Dr. David Wilbur: Power and Illusion: Summary – Personal Postscript. Part 16, Chapter 15
by Erv Taylor
By Ervin Taylor
Submitted September 23, 2013
This is the concluding segment of the summary of Dr. Wilbur’s book. It should be emphasized that all of the text in this series of blogs in bold font in the body of the text of the chapter summaries have been kindly provided by Dr. Wilbur. My own comments on this concluding segment will follow in regular type.
There is no wealth but life.
John Ruskin, Unto This Last
The Necessity of Ideology
To function in the world we need goals and values and we like to have an explanation for our goals and values. This explanation may be thought of as our personal ideology. For the last few thousand years a religion has been the most common way of providing this ideology. For most people religious indoctrination comes through their family and culture and is largely set in place while they are very young and impressionable; usually less than ten years old. For the majority this is then set for life.
Varieties of Need for Religious Belief
Some have thought that the most important benefit of religion is to re-enforce our natural optimism in the face of uncertainty or catastrophe. People do vary greatly in their need for and appreciation of religious support. There will probably never be a universal ideology or religious program that satisfies all human needs. The most desirable human society may be one that nurtures and protects a wide variety of ideologies without letting any one of them become dominant and controlling. Intolerance would be that society’s great “sin.”
Emotion and Reason
Religious loyalties are usually enmeshed with powerful emotions. They do not spring from some rational analysis of the world. The religious claim that reason and faith are both ways to knowledge but faith is clearly used to support a variety of conflicting religious claims while rational analysis only supports one system of scientific understanding. Theology attempts rational explanations for specific religious traditions but is probably irrelevant for the majority of lay members.
The Price of Refuge
The religious refuge has many kinds of costs. The financial cost includes at least that of clergy, missions, schools and memorial architecture. An emotional cost for some religious people is that of separating from an evil world: losing friends and family who won’t share their belief system. There also may be the cost of guilt over breaking victimless rules.
Nihilism about the world may mean giving up on attempts to find happiness in this world as one urgently seeks salvation in another world. Seeking escape through a monastic life may also lead to an emotional life impoverished by the absence of the struggles and rewards of sexuality and family.
Certainty
She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist.
Jean Paul Sartre, The Words
Ideological beliefs that are held with confidence or certainty contain within that confidence a demand to control others, so as to make them do what is in their own best long-term interest. Such certainties have justified innumerable human evils. Our only certainty should probably be that our understandings are conditional and evolving.
Religious history itself is a long argument against religious certainty. Some religions however depend on confident claims that they know the mind of God, to justify their calls for contributions and control of the believer’s life.
The Supernatural
Belief in some form of alternate reality or supernatural realm seems common to all religions. None offers a description of a method for a living human to use in validating this belief. Alternatively we have no method of disproving the existence of this realm. Over many years one may look at the day-to-day operation of the world and find there no evidence that any supernatural power is concerned with human experiences of good or evil.
Origins
Confident claims about ultimate origins are most reasonably judged to be faith statements, whether they are religious or scientific. The Intelligent Design movement has offered some interesting talking points but none seems as compelling as the success of evolutionary models in helping us understand the relationships in the living world. We will never have enough information to be sure of every detail of everything that happened in the past.
Religion as a Political and Practical Tool
Religions may be seen as practical ideological tools useable to encourage or discourage various behaviors that leaders find useful. With confident belief one can justify persecution or destruction of the enemies of the faith or of God, especially when those are thought identical. Religion may also be used to encourage charity and concern for the weak and downtrodden. In any durable and important conflict, religion is usually found on both sides—see, for instance, the American Civil War and Nazi Germany.
Thoughts for Life Regardless of Religion
These are a few thoughts about a satisfying life with or without religion.
Happiness is now.
Respect all life.
One route to happiness is to make another life happy.
There is much beauty, if you look.
Most people are doing the best they can.
The most rewarding thing is to create.
Life has the meaning we give it.
Humor about our life brings perspective and humility.
A better God than those offered is imaginable.
Beware of those who serve an angry God.
Comments (ET)
I wanted to express my appreciation to Dr. Wilbur for providing this series of summaries of a book which, in my view, contains an array of topics that could be used as the basis of many hours, days, months, and years of fruitful discussion.
After reading the many comments responding to how Dr. Wilbur has approached the “power and illusion” of religion, it is clear, at least to this reader, that his approach to how what we understand as the religious impulse of the human species at this stage of our biological and cultural evolution would not meet the needs of the vast majority of those whose religious identification is grounded and defined in terms of the current traditional Adventist world view, which is now significantly shared by a percentage of those who follow the traditions of evangelical Protestantism.
Dr. Wilbur’s approach is especially not helpful to the personality types that are attracted to what classical Adventism offers to its adherents—total and complete certainly about what is going to happen in the future and total and complete confidence in what one has to do to make sure that they end up on the “right side” at the end which is coming, they believe, very, very soon.
Dr. Wilbur’s vision of the how and why religion functions is a totally rational and realistic one that strips away the ethos of mysticism and Biblicism that traditional Adventism still retains from its origins. His clear-eyed understanding of how religion functions in the real world of the 21st Century might have to await the coming of the 22nd or 23rd Century for it to be widely appreciated by adherents of a future Adventism.
This series should contribute to everyone's understanding of human rationality concerning the existence and purpose of religion in society. I have appreciated it with the full understanding that we are all subjective and there can be no trully objective scholarly dissertation on the subject. We choose our own private faith beliefs according to God as we know Him or don't know Him. There is nothing wrong with respectfully sharing one's beliefs.
Quote: " Over many years one may look at the day-to-day operation of the world and find there no evidence that any supernatural power is concerned with human experiences of good or evil."
I couldn't say this because the evidence (to me) goes another way. First all the natural beauty plus the amazing "force," "spirit" "God," that keeps it going and has arranged every detail so that life can exist along with the capacity to believe and to love.
Second: A primary goal of a supreme being for planet earth would be to keep it from destroying itself. It has done a good job. There have been holocausts and ethnic cleansings, natural disasters, personal loss, yet we go on With the birth of nuclear weapons, we have had many close calls. None is probably as close as that of the Cuban crisis when one Russian seaman "saved the world."
. When we view dying as a temporary sleep outside of time, it consoles us in the face of such tragedies. And life is not valued according to its length; it is those left who suffer. Having trust and faith is the only [healthy] way to go on. There is plenty of research showing the value of a healthy and mature faith. (Religion can be evil or the happiest solution.)
ET: 'Dr. Wilbur’s vision of the how and why religion functions is a totally rational and realistic one that strips away the ethos of mysticism and Biblicism that traditional Adventism still retains from its origins. His clear-eyed understanding of how religion functions in the real world of the 21st Century might have to await the coming of the 22nd or 23rd Century for it to be widely appreciated by adherents of a future Adventism.'
Why should Adventism even survive into the 22nd or 23rd Centuries? What's the point of it all? Reading this (and ET's views), I am increasingly struck with a sense of despondence, that if what they say is true, religion and probably even a belief in a supernatural-God is all a con, the old 'opium of the masses' and shouldn't really exist at all?
All I get from this is that perhaps Richard Dawkins and other militant atheists are probably the most honest of us all. Similarly, religious fundamentalists might be deluding themselves, but at least they can kind of be respected for their faith in the face of evidence to the contrary. What I don't understand is those who don't really believe but maintain a cloak of religiosity – in language, titles, institutions and rituals, just like the ancient Sadducees. Where does this all leave this quest for a 22nd or 23rd Cent Adventism?
My question to you Stephen Ferguson is why would you entertain for a nanosecond that what “they” say is possibly true?
Maybe you have to simply live longer, or perhaps be a little more observant; but the accounts of how Jesus regarded the Sadducees should give you a clue.
We all have doubts Stephen. But you are right, and right about the Sadducees. Even if a supernatural God is a lie, it is a lie I would willingly choose, because I believe hope is necessarily to make this life worth living. However, my concersn about supposed 22nd and 23rd Adventism – so called – remain. What would be the point of such a 'mature' religion, as Dr Taylor would like to have us accept?
Can you not see that harboring doubts while hanging around non-believers (in this forum and/or elsewhere) is deleterious to your “hope?”
They have nothing, not even reason or logic. You should know that by now. Even those who require 'evidence' don’t really require evidence of the invisible atomic realm. That is a whole ‘world’ which has been ‘discovered,’ but has existed all along. The same applies to the spiritual realm.
“They” discovered the visible effects and reactions of invisible atoms and have discovered that that which they cannot see governs that which they can see, in large measure. The same applies to the spiritual realm.
God revealed Himself in the Person of Jesus and the spirit realm is explained in the Bible as you well know. God deals with us and answers prayer.
Who is it that would have you doubt that any of this is true?
I realize I am coming on strong with you and sounding very dogmatic Stephen; but that is because you know better and are equipped to 'handle the truth.' You are much better equipped to make this case than I am, for sure!
Yes thank you Stephen. And yes, this formum, ironically labelled 'Adventist Today', can well and truly be deleterious to one's hope.
Stephen Foster,
You raise some interesting points. Also your despondency statement is clear. That is just the point of religion. We invent our immortality and invent a God through our theology. I think this is done because it maintains a "hope" that this is not all there is to life. The data says that in time the earth will cease to exist in it's current form once the sun runs out of fuel. That reality is dark indeed. Religion provides the "hope" of something beyond. If Richard Dawkins is right (and I think he may well be) then I hear Dr. Wilbur suggesting that religion has come out of a necessity to maintain some hope of a future existence. If Dawkins is right then yes, religion does rely on self delusion. History has shown humans to have a remarkable penchant for engaging in the practice of religion/self delusion.
Perhaps I should have been clear in my concluding comments on Dr. Wilbur's contribution to contemporary Adventist thought. I'm not interested in having anyone accept anything about the topics being discussed here. My only suggestion is that we understand that modern Adventism in the First World is a very, very large tent and that good and regular Adventists can and do hold to a wide range of views about many theological topics. To ever say that someone is not a "good Adventist" because he/she adopts a position with which we may disagree can only create a hostile and negative environment.
To ever say that someone is not a "good Adventist" because he/she adopts a position with which we may disagree can only create a hostile and negative environment.
I am not sure what a "good" Adventist is, certainly not agreeing on every jot and tittle of the 28 FB. However, there is a point where one must question extreme liberal or ultraconservative views that can both be perceived as fanatical. Often they seek to evangelize the rest of us……
I would suggest they do "create a hostile and negative environment."
Ervine
I am not sure I agree with you Erv. If there is one thing liberals want, it is all out plurality. If you believe that the answer for traditional advetism is confusion and chaos then I beg to differ! Fistly that position is not even biblical as the bible admonishes us not to be swayed by every wind of doctrine. Yet it is your dream that that every wind, tornado, huricane of doctrine sway within adventism. The tent that you want I am sure will be enough to even accomodate doctrines of devils! Paul proclaims a curse even to angels if the preach a different doctrine than his- that does not sound like a stupendous tent to me.
I guess I take a cue from God who did not buy into Lucifers large tent for the angels. I am not saying people do not have a right to believe what they want to believe they certainly do. But to posit ideas or theories that are antithetical to adventism and call that adventism is actually an infringement on adventists right to believe the perculiar things they believe.
God did not continually allow Lucifer to posit his ideas in heaven but allowed him to demonstrate his ideas elsewhere. Sometimes I think why some liberals cannot follow the logical path and leave is that deep down they know that a reality of the things they espouse is self destructive.
Evil almost always begins with a plea for tolerance and pluralism when it is weak. It appeals to moral and charitable sentiments core to those it is trying to seduce, but not to core to itself, and tries to isolate common ground, in order to break down resistance to the Trojan Horse it brings to faith communities. Then, as it gains a foothold, it becomes increasingly intolerant, demanding, and destructive of faith. So pluralism per se is not necessarily a virtue.
The trick of course, in a religious community, is in being able to recognize when the call for pluralism, openness, and change is Spirit led, and when it is the siren call of evil. Erv's suggestion that exclusivity can only create a hostile and negative environment strikes me as not only patently false, but deeply unbiblical.
Reasonable minds can well differ on whether big tent Adventism is a good or a bad thing. My religious identity is not bound up with the world wide institutional Adventist Church. Rather, it is my much smaller faith community that determines what it means for me to live as a Seventh Day Adventist Christian. With due respect, if folks like Erv and Elaine decided to park in my faith community, I would probably resist.
So while I, like Erv, appreciate big tent Adventism, I think the tensions and discomfort created by those who fight against Universal Unitarian Adventism is healthy for the Church. They remind us that without boundaries, there is neither identity nor commitment. Every club has to have rules for the members which create an atmosphere of exclusivity. I don't understand why one would think that Adventist clubs should be any different.
I am always facinated by arguments of traditionalists. I wonder if any can come up with an example in modern times where the "Universal Unitarian" brand Christianity or progressives in Adventism have attempted to force their views on anyone? It is always the other way around.
As for Nate's statement "The trick, of course, in a religous community, is in being able to recognize when the call for pluralism, openess and change is Spirit led, and when it is the siren call of evil." Wow! I was not aware that Nate set himself or anyone else up to be able to judge what is "Spirit led" or what is the "siren call of evil." I guess I underestimated Nate's assumed connection with the Divine that he thinks that he or any human can make that call. I hope he realizes that what he just suggested has been used for hundreds of years by religious fanatics of many stripes to root out heresy. To be fair to Nate, I think he should be given the opportunity to retract his statement because it perhaps was written in the heat of religious passion.
Dr Taylor, what do you mean by 'traditionalists'?
I would probably classify myself as a 'liberal' (e.g. on views such as WO, possibility of evolution, Ellen White etc); however, to you, I probably seem a 'traditionalist' because I do actually believe that Jesus historically and coporeally was raised from the dead, and that Jesus will physically and literally return at a future historical Second Advent.
If you use labels to classify other Christians as 'traditionalist' or otherwise; how can you in all good conscience ascribe to yourself the label 'Adventist', given you don't believe in the Advent, or even 'Christian', given you don't seem to believe in a historically and corporeally raised Jesus Christ?
Erv,
Your post comes back to the idea that those with very "certain" religious beliefs also have the propensity to force others to accept what they see as absolute truth. I have not witnessed SDA's with a more open minded approach try to force their views on others. Nathan and Cliff Goldstein would be powerful in their pursuit of making sure that people such as you and I did not park their cars in their church lot.
It is amazing as well as amusing to read the various responses to this series. It could have been an opportunity to recognize the basis for our personal beliefs and ideology. Whether it achieved those results, is dubious.
And what is the basis of our personal beliefs and ideology? There is no real supernatural God, and no physically raised Jesus Christ from the dead – it's all a trick or mental delusion?
Dr Taylor, you do not believe 'progressive,' ideas can lead to evil? Not only is Nate correct, but it is every thinking person's responsibility to think, and question material philosophy.
Darrel,
Do you believe that progressive ideas can lead to evil? Go ahead and explain your understanding of how progressiveness can lead to evil; I'm curious.
I too would be very interestied in what progressive ideas Mr. Lindensmith has in mind that can lead to evil. As to his question: yes, progressive ideas might lead to evil (although I can't think of any right now), reactionary ideas certainly lead to evil, some religious ideas can lead to evil, some secultar ideas can lead to evil, etc., etc. Actually, evil can be generated in a lot of ways. My own subjective view is that conservative and fundamentlist ideas cause more problems (I would not call it "evils") than progressive ones do. But again, I'd like to know what progressive ideas Mr. Lindensmith thinks produces evil.
It is the responsibility of every thinking person to question the validity of all ideas–progressive and reactionary.
I'd be interested to know how Dr Taylor's can seriously think Adventism will even exist into the 22nd or 23rd Centuries, if anyone took his own 'progressive' ideas seriously? The Anglican and Lutheran faiths are the closest real-life examples we seem to have to compare against what ET seems to have in mind – and those faiths are dying.
Erv, as usual, you assume that those who question what you say must hold the same beliefs as those you attack. I understand why you do this. It would be so much easier to deal with your critics if you could prove that they really do want to initiate state-sanctioned inquisitions and burn heretics at the stake.
When I talk about the challenge of differentiating what is of evil and what is Spirit led, you hear a dog whistle. You assume, when I use faith language, that I am using it in the sense that fundamentalists use it – to make abstract, universally applicable assertions of propositional truth. That is not the case. I am talking about a process that occurs within voluntary religious communities – the determination of God's will for that community. Such communities have a long and honorable history, at least in America, of rejecting religious pluralism without politicizing their faith or trying to coerce others to join.
You cannot understand a personal truth that is absolute for an individual or faith community, while perhaps not even being truth for others. I would not presume to judge the relationship with God that you profess to have. But I can tell you that you do not belong in my faith community, as I and others in that community understand our identity. Heresy for one religious group may well be orthodoxy for another. So what if some group of Adventists with ecclesiastical authority decides that you or I are too liberal to be members of the church, because we are not Creationists. If that happens, what is to keep me from forming or joining another religious community? There's nothing wrong with "rooting out heresy," as long as it is done by some communally accepted process, and is not accompanied by political authority that has the power to deprive me of life, property, or liberty.
My passion is not so much religious here as it is libertarian – the freedom to discriminate in my associations, beliefs, and commitments. You seem to be advocating a repressive pluralism that would in essence prevent a religious organization or faith community from defining and enforcing its own boundaries. Am I characterizing your position unfairly?
Great points Nathan – totally agree with your last para. I see the danger of intorelance lurking behind this supposed tolerance. I agree in that to me it seems Dr Taylor's 'big tent' is so impossibly wide that it makes the notion of self and community identification as an 'Adventist', if not even 'Christian', totally pointless.
I do admire Nate's candor on the points at issue. He informs his readers that "I can tell you that you [ET] do not belong in my faith community." To which I would respond: "Indeed I do not!." Your faith community you idenitfy as a "libertarian" one–a religion which has "the freedom to discrimate in . . . associations, beliefs, and comiitments." Then Nate suggests that I advocate a "repressive pluralism." What creativity! A glorious, creative oxymoron of the first rank! .
Please understand, Erv, that there are lots of different kinds of communities and associations. The fact that I don't think you would likely make a postive contribution to my faith community does not mean that we would not find common ground in other types of communities – like the AToday community of conversation.
Nate: Well stated. That you and I can co-exist and cooperate to advance the goals of AT represents the unique space that AT has created within contemporary Adventism. Twenty years ago I would have thought that to be impossible. But it is now a reality and a symbol of a positive future for parts of Adventism.
Hum… “a new organization” Erv the president and Elaine the chancellor?
Please notice that 'progressive' was was highlighted. Every age has its 'progressive' ideas that are really not! Marxism, Eugenics and Materialism. This is nothing new really from the days the Epicurians.
ET: 'My only suggestion is that we understand that modern Adventism in the First World is a very, very large tent and that good and regular Adventists can and do hold to a wide range of views about many theological topics. To ever say that someone is not a "good Adventist" because he/she adopts a position with which we may disagree can only create a hostile and negative environment.'
There have been a few comments attacking 'liberals' and the 'big tent' of 1st world Adventism. I should clarify I mostly see myself as a 'liberal' (or maybe 'post-liberal') and do believe also in the 'big tent' of Adventism. However, what ET seems to be promoting is something very, very, different.
If I understand the sort of 'mature', 22nd or 23rd Adventism, is that it is so 'tolerant' than notions of an 'Christian' let alone 'Adventist' identity are all but pointless. It would appear that ET would ideally, in his heart of hearts, wants us to adopt some form of weak atheism, or semi-agnosticm, of the sort of modern Christian-Existentism that people like Jack Shelby Spong for Anglicans and Rudolf Bultmann for Lutherans have introduced and by consequence largely destroyed their own faiths.
It would seem Dr Taylor would, in his heart of hearts, prefer a 'mature' Adventism that includes as 'good Adventists', those who:
We can be tolerant and accepting, but to deny these foundations calls into question any notion of self or collective identity as a 'theist', 'Christian' or 'Adventist.' Calling yourself a Christian or Adventist, and pulling out your membership card, doesn't necessarily make it so. At the judgment, Jesus will make clear that not everyone who called by His name, or even drove out demons in His name, will be considered His followers.
I am all for a big Adventist tent. However, Dr Taylor's proposed 'mature' 22nd or 23rd Adventism wouldn't fit under any tent of current possible design or laws of physics.
A "theisic, personal, and supernatural God"? That covers a lot of theological territory and mixes up a lot of different issues which is also true of what one means by "miracles." That's the problem and glory of theological discourse, you can make all kinds of pronouncements about what is an dis not "Christian" and/or what is or is not "Adventist" which may or may not conform to any reality on the ground. As for a theological system having any relationship to "laws of physics," that simply does not compute..
It seems that a few individuals believe they can decide what is heresy or orthodoxy. When the early Christians had major diffferences in the requirements that must be met to be called Christians, the first "heresy conference" was called in Jerusalem with James representing the Jerusalem members and Peter was given a vision illustrating that God has no favorites, but anyone who fears God and does what is right is acceptable to him. "What God has made clean, you have no right to call profane." "It has been decided by the Holy Spirit and by ourselves not to saddle you with any burden beyond these essentials: you are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from fornication. Avoid these, and you will do what is right."
Now, what are the differences here that are in the specifics mentioned above? Who God has accepted, let no man separate from the body of Christ. If the Bible is written for our benefit, it has already faced a major controversy and it was settled very amicably.
Are any of you members of a congregation that questions members about these difficulties discussed here? Has your pastor asked you to give a statement affirming your belief in the SDA doctrines? Who has elected you judge of other people's personal beliefs?
Discussion is revealing; inferring which doctrines should separate people is not a business for anyone here.
Oh Elaine, why do you make it so much fun?
Elaine: ‘It seems that a few individuals believe they can decide what is heresy or orthodoxy.’
Currently, what SDAs’ define as ‘orthodoxy’ is derived from its 28 Fundamental Beliefs, which new members must affirm when they get baptised with an oath. Thus, it isn’t ‘a few individuals’ who define this but rather the whole world Church at the GC in Session.
I am willing to concede that there is a spectrum as to the interpretation and application of those 28 FBs as to classifications of ‘orthodoxy’. For example, the FB#6 on Creation does not actually affirm only a YEC model – contrary to what many might think. The preamble to the FBs themselves make clear they are not a creed and the Church is open to change. However, they do on the whole provide an approximate benchmark as to what most of the Adventist communion considers ‘orthodox’.
In turn, it is the right of the local church congregation to decide whether someone should be accepted in baptism as a new convert, or conversely should be expelled for heresy. That also is not a decision for a ‘few individuals’ but one for the whole congregation, at a Business Meeting, through a democratic vote.
Contrary to your suggestion, a decision has to be made by the local congregation when a new name is put forward for baptism. This isn’t a ‘few individuals’ deciding; rather, the local church as a whole has to decide whether the new candidate accepts the broad parameters of SDA ‘orthodoxy’ or rather holds a personal belief or practice (i.e. a ‘heresy’) which should preclude them from membership or in rare cases even attendance.
Elaine: ‘When the early Christians had major differences in the requirements that must be met to be called Christians, the first "heresy conference" was called in Jerusalem with James representing the Jerusalem members and Peter was given a vision illustrating that God has no favorites, but anyone who fears God and does what is right is acceptable to him.’
Indeed Elaine they did. And the Apostles and Elders in the Jerusalem conference came to determine what was and was not ‘essential’ to the new fledging Christian movement. As Acts 15 attests, they came to accept that circumcision was not an ‘essential’ issue.
However, the Apostles and Elders did not adopt such impossibly wide ‘tolerance’ of the variety you and Dr Taylor seem to prescribe to. Rather, the Apostles made clear that Gentiles were still under certain ‘essentials’ as to belief and practice, if they wished to belong in the Christian faith community:
‘It has been decided by the Holy Spirit and by ourselves not to saddle you with any burden beyond these essentials: you are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from fornication. Avoid these, and you will do what is right.’ (Note the word ‘essentials’)
Elaine: ‘Who God has accepted, let no man separate from the body of Christ.’
Who says anyone could be accepted by God if they adopted your proposed version of Christianity. I struggle to see it. Someone is not accepted by God just because they say they are. Our own righteousness is of filthy rags.
Being in the ‘body of Christ’ doesn’t mean merely holding a baptismal certificate or membership, or attending Church. It means prescribing to the core Christian teachings – namely belief in a literal man, Jesus of Nazareth, born of a virgin, who died on the Cross and literally rose from the grave 3 days later. If you reject that, I struggle to see how one could claim to be accepted by God as part of the body of Christ?
Being a Christian means more than just trying to be a ‘good person.’ Even a pagan father would give his son bread, not scorpions. All human beings are made in the image of God, if not now wounded, and all of us have the capacity for doing good and evil. We are not Christians because we are someone more moral – we are Christians precisely because we are sinners.
Whilst Christ’s moral teachings are important, to be honest, they are only an amplification of the Law, and things found in other religions. It is the acceptance of Christ’s mission, to die on the Cross and rise again, which is the ‘essence’ of Christianity.
Elaine: ‘If the Bible is written for our benefit, it has already faced a major controversy and it was settled very amicably.’
But Elaine, I thought you didn’t believe in the Bible as sacred scripture? I though you recently made the suggestion that your life had in no perceivable way been affected by the gift of prophecy, including those ancient prophets who claimed to be the source of divine knowledge that came to be recorded in the Bible?
Elaine: ‘Has your pastor asked you to give a statement affirming your belief in the SDA doctrines?’
Yes, when I was baptized. The Baptismal oath requires an public and sacred affirmation of the SDA understanding of scripture as found in its 28 FBs. In fact, in the West, so many people (especially young people but probably older people too) have a deplorable understanding of our own major beliefs. Again, there is a difference between the nuanced interpretation of the FBs (because they are not in fact as prescriptive as some claim) compared with the total rejection of their propositions at all.
Elaine: ‘Who has elected you judge of other people's personal beliefs?’
God has.
As Christians, we have no right to judge those outside our faith community. However, we do have a right to judge those inside, people who claim to be ‘good Adventists’. If someone claims to be an Adventist, but rejects our most fundamental beliefs, if not the fundamental beliefs of Christianity, then fellow Christians (especially members of that local congregation) have the right to judge other person’s personal beliefs.
That is what orthodoxy is all about – a community of faith. Heresy, by original definition and intent, is all about personal belief – belief outside of a faith community. A person can believe whatever they want, but they do have to ascribe to certain beliefs and practices if they want to belong to a faith community. It was that way in the earliest days of Christianity, if not in Judaism before that.
Paul makes this clear in 1 Cor 5:12:
‘What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked person from among you."’
Paul even used stronger and harsher words – certainly not the platitudes of ‘tolerance’ that you and ET seem to advocate:
‘But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse!’ (Gal 1:8)
‘For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.’ (2 Cor 11:4)
Jesus likewise had some quite confronting words about people being put out into wailing and nashing of teeth. Jesus wasn’t harsh on sinners – because we are all sinners. Jesus was instead harsh on so-called intellectual experts, those who claimed ‘membership’ in God’s people as children of Abraham – the liberal-priestly-Sadducees (most) and conservative-Pharisees (lesser) next.
I worship the literal Jesus of Nazareth, who was physically and corporeally raised from the dead after dying on a Cross, to whom if this supernatural event did not happen, our preaching is in vain. I share the good news of this resurrection event, as Mary Magdalene did on that first Sunday morning. This resurrection event in turn links in with the expected physical and literal future Second Advent, of a resurrection of all of us.
If you believe otherwise, then in my own respectful view, you are preaching another Jesus and another gospel from the one promoted in the Bible – you are simply retrojecting through eisegesis a 21st century construct constrain by modern rationalism.
I am all for a ‘big tent’ Adventism myself, but there has to be some ‘essentials’, as the Apostles and Elders in Acts 15 themselves found. The Gentiles didn’t need circumcision but they did have to prescribe to basic Jewish notions of monotheism, as well as basic views about Jesus Christ.
Elaine: ‘Discussion is revealing; inferring which doctrines should separate people is not a business for anyone here.’
Depends what you are talking about.
I think everyone should have the right to contribute anywhere in a free-flowing and open forum like AToday.
However, that is not the question ET seems to be raising. He is raising the question of identity within the SDA Church itself, amongst its members and attendees. He is making certain claims about a ‘big tent’ of Adventism and about a hoped-for 22nd and 23rd Century Adventism. Dr Taylor also makes-up and ascribes his own labels, as do you regularly, like the terms ‘traditionalist’ or ‘fundamentalist’.
If you raise these questions, that is good – because they are very good and interesting questions. The question of Adventist identity, and where it might be going, is certainly worth exploring and should be discussed.
However, if those questions are raised, then it is legitimate for others to equally comment as to those suggestions. It is totally valid for people to look at the type of ‘big tent’ 22nd or 23rd Adventism promoted by ET and yourself, and say as loud as they can that they reject what seems to be offered.
We might disagree, but we have the right to disagree. And there shouldn’t be any suggestion, which seems to be your inference, that someone is intolerant for suggestion certain beliefs and practices are ‘essential’ or not.
So the future identity of our SDA Church, especially in terms of what it considers ‘essential’ beliefs and practices, actually is everyone’s business. It is just as much a legitimate question today as it was for the first generation of Christians as described in Acts 15. It was after all Cain who tried to tell God that he wasn’t his brother’s keeper.
Isn't it wonderful that Adventists Today has given us all a free soapbox to freely express our opinions?
But in the long run, it is just simple catharsis with little, if any affect on overall church policy.
True, but perhaps the pot calling the kettle black.
I wonder if Mr. Ferguson would enlighten the rest of us as to who, in his opinion, he thinks is the "pot" and the "kettle" are and why? I think these roles might be easily switched.
Ha ha, yes indeed, the roles might be reversed. My point was that Elaine seems to complain about people on a 'soap box' espousing opinions that may allow a simple catharsis, but have little affect on overall church policy. I couldn't think of anyone better than Elaine herself who matches that opinion.
Elaine complained that we should not judge what should be considered SDA orthodoxy or heresy. But SDA members, as part of the world Church and as part of local congregations, are in fact both by scripture and the SDA Church Manual to do exactly that.
And for the avoidance of doubt, I'm not saying I'm not on my own soapbox. I am still a kettle after all. There just is some very black pots around as well.
Stephen, you asked:
Elaine: ‘If the Bible is written for our benefit, it has already faced a major controversy and it was settled very amicably.
With this comment you ask if I believed in the sacredness and inspiration of Scripture. Did you not see the "If" prefacing that statement? I write objectively, about known facts, nor my subjective evaluation of the Bible but for those who do believe it is their divine authority. History has given us a record of early Christianity, both from the NT, but better yet, from secular, non-apologist historians. The Bible
has never been an accurate record of history, but is a theological account of the contemporary belief about God.
Stephen, you asked:
Elaine: ‘If the Bible is written for our benefit, it has already faced a major controversy and it was settled very amicably.
With this comment you ask if I believed in the sacredness and inspiration of Scripture. Did you not see the "If" prefacing that statement? I write objectively, about known facts, nor my subjective evaluation of the Bible but for those who do believe it is their divine authority. History has given us a record of early Christianity, both from the NT, but better yet, from secular, non-apologist historians. The Bible
has never been an accurate record of history, but is a theological account of the contemporary belief about God.
Elaine no one writes objectively – not you, not me, not anyone. To suggest you do only shows your own subjectivity.
I don't dispute your last sentence about the Bible being a theological as opposed to historical account. However, I was led to believe you rejected the Bible's theological authority, as well as its historical authority.
O Happy Day! Agreement! "No one writes objectively – not youi, not me, not anyone." If our co-religionists could only take that obvious truth to heart, perhaps there would be less "I'm sure you are wrong" kind of statements. We all — and I mean all — can only be subjective about that invisiible world of the Spirit. No one really knows what is going to happen in the future and a church that says it does automatically is out of touch with reality.. .
If the Bible was meant to be taken seriously and written by inspired persons, it should mean that we can know enough about the future as to who wins the war. That's the most important part.
We might also have some inkling of how close the end of the war may be. Through study we can learn biblical symbols and metaphors on how God works in history–we learn why Christ is our salvation. We learn how to live in the last age. The Bible only gives up its jewels to those who search for them.
I do wonder about the claim of "conditonal prophecy" that is often used by some theologians for the OT. If the end is "delayed" (to humans at least), wouldn't conditions change over time as to who is actually the anti-Christ? The Bible mentions many "anti-Christs" and that they deny who Christ is and attempt to replace Him with human tradition and ideology. Couldn't that change from one generational era to the next?
My understanding is that conditional prophecies are those messages that God will do something on the condition that man does something.
I am enjoying the use of the word "inspired." Once given to the authors of the bible then it is judged as having come from God. Looking at Revelation especially the first few chapters,"inspired" looks pharmacological to me.
Scholars of history must rely on what has been written in the past and the larger number of accounts offer more assurance of their validity. Believers can't even agree on what is recorded in the Bible and no one accepts that all accounts there are facts substantiated by other sources. In numbers there is more validity. Not even two Gospels agree in all the stories, so how can they be anything but very subjective?
The Bible is an authority to those who believe; No serious student of history accepts that everything written in the Bible is an authoritative history. It was never intended to be regardless if it has been seen by some as both theologically and historically accurate.
Subjective also means opinion, personal opinion. Objective means expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations; i.e.
there is no disagreement that there was once a man named Jesus who lived in Palestine during Roman
rule. That Jesus was the divine Son of God is a subjective assessment that cannot be clarified by history or factual evidence. This is why those who believe that Jesus was the Messiah are called "Believers."
When Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, was that just a subjective perception or an objective reality? In John 11:25 Jesus said to Martha: "I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believes in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live…"
Then in John 11:43-44 we find that Jesus, in the presence of a number of people, literally call Lazarus back to life. The one who claimed to be the 'resurrection, and the life' did just that: he raised Lazarus from the dead. Is it not therefore an objective thought process to conclude that the reality of this event shows conclusive evidence that Jesus is the 'resurrection, and the life?'
What about that other man named Lazarus? Was it subjective reality when he was in Hades and called out to Abraham for cool water to cool his tongue while he was in agony in flames?
“Is it not therefore an objective thought process to conclude that the reality of this event shows conclusive evidence that Jesus is the 'resurrection, and the life?'”
Why of course, the answer is clear; this is why Jesus performed this miracle. (The other Lazarus story is a parable.) He didn’t come to provide faith, but instead provided the reason for faith. In fact, it would seem fairly obvious that He came to provide absolute proof, “conclusive evidence.” Certainly, the resurrection of Lazarus represents this.
Anyone and everyone who doesn’t want it to believe—for whatever reason—must assert and believe that this did not happen. The same thing goes for every supernatural event that is chronicled in the Bible.
We should all at least be able to agree on this if nothing else: if Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, if that event is recorded or retold accurately, then everything else that is recorded and reported about who He was is then overwhelmingly likely to be accurate too. Unbelievers are dependent on them being inaccurate.
Oops: “Anyone and everyone who doesn’t want it to evidence—for whatever reason—must…”
This event is essentially a deal maker.
So sorry (two thoughts running concurrently): “Anyone and everyone who doesn’t want to believe or don’t want it to represent evidence…”
There is the strong historical testimony of prophetic history such as Daniel Nine and Is 53 that were historically fulfilled in Christ. And not to forget the historical record the transformation of the disciples after and due to The Resurrection.
I see. "The other Lazarus story is a paraable" We seem to have a fool proof way of dealing with problems in biblidcal texts. If some narrative or statement does not fit your point of view, call it a parable, if it does, it is an objective reality. What a neat way of solving all theological problems.
"Evidence" seems to always be subjective for those who believe; it has no clear definition. It is whatever you want to call evidence. Theological problems depend on "believer's evidence" which has meaning only to them; they have their own special vocabulary yet still want to discuss with those who do not use their particular language. Very handy. Wasn't it Alice who said that "a word means whatever I choose it to mean"?
You make a good point Elaine; however you will agree, won’t you, that if Jesus did raise Lazarus from the dead, if that event is recorded or retold accurately, then everything else that is recorded and retold/reported about who He was is very likely to be accurate too, right?
The same goes for modern 'evidence' of your fellow co-deists who suggest that the Resurrection couldn't have happened.
I can't recall of Elaine ever stating that the "Resurrection couldn't have happened." But she can obviously speak for herself.
I can't think of any statement that I would have made that ever expressed that view. Perhaps Mr. Ferguson can point to something either of us have posted that would have stated that. Perhaps he was confused by a statement to the effect that beliving in a literal resurrection would be entirely a faith statement. Saying that something is totally a faith or confessional statement says absolutely nothing about whether that event literally happened or not. That is a separate issue.
“We seem to have a fool proof way of dealing with problems in biblical texts. If some narrative or statement does not fit your point of view, call it a parable, if it does, it is an objective reality.”
This is anecdotal, but whenever I’ve discussed this with those of other faith communities they’ve agreed that this was a parable. Some stories that Jesus told happen to have been parables. If the other Lazarus story wasn’t one we have a theological scoop, don’t we?
“What a neat way of solving all theological problems.”
Dr. Taylor would have a point if efforts to solve “all theological problems” were made in this “neat way.”
I am wondering more if Dr Taylor in fact believes anything at all? If it all just subjective, and we can pick and choose when it suits us like a smorgesboard, what pray tell is it all for then?
I think I am typing this on a computer. It is a subjective opinion, yes, because at the end of the day I 100% be sure this all isn't an illusion, with my brain really being in a jar somehow. However, based on the evidence, the best assessment I can do is to say that as a matter of fact, I really am typing this on a computer.
This is a danger in being too sure about everything because everything in life is subjective. But there are also things in life we assume are objective fact.
The Resurrection ultimately is subjective, because we can longer test it in a labratory. However, that is not to say it didn't happen either, or couldn't have happened. That is just the same type of rigid, fundamentalist thinking.
I also believe paedophillia is wrong. I know it is a subjective opinion, realising that in other cultures (like in Greco-Roman NT society) is was considered ok. Nevertheless, it is something I feel strongly about as a 'right and wrong' issue. Just because I acknowledge the subjectivity of my views, is not to say I would adopt a post-modernist approach and suggest others could engage in paedophillia if they hold different views from me. Despite my subjectivity, I take a strong moral decision that it is wrong – full stop.
Similarly, the Resurrection of Christ is a subjective decision. It is based on evidence; however, it cannot be proved 100% in a scientific sense (but then again nor can the Big Bang or black holes). Nevertheless, I have made a strong decision about it – a yes and no decision. If you have decided no, that is fine, but I doubt you can in all honesty and integrity call yourself a 'Christian', as Paul in 1 Cor 15 attests.
i also have always thought the "Lazarus/rich man in hell, was anecdotal. As others have stated, with the Bible the work of many different scribes, writing over the span of thousands of years, and all painstakingly written by hand on different types of materials, and that they were finally compiled in one book, appears to be a miracle in itself. Also Paul, Peter and Steven, and others to forfeit life for a man who was unable, it seemed, to save himself, seems highly unlikely, unless there were eye witnesses who laid eyes on the resurrected Christ. Jesus was not some wild creature ranting & raving as a madman. Who would have been drawn to Him had He not preached about something soul fullfilling, as a change from their wretchedness. He was and is the Hope, the blessed hope of all mankind thru the ages. Why would all those who contributed with their life's energies and blood have given their all, to present a horrible hoax for all time???
ET: 'If some narrative or statement does not fit your point of view, call it a parable, if it does, it is an objective reality. What a neat way of solving all theological problems.'
ET you are right in that these problems aren't easy. To quote that great philosopher, Obi One Kinobi, 'Luke, you find in life many of life's greatest truths are matters of opinion' – or something like that.
To some extent the 'answers' are subjective. However, that is why 'theology', if we take Alister McGrath's definition of it, is 'discussion about God through a community of faith.' Community of faith is the key.
Theological answers are to some extent matters of opinion. However, faith communities exist precisely because people come to those same subjective views. Christianity is a community that arose because people believed, if only subjectively, that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah and rose from the dead after dying on a Cross. The Adventist faith community has its own subjective beliefs about things.
If you are looking for 'objective' answers, you should try science – not religion. Religion isn't about objectivity.
Orthodoxy is the (subjective) consensus of a faith community. Heresy literally means to hold a view inconsistent with the consensus (subjective) view of a particular faith community.
If you reject the subjective answers that underpin Christianity, or more narrowly Adventism, then it is wholly your choice whether to remain in that faith community.
I think we have to be careful about the objective-subjective dichotomy. Most opinions contain a mix of both, and most agree about the relativity of these categories. I've said it before. Let me repeat it. To say that the earth is spherical in shape is not objectively true. But it is certainly closer to objective truth than the assertion that the earth is flat.
Nate has made a very valid point. Almost all opinions–I wonder if we should actually say all opinions–contain a mix or both subjective and objective elements. The rise of science provided us with a world view and methods by which we can determine to various levels of confidence that what we believe about some component of the physical world representes a correct understanding of some part of the objective world and how that part of the objective world works. Obviously we make a series of assumptions about the nature of the reality of that objective world that constitutes a world view. A good example is the one that Nate provided. To state that the earth is spherical is certainly closer to an objective truth statement than one that would posit that the earth is flat. The overwheling weight of the evidence is on the side of the earth being sperical.
However, as hs been stated on these blogs by many individuals, attempting to determine if some subjective belief or feeling state, of which religious beliefs/feelsings are the most obvious, have any correspondence with any element of reality is extremely difficult, if not impoosible,.
I agree with ET's last comment. Religous beliefs, more so than science, are by nature extremely subjective. Wishing it so doesn't change that.
However, I believe my point still stands. Theology is a community of faith that shares those same subjective beliefs. Scripture is sacred because a community of faith treats it as so, and it was this shared consensus that gives us the notion of 'orthodoxy'. Theology needs to be distinguished from philosophy, which is an individual belief, and can include personal belief outside a community of faith, which gives us the notion of 'heresy'.
Within the wider Christian church, and more narrowly the SDA Church, exists certain shared beliefs. The interesting question is what the consensus of shared beliefs are that amount to Christian and SDA 'orthodoxy'. Broadly speaking it is the 28 FBs, although there is much nuance as to how those FBs are interpreted and applied.
So going back to the original point, it is basically incorrect to say no one should judge another in their beliefs. The Bible does direct us to judge those inside the Church. As a community of faith, we do have to decide which subjective beliefs we have sufficient consensus to consider 'orthodoxy' and which we consider outside the consensus as 'heresy'.
"As a community of faith, we do have to decide which subjective beliefs we have sufficient consensus to consider 'orthodoxy' and which we consider outside the consensus as 'heresy'". Excellent comment: This is certainly historically true in the Christian tradition and almsot all Christain faith tradtions have found it necessary to draw lines around the "in group"" of their kind of "believers" based on a common set of strictly-defined "orthodox" beliefs..A question: Is this the best way to constitute or define a faith tradition in the modern world? May I suggest that one reason why conservative church bodies such as the Adventist Church are having problems with the loss of a signifcant segment of their younger members is the inability of a traditional fatih tradttions to look beyond theological orthodoxy as the "glue" that holds a group togehter (There are exceptions. For example, as the GYC meovement demonstrates, well-funded Adventist conservatives and fundamentalist adults can create or take control of organizations which attract members of a younger cohort of Adventists with promises of theological certainty and stability) .
I wonder, Erv, if you have any evidence that emphasis on theological orthodoxy is a significant factor in the younger generations of Adventists leaving active church involvement. Would you agree that West Coast SDA higher education doesn't have the "orthodoxy problem? Do you think the SDA drop-out rate is higher at La Sierra, or say Southern, Union, or Andrews, which tend to be more conservative? If you go down to the academy level, it is my impression that Southern California kids, who were raised Adventist, are much less likely to maintain church ties than Adventist kids in the Northwest, Midwest or South. But I have no proof. What do you think?
I don't think that theological orthodoxy should be the glue that keeps people in the pews. But as a practical matter, it seems to me to be a pretty strong factor. And I'd bet good money that there is a very direct correlation between young peoples' theological orthodoxy and their church commitment. I mean…isn't this why you take such a dim view of organized religion? What successful religious groups do you know of that do not strongly advocate what you would view as orthodoxy and orthopraxy? You telling the church what it needs to do to attract members and keep its young people, Erv, is pretty funny, don't you think?
I have lived in the Southern California area for a number of years, now further north in the Central Valley, but my guess is that more SdA young people remain in the church here for cultural reasons: that is where their friends are. The churches are usually larger, contrasted with smaller churches in many areas of the U.S. Young people are not usually attracted to the very small churches with perhaps only older people.
This would not be for doctrinal or orthodoxy, but simply cultural, often neglected but most important for young people, but also for older members. For nearly all Protestant groups, the warm, welcoming church is how they make a choice for their own church. I was reading an obit this morning about a Mennonite, born to missionary parents, and later in life began meeting at the Presbyterian church. Many Protestants move seamlessly between churches. Is it possible to transfer membership between SDA and Protestant churches?
Nathan’s point is well-taken from my perspective.
As the church in North America has become increasingly black and brown, you should consider Oakwood and its effect on the retention of youth in the Division. I would wager that Oakwood is considerably more conservative than either Southern or Andrews in terms of both orthodoxy and orthopraxy; and that theological orthodoxy has had an effective adhesive effect in retaining these Adventist youth.
But if this is true, the agenda/goals of some liberals may be somewhat frustrated. Seriously, orthodoxy serving as effective “glue”! Why, we can’t have that now, can we?
The most liberal and 'mature' denominations are in the greatest decline; the more conservative and 'crude' denominations are holding their numbers or growing. The facts speak for themselves.
Stephen,
It all depends on what area of the world under consideration. The SDA church is most certainly not growing in the NAD or in Europe (in immigrants only). The Pentecostals are the fastest growing, so if Adventists want to experience rapid growth, become more like the Pentecostals?
Some of Nate’s and all of Elaine’s comments make very valid points which strongly suggest that my earlier observations on this subject as applied to those under 30 years of age need to be modified and nuanced. It seems to me that careful consideration of why those under 30 who were born into the Adventist Church stay or leave the Adventist Church might come up with some very confusing data depending on what sub-population based on ethic affiliation, geographic location, socio-economic status and a wide assortment of other variables. Perhaps the one conclusion that we all might agree on is: “It’s a complex matter and depends on a whole host of factors.” I know the topic has been studied in detail over several decades and it might help the quality of discussion on this issue if I/we had some knowledge of the information that has been collected. It would be beneficial if someone with access to current data and an in-depth knowledge and understanding of it might help us here.
One comment of Nate is puzzling: “I don’t think that theological orthodoxy should be the glue that keeps people in the pews.” Based on his previous statements, this does not seem to compute. If it is not theological orthodoxy, what should, in his view, keep people in the Adventist pew? I am sincerely interested in his answer.
May I suggest that Elaine’s suggestion about cultural factors probably explains a lot of what is being observed in the under 30 cohort. The most important factor which determines whether those in that demographic stay or leave is the primary cultural and social networks to which they belong. If those networks, i.e., their peer groups, function within the orbit of institutional Adventism in some form, then, one would be motivated to stay within that network and thus within the institutional church. In such cases, it would matter very little if one agreed or disagreed with some abstract theological point and thus whether the church is leaning left or right. In fact, my guess is that for many in that age cohort, it is not even a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. They care very little about the theological components of Adventism, the social components provide the “glue” that keeps them in the church. In that sense, they are several commentators who have noted that they are "post-denminational" in their outlook. As noted before, the exception would be for those influenced by the GYC movement on the Adventist right wing.
Getting you to understand the perspectives of faith, Erv, is probably a bit like you getting me to understand math. I just don't seem to have a processor for that kind of information, and it would take much intense exposure and desire on my part to develop that capacity. How interested are you in developing or enlarging your capacity for the spiritual and the mystical? I can already hear your response: "Could you just put a bullet through my brain?"
Let me try to point toward a position of understanding. Theology is of course the way we conceptualize God. It is rooted in, and grows out of, relationships, experiences, stories, hopes, dreams, memories, etc. The conceptual work provides meaning, retains the experiences, stories and relationships, and also ideally affords space for theological maturation and growth. Theology might also be thought of as an elastic container for faith – necessary, but not equivalent to that which it transmits and preserves. Neither the social components nor the theological components are the glue that keep people in the church, though they are both essential for identity and meaning.
Perhaps an analogy to marriage or family would help. Both are much more than the elements by which they can be objectively identified or the forces that maintain them. You could objectively describe in great detail all features of a beautiful woman without using value-laden jargon. But it would not lead anyone to conclude, even if they fully comprehended your description, that the person you were describing was in fact beautiful.
What keeps people in the pews, Erv, and hopefully gets them out of the pews, is spiritual and mystical. Attempting to definitionally grasp and contain those elements is self-defeating.
Nate,
It makes no difference whether you or I could understand math, it does not change the facts that math is constant, and never depending on subjective understanding.
The spiritual and mystical are always subjective and need no explanation. Like love, you either recognize it, or you don't; the mystical and spiritual are always subjective and can never be explained by objective evidence.
Science is full of presuppositions many of which are perhaps more subjective than objective. This is why (and how) scientists can constantly improve and change existing scientific ‘knowledge.’
Certainly we can all at least agree that Christian doctrine is clear that “a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.” This is no slogan, but (Pauline) doctrine. Therefore every Christian should take this seriously; no matter how they may interpret it.
So if God talk is “foolishness” to those who don’t believe, we are wasting our time trying to convince “natural” non-believers.
One can’t explain what another “cannot understand.”
Stephen,
I didn't mention science, but MATH, which is not subject to change, only widens one's knowledge and the many areas in which it is applied. Science IS always changing with new discoveries. No one has "discovered" that 2+2 no longer equals 4, otherwise we would have a very random or chaotic universe.
No one, no matter a devout believer, can make another "understand" his particular spiritual beliefs. Each person must discover that for himself by reading, listening to other's experiences and he may develop it for himself. But we must remember that each individual experiences the spiritual and mystical in different ways.
Did you ever think that after someone discovered the reality that 2+2=4, we eventually “discovered” algebra, geometry, trigonometry, calculus, linear algebra, vector calculus, number theory, real analysis, etc.? In other words there are facts or realities or truths about (even) math that have subsequently become known to finite mankind.
Of course. Once very basic method is discovered, humans began finding out the almost endless possibilities once this was absolutely infallible. One builds on another when the foundation is solid.
For Christians, nothing is more "solid" than whatever Jesus believed, did, and said. It is the "foundation" for everything. He is the cornerstone; and the embodiment of truth. Christians believe that He believed things, did things, said things, and represented things that we will one day discover to be even more exact and precise than 2+2=4.
The problem with relegating the spiritual and mystical to the realm of the subjective, as if it were somehow and inferior path to science and math as a path to knowledge, is that science and math know nothing of the good ,the true, and the beautiful. They cannot apprehend values like courage, honor, and self-sacrifice. These realities have been universally validated by the lives and testimony of humanity throughout recorded history. Yes, each individual experiences them in different ways, but there is nonetheless a commonality to those experiences that enables consensus at certain levels, just as there is commonality to the experience of gravity that enables consensus at certain levels.
In the end, everything that matters for human life is spiritual. The few who actually convince themselves to live lives that deny this truth end up bankrupting their souls and trying to destroy the souls of others.
Many Islamist fighters are totally self-sacrificing: giving their lives for their beliefs. Everything depends on WHAT you believe, not whether you are willing to sacrifice for it.
Nate’s response to the question about what, in his view, keeps or does not keep specific individuals in the Adventist pews is very helpful and I would suggest reveals a lot about why he and I probably will always disagree at some fundamental level.
It seems to me that Nate’s comment about not having “the processor,” for math while being oriented toward and being attracted to the “spiritual and mystical” goes to the heart of this particular issue. I’ve previously used a metaphor to explain why I have a hard time understanding what Nate and many others are actually relating when they express their commitment to and beliefs about “spiritual” experiences involving the use of confessional expressions which place them squarely within the Christian mystical tradition. I really don’t understand what these people are talking about.
I suggest that the principal reason that Nate and I will never see things eye-to-eye on this topic derives from Nate’s statement that he does not have a “math processor,” I will translate that to say that he does not the “math gene.” In contrast, using the same metaphor, I will posit that he does very much possess the “faith gene.” On the other hand, I definitely do not have the “faith gene.”
The reason I use the “gene” metaphor is that I suspect that whatever is going on which is the most important factor creating the difference of opinion on this topic is that Nate and I have a different set of perhaps hardwired connections in our respective brains by which we process, interpret and combine our sense impressions to create “meaning.” Or, if one does not like the hardwired model, there is an alternative one that posits that some very different set of experiences during our respective very early pre-lingual years had a major impact on the development of our respective personality characteristics.
May I immediately note that what is being suggested here does not address the supernatural or non-supernatural nature of the source of some components of the human “spiritual and mystical” states of consciousness. There are widespread reports from many societies that such experiences derive from supernatural sources. Shamans in traditional societies are particularly in-tune with those states of consciousness. In medieval and early modern Western society, the mystics and saints of the church also reported that type of sometimes consciousness which sometimes involved “out-of-body” experiences. In the history of our little subculture, Ellen White was certainly in that mystical tradition. What is being addressed here is why some individuals can “tune-in” to whatever is conceived of in their society as spiritual and mystical and others can not.
May I also emphasize that what I am not suggesting here that is having or not having the “faith gene” is “good” or “bad.” Or that being attracted and involved in the “spiritual and mystical” is “good” or “bad.” We are not talking about right and wrong or true and false here. We are here talking about core or basic personality types. I am also suggesting that differences in perception of the spiritual is not explained by differential intelligence (however measured) or cognitive abilities, level of education, or career accomplishments or any such category. Those elements are, at best, marginally relevant.
Now I suspect that Nate and those who agree with Nate will not like this approach to examining how the category of “spiritual and mystical” is viewed by different individuals. My suspicion is, in part, based on Nate’s statement at the end of his
comment which insists that “Attempting to definitionally (not in the dictionary but still a great word) grasp and contain those elements is self-defeating.” By saying that he believes that employing those “elements” in an explanation is “self-defeating,” I assume that he means that spiritual and mystical perceptions and behavior can not be studied in terms of concepts developed in psychological, psychiatric, sociological, neurological and/or personality and brain function studies.
I’m suggesting that Nate and others who support his positions have a major aversion to using conclusions and generalizations based on studies in these fields as providing any insights about the nature, content or characteristics of what he reports are his and others mystical/spiritual experiences of those having the faith gene. He and they, I suspect, will insist that these experiences cannot be “explained” or even better understood in terms of any non-supernatural or “ordinary” set of factors.
Perhaps I am wrong. I would be happy to be corrected by Nate.
Erv,
I believe you have explained a very complex situation very well. May I compare it more simply to color blindness, which is sex-recessive. My father was partially color blind and my son has the same defect. It has nothing to do with intelligence, either intellectual or emotional, but simply a failure to see the full spectrum of color. My brother-in-law, a chairman of art department in an SDA university, had the same genetic defect; however, it never interfered with his profession.
Some people must rely on logic and rationality to understand a new idea; others have the capability often expressed as "spiritual things are spiritually discerned." What that means is anyone's guess.
Just a couple of comments to both Erv and Elaine. I think I could become proficient at math. It would just take more work on my part. I think you too, Erv, could develop the capacity for spiritual perception. The problem with Elaine's color-blindness analogy is that I think she believes it is those who see things spiritually who are color-blind.
I certainly think behavioral disciplines can help us to understand human behavior and even enrich our understanding of the spiritual realm. I question how scientific they are most of the time. But that doesn't mean they are not very useful. Interpreting religion as a psychological construct, however, seems as foolish to me as interpreting the mind as a construct of the brain.
Nate, on the contrary, those who have that spiritual perception view many more colors in the spectrum than those of us with normal vision. It is extra sensory perception. Some have it, some don't. Neither is superior, only different just as we all are born with different physiques, hair color, eyes, and many other unique characteristidcs.
The one who believes in the theory of evolution has biggest “faith gene”.
In AT the same people that questions and undermine the validity of the Bible give the highest credibility to the theory of evolution like fact, realty or the purist truth. That is ironical, they don't question the validity of the theory. An intellectually honest individual with the basic and solid knowledge of biology and genetics knows that this theory has big holes and is unsustainable. So the one who believes in the theory of evolution as fact, realty or truth is intellectually dishonest or ignorant in the fundaments of biology, in the worse case both, or in the best just is a believer with enormous faith.
Dr Wilbur has made many assertions under the auspices of Dr Taylor's recent series of blogs which somewhat denote his penchant to redefine religion, by even going to the extent of labeling it merely an 'illusion' – but yet again he throws in a line or two, advocating evolution using flowery words like the "success of evolutionary models" in order to beef up his evolutionary ideals whilst downplaying the ID position and so forth.
I wish to point out here that it is not entirely the fault of evolution believers to believe such theories as they seem to suffer the effects of “Darwin's Great Disappointment” which, unlike Miller’s Disappointment of 1844, where many came to terms with their inadvertent misunderstanding of the nature of the expected event, Darwin’s Great Disappointment remains a matter of sheer blind faith which ignores the fact that over a hundred years after his death, not a single ‘transitional’ fossil or intermediate variety of species has ever been found on our planet. The ability of living organisms to adapt or change naturally over time and yet remain consistent in terms of their species and design has been hijacked and substituted with the theory of evolution.
I suppose a hundred (or two hundred) years from now (if time permits) they will mature in their understanding of Darwin’s Disappointment and move on. Or, perhaps an evolutionist believer on these blogs can show at least one picture of a real transitional fossil – if that's not asking for too much. Unless it is all just but an 'illusion' and something similar to what Dr Wilbur has alluded to in his attempt to redefine religion.
"success of evolutionary models" is an interesting expression for many reasons. At first one notices the word "success" and then the word "models" in the plural. What models have been "successful" to do what?
Well sir, firstly, we have to give the Darwinist faith community credit for being successful in pulling the wool over the eyes of the scientific community at large. This success however can be attributed mainly so because of their other success in indoctrinating school-kids in order to engineer the whole Darwinist mindset (by using an intelligently designed curriculum of course). So far I can think only of these as the "success of evolutionary models." Oh, another success is that they also got government and the courts to believe they are 'scientific' models by using scientific jargon to explain their faith system; but even more so, their non-God philosophical position did the trick in getting them included in scientific circles, by default I would say – rather than having any real empirical credibility that honestly meets the stringent requirements of any scientific model.
All true 22; but evolution models have not explained the VERY thing they MUST explain to be a "successful" scientific theory, and that is the origin of the complex machines and digital codes that all life, no matter how primative, MUST have. Using crazy terms like "emergent properties," that "natural mechanism can generate information and complexity," as Taylor and Kootsey have stated, is shamefully unprofessional. They know it is false. Here is just a sample of the information and complexity must arrive naturally at the same moment:
2010, Dr. Don Johnson, Ph.D. in chemistry, and Ph.D. in computer and information sciences, gave a presentation entitled Bioinformatics: The Information in Life for the University of North Carolina Wilmington chapter of the Association for Computer Machinery.
“Somehow we have a genetic operating system that is ubiquitous. All known life-forms have the same genetic code. They all have the same protein manufacturing facilities in the ribosomes. They all use the same types of techniques. So something is pre-existing, and the particular genome is the set of programs in the DNA for any particular organism. So the genome is not the DNA, and the DNA is not the program. The DNA is simply a storage device. The genome is the program that’s stored in the storage device, and that depends on the particular organism we’re talking about.”
What is important, however, is that we can legitimately speak of a network of regulatory programs existing within the cell, which DNA enables and of which DNA forms a vital part.
On a slide entitled “Information Systems In Life,” Dr. Johnson points out that:
ET's subjective theory that many people (perhaps most) may have the "faith gene", while others (fewer) have the "math gene", hard wired in the hard drive of brain, has merit, likewise there must be others that may have variations of both. You say, you do not possess the faith gene, therefore perhaps those types who also do not possess the faith gene are in a sense "blind" to the possibility it could exist, and they who state their belief in the mystical, supernatural, must be delusional. or psychotic. This would make it quite difficult for neurologists and psychiatrists in their research and treatment should they not know they were analysing a "faith" or "math" genetic patient; it could easily lead to a false presumption, and or should the practitioner also be of the opposite defective gene?? Could be one reason psychiatrists are prone to suicide. And if a "math" hard wired individual's forebears had the "faith gene", does that make him a "Mutant", or is he just delusional??
Perhaps there is such that a "math" driven personality could never have a Saul of Tarsus supernatural experience, are if delusional, pride would prevent it?? Life is never simple or easy. It's hard for most to cope. i submit its impossible for the "individual" to be objective. Even in a group decision, the majority is only partially objective.
Enjoy your family this weekend.