What are the conflicts Adventists have faced between religion and science? You seem to suggest there have been specific instances analogous to the LDS shift.

I would challenge the notion that any of our tensions (creationism?) are in any way as close to the Mormon claim on American Indians.

I think you'd have a hard time arguing that Adventism is in opposition to science. From medical research like that on stem cells and beyond we've shown a willingness to embrace the blessings of knowledge.

Our schools are not like Bob Jones or BYU- surveys show most Adventist science teachers believe in one sort of evolution or another. Our schools do not fire those whose science may be in tension with the Geoscience Research Institute.

I think that Adventism has shown itself to be quite able to tolerate discussion and diversity within itself on evolution. And apart from that (creationism) I struggle to see any other issue which you could point to as indicating a tension between science and religion in our denomination.

I'd appreciate clarification- thanks!

I was not suggesting that Adventist tensions "are in any way as close to the Mormon claim on American Indians". Just that the problem cited is epistemologically parallel and that Adventists (like all theists) have, and will likely always, struggle with competing ways to ground knowledge. Adventism can tolerate discussion where science and faith conflict. But not with much resolution.

Thanks for an insightful commentary Rich. I was feeling the déjà vu early in your commentary. I agree that we certainly don't have religion/science tensions quite as thorny as trying to explain DNA testing and religious teachings of Native American ancestry, but we certainly have issues of authority and debating which knowledge source to follow. I just finished reading Prophetess of Health for the first time and realized again that Ellen White's writings and/or the church's teachings of her writings has often resulted in similar epistomological quandries. The exhortation I commonly hear is to "just read the Bible" to solve any thorny questions, as if the act of reading itself doesn't require interpretation and some sort of heurmeneutic principle which helps us know how to struggle with competing information.

Johnny--you bring up an interesting paradox. Adventists have a very proud medical history (although it took us a while to start trusting modern science even when it came to medicine). Why do you think we (and Christians as a whole) feel completely comfortable trusting modern science for the care of our bodies and our children's bodies, but find that it's untrustworthy when it comes to other scientific issues (such as creationism or in some camps, climate-change)?

Daneen, you ought to take a look at Ron Numbers' excellent book 'The Creationists' to see the historical interplay of SDA faith/science struggle in action. George McCready Price's book 'The New Geology' was deeply informed by Ellen White's writing and provided a major influence for the later work of Whitcomb and Morris in 'The Genesis Flood'.

Rich: you've touched on an extremely relevant topic for all Christians: whom do we believe-- the apostles who claim they saw Jesus alive a few days after he'd been declared dead by the Romans, or current scientists (and a whole lot of others), who insist any such belief is patently absurd. It seems to me we're never relieved of having to ultimately make a personal choice as to our sources. As to modern medicine, while I trust a lot of "it," there's plenty I wouldn't let anywhere near me; which is why the second opinion industry thrives. Daneen -- I agree, even the Bible forces us to always make a choice on our own, do we believe or not?-and will I act accordingly or not? "Just reading" the Bible is as useless as "just watching" the tube.

Rich, nice thought provoking post.

A book that's helped me in coming with a paradigm for thinking about the relationship between faith and reason is "Christ and Culture" by H. Richard Niebuhr. Technically, it's not a work of philosophy/epistemology but still very insightful.

I'll modify the term "culture" with "reason" and "Christ" with "faith" for present purposes. According to Niebuhr there are 5 paradigms that have been articulated and held by Christians. I won't expound each position in detail, as I think they're self-explanatory, but I've added what I see as present-day expressions of each position.

1. Faith Against Reason - Fundamentalism
2. Faith Completes Reason - Catholicism
3. Faith = Reason - Liberalism
4. Faith and Reason in Paradox - Luther/Protestantism
5. Faith Transforms Reason - Calvinism/Reformed

Perhaps a bit too simplistic, but very helpful, I think.

Where does Adventism fall in all this? I'd say #1. So the tensions you bring out in your post are alive and well in our tradition, but maybe not so much in other Christian traditions.

We've got a lot to learn.

Rich,

Good questions and comments. I personally think that SDAs very much have the same issue with the problem of what to do about the Ellen White scientific statements, which were just as authoritatively stated as those of Joseph Smith, and which are just as scientifically invalid. These include, but are not limited to, such things as volcanoes being caused by burning coal, "certain races of men" being the result of the "amalgamation of man and beast," rotting leaves causing disease and so forth and so on.

While the church and the White Estate in theory appear to accept the notion that her writings are not infallible scientifically (perhaps an improvement on Mormonism there), I have never seem them actually list the statements that are not true, and they always seem to defend them all, not the least the age of the earth.

As for Adventist scientific academics accepting some form of evolution, unless things have changed a great deal in the few years that I have been out of Adventist academia, I'll bet that while some of them may admit to this in a confidential survey, I'd like to know how many of them can state this publicly, including in their classrooms. I'll bet few if any.

From my perspective, Adventism remains every bit as cultic as Momonism in accepting extrabiblical authority, most specifically in settled areas of science.

Johnny,

Other examples of Adventist similarities to the epistemological conundrum of Mormons:
+A historical readings of Dan. 8:14 and Dan. 9, i.e., Antiochus Epiphanes.
+Papal readings of Revelation.
+denial over Ellen White's literary dependency and the miracle stories surrounding her.
+textual critique of the Bible (significant how few rethink verses such as John 7:53-8:11, the Pericope Adulterae).

+You also bring up the oft-repeated point about what our science teachers really believe, but what they believe is not what they teach. Most Adventist-educated folks don't hold that humans have been around for 35,000+ years or even understand the mythopoeic nature of the creation story.

I wonder what an anonymous survey of LDS American history profs would show?

Occasionally, I like to read, Sunstone, the Mormon version of Spectrum. It's interesting to see how similar the discussions are sometimes.

Lots of Mormons are doctors and dentists and scientists too. Let's not think we're much better because newspapers aren't reporting on our mix of faith and North American history.

Is the U. S. really the lamb-like beast of Revelation?

As a fourth-generation Adventist who grew up in more legalistic times, I have certainly felt the tension in our church between biblical authority and experience. I learned to fear, and to stuff down into my subconscious, any questions I had. I recently found some very helpful insights regsrding this tension in _The Language of God_ by Francis Collines, director of the Human Genome Project.

I few observations.

(1) Any discussion of Ellen White and science is incomplete without addressing the data and hypothesis of the book, Acquired or Inspired by Don McMahon (check out his reply to Ron Numbers at the website). In it he makes a compelling case that Ellen White had access to medical information that her contemporaries didn't, but also that she filled in a lot of blanks from her own limited understanding. One reason I feel this book doesn't get much attention (aside from the fact that it somewhat technical) is that it doesn't fit the paradigm of either the Adventist progressives or conservatives.

(2)With regard to adventist prophetic interpretation--if we're really into the mythopoeic nature of prophecy, we ought to see some archetypes playing themselves out in the Christian Church of the middle ages and in US foreign policy.

On point 2: I have no quibble with drawing historical lessons on which prophetic analogies often rely. In fact, contemporary Revelation scholars from Catherine Keller to Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, make convincing connections between beasts and images, religious communities and empire.

When one thinks about Daniel and Revelation being written by religious minorities in the context of occupation with mainstream religion either unthinkingly or intentionally coupled to the state, the parallels do reveal truth. One doesn't have to buy that God sent a coded message to Wm. Miller of Ellen White through a vision to see that when faith becomes rigid, co-opted, and top-down, anti-Christ is at work.

And getting back to Hannon's point about finding epistemological resonance. By pushing past the strict historically dubious beliefs to the underlying reasoning, one can often actually keep faith true.

Wow Alex really does want to bring the "sectiness" back!

Are you really so confused as to what Ellen White and the church thinks her writings relation to truth (Scripture) is?

I think that you feel that casting our faith as being as confused on the source of truth as Mormonism somehow makes it easy for you to argue against strains in our church which you may not like. While I understand your motivation I can't believe you are as misinformed as your comments suggest.

Ellen White made it clear, and Adventist belief is just as clear, that Scripture was the standard by which all writings, including her own, were to be tested. Scripture is our source of knowledge.

Frankly I can't say I like the bashing by affiliation going on here. No disrespect against Mormonism but when it comes to Smith and his book our own truth claims are far different.

Bull and Lockhart's chapter on Authority for SDAs has some interesting outsiders' perspectives on how we've traditionally done this. They argue, I think, for a continuing evolving dialectic between reason (Scottish Common sense rationalism is our special brand of this elusive idea, they say), scripture, and supernatural prophetic mysticism (or whatever general term might be best used for White--I forget their term). All are used, but when we get into a jam, we tend to use one or the others to be the interpreter. Again, they're looking at a collective sense of how we do this, not how we as individual SDAs might do it.

I'm not summarizing very well. Too early after too late a night.

Have you read this, Johnny? I think it would help explain how it actually works that we think White's writings are based on Scripture. We say that, and she and we both say the Bible trumps them, but how does it work in practice? Bull/Lockhart aren't saying how it SHOULD be done, which is what makes them different from the church and white, but just how we actually do it.

On another note, I'm reading a commentary on Colossians whose subtitle is "subverting the empire" and it (along with many other evangelical discussions of the issues) echoes much of Alex's paragraph about the clear way that the NT was written in the context of hegemonic political/economic powers. And we should/could take seriously the way the powers of this world aren't only supernatural, but consumeristic/nationalistic. This connects with the other thread on liberation theology--but we as SDAs have a great theological connection to/with this idea. In some ways I think it is easier for us to read the NT and take it seriously than for some other evangelicals (not to say Mormons, obviously--they have their own issues with the empire) .

we're missing an opportunity to do that--to use our theology to help the growing numbers of (especially young) people who want to question the powers (epistemologies?!?!?) of this world. They need to know they are rooted in the stream of God's word and God's people in all times even as they take it to a new level (present truth?).

You can call that "secty" or you can call it New Testament or you can call it Emergent or whatever. I like to call it Adventist Christian.

Smith was a con artist and a pedophile. To accept the plain facts about him would spell the end of LSD. Accepting the plain facts about Ellen White (as exposed by Numbers or Rea) would bring no similar disaster to our faith. She shared into the scientific limits of her time and into the theological limits of her church. Her prophetic credentials do not consist in superhuman insight but rather in her ability to grow and be an agent of growth. She was a catalyst rather then a reactant in any Adventist transformation. Smith was a theocratic totalitarian. White's relationship to SDA was sort of check and balance. This fits into the biblical model of prophetic authority.
Our mormon problem is not Ellen White but the mormonisation of the concept of SOP. We stumbled upon the same mythmaking mecanism Smith used to build his image, and seduced ourselves into a conforting lie of a SOP based denominational infallibility. But Jesus said that those who build the tombs of the prophets are not better than those who kill them. Stoning or stonewalling Ellen White is the same sin.
As for Dan 8:14 and the pope or US in Rev, I don't see the deja vue. The Book of Mormon version of history is a canonised Xvii th century urban legend. The prophetic hermeneutics of Miller, Andrews and Uriah Smith on the other hand was mainstream protestant.
I am not ashamed by the honest efforts of McReady Price to create a scientific model of biblical creationism. His theory was falsified, but science is by definition a history of falsified theories. He was not the political pseudo-scientific crook of contemporary ID demagogy. We need just to honestly acquiesce his failure. I am disappointed by the lack of intelectual courage in this regard. If Ellen White only lived...

Evidently for the comparison to make sense one must resort not to church belief as voted again and again or expressed by White herself even but rather we must reach for senses of how it's been done.

I'm glad people are reading Seeking a Sanctuary. It is a wonderful book which I have enjoyed but it could hardly be said to be more representative of Adventist belief than Adventist belief voted by consensus in congress again and again. As an aside, that book had huge gaps one of the largest being on its almost complete neglect of progressive Adventism.

What you've ended up doing is comparing reports of how some Adventists relate to sources of truth to voted and officially articulated Mormon notions of their relationship to truth. It is a disingenuous comparison.

Ellen White is and should remain a relevant voice in our church. Attempts to marginalize her by comparing her to Smith are quite sad- has it come to this? The bottom line is that she wasn't confused what her relation to truth is and the church has done well in maintaining a clear allegiance to Scripture first and foremost.

Not to take this thread on a tangent--great comments, Johnny, Eddie, and Lisa--thanks for your response Alex--but Joseph Smith a pedophile? I hadn't heard that one before. He was a con man for sure, but I just want to challenge that claim because it is disputed.

ExMormon: Joseph Smith, Menses, Pedophilia, etc.

Smith married Helen Kimball (14) when he was 30. This is not disputed by LSD official sources. They just invoke "the culture". Joh Krauker in 'Under the banner of heaven" pg 120 is well documented. According to krauker the marriage with helen kimball was kind of theological rape (God told me you should be my wife). She was reluctant and terrified. Wikipedia in an evidently well groomed and pro LSD article still concedes that "The most conservative estimates indicate that Joseph entered into plural marriages with 29–33 women, 6 of whom were under the age of 18. The youngest was Helen Mar Kimball, daughter of LDS apostle Heber C. Kimball, who was 14. The rest were16".(three).http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith's_marriages_to_young_women#Criticism

Just been looking for definitions. It seems that generally pedophilia "is the primary or exclusive sexual attraction by adults to prepubescent youths" (Wikipedia). I am not trying to defend Smith's marriage to a 14 year old but calling him a pedophile may not be correct. Does anyone know the accepted age for marriage during the mid 1800's. I would guess it could vary depending og where you were.

Having just finished "Under the Banner of Heaven" the description of Smith as a pedophile is subject to interpretation. The fundamentalist LDS groups about which Krakauer wrote DO force young 13 and 14 year old girls into marriage with a much older man who already has several wives. This resuls in the young men of the community being "run off" as competition, often with little or no training or education to compete in the outside world.

It's the brain washing of young people that is so despicable within the Mormon culture. I have known a number of Mormons and the girls are expected to marry young (usually after high school) and produce plenty of children.

While it is true that marriages of both sexes has been much younger in the past than today, within the Mormon culture, the marriage age is still younger than the rest of the population.
I've also been in Salt Lake City in June when there is a procession of brides waiting to be sealed in the temple ceremony.

While there is no true comparison between EGW and Joseph Smith, in practical usage in many SDA communities, she is given the last word on any subject and that should not be overlooked simply because academicians don't also use her in the same mannner.

I realize that I am very late to this thread, but I just watched a PBS documentary last night on Mormonism. While some of the parallels with Adventism are merely surface ones, nonetheless, it was striking to me that the parallels are still there.

Concerning the parallels between EGW and Joseph Smith, I agree with what was stated in this thread about the "mormanization of the concept of the SOP. We have stumbled upon the mythmaking mechanism Smith used to build his image, and seduced ourselves into the comforting lie of a SOP based denominational infallibility."

While this might not be the way EGW officially viewed her own writings or authority(although she sometimes pulled rank inappropriately), while progressive and academic Adventists certainly don't view her in this way, and while the Fund. Beliefs say that the Bible is first and foremost, the real deal is found on the grassroots level.

On this, I must agree with Elaine, "...in practical usage in many SDA communities, she is given the last word on any subject..." I know this to be true, beecause I have constantly experienced this first-hand.

Those of us ensconsed in the more liberal and larger Adventist institutions seem to defend the official positioning of her corpus in relation to the Scriptures to prove our orthodoxy. I sometimes wonder if this is being done without an experiential knowledge of what's really going on within the broader landscape...at the grassroots.

When friends of mine came back from a vacation in South Carolina, telling us that the Sabbath speaker made a call at the end of the message for those who believe that EGW is a prophet to please stand, I wonder at times like this, what separates us from a cult? While we may shrug this off as an extreme abberration, the fact is is that Adventism throughout its history has done a good job of building the myths of the infallible prophet, and the theologically infallible denomination.

I hope that a generation is now coming to the fore that is ready to dismantle the myths, not just officially, or apologetically, or on the academic level, but on every practical level of the church. WWCG had the courage to explode its myths, even if one doesn't agree with all the results. Mormonism has yet to seriously confront their own.

What will we do within Adventism?

Frank

Isn't a belief in Ellen White as prophet still part of the baptismal vow? Doesn't that give her biblical authority regardless how she is viewed by academia or any other strata of Adventist culture without repercussion?

It isn't a matter of comparing the LDS prophet with the SDA prophet (message or manner of transmission), but recognizing the similarities in the psyche of people who accept the status and the messages without question, and the heirarchal system it creates within the faith community.

Sirje, I believe you are right, that belief in EGW as a prophet is in both the Fundamental Beliefs as well as baptismal vows. As long as these are the official positions of the church, it makes no difference that some churches either ignore her or almost idolize and worship her.

After reading the above book by Krakauer, I also completed "Escape" the true story of a young girl raised in the fundamentalist LDS religion and her harrowing experiences of finally escaping, but not until she had been forced to become one of the wives of an older man, bearing him 8 children (which normally are HIS)and seeing herself and her children terribly beaten and mistreated. An extreme, but true revelation of what happens in these cults. SDAs should sever themselves from the cult-like position of extra-biblical authority in a latter-day prophet like EGW.

Elaine

Some people say that we should base our beliefs on the Bible and nothing but it. Yet what about philosophy, the sciences, other world religions and even ecstatic women like EGW?

Shouldn't we be open to truth where ever we find it?

It amazes me that some people think that the doctrine of "sola scriptura" is progressive. It can be when properly understood and applied; however, it often functions regressively, condemning people for considering things other than Scripture when forming their beliefs.

We shouldn't follow EGW uncritically; neither should we blindly accept everything Isaac Newton, Saint Paul or anybody else wrote.

No matter what we read we have to sift and sort. That's what Scripture itself tells us to do.

I often muse on Martin Luther's defiance of the Emperor: "I must be convinced either by the testimony of Scripture or by clear arguments."

For Luther, the so-called father of "sola scriptura," "clear arguments" also count. As well they should!

But as one of the most theologically literate people I have ever encountered, you know this. I just hope that in reacting against inappropriate uses of EGW's stuff, we don't back into some corner framed by inadequate understandings of "sola scriptura."

If the price we have to pay for putting EGW in her proper place is the refusal to recognize any extra-biblical authorities, I think it is too high.

Thanks!
Dave

Dave,

The idea of recognizing truth wherever we find it outside the Scriptures, from philosphy, science, rationalism, or ecstatic people like EGW, while healthy and good, is not the real issue here.

The real issue, is that while the church officially states that the Bible is the benchmark of evaluating all other experience and teaching, the reality of most SDA practice in the trenches, is that EGW is the benchmark. Most SDA that I encounter read the Bible consciously or unconsciously through the lens of her and her writings, not the other way around.
This is what was referred to earlier as "the mormonization of the SOP." It has perpetuated, in the minds of many, the myth of the infallible prophet and of the theologically infallible denomination.

As a result, many Adventists at the grassroots level are suspicious of learning anything from anywhere outside the four walls of the denomination. It is from a mixture of fear and arrogance that has been inbred. Fear that anything "out there" whether from science, philosophy, rational thought, or heaven forbid, other denominations, is from "Babylon," and will corrupt our pure belief system. And arrogance, that since we are armed with a prophet, we don't need to go anywhere else to learn anything.

While I am not advocating the uncritical acceptance of any new idea that comes along, I believe that this uncritical acceptance and elevation of her writings and her authority has helped produce this climate. It has helped contribute to the very thing you find objectionable, the unwillingness to consider truth or information from any other source, and even the unwillingness to consider new understanding of biblical truth if it is at variance with anything written in the SOP.

Also, the acceptance of the fact that she wrote much that is helpful and true when critically examined in light of the Scriptures, if left there would be a healthy situation. What seems unhealthy to me, is officially requiring as a test of baptism or fellowship the acceptance of her writings as a "continual and authoritative source of truth." While this particular fund. belief has an ending tagline that the Bible is still the measure of all teaching and practice, the reality is that it sets her up, in the minds of many, as an equal or even superior source of truth to the Bible. Just sit in on many SS discussions in small, suburban churches as I've experienced, and listen to what is being said.

No wonder why, when inconsistencies, and problems in her writings are brought to light, many throw the "baby out with the bathwater." The denomination has created the conditions for such reactions. Which is why I said earlier, that it seems that we and our church hierarchy need to find the courage like the WWCG, to explode our own myths... beyond the occasional book from somone like Alden Thompson or Graeme Bradford.

IMHO we need to officially revisit what we are going to do with Ellen White. I don't believe throwing the baby out with the bathwater is the solution. But, to perpetuate the official party line, will simply perpetuate the same extreme reactions, unhealthy attitudes, and polarization that it has caused within our church, and will also continue to keep the cult label alive in the minds of many outside of it.

Frank

Frank

I'm tempted to ask if you think conservative SDAs are more inclined to read Scripture through the lenses of EGW than Lutherans through Luther or Calvinists through Calvin or Catholics through Aquinas. But I won't because that would just deflect the discussion from our problems to theirs, which are sometimes worse.

The question is what to do about our situation. For several months last year I participated in a discussion about holding a huge "EGW Conference" that would addresses these issues once and for all so that we can be done with it and move on. My early discomfort with the idea increased until I bowed out "for lack of continuing interest." Whether plans are still under way, I do not know.

I just don't think that such "global summits" do any good and often they make things much worse by focusing everything on a single weekend that is dominiated by small groups who are at odds with each other for all kinds of theologically irrelevant reasons.

The worst thing about Glacier View is that it took place at all, for example. As some GC officials told me, they pled with Elder Wilson not to convene it because they were certain things would turn out exactly as they did. They took no pleasure in being right.

What, then, to do? I'm not certain, but here are some possibilities: (1) Try not to become too reactive; (2) make a wise use of EGW in one's own life; (3) refuse to participate in or support groups that regularly misuse her material, (4) help finance first rate scholarship about her life and times and (5) focus on the pervasive themes [I choose not to use the word "principles.] in her writings, not the specifics.

I look forward to the day when we insert in each of her publications a card inviting readers everywhere to help us find all the sources she used. We could then publish these sources in a regularly upated volume titled something like:
"Ellen G. White Sources and Refernces," Volume One, etc.

Instead of trying to hide the fact that she used more sources than we knew, let's be candid about it and enlist millions of people all over the world in helping us to locate them.

These are the kinds of things that come to my mind at the moment. We don't have to be so defensive. We can seize the initiative ourselves.

Thanks!
Dave

Dave,

Thanks for your balanced and thoughtful comments. I agree that coming clean with all the evidence on a wide scale would be one of the healthiest actions we could take. We have nothing to fear, nothing to lose, and everything to gain through such a course.

Thanks again...

Frank

David, I heartily agree with your comment:

"Shouldn't we be open to truth where ever we find it?"

But the problem is immediately confronted with those who have read very little outside the Bible and EGW. In fact, in her writings she discouraged the reading of "fiction" and attendance at theaters, which for years used to reinforce within Adventism that reading such literature as Thomas Paine would destroy the love of the Bible and introduce "worldly" ideas.
That this may not be so extensively used today, does not deny that there are still those in the church who adhere to this instruction.

How can one differentiate between two options in deciding truth if there has been no critical training, largely learned by wide reading? How can one have the ability to discriminate otherwise?

Limiting one's knowledge to only one book has been the main source of wisdom and learning since the beginning of Christianity, and long before, in the Jewish tradition where every male had to learn the Torah. This tradition continued until the enlightenment, and even then, the Bible was considered the source of absolute truth by Newton, Kant, and others. Questioning its validity was heretical. The Jews, once introduced to rational ideas through the Greek philosophers (especially in Spain), and as the editors and compilers of its pages,
began to question its textual contradictions as well as its numerous anthropomorphic references to God. It would seem that the Jews have been more open to learning and adapting their view of God than Christians, perhaps because they have had much longer to debate and study the subject.

Frank, you have expressed my thinking most eloquently. The church has dug itself into a hole and doesn't know how to get out: The first rule of Holes is when you find yourself in one, don't keep digging. We can only hope.

1. I had a conversation with Julius Nam a while back who was thinking about such a conference on EGW that explored her from a secular historian's view- but also explored her as a significant figure in American history (even outside of SDA circles). Hope it comes to fruition- it could address this need to be honestly analytical.

2. When you find yourself in a hole- dig sideways and upward.

Dave,

A couple of second thoughts...

I fully agree that part of the solution would be to help finance first rate scholarship about EGW and her times. But, my question is, who would get behind doing that? Would the GC, or the White Estate? Would they get behind research and continue to stand by projects that may show her in a less than flattering light? Would they really support presenting an unvarnished picture?

I bring this up, because our history does not give me too much hope of this happening. When Rea was doing his research, he appeared to get stonewalled. That, I believe was part of the reason for the angry and visceral tone of his writing and portrait of EGW.

Lately, Graeme Bradford's book seems to be lined up for a rebuttal from the White Estate. And he seems to be a very responsible scholar writing from a pro EGW position, one who softens the hard problems in places.

It just seems that anyone who looks to seriously address the topic is met with a bunch of apologetics explaining things away, or is treated as an enemy. Why should one who is sincerely searching and sharing what they believe to be truth be treated in this way by the hierarchy?

Is there a fear that if one pulls a single brick out of the wall, the whole edifice will come tumbling down?

A separate question would be, how does our membership get re-educated? For another time...

Thanks,

Frank

rghannon:

Great thread! Thanks for getting it started!!

Elaine

You have studied these issues and it shows. Thank you for your talent and training.

Yet I think I might put a little more emphasis upon how most of the leading Christian thinkers over the centuries have been very well informed about the intellectual and issues and debates of their times. They all read very widely, not just the Bible:

Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Wesely, Kierkegaard, Edwards, Schliermacher, Barth, Tillich, the Niebuhrs, Moltman, Pannenberg, Gutierez Reuther, Tanner, Marty and on and on.

Augustine was better informed than most because in his youth he is reported to have been both an intellectual and a sexual wanderer. The first blessed the church in important ways. The second cursed it to this very moment.

Frank and Aryln

Julius Nam's conference and book on EGW is precisely what we need.

It will be a TRUE ACADEMIC EFFORT at which only those who are fully qualified specialists in the relevant fields will be invited to present papers that will form chapters in the book.

These will be the most informed scholars no matter what their own religious convictions may or may not be. Their work will be peer reviewed and distributed by a major publisher, not a denominational press.

We don't need any more article or books "for" or "against" Ellen White, especially those by people who are not fully qualified specialists in the field and this includes the vast majority of those who have ever written on the subject.

We need genuine scholarship, not apologetics and not polemics. Neither should we use academic conferences to deal with our personal issues regarding EGW or anything else. That's what we have therapists for.

We need to stop asking the EGW Estate or some other church organization to do what we think they should. WE SHOULD JUST DO IT OURSELVES AND DO IT WELL AND CHEERFULLY.

Some church leaders may huff and puff at first but in in the long run most will be relieved that someone showed some initiative.

I often think of the sign in Shakey's: "We cash no checks and the bank makes no pizza."

Convening academic conferences is one thing; baptizing, marrying and burying is another. We shouldn't expect those we ask to do the second to do the first too.

DON'T WAIT FOR THE WHITE ESTATE! (Repeat 25 times with increasing fervor!)

Many thanks!
Dave

It is interesting to see this subject picked back up.

Frank, you comments certainly resonate with me.

Dave, your advise is most certainly wise.

The future for a lot of us in Adventism hangs on whether the church will move towards an open unambiguous statement and in deed action for a heathy approach to EGW. It is impossible to continue under current mythology. It makes no difference to most of our churches what some one at Walla Walla or California says. Maybe it the GC makes a statement ... but wait, that is the real problem. A matter of fact statement that I would find refreshing would cause a mass dollar migration to the independent ministries. The statement will not be coming. We are stuck with those voices who will solve our problems with the Pen of Inspiration.

David, thanks for your kind words.

There are many deep thinkers in Christianity. This began first in Judaism with the rabbis and Talmud. It is no wonder why they have been known as "The People of the Book." The Rabbis were the best educated of any clergy for centuries, and still today the ones I have read are very well educated.

As you mention, we have both been blessed and cursed from some of the most prolific writers: Augustine probably being the most influential in Christianity's history since the NT canon closed.

How many of the Christian writers you mentioned have been read by the average SDA? Few of those who have been plied with the "Red Books" have read past them. I still remember a long-time pastor, later conference president, who when offered additional seminary training, he said he had no need for it as the Red Books was entirely sufficient. That was almost the extent of his library!

It would be a new and exciting prospect to eventually have a book researched and written by "genuine scholars." Most of the SDA books are nothing but apologists or polemics against "Babylon."

Elaine

How right you are! I'm slowly catching on that Spinoza, a Jew even though a bunch of the Rabbis denoucned him, is to all of theology--Jewish and Christian-- what Descartes is to philosophy more generally.

Philip Clayton's books, especially the one on "The Problem of God in Modern Thought" or someone like that, are making it clearer to me that unless we work our way through Spinoza and the broad outlines of the discussion that followed him we can't really understand our theological situation today.

Trouble is, for me Spinoza is a struggle!

Wouldn't it be fun to put all this EGW stuff on the shelf for a while and discuss some other very interesting and worthwhile things?

I hope Claremont gets to keep Phililp Clayton. Harvard is a real threat.

Thanks!
Dave

Yes, Dave...

It would be great to put this on the shelf. Our energies would be better spent elsewhere than trying to unravel 100,000 pages and 25,000,000 words that have been bequeathed to us.

The sheer massiveness of her output and the machinery that guards and filters it have helped to create a massive problem... a problem that touches all facets of our church, and that won't go away by simply putting it on the shelf. The way our belief system is not only structured, but also practiced, and the way our hierarchy has dealt with this to date, ensures that we will have to continue dealing with this difficulty in some way, shape or form should we choose to stay.

Thank God that people like Julius Nam are looking to break new ground, and to move our thinking forward.

Frank

Dick and Frank

I'm not certain what you would like to see the church do about EGW. I ask this in all sincerity, not at all trying to be sassy.

It feels to me as though you both would like to see a "top/down" approach whereas I would opt for a "bottom/up" one.

Most of my students are in their early twenties. They have no recollections of their own of the traumas through which our church passed in the 1970s and 1980s.

Most of them know little or nothing about EGW, even those who are SDAs. Their parents are so allergic to how their grandparents used her, that she has figured hardly at all in their own lives.

Their main objection to what I ask them to read from EGW is that her 19th century style is "hard to follow." Other than that, there is little or no anger or frustration about her but a lot of curiosity.

As the years go by I find it increasingly helpful to use some of her material in class. I usually say something like this:

"Here is something on the subject from EGW, one of the founders of LLU and the SDA church. Lots of Adventists view her as a prophet but I'm not asking you to believe what she says just because she says it. Judge for yourself. If what she says make sense to you, hang on to it. If not, let it go. Also, keep in mind that she used a lot of sources and had a bunch of editorial help."

I encountered some resistance to this approach from very conservative SDAs in the first decade of my teaching. But I can't recall any in the last 25 years.

Here's another example:

After I returned to class after being at the "Questions on Doctrine" conference that Julius Nam, Michael Campbell and Jerry Moon convened at Andrews University, I told my students where I had been, as usual. Some of them in one of my classes asked what were some of the main issues.

"You wouldn't believe it if I told you," I responded. "So let's get to work."

"Come onnnnnnnnnn."

"OK, I'll tell you, but only if you first promise that you won't laugh out loud."

"Yah, well sure, whatever. Put it out there."

"One of the hotly debated questions was whether the humanity of Jesus was like ours or like Adam and Eve's before the Fall."

A long pause followed, with me thinking that they were stifling their mirth out of respect for me. But then:

"Hmm, that's an interesting question!"

What's my point? Most of my students are not rebelling against religious authorities of any kind. If anything, they are looking for a little more structure, stability and community.

Thanks to cable t.v., the Internet and all the other gadgets they take for granted, they understand what's "out there." They want to know if there's anything else.

Deconstructing EGW is not one of their high priorities.

Thanks!
Dave

I just don't think that such "global summits" do any good and often they make things much worse.... The worst thing about Glacier View is that it took place at all, for example.

Posted by: davidrlarson | 23 February 2008 at 8:01

Julius Nam's conference and book on EGW is precisely what we need.

It will be a TRUE ACADEMIC EFFORT at which only those who are fully qualified specialists in the relevant fields will be invited to present papers.... Their work will be peer reviewed and distributed by a major publisher, not a denominational press.

Posted by: davidrlarson | 24 February 2008 at 1:21

To get a sense of what you, Dave (and Julius), have in mind by "fully qualified specialists in the relevant fields" would you already happen to have a representative group of courageous men and women on your list to recommend as participants in this peer-reviewed book effort by a non-denominational publisher? Thanks!

I had heard (from Michael Campbell I believe) that the EGW Estate is planning to publish critically footnoted versions of EGW books citing the sources and the context which she was addressing. Has anybody else caught wind of this? It sounds too good to be true.

Dave,

I really do appreciate your reply. Top/down or bottom/up? I would not expect to see in the near future (if at all) a top/down. The politics are very risky. What I am expressing and what I read from Frank is pure frustration. Frustration because we can read that different views exist concerning EGW within the SDA system. Frustration because acceptance of different views are not talked about or accepted out in the church at large. Frustration because pastors are generally of no help (their jobs seem to depend on a few pious EGW quotes). Frustrated because the help that comes from conference leadership is in the form of,"yes there are differing views of the SOP, go back to your church and try to work things out". Frustrated because when we go back to the local church and maybe try to have a discussion on what would make for a meaningful worship service in our church, for example, the discussion can not happen. What is appropriate has already been told us in great detail in the SOP. There is no need for discussion.

This is SDA life as I have experience it, currently. Wounded and needy people arrive, find fellowship, then are told to take off their jewelry, stop eating meat and accept EGW as equal to the Bible.

A couple years ago I was sitting in a Board Meeting trying to defend the youth (and myself) in the church. I was being told that if the youth were being properly taught and lead, they would look different (no spiked hair, no chains, no piercing, no jeans at church). I was then instructed that salvation was based on the sanctuary system of the Old Testament and that there were very strict codes of dress and behavior for those involved. When I mumbled something about believing that salvation was based on grace it was quickly pointed out that I was endorsing "cheap grace" (an abominable term). The personal affront was irritating. The fact that no one else in the leadership of our local church was going to step in and say no to the statement of salvation being based on the sanctuary system had me looking at the door, realizing that an exit would probably be the best strategy.

So what is happening in you classes has some hope but it is a long distance between here and there. I don't think top/down is an elixir. I do believe if the "top" recognized the problem, a little top/down would help. I also think that top/down would cause much agitation and maybe a tsunami. So for now, I am still here and also keeping an eye on the door, preferring to keep it ajar so as not to slow me down when I leave.

Joselito

This is one of Julius Nam's projects; however, I am trying to be a supportive colleague and friend.

It is my understanding that he has formed a "steering committee" of qualified people from within and without the denomination that is now at work. If anyone can pull this off, it is Julius.

He and Michael Campbell and Jerry Moon did something about "Questions on Doctrine" that no one else in fifty years even tried. Even Elder Paulsen, President of the General Conference, expressed some apprehension just before their conference convened.

Elder Paulsen's concerns were not entirely misplaced, given what has been going on for so long. But Julius and his team succeeded far beyond anyone's imagination.

My wife and I are trying to provide a small amount of financial support for Julius' projects each year. We'd love it if others would join us!

But don't forget AF/Spectrum. Where would we be without it?

There's an ethnic congregation near where I live whose young people, numbering about 300, most of whom were raised in this country and have attended one of two SDA academies in the area, recently split over Last Generation Theology and EGW. Another ethnic church I know asked me late last year if I could sit with their youth group, some of whom have studied or graduated from either La Sierra or PUC. They've been reading Desire of Ages together for their Sabbath School class. When I inquired why they're not studying the regular Bible Study Guide, their leader retorted with a queston of her own: "What's your (my) problem?" She had just seen a "Red Book" presentation in La Sierra and thought it was too negative!

I was told that if some youth I knew wanted to attend an alternative to CrossWays or other celebration kind of worship, there's one that's thriving deep into EGW writings they could recommend right in Loma Linda.

Early this year, I sat with a group of Asian/Pacific region represenatives, mostly from the Pacific Union though it was aimed to cover the NAD. One of the projects is the promotion/translation of EGW books among the different language groups. Julius's name was even mentioned in connection with the QOD Conference, by one of the Korean pastors present.

The only "weak" objection that was heard during the said meeting was from my own lips: "Are we not hindering their adjustment to American society by not helping them to read Ellen White in the English original or some simpler version in English?" I supported my contention by stating that, surprisingly, despite what we know of the superior national economy of Korea compared to the Philippines, for example, there are more Koreans than Filipinos in the USA who live below the poverty line. Why? The answer seems obvious: the comparative number of those fluent in English between the two groups. In sum, they heard what I said but, needless to say, it didn't affect the outcome of our conversation regarding the promotion of EGW books in their respectives native languages.

Dick

My immediate response to what you wrote was anger about the situation you face. My present reaction is overwhelming sorrow for what I am about to say and it is this: It may be time for you to leave.

Please know that my heart is breaking when I say this; however, you cannot afford to remain in that set of circumstances. You must find an emotionally supportive and theologically healthy spiritual home and, from what you say, I don't think you will find it where you are. I only wish you could see my tears!

Now, if I can step back from your immediate situation and look at things more globally what strikes me is that there are thousands of SDAs all around the world who face similar circumstances but that now we have the technology to form a "worldwide SDA congregation without walls."

If in our minds we picture a globe, we can circle various belts around the world symbolizing the different kinds of Adventism. This means that a SDA in one nation might have more in common with a SDA in another country than with the ones in the same town.

A very large percentage of SDAs around the world have been members for five years or less and many, many of these can neither read nor write. I don't have the exact numbers before me; however, I recall how shocking they were when I first learned of them from Charles Sandefur at ADRA.

To a lesser degree we experience something similar in the U. S. and similar nations; i.e., people of very different educational and cultural backgrounds are trying to do what is almost impossible: understand each other.

I find that when I get into some situations I am thrown off balance not so much because I don't like the answers I'm hearing as because the questions strike me as irrelevant at best and abusive at worst.

My colleague Gerald Winslow puts it well: "It's hard to be a healthy fish in sick water." I would only add that we have fresh water fish and salt water fish and those that can handle both.

Somehow we need to make it easier for fresh water fish in the various parts of the world to interact. This is what AF/Spectrum and several other organizations are trying to make more possible. To some extent they are succeeding; but much more is necessary.

I am at davidrlarson46@aol.com. We can talk that way too.

Thanks!

Dave

Dear Dave,

I am enjoying your paradigm of fresh and salt water fish. Though the internet blogs allow world wide voluntary "aquariums" (virtual church communities)to gather fish that swim alike but do not fit in their native habitat, how about an estuary for new directions?

Brackish, unstable, yet "Estuaries are often associated with high rates of biological productivity." What would this look like in the watery world of academics?

Here's a suggestion: To dig out of the theological hole (if we question EGW, we lose our unique doctrines) sideways and up- I suggest our historians/sociologists/anthropologists lead the way. To maintain their credibility and usefulness, our church would have to give them more academic freedom than traditionally granted to theologians.

The boundaries are only semi-enclosed in estuaries. And the mud is deep.

Hi Dave,

Dick expressed very well the problem from our perspective "in the trenches "

Just to throw my two cents in... I feel that a disconnect is happening because we are experiencing this from two entirely different sets of circumstances. You are for change from the bottom up, which I agree is probably the way that this will happen. But, you are saying this from the perspective of academia. You can walk into your class of college students who simply find EGW little more than a curiosity and say something like," Lots of Adventists view her as a prophet...read her, take what you want and leave the rest... judge for yourself." It's great that your denominational and academic credentials are no longer threatened by such statements.

I, on the other hand, face an entirely different situation. As a local elder, working with people who are preparing for baptism, I have no such luxury. I cannot say to them that they can make up their own minds about EGW in their preparation for membership. According to the baptismal vows and the fund. beliefs, they HAVE TO accept this belief if they want to become members in good standing. No amount of change of attitudes from the bottom up can change this situation without real change from the top down. It's set in stone, so to speak. This is an issue that seems barely relevant to an academic situation.

In addition, this belief as it is stated not only impacts the acceptance of people into membership, it all too often still affects the life of local congregations in the unhealthy ways that Dick has described in his post. I work within a membership and a conference leadership that ascribes much more weight to what EGW says than do today's Adventist university students. Any proposed changes, from the way pastoral change is handled, to the type of worship style or music that is played in the worship service, to whether someone could bring chicken to a pot-luck or would have to take off their earring(s) for baptism etc... always gets run through the filter of the SOP. I find that it is a situation that hamstrings and hinders rather than fosters the dynamic growth and development that other churches seem to enjoy.

One could say that this is a distortion of the SOP, but why is the same song being sung by so many concerned and thinking people in so many differnt corners of North American Adventism? Wherever the SOP becomes a real, palpable influence in congregational life, it seems that the same type of dysfunctions crop up. Is it my imagination or misperception?

Thankfully, I am in a situation right now, where our new pastor is very progressive, and wants to work with us, the local leaders, to begin to re-educate our membership, to start thinking out of the SOP box that has been denominationally built over the years. What a breath of fresh air!

However, we at the local level still face the reality that if we move too far, too fast in this direction...if we were to begin to publicly state what you do in your classes, Dave...then we would have members running to the local conference and I'm afraid the baptismal vows and the fund. beliefs would be invoked in the order to cease and desist.

Top down is as important as bottom up! How this could ever happen, only God knows...

Frank

Arlyn

Intellectual estuaries? Exactly! Not much novelty occurs in shiny clean acquariums! They're much better at maintaining and exhibiting established species.

Encouraging specialists in history, sociology, anthropology to take the lead makes much sense. I think it was a literature professor at Andrews University that first helped us see that EGW had used more sources than we thought. The rest of us may have a very important contribution to make, however. This is to do as much as possible to prevent bulldozers from filling up the estuaries with dirt!

I think the best way to increase academic freedom is to use and increase what we have in responsible ways. Hints of arrogance, cynicism and sarcasm quickly cause things to go down hill.

I have been most fortunate to serve where I have. Example:

I was able to earn my seminary degree from an ecumenical school while pastoring because my Conference President and Executive Secreatry respectfully considered the decision of the Union Conference Committee that I should not be allowed to do this and then then they told me to do it anyway. "You go to school and you keep things humming at the church," they said. It almost felt like a command, not permission! These church leaders had minds of their own, as did many church administrators back then, and I benefited. I hope our church did too.

We may have more power than we think. If we change ourselves, the systems of which we are a part change too even though we don't beg them.

All this is easy to write and hard to live, though. Much harder. Let's keep trying.

Thank you!
Dave

Frank

Experienced pastors tell me it is much more difficult today for everybody than it was thirty years ago.

Just as in politics, in religion the middle has been losing ground to the extreme right and left since the Viet Nam War. All of society's institutions are at risk because of this.

The biggest difference I see between SDA pastors now and when I started is that in my memory many back then seem to have been more respectful but less deferential to their administrators.

The question of church membership is an example. No matter what the 28 Fundamentals say, in our system the local church gets to make the final decision and I have yet to meet anyone who lines up perfectly with all 28.

I recall a situation in which the Conference brought pressure on a congregation to disfellowhsip a member who was in prison for having killed someone. "The good name of the church is at stake," they said.

The congregation's members thought it over and said that they were concerned about that but that they were even more uncomfortable with expelling someone in the lowest point in his or life; therefore, at least for the time being, there would be no change in membership status. The Conference accepted this decision. What else could it do?

Few thing are more corrisive of mental and spiritual health than feeling helplessly trapped in spiritually unacceptable situations. We have to take charge of our own lives.

It is SO EASY for me to sit in Loma Linda and write these words! I have often asked my wife how we could survive if were located at some places we've visited. The answer is simple: We couldn't. So we'd have to get proactive and do something.

If we can be of any help elswhere, we'll try.

Thanks!

Dave