Speaking Christian and a Dialect of Christian known as Adventist
by Ervin Taylor
Ervin Taylor
“Christian language has become a stumbling block in our time. Much of its basic vocabulary is seriously misunderstood by Christians and non-Christians alike. Big words like salvation, saved, sacrifice, redeemer, redemption, righteousness, repentance, mercy, sin, forgiveness, born again, second coming, God, Jesus, and Bible… have acquired meanings that are serious distortions of their biblical and traditional meanings.” This is the opening sentence in the introduction of Marcus Borg’s 2011 volume Speaking Christian with the subtitle Why Christian Words have Lost Their Meaning and Power—and How They Can Be Restored.
Borg is best known for his books Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time and the Heart of Christianity. He is the emeritus Hundere Distinguished Professor of Religion and Culture, at Oregon State University and Canon Theologian at Trinity Episcopal Cathedral in Portland, Oregon.
Borg suggests that the misunderstandings of the language of traditional Christianity are the products of two major causes. The first is the “literalization of language in the modern period,” while the second he characterizes as “heaven-and-hell Christianity.”He insists that when these two elements are present, it “diminishes and distorts the meaning of Christian language.”
He notes that Christians are “deeply divided by different understandings of shared language.” About half of American Christians believe that “biblical language is to be understood literally within a heaven-and-hell framework that emphasizes the afterlife, sin and forgiveness, Jesus dying for our sins, and believing.” Roughly, the other half have moved on to use an alternate vocabulary to approach their understanding of Christianity to the degree that Borg insists that the differences between these two ways of understanding the message of Jesus as interpreted through Paul, results, for all practical purposes, in two separate religions.
Expanding our comments beyond those contained in the Borg volume, these two ways of approaching Christianity that he identifies are currently broadly represented, on one hand, by fundamentalist and conservative Protestant evangelicals and, on the other, by modernist or liberal Protestantism. In many cases, historic Protestant churches, such as the Lutheran and Presbyterian traditions, have undergone organizational splits which, in the early parts of the 20th century, had separated “modernists” from “evangelicals-fundamentalists” into separate organizational traditions. Even though its historical roots preceded the Fundamentalist-Modernist split in other parts of Protestantism, the Seventh-day Adventist (Adventist) Christian variant has generally aligned itself with the conservative and fundamentalist wing of Protestantism. However, because it adopted a non-biblical source of religious authority in the writings of Ellen White, it was widely viewed as a cult in the minds of many fundamentalists and evangelicals. This changed to some degree beginning in the late 1950s.with the publication of Questions on Doctrine. Interestingly, this book created a backlash in some traditional parts of Adventism which accused denominational leadership of “selling out” so-called historic Adventism.
Some who belonged to what might be characterized as the nascent progressive or liberal wing of Adventism viewed these developments within institutional Adventism as the equivalent of rearranging the deck chairs on the theological Titanic of Adventism and generally ignored these disputes. Most thought there were much more fundamental issues that classical Adventism had to address if a more mature Adventism was to emerge to make any meaningful contribution to the larger First World Christian community. Failure to do that would consign it to the intellectual and cultural backwaters to become a museum-level religious institution.
One of these areas involved a vocabulary that had evolved within Adventism by which it defined itself. In a sense, the terms that were used in its internal discourse might be viewed as one part of an Adventist “dialect” which reflected the subculture that Adventism had created over its corporate history since its creation in the mid-19th century. Some of these terms and phrases included remnant to refer to corporate Adventism, in the truth to refer to the state of those belonging to corporate Adventism, out of the truth for those who had left the Adventist Church, and truth-filled literature to refer to written materials published by corporate Adventism. The writings of Ellen G. White were often termed the Spirit of Prophecy. The grand metanarrative of Adventism which had been assembled by White was referred to as The Great Controversy. It was even argued that there was a right (orthodox) and wrong (heterodox) way to pronounce the word “Adventist.” (I can never remember which is supposed to be the orthodox way, ad-VEN-tist or AD-ven-tist.)
Like the words that Borg has identified as creating major misunderstandings for Christianity in general, a number of words and terms used in traditional Adventism can, for many, be considered a stumbling block that obscures and confuses more than accurately describing contemporary First World Adventism. Just as dictionaries are in need of being updated as languages evolve, the Adventist vocabulary is in great need of being updated if clarity and understanding are to be advanced in First World Adventism.
One archaic term that needs to be totally rethought or completely dropped is the term “Remnant” as applied to the Adventist Church. This word had great meaning to the small group, the “Little Flock,” that gathered together around Ellen White after 1844. This group needed some way of viewing what they were doing as being of cosmic significance and thus they applied to themselves the term “Remnant.” They (as opposed to all of the other apostate religious groups of their day) believed in all of the Hebrew Ten Commandments and “had” the “Spirit of Prophecy” (which they identified as Ellen White); they were also able to see themselves in the book of Revelation. Thus the term conferred great consolation. Even if they were a tiny group of ex-Millerites living in northeastern United States, they had “the” Truth and could point to the Bible to validate their existence.
We can wonder whether certain parts of the contemporary Adventist tradition in the First World, now more than a century removed from that early phase of development, can look squarely at the traditional Adventist dialect of Christianity, understand how and why certain words were chosen, and leave them behind. Other parts of contemporary Adventism may continue to see value in retaining the use of these terms and we should affirm their right to continue to use them just as certain parts of the Adventist Church may not wish to ordain women as pastors while others are proceeding to do just that. It appears that if Adventism is to have a future without an organizational split, it must quickly adopt a pluralist way of moving forward.
Effective communication requires a desire to exchange information. It is two-party action where the talking of one does not by default declare the other the listener, but where each takes turns speaking and listening. Since Adventist evangelism is based on teaching everyone else the error of their ways by asking them to listen to "the truth," I suggest that we Adventists first need to learn about about the fundamentals of communication with others before can even know which of our phrases needs changed.
Our greatest need is to learn to speak the language of love, which is primarily non-verbal and is spoken by our actions. Jesus spent most of His time ministering to the needs of people by healing the sick, casting out demons, cleansing the lepers, raising the dead. This improved the lives of the people He met aroused in them a desire to get to know Him better. Only then did they become willing to listen to his teaching. In contrast, our first, highest and only priority is teaching people the error of their ways so they can know "the truth."
I think his attempt to find the original meaning skirts a larger issue. While I agree with him that religious discourse has been bastardized when compared to its foundation, it is even more tenuous now detached from mythical view of creation. And that is because of the symbiosis of religious language that is mortally entwined with a debunked view of the universe.
All modern Christian discourse (Adventism, too) begins with the proposition that God created the perfect heavens and the earth only to have it poisoned into sinful chaos by ungrateful miscreants who polluted the entire universe by their insubordination. We know now that the universe doesn't need a creator, the Genesis story has value only as a nice myth created by ignorant people. The terms that Borge wishes to rehabilitate have no meaning without that literal source.
Super Guy, an ultimate bumbling version or ourselves, is my term for the current concept of God based on the language Borge elucidates.
I have only read a number of reviews of Borge's book, so after I read it, which I will shortly, I reserve the right to adjust this application of his treatise, eat humble pie, and post a more accurate analysis. However, I will stick with Super Guy as the ultimate unavoidable evolution of historical theology.
The concept of God as Love has no anthropomorphic or cosmological attachment and is an infinite measure beyond Super Guy.
According to the story of the tower of Babel as recorded in Genesis, once their langauages changed immediately, they could no longer work together, or even live together and thus went their separate ways.
This is the ancient story of language development, but it has a meaning for today. When those who are called Christians, and even more defined as Adventists, and speak such a different language they are no longer able to communicate effectively. We see evidences of this all around us. The results of the Babel story is occuring today in Adventism: there are already separations, if not formally, then by default because of decreasing effective communication.
Agreed! Terminology is certainly a large part of a church's failure to communicate in the current era. It is no wonder there is so little interest in what we have to say. We are seen as another fundamentalist religion (we are not fundamentalist, but who notices?) Our counter-culture beliefs could be presented quite effectively in the post-modern world if enough good news workers allowed themselves to be used by the Holy Spirit to move away from traditional communication and talk to the unchurched where they are.
If we put more emphasis on what the Bible means (the whole picture and not literal selections), it would change lives and reveal a God of love. Instead we argue over whether the ancient writers knew as much as 21st-century sciencists think they know. Every story, every parable has deep spiritual meaning, yet we read it as people of the physical only and demand it be literally true in every aspect. In doing so, we miss the lessons it has to teach, and ingnore them. (This is not the same as "spiritualizing" everything away either.)
Dr Marcus Borg is Canon Theologian at an Episcopal Church which practices infant 'pouring' instead of baptism of believers by immersion – similar to their Catholic counterparts which 'sprinkle.' Sexual immoral practices such as homosexuality, bi-sexuality and transgender fetishes are supported and part of the congregation membership. I would be careful not to be too quick in falling for theologians with post modernist worldviews that influence their theology. The Episcopal Church does not accept the Seventh-day Sabbath, which sound biblical based theology cannot simply ignore. This is the progressive vision Dr Taylor has for Adventism which in my opinion can only lead to apostasy (or a split as he may call it). Perhaps Dr Taylor can enlighten us what the word remnant in Rev 12:17 is supposed to mean in terms of those who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ (which is the spirit of prophecy – Rev 19:10). Or perhaps Dr Taylor's fellow 'nascent progressive' Dr Borg has a post modernist theological spin on this one too. The 'big words' mentioned at the beginning of the blog are 'seriously misunderstood' according to Dr Borg. I seriously think that misunderstood has in fact been misunderstood by Dr Borg who most probably extrapolates them to fit in with the cultural moods of the day which is in essence what progressives, or those heavily sedated by secular culture are inclined to do.
Smear tactics are a curious weapon that have a blow back effect. The smearer gets carp (misspelling intended) on their hands and face in the process. 22, you can't counter the criticism with an explanation, so you spray invective into the wind hoping the cloud will conceal the, for you, the uncomfortable pricks of truth in the article.
Take each of Borg's points and show how he is wrong. You might get bloodied in a counter response, but at least it wouldn't be carp.
Mr 22, infant baptism is the least of worries. Dr Borg rejects things even more fundamental. For example, he rejects the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. To Dr Borg, like most Anglican theologians today, it was just a mental hullicination! And critics dare complain about Ellen White's rock thrown to her head.
22 – We know that other mainstream religions have different beliefs that make no sense to us where we are. the blog is only attempting to learn something. If you can't learm from others, you are in a sad situation.
That said, I do agree with the deeper point Dr Borg is making about the problems of our language. For example, Dr Borg says the word 'Savaltion' is seen by many Christians today as meaning the afterlife – getting to heaven and avoiding hell.
But he is right in saying as far as the early Christians were concerned, and Jesus' own teachings, eschatology (another jargon term I know) saw 'salvation' as the transformation of THIS world. It is not some etheral existentialist existence, as most Christians believe. It is the promise of the healing of THIS world, which Christians live as as first fruits – i.e. we try to live today as if the Second Coming has come. That is the example of the Acts 2 Church.
I agree with Borg on all that, about how he largely views the early Church. I agree with him because in truth it largely agrees with much of Adventism's core message to the world (despite pedantic arguments about terminology such as 'Remnant.')
However, Borg's own Christian-existentialism, say in denying the physical, historical and corporeal Resurrection of Jesus, largely contradicts and undermines much of his point. That's how I see it anyway.
I suggest readers check Borg out for themselves. Go look at his own website, and front-and-centre is an article denying the Resurrection.
That said, I do agree with the deeper point Dr Borg is making about the problems of our language. For example, Dr Borg says the word 'Savaltion' is seen by many Christians today as meaning the afterlife – getting to heaven and avoiding hell.
But he is right in saying as far as the early Christians were concerned, and Jesus' own teachings, eschatology (another jargon term I know) saw 'salvation' as the transformation of THIS world. It is not some etheral existentialist existence, as most Christians believe. It is the promise of the healing of THIS world, which Christians live as as first fruits – i.e. we try to live today as if the Second Coming has come. That is the example of the Acts 2 Church.
I agree with Borg on all that, about how he largely views the early Church. I agree with him because in truth it largely agrees with much of Adventism's core message to the world (despite pedantic arguments about terminology such as 'Remnant.')
However, Borg's own Christian-existentialism, say in denying the physical, historical and corporeal Resurrection of Jesus, largely contradicts and undermines much of his point. That's how I see it anyway.
I suggest readers check Borg out for themselves. Go look at his own website, and front-and-centre is an article denying the Resurrection.
That said, I do agree with the deeper point Dr Borg is making about the problems of our language. For example, Dr Borg says the word 'Savaltion' is seen by many Christians today as meaning the afterlife – getting to heaven and avoiding hell.
But he is right in saying as far as the early Christians were concerned, and Jesus' own teachings, eschatology (another jargon term I know) saw 'salvation' as the transformation of THIS world. It is not some etheral existentialist existence, as most Christians believe. It is the promise of the healing of THIS world, which Christians live as as first fruits – i.e. we try to live today as if the Second Coming has come. That is the example of the Acts 2 Church.
I agree with Borg on all that, about how he largely views the early Church. I agree with him because in truth it largely agrees with much of Adventism's core message to the world (despite pedantic arguments about terminology such as 'Remnant.')
However, Borg's own Christian-existentialism, say in denying the physical, historical and corporeal Resurrection of Jesus, largely contradicts and undermines much of his point. That's how I see it anyway.
I suggest readers check Borg out for themselves. Go look at his own website, and front-and-centre is an article denying the Resurrection.
Borg does not deny the Ressurection as such, he denies what has tradtionally been thought about the Resurrection. Did a dead body come back to life? That is the question. How did Paul think about the Ressurection? Did he believe and teach that a dead body came back to life? You might ask a Paulien scholar about that, rather than what a Sabbath School lesson says.
Borg seems to promote a version of the so-called 'vision theory', which is to say Jesus did not really rise from the grave as an objective reality with a phyiscal and corporal body in a historical event, but that it was just the hallucination of His followers. Borg uses the analogy of people seeing their dead love ones recently after a death – brought on through the trauma of grief.
Borg's view is nothing more than ancient Gnostic Docetism – to deny Jesus came in the flesh. John in particular dealt with that theological theory in his day (being the last Gospel writer), declaring it literally anti-Christ – denying Christ in the flesh.
As for Pauline scholars, they are divided on what Paul is saying in 1 Cor 15, the major passage in dispute. I don't look to the Sabbath School lesson for this issue – I look to Moltmann, Pannenberg, E P Sanders and N T Wright – is that good enough for you?
Two statements from Dr. Borg in response to him being questioned about his position regarding the resurrection of Jesus Christ are shown below. It is without doubt that he posits a differing view of the resurrection which I am inclined to assume that Dr Taylor and other nascent progressives similarly lean towards – these would include those who undermine the writings of Ellen White yet will readily embrace the work of those who hold to strange doctrines. Dr Borg, a bible scholar, goes on to say that empty tomb is a parable and that Jesus' resurrection was just an 'experience.' I'm not sure how 'experience' is used here by the wordsmith. He is pretty vague about this and strongly suggests that it is not what the Bible teaches concerning the resurrection. He does say that the resurrection was 'real' but casts doubt on 1] the 'empty tomb' and that 2] Jesus rose bodily from the grave. He strongly disputes the biblical doctrine that Jesus rose from the grave leaving an empty tomb. [Matt 28:6 He is not here: for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.] The Bible reveals in Matt 27:64, 65, 66 that the chief priests and Pharisees asked to secure the tomb to prevent the body of Christ being removed, which Pilate complied with, thereby showing that the body of Christ was in the tomb. Why else would they want to prevent Christ's body from being stolen from the tomb if it wasn't there in the first place? Matt 28:6 clearly indicates that when Christ rose from the grave his body did not remain in the tomb.
Furthermore, the wounds of the Crucifixion were on Christ's body as proof of His resurrection. Thomas doubted this when told by the others that they had seen Jesus and eight days later when Jesus came to the disciples he shows him the wounds of the Crucifixion and even pronounces a blessing on those who believe by faith [John 20:25, 26, 27, 29]. But perhaps Dr Borg will say we misunderstand this 'word' as well.
Dr Borg:
Somehow this thread got sucked into a discussion of whether or not Borg believes literally in this or that. It seems the point of Erv's piece is whether or not our vocabulary has placed us in a box that only we seem to understand (if we can even claim that). The answer is clearly yes. Have you ever had a conversation with a nonchristian and tried to use some of these terms in conversation? You will get a blank stare most of the time. Traditional terms such as being "saved" simply do not resonate with the generations of the post modern era. Either we recognize that and work harder to understand post modernism and those around us, and try to be relevant to that mindset, or it won't matter how much "truth" we think we have. We will be irrelevant and fade away as a curious sect of the larger Chrisitan church who had some unique quirks in diet and pushed health care. Noel's post is spot on: if we cannot learn to honestly listen with the idea that we do have something to learn from what others say who are not part of our tribe, then we are not exemplifying Jesus' style of relating to the needs of those around him rather than just preaching the "truth" to them. And 22, your mudslinging against the Angicans is really not very becoming of a follower of Jesus. One day you may be surprised to find that God has a place for them at His table, along with the gays and others who you reject that have found a church home there.
Once upon time, a Liberal Anglican died and went to heaven. It turns out that access to heaven was something that looked like a large elevator. The Liberal Anglican got in the elevator with many other individuals and he saw that St. Peter was the elevator operator (He had a big key). As the elevator started upward, St. Peter told everyone that in heaven there were different levels for different groups of believers in the different religions on earth and, in some religious such as Christianity, there were also separate floors for different groups of Christians who belonged to different Christian denominations. It was thought that Heaven would be a nicer place at the beginning if you stayed for a while with the religion and denomination that you belonged to on earth. There was absolutely no difference between the different floors, they were all heaven, but people at the beginning seemed to like to stay with the religion and denomination they belonged to on earth and since, in heaven, all the different faiths on earth were essentially the same, it really didn’t make any difference. So as the elevator went upward, it stopped at the various floors. The first floor they stopped at was for the Southern Baptist Christians and all the Southern Baptist Christians got off. The next floor was for the Pure Land Buddhists and all the Pure Land Buddhists got off there. Then they came to the Pre-Vatican II Catholic floor and all the Orthodox Catholics got out. Then as the elevator continued upward, St. Peter asked that as they passed the next floor, he would appreciate it if everyone in the elevator would not talk or make any other sound and thus as the elevator silently passed the next floor, there was not a sound from the elevator. As the elevator continued upward, the Liberal Anglican asked St. Peter, “Why did we have to keep silent when we passed that floor?” St. Peter answered, that’s where all the Fundamentalist Adventists are and they don’t think there is anyone else here.
Listening is not an option for those who know the "truth." It's an ego aggrandizement because they are certain, and are convinced beyond doubt, that they have interviewed all possible faith options and arrived at the final conclusion. In there mind there are no further options, no discussion necessary. Labeling the idiots not sharing their convictions as progressive, liberals, post modernists, is part of the insulation shielding there tender psyche from challenges. When you know you are RIGHT, encountering questioners is an unacceptable threat. I know, this is a bit of a rant on my part, and you ask, how do I know this. I was there once myself. So, in spite of my invective, I forgive them all in advance, including 22, for their commitment to pride, since I have some residual empathy for their self deception dilemma.
I must say that Dr Taylor's joke is pretty funny ☺. However, with all the changes in the NAD and its feminist ideals that have been thrust upon them by their secular socio-political trends, I would have thought that St Peter would have long been gone and perhaps a St Petronella would have now been elected as the elevator guy up in heaven.
Of course he knows very well that Adventism and its reference to the remnant church isn't an exclusive entity but on the contrary the remnant church of Rev 12:17 as taught by the Adventist Church is undoubetedly an inclusive one as it is directly tied in to our agressive evangelistic program in proclaiming the Third Angels Message which is a call for God's children to come out of positions of doctrine which are at variance with the Bible and to come into obedience to God and be part of the last day church or remnant church as the Bible reveals it as.
Can Dr Taylor show where we as a church have claimed exclusive rights to the Kingdom of Heaven? If he cannot, then it is highly likely that these are just unfounded accusations leveled at the church.
I only raised the point that Dr Borg's beliefs (to me) are questionable from a biblical perspective and it is only fair that his claims of 'big words' being 'seriously misunderstood' are perhaps not as he would have us believe especially since basic doctrinal beliefs such as the Resurrection, Baptism, the Sabbath and sexual immorality is in fact misunderstood by him. The comments about what I said made no effort to defend Dr Borg's position except to be dismissive and target me instead.
I empathise with Mr Boshell's crass comments about 'carp' being directed at me which I think he is more familiar with but because he is a hostile ex-Adventist I will avoid getting confrontational with him which he seems to thrive on.
Mrs Ella M has done the same: missed everything I have said and zoned in on what I didn't say. I did not say anything about how other denominations may or may not misunderstand the words Adventists or Christians use. In both my comments I only pointed out that we shouldn't just be gullible and accept sources that are at variance with the scriptures themselves such as in the case of Dr Borg. [Isa 8:20]
I fail to understand going to an entirely different topic than what is being discussed. The premise is the use of religious words that don't compute with the public. The point is missed. No matter who says it, it is good advice. Would you refuse to have an agnostic doctor treat you because of his beliefs? Would you ignore his advice due to his beliefs. It doesn't make sense to me.
Trevor you're so out of sorts. Maybe that's what I should logically expected from someone so self-deluded they brand political trends as being evil spawned w/ no reason or rhyme other than a strain of liberalism.
Yup, I 'm not going to set in stone all of what led to the point that led to next one and etc. But Western politics from antisemitism to legalism exist w/ in the paradigm shift of Christ's death and that quintessential revolution in body, mind, and spirit. So those same political liberals, 2000 years after Christ, can pray and seek reform just as Luther once did 1500 after Christ death. Sure Luther could be as horrified as a heroic Augustine of Hippo would be towards Luther himself but, we don't worship Ellen, Luther, Saints but the risen Christ.
The church is for sinners, oathbreakers, and those who have desecrated themselves- that must stay so the rest is just added to it. The kingdom of Heaven and God's divine earth are for the poor in spirit SO STOP GETTING HUNG UP on earthly politics!!!
Its NOT a command b/c that would be as contradictory as your own logic is to defend the law Christ fulfilled for US ALREADY for the sake of spiritualism. I'm not commanding anything or picking a side only that Christ's power is real and commandments were meant to kill. So stop putting barriers and demeaning faith when people want to come and be children in Christ. Children are too busy trying to "be" for liberalism or conservatism to bother them!
On that note I should being so distracted or upset by your useless divisions. But I do want you know we have been equally saved by the SAME DEATH and Holy Spirit.
I am certainly glad that other churches have found it in their hearts to make space for the ones that our bigoted fundamentalists love to hate. Being gay is not being immoral any more than being straight is Mr 22. Anyone can be immoral, no matter their orientation. When did you "decide" to be straight? Can't remember? Perhaps that is because that is who you are, not something you chose. It is hard wired into your DNA and you could no more change it than a zebra can change its stripes. The idea of excluding whole segments of society (ie women, gays etc) because you think that is what God would do is amazing to me. Perhaps you are reading the Bible from a cultural viewpoint that is a bit narrow? I am pretty sure you do not have any close gay friends because if you did it would be pretty hard to carry your hard line stance. Even Dick Cheney couldn't do it in the face of family being gay. Open your eyes to the love that we are commanded to show, and let the hate go. Life is much better that way.
Mark: 'It seems the point of Erv's piece is whether or not our vocabulary has placed us in a box that only we seem to understand (if we can even claim that). The answer is clearly yes. Have you ever had a conversation with a nonchristian and tried to use some of these terms in conversation? You will get a blank stare most of the time.'
Mark I much agree with your comments here, and the underlying point Dr Taylor was trying to make, and Dr Borg's point also about the dangers of Christian jargon.
A good example that comes to mind is the jargon term 'atonement'. My understanding it is largely a made up term in English with little counterparts in the NT Koine Greek.
Within most Christian denominations, 'atonement' usually means the sacrafice of Jesus, which Heb tells us was for 'once and for all'. However, within Adventism, we have often used that term in a broader sense to mean the entire plan of salvation, including eschatological (yes more Christian jargon about the End of the World) promises about the destruction of sin and death at the Second Resurrection. Because of this confusion, Adventists have sometimes been wrongly mislabled as advocating some form of limited atonement (ironic as most Adventist critics come from a non-Arminian Calvinist-Reformed background, who with Predestination do actually believe in Limited Atonement).
Dr Borg somewhat has his own views about this topic. Dr Borg says, and I totally agree, that most Christian denominations think of the word 'salvation' as meaning 'getting to heaven and avoiding hell'. However, Dr Borg rightly says that in the NT, the new Kingdom of Jesus was not some etheral future promise, but the hope of the transformation of this world. Other theologians include Moltmann and Haught make similar points.
Adventist theology, especially with its view on the State of the Dead and more materialistic (less etheral) eschatology, could be well positioned to capitalise on this movement within certain corners of Christianity. Ironically, conservative Adventism could share and team up with liberal non-Adventist Christianity on a number of these points.
The position of Anglican Bishop N T Wright about conditional immortality, and the similarities between his position and the longheld conservative Adventist view, comes to mind.
So back to Dr Taylor's primary point. I think Adventism could be well place to capitalise on some of these exciting developments within non-Adventist theology. However, I fear our own Adventist dialetic will hinder us, as will our fear of any type of ecumenicalism.
Very open minded and engaged for an Adventist blog to speak on Marcus Borg. Crossan has great perspectives to share as well. It's really comforting to know people of Adventism are familiar w/ these "revolutionary thinkers" so to speak. John P. Meier is another guy that encourages examination.
Believe it or not, there are many great thinkers outside the Adventist corral. Some even dare to read their books, dangerous as they are to SDA believers. Although the current G.C. president has "encouraged" no reading or listening to non Adventists, a few daring souls have ventured off the plantation (or was it corral) and are the better for doing so.
I have a whole library of such "atheist" books (a.k.a. non-SDA).
I would like to consur with the suggestion of several commentors that Adventism's rejection of the idea of the eternal soul is one of those concepts that we should take pride in advancing. Since Adventism has so few concepts of this kind, we should highlight it. The other one is that there is no eternally burning hell. In rejecting the existence of a eternal human soul, we adopted a completely modernist materialistic view of the nature of human existence. We are composed only of physical "stuff." The huamn individual exists only as a materialistic entity. What is contained in the human body is all there is. What is contained in our physical brain is it, end of story. How and under what circumstances Adventism picked up this concept is an interesting story. Ellen White grew up believing it along with an eternally-burning hell. How she changed her view should be more widely discussed as an example of how and why "prophets" change their minds.
"In rejecting the existence of a eternal human soul, we adopted a completely modernist materialistic view of the nature of human existence. We are composed only of physical 'stuff.' The huamn individual exists only as a materialistic entity. What is contained in the human body is all there is. What is contained in our physical brain is it, end of story." (cf Ervin Taylor)
I submit that this is totally wrested from its SDA context. It is only true for SDAs to the extent that is qualified as "human soul apart from God". For a SDA there is no human soul nor matter nor energy nor existence of any sort apart from God.
Both SDAs in their zeal to defend Conditional Immortality, and ex-SDAs in their zeal to defend Non Immortality, tend to overlook the most important spiritual "fact" about our existence – our existence in the eternal "mind" or "awareness" of God. To the extent, and only to the extent, that God knows us, do we exist. Because God is eternal there is an aspect of our existence that is eternal and does not depend on a material human body. If this were not true then God could not re-instate us in the Resurrection.
Both SDAs and ex-SDAs might want to seriously contemplate the "epitaph" of Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) that he composed in 1728:
The body of B. Franklin, Printer (Like the Cover of an Old Book Its Contents torn Out And Stript of its Lettering and Gilding) Lies Here, Food for Worms. But the Work shall not be Lost; For it will (as he Believ'd) Appear once More In a New and More Elegant Edition Revised and Corrected By the Author.Franklin the brilliant agnostic acknowledged "the Author" as the basis of any hope that "the Work shall not be Lost" but rather rather "Appear Once More In a New and More Elegant Edition". Who but the Author could be more capable and qualified to be the Reviser?
On does wonder whether the idea of an earthly "Benjamin Franklin Estate" whose trustees would perpetuate his Work ever occurred to him (sorry but I could not resist 8-)? The answer in this context would be that Franklin was the Work rather than the Author. The Author being transcendant and eternal, no material estate would be necessary.
Jesus is the Author and Perfecter of our faith because He is the Author and Perfecter of our existence.
What is the current Adventist belief of whether being raised at the resurrection will be of our physical bodies or spirit, as is alluded to in Jesus' appearance after the Reurrection? Will the saved by recreated "new" material bodies, or exactly as they were before?
This morning reading the obituary of a woman who had lived a most active life (playing golf well into her 90s, the writers said that "she died the night of the 3rd and woke up next morning in heaven." What a wonderful comfort! The Adventist belief is far less reassuring, for where does their loved one go? Who can say, if the expectation that he is to be restored again, in what shape or form? I love the idea, and have adopted it: the minute you die, the next you are in the presence of God. Time stops for those who die, and begins for them, immediately in heaven.
Yes Yes, Elaine, in one single solitary moment, as it is, we change from earth life to earth death to heavenly immortal life; although our spirit will be in suspended hibernation for a million or a billion years, we will know nothing, as our eternal spirit is instantly retreived from our physical mortal body, by God, kept in His loving care, and restored to us at the moment He returns to Earth, to rescue those in the final harvest of those that will have immortality. Corruptible flesh will not inherit abode in heavenly places. 1 Cor. 15:50 "Now this I say brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption". Verses 51 & 52: "BEHOLD, i shew you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in the twinkling of an eye, the dead shall be raised incorruptible and we shall be changed. Verse 56: "The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law". Verse 55: O death where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The grave cannot hold us, just as the tomb could not hold Jesus the Christ.
Do i hear a thunderous AMEN-N-N. Praise the Godhead, FATHER, SON, HOLY SPIRIT.
Jesus raised Himself from earthly physical body death, in the tomb, to His heavenly glorious Spiritual Being, with which He has the power to appear as a physical personality, assume any form, or assume His heavenly glorious Being, at His will. He can be invisible; He can transit through any barrier without damaging it, or, He can pulverize it by thought, also by thought transit He can be in the infinity of any universe, and in any place He desires, and in several or all simultaneously. Humanity has not an inkling of the powers of the Immortal and Eternal Jesus the Christ, the Intelligence of all ages.
Did God raise His son, or did He raise Himself? Aren't there Bible texts that claim both?
Elaine why do you assume it is an 'or'. Same goes for your confusion about the nature of the Resurrection, and whether Christ would be raised in a corporeal or spiritual body. 1 Cor 15 suggests both – or rather something else entirely beyond our comprehension, as Earl rightly points out.
Dr Taylor: ‘I would like to consur with the suggestion of several commentors that Adventism's rejection of the idea of the eternal soul is one of those concepts that we should take pride in advancing. Since Adventism has so few concepts of this kind, we should highlight it. The other one is that there is no eternally burning hell.’
Totally agree. This SDA belief is one that many non-Adventist theologians are increasingly adopting. My fear though, and this goes back to Dr Taylor’s primary point, is that Adventists could capitalize on all this but I fear we won’t, because of our use unique Adventist jargon that makes communication with other Christians difficult.
Dr Taylor: ‘We are composed only of physical "stuff." The human individual exists only as a materialistic entity.’
Arguably this idea pervades Adventist theology – the good way of looking at it at least. It is often termed ‘Wholism’ and it seems to be the underlying connection between many of our ‘distinctive’ beliefs. It goes beyond just our teachings on the State of the Dead, but also embraces:
– Rejection of an eternal hell (as mentioned)
– Belief that the afterlife will be a transformation of this world, a new earth, and not merely some ethereal spirit-world
– Our health message (especially the affirmation or emphasis that the ‘spiritual’ and ‘physical’ are linked)
– Even the Sabbath (as recognition of the limitations of the physical body, not just of believers but of all living things, including the ‘alien’ and the livestock)
Jim: ‘Both SDAs in their zeal to defend Conditional Immortality, and ex-SDAs in their zeal to defend Non Immortality, tend to overlook the most important spiritual "fact" about our existence – our existence in the eternal "mind" or "awareness" of God.’
Great perceptions Jim. Another increasingly popular idea amongst non-Adventist theologians who like us reject the idea of the immortal etheral soul is the idea of ‘objective immortality’. The idea is that we will become immortal at death in God’s mind – given God knows everything, including every memory you ever had. Haught is the best theologian that comes to mind re this.
I am willing to believe that we are objectively immortal instantly at death in the sense that we continue to exist in God’s mind. However, we only become subjectively immortal at the Resurrection.
To use a crude example, think of a robot, who at the moment of malfunction has all its data uploaded into an internet mainframe for safety. Then when a new body is manufactured, all that data gets downloaded again into the new body. The robot continues to ‘exist’ in the internet mainframe in an objective sense, but only ‘exists’ in a subjective, self-actuating individual sense when downloaded into a body.
And before you go mock me on this internet analogy, this is similar to what famous Catholic theologian Pierre de Chadrin had in mind with his ‘Noonsphere’. De Chadrin is credited with contemplating the arrival of the internet decades before its arrival.
P.S. You see some of us do read non-Adventist authors. I am always amazed at how often modern theologians arrive at themes long taught in Adventism – especially conservative Adventism! Again, to re-emphasise Dr Taylor’s primary point, I suspect we miss these opportunities for dialogue because we don’t speak the same language with non-Adventists.
I have used the analogy of a Personal Computer to explain this concept to many people. We are each defective software running on defective hardware. At the Resurrection God removes the defects from our software and re-installs it on upgraded hardware.
Upon hearing this explanation in my Jr High SS class one of the boys ased a question – does God have a Delete function? I answered that this is called the Second death. When Jesus died He experienced what it is like for a human to be Deleted by God. The Lost experience this at the Final Judgment. Whether or not the Lost exist in the mind of God after the Final Judgment I cannot tell, but it is clear they no longer exist anywhere else.
Disclaimer – Of course what happened to the human vs the divine aspects of Christ at His death is one of those mysteries we cannot fully explain. My explanantion above is merely an analogy and my SS class understodd this was an anlogy and not to be taken literally.
Jim great analogy – I have often thought of the same also. As I said, I believe the RC theologian Pierre de Chadrin had a similar thought about 70-80 years ago – even though it was a long time before computers.
Elaine,
The foregoing disclaimer is highly relevant to your questions about the Resurrection of Christ. How could a dead man resurrect himself? Only if He was God as well as Man. Did Jesus resurrect Himself? Yes. Did God resurrect Jesus? Yes. For both answers to be correct Jesus must be God. If you believed in the Divinity of Christ you would not be as confused about the Resurrection.
Do not overlook the Psalmist claim that God knew us before we were born. These "objective" vs "subjective" distinctinctions only exist from a human perspective. Being eternal, God exists in past, present and future (as perceived by us) simultaneously.
To the extent that God knows us we exist, in time as well as in space, and possibly even outside time and space since God is not bound by time and space. Lest you think this is utter nonsense, may I ask you where Enoch and Moses and Elijah exist right now? Are they parked somewhere on another planet in our cosmos? Are they sitting on top of our firmament peering down through the holes as the ancients envisioned stars/angels? Are they in some "heaven" outside of space but not outside of time? Or are they in "heaven" outside of both time and space?
Further great observations Jim. I have often pondered if 'heaven' is in fact a completely separate universe – a type of parallel universe – or some 'other' place even more raddically different. I think we often view 'heaven' either as our sky or maybe another planet – but that seems far too limited.
When Adventists consider the war in heaven before the creation of this world, maybe that happened in this other universe. And maybe unlike our universe, this other universe is perfect and fundamentally static. Time and the laws of physics work in a very different way in this universe as it does in our universe. Maybe that is why angels were created sexless and we weren't (even in our pre-Fall state, mankind was meant to reproduce, unlike the angels).
Maybe realising 'heaven', including the original war in heaven, is much bigger, or much different a place than we first imagined, a possible steps in explaining some of our hardest questions.
Elaine: ‘What is the current Adventist belief of whether being raised at the resurrection will be of our physical bodies or spirit, as is alluded to in Jesus' appearance after the Resurrection? Will the saved by recreated "new" material bodies, or exactly as they were before?… Who can say, if the expectation that he is to be restored again, in what shape or form?’
Elaine you know the answer to this one. The answer of course is given by Paul in 1 Cor 15:35-58:
‘But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?”’
There are two obvious mistakes in my view when approaching this issue. First, in assuming this new body is ‘physical’ in the sense of the crude matter or biological systems we have in our earthly bodies today. Paul makes clear in 1 Cor 15:50 that our new bodies will not be like our current bodies here on earth:
‘What I am saying, brothers and sisters, is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.’
However, it is also a danger to think that our ‘spiritual’ bodies are not ‘bodies’ at all but mere existential projections. Paul makes clear in 1 Cor 15:39 that is like the analogy of different animals:
‘Not all flesh is alike, but there is one flesh for human beings, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish.’
I love Paul’s analogy here. To a fish whose whole world is under the ocean, the life of a bird flying in the air would indeed seem unimaginable. And yet, a bird’s flesh is still ‘real’ even though it is radically different than that of a fish. Just because a fish couldn’t imagine the life of a bird doesn’t make the bird’s existence fiction – it just points to the limitation of the fish, due to a lack of any comparable frame of reference.
Paul suggests in 1 Cor 15:51 our new ‘spiritual’ bodies are not mere mental numinous existences because of the simple fact that some of us will still be alive when our bodies change:
‘Listen, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed’
A caterpillar can transform into a butterfly, and they are radically different existences, but both states are still ‘real.’
Finally, the best example of this new resurrected body is the manner of Jesus’ Resurrected flesh. As Early rightly points out, the Resurrected Jesus was an empty tomb. He seemed to be able to walk through walls, confused its observers as to its presence, teleport – and yet Jesus explicitly said He wasn’t a ghost, could be physically touched, and did eat food.
So is there a biblical precedent for this type of ‘spiritual’ and yet ‘corporeal’ body? Absolutely – angels! Jesus Himself taught in Mark 12:25, Matt 22:30 and Luke 20:36 (i.e. supported strongly in the Synoptics) that:
‘When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.’
There is an Islamic tradition that explains this well. They hold that whereas Adam was made from the ‘earth’ the angels were made from ‘fire.’ Thus, angels are still ‘real’ and ‘corporeal’ but made of radically different ‘stuff’ than our earthly ‘stuff.’
The fact we can’t understand it is precisely the point. The Ba’hai likewise have a great saying, which is to say the afterlife is akin to a baby in the womb trying to contemplate the outside world.
Elaine: ‘This morning reading the obituary of a woman who had lived a most active life (playing golf well into her 90s, the writers said that "she died the night of the 3rd and woke up next morning in heaven." What a wonderful comfort!’
Says who? Grandma is now looking down from heaven watching me go to the toilet? Grandma is sad in heaven, waiting around until the rest of her family and friends join her? A baby boy of this Grandma, who died aged 6-months old in 1923, spending 90 years in heaven, waiting around for its mother to finally die and join him?
A comfort – I don’t necessarily think so. How is that scenario more comforting than the idea that from Grandma’s subjective perspective, the next moment will be the Resurrection event, where all her family and friends are raised to life with her at the same time?
Grandma is probably watching to see if you put the seat down like a good boy!
Elaine: ‘I love the idea, and have adopted it: the minute you die, the next you are in the presence of God. Time stops for those who die, and begins for them, immediately in heaven.’
This seems to be another classic ‘Nelsonian' statement. Do you actually believe this Elaine – or are you writing this only to stir Adventist readers up? I thought you didn’t believe in an afterlife. You have previously suggested our existence after we die will be the same as our existence before we were born – i.e. we will cease to exist!
I get a good laugh out how belief so easily converts to certainty, absolute certainty, totally defensible, end of argument certainty, by true believers. Such is the case with death.
A few years ago I spent time with one of my college roommates dying of cancer. He was aware of my departure from Adventism. His one concern about my life was, "what do you think about the state of the dead?"
Isn't it obvious, believers and non-such alike, you choose what you "like" and reject what you don't? There are no "facts." Being so sure is an exercise in wild imagination. Building an argument on belief is for entertainment value only. There should be Academy Awards for the Best Religious Mental Construct (BRMC). Adventism would surely have a lovely cabinet full of them!
What adds to the joke is that every ilk of true believer uses the same source for their certainty. Houston, we have a funny problem!
What happens upon death? No one "knows".
Saints when they die, the next breath they take will be in heaven. This does not mean that they are "looking down from heaven" but only that time for them stops and begins again in heaven. We here on earth continue marking time by clocks and calendars. For them, time has stopped; so it can be very true that when they awake they will be in heaven. This is not the same as them actually being in heaven but all breath, life, and time for the dead stops.
For those loved one we buried, their lives have ended; but for them it begins almost immediately in heaven. One statement emphasizes the living, the other, those who have died–there are two different entities that are discussed: we who are alive, and those who died.
Any expression of opinion on the nature of the afterlife is a faith statement. There is nothing "wrong" about having an opinion that is a faith statement. If that is one's definition of "knowing," then fine, but at least admit that that such an opinion is not based on objective evidence.
I agree with Ervin. I will not apologize for what I believe about God, Death, etc, but I would never claim to be able to prove it as a fact. Without faith it is impossible to please God (cf Paul).
Ervin, i've read no opposition here that the Christian's sole belief is other than by faith? No empiracal evidence that there is proof by earthly scientific search that an after life is proven. So, what does that say about earthly scientific experimentation? Nothing. It says, you have not been assigned the task by Christian believers in researching what they have accepted by faith, that there is an afterlife, there was a fore-life, there is a immortal spirit of man. Evolutionists cannot prove that it doesn't exist. i am aligned with the billions gone before whobelieved in an afterlife. Their evidence and mine is solidified by observing the eternal heavens. And the evidence of ourselves, that we have a spiritual nature as well as a marvelous physical body, the ultimate life form on Earth, We are wonderfully made. No man made system can approach the ability and durability of the physical systems. Scientists have never created any life form without a pre-existing seed (DNA) to clone. Many attempts at mutations, but no new life. Why even every single flower is dependent on a pre-existant seed or spore etc. Scientific research will never find the ultimate discovery, of life, because they will not admit to Intelligent Design, and to another dimension, Spiritualality. The super natural, the miracle element, the mystery of the ages. Many, but not all scientific researchers and "believers" in their earthly successes, especially in astrophysics and medicine, like being their own person,not the result of an otherworld creator. Consider the tiny fragile "lily", Man can't make one. It's a priviledge to have mathematicians, and other scientific disciplines, but they have not earned the right to determine where we came from, who we are, how we got here, what happens to us when we exit. A Christian's belief system is superior to all other imaginable beliefs. Atheism and evolutionists don't even register as having but perhaps 2% of Earth's masses, since the beginning, as all generations have Lore and History that speak of otherworld involvement with Earth. Evolutionists love to ridicule those who believe "myths", as being so stupid. How could you ever believe such unproven Lore?? The heavens declare God's glory, and have been expanding in our universe, supposedly, for over 14 billion years. While other universes, have been in existence eternally. There are no barriers to ever existing Space. Our Milky Way galaxy is many "light years" across. With light velocity of 5,880,000,000,000 miles per one solar year. This blows my mind, because there are billions and trillions of galaxies, endless. Space is Eternal, the Being who rules it all, is eternal. Who are you going to believe, a few egotistical Earthbound scientists, or your own eyes? and messages all down through history of those who've gone on before, knowing that mankind has a better inheritance than this cesspool of filth and slaughter, Earth.