Taking advantage of this publishing medium, Chuck has added a couple of lines. Hey, if one believes in progressive revelation, perhaps one can update ones ideas about revelation too. . . . Updates in bold.
By Charles Scriven, president of Kettering College of Medical Arts and chairman of Adventist Forum.
The preamble to the church’s official non-creed, the “Statement of 28 Fundamental Beliefs,” declares that, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, revision of these beliefs “may be expected.”
As a reading of John 16:12-15 suggests, this is in full accord with the spirit of Christian Scripture.
The preamble’s relevance is nowhere clearer than in the very first of the 28 fundamental beliefs, where the topic is the Adventist theory of the Bible. In a way that is in part helpful, but on the whole misleading and dangerous. Belief number one declares:
The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history. (2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Ps. 119:105; Prov. 30:5, 6; Isa. 8:20; John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12.)
Within the Bible itself you find the firm conviction that Scripture does reflect the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. But you nowhere find that God’s inspiration of human authors entails that the Bible is “infallible,” or that (all) the written words constitute—themselves—the “standard of character” or the “test of experience.”
If you embraced the current statement on Scripture, you could be excused for supposing that genocide may be acceptable to God, or the satisfactions that accompany revenge, or the policy of keeping women silent in church. You can appeal to words in the Christian Bible, after all, to support all these things. But you can also appeal to the Bible to contend against them.
So if the Bible is infallible—all its bits and pieces God’s timeless truth—you have to pretend some parts are not really there, or dream up rationalizations to explain what is there, or suppose that God is divided. But this latter flies in the face of the conviction, expressed in Hebrews 13:8, that Jesus Christ, God’s self-revelation, “is the same yesterday and today and forever.”
Based on internal evidence, then, it’s clear that the Bible is not an anthology of divinely perfect sentences. And this internal evidence includes, too, what Bible writers say about their own understanding. The author of Isaiah 55:8 declares, without a pinch of equivocation, that God’s thoughts are “higher” than ours. In 1 Corinthians 13, Paul writes, “Now I know only in part.” So to say Scripture is “infallible” is to deny Scripture’s own testimony.
When you pay attention to the book, instead of accepting assumptions from elsewhere, you see that the Bible is a story about Israel and its impact on the wider world. As the author of 2 Timothy 3:16 declares, the whole story is “inspired” and “useful.” It is a God-aided interpretation of one small, critically important slice of human experience. That interpretation plants a vision of what we can be, and what our society can be; it engenders hope and passion so we can shoulder the responsibilities the vision sets before us. It helps us be the best that we can be. But no one—no one inside the Bible—believes everything said there is perfect.
The author of Hebrews 1:1-3 says what needs to be said: God “spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son”; this Son is the “exact imprint of God’s very being.”
Think about these remarks. They take for granted the idea of Scripture as a story; and they remind us that the story goes somewhere: it takes us to Christ, who, unlike anyone else, puts God’s will and way—finally—into perfect focus.
So to be a competent reader of the Bible you have to follow a story. You look for what is going on (warts and all), and notice the direction the story is taking. Then you interpret the whole story in light of its goal.
This is not at all like leafing through an anthology of perfect sentences. On the view I am suggesting, if you have a difficult son, and you put your finger on a random text that says, “If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son…all the men of the town shall stone him to death” (Deuteronomy 21:18-21), you stop before you act. This was once thought to be God’s will, but the whole story leads to Christ, and now those who embrace the story live their lives, as Paul said in Philippians 1:27, “in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ.” This is where the story takes you. It is why our pioneers embraced non-violence—just what Jesus taught and embodied—even though the stories of some Bible heroes make bloodshed seem like the will of God. It is why we embrace the ministry of healing—just what Jesus taught and embodied--even though, in 2 Chronicles 16:12, Asa is reproached for seeking “help from physicians.”
The old “key-text approach,” with its assumption of infallibility, is bankrupt. But when you follow the story, the Bible—Old Testament and New; the whole account—retains its authority. And it retains its power to transform how we see and feel.
In the spirit of the aforementioned preamble, I propose, therefore, the following revision of belief number one:
"The Christian Bible is the church’s highest written authority. For the shaping of the church’s conviction and shared life, the story it tells is wholly inspired and wholly useful, a trustworthy window into how God thinks and what God does. The story moves from creation through the call of Abraham and the witness of the prophets to Jesus, the zenith of Jewish generosity and, by his death and resurrection, the final revelation of God’s will and way, the wholly sufficient standard of character and test of experience."
My list of supporting Bible passages would include many from the current statement and would add (this is crucial!) Hebrews 1:1-3 and Philippians 1:27.
See what you think.
And keep in mind that while there is no single, valid theory of the Bible—mine is just a conversation starter—it does not follow that any theory will do. I am arguing that this much is irrefutable: the current statement needs revision such as the preamble says we may expect.
Thanks, Chuck, for saying so clearly what many of us have heard you say many times before in different ways. Apparently it still needs to be said.
I would argue that this way of reading the Bible takes the text of Scripture more seriously rather than less. I think it also requires more of the church and the individuals who read it.
And the view from the grassroots suggests that there is no real transformation of character by information or proof texts. Transformation happens when people who have placed their confidence in this story and the trajectory of this story begin to "live into" the story in contemporary ways. This calls for a whole different approach to the way the church uses the Bible. I frequently say from my pulpit that the we don't "have" scripture, scripture must "have" us. We should not place our hands on it to use it for our ends, but surrender to it that God may use us for His ends.
Posted by: Ryan Bell | 10 July 2007 at 17:15
Thanks for a well-phrased and well-reasoned approach, Chuck. The issue of inspiration is foundational for all belief, including why we bother trying to communicate via the symbols on this screen. Two questions come to mind:
1. Isn't "infallible" (never failing) different from "inerrant" (no errors)? In this sense, might infallible still qualify for your premise?
[Okay, I looked up "infallible" and found the first three meanings: "exempt from liability to error"; "absolutely trustworthy"; and "unfailing in effectiveness or operation; certain" (Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary). Of course, then I wondered, But is this definition infallible? Maybe one way to claim infallibility is to cover all the meanings, which Webster's has done admirably. "Inerrant," by the way, is simply denoted "free from error."]
2. While Hebrews 1:1-3 points to Jesus as the "final revelation" and "wholly sufficient standard," much of what I know of Him comes through the imperfect revelation of Scripture (including this text). How does one reconcile Christ's infallibility if we perceive Him via fallible authors, fallible media, and fallible sentient portals? That is, given the premise here stated, can our impressions of Jesus--the foundation for our trust--be any more reliable than our impressions of and confidence in Scripture itself? The extent to which we devalue the Bible is the extent to which we also devalue Jesus.
As I'm wrestling with a rational approach, I suppose you cover this problem somewhat with your reference to "trustworthy"--a word that seems particularly apt.
Posted by: Chris Blake | 10 July 2007 at 19:24
How can the Bible record what God thinks or does when every word is only man's impression of God? Furthermore, man is most inconsistent in explaining God's actions. Did God ever write a single word of the Bible? It is only men who wrote according to their perspective, and that certainly changed from the first book through to the last.
Do you put your faith in other people's thoughts about God? That is what one would have to do if he accepted the Bible as "God's Word," contradictory as it is. Does age make it superior to today's ideas of God? How so?
Does God contradict? Or is it possible for man to do so? Men have always written about a god or gods, and always described him (it) in their anthropomorphic terms--always male.
When anyone accepts the hermeneutis of another, hs is conceding to some other human, but not to God.
Posted by: Elaine | 10 July 2007 at 20:12
I would leave out the word "authority" in your proposal. It will lead to a new set of inhibiting rules. Go for moral and ethical progress.
"The Christian Bible is the church’s primary source/witness of/to God's redeeming acts for mankind."
Posted by: Henk | 10 July 2007 at 23:35
1. "Biblical infallibility is the theological term to describe the belief that the Bible is free from errors on issues of faith and practice. This stance is also known as Limited Inerrancy. [1]
In contrast, Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the Bible is free from errors in spiritual areas as well as in the natural (geographical, historical, scientific, etc.)." Wikipedia
2. "The idea of the Bible itself as Word of God, as being itself God's revelation, is criticized in neo-orthodoxy. Here the Bible is seen as a unique witness to the people and deeds that do make up the Word of God. However it is a wholly human witness.[21] All books of the Bible were written by human persons." Wikipedia
3. Proposed revision:
a. highest written authority
b.story-inspired and useful
(Jesus=final revelation, sufficient standard of character and test of experience.)
c.trustworthy window
hmm. it lacks some "punch" but invites engagement.
Posted by: arlyn | 10 July 2007 at 23:45
“For fools rush in where angels fear to tread”
Alexander Pope
Posted by: Clifford Goldstein | 11 July 2007 at 04:06
Clifford, are you calling the Adventist church fools for having rushed in to formulate 28 fundamental doctrines? The angels have no 28 fundamentals. You may be on to something.
Posted by: Darius (statrei) | 11 July 2007 at 05:09
Johnny, the Bible did not provide us salvation. It merely reported on the fact of our salvation. We did not need to be present to be saved. But, I understand your concern. It appears that most Adventists don't believe that Christ did what He said He did. They believe that we need to do something in order to be saved and that makes the Bible necessary.
Posted by: Darius (statrei) | 11 July 2007 at 05:14
Chuck,
Wonderful, thoughtful-provoking essay...What I appreciated about it the most was it's Christ-centeredness.
Noticeably absent, however, in both the original formulation and yours is the role that the Spirit of God plays in BOTH inspiration and what has traditionally been called "illumination." "Revelation" involves both.
Might I suggest the addition of something like "with God's help, we come to understand..."? (John 14:26 and Matthew 16:16-17. In the first text Jesus promises the Spirit to guide his followers, i.e. the church, and in the second Peter is told by Jesus that his declaration of Jesus' identity was "not revealed [to him] by man but by my Father in heaven.")
What do you think?
Posted by: Zane | 11 July 2007 at 05:49
I agree calling the scriptures infallible is dangerous. It places it on a pedestal next to God. Words written by humans are never infallible, inspired yes but infallible no. It gives licence to the members to stop thinking, perhaps that is the reason why many members do not study the bible why bother read a book that is 100% perfect you just read and follow the rules instead of studying.
Posted by: Den | 11 July 2007 at 05:51
This also brings up for me the broader question of the role that the traditional creeds play in our reading of the Bible. (Adventists, despite our monstrously large 28 fundamentals, claim to be anti-creedal. Functionally, however, the 28 seem to play the same role as creeds have in earlier times.) By "creeds", I am not referring to all the formulations the church (in its broad sense of the word) has come up with through history. In particular I am referring to the Nicene and Chalcedonian creeds which were formulated early in the history of the church and before there was a major split between east/west, Protestant/Catholic. Don't "creedal" affirmations express, but also guide our reading of the Scriptures? Can we ever read the Bible "alone" and discern its "correct, central message"?
Posted by: Zane | 11 July 2007 at 05:52
It is not foolish to state what you believe. It is foolish not to change your beliefs as new evidence and new understandings become available. So who is in a hurry? "Study to show yourself approved unto God" Paul. Tom
Posted by: Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer | 11 July 2007 at 06:06
It was my understanding that in this series we were to start with the fundamental beliefs--as given--and seek to apply them. Not to take statements with which we might disagree and assert something different.
The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history. (2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Ps. 119:105; Prov. 30:5, 6; Isa. 8:20; John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12.)
Implications of this for me are that we can indeed trust what Scripture says, that we can with assurance seek God's will in it, that we can place our confidence in what it says about our hope of salvation in Jesus.
In a postmodern world of subjectivism and relativism, we have a foundation that's solid. In the midst of the every increasing din of competing hawkers in the marketplace of ideas, we are in the position of Paul on Mars Hill, to declare to the world what it dimly grasps at.
Those, I see, are the implications of the statement as it is written.
What are the implications of the revised statement?
Posted by: Bill Cork | 11 July 2007 at 06:21
Why do we continue wasting our time? It does not take any amount of degree-based education to realize that if what we have been peddling over the last century was anywhere close to what the truth is the Second Coming would have occured already. Motion does not imply progress. Until we wake up and admit that we are merely following concentric circles we will continue following concentric circles.
Posted by: Darius (statrei) | 11 July 2007 at 06:33
Let's clarify something about postmodernity. We've always lived in a world of subjectivity and relativism. The difference now is that more and more persons realize all truth is contingent of human experience, so the un-moored sense is wider.
The history of Western humanity is one where we realize that institutions of authority always disempower the average person.
The priesthood of believers vs. the magisteria, democracy vs. autocracy, guilds vs. free market, love vs. arranged marriage.
Upon reflection, the reason I appreciate what Chuck is pushing the Bloggin' the 28 project to do is because he confronts a central problem. Namely, that if all scripture is divorced from cultural context (i.e., infallible) then we have no hermeneutic that gives us a good reason to refrain from owning slaves, subjugating women and or genocide -- all issues that Adventists have defended biblically quite recently. The OT is full of genocide.
The implication is that we treat Christ as the Word of God, a hermeneutical lenses through which we interpret scripture. That how we mix the word with our world and questions today as an incarnational project, a communal event in which we don't rest on something composed in the late 70s or 1850s, but a Word from God that convicts us today that the worst thing that humans cause is suffering. The healing, the Sermon on the Mount, the passion of Christ -- this is God and man perfectly aligned to save us from the most useless thing in the world: humans causing suffering.
More than God and Moses or God and David, or God and Paul -- God in Jesus is perfect incarnation and if we don't put that Jesus above our always Zeitgeist-bound readings of scripture, we will freeze revelation. And too afraid of the priesthood of all believers, we'll hand over Jesus to our priests again, and exchange the duty of always reinterpreting the always, already relative Word and instead, too many will sit in their pew and ask the priests of the past for their word today.
Posted by: Alexander | 11 July 2007 at 06:56
"Owning slaves" was an issue Adventists "defended biblically"? Gotta read your history. Adventists were pretty vocal and active abolitionists. And they didn't need JEDP to tell them this was the right course of action. They knew their Bible, they prayed, they acted.
Alex, you're saying a lot about incarnation--do you really believe it? Can God really take on human flesh? Can God really accommodate himself to human limitation? That's what Scriptural infallibility is all about--Finitum capax infiniti. We don't have a disembodied Jesus to be grasping at in the ether--we have his Word.
Posted by: Bill Cork | 11 July 2007 at 07:02
Bill,
I thought Jesus IS the WORD?
I believe it was J.B. Phillips who describes the incarnation as "the lense" through which we view God in our limited human condition. Can God, the Creator of the universe, truly be understood by his creation? We glimpse, as Moses, his backside, but only Jesus claims to be the fullness of God on earth. Is there any need for more clarification from ancient or recent prophets?
As the "living" WORD OF GOD, all ages are able to apply his life and death to themselves without lists of behavior not appropriate for its generation - like various reasons for stoning and and the many cleansings and ablutions. Even the BIG 10, are a cultural application of God's law of "love God and love your fellow man". If that list were compiled today, would it sound the same?
The only eternal Word of God is his Son and our Brother.
Posted by: Sirje | 11 July 2007 at 07:33
John,
You said: "Apart from that, my reaction to your proposed revision is that while it maintains a lot of the key words/ attributes (highest authority/ standard/ relevant etc.) you do so without using many of the signature phrases people expect."
Isn't there some benefit to hear our precepts of faith in unfamiliar language/ By repeating the same phraseology we end up speak "Adventese", not paying any attention to the meaning of the words we use.
My personal experience has been to read the Bible in various version (even modern versions and paraphrases!) and have found meanings I never noticed when I stuck to the same "family" Bible. The freshness of the words just might evoke some actual thought in the process of our reading.
Posted by: Sirje | 11 July 2007 at 07:58
Fools rush in... did "the Pope" say that?
Another wise man said: Angels rush out where fools stay in. Something like that.
Posted by: Henk | 11 July 2007 at 08:02
Good catch, Bill. I should have been more precise. Yes, Adventist leaders were very active abolitionists including, as Roy Branson has noted, defying US law, the Fugitive Slave Act.
I was thinking of the larger Protestant dilemma with scriptural justifications for slavery. As Mark Noll points out in his book, America's God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln, the theology of Protestantism was mixed by two big ideas: revolutionary republicanism and Scottish common-sense philosophy.
My point is that no one reads the Bible sans the times.
Let's be honest here, there's a lot more in the scripture supporting slavery than banning women in ministry or the full fellowship of practicing homosexuals or banning genocide. My point is not to debate this issues here, but to think carefully about how we employ scripture consistently. And to raise the issue of intentionality in awareness of our subjectivity and application.
We face some serious moral issues: poverty, sexual disorder, global warming, national violence (war and torture), the magisteria of the scientific method, immigration.
I'm proud of the moral clarity of my grandparent's generation. When push came to shove, it was clear: Christians had to fight to stop the horror of corporate-state fascism and produce to stop corporate-state socialism. But since the sixties we've made some series moral mistakes and Christians have often been manipulated into substituting private for public morality by preferring a private salvation by scripture over a public theology of the Word against a culture in which humans needlessly cause suffering to other humans.
Posted by: Alexander | 11 July 2007 at 09:24
On a practical level, and as a pastor of 13+ years, I am concerned that increased "Bible study" often (not always, but often) correlates to spiritual immaturity, or at least, stagnancy. Take the average adult Sabbath School class in US American Adventist Church. They are full of "saints" who have been studying the Bible (via the adult quarterly) for decades. Yet my experience (and maybe I've just had all the wrong churches) is that these folks are often the most petty, the most judgmental and the most limited in their application of the basic practices and habits of the Way of Christ. So here's the operative question, and a axiom I live by.
Question: What has all this "Bible Study" gotten us?
Axiom: The system you have is perfectly designed to give you the results you're getting.
So, if that axiom holds water, WE (clergy, lay leaders, conf admin.) have created this mess. Whatever it is we're doing is not resulting in spiritual maturity among the majority of our members. Perhaps not only the methods of our Bible Study and the way our SS Quarterly deals with scripture most of the time (sorry!), but rather the very way we hold the Bible in our communities of faith, is faulty.
I'm not against creeds, as some on this blog are. I think creeds simply represent the way the faith has been interpreted through the years. "I believe in the communion of the saints," and it is in the company of those saints that we read the scripture. With Zwemer, I feel that to claim that our creeds/fundamentals are infallible is the problem - and a far worse problem than holding the Bible as infallible, though I agree that is not the right language to use for the Bible either.
We have to find a different imagination about how the Bible lives in our midst, how the community of faith gathers around the scripture and dwells with scripture as a living, breathing, and (yes Johnny) divine, Spirit-breathed entity in the church. I think Chuck is leading us in that direction.
Posted by: Ryan Bell | 11 July 2007 at 09:30
What we do is not Bible Study by any definition of the words. We engage in biblically based indoctrination, pure and simple. Our studies are premised on the idea that we have it all boxed and packaged and only increase our arrogance.
Posted by: Darius (statrei) | 11 July 2007 at 09:36
The first thing we need to do is remove the word "Holy" from the Bible. The Bible is a book like any other human book. It reflects the human condition. It is not the selective domain of only a small group of humans. It applies to all men. Consequently, it must be interpreted according to non-sectarian standards. We need to understand that "The Christian Scriptures" can only have significance for Christians.
Posted by: Darius (statrei) | 11 July 2007 at 09:38
Let me ask: the parts of the Bible that Chuck thinks are falliable wouldn't happen to be the parts that he just happens to disagree with, would they?
Of course not.
Posted by: Clifford Goldstein | 11 July 2007 at 10:08
You have to want to love the Bible, which I'm thankful to God that I do after years of ignoring it for most of the time, in order to want to deal with its so called "imperfections". I love my family, in spite of their imperfections. If I didn't I wouldn't put up with them as I do.
How many of those who dissect the Bible until it's cut up into little useless pieces, really love this priceless, and transcendent book?
I think of the Bible as almost a living thing. When it talks to me, I listen. When I hold it fondly in my hands, I cherish the moments I spend with it.
Posted by: Raul Batista | 11 July 2007 at 10:55
I also thought "Blogging the 28" was meant to provide an opportunity for us to apply them.
Nevertheless, I like Henk's simpler premise for the following reasons:
1. The authority of the Bible and why we consider it trustworthy or unfailing (infallible?) are explained by the word "primary".
2. The relationship between church and canon is suggested by "source/witness".
3. The salvation events prior to and after Christ ("God's redemptives acts") establishes continuity between the people of God of both Old and New Testaments.
Posted by: Joselito Coo | 11 July 2007 at 10:58
Cliff,
Let me ask also. Nobody can have misgivings with the following infallible commands, solutions or considerations, can he?
Hosea 1:2
Judges 19:25-29
Ezechiel 9:4-7
Leviticus 20:13
1 Sam 15:3
Deuteronomy 20:16,17
Psalms 137:9
Luke 19:27
Cliff, I always wanted to ask an educated person what in fact the difference is between God commanding the Hebrews to exterminate those living in the larger territory of Canaan and the Germans exterminating the Jews during WW2. If we can piously swallow the one story, why do we have such shame for what happened during WW2. Who says the Germans were not authoritatively and infallibly "inspired" by God -- just because one cannot find the story of WW2 in the Bible? If there is someone who could give me a clear answer, it must be you.
Let me say this: it's not a question in order to hurt "under the belt"; let's take off the pious gloves and confront some real questions about infallibility.
Posted by: Henk | 11 July 2007 at 11:01
Darius, Haven't most Christians made the Bible an idol? It is the first and last answer for everything encountered by man, and yet no one, not even you, Cliff, would advocate the killing which the Hebrews recorded was ordained by God in their early stories. If you don't have a problem with that, surely you shouldn't have a problem with the Holocaust, because the Bible stories were ordered by God? At the same time he was condemning murder and lying and other sins?
When will we begin to evaluate the Bible as any ancient book that opens the door to how people lived, thought, fought and died rather than "God's Word"? Please, why should it be called God's word when only men wrote as they perceived God, and in many different ways: Cruel, loving, barbaric, and all the emotions that humans have, and man attributed their human emotions to God: who they'd never seen, touched, talked with, etc.
Posted by: Elaine | 11 July 2007 at 12:17
Henk--Let's take your parallel a bit further. Why not strike dead anyone who blasphemes; after all, isn't that what God did to Korah, Dathan and Abiram? If you can't see the difference, then I certainly won't be able to persuade you otherwise.
On another note. I was amused by the rewrite of the fundamental, especially the phrase that the Bible is "the church’s highest written authority." Highest WRITTEN authority. Hmmmm . . . I guess one could safely conclude from that position that there is (are) non-written authority(ies) that supercede the Bible . . . ?
Anyone want to venture a guess as to who (notice "who" as opposed to "what") that authority (ies) would be?
Posted by: Clifford Goldstein | 11 July 2007 at 12:34
Cliff,
God himself?
Posted by: Zane | 11 July 2007 at 12:47
Fine, Zane, but how? Through the La Sierra theology department?
Posted by: Clifford Goldstein | 11 July 2007 at 12:52
Our starting point has been what Scripture says of itself, that it is not any human book--these are some of the texts cited at the end of this section of the 28FB: "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:21). "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Tim 3:16). "ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe" (1 Thess 2:13). The Christian (and Jewish) starting point is that God reveals himself--that what we know about God is his self-disclosure, limited though it may be by our own language and our capacity to understand.
If the Bible is as unreliable as some here suggest, a mere human book, what would you put in its place? Is your personal perspective somehow more in tune with the infinite? Do you have a clearer vision than did Jesus and those who walked with him? What then becomes of the next 27 statements? What basis might we have for any of them?
Alex, getting back to your point:
"My point is that no one reads the Bible sans the times."
Of course. Would any of us today be likely to find the Ottoman Empire in Revelation? Problem is, in our day, people more often read it in light of today's subjectivism--"It's just one book among many, reflecting only human projections, perhaps having meaning for tribes in the desert but with no binding authority on anyone."
"My point is not to debate this issues here, but to think carefully about how we employ scripture consistently. And to raise the issue of intentionality in awareness of our subjectivity and application."
Good points.
"We face some serious moral issues: poverty, sexual disorder, global warming, national violence (war and torture), the magisteria of the scientific method, immigration."
And the Scripture has a lot to say about many of these things--consider the witness of Deuteronomy and the prophets regarding the stranger, the alien, the widow, the orphan, the poor. But we're not going to be able to go to Scripture in the hopes of finding guidance if, as some folks here want to do, the whole thing is thrown out the window.
"I'm proud of the moral clarity of my grandparent's generation. When push came to shove, it was clear: Christians had to fight to stop the horror of corporate-state fascism and produce to stop corporate-state socialism. But since the sixties we've made some series moral mistakes and Christians have often been manipulated into substituting private for public morality by preferring a private salvation by scripture over a public theology of the Word against a culture in which humans needlessly cause suffering to other humans."
Then let's do what Paul did, and preach the living word to all. Let's do as John, and see the beasts as they are. Let's do as our Adventist forebears, and dare to disobey illegal laws, dare to testify to Congress of violations of liberty, dare to hold up another way of life.
But to do so we need a foundation to stand on. What will be that be? Adventism has been against creeds, to be sure, advocating that we have no creed but the Bible. This first statement of the 28FB stands as the premise behind everything else. It is the "given."
The question now is, so what? What does that mean for today's issues? What is the Word of God that needs to be proclaimed now as "present truth"?
Posted by: Bill Cork | 11 July 2007 at 12:56
Cliff,
Sorry if my last answer was a bit tongue and cheek. =) I think your question hits the heart of the issue...Most Christians agree that Scriptures are primary/central/authoritative/foundational/etc. but as interpreted by who?
Alex makes a good point that our interpretation of Scripture is always conditioned by our time in history and culture.
The question is a hermenuetcal one. Can there be any one "normative" interpretation? Decided by whom?
Catholics have the pope. Adventists have Ellen White and the 28 Fundamental Beliefs.
Some might claim appeal to the "sola Scriptura" principle, but that does not avoid the problem because there are so many of us claiming that and finding different interpretations. (This thread being a prime example.)
Posted by: Zane | 11 July 2007 at 13:02
Cliff,
I know you're a debater, but so am I.
Stick to my question please with something that looks like an answer and not a rewrite of the same question.
I pretend you and I are in search for an answer. I mean, what is the intrinsic value of the concept of inspiration if it shifts all the time even (I think) in your understanding. Why don't you kill your disobedient son, if you have one. What is the use of a concept of inspiration and and especially a concept of infallibiltiy (and its subsequent morality) if it is only applicable in a specific period of time and is or will be superseded by another concept and/or morality, for the better or for worse. Or, more to the point, did God really order these things or are they human conventions attributed to God. Any other suggestion is welcome too. Don't 'overestimate' me... I can be convinced. So, teach me, with simple examples and a lot of patience.
(Well, actually, it was not my question. I hear this question about the Germans often from the ones I give Bible studies, just to tease me. You've been living in the Netherlands and you probably know how blatant Dutch people can be. But such questions take you from a comfortable sofa to the real problems on the concept of inspiration people walk with. They have difficulty with the two faces of God, and hasn't that problem always been around in the church.)
Posted by: Henk | 11 July 2007 at 13:23
I think that Zane is correct in observing that Scripture is interpreted either by an external normative entity (Roman Catholics by their magisterium, not the pope, and Adventists by EGW) and the Reformed Churches by an internal normative procedure (Scripture interprets itself). In any case, it is the interpreter who uses a certain method and convinces himself. In other words, the interpreter is the final authority, for himself and probably also for others. To say that Scripture is the final authority does not help much.
Posted by: Henk | 11 July 2007 at 13:44
Scriven: If you embraced the current statement on Scripture, you could be excused for supposing that genocide may be acceptable to God...
With all due respect, sir, I must warn you and all who are similarly inclined. Take heed. It is unwise to focus your attention on the Bible condoning genocide. The more you couple those light & dark forces, the more you start to believe it. It does harm not only to you, but to those who read your words. It is better to focus on all the good and positive concepts of the Bible, and not become obsessed with what you perceive to be irregularities. The irregularities may very well exist only in your mind and in the minds of those you infect by your oxymoronic pairings.
Posted by: Raul Batista | 11 July 2007 at 14:06
Just a clarification on Zane's blog of 11 July 5:52. The 28 fundamental beliefs cannot play the same role as a creed. A creed (credo) is in fact a confession, concentrating on what a believer sees as the central points of his faith. A creed cannot be mixed with behavioral issues as we exactly do in our fundamental beliefs. The two are totally different concepts. That's not to say that certain Adventist use the fundamental beliefs as other Christians use a creed; they elevate behavioral issues to the level of saving acts.
Posted by: Henk | 11 July 2007 at 14:45
Raul, if such "irregularities" may well exist only in someone's mind, that is all we've got. Or, did you have another sixth or seventh sense with which we can perceive Scripture?
If these "irregularities were only a rare occurrence we would not be perturbed by all the anti-Christian books being sold. Christians, too, have these questions, and to shunt them to one side and pretend they do not exist is to handle them the way the Church has done so throughout its history: "Don't bother yourself with such questions. God will reveal them to you at the end, simply trust him."
It's not easy to trust someone who has been portrayed by even his best followers as they did, never mind his enemies.
Posted by: Elaine | 11 July 2007 at 15:14
Henk
Great post. The use of the fundamental beliefs to the level of saving acts has driven many away from the church. Tom
Posted by: Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer | 11 July 2007 at 15:47
I'm curious about how to interpret the words "wholly inspired" in the revised statement. "Wholly inspired" could easily be construed as "inspired in every aspect," and depending on how finely you cut things, that could mean infallibility. Or is the "wholly" supposed mean something like "holistically"? In which case it seems like a pretty weak statement since it is always possible to abstract to "higher" levels and say that that level, and not necessarily any of the "lower" ones, is the inspired one. Does the "wholly" add anything important? It looks like it is supposed to modify "inspiration" (and "useful") in a way that makes it more precise, but I don't see it. (It does sound good, though.)
Posted by: Tim | 11 July 2007 at 16:20
Aren't most people in our denomination paralyzed in their views on Biblical inspiration? There is great fear of doing away with the significance of a 7th day Sabbath---thus many refuse to grow and become intellectual vigorous and honest with regard to inspiration.
Posted by: Carmen | 11 July 2007 at 16:44
Henk--no sweat (as I told Tom, my mind's on the Dutch now because I'm reading a biography of de Kooning).
Look there's a world of difference between admitting that there are difficulties with some texts and questioning the inspiration of the texts themselves. There are things that bother me; texts that make me uncomfortable, texts that cut against my grain. So what do I do, decide that because they are out of tune with the Zeitgeist, I'm going to relegate them to some sort of lower level of inspiration? Please! Have you folks seen where this kind of thinking has led to? What Chuck is coming up with is nothing new. Taking similar premises to their logical conclusions, folks have decided that, well, we don't really have to take the creation story seriously at all, the flood was just a local myth (probably never happened), Abraham was merely an eponomyn, the Exdous? (well, perhaps yes, perhaps no) and Jesus risen from the dead? Please, get real. And raising Lazarus? And all this talk about his pre-existence? Not inspired! And surely Jesus really couldn't have talked about Jonah the way he did (Jesus really believed that a guy lived in a big fish? Please!). And a literal Second Coming? You can't be serious, can you? After all, according to the Bible, people will get hurt when that happens, and so that can't be right, can it?
I mean, why not? Just pick and choose the parts that make sense to you, and diss the rest as falliable or a lower inspiration.
For me, living by faith is believing in all the Bible, even the parts that bother me. I simply go on the assumption that, as stated above, we see through a glass darkly, and that one day, maybe in heaven (oh, yes, really intelligent people can't believe that, can they: it's just a symbol of, well . . , let's see, since the current ethos is community, let's have heaven be a symbol of fully harmonious community, yeah, I kind of like that!) I will have the things answered that, right now, baffle and befuddle me. But to start picking and choosing which parts of the Bible are fallible and which parts aren't . . . ?
No one is denying that the texts have to be interpreted, and no one is denying that (to quote one of my heros, Thomas Kuhn) "facts are theory-laden" or that the mere idea of an interpretation implies sujective presuppositions, but that's radically different than some sort of a priori notion that the Bible is fallible and that there are parts that are wrong. I've done a lot dumb things in my life, and if the past is precursor the to future, I'm going to do plenty more, but I'm not going anywhere near that road because it's led a lot smarter folks than I am down a path that I don't want to go on.
Cheers
Posted by: cliff goldstein | 11 July 2007 at 16:55
Our problem comes from adopting a useless meaning for inspiration that allows us to have various levels of inspiration rather than various sources of inspiration. All the knowledge that man has is the result of inspiration. Without inspiration humans could observe nature all they want they would never look into the mysteries of the world around them. We miss essential point because we have not taken seriously David's claim that "the heavens (including everything on earth) declare the glories of God," and Paul's assertion in Romans 1:20 that the hidden things of the Creator are revealed in the things that He made. We "hate" those texts because the emphatically show that the scientists who study the world around us have contributed more towards a revelation of the most vital properties of the Creator than have all our theologians and professional Christians. In order to elevate these latter to a position they do not deserve we have developed our own meaning of inspiration and applied it solely to the Christian scriptures. In doing so we have defied the Creator of the universe.
Posted by: Darius (statrei) | 11 July 2007 at 17:30
Cliff/Henk
There are two Dutchmen that are my heros: my dad, and Erasmus. I don't have any problem with the Bible--just those who insist on their reading. For example, the commentary on this week's SS lesson devotes 2/3 to circumcision about two paragraphs more that the Apostle Paul. Cliff, would you have predicted that twist on Abraham and Sarah? Tom
Posted by: Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer | 11 July 2007 at 17:49
Someone remind me when it was that the Bible, with its 66 books, in tact, came floating down from heaven on the wings of angels?
Some flesh and blood men, probably dressed in robes and sandals, who also "knew" that the earth was flat, wrote the Bible and others, just like them, decided that these are the words of God.
It seems to me, the proof is in the "tasting" and taste is very personal. Maybe, like a poem or a song where individual renditions give it meaning. God's word, sounds different in different ears. Maybe the original meaning and intent is not what gets conveyed, and the true test of whether or not these are the words of God, is how they play in the individual reader's mind. Maybe sharing is what is called for, rather than arguing over interpretations as men,now in suits and ties, hammer out dogma.
Posted by: Sirje | 11 July 2007 at 17:53
Wow:
Out 1++ weeks (my daughter got married 7/7/07! so have been rather distracted and preoccupied you understand) and I return to THIS thread! And everyone seems to know Scriven as "Chuck"!
First, fabulous essay "Chuck" (forgive if I presume too much) and I don't find it irreverent at all.
But, after 44 posts, I'm rather shocked you all have missed such an obvious point. For after all, we SDA's have our very own prophet and inspired person! And by now we are all far too aware of just how human she really was and how "wrong" she could actually be.
Why might God have let this happen to us? Well, maybe He wanted to show us what real "inspiration" really means -- in real life terms. I mean; just imagine that the bible writers had all the flaws and failings and imperfections that our own dear EGW had. And YET we are blessed by their inspiration. We have, it should seem obvious, been quite bad at learning what inspiration of scripture actually means -- given that we have the gift of EGW.
Far too few seem to grasp the limitations their own perceptions inflict upon God Himself. To hear some elevate "scriptural inspiration" the way they do means they have also (necessarily) elevated their own personal understanding of that scripture to the very same high level!
And this thread makes it abundantly clear to me: God reaches to us all. We see things as WE are, not as THEY are. (Provonsha; taken/quoted from others too)
How about this: When you read the scripture, do you feel His embrace and warmth and acceptance? If so, then you have seen the Father. And when thus embraced by our Father, what do we feel moved and inspired to live like?
Posted by: Bob Rigsby | 11 July 2007 at 18:31
Bob, congratulations, Father of the Bride--a survivor!
When you ask "Why might God have let this happen to us" would indicate that everything, good and bad was directed by God and for a reason. Do you truly believe that EVERYTHING that happens was designed by God just as it occurred? Where is man's free will in all this? Hasn't man made choices all along? We make our religious and all other life choices, don't we? Or, have we become automatons?
Posted by: Elaine | 11 July 2007 at 19:53
Bob, kudos to you and your family!
I think that you're really onto something here in bringing Ellen White into the mix. No one who really understands inspiration can dismiss her as not used by God, on the other hand no one can say that she didn't use other human's words and call them God's and intimate that she had a special gift in transmitting them.
But if Cliff or anyone else taking a fundamentalist position would spend some time reading, say Richard Elliot Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible?, or Israel Finklestein's David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible's Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition, they would realize that they don't have to fear losing the required faith that the Bible inspires. Instead we might save ourselves some commenting time. Anyone who is serious about scripture had better deal with the issues of redaction and the oral tradition, the competition of the Shilohite and Aaronid priesthood, and what happened when Cyrus II sent the Jews back. Don't worry you're not going to lose your faith. . .in fact, it gets really fun to see how the texture of scripture was woven together which helps us develop a hermeneutic not on excluding some parts of the Bible, but in understanding how the constituent parts actually ended up in the canon and how God can inspire us through that word today.
Posted by: Alexander | 11 July 2007 at 22:22
This issue is wholly worthy of intense debate. Prior to my conversion, Christians used to quote the Bible to "prove" a concept. This approach meant nothing to me. They could have quoted Walt Disney with similar effect. What brought me around, eventually, was prophecies that spanned centuries (something more than human devising was here) and falling in love with Jesus, the Son of Man.
Today what keeps me interested in the Bible and in inspiration--two separate issues, incidentally--is applicability. That's where I especially appreciate Chuck's updated language. He places flesh on inspiration and instructs us how to walk and work with God. Excellent additions.
To me it's not about "lesser" or "greater" inspiration; it's a matter of context and applicability. If Jesus can say, "You have heard, but I say to you . . ." with respect to the Bible of His day, obviously context and growth and applicability do matter. He didn't say the previous injunctions were less inspired: He said they have been superceded: "Something greater than the Temple is here." And, "Wisdom is justified by her deeds."
As my career profession is communication, I want to lay some communication theory on thick right now, but perhaps this will suffice: The word is not the thing. "Table" is not actually a table. It's a collection of symbols that English-speakers agree will represent a "table."
As Alex implies, if Ellen White knew anything experientially, perhaps she understood the process of inspiration. At the beginning of Selected Messages she writes, "The Bible must be given in the language of men. Everything that is human is imperfect. Different meanings are expressed by the same word; there is not one word for each distinct idea. The Bible was given for practical purposes. . .
"The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God's mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God as a writer is not represented. . .
"It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man's words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts."
Now, I personally don't care if anyone reading those words thinks Ellen was or wasn't inspired. The point is, she's got it down here. Does anyone find fault with her thoughts on this?
I tell my students they can be just as inspired as Paul or Dr. Luke or Isaiah. They cannot, however, be a part of the scriptural canon, which serves a different purpose--and which is a huge aspect Elaine and Alex have touched upon. In any case, we all can be inspired by God, and, by God, we can write about it, but I believe God superintended certain writings to compose what we call our Bible. I even have rational reasons for this belief.
In the end, the inspiration that matters most is revealed in a story. A fresh Christian convert was being challenged as whether the miracles of the Bible were actually true, beginning with Jesus' first recorded miracle. The questioner pressed his point home.
"How do you know the water was turned to wine?" he asked. "Were you there? Did you taste it?"
"The new convert paused to reflect. "No, I wasn't there for that miracle," he admitted. "But I was there when he turned my beer into furniture."
Posted by: Chris Blake | 11 July 2007 at 22:41
Well then, Cliff, you did write a post that shows a bit more what's on your mind, and I read a lot of 'fear' here. (Speaking about reading, I see you regularly on tv, with books all over the place. You're not only reading books, you abuse them. I'll never trust one of my books into your hands.)
Isn't the problem of 'inspiration' one that, in the end, emerges from the fact that we do not really know what happened inside the mind of the writer? Moreover, I think that we as Adventists confound the problem by taking the manifestations seen with EGW and let these function as a pre-conception--let them determine what we understand by inspiration. Isn't it true that we look at inspiration through the eyes of EGW? Am I, when I deliver a sermon, inspired or inspiring, and what does that mean to me and to the others who listen to me? Is my inspiration on the level of canonical writings like the Bible? Or, should we eventually come to see biblical inspiration as nothing more than what we experience when we say that we are inspired?
The second problem occurs when we bring together a not-all-too-clear concept of what inspiration is, and something that we see as faultless, without any shortcomings or flaws. 'Infallibility' is, as I understand it, rather a Greek philosophical concept than a Hebrew relational one, but we put the two concepts of inspiration and infallibility together without any reservations.
If I understand you correctly you place problems that emerge from your concepts of inspiration and infallibility in a kind of queu--to be solved at a later date, or never. You would sooner do this sort of thing than adjust your concepts. I sense a fear of loss of coherence in your post, and that's something I see a lot in my church.
Creation for example. The story of Genesis 1 might be seen as inspired, but is it scientifically true--a corollary flowing from the (Greek) concept of infallibility. The Adventist Theological Society would even have me believe that creation happened less than 10.000 years ago. Is not the real problem here loss of relevance when we feel we are drowning in scientific concepts of time? Creation and the Second Return of Christ must fit in a short chronology, otherwise our relevance as a lost human race in need of redemption is brought to naught. Anyway, one thing is for sure, we use pre-conceptions and think these are biblically valid. But in fact, that's the question: are they?
And now my point, Cliff. You and I feel compelled to a growing understanding of what the Bible tells us to see and do. Slavery was abolished, not because the Bible in its expression of laws and conventions told us to do so, but because we took an ethically valid point of reference: God regards all people as equal in judgment, and if He does so, we should regard ourselves as equal here, prior to judgment time. (The Durch were rather persistent in clinging to slavery; we were the last to abolish it precisely because we at the time thought that the biblical order of society was inspired and infallible. It would be a sin to change God's order). And the same rule applies to Jews. Why was it that mainstream Adventists were unable before and during WW2 to change their view on Jews as murderers of Christ and that there was no need to save them from the gas-chambers? To put it more directly, Cliff, as we Dutch do so often without shame, if your life would have been in the hands of mainstream Adventists you and your family would be dead if it were for the view of infallibility that you cling to, and your kin owe their lives to the ones who were bold enough to adjust their vision and presuppositions instead of putting them into the queu of riddles to be solved at a later date.
And so it is with homosexuality. It is ethics all over that keeps us at the edge of our seats when allowing ourselves to ask the question whether God's will was expressed correctly in the Bible or that bigotry was in the way. If the last option, it surely will have you adjust your concepts of inspiration and infallibility.
Posted by: Henk | 12 July 2007 at 01:07