Alden Thompson Reflects on Changes in Adventism
Alden Thompson looks back at almost 40 years of teaching theology, and ahead to the future of the Adventist church.
Alden Thompson
Alden Thompson, professor of biblical studies at Walla Walla University, is a prolific writer, frequent speaker and long-time contributor to Spectrum. Here he talks to Spectrum about how he sees the Adventist church changing, and the conflict between liberal and conservative Adventism.
Question: You have been at the Walla Walla University School of Theology since 1970. What changes have you seen in Adventist thinking and Adventist theology in the last four decades?
Answer: The first issue of Spectrum is dated Winter, 1969, just months before I became a faculty member at Walla Walla. Since then Adventism has been grappling mightily with three interlocking tensions, all of which can be described in terms of a “liberal-conservative” divide. One is more sociological, one more intellectual, and one more experiential.
1. The Sociological Question: How will Adventism relate to the allure of mainstream culture?
Even though Adventism was born as a counter-cultural sectarian movement, the educational vision that was intended to serve the church and world has had the unintended consequence of pushing us into the midst of mainstream cultural influences.
Thus we are at the crossroads: Will we succumb to “liberal” secularizing impulses on the left, becoming more like mainstream Protestantism with its diminished sense of God’s presence in the world? Or will we identify more fully with the “conservative” impulses on the right, making common cause with that other American mainstream, the Evangelical-Fundamentalist movement with its ambivalence toward intellectual exploration?
If the appearance of Questions on Doctrine in 1957 marked the temptation on the right, the publication of Spectrum in 1969 signaled the temptation on the left. The emergence of the Adventist Theological Society in the late 1980s represented an effort to address both threats.
2. The Intellectual Question: Can Adventism be “liberal” enough to explore the world with the inquiring minds on the left and “conservative” enough to worship with the devout pietists on the right?
Ever since the fundamentalist crisis divided American culture in the early 20th century, the crucial question that lurks behind every bush and tree is whether it is possible in our day and age to think and believe at the same time. Can the critical and the devotional impulses live together inside the same skin? I hope so. But Adventism continues to struggle with that question.
3. The Experiential Question: Will our sense of God’s personal presence in the world survive the onslaught of the rational impulses so characteristic of our modern secular world?
When Nancy Murphy of Fuller Theological Seminary spoke at the 2006 Association of Adventist Forums retreat in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, a quiet but audible gasp rippled through the audience when she said she believed in “answered” prayer. That’s a revealing symptom.
With reference to religious experience, Adventism’s orientation has always been conservative and I fervently hope that will continue to be the case. But it only reluctantly welcomes that more distant kind of experience represented by the book of Ecclesiastes. “God is in heaven, and you upon earth; therefore let your words be few” (Eccl. 5:2). If Adventism demands an impossible fervor from its Ecclesiastes people, their more distant God could disappear entirely. That can and does happen and is always a great sadness for me when it does. But it is an ever-present hazard of our modern world.
Question: How have your beliefs been shaped or changed since you first started your career?
Answer: I am now much more enthusiastic about recognizing change and diversity within our belief structure - two ideas that are often difficult for devout conservatives to recognize. Experiences in Scotland and Germany have enhanced my interest in the effects of culture, temperament, and personality on matters of faith.
A major challenge that continues to intrigue me stems from the pervasive tenacity of verbal inspiration in human thinking. I am committed to propagating an alternative view that makes it safe to see the human in Scripture without putting the divine at risk.
Question: What books or which people have had the greatest influence on your theological thinking?
Answer: From my undergraduate days, I am profoundly grateful for the influence of J. Paul Grove and Richard Litke, both teachers at Walla Walla College (now University).
In my early teaching years, Malcolm Maxwell was a wonderful colleague and mentor; and my former colleague, Ernie Bursey, continues to be a source of strength and encouragement.
Authors who have been influential include Ellen White, C. S. Lewis, and Brevard Childs.
Ellen White gave me the courage to see things in the Bible I thought I wasn’t supposed to see. Her classic statements on inspiration (the “Introduction” to The Great Controversy and Selected Messages 1:15-23) are a precious gift to Adventism.
Lewis’ Surprised by Joy, the story of his pilgrimage to faith, was very encouraging at an early stage of my intellectual and spiritual development.
Childs’ commentary on the book of Exodus in the Old Testament Library is a wonderful illustration of how one can look at a biblical book from a variety of illuminating perspectives. Childs was also instrumental in popularizing what is known as “canonical criticism,” a stance that grants proper weight to the finished canonical form of the biblical traditions, rather than focusing on the pre-history of the text with its preoccupation with sources and theories of origin.
Question: What Biblical concepts or issues have you found the most challenging and wrestled with the most?
Answer: I am still gripped by the mysterious challenge of that divine/human Word we call Scripture.
Another interest of mine focuses on theodicy: In the face of innocent suffering, how does one justify the existence of a God who is both all-powerful and all-good? I am appalled by the sufferings of innocent people in our world and deeply troubled by the prevalence of violence in the Bible and in our modern world. Much of my study, thinking, and writing focuses on those issues.
Question: Your book Inspiration: Hard Questions, Honest Answers has been very influential, and has caused waves in some circles. How do you feel about the book now close to 20 years on, and would you do anything differently if you were writing it now?
Answer: The response to Inspiration has been astonishing. I would change very little in the book. But I am exploring ways to refine and popularize the material in two chapters that were withdrawn from Inspiration at a very early stage. The most volatile chapter was the one on eschatology (“Eschatology: The Angels Always Say the Time Is Short”). The other one explores the three dominant strands of Adventist theology (“The Adventist Church at Corinth”).
Question: What changes have you seen in theology students during your time at Walla Walla?
Answer: For the most part, today’s theology students come to our campus knowing very little about the Bible and even less about Ellen White. They are much more open and expressive experientially, but care very little for the disciplined side of spirituality. Their commitment to the institutional church is fragile. And, like the rest of this generation of students, they read less and seldom take notes in class. We have made them handout dependent. But if we could blend the structure of my generation with the openness of the new generation, exciting things could happen in and through the church.
Question: What advice do you give Adventist young people just going into the ministry, or who are considering becoming a minister?
Answer: Stay in touch with the full range of Adventist experience. Get plenty of hands-on experience in ministry and evangelism. Read widely. Write. Pray.
Question: Where do you see the Adventist church going in the next 20 years?
Answer: In every direction at once. That’s both exciting and scary.
One of the most troubling things right now is the way in which conservative Adventism is abandoning even the pretense of education. In that respect, the closing of Weimar College is an ominous sign. In some parts of the church three months or six months evangelistic training is considered enough to qualify for ministry.
That’s a dramatic and painful departure from Ellen White’s educational vision, a vision illustrated by her characterization of John Wycliffe, a man of deep religious conviction who “sought to become acquainted with every branch of learning” (GC 80).
Question: What do you do when you are not teaching or writing or speaking?
Answer: My email correspondence is extensive. I continue to do all I can to nudge both liberals and conservatives to value each other and work together. I play racquetball to keep my body in shape and I play in the garden to renew my mind and soul.
An ordained minister in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Alden Thompson is a graduate of Walla Walla College (BA 1965) and Andrews University (MA 1966; BD 1967). Before joining the faculty at Walla Walla College, he pastored in Southeastern California (1967-1970). In 1974 he received his PhD in Old Testament and Judaic Studies from the University of Edinburgh. His dissertation was published by Scholars Press in 1977.
Search
- Michael on Survivalist Eschatology
- Tom Zwemer on Survivalist Eschatology
- Johnny A. Ramirez on Survivalist Eschatology
- Zane on Survivalist Eschatology
- Dalmatian on Cosmic Crises
- Nic Samojluk on Seventh-day Adventists United Against the Wall Street Bailout
- Nic Samojluk on A Review of Marvin Moore’s Challenges to the Remnant
- orthodoxymoron on Survivalist Eschatology
- Stephanie on Survivalist Eschatology
- Rich Hannon on Survivalist Eschatology
User login
© Copyright 2008 Adventist Forums 
Comments
"In the face of innocent suffering, how does one justify the existence of a God who is both all-powerful and all-good?"
That is the ever-recurring question without answers. Who dares to offer a rational reason that is compatible with a God of love while no loving father that anyone alive recognizes, would stone, drown, of kill his children? How can that be answered? Or is it simply a lack of faith to trust in the Bible or do we end up with cognitive dissonance bordering on schizohophrenia?
Alden Thompson has given some solid advice here.
1. The importance of a good education and continuing to read and learn after you leave school.
2. The importance of reading the Bible. If you are thirty years old, you will be ahead of the curve if you have read the Bible five times. If you are forty and have not read it five times you are behind the curve. By the time you read the Bible 10 times you will realize there is no book on earth that can compare with it.
3. The importance of EGW. Every Adventist should be thoroughly familiar with The Introduction to the Great Controversy. It is the Adventist Manifesto, especially the last two paragraphs.
4. The importance of the older and younger generation working together as a team. The story of Mordecai and Esther in the Bible is a very good example.
There are two other important elements he did not comment on, the significance of timing and the importance of serendipitous events. When the window of opportunity opens you must take advantage of it, as Mordecai said to Esther, “who knows whether you have come to the kingdom for such a time as this.” Great theater demands great performance.
Mordecai and Esther as a good example? Don't let Tony Zirkle from that other thread get ahold of that. All that racial adultery and what not.
Alden, Given what you say here concerning theology students recently,
Answer: "They are much more open and expressive experientially, but care very little for the disciplined side of spirituality. Their commitment to the institutional church is fragile."
During the time this trend has been happening, we have still been eventually hiring these graduates in our churches, schools and universities havent we?
Given that our theology majors are "more open and expressive experientially" (read likely to value their own opinions over the written word) and that they also, care very little for the disciplined side of spirituality (confirming their value of the written word)what would you extrapolate the quality of Pastoral, Educational or Teaching leadership to be during this time frame?
You also say,
"One of the most troubling things right now is the way in which conservative Adventism is abandoning even the pretense of education. In that respect, the closing of Weimar College is an ominous sign. In some parts of the church three months or six months evangelistic training is considered enough to qualify for ministry."
Agreed, however I know of many times local churches and conferences have hired as youth Pastors, people who have had no more experience than camp couselors at Mivoden or elsewhere. I have seen these type move into senior pastoral roles. Sunnyside in Portland was a good example.
I am assuming that the evangelistic training you are refering to is something akin to the Amazing Facts program. Perhaps I shouldnt assume.
However, given that the 3-6 month training in evangelism is specific and not pastoral or counseling in nature, I'm sure you would agree that the time to participate in that type of ministry can be reduced. Especially since we all know that specific credentials or degrees have not been a inerrant past indicator of theological soundness.
We certainly dont require degrees from our missionary's around the world and they cretainly participate in more of a pastoral role than evangelists do.
I really enjoyed this interview. Thanks
Also pass on our prayers and best wishes to the Booth Family.
Thankyou Alden,
The experiential question I think is the most problematic for my generation, those in their 40's. Understanding how much God gets involved down here is difficult to comprehend and easy to start to doubt. Answers to prayer seem so arbritrary and illogical; the wait, yes, no model is a catch all that in the cold light of day has no meaning as it covers all bases seemingly regardless of the outcome.
Just this week in SS class someone advocated the example of a church who have all night prayer warriors and have seen healing and change come into their church. Does God only act if we 'earn' the right for positive answers by praying for long enough and well enough? Yes I am sure that it is more about the people praying than God, but to me that does not help. It means that God is again not really an agent of change or action.
The drift into a deistic view of God seems almost inevitable. Not only to make sense of the world, but because evidence to the contrary is so hard to come by.
It is both comforting and disturbing to read in this article that I and my peers are not alone.
If the purpose of evangelism is to rally as many people as possible around the SDA flag, a training program of 3-6 months is probably the best way to go. The Jehovah's Witnesses have been enormously successful using dedicated lay people to recruit new members. Absolute certainty has a great appeal to people of a fundamentalistic mindset. (Herein lies also the secret to the success of AM radio.)
Fundamentalism can be a great source of inspiration since it has little tolerance for ambiguity. Contradictory information ends up on the cutting room floor or up on the proverbial shelf--God's inbox for unresolved issues. Fundamentalism promises people a clear vision of Truth, unencumbered by the realites that a university education thrusts upon you.
But not all people are looking for the easy way out of spiritual and intellectual cunundrums. Some people, perversely, want to embrace all of life and still not give up on religion. These people are not looking for somebody who's memorized a series of religious tracts, and whose approach is to drive doubt into the ground by relentless proof texting.
They're looking for somebody who understands where they're coming from, somebody who's there to listen and to challenge. To do that, a university education can be of great help.
Evangelism is fixated on methods. What about focusing on the people you want to reach? If you want to beat the Jehovah's Witnesses to the punch, or recruit Rush's listeners, you can go the traditional route. But what route do you take if you want to reach people such as myself, who wouldn't go near a place featuring anti-Catholic conspiracy theories and apocalyptic numerology?
Aage,
I absolutely loved your comment: "Some people, perversely, want to embrace all of life and still not give up on religion." Although perhaps I'm struggling with how to hold on to religion in specific rather than religion in general. As a chaplain, I have fallen in love with religious and spiritual expression of many forms.
And I see in my spiritual exploration and openness to new ideas that I may belong to this new generation that Professor Thompson has observed in his classes. But I arrived at where I am in response to a rigorous seminary education, intensive clinical training, and an on-going commitment to understanding more of what I am witnessing and experiencing in the world. I have always struggled with being self-disciplined but I do see some necessary growth in this area of my life recently. So I would worry about ministers who have an openness to other ideas and experiences without an ability to pursue any one very deeply or to engage in a spiritual practice with any real devotion. But I think ministry itself will teach them to go deeper. Or they'll flounder on the surface and wear themselves out.
"Evangelism is fixated on methods. What about focusing on the people you want to reach? If you want to beat the Jehovah's Witnesses to the punch, or recruit Rush's listeners, you can go the traditional route. But what route do you take if you want to reach people such as myself, who wouldn't go near a place featuring anti-Catholic conspiracy theories and apocalyptic numerology?"
Aage, Evengelism is fixated on methods. Diffrent methods to reach diffrent people.
When you say,
"you wouldn't go near a place featuring anti-Catholic conspiracy theories and apocalyptic numerology", why limit it to that only?
What about reaching athiests, Devil worshippers and Yoga Guru's?
At some point the bible becomes the opposite of whatever a person is into. You cant change it to make it say whatever you want. You can emphasis certain parts more than others, but you cant change it.
What methods would you suggest to those who pick and choose their theology?
About these 5 month evangelism training programs:
I had a painful conversation with a woman from Advent Hope (a fundy church group in Loma Linda) yesterday at a party for graduates of LLU.
I was relating a story of someone who attended the Mission College of Evangelism in Gaston Oregon and subsequently got three job offers in Michigan. I shared my frustration as a Master's student in Divinity - who has spent several years studying carefully and reading broadly, only to have jobs offered to people with three to five months of field training in how to give pre-packaged studies and series...
The lady from Advent Hope piped up and said, "Well why don't you go to a school of evanglism too?"
I was shocked and said flatly, "No way." She continued to belabor the fact that an M.Div is a waste of time, people who go to seminary don't get the results that evangelists get, and furthermore, seminarians are not any more spiritual.
The anti-intellectual attitude she exuded really bothered me, and I think it was more of a sore spot because I have devoted so much of my life and so much money to making the most of my God-given intellect (not that mine is particularly special), and my ability to speak to a broad range of people.
Michael's comments strike me as disingenuous. On the one hand criticizing the quality of ministerial candidates today, and then suggesting that the training for church leaders could or should be shortened. If the problem is that they care little for the disciplined side of spirituality, how might reducing the education requirements help anything?
I appreciate Alden Thompson's statement on this issue:
That’s a dramatic and painful departure from Ellen White’s educational vision, a vision illustrated by her characterization of John Wycliffe, a man of deep religious conviction who “sought to become acquainted with every branch of learning” (GC 80).
Michael, can you furnish some examples of people who do not "pick and choose" their theologies? Because it seems as though every person who spends time grappling with theology at all is by that very act picking some concepts to embrace, choosing others to reject...
The implication that there is some absoulte theological standard that should serve as arbiter might be too simplistic in reality.
Where are those "people who do not "pick and choose" their theologies"?
Would it be wrong to assume that the great majority of people do NOT choose their religious beliefs, but are simply born into it by their country, parents, and early environment: things over which none of us have control?
Only those few who seriously study theology and religions can state they not only have seriously studied the variety of beliefs, but have maturely chosen and personalized their religious beliefs.
For the many who post here as 2nd, 3rd, 4th, generation Adventists, what choice did they truly make? Those who have chosen to divorce themselves from the religion of their birth, have made a very careful study and research and chosen that course through their use of reason and integrity.
Likewise, those who after careful study and research have chosen to stay can also honestly validate their reasoning. All others are merely sheep following sheep.
Alden Thompson is a treasure to the Adventist Church and a gold mine to Walla Walla. His commentaries are priceless and a personal comfort blanket. That does not mean that I am congruent with his thinking but I sure do appreciate his thoughts and his willingness to share. Thank You . Tom
I don't remember the gasps at Coeur d’Alene. I know we all have selective hearing so I'm open to the idea that I might have not attached significance to something Prof. Thompson did notice. And that the inverse might be true for Alden, considering how it's being cast as a revealing symptom of the scepticism of God's presence in this world at an Adventist Forum conference, since it does admittedly make for a good anecdote.
Or, how loud was this gasp really and how many people gasped?
I for one didn't gasp. Nancey Murphy does amazing work on the intersection of science and theology some of which I'm reading now. If I would have been familiar with her work apart from bodies and souls then (which was read in preparation for the conference) I would have had so many questions for her! Such is life!
Thanks for this interview Alita and Alden! Apart from raised eyebrows on the Idaho recollection, I loved, and agreed, with everything in this piece. Particularly with the parts Jared agreed with on the importance of a solid theological education. I'm a fan of any Adventist who has studied theology in Scotland. Cheers!
JB's comment and assessment above is interesting. I know one individual that claims to have read every syllable of the Bible over 4 times and turned him into an Atheist. Certain one should know where things are in the Bible, and understand their interlinking, but to brag on the number of times shouldn't be the point.
I just left a forum that a number of SDAs and Former SDAs comment on because Atheistic Philosophy is allowed and promulgated, which goes no where. It is Darwinian and Anti-God. If one by reading the Bible 4, 5, 6 ... times becomes discouraged or can't see straight, I don't see the purpose of obsessing on every word.
The question is do you believe in a just God, with all his facets, which include anger, wrath, justice and ... love? If not quit reading, you'll only confuse yourself, Professor Alden Thompson appears to have given in to some of this obsessing.
Jared,
It wasnt I that quantified the quality of Theology students today. I was responding to Aldens comments.
Perhaps you might give another look at the attitudes and viewpoints theology students possess as they enter the theology program.
".. today’s theology students come to our campus knowing very little about the Bible and even less about Ellen White. They are much more open and expressive experientially, but care very little for the disciplined side of spirituality. Their commitment to the institutional church is fragile. And, like the rest of this generation of students, they read less and seldom take notes in class."
What type of student can enter a theology program with this attitude and expect to graduate with anything else than the viewpoint they start with if they dont radically change their outlook?
Finishing the coursework and getting a degree is no assurance of anything. Anyone can regurgitate the professors viewpoints in a test and get an A. The entry requirements into the program consists of seeing if the tution check clears.
When I was there my friends often commented more on theology being a path to a good financial package and a cushy job than as training to seek the lost. I have witnessed what Alden has in the 30+ years since then.
If as you say, you are such a widely studied individual, why would her suggestion of a couple more months of evangelistic study offend you so much?
It seems that there are some who equate anti-intellectualism with increased spirituality: the more education one receives there is an equal loss of spirituality. IOW, there is only so much room in the mind, and one drives out the other. Is that the impression others have received?
One thing is true: "A little learning is a dangerous thing."
If there are those conferences and churches who only require that their pastors have a five-week course in Evangelism or how to give Bible Studies, what NAD churches will be happy to welcome them? The educational level of the members are evidently less than their pastor, so how would they be expected to evaluate what he teaches?
Most people look to professionals who have qualified for their position by years of education. Who prefers a nature healer to a reputable M.D. when a serious illnes occurs? Who wants his children taught by someone with an 8th grade education (the usual requirement more than 100 years ago)? Please tell us where the 5-week wonders are pastoring and what conference calls them. Inquiring minds want to know.
Michael asked:
"If as you say, you are such a widely studied individual, why would her suggestion of a couple more months of evangelistic study offend you so much?"
The thing that was so irksome to me was not that she suggested that another couple of months in an evangelism course would do me some good. That would be alright. Rather, the implication was that an undergrad and graduate level degree in Theology / Ethics / Biblical Studies / Church History is a waste of time, and that what people really need to be effective "soul winners" is a crash course in evangelism.
For someone (like this lady) so steeped in traditional Adventism, I was surprised, and am always surprised when I hear people rail against religious higher learning, at the gross disconnect between this anti-intellectualism and the rich and storied push in Adventism for thorough, biblical education of the highest level.
But Michael you were partly right in saying that "Finishing the coursework and getting a degree is no assurance of anything. Anyone can regurgitate the professors viewpoints in a test and get an A." That is true at the undergraduate level to some degree, but much less so at the graduate level. At least where I'm studying, it is well near impossible to fake it and get by. My professors have a short tolerance for slacking off intellectually, and I count that a very good thing for the future of Adventism!
Jared,
I thought I'd add a few sobering observations to yours.
I'm currently in graduate school and a good number of my classmates are young Jesuits novitiates. Although they are in a different program than me, we occasionally overlap classes.
Most of them are my age, or younger, and have taken their vows (celibacy, obedience, and poverty). Most of them have very impressive college degrees/life experiences and are in classes with me to complete a 3 three year degree called the MARP (Masters of Philosophical Resources). While they are doing this, they live in community and engage in ministry (or as they call it "apostolic") activities. After they finish this course of study, they must complete another 3 years of ministry experience, before they head of to seminary for 3 more years of theological education.
After 9 years of post-secondary education, most of them go on for additional Ph.D. studies.
This is not one or two guys, but the training norm for an entire order.
Compared to this, the 3-5 months of evangelism training you describe, need I say, seems to barely scratch the surface.
I'm not saying that education is everything, but these guys have certainly made a positive impression on me. Granted, most of them will end up running schools or teaching as their ministry, getting to and befriending some of them as made me reevaluate models of theological education.
"Most people look to professionals who have qualified for their position by years of education. Who prefers a nature healer to a reputable M.D. when a serious illnes occurs? Who wants his children taught by someone with an 8th grade education (the usual requirement more than 100 years ago)? Please tell us where the 5-week wonders are pastoring and what conference calls them. Inquiring minds want to know."
So then your theology is based on whoever has the most degrees? Who is your chosen spiritual leader then?
Zane, excellent point. The rigors do seem to be configured to weed out the undisiplined dont they.
I bet even suggesting that theology/Seminary students take a vow of anything would cause the servers at Spectrum to overload within minutes.
Michael asked:
"So then your theology is based on whoever has the most degrees? Who is your chosen spiritual leader then?"
Theology and spirituality or NOT synonymous and are not dispensed at the completion of a prescribed course.
If I feel the need for a "spiritual leader" it will be my current pastor, graduate of Fuller.
He officiated at my late husband's funeral and will, I hope, at mine, also.
It would be impossible for me to respect as a spiritual leader, based on the completion of five months of Bible study of SDA doctrines.. Having spent more than 12 years in SDA schools, and more in Jesuit university and in completing M.A. in religion and history, why should I seek someone who completed a 5-months course of study? Neither claims nor degrees assure one's spirituality. It could well be a treasured friend who has earned my trust.
Michael,
Let's try for that server overload. =)
I once took a course from an Anglican pastor who started something called "The Order of Mission" within the Anglican communion. This is a special group of clergy devoted to the spread of the Christian gospel in a secular/post-modern context.
He explained to us that everyone who joins it must take a vow of "purity, simplicity, and accountability" (instead of celibacy, poverty, and obedience) and go through a rigorous interview process.
According to him, this captures the essence of the vows in a contemporary context.
Perhaps something like that would work in Adventism? What do you think?
Also, there's something to the idea of having groups that are highly specialized in different areas of ministry. The Jesuits, as we've been discussing, specialize in education and missions.
What if there were similar kind of ministry group(s)in our own denomination?
Anyway, it's getting late and I'm just rambling...
BTQ/Elaine/Alden
This is a bit of a long one, but bare with me.
Theodicy and experience seem to me to be the fundamental overriding questions. It is a bit like Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Understanding the problem of innocence suffering and lack of interaction with a personal God represent the base needs to fulfill.
Due to the fact that no answers exist for these questions, the overriding themes put forward by the SDA church including the whole great controversy make little sense.
Let me explain:
Lucifer a supposedly clever chap rebels against God knowing that without God he ceases to exist (not so clever).
A large contingent of angels, I suppose, who are less clever than Lucifer, rebel also. Presumably they have to acknowledge that they would cease to exist also.
The rest of the universe is watching this “act 1” in a cosmic theatre and have to decide by the end of the show whether God is vindicated.
These beings are less intelligent than the angels and Lucifer, because this theatre production has now been going on for over 6000 years. On this basis they make humans look like veritable geniuses with their four core and ten years of life.
Not content with this little fracas; Lucifer, now called Satan, is put on Earth at the inception of its human history to create untold havoc and suffering (Theodicy question arises).
Not content with the amount of blood already spilt, God now requires another innocent blood offering, that of himself, his son, begotten – well the mystery (convenience) of the trinity is formed.
That done, you would think happy days are here again, lets all get back to naming animals for a living. But no, it seems the universe remains unconvinced. They are perhaps a little confused; after all it has been a little rushed.
So God “delays” his second coming. Well clearly he has to, to fulfil his prophesy of the investigative judgement. So we will just have to play this voyeuristic chess game a little longer – I say "little" because Jesus is coming back “soon”.
1844 finally comes round and God, this omnipresent being, walks into the most holy place of the heavenly Sanctuary (tent??), pitched in heaven. This omniscient being now resorts to a book of registered deeds and misdeeds and methodically goes through them interceding with himself for some of the lucky few humans who will make it to heaven.
That done, God's interceding function with himself ends and He withdraws himself (spirit) from the earth leaving none of his intercessory powers.
So now humans are going to have to be perfect (To vindicate God? Why the need for Christ?) for a short amount of time (EGW says this time will be shortened) until after just leaving Earth (spirit), he comes back again (now as Jesus) to save those blessed few.
So perhaps the rest of the universe are now convinced? .....It seems not! They and the lucky few have a further 1000 years to figure it all out, lest we judge God harshly.
After 1000 years, God, not content with already having killed (withdrawn life) the “lost” once, wants to wake them up again to kill them again(just to make sure?) through burning, some will suffer longer than others – Satan the most. Just before this happens, every knee shall bow.
So, the building blocks of this scenario rest on the paradox of the decision making of super clever, dim-witted beings.
The problem of suffering and experience of God? This is where the pyramid is turned upside down and these issues interpreted in the light of this great controversy.
Now all kinds of horrors and inconsistencies can be justified. Christians become apologists for the greatest atrocities.
Andrews
I have long been interested in finding out the origins of Ellen White's Miltonian drama. As you point out, instead of being a theological asset, this myth raises far more questions than it solves.
It was obviously introduced at one time as an attempt at solving the problem of theodicy with which the OT writers, in particular, struggled without arriving at an answer that went beyond the divine "shut up" dispensed in the last chapters of the Book of Job. That was a rather blunt and somewhat unsatisfactory way of addressing a very real problem, but it is vastly better than a Great Controversy story, which justifies suffering by asserting that the universe is populated with well-meaning idiots who still don't trust God, and that God instead of inventing a better brain for the poor saps, uses our suffering as a teaching tool. Talk about special ed writ large!
Does the more contrived and convoluted a message becomes, make it more believable?
Adventists, by inventing the entire 1844 scenario in a vain attempt to justify their disappointment in wrongfully predicting Christ's return, have twisted scripture into knots; knots that no other biblical scholar in the entire world of the best theologians can accept. This, in itself, should give Adventists pause to reconsider their weird explanation of a time-specific investigative judgment. It is impossible to prove or disprove anything happened in heaven at any specific time. So, on those grounds, for Adventists to claim anything happened in heaven is ridiculous.
Judgment, in our common parlance, has a very different meaning from the OT use of that word. It was a welcome event for someone who had been wrongfully accused to "come into judgment" before a righteous ruler, as he would then be vindicated. Today, we use judgment as a verdict against someone rendered by a judge, for a sentence of guilt.
The entire 1844 doctrine is a perversion of the plain and simple Gospel, which should be understood by a child.
How much of our SDA "Bible" education focused on diagramming such predictions as the 2300 days, the 1260 days and such? We ridicule the apocalyptic preachers today who call down the wrath of God for the suffering of Katrina or 9/11. Adventists have their own history of predictions: Israel will never become a state; Armageddon is upon us; the King of the North is--(fill in the blank according to the date of the presenter), and more. Adventists NEVER admit their mistakes, but merely try to paper over them; or leave the bodies of former SDA preachers and teachers behind them who have dared to question such doctrines.
"The entire 1844 doctrine is a perversion of the plain and simple Gospel, which should be understood by a child."
You got something right there.
The gospel should be understood by a child. So, whatever happened to your concern of pastors that arent as "educated" as their members?
"How much of our SDA "Bible" education focused on diagramming such predictions as the 2300 days, the 1260 days and such?"
Ah, you know how those academics are....dont you?
Andrew,
It is no wonder you see the Great Controversy story as foolish, because you have so many facts wrong that it leads to many wrong conclusions. You are better off living your life the best you can without your distorted version. It is too twisted to untangle. Do as Elaine says, try to use your best judgment as you are confronted with life’s many problems. Life is short, before you know it you will be facing death, then even your children will be able evaluate how you lived it.
A complex problem cannot be solved if the problem is not understood. If you cannot see it you cannot reach it. If you cannot dream it you cannot achieve it. All dreams cannot be achieved because they do not accord with reality, but it you are going to achieve it you must perceive it in your mind. Alden perceives the problem; he is wrestling with the solution. He is on the right track to resolution. When he finds it he will be happy to share it with you, if you are willing to listen.
"Myth is more important than history, myth trumps fact. Always has, always will."
JB
You do me a disservice. I have the utmost respect for what Alden is doing. He like I as well as mankind/womankind are struggling with the same issues.
My distorted version as you put it is based on my reading of the conflict of the ages series as well as QOD, baptismal classes, personal study for 30 odd years as well as direct discussions with SDA and non SDA lay persons and academics across five continents.
I am not convinced my facts are wrong. I took the time to explain my view, you seem reluctant to do the same. My narrative is something that is transparent and open to critique. Your accusations are opaque and therefore closed to any evaluation.
If "my" version is too twisted to untangle, why not start at the beginning and target the initial premise of Lucifer rebelling against God knowing the outcome would mean he would cease to exist.
Bye the way, please resist making too many assumptions about me - maybe I won't have children, maybe I won't die - Jesus could return before then - I shall cling to a non 1844 (and all that) text - John 5:24 - or did I get that fact wrong also.
Aage
Your last paragraph sums up the problem in a way my convoluted explanation could never do.
Not only are these other beings slow, they are already sinning aren't they by doubting God? The very fact that God has to go through this big dog and pony show on earth to "prove" something to them suggests to me that they have already crossed a line.
And we certainly aren't allowed the same leeway are we? Are we allowed to sit back and watch how everything plays out before we decide whether He is trust worthy or not? I don't think so. We have to pick sides with our own sin-filled little minds and have faith through thick and thin no matter what or we are damned. How fair is that?
OK end of rant :)
Yet truth outlasts all.
And those who love it will encounter God.
(my last comment was in response to Elaine's quote on myth and history and fact.)
Is the problem of suffering so simple to solve? I find layers of complexity that require careful teasing of what how sin relates to God and His role in it. And not just because I want to be an apologist for God, but that life itself and free complicated humans live in systems that have interlocking and unpredictable effects. Atheists even recognize that choice, fate and suffering are interrelated, even if God doesn't enter their worldview.
Heavenly beings are idiots? Or are we like simplistic children assuming as children often do that life is black and white and all adults are simpletons?
Classic Adventism is like an enchanted attic with all kinds of interesting and often bizarre stuff. It's easy to get lost up there. I'd like to get back to professor Thompson's three initial challenges and hear what you have to say.
Thompson's three questions:
1. The Sociological Question: How will Adventism relate to the allure of mainstream culture?
2. The Intellectual Question: Can Adventism be “liberal” enough to explore the world with the inquiring minds on the left and “conservative” enough to worship with the devout pietists on the right?
3. The Experiential Question: Will our sense of God’s personal presence in the world survive the onslaught of the rational impulses so characteristic of our modern secular world?
#2.
Is not the inquiry itself (within a divine framework) a form of highest worship? Perhaps our understanding of worship is too limited. And therefore creates the tension- from outdated "wineskins of worship" that does not know how to contain the more recent scientific/rational approach to God and His universe without bursting. (i.e. Heaven will be a place where exploring the universe with inquiring, demanding, critically sharpened, discriminating searching minds can pursue truth in all fields unhindered forever. And that's not a form of ultimate worship?)
Arlyn, yes, truth will triumph in the end, but people want myths; they love them and resort to them when all else fails.
All our recorded history, including the Bible, is suffused with myth. We just aren't sure which is literal history and which is hyperbole.
Do you?
Aage,
Your bringing us back to the three questions is good.
"1. The Sociological Question: How will Adventism relate to the allure of mainstream culture?",
That will be a moving target wont it?
Since it always moves relative to culture we can say that Noah undoubtedly faced the same question in his time.
Therefore we can say that one of the potential outcomes is that we might have the same results Noah did.
The other possibility is where people have a diffrent receptivity or attitude we might have a diffrent outcome.
The second question;
2. The Intellectual Question: Can Adventism be “liberal” enough to explore the world with the inquiring minds on the left and “conservative” enough to worship with the devout pietists on the right?
Well this is an election year after all.
On the one hand one might say it is a question concerning political pandering.
On the other hand it might be a question of perspective instead of fact. For example the discriptive term "devout pietists" arent what a conservative would call themselves. It is a lable laid on them by "inquiring minded liberals".
On the third hand, it might be a question of arriving at truth or resolution of any particular issue through the concept of; lets take 50% "devout pietist" and mix it with 50% "inquiring minded liberal" and that will give us consensus.
For me, I would need the question a bit more refined to really know what we are trying to solve.
The third question;
3. The Experiential Question: Will our sense of God’s personal presence in the world survive the onslaught of the rational impulses so characteristic of our modern secular world?
This sounds like a personal question only answerable by the individual and time.
Intellectual inquiry IS a way of being religious, and an important one. Religious scholars usually divide religious behavior into six categories, one being inquiry. Some posit further that any religion or sect that grows for a long enough period of time will eventually incorporate all six categories, which you can find here:
http://www.wou.edu/las/humanities/cannon/webways1.htm
Samuel,
Thanks for posting this link. I once heard a presentation that incorporated this diagram, and found it very insightful. I've been trying to track it down ever since, but have not had much luck!
According to the presenter, all religions at the end of the day seek to answer two basic questions: "What is the problem with humanity?" and "What is the solution?"
The two questions are closely connected. If you think that the problem is ignorance, the solution is knowledge, and the savior is the teacher that brings enlightenment. (Religion is about "reasoned inquiry.")
If you think the main problem is supernatural, evil forces, the solution is "magic" and you need a "shamanic mediator."
If you think it is the problem is human behavior, the solution as an exhorter, or preacher to inspire people to do the right thing.
Etc...
The presenter then, asked us which one of the 6 categories best encapsulates Christianity. What kind of "savior" is Jesus? From what does he save us--the devil? ignorance? apathy?
It seems to me that the human problem is deep, complex, and multi-faceted and that Jesus in the Scriptures is presented as answering all of these. The problem is that different people/denominations like to emphasise one or two.
We have a limited understanding of our problem and, thus a limited understanding of Jesus/God.
Anyway, I agree with your observation that there is a need to incorporate all 6 categories into Adventism. The future of Adventism, I think, depends on our worship, understanding, and teaching/sharing of a Jesus that fulfills all these categories.
The phenome of 5 week evangelistic training may have sprung up, and their "successful" hire rate, because NAD's numbers of members and contributing tithe members are what they are. Is it cheaper to hire one of these "Bible worker" as they use to be called, or a full blown seminary trained preacher? The answer is obvious, the result also if they are more successful at evangelism. Then they can afford the seminarian once the paying members are in place.
A further justification for avoiding lengthy academic training is the obvious example of the "uneducated" disciples. People love to use them as a model of people with little academic training doing a great job for the kingdom.
And it's clear that their lack of academic training was highlighted in Scripture to provide a normative frame of reference for what Church leaders ought to aspire to.
And of course Paul, with all his education, didn't really amount to much, did he? After all, he wasn't the first Pope. Peter was. Uneducated fisherman Peter. Be like Peter. Don't go to school. Go fishing. Be a fisher of men.
Going to school only makes you say sarcastic things. Like this.
Or it gives you the intellectual tools to author most of the NT...or to lead the Protestant Reformation...or...
Hmmm. You do have a point there.
"Know then thy self. Presume not God to scan. The proper study of mankind is man!" The more I learn of myself the more I find I need what the New Testament offers and the Old Testament promises. To the extent that the Seventh-day Adventist Chruch projects those beneficents to that extent it is a part of the body of Christ. To the extent that the SDA Church denies those beneficents or places prior or antecendent behaviors on supplicants to that extent it is a part of the Scarlet woman of Revelation.
"Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them no for such is the kingdom of heaven." One must ask which of the 28 beliefs are stepping stones and which are stumbling blocks. At least Alden Thompson takes a rather mature view of E.G.W. as well as an open view of Scripture. One can grow in his world. Tom
"Know then thy self. Presume not God to scan. The proper study of mankind is man!" The more I learn of myself the more I find I need what the New Testament offers and the Old Testament promises. To the extent that the Seventh-day Adventist Chruch projects those beneficents to that extent it is a part of the body of Christ. To the extent that the SDA Church denies those beneficents or places prior or antecendent behaviors on supplicants to that extent it is a part of the Scarlet woman of Revelation.
"Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them no for such is the kingdom of heaven." One must ask which of the 28 beliefs are stepping stones and which are stumbling blocks. At least Alden Thompson takes a rather mature view of E.G.W. as well as an open view of Scripture. One can grow in his world. Tom
Friends,
Herold Weiss wrote a column reflecting on this interview and some of your comments for Café Hispano.
Read it in Spanish here and in English via Google here.
Post new comment