If you are looking to meet up with God, you might keep your eyes open at work.
From Genesis to Revelation
In Genesis One two commands are given to people: “Be fruitful . . . Rule over all living things.” In other words, have sex and work. The grand finale of Chapter One again directs our attention to sex and work. Sabbath honors work by limiting its demands, freeing us to think about its meaning and purpose. Sabbath reminds us we are not merely producers; we are partners with the Creator. Sabbath honors sex by setting aside protected time when we experience sex primarily as a feast of intimacy rather than mere hormonal satisfaction or baby-making.
I’ve explored sexuality and spirituality elsewhere. Here, I’ll focus on work.
In Genesis One work is seen as essential to the human experience. In Chapter Three, after sin, work is still seen as essential to the human experience. Fast forward to the end. Past Abraham and David, Isaiah and Daniel, past the crucifixion and resurrection, past the Second Coming to the very end, to the bliss of eternity. How does Revelation describe human life then?
Work. With God.
Revelation 22:5 pictures the saints on the throne with God reigning, a mirror of Genesis 1:26-28 that pictures humans created in the image of God and ruling, or, in other words, working.
Jesus and Work
Christian tradition is full of accounts of people whose zealous pursuit of intimacy with God led them into solitude. They imagined the most likely path to the richest possible intimacy with God would be to escape the distractions of regular life–business, politics, marriage, parenting, earning a living–and give themselves wholely to prayer and meditation. This ideal which stands behind monastic and eremitic traditions grows out of a misunderstanding of God. The Bible does not picture God as a still spirit residing in perfect eternal repose. Rather God is pictured as a worker. He is busy. And we are called to be busy with him.
Jesus, the Son of God, spent ninety percent of his years fully engaged in the routines of life–routines that would have included lots of regular work. During the last ten percent of his years, his “religious life,” he spent only one period of forty days on retreat and a few entire nights in prayer. Most of the time, even as a preacher, he spent most of his time engaged in public work. Once when questioned about his Sabbath healings, he replied, "My Father is always working and so am I" (John 5:17).
If we are going to follow the pattern of Jesus, we’ll spend most of our time in work.
Spiritual disciplines
Most of us need help in discerning God's presence and purpose in our job. We need greater sensitivity and awareness. What can we do about that? Spiritual disciplines like Sabbath-keeping, Bible reading, prayer, meditation and fasting are designed to increase our sensitivity to God’s presence and approval in our work.
In the Genesis story, even before sin had clouded humanity’s spiritual sensibilities, work was interrupted every seven days by the Sabbath. By ceasing their drive to produce, conquer, change or just to survive, by taking time–a whole day, not just a hour at worship–to reflect, they were more likely to discern where God was in their work. They were more likely to remember that in working they were partnering with God. We need the Sabbath every bit as much. And for the same reasons.
The nearly universal testimony of believers is that they need regular helps to keep them aware of God’s presence and favor. Some kind of daily practice–Bible reading, prayer, meditation, singing, contemplation–is essential for the cultivation of intimacy with God.
Spiritual work
So where is God at work? If you are a teacher, God is with you in your disappointment over students who have no interest in learning. God is with you in your anger at parents who sabotage their child’s learning. And God is with you in those moments when you know your teaching has touched a life. God is in the joy, however, rare it is, that comes from knowing that you have made a difference in a life.
If you are a boat builder, God is keeping you company in creation, even if sometimes it's messy, hot and smelly.
If you’re an accountant, God must laugh with satisfied delight when you make the dance of numbers come out just right. Why did God make a universe that seems designed by a mathematician if he doesn’t get the romance of numbers?
If you’re in health care, God is with you in your joy at recovery, your grief at loss and in your anger when you care for hostile or uncooperative patients. God, too, dreams of healing that could happen but won’t because of people’s failure to cooperate. God, too, delights in recovery.
Whether you are touching people directly as a massage therapist or touching things directly as a builder or mechanic or are working with something as ethereal as actuarial theories, God is keeping you company in your job. To be maximally aware of God’s presence in your place of employment, you’ll want to engage regularly in one or two spiritual practices. They will open your eyes.
Then, if you’re looking to meet up with God, just keep your eyes open at work.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Finding God at Home
My favorite Adventist church building is the Eagle Rock Church in Los Angeles. The play of natural light, the geometry of the dark beams and with plaster, the shape of the space all conspire to evoke tranquility and gentle wonder. A perfect place to encounter God.
Where do you most readily encounter God? In a worship concert? In the out-of-doors? In a retreat center? In a “perfect” church service?
Christian spirituality has been distorted by the dominance of an individualism rooted in Paul’s singleness. He wrote, “An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife . . . [and it is similar for a woman.] I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord. Unfortunately, this immature fascination with “pure spirituality” has dominated Christian spiritual writing for 2000 years. Nearly all of the “Great Classics” of Christian spiritual writing were authored by single people who imagined that ultimate spirituality was cultivated in an escape from earthly distractions into a single-minded focus on God.
However the creation stories of Genesis One and Two point to marital union as the “image of God” and the goal of creation. The nature of God is seen most clearly in marriage. Jesus affirmed classic Jewish theology in his statements about the Great Commandments: Love God and love your neighbor.
In Matthew, the Great Commandment of Chapter 22 is followed by the story of the sheep and goats in Chapter 25. In Luke 10, the Great Commandment is followed by the story of the Good Samaritan. In each passage loving God is honored as the greatest commandment. And in each passage, the ultimate test one’s love for God is love for humans, especially those close by. And who is closer than our spouses, children and parents?
Real spiritual life is found in the glorious ecstasy of sexual union and in the sometimes difficult and painful dance of blending the diverse needs, desires, languages, families and convictions of a husband and wife. “Loving God” in a religious sense is laughingly easy compared to loving the enemy you sleep with, the man or woman who communicates (or not) in ways that drive you crazy. Adoring God in prayer and music is mere child’s play compared with loving God in the person of a rebellious teenager or in the person of a sadistic parent. Authentic spirituality is not found in escape from human distraction into religious or spiritual bliss. Authentic spirituality is experienced in loving human beings—above all our spouses.
Looking to encounter God? Do you want to develop your spirituality to the very highest degree possible? Go home.
Where do you most readily encounter God? In a worship concert? In the out-of-doors? In a retreat center? In a “perfect” church service?
Christian spirituality has been distorted by the dominance of an individualism rooted in Paul’s singleness. He wrote, “An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife . . . [and it is similar for a woman.] I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord. Unfortunately, this immature fascination with “pure spirituality” has dominated Christian spiritual writing for 2000 years. Nearly all of the “Great Classics” of Christian spiritual writing were authored by single people who imagined that ultimate spirituality was cultivated in an escape from earthly distractions into a single-minded focus on God.
However the creation stories of Genesis One and Two point to marital union as the “image of God” and the goal of creation. The nature of God is seen most clearly in marriage. Jesus affirmed classic Jewish theology in his statements about the Great Commandments: Love God and love your neighbor.
In Matthew, the Great Commandment of Chapter 22 is followed by the story of the sheep and goats in Chapter 25. In Luke 10, the Great Commandment is followed by the story of the Good Samaritan. In each passage loving God is honored as the greatest commandment. And in each passage, the ultimate test one’s love for God is love for humans, especially those close by. And who is closer than our spouses, children and parents?
Real spiritual life is found in the glorious ecstasy of sexual union and in the sometimes difficult and painful dance of blending the diverse needs, desires, languages, families and convictions of a husband and wife. “Loving God” in a religious sense is laughingly easy compared to loving the enemy you sleep with, the man or woman who communicates (or not) in ways that drive you crazy. Adoring God in prayer and music is mere child’s play compared with loving God in the person of a rebellious teenager or in the person of a sadistic parent. Authentic spirituality is not found in escape from human distraction into religious or spiritual bliss. Authentic spirituality is experienced in loving human beings—above all our spouses.
Looking to encounter God? Do you want to develop your spirituality to the very highest degree possible? Go home.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Textual Adventism: Cutting the Higher Critical Knot
This morning I discarded some "truth-filled" literature. The booklet included warnings that neglecting the truth it contained "places the soul in greater jeopardy than does any other sin of indifference and neglect."
The booklet from the "Universal Publishing Assn." was filled with closely reasoned allegorical interpretation of the Bible. (Origin of Alexandria would have been proud.) If I accepted a few of its starting premises regarding the typological meaning of nearly everything in the Bible, the conclusions were not all that outlandish. But if you stepped back from the particular points being made on each page, you could see that it was flimsy house of cards. As a pastor I have learned that people who engage in this approach to the Bible seldom have sweet, harmonious relationships with their spouses or children. Their spiritual life is characterized nearly always by fear and anxiety and usually by a miserable judgmentalism.
So I tossed the booklet "At the Eleventh Hour" into the recycling bin. Sometimes you have to just cut through the foolish. There is no benefit in trying to analyze silliness point by point. (This applies to equally to evangelical dispensationalism and to Adventist endtime chart making.)
Fundamentalist apocalyptic allegorizing is not the only approach to "Bible interpretation" that is best tossed in the recycling bin. The same applies to much of "source criticsm." If you read the Old Testament analytically, it's obvious there are different sources behind the text as we have it today. Genesis One and Two are not a smooth integrated whole. They are two different stories. The books of Samuel have places where it's obvious the author has brought together information or stories from different sources without smoothing out all the differences that were in the earlier versions.
HOWEVER . . .
When you read the attempts by source critics to be ever more precise in their assignment of this sentence or phrase (or even single word) to a particular "pre-biblical" source you realize they are building a house of cards no more worthy of respect than the apocalyptic speculations of endtime enthusiasts.
The reality is we do not have ANY of the putative sources that lie behind the actual biblical text. The notion that the text as we have it was assembled by committees or communities is laughable. That is not how great literature is written. The various Bible books as we have them were produced by authors. Those authors were not idiots. When Moses--or whoever it was that wrote Genesis--included Genesis One and Genesis Two in his book, he was not unaware of the differences between the two stories. He deliberately included both stories with their differences. He intended his readers to get the message that came from including both stories in his book. We get no closer to some "original" meaning by over emphasizing the differences than we do by pretending there are no differences. The writer intended for us to get the meaning that comes from the interaction of the two different tellings of the creation story.
While some critical commentators try to get at the "real meaning" of the Bible by exploring a never-ending regression of bits of "source material," a much wiser approach is to simply take the text as we have it and read this "text in our hand" for its meaning as a whole.
The same holds true for the New Testament. The Jesus Seminar's theatrical pronouncements about the authenticity of various passages in the gospels is just that--theater. There is not a shred of documentary evidence behind their speculations. "Q" does not exist. Of course, there is good evidence that the stories and teachings of Jesus as we have them in the New Testament were affected by the passage of time and the experience of the church between the days of Jesus and the date of its writing? But ALL conclusions about the precise relationship of that history to the words of the New Testament is mere speculation, the assured results of scholarship notwithstanding.
As with the OT so with the NT, often the best way to deal with "source criticism" is to toss it in the recycling bin and just read the text as we have it.
This is much easier to do if we are not saddled with "Bible and Bible Only" or "Bible Inerrancy" theories. Instead of getting stuck on the insurmountable difficulties created by outlandish claims regarding inerrancy, inspiration and infallibility, we simply use the Bible for its intended purpose--the cultivation of intimacy with God, moral purpose and spiritual and ethical insight.
Veneration of the Bible is not the great purpose of Christian life. We do not practice bibliolatry.
Scholarly respectability is illegitimate as a goal for a preacher or spiritual teacher. Our goal must be helping people connect with God and lead moral, healthy lives (understood in the broadest sense of social, spiritual, physical, mental life).
The Bible is a peerless tool for the pursuit of that goal. When that goal is obscured by fundamentalist or academic speculation, use the recycling bin.
The booklet from the "Universal Publishing Assn." was filled with closely reasoned allegorical interpretation of the Bible. (Origin of Alexandria would have been proud.) If I accepted a few of its starting premises regarding the typological meaning of nearly everything in the Bible, the conclusions were not all that outlandish. But if you stepped back from the particular points being made on each page, you could see that it was flimsy house of cards. As a pastor I have learned that people who engage in this approach to the Bible seldom have sweet, harmonious relationships with their spouses or children. Their spiritual life is characterized nearly always by fear and anxiety and usually by a miserable judgmentalism.
So I tossed the booklet "At the Eleventh Hour" into the recycling bin. Sometimes you have to just cut through the foolish. There is no benefit in trying to analyze silliness point by point. (This applies to equally to evangelical dispensationalism and to Adventist endtime chart making.)
Fundamentalist apocalyptic allegorizing is not the only approach to "Bible interpretation" that is best tossed in the recycling bin. The same applies to much of "source criticsm." If you read the Old Testament analytically, it's obvious there are different sources behind the text as we have it today. Genesis One and Two are not a smooth integrated whole. They are two different stories. The books of Samuel have places where it's obvious the author has brought together information or stories from different sources without smoothing out all the differences that were in the earlier versions.
HOWEVER . . .
When you read the attempts by source critics to be ever more precise in their assignment of this sentence or phrase (or even single word) to a particular "pre-biblical" source you realize they are building a house of cards no more worthy of respect than the apocalyptic speculations of endtime enthusiasts.
The reality is we do not have ANY of the putative sources that lie behind the actual biblical text. The notion that the text as we have it was assembled by committees or communities is laughable. That is not how great literature is written. The various Bible books as we have them were produced by authors. Those authors were not idiots. When Moses--or whoever it was that wrote Genesis--included Genesis One and Genesis Two in his book, he was not unaware of the differences between the two stories. He deliberately included both stories with their differences. He intended his readers to get the message that came from including both stories in his book. We get no closer to some "original" meaning by over emphasizing the differences than we do by pretending there are no differences. The writer intended for us to get the meaning that comes from the interaction of the two different tellings of the creation story.
While some critical commentators try to get at the "real meaning" of the Bible by exploring a never-ending regression of bits of "source material," a much wiser approach is to simply take the text as we have it and read this "text in our hand" for its meaning as a whole.
The same holds true for the New Testament. The Jesus Seminar's theatrical pronouncements about the authenticity of various passages in the gospels is just that--theater. There is not a shred of documentary evidence behind their speculations. "Q" does not exist. Of course, there is good evidence that the stories and teachings of Jesus as we have them in the New Testament were affected by the passage of time and the experience of the church between the days of Jesus and the date of its writing? But ALL conclusions about the precise relationship of that history to the words of the New Testament is mere speculation, the assured results of scholarship notwithstanding.
As with the OT so with the NT, often the best way to deal with "source criticism" is to toss it in the recycling bin and just read the text as we have it.
This is much easier to do if we are not saddled with "Bible and Bible Only" or "Bible Inerrancy" theories. Instead of getting stuck on the insurmountable difficulties created by outlandish claims regarding inerrancy, inspiration and infallibility, we simply use the Bible for its intended purpose--the cultivation of intimacy with God, moral purpose and spiritual and ethical insight.
Veneration of the Bible is not the great purpose of Christian life. We do not practice bibliolatry.
Scholarly respectability is illegitimate as a goal for a preacher or spiritual teacher. Our goal must be helping people connect with God and lead moral, healthy lives (understood in the broadest sense of social, spiritual, physical, mental life).
The Bible is a peerless tool for the pursuit of that goal. When that goal is obscured by fundamentalist or academic speculation, use the recycling bin.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Textual Adventism: A Liberal Affirmation of Bible and Bible Only
“The Bible and Bible Only” is a logically impossible approach to religion.
1. The Bible cannot serve as a sole authority. Even the simplest reading requires dependence on the authority of lexicons and grammars.
2. The Bible cannot serve as the sole source of religious information. Individuals who have the Bible but no connection with the Christian community do not come up with a theology that is similar to classic Christianity.
3. The Bible is not sufficient for spiritual nurture. “Lone Christians” do not thrive
4. The Bible itself warns that it is possible to “wrest” its words into support for ungodly ideas and behaviors.
HOWEVER.
“Bible and Bible Only” religion is associated with marvelous transformations.
My grandmother responded the Bible and Bible Only preaching of an Adventist evangelist. She schooled her children in the Bible, had them memorize hundreds of verses, taught them the highly-ordered way of living Adventists deduced from the Bible. Her oldest son went to college (the first in his family to do so) and to medical school. Of his six children only two “settled” for a masters degree. The other four earned doctorates. Bible and Bible Only religion transformed our family.
One of my parishioners had been a homeless meth addict for years when he began attending our church. Now, he has finished college and has a good job as a geologist. His wife is finishing her college degree. He insists that Bible reading was a major factor in helping him escape addiction and begin really living.
In the light of this kind of transformation, it is easy to understand hyperbolic praise of the Bible. “Bible and Bible Only” does not work as a rational explanation of the role of the Bible in religious life. But as a poetic affirmation of the power of the Book it makes all kinds of sense.
Humane Adventism rejects “The Bible and Bible Only” as a rule for exegesis, systematic theology and ethics. On the other hand, humane Adventism delights in the poetry of “Bible and Bible Only” as an appropriate exaggeration in honor of the glory and power of the book. “Bible and Bible Only” makes perfect sense as the religious parallel to the rapturous exaggeration of lovers in speaking of their beloved.
1. The Bible cannot serve as a sole authority. Even the simplest reading requires dependence on the authority of lexicons and grammars.
2. The Bible cannot serve as the sole source of religious information. Individuals who have the Bible but no connection with the Christian community do not come up with a theology that is similar to classic Christianity.
3. The Bible is not sufficient for spiritual nurture. “Lone Christians” do not thrive
4. The Bible itself warns that it is possible to “wrest” its words into support for ungodly ideas and behaviors.
HOWEVER.
“Bible and Bible Only” religion is associated with marvelous transformations.
My grandmother responded the Bible and Bible Only preaching of an Adventist evangelist. She schooled her children in the Bible, had them memorize hundreds of verses, taught them the highly-ordered way of living Adventists deduced from the Bible. Her oldest son went to college (the first in his family to do so) and to medical school. Of his six children only two “settled” for a masters degree. The other four earned doctorates. Bible and Bible Only religion transformed our family.
One of my parishioners had been a homeless meth addict for years when he began attending our church. Now, he has finished college and has a good job as a geologist. His wife is finishing her college degree. He insists that Bible reading was a major factor in helping him escape addiction and begin really living.
In the light of this kind of transformation, it is easy to understand hyperbolic praise of the Bible. “Bible and Bible Only” does not work as a rational explanation of the role of the Bible in religious life. But as a poetic affirmation of the power of the Book it makes all kinds of sense.
Humane Adventism rejects “The Bible and Bible Only” as a rule for exegesis, systematic theology and ethics. On the other hand, humane Adventism delights in the poetry of “Bible and Bible Only” as an appropriate exaggeration in honor of the glory and power of the book. “Bible and Bible Only” makes perfect sense as the religious parallel to the rapturous exaggeration of lovers in speaking of their beloved.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Humane Adventism
"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).
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).
Sunday, June 14, 2009
La Sierra University and the teaching of Evolution,
Wrong Every Time
(This was originally published in Adventist Today. I think it bears on the current controversy surrounding the teaching of biology at La Sierra University.)
In 1795, based on his geological research, James Hutton wrote: we find no vestige of a beginning–no prospective of an end. But he was wrong. Science eventually replaced his smooth, everlasting uniformitarianism.
As a twelve-year-old Adventist in 1962, I already was smarter than Hutton. I knew there had been a beginning about six thousand years ago, and there was an end two years in the future. The beginning was the ex nihilo creation of the entire globe six thousand years ago, a view rejected by all the theologians at the Andrews seminary. And my date for the end was based on the (now) dubious parallel between Adventist preaching about the judgment and Noah’s 120 years of preaching about impending judgment. (As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be . . .).
I learned in church school about uniformitarianism. Scientists blindly embraced the notion of peat bogs in Michigan and Scotland slowly, inevitably turning into coal seams. The sea floor would gradually accumulate enough limey deposits to create another Red Wall in a future Grand Canyon. Even as a twelve-year-old I knew this was nonsense. I knew that the coal seams were produced by the Flood burying the pre-flood tropical rain forests and that limestone was formed from the rapid burial of marine layers in the Flood. Ten years later I read William Agee’s The Nature of the Stratigraphic Record. This prominent secular geologist pointed out that the geologic record is full of compelling evidence of non-uniformity. Coal is not being formed in our world; massive limestone is not being created.
Science had been wrong. Which would have been a very gratifying thought except that I lived on Long Island, a terminal moraine created by continental glaciation. In church school I had been taught, a la George McCready Price, that so-called Ice Age deposits were actually Flood residue. Living on a moraine and studying geology, I was inexorably moved to the conclusion of all post-Price Adventist scientists: G. M. Price and the Church had been wrong. There had indeed been continental glaciation. And I realized the Church had been wrong about the coal, too, because we “knew” there had been no rain before the flood, but you needed rain to create the tropical rain forests for the flood to bury.
The church and science are always getting it wrong.
But now we have it right. The scientists know that the universe is about 14 billion years old and the theologians know that life is about six thousand years old. There will be no further corrections. There is no new data for science to discover; there are no new accommodations that theology will need to make. We finally have it right. . . . And I have a bridge to sell you.
If the Church builds its doctrine (officially required belief) on the assured results of scholarship, it is building on sand. If it makes a doctrine of historical or chronological conclusions drawn from the Bible by devout Adventists, it is building on quick sand. Because we are always getting it wrong. Whether it is George McCready Price arguing that the geologic column is a godless fiction, Robert Gentry arguing that the universe was created 6000 years ago or a union president pontificating to his constituents that the sun is younger than the earth, when public figures in the Church make strong chronological assertions and insist they are based on the Bible, they diminish the Bible’s credibility in the eyes our educated children, because they always get it wrong.
I have seen Bible reading transform drug addicts and watched its words soothe the terminally ill. I’ve seen obedience to its principles heal troubled marriages. The Bible is a good book. It is too good, too precious, to be discredited by our clumsy history writing.
Twelve-year-olds will always be wrong about something. My prayer is that they will not be wrong because they have been listening to their church.
(This was originally published in Adventist Today. I think it bears on the current controversy surrounding the teaching of biology at La Sierra University.)
In 1795, based on his geological research, James Hutton wrote: we find no vestige of a beginning–no prospective of an end. But he was wrong. Science eventually replaced his smooth, everlasting uniformitarianism.
As a twelve-year-old Adventist in 1962, I already was smarter than Hutton. I knew there had been a beginning about six thousand years ago, and there was an end two years in the future. The beginning was the ex nihilo creation of the entire globe six thousand years ago, a view rejected by all the theologians at the Andrews seminary. And my date for the end was based on the (now) dubious parallel between Adventist preaching about the judgment and Noah’s 120 years of preaching about impending judgment. (As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be . . .).
I learned in church school about uniformitarianism. Scientists blindly embraced the notion of peat bogs in Michigan and Scotland slowly, inevitably turning into coal seams. The sea floor would gradually accumulate enough limey deposits to create another Red Wall in a future Grand Canyon. Even as a twelve-year-old I knew this was nonsense. I knew that the coal seams were produced by the Flood burying the pre-flood tropical rain forests and that limestone was formed from the rapid burial of marine layers in the Flood. Ten years later I read William Agee’s The Nature of the Stratigraphic Record. This prominent secular geologist pointed out that the geologic record is full of compelling evidence of non-uniformity. Coal is not being formed in our world; massive limestone is not being created.
Science had been wrong. Which would have been a very gratifying thought except that I lived on Long Island, a terminal moraine created by continental glaciation. In church school I had been taught, a la George McCready Price, that so-called Ice Age deposits were actually Flood residue. Living on a moraine and studying geology, I was inexorably moved to the conclusion of all post-Price Adventist scientists: G. M. Price and the Church had been wrong. There had indeed been continental glaciation. And I realized the Church had been wrong about the coal, too, because we “knew” there had been no rain before the flood, but you needed rain to create the tropical rain forests for the flood to bury.
The church and science are always getting it wrong.
But now we have it right. The scientists know that the universe is about 14 billion years old and the theologians know that life is about six thousand years old. There will be no further corrections. There is no new data for science to discover; there are no new accommodations that theology will need to make. We finally have it right. . . . And I have a bridge to sell you.
If the Church builds its doctrine (officially required belief) on the assured results of scholarship, it is building on sand. If it makes a doctrine of historical or chronological conclusions drawn from the Bible by devout Adventists, it is building on quick sand. Because we are always getting it wrong. Whether it is George McCready Price arguing that the geologic column is a godless fiction, Robert Gentry arguing that the universe was created 6000 years ago or a union president pontificating to his constituents that the sun is younger than the earth, when public figures in the Church make strong chronological assertions and insist they are based on the Bible, they diminish the Bible’s credibility in the eyes our educated children, because they always get it wrong.
I have seen Bible reading transform drug addicts and watched its words soothe the terminally ill. I’ve seen obedience to its principles heal troubled marriages. The Bible is a good book. It is too good, too precious, to be discredited by our clumsy history writing.
Twelve-year-olds will always be wrong about something. My prayer is that they will not be wrong because they have been listening to their church.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Adventist Evolution
A Reply to David Asscherick, First Draft
(Please comment, correct, challenge. The original letter can be found at educatetruth.com.)
In a letter dated April 30, 2009, David Asscherick pleads with the presidents of the General Conference, the North American Division and the Pacific Union to “do something” in response to the alleged teaching of evolution at La Sierra University. Asscherick does not state precisely what the presidents should do, but his intent is clear: he wants the church leaders to bring about a change in the content of the biology instruction at LSU or to disfellowship the institution.
I strongly disagree with the core ideas in this letter.
First: Asscherick attacks the wrong target. He speaks repeatedly of evolution or naturalistic evolution, assuming evolution is inimical with Adventist mission and message. However, the Adventist Church has always taught evolution—of the most rapid and drastic form. Classic Adventist creationism teaches that God created a deathless biosphere that carried within it the inherent capacity to speedily evolve into a post-lapsarian biology characterized by life and death. Following Ellen White, Adventists have generally taught this transformation was “natural,” that is the outworking of great law of cause and effect, rather than “supernatural,” an arbitrarily-imposed punishment.
Other examples of the Adventist embrace of evolution include the “ecological zonation” theory that was presented in Adventist earth science textbooks as an explanation of the geological column and the notion that either the devil or humans created monstrous life forms in the antediluvian world. Creating dinosaurs through “amalgamation” is evolution—non-supernatural biological change. Evolution—biological change over time—is not the great enemy of traditional Adventism as Asscherick has presented it. Instead, the enemy is geochronology, the science of dating rocks and fossils. The great dilemma for Adventists is the putative age of fossil-bearing layers.
We observe the remains of all sorts of extinct life forms buried in the earth and the question arises, how long ago did these things live? Conventional geochronology assigns ages of hundreds of millions and even billions of years to the oldest fossils. It is this time scale that threatens Asscherick. It is geochronology, not evolution that undermines our historic apologetic in defense of the seventh-day Sabbath. But Asscherick never mentions the dating of fossils or the age of the earth. (Many writers, including me, have argued Sabbath-keeping is not dependent on a 6000 year age for teh Garden of Eden.)
Second: Asscherick lumps together theistic and naturalistic evolution. This might be excusable if he were addressing methods and outcomes of science, however, he acknowledges he is not a scientist. His claimed expertise is in “the apologetic, philosophical, and theological issues surrounding the theories of naturalistic evolution.” In the context of theology and philosophy, the difference between naturalistic and theistic worldviews are, to put it mildly, crucial. In a theological context, casually implying that theistic and naturalistic evolution are equivalent is either disingenuous or naïve.
Third. Asscherick is worried the confident faith of students will be unsettled by teachers who present conventional evolutionary views “as fact or as the preferred and normative worldview.” I respect Asscherick’s concern for the spiritual stability of youth who come to college with a fundamentalist world view and then discover that most scientists inside the church as well as outside believe life is vastly older than 6000 years. It is true that most students in Adventist colleges believe life is young. That is hardly remarkable; most of the American public believes the same. However, the church is comprised of “the whole people of God.” The whole people of God includes students and professionals in the sciences. They are a small minority in the church, but they are every bit as much members of the family as evangelists and revivalists. As a pastor, I frequently encounter science students and professional scientists who have been wounded by the pontifications of people like Asscherick who declare: You cannot be a real Adventist unless you are dismissive of the overwhelming physical evidence regarding geochronology. When a clergyman suggests scientists must choose between a relationship with Jesus and their calling as seekers for truth he is seriously misrepresenting God and risks the ire of Jesus (Matthew 18:6).
Asscherick writes: “Governing and administrative structures are not the church. The people are the church.” On this point he and I completely agree. But he wants the church presidents to use the influence given them by the church structure to rid the community of scientists who are persuaded by the vast corpus of evidence supporting a long history of life on earth. The fundamentalist majority is not more worthy of inclusion in the church than intellectuals and scientists. We all need each other. I gladly honor the vitality and zeal of fundamentalists like Asscherick and his young disciples. It brings life and energy to the church. However, if people of this mindset control the church, their zeal is likely to create a harsh, judgmental community that relentlessly pursues an unattainable standard of uniformity of thought and belief.
Asscherick writes, “. . . few doctrines are at greater philosophical odds with Seventh-day Adventism than naturalistic evolution, the arguments of well-meaning theistic evolutionists notwithstanding. Our Magna Carta is Revelation 14:6-12. If naturalistic evolution is true, Creation is cremated, the Sabbath is sabotaged, and our very name is neutered. What becomes of Scripture? And of our unique eschatology?”
This is a strong argument emotionally. But it is terribly weak in the context of historic Adventist commitment to truth. It suggests that our primary concern ought to be the preservation of our historic creed rather than a commit to a continual pursuit of truth wherever that pursuit takes us. Ellen White consistently used “conservative” in a pejorative sense and told us there would be things we need to unlearn as we follow the forward advance of truth.
Instead of trying to teach science teachers what to teach, Asscherick and his friends would do better to help students learn how to integrate the best of science with the mission of Jesus which is above all representing his Father in giving hope, health and healing.
Asscherick sees the science faculty at LSU as dangerous subversives. I view his stance as a dangerous obstacle to the ongoing search for truth that should lie near the heart of our spiritual life.
(Please comment, correct, challenge. The original letter can be found at educatetruth.com.)
In a letter dated April 30, 2009, David Asscherick pleads with the presidents of the General Conference, the North American Division and the Pacific Union to “do something” in response to the alleged teaching of evolution at La Sierra University. Asscherick does not state precisely what the presidents should do, but his intent is clear: he wants the church leaders to bring about a change in the content of the biology instruction at LSU or to disfellowship the institution.
I strongly disagree with the core ideas in this letter.
First: Asscherick attacks the wrong target. He speaks repeatedly of evolution or naturalistic evolution, assuming evolution is inimical with Adventist mission and message. However, the Adventist Church has always taught evolution—of the most rapid and drastic form. Classic Adventist creationism teaches that God created a deathless biosphere that carried within it the inherent capacity to speedily evolve into a post-lapsarian biology characterized by life and death. Following Ellen White, Adventists have generally taught this transformation was “natural,” that is the outworking of great law of cause and effect, rather than “supernatural,” an arbitrarily-imposed punishment.
Other examples of the Adventist embrace of evolution include the “ecological zonation” theory that was presented in Adventist earth science textbooks as an explanation of the geological column and the notion that either the devil or humans created monstrous life forms in the antediluvian world. Creating dinosaurs through “amalgamation” is evolution—non-supernatural biological change. Evolution—biological change over time—is not the great enemy of traditional Adventism as Asscherick has presented it. Instead, the enemy is geochronology, the science of dating rocks and fossils. The great dilemma for Adventists is the putative age of fossil-bearing layers.
We observe the remains of all sorts of extinct life forms buried in the earth and the question arises, how long ago did these things live? Conventional geochronology assigns ages of hundreds of millions and even billions of years to the oldest fossils. It is this time scale that threatens Asscherick. It is geochronology, not evolution that undermines our historic apologetic in defense of the seventh-day Sabbath. But Asscherick never mentions the dating of fossils or the age of the earth. (Many writers, including me, have argued Sabbath-keeping is not dependent on a 6000 year age for teh Garden of Eden.)
Second: Asscherick lumps together theistic and naturalistic evolution. This might be excusable if he were addressing methods and outcomes of science, however, he acknowledges he is not a scientist. His claimed expertise is in “the apologetic, philosophical, and theological issues surrounding the theories of naturalistic evolution.” In the context of theology and philosophy, the difference between naturalistic and theistic worldviews are, to put it mildly, crucial. In a theological context, casually implying that theistic and naturalistic evolution are equivalent is either disingenuous or naïve.
Third. Asscherick is worried the confident faith of students will be unsettled by teachers who present conventional evolutionary views “as fact or as the preferred and normative worldview.” I respect Asscherick’s concern for the spiritual stability of youth who come to college with a fundamentalist world view and then discover that most scientists inside the church as well as outside believe life is vastly older than 6000 years. It is true that most students in Adventist colleges believe life is young. That is hardly remarkable; most of the American public believes the same. However, the church is comprised of “the whole people of God.” The whole people of God includes students and professionals in the sciences. They are a small minority in the church, but they are every bit as much members of the family as evangelists and revivalists. As a pastor, I frequently encounter science students and professional scientists who have been wounded by the pontifications of people like Asscherick who declare: You cannot be a real Adventist unless you are dismissive of the overwhelming physical evidence regarding geochronology. When a clergyman suggests scientists must choose between a relationship with Jesus and their calling as seekers for truth he is seriously misrepresenting God and risks the ire of Jesus (Matthew 18:6).
Asscherick writes: “Governing and administrative structures are not the church. The people are the church.” On this point he and I completely agree. But he wants the church presidents to use the influence given them by the church structure to rid the community of scientists who are persuaded by the vast corpus of evidence supporting a long history of life on earth. The fundamentalist majority is not more worthy of inclusion in the church than intellectuals and scientists. We all need each other. I gladly honor the vitality and zeal of fundamentalists like Asscherick and his young disciples. It brings life and energy to the church. However, if people of this mindset control the church, their zeal is likely to create a harsh, judgmental community that relentlessly pursues an unattainable standard of uniformity of thought and belief.
Asscherick writes, “. . . few doctrines are at greater philosophical odds with Seventh-day Adventism than naturalistic evolution, the arguments of well-meaning theistic evolutionists notwithstanding. Our Magna Carta is Revelation 14:6-12. If naturalistic evolution is true, Creation is cremated, the Sabbath is sabotaged, and our very name is neutered. What becomes of Scripture? And of our unique eschatology?”
This is a strong argument emotionally. But it is terribly weak in the context of historic Adventist commitment to truth. It suggests that our primary concern ought to be the preservation of our historic creed rather than a commit to a continual pursuit of truth wherever that pursuit takes us. Ellen White consistently used “conservative” in a pejorative sense and told us there would be things we need to unlearn as we follow the forward advance of truth.
Instead of trying to teach science teachers what to teach, Asscherick and his friends would do better to help students learn how to integrate the best of science with the mission of Jesus which is above all representing his Father in giving hope, health and healing.
Asscherick sees the science faculty at LSU as dangerous subversives. I view his stance as a dangerous obstacle to the ongoing search for truth that should lie near the heart of our spiritual life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
