Adventism

SDA Doctrines: The Value of Human Beings Basic to Doctrinal Adjustment

/ , /

SDA Doctrines: The Value of Human Beings Basic to Doctrinal Adjustment

The value of human beings must be the driving factor of the SDA Church. Without question, people matter. The here and now, is what drives who we are, how we live and how we think. Consideration of how we progress though our modern lives is essential.

To get some background on this discussion you may wish to read:

Forming a System of Values

The first step for the religious person in resolving the question of religious relevance would seem to be asking the most obvious questions: Given the kind of existential questions we are asking, what is immediately present for our epistemological consideration; and on what basis are we to form a system of values? Thinking of the answer to these questions in terms of “risk” would normally lead us to opt for giving “known present earthly life” (existence) priority over a promised but unknown “ideal,” a utopian life in the world made new. Actually, the fundamentalist tendency to view the present as evil while idealizing the past as utopia, negates any hope for the future. The future is often subject to the determination of the myth of the eternal return.

Empirically and rationally, humans in the here and now are the most valuable things in the universe, and their values help shape the future. While sounding suspect, and string theorists with their faith in infinite numbers of universes are positively hostile to it, positing a cosmological constant for each possible universe, on the basis of what we do know about the universe, the statement seems obvious because as far as we know humans are the only organism capable of knowing the universe and cognitively forming values. If you ask, “but what about God?” you are asking only about the symbol for something greater than you think you know.

Extending Value to Human Beings

Certainly, while humans are the result of evolution, there is a metaphysical quality that describes human beings beyond their evolutionary ancestors. To be human is to be greater than the sum of our parts. That metaphysics may reference God, if you will, but it need not. The issue is more difficult than I have made it sound. Brain science is busy looking for applicable mechanisms to explain all aspects of our mental life, but explaining human beings by mechanisms threatens to reduce humans to deterministic machines.  

Likewise, in religion, concentrating exclusively on beliefs that demote the value of human beings, and the “here and now,” to the idea of eternal God, and the value of the “there and then” are subversive to the need for immediate action to preserve both ourselves as humans and the world in which we live. The value of human beings in the here and now is to be expressed as a primary value in doctrine.

Answers to Value of Human Beings: Stay Present

We must bring ourselves to attention on the question of values such as, integrity, justice, rights; values which are not to be separated from human love. Are we willing to risk the present good for our understanding of a promise for the future?

Once again, the fundamentalist doctrine of revelation and the infallible text become a stumbling block to understanding the value of the present good. To put it in the most shocking way, some doctrines can promote not only irresponsibility, but a subtle suicidal attitude for the future. The present, which is known, is devalued for the future which is unknown. So, drink your Kool Aid, or strap on a suicide vest. The future will be better. God says so.

Joe Greig Profile Picture

Joe Greig, Ph.D.

Ph.D. (New College, Edinburgh University), Professor Emeritus Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI

SDA Doctrines: Faith and Adjustments to the Doctrine of God

/ , /

SDA Doctrines: Faith & Adjustments to the Doctrine of God

Faith and adjustments to the doctrine of God shows when we express our faith. Faith is not one dimensional. It is possible to express faith in many ways. When we do, we are making known our worldview.

To get some background on this discussion you may wish to read SDA Doctrines: What to Do? and Religious Language as Sign and Symbol

How We Express Faith

One can locate and express faith in many ways: that order will prevail over chaos, freedom over tyranny; the idea that good, or ethical behavior, will always be victorious over evil, that love will conquer hate, and life will prevail over death. These may be expressed as faith in God, but stating this is not necessarily the same as faith in God as defined by the words and actions of the biblical God. One cannot categorically claim that God is Judeo-Christian. This faith is located at the heart of being human. The words and acts of the biblical God are sometimes blatantly immoral, and to retain one’s faith one must make excuses for God, or provide cover. Sometimes one asks if God is really like that. If God is considered the source of ethical behavior, it would seem necessary to critique our understanding of God as one who inspires faith by problematic commands and acts in history recorded in the Bible. God would have to be good, an ethical God; one who would not command us to love, but draw us to love.

The good would not necessarily be defined because it is what any particular god does or says. That God is good is a statement of faith regardless of evidence to the contrary, regardless of what we read in a particular religious text. God is a word, thus a religious symbol. There are many religions and many gods. Judaism is monotheistic, either because an omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent God makes the existence of other gods superfluous, or the monarchy of Judah, attempting to centralize political and religious power established one national and universal God.

Morality and God

In any case, the superfluous gods are demoted to messengers of the one legitimate God. The claim has already been made that a necessary attribute of any worthy God would be morality. While there are many claims about what is moral, all people have predispositions to freedom and other basic rights despite differences of opinion. An absolute morality cannot be legislated or dogmatized universally without it becoming immoral. If morality is the necessary attribute of God, then the questionable statements of God given in some biblical texts cannot be a property of a legitimate God. Nor can a revelation from this god settle the issue of legitimacy.

The true God must remain unknowable, so expressing God as a God of love is an act of faith anchored in the human act of loving, something we have actually done, not something we know from science, nor does it appear from any appeal to religious experience. In a world of many gods, it may be the case that because one god may exceed another in goodness, the Judeo Christian God expressed developmentally and theologically as an ethical God, is the best or most valuable expression of God for human belief and action; but that is another question dependent on how values are formed and the meaning given to “the good.” We still will have to have faith that at its root the belief that God loves will have to be inseparable from the act of humans loving. In any case the idea of a moral God will not go beyond the collective human imagination.

Adjusting fundamental beliefs

Often promoting this established morality becomes a mask for wars and evangelism where morality is not the primary concern at all; rather, the interests are economic and political. Obviously, the core content of any doctrine affects the relevance of the church in the world. The relevance of a religious organization depends on what it believes and says about God. This belief will affect other doctrines. If the church is to be relevant, and considered by its broadly informed membership to be worthy of support, our entire list of fundamental beliefs must be adjusted for meaning beyond what is said to be revealed or possible by sola scriptura. Doctrines, like scientific facts, are subject to change; but the faith driving the doctrine does not change, indeed cannot change if we are to activate our human freedom rather than be resigned to destructive deterministic forces. The question is: how is this adjustment to be made? Science can say nothing about God; reason can, because it insists that we define our terms. However, science can critique what doctrines say about the empirical world and this may bring a change within a doctrine. Doctrines are a systemic and linguistic whole. While some doctrines may simply fade away due to the critical adjustments, this possibly will be because they have become so weak within the system that they are absorbed by more important doctrines. Or they may simply drop out of mind.

The Result of Informing Doctrine

In the context of expressing what the Second Coming signs, Chiliasm might be such a candidate. In the process of informing doctrine, reason and science will not dethrone God as an ontological symbol because (to draw on Paul Tillich’s well-known expression) Faith (God, ultimate reality) is our “ultimate concern.” The existence of reality (another symbol), which though unknowable informs all of our knowledge, would likewise have to be assumed out of existence for this to happen, and doing this would raise the question of the grounds for doing science.

SDA Doctrines: Faith & Adjustments to the Doctrine of God

Societies Change. Many SDA Doctrines reflect a refusal to  accept science. That’s a sure way to lose members.

Joe Greig Profile Picture

Joe Greig, Ph.D.

Ph.D. (New College, Edinburgh University), Professor Emeritus Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI

SDA Doctrine: religious language

/ , /

SDA Doctrines: Religious Language as Sign and Symbol

Let’s look at SDA doctrines and the religious language used to give meaning to Adventist doctrine. Here we will explore the relevance of the signs and symbols and their role in shaping our worldview.

To get some background on this discussion you may wish to read SDA Doctrines: What to Do?

Signs and Symbols

We communicate information within a construct or system by means of “signs” and “symbols:” words, sentences, etc. According to the discipline of semiotics, human beings are “meaning makers.” In the process of meaning making, linguistic signs, words and speech signify what is beyond their mere forms. That is to say, they have no meaning in themselves; thus the relationship among signs and their meanings is constructural and highly psychological.

Furthermore, when they are endowed with meaning, it is contextual. Words have different meanings in different contexts. Think of how many meanings words like “open” and “shut” have depending on context. Any image, word, or mental construct, be it story, or by arbitrary extension doctrine, becomes functional when a meaning attaches to it. A doctrine is not a description of the empirical world or even of a biblical message or idea; the doctrine creates the reality, or the meaning of a biblical text. If this is so, then linguistic signs can take on different meanings when circumstances demand them. This perspective on language is useful when we consider the possibility that doctrines may take on different meanings due to what they sign in situations other than those in which the meaning originated.

It is doubtful that form can be completely separated from content, so the formal aspect will retain some representation even though the content changes. Examples might include how the “fear of God” is never really lost theologically even though God is said to be a God of love; or justice is still demanded though God is merciful. A change in doctrine may be coextensive with a change of world views; from a precritical world view uninformed by science and history to one in which science and history play an appropriate role.

Insight informed by science and reason

Adopting a scientifically informed world view does not assume infallibility or a claim to know reality even though one assumes (postulates) that it exists. It is an attempt to make the best sense of empirical evidence within our scientifically informed construct of reality.

What we know of reality is dependent on the way our minds work to create a picture from the noise and unorganized data surrounding our narrow focus within a more extensive unknowable context. The scientific and rational mind is not perplexed with the resulting uncertainty because it is simply the case that with our limited brain capacity and focus we can know no more than our minds and our senses, which receive information, are able to process.  

If this claim is the case, then the fundamentalist doctrine of revelation and inspiration which was formulated to guarantee the infallibility of the biblical text, but which also resulted in sanctioning an ancient mythical world view contained therein, will have to be transformed to make it understandable as theological imagination or insight informed by science and reason, but not necessarily limited to them.

Revelation & Salvation

Inspiration will define the creative spirit and quest of the human being responding to the mysteries of life and the world; and rather than being understood as knowledge attained supernaturally which bypasses the rational and scientific processes, revelation will be understood as embracing salvation, a perception of deliverance, or new life, rather than “new light.” Appeal to a supernaturally inspired revelation not only diminishes the human capacity for freedom but is a means of circumventing the hard work of reason, experimentation, and discovery. Because revealed knowledge is considered certain rather than provisional, no scientific or rational argument is allowed to be effective against it. It is immune to experimental falsification.

Joe Greig Profile Picture

Joe Greig, Ph.D.

Ph.D. (New College, Edinburgh University), Professor Emeritus Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI

SDA Doctrines: What to Do?

/ , /

SDA Doctrines: What to Do?

The problems with SDA Doctrines are long standing. Now, is a good time to consider what to do about them. For years now, Adventists have had to face the troubling factors associated with our doctrine. Unfortunately, for some, these issues with SDA doctrines lead them away from the Church.

The Biblical Prophecy

Forty years ago, while working on my doctorate, I was with a group of students in the student lounge at the University of Edinburgh discussing apocalyptic literature. An Australian Ph.D. student, familiar with SDAs in Australia, made a not-too-complimentary comment about our peculiar apocalyptic take on the future and on the Doctrine of the Sanctuary based on our interpretation of Daniel 8:14.

SDA Doctrines: What to Do - Daniel 8:14

Problems of Interpretation

The conversation turned to discussing Seventh-day Adventists from the earliest critically uninformed interpretations of the books of Daniel and Revelation to our present-day exclusive understanding of SDAs as the Remnant awaiting salvation at the apocalyptic Second Coming of Christ.

Excluding myself, the Australian was obviously the best informed about Adventism, and the most curious, even though there were several denominations represented by the students in the group. I was beginning to feel a little uncomfortable with his remarks and questions. Everyone there was knowledgeable on apocalyptic literature and quickly saw the problems a historical critical understanding of those books posed to an interpretation made by a minimally educated New England farmer who was expecting the end of the world and standing at the beginning of a movement that eventually became the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Transformation of Doctrine

How does a denomination, developing theology from within a literalist view of the Bible and adopting a method of sola scriptura, come to terms with historical critical views on Daniel and Revelation and still retain a doctrine based on a pre-critical understanding of their messages?

Perhaps in desperation, I said something spontaneously that everyone seemed to have no problem with:

  • “It doesn’t matter where you start out, it’s where you end up.”

I had faith that the church would eventually accommodate a critical perspective and adjust its theology accordingly. That did not mean scraping its doctrines, at least not the major ones, no matter how they were informed, but identifying the existential concerns embodied in the doctrines, then translating them into contemporary religious, social, and political existential expressions.

It is doubtful that any group, despite its claims to the contrary, ever approached the Bible as a repository of truth without being influenced by social and historical contexts in discovering what belief and practice should be. Rather, the Bible is approached to discover what it says about present issues religious communities face. That is why it seems to be a repository of knowledge on everything: the Papacy and Soviet Union, they are there in prophecy; Capitalism and Social Security, they are there, etc.

The theological understanding of nineteenth century Adventists was formed by a precritical mythical world view and expressed in the language of Scripture. Now, I argued, that expression had to be transformed into language informed by historical critical methodology; it had to be understood within a new world view. But it did not mean completely abandoning the language of those identifying what the church believed.

Former Adventist on SDA Doctrine

My Understanding on SDA Doctrine

To me it meant transforming doctrine, in this case the Doctrine of the Sanctuary, into an Adventist philosophy of history, a history in which Christians, and in this case, Adventists in particular, proclaimed their understanding of the Gospel which would move history in the direction of God’s purpose.

Although today, I would revise some of it, basically it emphasized bringing the world into moral judgment by preaching the Gospel, in particular the message of the third angel, with which Adventists identified. It meant confronting the world with the moral failures (sins) of the past and present and offering the forgiveness of God. Read my ideas on theology to see what I mean.

Everyone involved in that discussion in the student lounge recognized the dangers of identifying what God’s purpose might involve. My idea might encourage religio-political tyranny by divine right. But we also knew that sooner or later, every critical thinker has to admit to a measure of ignorance in the construction of every system of knowledge. Also, it was assumed that sooner or later, if the rational operation of the human mind is a requisite property for understanding the world, regardless of limitations, every non-critical system of knowledge, if it is to remain viable, will have to surrender and comply with rationality and critical investigation.

So far, the SDA church has not conformed. Read about Why the SDA Church Needs to Change.

Key Factors of SDA Doctrines

Over the next several weeks, I will explore the exclusive understanding of SDAs as the Remnant awaiting salvation at the apocalyptic Second Coming of Christ as related to the following:

  1. Religious Language as Sign and Symbol
  2. Faith and Adjustments to the Doctrine of God
  3. The Value of Human Beings Basic to Doctrinal Adjustment
  4. Creation and the End of the World
  5. Creation, Evolution, and Integrity
  6. Creation, Evolution, and Medical Ethics
  7. Creation, Evolution, and Other Moral Issues
  8. Historical Criticism, The Biblical God, and Morality
  9. Reworking Doctrines
  10. Faith and Suffering

Tune in to our next post for a discussion on Religious Language as Sign and Symbol

Joe Greig Profile Picture

Joe Greig, Ph.D.

Ph.D. (New College, Edinburgh University), Professor Emeritus Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI

plastic church

/ /

Plastic Church: Will SDA’s Ever Change?

Recently I rediscovered a toy, a plastic church I’d played with when I was a small boy. It had been so long ago that I had completely forgotten about it. And I wondered if everything was the same.

So, just as I had done so many years before, I removed the plastic roof and looked inside. As always, the whole place seemed to come alive with tiny plastic people. They weren’t exactly the same, though. Some of the older ones were gone. And there were some new young ones. But they were mostly the same plastic people I had put there. Except, of course, they had kept pace with the times. In the rear of the sanctuary, a group of college-age youth was planning a Sabbath afternoon meeting. The leader, a bright-looking, nervous young fellow, rubbed his plastic hands together and said, “Well, I guess I have somebody for everything – except prayer. Any volunteers?”

No volunteers.

“I guess I’ll have to do it myself this time. Again. Now let’s all try to be here on time. Remember what happened last time. Now let’s all go downstairs and get something to eat.”

In the rec room a meal was being served to members of the youth club, “The Young and the Restless,” as it was called. They were eating, laughing, and having a good time. They hardly looked up when the club leader and his committee entered.

One young fellow, his plastic freckled face contorted into a wide grin, was telling a joke about Martin Luther and the pope. Everyone within hearing range thought he was hugely funny. As indeed he was.

In the choir room a mixed octet was practicing with excellent harmony when one lady, her plastic red hair glowing like fire, suddenly stopped singing. Everyone looked.

“I’m sorry!” she burst out, “but I just can’t sing with Mrs. Brown. Somehow our voices just don’t harmonize!” Then she stamped out, followed by her red-faced husband, the first tenor, their plastic shoes making an odd sound on the floor of my little plastic church.

“Well!” said Mrs. Brown. “Well, I never!”

But Mr. Brown, cooler, said, “Let’s form a sextet and sing something else.”

In the pastor’s study the church elders were discussing how to raise funds for the annual offering for the poor.

“People just don’t seem to want to give any more,” Mr. Gray – who had just earned a great deal of money on Internet stocks – was saying. “They think they can leave the whole program in the laps of the richer members.” He leaned back in his posh black plastic chair and eyed Dr. Black.

Dr. Black, who at least passed for the richest elder, said, “That’s sooo true, Mr. Gray. Everyone wants to leave the burden on the backs of the richer members. We need something that will appeal to the ordinary member. I mean something that will really appeal.”

“I have an idea!” said Mr. Green, the youngest elder, a man definitely on his way up, his plastic face shining brightly with expectation and enthusiasm. “Why don’t we sponsor a raffle! It’s surprising how much money a raffle will bring in. The large Catholic church on the corner sponsors a raffle every year. And every year – bingo! – Just like clockwork. They give away a new Lexus donated by one of the dealers in town. Doesn’t cost the church a cent – except for advertising and incidental expenses, of course.”

“We-e-ell,” said Pastor White, a conservative man with a florid face. “This is a new idea to me. We’ve never sponsored a raffle before. This is a conservative church, you know. And I doubt that a raffle would be accepted by the denomination.”

“Someone has to pave the way,” broke in Mr. Green, sitting on the edge of his plastic chair.

“Maybe it will work,” said Dr. Blue, who usually says very little. “It does have definite appeal, whereas giving just to help someone in need has gotten rather old, wouldn’t you say? The idea of winning a new Lexus appeals to different motives entirely. It should be a lot more successful. After all, the money will be going to a worthy cause — us. What do you think, Dr. Black?”

“Oh, I’m all for it,” responded Dr. Black. “Fact is, I’ve been thinking the same thing myself. For a long time. I’m all for striking out in new directions. What this church needs is more spirit. We need to bring the ordinary member back into the picture. It’s too much strain on the richer members to have to raise nearly all the money nearly all the time.”

I was about to replace the plastic roof and walk away when I noticed a woman standing alone in the narthex. She obviously was not yet a baptized member, wearing, as she was, glossy lipstick, heavy mascara, white eyeshadow, pearl necklace, finger rings, dangling earrings, . . . .

After all, my little plastic was a conservative Midwestern church. And the ladies wore only a touch of makeup. Well, maybe some wore wedding bands, but never a big gaudy ring like this one, and never ever decked out like this one . . . .

She looked somewhat out of place standing there beside the great stained-plastic window with its intricately jeweled design, all alone, with the conservative, plump, formal church ladies parading past. A few eyed her – as though she ought to be “spoken with.”

Most just ignored her.

I was glad. Because — turned away from them as she was, and facing the stainedplastic window as she was, hands folded on the ledge and eyes closed as they were — she couldn’t see them anyway.

I knelt there over my little plastic church for a long long time — watching her —before I finally, sighed, replaced the plastic roof, and walked away.

She was praying.

___

Originally posted on old site in 2011. ©2011 by Max Gordon Phillips

Fundamentalism: the cosmos

/ , /

Fundamentalism: A Hinderance to Spiritual Evolution

Webster defines Fundamentalism as a form of a religion, especially Islam or Protestant Christianity, that upholds belief in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture.

Growing Away From Fundamentalism

Like many Christian denominations the SDA Church fits this definition. It limits the notion of life and humanity to the pages of an ancient text. The reliance on such dogma is a hinderance to spiritual evolution. SDAs are spiritually bigger. But live a stunted life.

Fundamentalism: quote Joe Greig

When religious institutions free themselves from strict dogma, society can move closer to accepting a series of undeniable facts. We can grow up. It’s simple really. We exist, the earth exists, the universe exists, and no one knows how or why. This is cosmic truth. If there is a god, how did that god come to be? If there was always a god, then there was always a universe.

Releasing the chains of dogma, especially fundamentalism as related to the literal words in the ancient, Bible texts, will free the mind. This freedom will allow acceptance of our tiny place in the cosmos. The splendor and fantastic state of it all. We are quite alone. Ours is the world, a speck in the ever-expanding universe.

The universe is greater and more phenomenal than notions of god. We are the cosmos, from it we became and we cannot escape from it. Even if there could have been a greater intelligence, a god, it too would have been tied, bound and made of and from the cosmos.

Inside the unknown is a basic truth. We are now. Humanity is a twinkle in the eye of time. That is a fundamental case for goodness.

 

Change in the Seventh Day Adventist Church

/ /

Change in the SDA Church

Change? Why Not? What’s the Problem? Let’s discuss why there is no change in the SDA Church, even though it’s long over due.

The Nature of Entangled Doctrines 

Fact 1: The SDA church has a collection of rather entangled doctrines that it promulgates.

Fact 2: The SDA church clings tightly if not desperately to two of these doctrines, namely a short earth chronology and a global flood several thousand years ago.

Fact 3: The overwhelming — can’t ignore — weight of scientific evidence is that those two ideas can not possibly be historically correct.

Now surely most Adventist Alumni have made peace with these three Facts. This author suspects that many Adventist Alumni got nudged further along their alumni path because of Fact 2.

Change in the SDA Church What Does it Mean?

In this essay I will not make arguments for the truth of Fact 3. That issue has been and is being debated endlessly because those who do not want to believe Fact 3 simply choose to ignore the scientific evidence. Scientific reasoning does not apply to a decision made in the absence of such reasoning.

Church dogma does not apply to a decision made on the basis of scientific evidence.

So why Fact 2? The short answer is twofold: (1) “they” are afraid that their whole belief system will crumble and their church will cease to have a reason to exist; (2) Ellen White agreed with the young earth and global flood ideas.

Who are “they”? Those who are in positions of power and those who are believed when they promote the two Fact 2 doctrines.

What I would like to talk about here is (1) the question of whether the SDA church would necessarily fall apart if it allowed flexibility on the Fact 2 doctrines and (2) how could the church go about allowing flexibility.

What is the Answer to Change?

Let’s deal with (2) first: all that needs to happen is for them (the “they”) to quit talking about the Fact 2 issues and the matter will quietly (but not quickly) fade away. People will continue to do what they are already doing: namely believing what makes sense to them. Besides most people sitting in the pews each Sabbath are not thinking about Fact 2 anyway. And if someone raises the question of why the silence, simply promote the dearth of supporting scientific evidence, talk about belief system tolerance and unity in diversity. In other words promote the “big tent” approach to being a church. The “they” will not have problems deflecting questions about Fact 2 if they decide to quit talking about it.

Now let’s talk about (1). Will the church fall apart if the issue is allowed to quietly fade away? Of course not. The fading away would happen over an extended period of time. Writers for church papers could and should write material consistent with a plan to let these two contentious issues die a well deserved death. Statistically speaking, the majority of people in the pews do not get all worked up about issues that are not kept before them in the church media, which media includes, of course, Sabbath sermons. There are competent SDA theologians who can disentangle the Fact 2 doctrines from the SDA belief system without the church’s belief system falling apart.

What is the Result of SDA Stagnation?

Is a conscious decision to let the Fact 2 issues fade away likely to happen any time soon? No. What if it never happens? It will happen — the fading away — by default, but it will take a long time. Suppose all the members who do not need young earth and global flood beliefs leave the church under top-down pressure, then what? That’s easy: many of the remaining members will get educated and the church will be right back where it was before: more people to pressure to leave. Why is this true? Because even though untruths triumph for a time over truth, in the end they get exposed for what they are: untruths. Promoting an untruth can not change it into a truth.

Consider this. Does it really make sense to pressure people to leave the church, or make them uncomfortable so that they want to leave, at the same time that large sums of money are being spent to convince more people to join?

If freedom is important and the truth makes you free, then educating people to know the truth is important. And not educating them with untruths is even more important. Furthermore, people will get educated, with or without the church.

Language and the Creation of Reality

/ /

Language and the Creation of Reality

A discussion of how language and the creation of reality can shape our worldview. Recently, I went to a meeting of AAF in Berrien Springs. John Walton, Professor of Old Testament, Wheaton College (formerly of Moody Bible Institute) had been invited to discuss his book, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. 

Because of the popularity of the book, many people know that his primary argument for Genesis 1 is that it concerns “function” not “material” or things, and that function is to be understood in the context of the Israelite Temple ritual as “temple text”. Thus, it shares a cosmology common with the ancient Near East and is not to be understood from the scientific point of view.

We may have our scholarly disagreements with Walton, and reviews that take issue with him are numerous. But the point is: why are so many conservative commentators unable to tolerate this compromise, instead insisting on pitting what they call the literal (correct) meaning of the text against the scientific (wrong) picture? Within the inerrantist tradition there is a strategy to maintain the integrity of the text while exposing an error of interpretation that may have led to a popular but misguided understanding of the text. Walton’s “function” retains the integrity of Genesis 1 as ancient cosmology while exempting it from being judged by a scientific world view.

Missing Pieces. Language and the Creation of Reality

But conservative SDAs don’t seem willing to accept this strategy. The point is illustrated by two seminary teachers at the Forum meeting who insisted the text did concern the material creation. Thus, there was still tension between a clear reading of the text and the data supported by a scientific world view. I have considerable hope that Walton’s “function” will eventually have an effect on the minds of those within the inerrantist tradition.

I have less reason to believe it will make much of an impression on conservative SDAs. The reason for the latter observation lies in the fact that Walton, while respecting the Bible, is comfortable with a scientific picture of the world, thus moving his Bible believing constituency to accept it as well. Conservative SDAs are still moving away from it. Walton has clearly created a language which will move his readers out of an ancient near eastern world view and into a scientific world view; conservative SDAs have no such language; the Bible is either right and science wrong, or science is right and the Bible is worthless.

Language Functions

To clarify what I mean by the way language functions, I refer the reader to a recent article by George Lakoff, a famous linguist. Published by CommonDreams.org: ‘The “New Centrism” and Its Discontents,’ The article confronts the issue of the state of liberal democracy in the face of a hostile conservative opposition: To quote Lakoff:

Because we think with our brains, all thought is physical. Our moral and political worldviews are realized as brain circuits with strong synapses. If you have two conflicting worldviews, you have two brain circuits that are mutually inhibitory, so that when one is activated, it is strengthened and the other is shut off and weakened. When a worldview applies to a given issue, there is a neural binding circuit linking the worldview circuit to that issue circuit in such a way that the issue is understood in terms of that worldview. The right language will activate that that issue as understood via that worldview. Using that language strengthens that worldview.

When a Democrat “moves to the center,” he is adopting a conservative position – or the language of a conservative position. Even if only the language is adopted and not the policy, there is an important effect. Using conservative language activates the conservative view, not only of the given issue, but the conservative worldview in general, which in turn strengthens the conservative worldview in the brains of those listening.

That leads to more people thinking conservative thoughts, and hence supporting conservative positions on issues and conservative candidates. Material policy matters. Language use, over and over, affects how citizens understand policy choices, which puts pressure on legislators and ultimately affects what policies are chosen. Language wars are policy wars.

Language Changes the Brain

The meaning of this statement hits us right between the eyes. There comes a point when the wiring of the brain is so affected by a concentration of specific language that it is extremely difficult to understand an issue in a different way without going through the same process that resulted in developing “said” brain state in the first place. 

Those who understand the role of the brain in addiction and overcoming it, will see the parallels. Of course, this argument applies to the liberal side as well. The difference being that liberals have not developed and deployed such language strategies as has the right. Lakoff warns liberals that they must never use the language of the right. We might mention the most recent, “investment= more government spending,” or the cultivated perception that universal health care is a socialist invention, and that “Obamacare” is the equivalent of national bankruptcy.

Secondly, the benefits of science in promoting better health and longer life must be used full force against the anti-scientific views of right-wing Adventism. If vegans won’t wear leather shoes, right wing SDAs should not use antibiotics or undergo diagnosis or surgery with scientific instruments. To do so should be viewed as compromising one’s religious principles. The tendency to separate health science from earth science is picking and choosing without any justification except personal opinion. It is time to emphasize that rejecting science in favor of dogma is a return to the mentality of the Dark Ages.

Lastly, the importance of the Sabbath, rather than a test of our fidelity to the Bible, should be viewed within the framework of work and leisure time and how each contributes to human wellbeing. God is not served by our time conditioned ideas of rest and work. Physical activity may be an important form of rest. We all know, today with computers, being sedentary is how we get work done. The idea that if we don’t maintain a literal reading of Genesis 1 the Sabbath will be compromised is a way of trashing both the importance of the Sabbath and human life.

Lessons Learned from Language and the Creation of Reality

Lakoff offers liberals or progressives a few strategies of his own invention. But we are focusing on Adventism. Progressive Adventists may be served by coining some of their own words and concepts to change perceptions. We could start by talking about honesty of belief, interpretation, and practice. This will not be easy because it involves commitment to a particular world view, so these ideas will have to evolve together.

However, as interpreters of the Bible we can avoid talking about the historical grammatical method of interpreting scripture, or that the principle that scripture must be allowed to interpret scripture as if they are adequate ways of biblical interpretation. The manipulative way these hermeneutic principles are used has to be exposed. They do not take history seriously, resulting in established institutional opinion despite the appeal to an interpretive process.

How Do We Proceed?

To serve the church is to serve its people. Many of us risk ourselves to bring the light to those in darkness, those who function within an unsustainable worldview. And while we cannot point a condemning finger at those who have experienced the misfortune of having their brain wired in a way that prevents them from living in and integrating with the real world, we do have a responsibility to educate and open their minds. Nor should we be quick to condemn those who are too quick to hurt for righteousness sake. The mind does not open all at once; it represses experience and filters information according to the worldview which governs it. Our task is to educate, and “Education is redemption.”

Joe Greig Profile Picture

Joe Greig, Ph.D.

Ph.D. (New College, Edinburgh University), Professor Emeritus Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI

A-A Thoughts

/ , /

Adventist Alumni: Thoughts on Who We Are

Adventist Alumni are all types of Seventh Day Adventist. I’m writing about this web site… and using A-A thoughts as an abbreviation for both Adventist-Alumni.com and Adventist alumnus.

Reading about who we are before continuing here might give more insight into these comments because they build upon what’s said there. What is this web site about? Yes, there’s the Mission Statement and the Not Mission but they need to be enlarged upon because it is important that the people who come here have the right understanding of where it is that they have come.

Some of you have been A-A for many years and you know where you are and you’re happy and content there. That is good. I hope you enjoy this virtual gathering place where freedom of thought and expression are highly valued. We seek and will value your input and your experience.

We Welcome You

This little essay is aimed more at those of you who are not sure you belong here; not sure you want to be here. The door is open so come on in. We promise, we will not close the door behind you. Stay for a while and observe people who have set their thoughts free to explore other possible ways of looking at the world.

Who are Adventist Alumni: Don't Panic

The nice thing about A-A’s virtual world is that you can stay where you are and be here too. Like being two places at once.

Let me use the symbol T-A to designate “Traditional Adventist.” Now traditional is not bad. It’s a place where people are. I was once there myself. In fact, almost by definition, every A-A was at one time a T-A.

T-A is a respectable place to be. If you’re questioning the T-A position, or easing away from it, you are already, and perhaps unwittingly, headed in the A-A direction. Note that “unwittingly” is not “bad.” I was unwittingly becoming A-A long before I heard of the term A-A.
There are lots of people who are “other religion” alumni. They are welcome here too. If you are one of those you will discover you have much in common with A-A’s. The only problem is that you may not understand Adventist inside jokes—and we may not be able to explain them to you. Feel free to tell us “other religion” inside jokes…

Who are Adventist Alumni: Breathe

The people here are friendly.

In fact, that’s about the only requirement for being here. The big points I want to make and emphasize here are these:

  1. A-A is not here to convince you to leave T-A and become A-A.
  2. A-A is here to help you make the transition from T-A to A-A, if you are contemplating doing so. If you already made the transition, A-A is offering you a new friendly place to be.
  3. If you don’t know yet that you are really A-A instead of T-A that’s fine too. Maybe you need help to figure out why it’s difficult to seek out non T-A ideas.
  4. You don’t have to “leave” the SDA church to become A-A. A-A is an “intellectual odyssey thing”. No, that does not mean that A-As are smarter than T-A’s. Be aware that lots of people are both SDA and A-A.
  5. You don’t have to believe any certain thing to be A-A, although it probably helps to believe in intellectual freedom.
  6. A-A is a big tent place. Both by plan and also because A-A’ers taken as a group hold a very wide spectrum of beliefs.

That’s enough big points.

Is it really hard to let go of those traditional ways of thinking?

Young Folks Wanted

Being old (whatever that means) is not a requirement for becoming A-A. One of the sad facts about the SDA church is that many bright young people, some of whom are highly educated, are leaving because they need a big tent and the church is not providing it for them.

We welcome young people into our big A-A tent. We look forward to the ideas they will submit.

Submitted by Ann Alumnus – A pseudonym 

Glossary of North American SDAs

/ /

Glossary of North American SDAs

The Glossary of North American SDAs is a humorous look at the labels Adventist give themselves. These little definitions are good examples of humor as reflected in religious life.

A Little Adventist Humor

Religion is serious business. But it’s important to step back and laugh at ourselves sometimes. Humor is a way to reduce frustration, to see the other side and most of all to keep from taking ourselves too seriously.

Glossary of SDAs: A through C 

Addventists – Add rules and regs to denom life. Example: After church you may take a Sabbath day’ s journey (Acts 1:12) to a lake, river or ocean, and wade, but not swim.

Badventists – Swim on Sabbath afternoons. Polish shoes or press pants on Friday night after sundown or Sabbath morning before church. Skip Wednesday evening prayer meeting. Attend ballet, movies, opera, live stage theater, rock concerts.

Watch professional sports events – baseball, basketball, football, golf, hockey, Indy-500, NASCAR, soccer, women’ s tennis – at least on TV, Rent R-rated videos.  “Sample the slots” when driving through Nevada or an Indian reservation. Dine out on Sabbath. Eat burgers, New England clam chowder, hot dogs with yellow mustard. Drink caffeinated coffee and cola, black tea, white wine. Wear finger rings (not just wedding), dangling earrings, necklaces, bracelets, makeup. Bleach, tint, dye, braid hair. Wear hair pieces if not wigs.

Use hair styling gel, nail polish, foundation, eyeliner, mascara, lipstick. Play checkers, chess, and real cards instead of Rook. Dance ballroom, barn, break, contra, country, hip hop, line, square. Read novels from Tolkien to Tolstoy to Twain, while leaving unread the “red books.” Ride bicycles. Play tennis. Enlist in one of the five military services, bear arms and work on Sabbath.

Cadventists – Believe, preach, teach, lecture others on, but don’ t live, Adventism
Cladventists – Think to have “put on the whole armor”, but…
Cocoadventists – Think chocolate boasts less caffeine than coffee, so it must be proportionately less sinful.
Comradventists – Aging former Pathfinders who hark back to the “good old” days before the Soviet Socialist revolution in Russia created the C-word ( “Communist” )
Curadventists – Try to put band-aids on church cancers.
Cycadventists  – Have retired to Palm Springs or other desert  hot-spots to avoid “the wrath to come”

Glossary of SDAs: D through M

Dadventists – Full of “headship theology” they raise Ladventists to be full of “headship theology”
Dyadventists – Marrieds who think to actually control an uncontrollable God and prevent the Second Coming by deliberately not “finishing the work”.
Egadventists – Use “Guy”, “tinkled-off”, “scared witless”, “bullspit” and other euphemisms
Fadventists – Got pumped by Net-90-Something. Raised hair,  popped eyes and dropped  jaws at Revelation  Seminars. Switched  from Morrie Venden  (the SDA “Martin  Luther”) to Doug Batchelor (of “Amazing Fiction!”). Carry the NIV instead of the KJV. Attend celebration church where they enjoy dancing.  Fatten up on Little Debbie health foods (hell foods?)  because  they’re made by Adventists, not to mention such food substitutes as Gardenburgers, Mock Turkey, Fakin’ Bacon, Wham, and Phony Baloney.

Gadventists – Scuttle about among various local congregations as part of the Advent movement.
Gladventists – Grin and  bear the “Adds” (see Addventists, Scadventists)
Goodventists – Wear broach jewelry, play Rook.
Gradventists – Church alumni, some of whom hold the RA* degree. They have learned, for instance, that the Clear Word Bible is 100% egg white.
Grrr-adventists – Put the VENT in AdVENTism
Hadventists – Have had it with Adventism.
Jihadventists  – “Holy warriors” who want Jesus to come soon and destroy their enemies with lethal radiation from the sky.
Ladventists – FDAs (Future Dadventists of America raised on “headship theology”)
Madventists – Envy Badventists
McAdventists – Plaidventists
Meccadventists – Immigrate or at least pilgrimage to Adventist “hot spots”, such  as Berrien Springs, College Place, Collegedale, Hagerstown, La Sierra, Loma Linda, Nampa, Silver Spring, and St. Helena
Mochadventists – Believe caffeine at Starbucks to be proportionately less sinful than caffeine at home

Glossary of SDAs: N through S

NASDADventists – National Association of SDA Dentists (NASDAD) who convene after the annual American Dental Association (ADA) meeting for a prayer breakfast and a dentistry-update class permitting the entire trip to be written off their taxable incomes. Example ADA convention venues: Anaheim (for Disneyland), Orlando (for Epcot Center), Chicago (for Miracle Mile), and Las Vegas (for vdesert cactus tours)

Noncombadaventists – Defend country by leaving the trigger-squeezing to such fellow enlistees as agnostics, atheists, Baptists, Catholics, Episcopalians, Jews, Methodists, Mormons, Muslims, Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc.

Packadventists – Fill convention centers to hear Doug Batchelor tell his cave conversion story
Padventists – Committed to Sabbath-afternoon “lay activities”
Papaladventists – Recognize  the hierarchy’s “First Minister” (GC Pres) as Pope incognito
Plaidventists – McAdventists
Radventists – Liberal Adventists, often falsely confused with Badventists
Sadventists – Veteran Gladventists
Scadventists – Historical/Hysterical Adventists (HAs) who emburden themselves with “scads of adds” (see Addventists)
Schmadventists – Dismiss anything even remotely connected to the SDA church as “Adventist Schmadventist!”

Glossary of SDAs: T through Z

Tadventists – Dabble or toy with Adventism
Toscadventists – Hold season tickets to the opera
Try-adventists – “Good worksers”, such as BenTrying of Battle Creek, who study to show themselves approved and perfectly sinless without Mediator or Intercessor
Vegetadventists – Avoid animals as food, but not as:

  • Afghan wraps (from the hair of slaughtered camels)
  • Angora scarves, shawls and sweaters (from the fur of slaughtered rabbits)
  • Boar bristle shaving brushes (from the bristle hair of slaughtered pigs)
  • Cashmere finery and kid gloves (from the hair and skin of slaughtered goats)
  • “Catgut” strings for tennis rackets, musical instruments and surgical sutures (from the intestines of slaughtered sheep)
  • Avoid fish caviar eggs (because that is flesh food) while indulging chicken hen eggs (because that is not flesh food)
  • Detergent, fabric softener, “glitter” makeup and nail polish (from ingredients such as scales of slaughtered fish)
  • Down comforters, parkas and sleeping bags (from the feathers of slaughtered ducks and geese)
  • Glue, candle, crayon, lipstick, lubricant, paint, rubber, shaving cream, soap and wax paper (from various ingredients of slaughtered cattle)
  • Leather billfolds, briefcases, belts, Bible covers, cell phone cases, La-Z-Boys, Lexus or Lincoln Town Car interiors, Sabbath shoes, Sunday boots and saddles at cowboy camp meeting, suede handbags, wristwatch bands (from the hides of slaughtered cattle)
  • Perfume, cologne, and scented soaps, candles, lip balm, sachets, etc. (from the glands of slaughtered beavers, civets, deer, muskrats and otters)

Vladventists – (from “Vlad the Impaler”, q.v.) Vampires who suck lifeblood out of all other Adventists.

Adventist are a serious lot. But when we can, we will and do laugh at ourselves. The best of us are able to see the importance of add humor to our religious life.

Contributed by Nor the Son of a Prophet

Archives

Categories

Back to Top

© Adventist Alumni 2024
Reimagining The Adventisms of the 21st Century | Privacy Policy
Bob Wonderly, founder of adventistalumni.com is a retired mathematician, computer scientist, and former faculty of Andrews University.  Joe Greig assumed responsibility for continuing the spirit of the site in 2018.