GODS KNOT: A Cord of 3 Strands
by Ed Dickerson
In plane geometry, three points define a line. Any two points can be connected by straight line, but it takes three to define a line. I mention this because I have spent several columns concerning the identity and unique purpose of the Adventist movement. Mighty forces today attempt to pull the denomination in very different directions, and indeed threaten to pull it apart. I submit that one factor may be related to this simple geometric arrangement of needing three points to define a line.
It seems to me that three points also define our identity. Only one of the three great questions concerns identity directly: “Who am I?” The other two concern history, “Why am I here?”; and destiny, “Where am I going?” Considering that great questions exist concerning history and destiny, we shouldn’t be surprised that we cannot ascertain our identiy.
“Why am I here?” has two conflicting answers (and of course innumerable variations). Either I am here because God created the world in six days, and placed humans in charge, or I am here because of a very long series of random events. Either I live in a world of sin and death—where death is the last enemy– because of a Great Controversy between Good and Evil, and my ancestors chose the evil side; or I live in a world where death is necessary and even beneficial because it eliminates maladaptive organisms. You can quarrel with my wording or quibble over the choice of examples, but it would be difficult to deny that these two narratives of our history lead to radically different conclusions about who we are.
Closer to home, we can believe that our denomination came into being as a fulfillment of prophecy, or through a misunderstanding of a too literal reading of an old book. I constantly see both of these positions put forth in the discussions here.
Similarly, our destiny, “Where we are going,” will differ greatly depending upon our view of our origins. And it seems to me that the great tug-of-war concerning our identity– who we are going to be right now – is a contest of where to put the third point that defines our narrative line.
From my perspective, a currently ascendant group wants to take us “Back to the Future,” to attempt to either maintain or return the Adventist movement to some (largely imaginary) earlier, more pristine state. Another large faction don’t really care much about our history, and simply want to chart a “new” course, which strangely echoes quite a few 19th century ideas and concepts.
Both approaches, however, end up with little or no sense of who we should be today, for the simple reason that one or both ends of the narrative line are anchored in thin air. The traditionalists can plot a straight line from what they see as a pristine church to where we are; enthusiasts for the ever emerging church (sorry, but I can’t think of a better term, though I don’t wish it to be considered identical to the “emerging church movement”) , can draw a straight line from where we are to where they think we will eventually emerge. But attempts to align all three are few and often futile.
Both sides view at least some portion of our church history as, shall we say, embarrassing, although they disagree over which portions. Increasingly, people are simply throwing up their hands in exasperation. Again, I see much of that echoed in Atoday discussions.
At least some of this frustration comes from a distinctly utopian approach C.S. Lewis called “chronological prejudice” on the part of both factions. That is to say, all can see the flaws in what actually is and has been done, and imagine, in hindsight, that a perfect course could have been steered, had only the benighted individuals in charge been as wise as we are, at our exalted level of development.
I submit that the only way we’re going to find a coherent identity is to locate our position on that narrative line that begins with our history, how we got here – warts and all, by the way– and our destiny. My belief is that we are primarily a people of “present truth,” of a dynamic engagement between God’s plan of salvation and the culture where we find ourselves. This explanation lines up with our history, gives us direction for the present, and leads directly to our destiny.
This is a demanding identity, for it requires us to be continually attuned to God, and to attempt to view our current situation through the lens of salvation history. That also requires that we be continually aware of the culture in which we live. Finally, it requires us to be aware that God is drawing this world to a conclusion. As I see it, progressives and traditionalists each tacitly reject one or more of those requirements.
Until we settle these basic questions of existence, we will continue arguing past each other. And more crucially, making arguments that the world we are trying to reach doesn’t care about.
Why do you talk so much when you know so little? Now get ready to face me! Can you answer the questions I ask?… I am the LORD All-Powerful, but you have argued that I am wrong. Now you must answer me. Job said to the LORD: Who am I to answer you? I did speak once or twice, but never again. Then out of the storm the LORD said to Job: Face me and answer the questions I ask! Are you trying to prove that you are innocent by accusing me of injustice?… Job said: No one can oppose you, because you have the power to do what you want. You asked why I talk so much when I know so little. I have talked about things that are far beyond my understanding. You told me to listen and answer your questions. I heard about you from others; now I have seen you with my own eyes. That’s why I hate myself and sit here in dust and ashes to show my sorrow. (Job 38:1.2; 40:1-6; 42:1-6 CEV)
Thanks Ed
Instead of concept, or hypothesis, how about further explanation? Please narrow this down some more and especially elaborate on “present truth”. To Ed, who quoted abstracts from Job, what is your point? If personal, never mind.
Songbird,
The point… We oft times get caught up talking about things we’re not humble enough to let the Lord show us… because we’re spending to much time talking about what we really don’t understand, much less know. I was told once that the most difficult person to deal with is the one who thinks they know something. The problem is that they don’t realize that they don’t know what they think they know. What makes them so difficult is that they have to unlearn what they think they know, to learn what they thought they knew.
Again, my point, Jesus Himself says of us, “thou sayest… but thou knowest not.”
Peace
I can only speak for myself, but my feeling is that we spend too much time naval gazing and analyzing ourselves as a church. It’s more negative on this site as it has its share of malcontents. But should a fulfilled, mature individual or church with a purpose be so concerned with their identity? Sure, we need to recognize problems and sometimes uncover wrongdoing, but let’s not forget that we are all children of God before being Adventists.
Another problem is our self-image as “the chosen ones.” the Bible doesn’t name the remnant. I don’t think it’s an organization. (I understand the word means “that which is left” and is not necessarily a term denoting quantity.) I suppose most religions feel they are something special, but ours seems to take this further. With John, we should be saying “I must decrease, but Christ must increase.”
I think, it’s not so much bringing together traditionalists and “progressives” as it is to repect and love one another and be open to learning from each other. None of this happens without being “attuned to God,” and seeking His will in this particular society at this time.
In Gallileo’s time, he was pushed outside of the church for suggesting that the geocentric concept of the solar system was incorrect despite it being the church’s position. The supports of the flat earth idea supported their beliefs from Scripture that said that the earth had four corners. Today the vast majority of us accept that the earth is a sphere. Today we all accept the heliocentric explanation of the universe. The controversy between change resistance and change proponents is not new to the SDA Church. Do we really think that we have such complete knowledge of God and of the origins of the universe and of the plan of salvation that our understanding can never grow. Yes, these ideas challenge our very understanding of Scripture and of ourselves, but the principle of ‘present truth’ means that our understanding evolves over time. We should not divide ourselves between progressives and non-progressives. Let’s accept our diversity of understanding and thought and accept each other as part of the very rich fabric which makes up the Seventh-day Adventist church. Unity despite diversity of opinion and understanding.
I don’t think the geomtry allegory helps your aurgument, because you start by being patently wrong about geometry. Lines are in fact defined by two points. Given your second sentence “Any two points can be connected by straight line, but it takes three to define a line”, you seem to understand this. But the last part of the sentence make no sense. Did you mean that three points define a plane. I assume you did, but a you seem think in lines rather than planes. Maybe that as the problem.
The options for beliefs are not a linear continuum but are far more multi-dimensional than your description. Ultimately we really only know about here and now. The past, which did not actually involve us, is no more knowable than is our future. This alone make you insistence on agreement impossible. But then you mention the “lens of salvation history”; a lens? How exactly is this lens supposed to operate? Aren’t you arguing that we must arbitrarily agree on the history of salvation before we can truly “love” each other? If that is the case then we are certainly doomed.
Ed,
In looking at your third paragraph, I see either/or statements. I don’t think the lines can be drawn that strictly. Believing that the world wasn’t created in six actual days as we understand them, doesn’t mean we think it is random over millions of years of death and sin. nor does it deny a Sabbath. I don’t know how God created life, but I know He did. I just don’t think that the primitive people of that era (of the writing) had any concept of the earth and its workings. I think they relied on stories passed on from generation to generation. This is evidenced by there being two stories of creation. That does not make them untrue in principle, but they are not based on the knowledge we have today. Yes, we are living the drama of a great controversy between good and evil. And yes the first death is necessary in a sinful world, or the world would have run out of space a long time ago. It is the second death that is the wages of sin and which Christ died for all who do not reject Him and His Holy Spirit.
History is as unknowable as the future? Really? Then should we do away with all “supposed” history? That’s pretty scary.
Agreed that history AS IT HAPPENED is unknowable to human beings, in that it includes not only everything ever done, said, or thought by God, angels, human beings, or anyone else,but also everything else that ever happened, whether seen or unseen, known or unknown by any intelligent being (other than God).
History AS WE KNOW IT involves a great deal of intended or unintended selection of events, and, more problematic, the interpretation of those events and their relationship to each other.
It is true that selection and interpretation of events that happened create problems for KNOWING history. But is it entirely “unknowable?” I hope not. Otherwise there would never be any way to understand anything about cause/effect relationships. Could one know that a cobra bite is highly likely to be fatal without “unknowable???” history?
Isn’t history very important to understanding possible and probable consequences of present or future actions? According to the Bible, what happened in the past was recorded for our learning.
While it may be true that history never repeats itself entirely, isn’t there at least some truth to the saying that those who fail to learn the lessons of history are likely to repeat it? That can be veryy good. It can also be very bad.
Could we not all agree to anchor the historical end of this line in the close neighborhood of Jerusalem some 2000 years ago? That might prove a more solid foundation to build agreement upon than the more recent dates mentioned in the article.
Thomas,
Good idea. But then there would be no Seventh-day Adventist church, on the beinning of Christianity. So, if we all were “Christians” rather than very discordant groups all claiming to be the “one true church” we could stop fighting over our differences and focuse on our many mutual beliefs.
Ed wrote:
“My belief is that we are primarily a people of “present truth,” of a dynamic engagement between God’s plan of salvation and the culture where we find ourselves.”
The problem is that present truth is really just a propaganda term, it has no real meaning but Adventists keep using it because it sounds so good to them sort of like the communist who uses the term “social justice” and the atheists or religious traditionalist who uses the term. They don’t define it so it means whatever they want it to mean, they can’t define of they find it does not mean what they want it to mean. And we Adventists have our own special term present truth, though like social justice it is used by others also, we just ignore it. See the article Defining and Redefining Present Truth
http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2010/09/defining-and-redefining-present-truth.html
In the early history of the church, “present truth” referred especially and primarily to observance of the seventh-day Sabbath. Is that still “present truth?”