. God is OK when His friends challenge Him.
Since Abraham said yes, God used the story as a beautiful illustration of how much He would be willing to sacrifice in order to win back the human race. In the prophets on the other hand, especially Ezekiel 18, we see a more straightforward sense that everyone is responsible for their own choices. So Israel’s understanding of God seems to have shifted by the time of the prophets, anticipating the enhanced revelation of the New Testament.
At Loma Linda University there is a strong focus on God as the creator and sustainer of the world. In the mission of healing, we are continuing the creative and sustaining mission of God, who experiences the pain of His creatures along with them. In the earthly experience of Jesus, that ministry of healing was most clearly seen. Many patients come to Loma Linda with a negative view of God as one who is punishing them for their sins with sickness, accidents or chronic disease. It is very healing for them to learn about the union of love and purpose between the Father and the Son. If the Father had come done to earth instead of Jesus, He would not have been any different than Jesus was. It is a healing theology that lays out the complete unity within the godhead, and the gracious character of the Father.
Much of my life I have had something of a good cop/bad cop view of God. The Yahweh of the Old Testament was tough, judgmental and often scary and intimidating. The Jesus of the New Testament was gracious, kind and accepting. The two views of God kind of played off against each other. But I realize now that that picture was based on a misreading of Scripture. Jesus came to show us what the Father is really like. And what the Father is like is Jesus. There is no difference between the two. That is a strong Adventist contribution to Christian theology.
There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three coeternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. God, who is love, He is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation. (Gen. 1:26; Deut. 6:4; Isa. 6:8; Matt. 28:19; John 3:16 2 Cor. 1:21, 22; 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2.)
With the exception of some re-arranging of the Bible texts, the only change made to this fundamental in San Antonio was replacing “He” at the beginning of the fourth sentence with “God, who is love,”. There seem to be two motives for the change, inclusive language (“God” vs. “He”) and adding a reference to love in the statement on the Trinity.
After reading this statement and some of the texts connected with it one of the faculty playfully asked, “If I invited the Trinity to dinner, how many plates should I place at the table?” One response was, “Just one, we are monotheists.” Another suggested, “Three plates, but one chair, and serve three different types of foods.” The struggle to answer a simple question illustrates the difficulty people have had for centuries in articulating the Christian picture of the godhead. Christians are monotheists, which means they don’t believe in three gods (or Gods), yet there is more to be said than simply that God is one (Deut 6:4). If one approaches the issues psychologically one could say that God is one in mind, yet there is a sense of three “personalities” (an analogy that I don’t think the Bible itself actually makes). If God is absolutely one, was Jesus praying to Himself while He was on earth? There is clearly also a social side to the gospel, members of the Trinity (also not a biblical term) can somehow converse among themselves and direct one another.
The bottom line with the Trinity doctrine is that these huge themes can only be approached through metaphor. Everything that we can possibly say about God is inadequate in the ultimate sense. For me, the most important thing about God as three is that it makes eternal love possible. If God were one in the absolute sense, God could be many things but love would not be one of them. Love would not be part of God’s essence. Love, in that case, would be possible only after creation. It would be a quality that responds to the creation. So it is interesting that Muslims, who have an absolute view of monotheism, have ninety-nine names for God, but don’t usually think of God in terms of love. If God is Trinity, then love is essential to God’s nature from the beginning. It is not something that happens only on account of creation, unless the created universe itself was as eternal as God. John 1:1 clearly states otherwise—at the moment when “all things” were created, the Logos and “God” were already there. As parents know, a couple’s love can be quite self-centered on their own, but with the arrival of a baby, true love becomes complete.
Is the Trinity present in the Old Testament or does only the New Testament point toward it (the word “trinity” and the explicit concept in the FB above are not directly expressed even in the NT)? In our discussion, Genesis 18 was suggested first; the three visitors that came to Abraham just before the destruction of Sodom. Genesis 1 also speaks of God in plural, “Let us make human beings in our image.” And even the very Hebrew word for God (Elohim) is plural. Also in Deuteronomy 6:4-5, when it says that “God is one,” the Hebrew word for “one” (echad) expresses a compound unity. So while it would be inappropriate to say that the Trinity is clearly expressed in the OT, the OT data leaves the way open for the idea.
Is there a Loma Linda perspective on this doctrine? How we understand Trinity is very important to our concept of God. The Bible is clear that “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself” (2 Cor 5:18-19). The cross of Christ does not occur to placate a wrathful Father or change His mind regarding the human race. God Himself provided the atonement because He loves us (John 3:16-17). All three members of the Trinity are involved in the work of reconciliation, in these matters, as Jesus said, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). If you have seen Jesus you have seen the Father (John 14:9). So there is no wedge between the Father and the Son. If the Father had come down and lived on this earth as Jesus did, He would have looked and behaved no differently. There is perfect unity in the godhead.
“The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God,given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God’s acts in history.” (2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16,17; Ps. 119:105; Prov. 30:5, 6; Isa. 8:20; John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13;Heb. 4:12.)
As my colleagues and I looked at this fundamental, a number of things stood out. First of all, was the word “infallible.” For some of us, that suggested eerie echoes of the Papacy and the inerrancy positions of some of our Evangelical colleagues. But in fact, when this fundamental was voted (1980), the word was carefully chosen to be a step short of “inerrant.” Adventists wanted a more flexible approach to Scripture than that of “inerrancy in the original documents,” but they didn’t want to imply that the Bible was full of errors, either. There is a balance in the Bible between the divine and the human. While the “Word of God” would be infallible by definition, the Bible was written by human beings and exhibits human characteristics, cultural differences, and at times grammatical mistakes (Book of Revelation). If you’re not familiar with the last point, ask me about it.
In formulating our view of the Bible it is important not only to take into account the assertions about the Bible made by the biblical authors (such as the texts included with the Fundamental above), but also the evidence of the Bible itself. Whatever we mean by inspiration, it does not preclude inspired writers from disagreeing on the order of events in Jesus’ life, writing in different styles and quality of Greek, or emphasizing different metaphors of the atonement. In the Bible God meets us where we are and where we are is rarely the perfect venue for expressing the infinite truth of God. So we need to test our understanding of inspiration, not only against the statements of the Bible on inspiration, but also against the phenomena of how God chose to reveal Himself to human beings.
Example: I would not have expected, on the basis of this fundamental, for God to use an idol as a means of revelation. But then I read Daniel 2 in the original language! Nebuchadnezzar recognized the “image” (Aramaic: tsemel) as something that could and should be worshiped (see chapter 3—also tsemel). In the dream of Daniel 2, therefore, God described the future of the world by means of an idol image. God met Nebuchanezzar where he was in order to move him a step or two in the right direction. We would not expect that on the basis of an absolutist reading of Isaiah 8:20 or John 17:17.
Another important distinction comes in how we read the Bible. It is easy to say, “I take the Bible as it reads.” But then the question arises, “Whose reading is the correct one?” One common way of reading is to understand the Bible to be a static document. Every statement of Scripture expresses exactly what God would say in every other situation as well. In the static understanding, I just need to take the Bible at face value and apply my understanding everywhere. Some call this type of reading “literal,” taking the Bible literally, as if it was not given in a particular language, culture and historical situation. But if we insisted on taking the whole Bible literally, we would still have slaves today, we would execute our children for rebellion against their parents, and we would never wear clothing with a mixture of fibers (to list just a few examples). The reality is, no one takes the whole Bible literally. To read it literally means to pick and choose the texts you wish to emphasize and that is not really taking it literally any more. The texts you choose to emphasize determine the outcome of your study.
But if God meets people where they are, we would not expect the Bible to be static. We would not expect every statement of the Bible to be God’s absolute will for all time. Instead, we would expect to see God meeting people where they are and seeking to move them in the direction He wants them to go. For example, God chose not to confront the issue of slavery head on in the context of the brutal Roman Empire. But through Paul He taught people how to treat slaves the way God treated people in Christ (Philemon). That was a huge and revolutionary step that inevitably led to the recognition that if all people are equal at the foot of the cross, then slavery is not the will of God.
When Paul told wives to submit to their husbands, he was not endorsing spousal abuse, he was radically modifying the marital relationship in the light of the self-sacrificing love of Christ. Submit to a man who would be willing to die for you the way he submits to the Christ who died for him. While the language of the text adopts the common language of submission, it transforms that language in the light of Christ. If all are equal at the foot of the cross, then God’s aspiration for women may be higher than the direct statements of Scripture would suggest. God meets us where we are and seeks to move us toward a goal. This means reading the Bible as a dynamic text that enables our understanding of God’s will to grow along with our capacity to understand. As Jesus said, “I have many things to tell you, but you can’t handle them now.” (John 16:12, my translation)
Loma Linda University is certainly committed to the primacy of the Bible in determining what is truth. But it is also committed to the integration of all knowledge, and this can only happen when submitted human reason is carefully applied to the evidence of both Scripture and nature/science. As such, the Loma Linda perspective seeks to understand the Bible in its original context, and is observant of distinctions between poetry, narrative, history, prophecy and apocalyptic. It takes the Bible seriously as it reads, but as it reads in a whole Bible. The richness of Scripture is a continual source of developing truth.
But above all else, the Loma Linda approach to the Bible sees in it a “larger view” of God and the cosmic conflict that is an essential context for all 66 books of the Bible. This “larger view” was stimulated by broad reading of Ellen White’s books like Steps to Christ and the Conflict Series. Ellen White encourages the biblical reader to see the entire Bible in the context of the conflict between Christ and Satan. But this is not a reading imposed on the Scriptures. Through history, many great readers of the Bible have also seen this, from Origen, to Dante, to Milton to C. S. Lewis. While not always on the surface, the cosmic conflict is the essential undercurrent of Scripture, without which it addresses merely the human point of view on God and the problem in the universe. Seeing Scripture through the lens of the cosmic conflict is the reason Scripture at Loma Linda is seen more through a healing lens than a legal or punitive one. But the healing side of Adventism must not be used to negate the other (apocalyptic, end-time approach). They are rather like two sides of a coin. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
“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.”
I understand that the original draft of this Preamble was written by Ron Graybill, in hopes of forestalling any trend toward a creed. Ironically, the Preamble is now being used to “tighten up” the wording of many of these Fundamentals to make them harder to “get around.” Concerns about development of a “creed” have grown in recent years. One of the SDA Church founders, James White, was afraid of putting beliefs on paper as the mere act of doing so would become a creed (like Loughborough’s comments in the previous blog). But here we are. The time has probably come for SDAs to consciously defend that what they have produced is not a creed, if in fact Adventists don’t want one.
What is the difference between a creed and a list of fundamental beliefs? For one thing, creeds are usually quite a bit shorter than the SDA Fundamentals. They usually express minimal expectations and are often intended for memorization and recitation in worship. The SDA Fundamentals are far from memorable, even a list of the 28 is difficult for most people to remember. In addition, a creed is something that doesn’t change. It expresses a point of view from a particular point in time. It may be interpreted in different ways, but the wording tends to be fixed. By all these definitions, the 28 Fundamentals probably do not qualify as a creed, at least not yet.
I remember an important conversation with a major church official ten years ago. Based on the Preamble, he stated his belief that the Fundamentals could grow or change, but they could never shrink. I protested that they were probably too long already and that some were more major than others and we should be open to the discovery that we could be wrong on one point or another. In looking at the Preamble, however, I can see where he might have gotten that perspective. The Preamble anticipates changes when a “fuller understanding” is developed or we find better language to express what is already there. I, on the other hand, would understand “fuller” to include subtraction as well as addition, if we decided that a certain concept might be true, but didn’t need to be elevated to Fundamental status. In my view, our understanding should become more accurate and complete, but not necessarily greater in quantity. But it is just such ambiguities in the current formulations that enable discussion and growth in understanding.
When it comes to statements of consensus, the more people that are involved the harder they are to achieve. What usually happens in large organizations is that a few strong leaders cast their vision of what should be, and they usually carry the day. But is that the way the Holy Spirit leads to consensus?
What is the relationship between Fundamental Beliefs and the Bible? A popular phrase, inherited from the Reformers, is “sola sciptura,” meaning roughly “The Bible Only.” But the meaning of that phrase today is often different than it was back then. The Reformers didn’t mean by this that all ideas had to be directly based on the Bible. There are many sources of moral and theological wisdom outside the Bible, and the Reformers recognized and used them. They meant, rather, that the Bible operates like a measuring stick, setting the basic principles and helping people distinguish truth and error in other sources of wisdom. To limit our understanding of theology to what is explicit in the Bible was never the Reformers intention.
A Loma Linda perspective on this Preamble would be to underline its openness to evidence and to science as a source of truth and wisdom. Adventists have never believed in a fixed creed. There has always been the sense that we know in part (1 Cor 13:9, 12), that there is more to learn (Prov 4:18) and that our knowledge will increase along with our effort and our capacity to understand (John 16:12). SDAs, therefore, have been remarkably open to theological and structural development in the past. We have changed our organizational structure at least four times (1861, 1863, 1901, 1903). We believed in a Shut Door (to salvation) at first, but now are an aggressive, worldwide evangelistic movement. We once thought Turkey was the key to understanding the end-time prophecies of the Bible, but we gradually abandoned that view after World War I. We “discovered” righteousness by faith in 1888 and still struggle to implement it in places. To be honest, most of the SDA pioneers (1840s and 1850s) couldn’t have signed on to all 28 of the current Fundamentals. So this Preamble is a nice statement of the “Adventist Spirit” of research, openness to new truth, and growth in understanding.
Since the Seventh-day Adventist Church has just completed the process of re-evaluating and re-wording its 28 Fundamental Beliefs (finalizing in July, 2015 in San Antonio), as called for in the Preamble to the Fundamentals, I thought it would be interesting to toss these 28 to my faculty one at a time and see what kind of dynamic that would create. And if you’d ever wanted to be a mouse in the corner at one of our faculty meetings, I plan to give you a chance. We will consider them one by one and I will reflect on that conversation here. The goal will be to post one a week at the blog site (www.revelation-armageddon.com) until we’re done.
Since I mentioned it, we’ll begin next week with the Preamble, which provides the basis for re-evaluating the 28 Fundamentals from time to time. Oddly, when I began preparing for this project a couple years ago, I had great difficulty even finding the Preamble online. Apparently, for some time the official web site of the SDA Church published the 28 without the Preamble, which is odd. There may have been a certain logic to that, since it is not a part of the 28 themselves (I have sometimes called it “Fundamental Zero”). But it is not a throwaway, it is really critical to the whole philosophy by which the Fundamentals need to be understood. I don’t know if I influenced the decision (I complained loudly about his in a number of places), but the Preamble is now once again proudly lodged at the top of the 28 Fundamentals on the General Conference web site: https://www.adventist.org/fileadmin/adventist.org/files/articles/official-statements/28Beliefs-Web.pdf.
Ideally, the fundamental beliefs are not a “creed,” they are descriptive rather than prescriptive. “Here is what Seventh-day Adventists generally believe. We invite you to consider these and decide whether you’d like to join us.” That is a description of how most SDAs look at things. But these days more and more people seem to be treating the Fundamentals as prescriptive, telling us exactly what we must believe. And threatening consequences should we differ in as much as a word.
Such a perspective on the fundamental beliefs goes directly contrary to the founders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, who would say things like, “We have no creed but the Bible,” and “The Bible is our only rule of faith and practice,” and “let us not think that all our expositions of Scripture are without error.” How could an Adventist ever change and grow in the understanding of Scripture unless someone, somewhere, questions something in one of the Fundamentals? To reduce the Bible to a set of propositions that cannot be reconsidered seems the height of apostasy to me.
An early Adventist pioneer, John Loughborough, agreed. In a General Conference session he opined as follows: “The first step of apostasy is to get up a creed, telling us what we shall believe. The second is to make that creed a test of fellowship. The third is to try members by that creed. The fourth to denounce as heretics those who do not believe that creed. And, fifth, to commence persecution against such.”
In the spirit of Loughborough, the 28 Fundamentals of the Seventh-day Adventist Church begin with a Preamble as follows: “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.”
In the spirit of the Preamble, this blog will report discussions of the School of Religion faculty on the Preamble itself and each of the 28 Fundamentals. These discussions will not be prescriptive, telling you what you must believe, but descriptive of what a significant group of Adventist thinkers finds of value in these fundamentals and suggesting ways to understand them better. I can’t promise this process will be a lot of “fun,” but I hope all who read these columns will be drawn closer to God and be more ready for the return of Jesus.
Recently I presented on the above topic at the first public health conference since the shootings in San Bernardino (which were perpetrated at a social gathering of public health officials). I spoke alongside a couple of muslim scholars representing biblical scholars who are also interested in the Qur’an and Islam. I suggested that Muslims and I share three core convictions that are pertinent to the issue of combating terrorism. I sense that my Muslim co-panelists agreed with me enthusiastically.
The first conviction is that there is a cosmic conflict, or cosmic jihad as Muslims might call it, between good and evil, God and Satan. In texts like Revelation 12, Isaiah 14, Ezekiel 28, Genesis 3 and Job 1 and 2, the Bible draws back the curtain to reveal behind the conflicts of this earth a universe-wide conflict over God’s character and government. Various aspects of this cosmic “jihad” are also clearly expressed in the Qur’an (1:1-4; 7:11-15, 20-22; 15:39; 17:62-65; 25:52; 26:94-98; 30:11-14; 59:19), building on the earlier prophetic revelations in the Bible. This large theme tells me that there is a battle between good and evil at the heart of every religion, including Islam. Every religion has the capacity for good or for evil. To simply say Islam is a religion of peace or Islam is a religion of violence is not an adequate analysis. Islam is part of the battleground in the cosmic conflict or jihad. Any analysis of the history of Christianity will affirm the same there. All religions here on earth are battlegrounds in the cosmic conflict.
Second, God is a God of love and love requires freedom in order to be truly love. So human beings have been created with the freedom to love God and each other or to be rebellious and violent. That means that there is no compulsion in true religion. The religion that has God’s approval is one that values human freedom and does not coerce. And a God of love and freedom does not normally intervene to interrupt the consequences of human rebellion. Hence the terrorists have the freedom to do their work with all of its horrible consequences for the innocent as well as the guilty (Gen 2:17-17; 3:11; Deut 30:19; Josh 24:15; John 8:32-36; 2 Cor 3:17; Gal 5:1, 13; Qur’an 2:256; 4:115; 16:125-128; 17:62-65). Furthermore, the lack of religious freedom in most muslim countries is the work of the evil one rather a manifestation of true faith.
Third, it is a law of life that we become like the God we worship. If we believe that God is arbitrary, punitive, judgmental and severe, we ourselves will become more and more like that. If we believe that God is loving, gracious, forgiving and merciful, we will become more and more like that. In their actions the terrorists betray a horrific view of God, and since they believe that their theology is right, their actions reveal what they think God is like and what God approves. While there are many texts in both the Bible and the Qur’an that have been used to justify such a violent God, both sacred texts climax with a very different picture. The high point of the Bible on this question is John 14:9. There Jesus affirms, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.” The life of Jesus, in its love, mercy, kindness and self-sacrifice, is a picture of what the Christian God is truly like. Likewise, in the Qur’an, the high point is in The Opening to the Qur’an (al Fatiha), 1:1-4. The character of Allah is there summarized in two words, merciful and compassionate (compare with Exodus 34:6-7). The God of the Qur’an is not a monster, but is gracious and compassionate toward humanity. In fact, this description of God is at the head of all but one of the suras (chapters) in the Qur’an and the rest of the Qur’an needs to be read with that picture of God in mind. The two high point passages referenced above have many counterparts in both sacred texts. Violent humans have cherry-picked sacred texts for centuries to justify evil actions. But at the core of the Bible and the Qur’an are affirmations of a gracious God. How one reads is a choice, and we become like the God we worship.
Followers of ISIS and al Qaeda might be comfortable in general with the first point. They would see themselves as God’s true warriors, fighting the cosmic jihad for Him on this earth. But the God that they are fighting for is nothing like the God introduced in the opening phrase of the Qur’an. And they certainly do not respect the freedom of any who disagree with them. Their use of sacred texts is selective in the extreme, and the God they worship has all the characteristics of Satan: He is punitive, judgmental, violent, and hates His enemies. In the service of God it is possible to behave like the Enemy (compare Rev 16:2).
I have been asked by a reporter from the Adventist News Service of South America to answer some questions about Revelation, End-Times, and recent speculations. I posted these one by one on Facebook and have been requested to provide the whole in one place. This is that place. 🙂
1. How do you, as a deep student of Revelation, see the current religious and political landscape in which the Vatican has gained increasing prominence with a number of nations, particularly on issues such as promoting world peace and environmental protection?
We live in very interesting times, times full of end-time potential. On the other hand, there is no guarantee that today’s events are immediate fore-runners of the End. Preparation for Jesus’ return is not found in wars, earthquakes, pestilence, and knowledge of papal movements and intentions (Matthew 24:6-8). True preparation is found in relationship with Christ, and is exhibited in how we treat others (Matthew 25:31-46). A focus on the dark side of the spiritual conflict in the world may sometimes be necessary, but is not the basis for true spiritual growth. Focus on Jesus!
I remember a sermon I preached in 1972. Based on some of the latest science, I confidently predicted an environmental apocalypse in 15 -20 years. Jesus was truly about to come! I was well-intentioned but obviously way off. Current events speculation can be very exciting and gather an audience for a time, but when the time passes people are inoculated against the study of prophecy and its true purpose. There is value in paying close attention to current events, and I try to do that, but not at the expense of genuine, spiritual preparation to meet Jesus whenever he does come.
2. Has every apocalyptic prophecy already been understood or there are open gaps that are not understood yet?
In my book What the Bible Says About the End-Time, I studied fulfilled prophecy throughout the Bible, from Genesis through Revelation. The results of that study are also summarized in the second chapter of The Deep Things of God. In short, I learned that the fulfillment of many prophecies was quite surprising to those who had studied them in advance, for a number of reasons. God sometimes fulfills prophecies in a spiritual, rather than a literal way. Sometimes the prophecy is worded in terms of God’s past actions and does not fully disclose God’s plans for the future. Sometimes the prophecy is open-ended and depends to some degree on the human response to the prophecy. Sometimes God simply decides to “do a new thing” (Isa 43:16-19)! Prophecy is best understood at the time of fulfillment, not before (John 13:19; 14:29).
This leads me to believe that even when we have fully understood a particular prophecy, events may not turn out exactly as we expect. There will be surprises in the fulfillment of God’s prophecies at the Second Advent, just as there were when the Messiah came the first time. We need to keep on studying, but anticipate that there will be gaps in our understanding of the future right up to the time of fulfillment (1 Cor 13:9-12). Prophecy was not given to satisfy our curiosity about the future, it was given to teach us how to live today.
3. Can we feel safe in thinking that we know the future because we “understand” the prophecies?
The previous answer applies here as well. The Pharisees felt “safe” that they understood all they needed to know about the coming Messiah. We know this because they left books behind that have been preserved (like 4 Ezra– http://web.archive.org/web/20080830063117/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/Kjv4Ezr.html). They created “charts” of end-time events leading up to the coming of the Messiah (see 4 Ezra 7:26-31). Yet when the Messiah came most of them rejected him because he didn’t fit their elaborate expectations.
There are two ways to misuse prophecy. One is to ignore it, the other is to be so certain that we have understood it that we miss the real thing when it happens because it doesn’t fit our elaborate expectations. Since no one has more detailed explanations of the future than Adventists do, we are in grave danger of repeating the mistakes of the Pharisees. We would be wise to study the prophecies with great care, study current events with great care, yet have a certain godly tentativeness about our conclusions until the day when we see Him face to face (1 Cor 13:12).
4. What is the key to the interpretation of the prophecies?
My research in fulfilled prophecy demonstrates the principle that God meets people where they are, even when it comes to prophecy. In other words, God communicates with the prophet in terms of the prophet’s time place, language, culture, and circumstances. An important aspect of this is that God uses the language of the prophet’s past to describe the future. So, for example, prophecies about the return from Babylonian exile are usually written up in the language of the Exodus (see Isaiah 11:15-16, for example). The messianic prophecies describe the Messiah as a new David (Jer 23:5), a new Moses (Deut 18:15-18) and a new Cyrus (Isa 45:1-4). The Book of Revelation is full of the language of Old Testament characters, places and events. God uses the language of the prophet’s past to describe the future. Each prophecy is written in the context of the prophet’s time and place.
Each biblical prophecy, therefore, needs to be interpreted first in terms of what the words meant at the time they were written. Whatever meaning we may draw for history or current events, our reading today must not contradict what the text meant then. Each prophecy is a natural extension of the prophet’s own time and place. If it were not so, why would God give a prophecy to one people for the benefit of another people in some other time and place? God gives each message at the right time. Other generations can benefit from that message to the degree that they rightly understand God’s original purpose. God had a reason for giving Revelation in 95 AD rather than 1995. Reading Revelation as if it was written directly to us will inevitably lead to distortion.
5. In your opinion, what can be done so that more people understand the message of hope, love and redemption that is the essence of Revelation and not that of a terrifying future?
When it comes to Revelation, a challenge I often face is that people move directly from the symbols in the text to specific nations, ideas and events of history. So in a sense Adventists no longer read the story of Revelation itself, but rather a parallel story that has come down to them from decades of interpretation. This parallel story has been very inspiring and helpful to many, but it is hard for everyday people to reproduce it from their own study, because it requires knowledge of history, philosophical trends and more to fully piece together (for example, how many people today can explain why the date of 538 AD is important in history?).
A simpler approach is to begin with the story of Revelation itself, what it meant to John, and how the various parts of the story hang together in the text of Revelation. I find that when I share Revelation in this way, contemporary audiences (who are trained in understanding stories through movies and comic books) can follow more easily and see the powerful, spiritual implications of Revelation without difficulty. When read in this way, the centrality of Christ is more readily apparent and the book’s outline of a God of hope, love and redemption is exposed. Graeme Bradford and I have attempted to do this in our published evangelistic materials entitled “Revelation Hope Meaning Purpose” (published by South Pacific Division of SDAs and available from Advent Source). I have also attempted to expose the basic stories of Revelation in my book “Seven Keys.”
6. Why is there a certain alarmism among some who study and read the book of Revelation, seeking answers in newspapers, conspiracy theories and the Internet?
This answer depends to some degree on all of the previous answers. Adventists first studied the prophecies in the Nineteenth Century, and their reading of those prophecies connected powerfully with the Nineteenth Century context, particularly in North America. Ellen White confirmed many of these readings by including them in her powerful book “The Great Controversy.” As with the biblical prophets, her outline of the future made perfect sense in her time and place. When God tells a prophet the future, it is always a natural extension of that prophet’s time and place. But over time each prophet’s picture may speak less and less directly to new situations that arise.
Out of respect for Ellen White, Adventists have been reluctant to revisit and reshape their understandings of prophecy as time passes and the world changes dramatically. The scenario of Great Controversy made powerful sense at the time when the book was written, but that scenario seems more and more foreign in a world of automobiles, air travel, world wars, nuclear weapons, space travel, television, the internet, cell phones, a South American pope (who expected that?), islamic radicalism, Facebook and much, much more that is not described in early Adventist prophetic literature. More change has occurred in the last hundred years than in the previous 6000. In the words of Ron Osborn, the Adventist prophetic scenario (developed in the 19th Century) has become a “degenerating paradigm” that explains less and less of what we experience today (one example is that back then Turkey was a major power in world affairs and was mentioned frequently in Adventist literature, but today plays only a minor role and is largely ignored).
Many Adventist lay people around the world have become frustrated with how little traditional SDA prophecy interpretation seems to speak to a post-Soviet world. They are casting about desperately to find clues that the traditional scenario is still active in the world behind the scenes. Thus the fascination with conspiracy theories and questionable analyses of current events. These conspiracy interpretations are usually based on both poor exegesis of prophecy and poorly substantiated readings of current events, but if they seem to support our traditional readings of prophecy in some way, they can have a powerful impact on Adventist thinking. But while most of such interpretations are well-intended, they will be quickly out of date and can undermine people’s interest in genuine prophetic interpretation.
How should we interpret Great Controversy today then? I have made an attempt to answer this question at length in my book “Armageddon at the Door.” We need a double exegesis, one that looks carefully at the prophecies in their original setting and the other that looks carefully at the realities of today’s world. Careful exegesis of the prophetic stories combined with sound, verifiable analysis of history and current events is the antidote to speculation, conspiracy theories and alarmism. In addition, the difficult texts of the Bible (like the seals, the trumpets and Daniel 11) must be interpreted in light of the clear texts of the Bible (the gospels, for example) or they can easily become an exhilarating ride into nonsense. When Jesus and the gospel are central to prophetic interpretation, there is much more hope that we can get it right.
To those who like to hear something from me here every week or so, I apologize. Between several short trips and some extra challenges at the office I have not had the extra time to think through and process thoughts to share here. Hopefully I can be consistent again from here one.
People are asking for my reaction to the ordination vote at the SDA General Conference in San Antonio, so that seems like a good place to start.
Naturally, I am disappointed in the No vote on the question of allowing divisions of the church to assess whether or not ordaining women would be helpful to the mission in those divisions. I am disappointed because I feel the action was contrary to the Bible. As I have shown in the past, unity in the New Testament did not require all regions to have the same policies and practices. But the delegates felt differently. I am disappointed because the vote did not respect the doctrine of ordination already voted by the church. According to that doctrine, there is little difference between hiring someone and ordaining them. Both actions indicate the same thing, we trust that person to speak for us. So why we would hire a woman yet not ordain her doesn’t make sense to me. I am disappointed because I felt that my brothers and sisters around the world did not show respect for the conclusions of at least five divisions, several of which studied the subject more deeply than any other SDA group in the history of the church. I am disappointed because Adventists in some parts of the world will pay a heavy price for a decision largely imposed upon them by Adventists in other parts of the world. That doesn’t feel good and is hard to explain to my children.
But enough of disappointment. If I am wrong, my disappointment needs to be repented of. If I am right I need to forgive. Either way the above paragraph needs to be the end of my disappointment, lest I lose that which matters most; peace with God, others, and myself.
An emerging take-away from the recent General Conference is the realization that both sides in the ordination debate felt their way of reading Scripture was in harmony with Adventist understanding. That understanding was voted by the Annual Council in Rio de Janeiro in 1986: http://www.adventist.org/en/information/official-statements/documents/article/go/0/methods-of-bible-study/. Nevertheless, that traditional hermeneutic did not produce agreement regarding the Bible’s teaching on the subject of ordination. I have already shared my understanding of the two different approaches and the strengths and weaknesses of each. In my next blog I will summarize my earlier work before sharing a practical hermeneutic that all can practice and which might help us to see the Bible with fresh eyes. To move the church beyond the impasse we need to find a biblical approach that all can agree on. I have an idea about that. . . (but after I summarize the current situation).
The easy answers provided by selective proof-texting sound pious and “clear” but often don’t stand up to careful investigation. So the weight of evidence causes me to withhold judgment on women’s ordination in the Bible and similar issues. A proof-text reading of the Bible tends toward opposing women’s ordination because there is no explicit proof-text telling us to ordain women (or even giving us the concept of ordination, which was a later development). But there is a trend in the Bible toward justice, fairness and equality that leads me to believe God might have worked with the patriarchy of ancient times (God meets people where they are) without approving of it as the ideal. Today the world is trending toward justice and equality and that reality opens the way to see things in the Bible we hadn’t seen before.
Something similar happened in Acts 10-15. As a result of Peter’s experience with Cornelius, the whole church read the Old Testament differently (see Acts 15:13-18). Very few of those who oppose women’s ordination take a comprehensive view of the Bible. The few that do are forging a new path and I don’t find them very convincing at this point. While I don’t think the Bible settles the issue one way or the other, the trend of God’s working with humanity from Abraham to John the Revelator suggests that ordaining women will not bring about the end of civilization or the work of God on this earth. It actually might be just what the church needs in some places.
Human beings like quick fixes. The perfect proof text, the simple answer that settles everything. But I don’t think that approach does justice to the Word of God. When someone says “the Bible is clear” on a subject like women’s ordination, all I have learned from that is that the Bible is “clear” to that person. It is a fact of human nature that the less we know about any subject the more confident we tend to be in our opinions and conclusions. The confidence so many have in their conclusions on ordination is evidence to me that they haven’t looked seriously at the arguments against their point of view.
This scholarly tentativeness can be frustrating to people of faith, who are used to hearing quick and easy answers to difficult questions. But I think that frustration arises, in part, from a misunderstanding of what true scholarship really is. A true scholar is not someone who knows many things, rather, a true scholar is someone who knows how little he or she knows. It is just as important to know when you are ignorant as to know where you are an expert. Being a scholar is like a farmer standing at the edge of a field. As long as his or her knowledge is limited to the surface of the field, the farmer might seem to know everything there is to know about that field. But scholarship is like the same farmer digging a post-hole at the edge of a field (an analogy for the dissertation). The farmer now knows all (s)he needs to know about the contents of that post-hole. But digging the post-hole teaches the farmer something else. The farmer now knows how deep the entire field goes. By digging that post-hole the farmer’s awareness of ignorance has grown faster than his knowledge.
This is why biblical scholars rarely approach issues with the confidence and clarity that evangelists (like Bohr, Batchelor and Nelson) have. Evangelists have been able to narrow their biblical focus to the things that help them persuade people. This is a very important gift and a very important task. But the church would be unwise to draw its conclusions about the Bible from the limited perspective of the evangelist. While certainty is attractive, it can lead one to a false confidence. As the Apostle Paul said, “We know in part, we prophecy in part, . . . we see through a glass darkly.” Both methods of Bible study (see previous blog for details) are valuable. Both Bible scholars and evangelists have their place. A certain level of confidence is commendable. But the greatness of God suggests we submit our confidence to a reasonable humility.
Coming up: A concise and clear summary of where I stand on the question of women’s ordination and the Bible.
