Memory, Meaning & Faith

2012 Ellen White Issues Symposium: "Ellen G. White on Leadership and Power"

 

Presentation

Stanley E. Patterson* presented his research on the topic “Ellen G. White on Leadership and Power". The following exposition summarizes his presentation, giving the main points of his findings.

[The presentation was followed by a response. All the presenters of the Ellen White Issues Symposium have the time to revise their papers on the basis of the formal responses to each paper given at the symposium before it will be published in the Ellen White and Current Issues Symposium Journal in March next year, 2013.]

Purpose 

Stan Patterson expressed his intention to offer a sense of structure for several counsels from Ellen White on leadership, authority and power. To create this structure he used the Model of Power and Leadership as presented by Janet Hagberg in Real Power and, analyzing various statements by E. G. White, correlated them with Hagberg's model. 

Stage One: Force as an Expression of Personal Power

According to Hagberg, leaders of stage one use some kind of force and/or dominance to lead people. By using coercive structures available to them, stage one leaders manage and guide with control authority. In certain limits control is healthy and can benefit the leader and the ones being led  (see voluntary contracts with duties, commitments and rights, for example). In Christian contexts and regarding Christian values, however, fear as such should not be part of leading processes, since “perfect love casts out all fear” (1 John 4:18). 

2012 Ellen White Issues Symposium: "Can a Biblical Inspired Writer Use Literary Sources?"

 

Presentation

Jiří Moskala* presented his research on the topic “Can a Biblical Inspired Writer Use Literary Sources?” The main points of his presentation are given below.

 

Introduction

After referring to various biblical passages that affirm the inspiration of the Scriptures (2 Tim 3:15-17; 1 Thess 2:13; 2 Pet 1:21; etc.) the speaker posed the question if an inspired writer may use extra-biblical literary sources, or if he/she receives everything directly from God. Moskala admitted that he grew up with a view that was similar to the dictation theory of inspiration. Yet later he learned that the divine truth is actually expressed in human language under the guidance of the Holy Spirit; hence the Bible is a divine-human combination (incarnational theory of inspiration). The biblical prophets were children of their time, place, and culture, and their written works took the literary forms of their time (narratives, prose, poetry, songs, genealogies, parables, dialogues, etc.). Some of them accepted the thoughts and ideas of previous inspired prophets and the Bible provides quite a number of examples for that. The real question is whether a true prophet may borrow thoughts and material from non-inspired, non-biblical sources. In his presentation Moskala provided categories and examples from the Old Testament and New Testament for such literary borrowing.

 

Old Testament

1. Borrowing Key Vocabulary

The speaker mentioned that Solomon frequently uses the phrase “under the sun” (Eccl 1:3, 9, 14; etc.) which is an idiomatic expression in ancient Egyptian referring to the continuous cycle of the sun. Solomon uses this expression synonymously with the phrase “under heaven” (see Eccl 1:13; 2:3; etc.) in the sense of the “vanity of our present life” since it has its limits and is temporary. Further it is contrasted with the eternal life in relationship with God, namely the life “above the sun.” 

The “Found” World of Genesis 1: Is Theistic Evolution a Meaningful Option for Seventh-day Adventists?

By Nicholas Miller (Department of Church History, SDA Theological Seminary, Andrews University)

 

Last weekend a scholar from Wheaton College, Prof. John Walton, came to Andrews University to share his thoughts on the question of how Genesis 1 (ESV) should be read and understood. The crux of his argument was a historical one, and thus worth discussing on this history blog. Walton is viewed in the larger evangelical community as a relatively conservative scholar who believes in the authority of Scripture in spiritual and moral matters, as well as in its claims of miracles and the supernatural. For those not at the event, a brief summary of his presentations and claims follows.

 

Prof. Walton’s Presentations and Ideas

On Friday night, Walton spoke to students and faculty in a lecture sponsored by the University and the Science Department. He dealt with the question of the general interpretive approach to the Old Testament.  He argued that we can only understand the meaning of the stories in the Bible if we understand the worldview of its immediate intended audience. It was written to their worldview, not to that of the 21st century. While its spiritual and moral messages were also intended for today, we should recognize, Walton argued, that its authority does not lie in its claims about the physical world and material reality. He claimed that the Bible makes no scientific claims, i.e., that its observations on the natural and physical world were no different than the existing worldview(s) of the surrounding cultures.

Historians and the Supernatural

By Lisa C. Diller (Southern Adventist University, History Department)

It keeps cropping up in my classes. Perhaps we’re studying about reported visions that the Aztecs were said to have had which predicted the arrival of Europeans in the Western Hemisphere. “Do you think this really happened, Professor Diller?” someone is bound to ask. And then we stop to have the conversation about miracles—a conversation it seems I have almost every semester in all my courses.

I see my work as a historian as service to God—an act of worship. But that doesn’t mean that in all my studies I am seeing God’s will and activity in the world. Even within the theological framework of the Seventh-day Adventist historian we tend to see God’s work as supernatural, based on faith, and therefore a bit more mysterious than we’d like our own professional evidence and arguments to be. As a practicing historian, I need to have some sort of consistent principles by which I assess what “really” happened, to the extent that I can. That’s part of what makes disciplines different from each other—the nature of the evidence that each one uses.

History and Conspiracy - Part II

 

Last week I began a discussion of conspiracy views of history. I distinguished small-scale conspiracies within history, such as criminal syndicates, corporate agreements to “fix” markets, and state secrets, from grand conspiracy theories that attempt to explain the course of history by the work of a small, secret group like the Masons or the Illuminati. The former types of conspiracies certainly exist. But I proposed that the latter, the grand conspiracy theory, generally violates certain basic principles of the proportionality of historical causation and human nature in relation to secrecy. This week I discuss two other principles of human nature and governance that grand conspiracy theories violate. I conclude by revealing the one grand conspiracy theory that the Bible supports.

History and Conspiracy

 

How does conspiracy fit together with history? Recently some students brought to my attention the popularity of certain videos by an Adventist layman who gives lectures on various conspiracy theories about history being controlled by some combination of the Masons, the Illuminati, and the Trilateral Commission, among other entities. This led into a class discussion of conspiratorial views of history, which hold that major events of history are caused by some small, elite cabal whose identity remains secret—except from those blessed with the “secret knowledge” of this conspiracy.

The discussion caused me to reflect on some basic question about history and causation. What, if anything, is fundamentally wrong with conspiracy theories of history? Are there genuine conspiracies that explain historical events? How does one distinguish conspiracies within history from alleged conspiracies that attempt to explain the entire course of history? Finally, does the Bible give any credence to conspiracy views of history?

What Makes History Work (by Ellen G. White)

 

“In the annals of human history the growth of nations, the rise and fall of empires, appear as dependent on the will and prowess of man.  The shaping of events seems, to a great degree, to be determined by his power, ambition, or caprice.  But in the word of God the curtain is drawn aside, and we behold, behind, above, and through all the play and counterplay of human interests and power and passion, the agencies of the all-merciful One, silently, patiently working out the counsels of His own will. . . .  God has revealed in His law the principles that underlie all true prosperity both of nations and individuals.  “This is your wisdom  and your understanding,” Moses declared to the Israelites of the law of God.  “It is not a vain thing for you; because it is your life.”  Deut. 4:6; 32:47.  The blessings thus assured to Israel are, on the same conditions and in the same degree, assured to every nation and every individual under the broad heavens. To understand these things,--to understand that “righteousness exalteth a nation;” that “the throne is established by righteousness” and “upholden by mercy;” to recognize the outworking of these principles in the manifestation of His power who “removeth kings, and setteth up kings,--this is to understand the philosophy of history.”  EGW, Education, 173-175.

Questions:

• If events of history are not shaped by the power and ambition of mankind, what are they shaped by? 
• Is history shaped directly by God? How does this happen, by miraculous intervention, by angelic action, or some other way?
• How does this theological understanding of history affect the cause and effect relationships we usually rely on in historical analysis?

 

Interview With Nicholas Miller

Nicholas Miller has received the 2010 John Highbarger Memorial Dissertation Award from the University of Notre Dame for the "exceptional dissertation in history" he defended there. The dissertation committee found that his work, "contributes powerfully to the current trend among some historians to rescue the eighteenth-century clergyman and religious controversialist from the enormous condescension of posterity, and does so with intellectual confidence, careful scholarship and clarity of exposition and presentation." In honor of his award, we present this interview with Nick about his PhD dissertation, "The Religious Roots of the First Amendment: Dissenting Protestantism and the Separation of Church and State."

Memory, Meaning & Faith: Can you tell us the basic argument of your dissertation?

Nicholas Miller: Sure. It attempts to show that ideas about the separation of church and state are not based entirely or even primarily on Enlightenment thought, which was skeptical towards religion. Rather, notions of separating the civil magistrate from religious matters came directly out of certain theological ideas at the heart of the Protestant reformation.

Memory, Meaning & Faith: Those ideas being?

Higher-Critical Thinking And Its Effects (Part III)

Some in the church have thought that they can safely use the tools of the “historical-critical method” (source, form, redaction, etc. criticism) without the skeptical presuppositions (rejecting as unhistorical anything, such as miracles, that cannot be established by means such as analogy or correlation) associated with them. Others reject this approach, claiming that the presuppositions are inherent in the tools. Here are some points of response, pulling together observations contained in my previous post:

1. Given that the Bible does give some information regarding its human authorship, a Christian who accepts the whole Bible as the Word of God can legitimately analyze this data regarding sources, forms, and editing/redaction, etc. much the same way a historical-critic would analyze it.
2. However, labeling this a “critical” approach is problematic because “critical” in this context commonly means “higher-critical,” a procedure with the goal of editing the biblical text. The research of a historical-critic may significantly overlap with that of an investigator who believes in the whole Bible, but their aims are different, just as similar technological procedures may be used for very different ends.
3. Also problematic is the fact that “critical” = “higher-critical”—employing its tools to go beyond solid biblical evidence.
4. Therefore, rather than attempting to convert and baptize the term “critical,” which is inevitably problematic or at least misleading, it is best to seek another label for our exegetical approach. Some have suggested alternatives to “historical-critical method,” such as “historical-grammatical method,” but the emphasis of this hermeneutical label seems to be narrower than the comprehensive range of disciplines, contexts, and backgrounds (including archaeology) relevant to the highest quality wholistic exegesis. “Historical-contextual method” or “wholistic (or “comprehensive”) historical method” would appear more fitting.

Attempts to alter the Bible’s message and authority by treating it as merely human through higher-critical literary approaches, which I have briefly (and therefore inadequately) described, are well known. But their bosom-buddy relationships to some other currently popular manifestations of what could more broadly be called “higher-critical thinking”—such as political correctness or science over the Bible—are less explored. We will get into these in the following posts.

Questions

• Why would it be attractive to a scholar in the church to refer to his/her approach as a form of “the historical-critical method”?
• Can you come up with a better term for the exegetical method employed by a scholar who believes that the whole Bible is the Word of God (accepting 2 Tim 3:16-17)?

__________

In Part IV of this series, Roy Gane examines the effects of adjusting ones interpretation of Scripture to harmonize with science.

Higher-Critical Thinking And Its Effects (Part II)

In the first post of this series, I discussed some strategies for attempting to change Scripture in order to avoid allowing its system of divine principles to guide belief and lifestyle (against 2 Tim 3:16-17). Strategies that have been employed through the centuries include: cut out what you don’t like, supplement Scripture, or treat it as obsolete. Here is another strategy, which has become highly developed:

Treat It As Merely Human.

During the so-called “Age of Enlightenment” (mainly in the 1700s), brilliant thinkers asserted that authority over human life was primarily based on human reason. The Bible, which establishes paramount divine authority, got in the way of this notion. So some learned individuals claimed that at least parts of the Bible are merely a human production, which brings these portions down to the level of human reason. This approach, which is still widespread in biblical scholarship, claims that the Word of God is contained in Scripture, but there are parts of Scripture that are not the Word of God (so said Semler).

2010 Adventist Historians' Conference: Epilogue

The compelling, rich, challenging, and deeply spiritual presentation of Dr. Diop was a moving and inspiriting capstone to a series of thought-provoking and excellent meetings.  At the end of his presentation and discussion the formal meetings of the conference ended.  (Although there will be a final business meeting tomorrow morning, though many of us will be on the road and unable to attend.  Substantial rumor has it, though, that the decision will be made that the next conference will be held at Union College.)

The attendees retired to the WAU cafeteria where a wonderful Sabbath lunch, and further delicious discussions, was enjoyed by all, preparatory to a Sabbath afternoon tour of historic Adventist sites in D.C.  We had a short time here, but it was a time of fellowship, challenge, provocation (in the best sense) and interchange. Special recognition should be given to our gracious hostess and ASDAH President Joan A. Francis, whose organizational efforts, assisted by colleagues and students, were superb at making us feel both at home, and as participants at well-run, very efficient meetings.

We leave with a sense that the Adventist historians have perhaps more work to do to engage questions of faith, providence, and prophecy with which members and evangelists grapple.  There has been an increasing disconnect and disengagement of many Adventist historians from those questions with our increasing concerns with professionalization.  But this has only caused layman and others to handle these questions with less care and reflection, not caused the questions themselves to disappear. 

How do we develop and engage professionally as Historians, while taking seriously our role as members and thought-leaders in our prophetic Adventist community of faith?  Perhaps the closing lectures of Dr. Land, challenging us to take more seriously questions of the philosophy of faith and history, and of Dr. Diop, challenging us to engage more fully the comprehensive Adventist mission, crossing over our from our comfort zones, which can perhaps include our zones of professional comfort, help point the way.  We hope that the discussion can continue, especially on the pages of this blog, on our way to the next meetings at Union!

2010 Adventist Historians' Conference: Sabbath Sessions

Today is the final day of substantive meetings for the conference. (There will be a final business meeting tomorrow morning.)  It starts with a Sabbath School session given by Gary Land on teaching about faith and history.  Then there will be a church session, with a presentation by Dr. Ganoune Diop from the Global Mission Study Center at the General Conference.


“Teaching the Philosophy of Faith and History,” Gary Land, Andrews University


This is an idea that Dr. Land has had floating around his mind for a while, that he has finally put to paper.  It relates to Christian approach to history.  Historians are notorious for lack of interest in theory.  In some ways this is good, as our attention should be on people, their ideas, and actions.  Yet, even our narratives contain implicit philosophical assumptions about causation and meaning.  Thus, we need to consider our philosophy, even if it is largely unspoken.  Especially as Christians, we need to consider the meaning of history.