Dr. David Wilbur: Power and Illusion: Religion and Human Need. Part 1
by Ervin Taylor
The next 16 blogs on this thread will summarize ideas and perspectives presented in a 2010 book entitled Power and Illusion: Religion and Human Need written by David W. Wilbur. Dr. Wilbur received his PhD from UC Berkeley in biophysics, and MD from the Loma Linda University School of Medicine. His distinguished medical career at LLU focused on clinical oncology. He grew up in the Seventh-day Adventist Church and has, for more than 20 years, been a regular participant in a Sabbath morning discussion group at the Loma Linda University Church of Seventh-day Adventists. Dr. Wilbur states that his book is an attempt to “understand religion as a powerful ideological tool; dependent on a supernatural mask, serving many human needs thus creating its good, its evil and it central importance. “
This book was recently reviewed by the distinguished American historian, Ronald Numbers. Dr. Numbers noted that some of those most insightful students of religion have come from religious fundamentalist backgrounds. He notes the career of Martin Gardner, who spent his youth in the SDA Church, and most readers will know that Numbers himself comes from that same religious tradition. With this book, Dr. Wilbur has now joined the ranks of this illustrious group.
At the beginning of his introduction, a comment of William Butler Yeats is quoted: “Man can embody truth, but he cannot know it.” Wilbur states that his book is “written for those believing or otherwise who, looking at ubiquitous religion, find discontinuities in claims and functions and wish to explore further how it shapes our world . . . [it is an effort] to describe how religion actually works in practice, both its intended and its unintended or unacknowledged effects. I attempt to outline the sources of its power and widespread acclaim and to describe its impact in important areas as diverse as ethics, culture, politics, science and human health.”
Part 2 of this blog will consider the first chapter of this book. Subsequent blogs will continue considering the materials discussed in the book’s 16 chapters. Those not interested in evaluating truth claims of various religious systems, including that of the Adventist version, and willing to undertake “a fair and honest assessment of religions’ many roles” may wish for the next 16 weeks to read some other blog.
Looking forward to your blogs. I rarely buy books, but just ordered a copy. It sounds like a "must read". Hopefully it will be here when I get back from NZ, and I can follow your analysis.
Is it possible for anyone to write a "seminal" book on religion? Taking a new direction that has not been walked and driven before?
Some anonymous person once wrote:
"Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned."
If in this book the author tries to provide reasons yet unexplored, it will be a seminal book. The title is intriguing and offers clues: Power and Illusion, which is what religion offers and how it captivates the majority.
Ok I have just ordered the book so I can offer 16 weeks worth of annoying comments.
The reviews on Amazon comment that the book lumps all religions together – but in a good way. I am looking forward to some discussions about religion more generally, and getting away from the usual doctrinal battlegrounds, which most people have been on that ride enough times.
That said, when I did an undergrad degree in Anthropology, including a unit specifically on religion, which examined religion on a whole, I found it very faith-destroying. But that was a secular State university and the lecturer was quite a militant athiest. However, the reviews on Amazon also say the book is pretty balanced, and makes the point that even so-called secular ideologies are often faith-based. I have been making that point to a Jewish-athiest friend of mine for years – and perhaps somene should tell Richard Dawkins.
I do get quite sick of so-called secular and enlightened people thinking they have evolved beyond religion – not realizing they are as just as much captured to religious systems and cultural conformity as the rest of us. Although, I am perhaps a little skeptical that it will be as good as say Karen Armstrong's book the History of God.
How can the study of anthropology destroy one's faith? If it is built on what they believed was evidence, then that would be a reason. But one's faith should never be built on objective reason, but on subjective belief–one's belief is too fragile if
it can be threatened by objective evidence.
Anthropological studies is faith destroying? Stephen, you give to much power to the topic. Whether you hold onto or abandon your faith is all within your purview. Did science destroy my faith? No it did not. Science caused me to question a lot of indoctrinated beliefs. All religions rely on indoctrination of the youth. When one becomes educated and learns to ask questions they come to realize that their religion most likely does not provide answers.
What I did learn from anthropology is that the beginnings of religion in part began with the evolution of written language and from burying the dead.
Like David Wilbur I was also raised conservative SDA. After 55 yrs of experience, education and a scientist and professor in my own right I have let go of much of what I was taught to believe. What is wrong with that?
I wonder if Dr. Wilbur suggests in his book that this supernatural mask is largely constructed by the writings that religions consider authoritative? e.g. The Bible for Christians, book of Mormon for LDS.
This should be an interesting blog. I hope we touch on a discussion of reasons why some enter the priesthood. I suspect it comes not from a desire to "serve God" but a great desire to serve oneself. From the movie"The Master" L. Ron Hubbard seemed to derive great pleasure from the fact that he could formulate a religion based on his tome "Dianetics" and actually get large numbers of people to "believe" and follow the teachings of the religion. Joseph Smith and EG White are similar historical figures in that they were also able to formulate religions with millions of followers including people who claim they are willing to "die" for their faith. It always amazes me that people are willing to give up their time to listen and PAY priests, pastors and theologians to speak. Oh well everyone needs a profession.
“Anthropological studies is faith destroying?”
“How can the study of anthropology destroy one's faith?”
Quite easily actually – especially for a young and impressionable person. I find it a little incredulous that Elaine and Doctorf would question how the study of anthropology could destroy someone’s faith – isn’t it obvious?
It was about 15 years ago. I was a young Adventist who grew up in quite a conservative SDA environment. I was attending a State university, in Australia, which you may or may not know is quite secular compared with the United States.
The lecturer was quite a militant atheist as I said, and much of the teaching was on how belief in God or gods was not real but rather a social construct. I can’t quite remember all the in’s and out’s of what was taught, but I recall various theories re religion, such Durkheim’s notion that God is just a social construct to represent ourselves – so when we worship god or a totem it is just society as a collective we are acknowledging and not a higher being. We learnt about cultural materialism, and how for example Hindus possibly worshipped cows because it was perhaps a historical adaptive strategy where more protein was available to more people by ensuring only milk was ever consumed and not meat. We learnt about priests vs shamans, about mana, about cargo cults etc etc. Again, it is a bit of a blur but it was very confronting at the time.
What concerns me most though, looking back, is that it was all very much about reducing God to a mechanical device. Ideas were not presented in a Karen Armstrong kind of way, who is challenging but also uplifting, but rather in a very secularist militant atheistic manner. The strong impression was that if one admitted to believing in God, or being part of a community of faith in particular, that was strongly discouraged or ridiculed by the culture of the classes etc. Everyone has a culture and group-think, even so-called enlightened anthropologists.
I am not criticizing the study of anthropology if that is the impression. I have an undergrad BA degree in anthropology myself, and was enrolled to do honours but instead ended up going to Law School instead. However, to answer the question, it is pretty obvious how studying anthropology could end up destroying one’s faith – and it nearly did in my case.
You should have gone on – you may have discovered that anthropologists question much of what you found disturbing. It was not long after you were studying anthropology at UWA that I began studying anthropology by distance ed through Curtin university. Only a few miles away, yet very different in the character of the study. That is not unusual with universities. Then I studied at Monash, and most of the anthropology department are either believers in some faith, or have a vague faith that believes there is something more to life than just what we see. Religion is one of the specialisations of many of the staff, so I guess that makes a difference.
Studying anthropology has challenged my faith, but I have found the biggest challenge comes from looking closely into Adventism – reading the documents and observing the church and asking questions that most SDA history books don't ask. People have also lost their faith studying theology. I think it depends very much on both the faith you bring, and the atmosphere and environment where you study. We need to do better at preparing people for study in both secular universities and our own schools. A realistic view of the world and of our church is a good place to start.
Well Stephen then we should stop teaching geoscience to young people because it may destroy their faith in the literal interpretation of the genesis story. Your proposal is nonsense. The aquisition of faith or loss of faith is process that does not suddenly occur. I had a "faith" that what I was taught about the genesis story was "true." I now know differently and my faith in the literal genesis story is now a thing of the past. There is nothing wrong with education pointing out the naivete of my former faith.
Every six-yr. old entering school will discover many ideas that are contrary to his earlier beliefs. This will continue as long as she lives, as long as there is an open mind to listen to new ideas.
For those who dare not entertain new thoughts, look no further than the uneducated indigenuous populations in places like Afghanistan where illiteracy is represented in more than half the natives. They fear new ideas, and fight when they hear something never heard before if in any way it challenges their former beliefs. They are very protective of their religious beliefs and will kill if something as innocent as a cartoon is seen as blasphemy against their faith.
Elaine no one is denying that.
Your question wasn’t just whether it was a good or bad thing that the study of anthropology could be faith destroying – you (and Doctrof) seemed to deny the very possibility that the study of anthropology could be faith destroying.
Likewise, the study of biology in Richard Dawkins classroom would probably be faith destroying. That is not a moral judgment as to whether the destruction of faith is a good or bad thing. Many like Richard would probably argue the destruction of faith is a good thing – but it is a statement of what is factually likely to occur – and something I am saw Richard would be open in admitting.
You and Doctrof seem to be questioning the factual accuracy of my comment that the study of anthropology can be faith destroying. I didn’t say the study of anthropology in all cases will necessarily be faith destroying. I am sure studying it say under Ervin at an Adventist university is very different from studying it under a militant atheist at the University of Western Australia.
What I said is the study of anthropology in my own case was faith destroying? Are you suggesting that I am mistaken in my own personal experience?
The comment of Stephen concerning a “faith-destroying” experience raises interesting issues. It was stated that it was an undergraduate major in anthropology, and specifically a course on Comparative Religion, that was responsible. Since my graduate degree is in anthropology (UCLA) I would like to offer another perspective on the reality or lack thereof of “faith-destroying” experiences. Obviously, to unpack this adequately would take an extended discourse which can’t be done here. I’d like to offer a simple observation.
It seems to me that what would constitute a “faith-destroying” experience for one person would have absolutely no influence on someone else. Because we are all so different in our personalities, temperaments and backgrounds, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to generalize about what would or would not cause some major change in a given individual’s religious orientation.
No one can know the specifics of the context of what might trigger a crisis of confidence in some understanding about the nature of existential reality (i.e. God) by an individual. However, I would be very puzzled to be informed that it was being told about some factual matter about how different societies regard certain ideas about the divine and that these beliefs are very different from those which were taught in someone’s childhood.
On the other hand, I could conceive of a situation where someone who had grown up in a closed religious environment where no ideas other than those of his/her religious heritage had been advanced as the ultimate Truth and then suddenly discovered that his religious heritage had no standing outside his little circle, might be rendered in a state of shock. Under such circumstances, that kind of “faith” had been built on sand and at the first sign of wind, it might be blown away. But how typical is that at present?
Obviously, there is so much than can be said about this topic.
As to learning new things and being challenged in one’s belief, that is very much true. But not everything newly learnt is necessarily true – whether it comes from a 6-grade teacher or a university professor. So-called ‘enlightened’ people can be just as arrogant and fundamentalist in their beliefs. They have a caricature of god just as stupid as the religious nuts who rage against caricatures of their prophet.
See an excellent article from Marxist Agnostic Terry Eagleton slamming the arrogance and stupidity of Richard Dawkins:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching
For example, the opening paragraph states:
“Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology. Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins, who is the nearest thing to a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand Russell, are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don’t believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding. This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince. The more they detest religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it tend to be. If they were asked to pass judgment on phenomenology or the geopolitics of South Asia, they would no doubt bone up on the question as assiduously as they could. When it comes to theology, however, any shoddy old travesty will pass muster. These days, theology is the queen of the sciences in a rather less august sense of the word than in its medieval heyday.”
Just because you are an Oxford Don, like Richard Dawkins, doesn’t mean you are superior, or even right, on a topic. People who profess scepticism of belief should perhaps try to be a little less smug, or dare I say fundamentalist, about their so-called enlightenment.
Terry Eagleton is a self-professed agnostic. Yet, he is respectful of faith traditions, seeing beyond the snobbish self-congratulations of a self-professed intellectual group comprised of late-sipping middle-class rationalists.
As to learning new things and being challenged in one’s belief, that is very much true. But not everything newly learnt is necessarily true – whether it comes from a 6-grade teacher or a university professor. So-called ‘enlightened’ people can be just as arrogant and fundamentalist in their beliefs. They have a caricature of god just as stupid as the religious nuts who rage against caricatures of their prophet.
See an excellent article from Marxist Agnostic Terry Eagleton slamming the arrogance and stupidity of Richard Dawkins:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching
For example, the opening paragraph states:
“Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology. Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins, who is the nearest thing to a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand Russell, are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don’t believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding. This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince. The more they detest religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it tend to be. If they were asked to pass judgment on phenomenology or the geopolitics of South Asia, they would no doubt bone up on the question as assiduously as they could. When it comes to theology, however, any shoddy old travesty will pass muster. These days, theology is the queen of the sciences in a rather less august sense of the word than in its medieval heyday.”
Just because you are an Oxford Don, like Richard Dawkins, doesn’t mean you are superior, or even right, on a topic. People who profess scepticism of belief should perhaps try to be a little less smug, or dare I say fundamentalist, about their so-called enlightenment.
Terry Eagleton is a self-professed agnostic. Yet, he is respectful of faith traditions, seeing beyond the snobbish self-congratulations of a self-professed intellectual group comprised of late-sipping middle-class rationalists.
Kevin said: "People have also lost their faith studying theology. I think it depends very much on both the faith you bring, and the atmosphere and environment where you study. We need to do better at preparing people for study in both secular universities and our own schools. A realistic view of the world and of our church is a good place to start."
Ervin said: "On the other hand, I could conceive of a situation where someone who had grown up in a closed religious environment where no ideas other than those of his/her religious heritage had been advanced as the ultimate Truth and then suddenly discovered that his religious heritage had no standing outside his little circle, might be rendered in a state of shock. Under such circumstances, that kind of “faith” had been built on sand and at the first sign of wind, it might be blown away. But how typical is that at present?"
Yes, I think both of those comments are very much true. I studied anthropology as an undergraduate and as I said I found it very much faith-destroying. Some 15 years later, I have studied theology, again at a secular university. In many ways, the theological teachings are even more disturbing and faith destroying, such as theories about higher criticism etc (although ironically I am more convinced now of Ellen White’s gift given I have a much more realistic view of the nature of prophecy).
The big difference is it is now 15-years later, and obviously since that time I have read much more widely, and obviously developed skills in critical thinking, especially after being a practicing lawyer for a decade or more. Obviously now when I learn something new, I am a little wiser and discerning as to whether I accept what the lecturer and material teaches, or am better equipped to accept if I do accept the new information. I am far less dogmatic and my belief system is much more flexible.
The other huge difference is that most of the faith-destroying theological concepts I have been taught are things I was actually already aware of in advance. I have often thought though that to someone who knows nothing about theology (which would be quite a few students I believe, given it isn't a seminary preparing clergy per se, or prepares them for denominations such as Anglicanism) many of these concepts truly would be faith destroying. I have wondered if this is why Anglicanism in particular has so many frankly screwed up clergymen, to the extent there is even a society or support group of ministers who no longer believe in God!
I guess the point of all this, much in agreement with Ervin and Kevin, that I was probably not very prepared for university. I do wonder what extent we actually cause more harm to our Adventist young people, and set them up for such crises of faith when they do learn radically new things as college.
The example I often think about is Clifford Goldstein's comment that you can't believe in evolution and be a Seventh-day Adventist, and the other oft-claim from Adventist pulpits that evolution is so easily disproven. Such statements are regularly made in official SDA publications.
When young idealistic Adventists go to university and learn the evolution isn't of course so easily disproven, they of course do go through a crises of faith. Then when the young person accepts evolution, or at least questions YEC, they have Goldstein’s message in the back of their mind that they no longer belong in the SDA Church.
If I recall one of Ervin’s previous blogs, a similar experience happened to many of the Church’s first hand-picked scholars and scientists in the GRI.
No doubt there are a myriad of other examples people could cite. The point is though, I wholeheartedly with the comments that we need to do better at preparing people for study in both secular universities and our own schools. A realistic view of the world and of our church is a good place to start.
Of course, the only other option is to keep everyone away from knowledge and education, as many fundamentalist groups do, from the Amish to Exclusive Brethren. But that is not the way of Adam, who was the first scientist to classify all the animals, to Daniel, who learnt at the university of Babylon, and it is not the Adventist tradition, given we operate the world’s largest Protestant education system.
The first thing we need to do though, IMO, is to remove the many taboos on topics. It is ok if people disagree, but in a majority of the Adventist world, you can’t even openly discuss many topics – at least that is my impression.
And I believe Kevin's (or was it Ervin's) 'first-year lies' might be relevant to it all as well.
And I should just add, it isn't just preparing young Adventists for secular universities. As a 'young-ish' person (and somewhat perpetual university student), I know plenty of people who have had massive crises of faith at Adventist colleges. This includes be exposed to ideas that are Adventist taboos (e.g. such as evolution) to widespread drug, alcohol, sex and other behaviours obviously common within that age group. In many ways, these occurances cause a greater crises of faith in young people, compared with if they were attending a secular university. I am sure you all have heard of such things more than me probably.
Sorry, and last point, as to Ervin's question about how many people have a faith built on sand – I would say a huge amount of Christians – not just within the SDA Church but within fundamentalist Christianity in general. I remember taking a Sabbath School recently and pointed out the Gospels are not all 'true' in the sense of a scientific textbook or legal witness statement, pointing to such examples as the story of the Centurion's servant (where in one Gospel the Centurion personally visits Jesus whilst in another Gospel the Centurion sends Jewish elders as his representatives).
You could almost see the 'crises of faith' in a number of people in the Sabbath school class. And these were not uneducated people – most people in our class have university degrees – some even Masters and PhDs – and in science! But they had been taught a very literalist view of what 'inspiration meant' that they indeed did have a faith built on such sand that it took me of all 10 minutes to wash it all away. The difference of course is that I helped ensure people's faiths were built up again – but that doesn't always happen – and certainly doesn't always happen in universities environments.
It isn't the number of degrees but the ones whose minds are open to listening rather than those who are so convinced that the beliefs they were taught are sacrosanct–not to be questioned. When there are certain subjects which we have sealed away in the tomb of the mind, there can be no learning. A closed mind admits no light.
Investigating does not mean believing everything one is taught or hears, but if one has not learned how to critically evaluate, double check the sources, and seek to find consensus on a particular topic, how can learning take place?
Two of my children had "rude awakenings"–one at Walla Walla–when Alden Thompson first introduced him to a completely new understanding of how the OT was written. In 12 years of SDA academy and two years a PUC, this was all new: It was good to question!
Just as many statements written here as "facts" need to be checked, and the politicians need "fact-checking" Adventism especially needs it. This morning I received a lengthy email on the history of the sabbath which was all based on statements from the G.C. While partially true, the writer presented a very skewed conclusion with no references.
"Trust, but verify."
Quite true comments Elaine. Having pieces of paper on your wall doesn't really mean much.
I do think 'rude awakenings' are good and university teachers play a big part in doing just that. Christ also said deliberately shocking statements all the time to likewise illicit a different way of thinking about things – we just don't quite see how shocking His statements are because they are now Christian cliches. My favourite is probably when Jesus told the disciples that they needed to eat His body, which they took as literally meaning cannibalism, and many left then and there.
However, I believe university teaches also have a responsibility not just to tear down but to build up. They can through young students in the waters, so they are forced to swim, but they shouldn't let them drown. Parents especially have a big part in ensuring their children's faith is built on rock, not sand.
A like-minded friend and I always joke that one day archaeologists will prove that in some biblical battle there were 101,000 Israelite soldiers and not 100,000 – and watch fundamentalists have a crises of faith because the Bible turns out not to be factually true.
There have been many instances in which the Bible has been proved wrong: sun standing still; flat earth, Satan vs. God commanding numbering of Israel. But there are always "good" explanations–for those who accept those explanations.
RE: There have been many instances in which the Bible has been proved wrong: sun standing still; flat earth, Satan vs. God commanding numbering of Israel.
————–
I'd like to see these proven wrong! Are there still people on the planet who believe the lie that the 'flat earth' teaching came from Christians and the Bible? I know that Darwinists used this lie to discredit Christians and creationists.
22oct1844, how do you reconcile the various minor contraditions in the Bible – say the story of the Centurion who visits Jesus (or in another Gospel where the Centurion instead sends Jewish elders on his behalf)? When the Bible says there were 10,000 warriors, or Jesus fed 5,000 do you believe it was exactly that number, or do you except that it is a saying.
How important is understanding form and genre? For example, if a news report says there was 100,000 in a Stadium at the Superbowl, we all understand that the statement is 'true', even though it is an approximate calculation and could still very well be 112,394 people. When we read about the four corners of the earth, we all understand that not to be four literal corners. By contrast, when you read a set of engineering plans, the numbers are intended to be exact calculations.
The Bible isn't just one massive science textbook. It is a series of letters, metaphors, narratives, poems, philosophical statements, proverbs, legal treatise and much more!
RE: "The example I often think about is Clifford Goldstein's comment that you can't believe in evolution and be a Seventh-day Adventist"
———–
Even the evolutionist Dawkins would agree to this statement!
Exactly, exactly! That is the problem – fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist athiests are actually on the same page, somewhat working together to make this a battle over extremes. The silent moderates have had their religion hijacked. In was much the same in the NT world, between the Pharisees and Christian-Judaizers on the one hand, and Sadducees and Gnsotic-Christians on the other hand. Where are the Peterine moderates?
Cliff Goldstein has as much decision-making power on who and who is not an
Adventist as the average person in the pew: none. There are many such folk who make such pronouncements but they are essentially worthless. Your local church is the only arbiter on who is an SDA; for which we should all be thankful.
Yes thank goodness. But he has a microphone the average person in the pew doesn't have, and as such he can frame the debate in a way the rest of us cannot. If media control wasn't important, billions would be spent on political adds, and governments and billionares wouldn't do everything trying to gain control of media plattforms.
Does an aeroplane defy the laws of gravity? A prophet is explaining a vision or message as they understand it – they are not giving a scientific explanation.
Probably not no. My point is that even things that appear like miracles probably have a basis in science. If someone from Jesus' day say an aeroplane they would think it magic.
Most universities in North America were established by reputable religious groups in a day when there was absolutely no dispute whatever that Protestant Christianity stood squarely for literacy and the advance of science of the very highest order. Here in Oregon, Thomas Condon, a Presbyterian minister, is known widely for his pioneering work as an evolutionary biologist in the early part of the past century; yet he never gave up his pulpit or Christian faith.
Even after the advent of Origin of Species, I am told by my Swedish/Lutheran ancestors in Minnesota that by and large Christians spent little time at all fretting and feinting over the implications of Darwinism on Christian faith and concepts of origin, and pastors and the educated simply concluded—back in the latter 1800s and early 1900s—that science and faith had never failed somehow to harmonize before and in fact in their opinion still did. One common way this harmony was established back then was to propound the thought that the days of creation in Genesis actually represented symbolic periods of longer time. The battle did not really heat up between intellectuals and fundamentalist Christians until well into the 1920s in the Bible Belt and the 1930s and 1940s elsewhere in the US. The decision by the promoters of Fundamentalism (by no means used here as pejorative) to draw some lines in the sands of literalism seem to have been pivotal in introducing the concept that henceforth religion and scientific knowledge were naturally incompatible—at least scientific stuff of the post-Darwin/Einsteinian era. Yet there are still many who believe that religious people and scientists ”fundamentally" still belong on the same team and that the Bible has been a fabulous resource to promote literacy and universal education.
The "Search for Truth" is truly as alive in both religion and science as it's ever been, and if we could agree to disagree or establish an armistice on some issues and move on in our mutual quest at least in a partially amicable manner, I think the partnership would stand a good chance of mending itself back at least into the semblance of the collegiality Christians enjoyed prior to some of the hard-line publishing and preaching that began about 100 years ago in the name of Fundamentalist Truth—and as happens quite often in human nature, those attacked smacked right back, and we have the current stalemate which is great for the publishing industry’s bottom line, but disturbing and disruptive to the pursuit of knowledge as a whole and for the teachers and administrators in some Christian universities who attempt to keep some sort of order through it all….
Dear Edwin,
Armistice… a great idea.. especially for christians. I will gladly meet you on the battlefield sans side arm any day. May be we could just go for a walk…
Yours, dl
Ah, t'would be a joy, but there will be some writing soon who will see my views as advocating appeasement—that any decision to "love the evolutionist, do good to him that hates ID, and pray for him who regards Genesis 1 and 2 as poetry"—is a capitulation of principle.
Let me remind you that there were those some time back who believed that anyone who believed in the pre-lapsarian nature of Christ (that He came to earth as a man unaffected by the degeneration wrought on the human race by sin) could not be an Adventist; others felt strongly that those who held to the post-lapsarian view were likewise on a polished slide out the door of Adventism into a limbo of legalistic fanaticism. Such has not turned out to be the case, in practice, and the two positions coexist and have for long decades, with decreasing recriminations.
I think there are a number of "positions" where Adventism is far more flexible than we might at first believe, and that the theistic evolutionary vs. literal creationism dichotomy is probably one Adventism will find itself well able to outlast, as it continues to grow as a world church, drawing attention to the teachings of Jesus and His promise of hope in this world and in a better world to come.
Doctrof says: "…Your proposal is nonsense. The aquisition of faith or loss of faith is process that does not suddenly occur. I had a "faith" that what I was taught about the genesis story was "true." I now know differently and my faith in the literal genesis story is now a thing of the past. There is nothing wrong with education pointing out the naivete of my former faith."
This raises some interesting questions.
1. Is all knowledge, including scientific, historical and religious knowledge 'good' in the sense that it should be shared and available to everyone, regardless of age, education, stage of life or circumstance?
2. Should there be any sensitivity or tact in how information should be shared or taught, taking into account age, education, stage of life or circumstance?
Stephen,
Good questions and as a grandfather who adores his grandsons your point is well taken. I am sure sooner or later I will have some discussions with them regarding fundamental Christian beliefs that they will be taught. However, sooner or later one has to confront long held beliefs and childhood indoctrination. My SDA beliefs were nothing short of indoctrination. Then as I grew up, was educated and watched a few controversies that came up within Adventism such as Desmond Fords refutation of the Investigative Judgement theology, I came to realize that some of our cherished beliefs are not true as I was taught. Furthermore, with regards to Dr. Ford himself the way he was dealt with by the SDA hierarchy was nothing short of reprensible and I hope their is a special place in hell for those SDA's that became modern day theological inquisitors. In the end "truth" in the theological world is a shaky proposition and theology should be soft enough so as to allow for changes that come with time and new knowlege. There are cases in point where science has modified Catholic theology. Why not SDA theology?
Yes, my central point is not to say knowledge should be kept hidden and that we should continue living a lie. Rather, when knowledge is taught, there needs to be a bit of tact involved.
Moreover, when teachers teach supposedly superior knowledge, as Kevin and Ervin often discuss, it is often ‘first-year lies’, in the sense that the teacher rarely presents all the ifs, buts, maybes and critiques to their own supposedly enlightened theories.
I remember the first day of theology class (at a secular university training Anglican clergy), where on the one hand they had to explain to some people the difference between the OT and NT, and then launched straight into saying that the Bible was not ‘true’ but just a myth like Greek mythology, and then into higher-critical theories. I remember thinking, if you don’t even know the difference between the OT and NT, somehow I don’t think you are quite ready for JEDP. They went out of their way to destroy one’s previous faith, exposing criticisms but not the criticisms to those criticisms. They only taught things that destroyed any belief in the authority of the Bible, largely leaving it to individuals sink or swim. I was ok, as I already heard most of the theories before, but I remember thinking if someone was unsure in their faith before, and did this course looking for answers, they’ll probably end up an atheist! I know a doctor friend for whom this is what exactly occurred.
Every field of study has its own sub-culture with its own group think and taboos. I always remember thinking anthropology (both from studying it at uni and working with professional anthropologists for the Dep of Indigenous Affairs in Aus), that because its own colonial guilt, there was a totally over the top pro-Indigenous attitude. I remember lecturers talking in effect how racist it was to criticise the Aboriginal social welfare system, and it was taboo to challenge that as a student in any manner. However, since working with Aboriginal people (rather than just learning about them), and many such as Noel Pierson and other Aboriginal academics coming out and criticising welfare dependence and advocating some more ‘tough love’, the taboos within that field of study are even more evident. I am not advocating a position on Aboriginal policy, but just pointing out that Aboriginal leaders themselves are saying things that are clearly taboo within the Australian anthropological field, which is ironic given the supposed purpose of the discipline.
At university the tutors and lecturers often say that it doesn’t matter what you write, and they can disagree with you, as long as it is well presented and researched. In my opinion, from now in effect doing degrees across six distinct fields, that is totally rubbish. With few exceptions of some excellent teachers, what they really want you to do is write what they want to hear.
In that sense, I do agree with 22oct1844 insofar as there can be higher-level indoctrination.
The unfounded so-called [reprensible] treatment of Dr. Ford by the SDA hierarchy brings Doctorf to hope for a special place in hell for them. Wow! Did Dr. Ford's influence drive his followers to even make such unwarranted curses? Doctorf and others like him/her may have put too much faith in man: which should teach us not to put our faith and trust in man and his interpretation of one bible verse. Some refer to christian beliefs as indoctrination – maybe; but higher education too can mean higher indoctrination, even to the extent of denying it.
Doctorf: “Then as I grew up, was educated and watched a few controversies that came up within Adventism such as Desmond Fords refutation of the Investigative Judgement theology, I came to realize that some of our cherished beliefs are not true as I was taught.”
22oct1844: “The unfounded so-called [reprensible] treatment of Dr. Ford by the SDA hierarchy brings Doctorf to hope for a special place in hell for them.”
As a ‘young person’ and from Australia at that (i.e. where Desmond Ford was from), I could ask 100 of my peers, and have kind of done this before,# and 97 would probably have never heard of Desmond Ford. I could then go and ask the remaining 3 what Desmond Ford taught that got him kicked out of the Church and I suspect only 2 of them would have a vague idea what it was all about. Of the remaining 2, if I said that Desmond Ford taught Christ didn’t believe that Christ entered the most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary compartment, at least 1 of the 2, if not both, would probably say so what?
Whether people like it or not, the whole sanctuary message appears to be either outright disbelieved, or at least simply ignored, by a whole generations of Adventists today – at least that is my personal experience with the under 40s. Thus, whether one thinks it is a good thing or a bad thing, Ford was ultimately successful in many ways in getting his message out – although the personal price was high. Moreover, from asking the generation above who were at Avondale College at the time (some of you probably were there so can correct me), it wasn’t just the sanctuary issue for which Ford was much loved, but that he really pushed hard in the message of righteousness by faith through grace, in contrast to the perfectionism of the likes of Robert Brinsmead.
The whole thing really seems a storm in a teacup to, and to someone of the younger generation, it seems astounding that Desmond Ford got sacked – even if one did disagree with his views. Seriously, who cares if the little horn is Anticus Epiphany – can’t it be both? Or who cares if Christ entered the Most Holy place in 33 CE rather than 1844? Does it matter if there is a physical building in heaven or not?
No one is disputing the central core point of the sanctuary message, of a phased judgment with Christ as High Priest in the Heavenly Sanctuary in heaven. Even the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox belief that (they call it Particular and General Judgments). The fixation on the date 1844 was important to our pioneers coming out of the Great Disappointment.
But for us, really, how important is that date? No doubt someone like 22oct1844 can explain why we should consider acceptance of that date, apart from historical reasons to our pioneers, is so important that it belongs as a fundamental SDA belief, rather than in the non-essential category with Michael the Archangel.
# This pole is about as scientific as a Fox News poll, which is to say, it probably has no basis in reality whatsoever and is no doubt deeply flawed.
Dear S Furgeson – Dr. Ford may be forgotten in some circles but the effects of his influence ran very deep within the heart of key Adventist Academic Institutions, Churches and even the GC itself. Pastors graduating in their droves were heavily indoctrinated with his spin on IJ/Pre-Advent Judgement. I remember a fresh out of college pastor in the 80's who from the pulpit taught that the IJ had been changed to a new term called the Pre-Advent Judgement but without mentioning that it was something quite different to the IJ and not just in its terminology. This shows the subversive behind the scenes methods employed to spread this theological view until the GC put an end to it.
It is sad that there were many casualties and that is unfortunate – but the Church cannot be liable for this: they had it coming. In fact AToday has even sponsored an event not too long ago which gave Dr. Ford a platform to speak regarding his take on things. I think he still is closely associated with AT and is quite popular within certain circles. The issue regarding his teaching had decades of time to be played out and finally came to an end – well at least in some quarters it seems. The IJ is a Fundamental belief of the Adventist Church and I am a believer.
These types of issues can show the powerful influence many have on others. Those that worship people in positions of authority, status, wealth or power are most susceptible.
Thanks 22oct1844. Perhaps you could just expand your answer a little, to a 'young-ish' person who grew up in a Church environment where FB#24 is almost a taboo subject these days. I am not saying that is a good thing – I am just making a factual observation.
As I said previously, my understanding is that the SDA Church is not alone in believing in a pre-Advent judgment. For example, the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches also teach a distinction between a pre-Advent Particular Judgment of the individual compared with the Second Advent event of the General Judgment.
See: http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Divine_Judgment
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_judgment#cite_note-3
Looking at FB#24, I would suggest that Roman Catholics and many groups would be willing to agree with much of it, including about Christ now being our High Priest, and a phased judgment, including an investigative judgment. The part that most religions would reject is the prophecy about the date 1844.
So answer me this, why is the date 1844 so important? If one believes in an investigative judgment, including the notion that Christ is administering as our High Priest in Heaven, but believes Christ began this ministry in 33 CE and not 1844, why the big deal? I do get why it was a big deal to our pioneers – but why should it be a big deal to us today? Why isn’t the date of 1844 equivalent to say the Adventist belief in Michael the Archangel – interesting and worthy of discussion – but hardly ‘fundamental’ to our salvation and the spreading of the Gospel.
Your response so far appears to be an appeal to Sacred Tradition. For the avoidance of doubt, I do believe in the traditional Adventist view about 1844. However, with some irony, I think the obsession with the date 1844 has led to the baby being thrown out with the bathwater, to the extent that many no longer believe or discuss the notion of an investigative judgment, which again is actually ‘mainstream’ Christian doctrine found in many denominations.
So in short, why is that belief that the investigative judgment began on 22 Oct 1844, and not say in 33 CE, so important that it is so ‘fundamental’ that it should be a test of membership?
I am happy to be called Mr Furgeson. With my last name, you live your life with various nicknames like Ferg, Fergie, Fergo and so on. I do like Mr October though – great nickname, because 22oct1844 is getting quite a mouthful.
Do agree with your other points. Remember it is a trial which occurs without us being present and being able to defend ourselves, because we are dead or right now for the living being judged. So roughly knowing there is a trial going on is interesting, whether that trial started 2,000 years ago or 150 years ago, but the point is there is a trial going on. We don't the our the exact date for our own hearing, and we can't do anything to defend ourselves in the Court of heaven.
Thus, knowing there is a trial going on arguably has some utility, but no where near as much utility as knowing our advocate. It is only our advocate who gets to appear on our behalf, and He is our only hope.
So you can all go on disputing trial dates. As for me, I'll focus on getting a good lawyer – in fact – one who sneakily is also the Judge!
The 1844 date is one that should, like Dec. 7, 1944, or Sept. 11,2001 as days of terrible catastrophes. Only the 1844 date is a figment of imagination; the others are very real and will go down in history wherever U.S. history is taught. 1844?
no one but a minuscle few on this earth have the slightest notion of its meaning, other that it came before 1843. As someone mentioned here or elsewhere:
A young SDA pastor was interviewed by the conference president who asked him:
"Do you believe in 1844"
The young man answered, "Of course."
The president asked, "And what is its meaning?" And the young man said
"It comes before 1843 and is followed by 1845."
"Next question."
Ron Numbers is praised as a distinguished American historian in this blog yet he is one of our church's most vehement detractors. He targets the Millerites and the 1844 experience in a his book "Millerism and Madness: A Study of ‘Religious Insanity’ in Nineteenth-Century American" A Study of ‘Religious Insanity’ in Nineteenth-Century American" by Ronald L. Numbers, Ph.D., and Janet Numbers, Ph.D., in which he, together with a J Numbers, mocks and enthusiastically demeans those who were part of the events leading up to 1844. In doing so, together with his other books attacking Ellen White and our traditionally held beliefs, he exposes himself as an arch enemy of Adventism. Some it seems are ashamed of our association with the Millerites and our traditionally held beliefs so much so that someone like Numbers (and others like him) are given guru status by many in the culture club.
I found someone else who, like me, also views the 1844 experience as significant and the basis of the IJ: "The scripture which above all others had been both the foundation and the central pillar of the advent faith was the declaration: "Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." Daniel 8:14." Great Controversy, 408.
If Number’s knows so much truth regarding God’s word – together with the so-called ‘lies’ he has exposed about Adventist beliefs including Ellen White’s so-called errors then why don’t those who believe him, follow him, instead of doing a number on Adventism.
But Mr October, I still don't think you have been very clear in explaining to me why belief in the prophecy of Dan 8:14 as meaning 1844 is 'fundamental' to the doctrine of the investigative judgment. As I have said repeatedly, even Roman Catholics believe in an investigative judgment, which they call Particular Judgment, to be contrasted to the Second Coming, which is General Judgment.
All you have done is quote a sentence of Ellen White. In my book, that is not a sufficient theological explanation.
Dear October,
though I don't usually agree with your posts, I would have to say you are right about Ron Numbers. I don't know him personally, but he has used the church and his experience with it as steps up the ivory tower. He criticizes EGW using some arguments that he should know better about (like not considering context). I find him superficial and shallow. Yet like masochists some SDA groups still invite him to speak and beat up on us some more. He is so unprofessional and disrespectful of the Adventist belief system that one knows there has to be more than scholarship involved.
Yes and no.
The Bible itself uses judgment language throughout the OT and NT, so I don't think there is anything wrong with using that language, even if as individuals we may not prefer it. The judgment is not just of us by God, as much as judgment by the universe (angelic host etc) of God. In that sense, the judgment is very much a public impeachment trial of God – as God desires.
Unless you believe in the Calvinistic doctrine of the perseverance of the Saints (i.e. 'once saved always saved') then it is not possible to say that your docket has already been discharged – it will only be discharged at your death.
Again, Adventist doctrine re the investigative judgment is not something new, it is very similar to Roman Catholic theology, which also distinguishes between a Particular Judgment and General Judgment. One should remember that most anti-Adventist critics are from the Reformed camp, because Adventist theology very much fits within the Weslyan-Arminian framework.
All you have done is quote a sentence of Ellen White. In my book, that is not a sufficient theological explanation.
——–
I did not intend to give any theological explanation as it would just be a futile attempt for two reasons – firstly, that this roundabout has been trodden by many in Adventist circles before and that the mainline theological explanations for this have been out there for a while. One such as yourself, who has amassed a wealth of theological knowledge, will probably be quite clued up regarding these explanations.
Secondly, I assume you wouldn’t have decided they were insignificant without at least checking them out and as a result have distanced yourself from our traditional fundamental ideology in that you 1] speak on behalf of the so-called moderates (or see yourself as one) and 2] indicate that FB#24 is quite insignificant to qualify as a FB, although – similar arguments can be used to downplay the significance of the Sabbath yet you defend FB#20 quite astutely.
For me (and many others) there’s so much packed into FB#24 and that’s why it’s there. Our Pioneers had good reason to accept and believe this as a fundamental part of who we are, what we believe and where we are going. Numbers to the power 10 won’t bring such a strong foundation down even if the devil were to help him or even those within our ranks. It would be easier or more sensible to join a group who would believe otherwise. That's what I would do.
Yes, I think that is where we differ. For the avoidance of doubt, I do tend to believe in the traditional Adventist interpretation of Dan 8:14 and 1844. I do also think the general notion of an investigative judgment, and the notion of Christ being our High Priest in heaven is important. It vindicates God's character and crucial to explaining one of the most obvious questions that have plagued Christians since the time of the Apostles – if the entire atonement process was completed at the Cross, why are we still awaiting the parousia of Jesus some 2,000 years later.
However, you are correct in saying I do really believe this knowledge should be a 'fundamental belief', which I generally and personally believe are things that should be tests of membership. In practice today, it really isn't a fundamental belief at all in a huge part (if not the majority) of the world today, because it isn't made a test of fellowship as say Sabbath, salvation by grace through faith or the Trinity is, but in that respect we are just being a little hypocritical and false in our stated beliefs. Similarly, I do believe more than ever in Ellen White's prophetic gift, but again, I don't think it should be a test of membership.
I think there is a real danger in the SDA Church becoming too 'orthodox' and dogmatic in our beliefs, and just as inflexible and closed to present truth and new light as the Apostate Protestant Churches our pioneers left. We have 28 FBs and counting – when will it stop? There are so many now that they have kind of lost their meaning, and some FBs seem a little more fundamental than others.
The notion that the IJ isn’t an important doctrine for church membership and that it can be considered as an alternative to other interpretations will eventually lead one to question 1] our traditional historical basis as a Church; 2] our interpretation of bible prophecy; 3] our understanding of the earthly and heavenly sanctuary; 4] the Investigative Judgment in relation to Probation; including 5] Ellen White’s Great Controversy narrative – which then spills over into questioning other end-time events and issues like 6] the Sabbath as being a test of loyalty to God as opposed to the commandments of men in the form of a spurious day of worship .
The list would perhaps go on increasing until we may find that we don’t have any significance being just who we are: Seventh-day Adventists. Who or which group would then qualify as the commandment keeping people of prophecy who have the testimony of Jesus and fulfill the distinct prophetic calling to preach the gospel and proclaim the hour of judgment together with a call to worship the Creator? In this slippery slope line of thought one can even start questioning the bible, which, as far as I can see, many are already doing, even from within our own ranks.
Those who firmly believe the IJ as our Pioneers believed it are, (from what I have gathered), much more secure and confident in their faith and beliefs than those who don’t. It is usually the non-IJ subscribers who question the 24/7 Creation, support various spins on evolution and openly support our detractors. These are more likely to attack our traditional fundamental beliefs and the leaders who subscribe to them.
Just crumpling the IJ and tossing it in the trash can is easier said than done. The best theologians and detractors on our planet thus far have failed to convincingly debunk it as a false doctrine except seducing those who weren’t believers in the first place and haven’t heeded the call to come out (or stay out) of Babylon.
I am not interested in how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and that is what I think of much of the discussion.
When i joined the SDA church, i was self-brainwashed that it was perfect, as was Ellen White. i recall a 4 session pulpit delivery by Desmond Ford in the 1970's of his "Righteousness by Faith, Through Grace" series. Being a SDA of but a few years, it solidified my faith that i personally was
responsible for my faith, and not the church. That the church was a vehicle that led me to Jesus Christ, after my initial entrance by reading "Steps to Christ". The constant murmuring of "she has jewelery on"; "She should't be on the platform, her skirt is too short"; "He's a homo-sexual, we should disfellowship him", ect, and many other destructive personal assassinations of fellow members bothered me greatly. Aren't we all imperfect? Shouldn't our church encourage all people, even though we see things differently. Isn't it healthy and envigorating to have inquiring dialogue by searching God's truth? It shouldn't be "the doctrine is nailed to the wall, observe it, or hit the road".
i couldn't believe that Ford was put on trial for his questioning the 1844 date. And then his leave
papers presented after Glacier View. More than Ford were shook out. The church's loss. Keep your eyes on JESUS.
We should each be loving in how we relate to each other. Being careful not to belittle others views by
little snippets, ie: purposefully misspelling of others names, or similar put downs. We all, perhaps have
been guilty of this.
A good post, Earl. We can be brainwashed in whatever environment we choose. So I suppose we have to choose well, especially when young. After the initial brainwashing, we become "settled in the truth" we have chosen, whether it be the scientific community or a church community or a new age community. It becomes harder to listen as we get older unless some event or experience changes us. I am a firm believer in we become what we subject ourselves too.
At the same time I do not believe in making extreme judgements and would never say that an evolutionist would not be saved. There just may be other values that God holds dearer.
"evolutionary biology which is the starting point for the development of new vaccines, genetic discoveries and applications, organ transplantation, and a host of other medical successes"
Given that the idea of Evolution never existed, would not these somewhat serendipitous discoverys still not be discovered??? How do you think that they theory of Evolution specifically lead to these discoveries???