"The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."
This text is a withering critique of "The Bible and Bible Only" theories of Christian fundamentalism. It is an emphatic declaration that we cannot answer all questions about Sabbath observance by consulting the sacred text. A complete answer to the questions, What does Sabbath mean? and What is God's desire for our Sabbath-keeping behaviors can only be given by consulting both the text and the actual, here-and-now human situation.
Again, to be as emphatic as possible: Fundamentalist "Bible and Bible Only" Adventism is a logical impossibility. (A well-known example of this approach is Sam Pippim's book, Receiving the Word.)
Jesus' statement about the priority of humanity over text should be applied to all of religion.
When I was in seminary thirty years ago, there were vigorous debates among students about the traditional Adventist beliefs of "The Close of Probabtion" and a "Perfect Final Generation." We cited Bible texts and Ellen White statements in our arguments.
After a few years in my first pastorate, I no longer bothered citing Bible texts or Ellen White comments to justify my adult rejection of both of these traditional beliefs. I rejected them because I observed the effect of these notions on those who believed them.
Among my church members, one hundred percent of the "believers" were anxious and fearful about their readiness for the approaching end. Since then I have met a few people who hold the traditional beliefs and are not troubled by fear and anxiety. However, they are vanishingly rare. The impact of these beliefs on actual human beings compelled me to reject them, contradict them, deny them. They are unhealthy beliefs. I don't even consider debates about whether the text supports the notions or not. Humane considerations compel me to reject these beliefs no matter what kind of textual interpretations are advanced in their support.
On the other hand, classic Adventist advocacy of health practices, which is often condemned by "gospel Adventists" on textual grounds, is obviously an essential part of a full-gospel ministry. Jesus, our exemplar, gave a lot of attention to healing. We can do far more to advance Jesus' ministry of healing by teaching people healthy habits of eating, exercise and social interaction than by seeking miracles.
Humane Adventism unabashedly embraces habits and practices that support personal and social health--whether those habits and practices are explicitly enjoined by the Bible or not. The ultimate purpose of humane Adventism is not the veneration of the Bible or the preservation of historic exegetical opinions. The ultimate purpose of humane Adventism is cooperation with God in the cultivation of optimal personal and societal health. This optimal health will reach its fullest flowering in our eternal reign with God (Luke 22:30, Revelation 3:20 and 22:5).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
Wonderful. I don't know that I've heard anyone express this so openly: to reject things that produce negative results. But I guess this goes back to, "Judge a tree by its fruits." Ideas that produce ugly fruit are ugly, no matter their provenance.
We can and have used the words of the Bible for evil and for good. Judge ideas by their fruits and reject those that produce bitter and wormy results.
What fallstarr said.
I also wonder if it is "higher criticism" to simply point out that--in the creation/evolution discussions--that the Genesis account has the sun, which governs our daily/monthly cycles, not being created until the 4th day?
One question I would pose, though, is What to do about typical SDA evangelism efforts that do promote a letter of the law reading of Scripture, the kind of which a lifetime of pastoring has led you to reject?
Post a Comment