Sponsored by the Pacific Union College's Dramatic Arts Society (DAS), Redbooks: Our search for Ellen White has caused a huge stir in the Online Adventist community. The play "explores the Seventh-day Adventist community’s relationship with its founder, Ellen G. White."There are a number of related blogposts on this with varying opinions yet with a common thread all through them. Here are some or them:
“Red Books: Our Search for Ellen White” to Premiere at PUC
Red Books and the Mosaic of Adventism
Ellen White, Hip-Hop and Courageous Conversations
What Do We Do with Ellen White?
More on Ellen White
The Story of Adventism
Before I go any further, the third act of the play was dialogue. You cannot have a one-way dialogue, it is then a diatribe. ;) So, if you disagree with something you read finish the post and write me a comment. I should also say I haven't seen the play so I can't comment directly on it, only as I understand it through the accounts I have read.
To spare you having to read those posts here is what I believe the common thread is: There is something wrong with the historic (traditional, conservative, however you want to put it) view of Ellen White and there needs to be a change. Now hang with me, you can read the whole posts for context using the links above but here are some quotes without context to back up my claim:
"...We’ve come to that place of confidence where we can take some heavy-hitting cynicism and iconoclasm coming from within, where we don’t look down upon our students and laity to the point that we need to resort to censorship or other oppressive measures to keep the appearance of ecclesiastical/theological unity, where we don’t need to defend every attack or ridicule hurled at Ellen White or our views of her. The church is mature enough be self-critical about the way we relate with our most revered cultural and historical icon—Ellen White." - Julias Nam/Progressive Adventism
"...How can we learn to accept Ellen White for who she was, "messy and enigmatic," completely human and thus imperfect and sinful, as well as called and inspired by God to do ministry in her time and place?" - Richard Doss/P. Richie's Place
"...there is a four-generation relationship to a prophetic figure like White.
The first generation in a new religious movement led by a charismatic person appreciates the spiritual gifts displayed in that person and at the same time recognizes them as a human being. The second generation puts the person on a pedestal after they are gone. The third generation tears down the pedestal and the fourth generation is left with nothing but a misunderstood and ill-defined wound or void.
If this is true (and I think it is, in one way or another) about the role of Ellen White and her legacy in the Adventist movement, then it is more largely true about the history of the movement altogether. What is the story of Adventism as you have heard it? What generation are you in?" - Monte Sahlin/Faith in Context
"Eryck and his crew have masterfully laid bare our inability to talk openly and honestly - without fear of banishment - about our diversity of opinion regarding our common roots. This inability to openly dialogue has led to tragic consequences, especially in the 1970s on our campus, Pacific Union College. " - Jon Thorton/Continuous Dialogue
Now, is it possible there is something wrong with the historic (Seventh-day Adventist) view of Ellen White? Quite likely. But I think there is a larger issue here and that is methods of Biblical interpretation. In a post here there is a record of a chat session between some of the characters in the play and some friends(?). I am not quite sure who exactly was involved. But what was interesting to me was a phrase used a few paragraphs
"Luke: Yes Matt, a prophet can be outdated because of the principle of the Incarnational Gospel. The gospel reaches people, society, where it is. Thus her message was for that time and place."
The idea of the "Incarnational Gospel" is something new to me. I did a bit of searching and wasn't able to find much on it. I was able to find something on it here and from that I can determine that the idea basically means that the gospel changes to fit the culture (time and place) that it finds itself in. This brings up the obvious question of what truths or beliefs are open to change when they are contrary to culture? How much variation should there be between a western Adventist Christian and a middle eastern or far eastern Adventist Christian? And what determines the amount of leeway that there should be?
This all though points to how you interpret scripture as being the real question at hand. It is really not about Ellen White (although it is the subject in this discussion), it is not about music, it is not about our styles and ways of worship: it is about how we, who claim to believe in the Bible, interpret that book. That is the question. I will submit to you that all the other beliefs hand off of our interpretation of the Bible. I can believe that the Bible is a fairy tale but I still believe in it. I can believe that the Bible only has good comments for some practical life issues but I still believe in it. The only difference is my system of how I apply those words to my culture and to me.
So when it says in 2 Chronicles 20 "Believe in the LORD your God, and you shall be established; believe His prophets, and you shall prosper" that means different things to different people depending on how you read the Bible.
I guess my conclusion on the play and the debate is that unless Adventism can agree on how to interpret the Bible there will never be agreement on the other issues. You can have discussions and assemblies but until the principles you are working off of are the same the conclusions of necessity will be different. "He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?" Luke 10:26 - How readest thou?
One thing I do want to add before I finish is that often a misunderstanding comes through lack of contact. Walls get built and sometimes the event that created the need is long past but they remain erected out of tradition and stigma against the other side. This is true of both parties in this case. But take a look at the verse using whatever method of interpretation that you believe in and come and see.
"Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see."
Come and see - to those who haven't ever read anything from Ellen White or for those who haven't read anything in a while I would say, come and see. Take some time and read something from Steps to Christ or the Desire of Ages. I think that you will find, as I have, that Ellen White was inspired and that her writing is inspired and relevant for modern times.
God Bless!
8 comments:
I really like what you hare to say about experiencing Ellen White for yourself. The philosophic principle of comprehensive investigation demands that we know and understand what we are talking about if we are to understand it.
However, I know for a fact that not every encounter with Ellen White is positive. While many have been blessed through reading her writings, many have not been blessed. Many have felt condemned, and felt that she is outdated. Not everyone who speaks out against Ellen does so from a position of ignorance.
One of your comments indicated that if the method is the same, the outcome will be the same. I've been in enough discussions to know that this isn't always true. Two people can start with the same method and the same presuppositions and end up at different destinations. Conversely, you can start with different methods and different presuppositions and end up at the same conclusion. This is what makes the world of theology so complex. Questions and answers are not clean cut, straightforward, "a. b. c. 1. 2. 3."
As for the Incarnational Gospel. This principle is based on the incarnation of Christ. He came and operated in a specific time and place. He adapted his custom to fit the 1st century Jewish world. And that adaptation didn't happen once. It has been happening ever since. In a sense, the gospel doesn't change, but how it is perceived, and the way it is understood changes in time and space. The chameleon is a good example. A chameleon doesn't become another animal, but its appearance, its "strength," changes depending on its surroundings. If I insist that a chameleon is always black because I only ever see it on a black surface, I am both right and wrong. It is black, but it is green and yellow to.
The essence of the gospel never changes... it always has the power to save, to change, and to improve human beings. But it molds itself to every culture... tweeking, pushing, rewarding, and punishing them in different ways.
As for my post "What do we do with Ellen White," it was a real conversation. I am not responsible I am not responsible, nor do I agree with everything that was said.
I really enjoy this dialog. It is a skill to magnanimously disagree... a skill that I need to better develop!
Thanks for the comments Richard!
I still hold that if the method is the same the outcome will be the same but what I should have added is only if the people in comparison are honest. A lot of the time there are personal biases and areas where they aren't completely consistent to their method of interpretation. But what that means that they aren't working off of completely identical theological principles. If they were I still believe that they would come to the same conclusions.
I know that not every contact with Ellen White is positive but not every contact with the Bible is positive. People make very similar claims against the Bible, many feel condemned, that the Bible is outdated or that it is simply wrong. But does the fact that people feel condemned or that the something is felt to be outdated mean that it should be cast aside? I think this is a wrong conclusion. And yes, everything needs to be taken in context, in the time in which she lived, but there are principles _and_ practices that are still relevant today for Bible-believing Christians.
Something that is not clear to me is which parts of culture trump the culture of Christianity and which parts don't. When the Bible says that a man shouldn't lay with another man is that just part of their culture or is it a biblical teaching, applicable to all cultures? What is the core gospel?
I think, though, that even if you don't agree with me on the exact place of Biblical interpretation in this discussion you can still admit its priority. How you view the Bible does affect your conclusions. That was the main point of my post.
Matthew said, "I still hold that if the method is the same the outcome will be the same but what I should have added is only if the people in comparison are honest."
I once sat in a class where the professor basically said that if I was honest, I'd agree with him. According to him, his conclusions were biblical accurate and theologically correct. Because I didn't read and understand the text in the same way he did, I was placed into the dishonest category. Because I didn't agree with him, I became a liar... and more broadly, if you and I ever disagree on what the bible says... one of us is being dishonest. Are you ready to wear a big "L" for liar? I'm not.
Look Richard, I am not saying that your dishonest. I was saying that if you are honest to the same theological system of interpretation that someone else used you would come to same conclusions. The professor wasn't using the same system of interpretation that you use and whether you were lying is dependent on whether you espoused the same method of interpretation.
I must say though that the Biblical model does suggest that it is "good and pleasant for brethren to dwell together" in unity. The apostles were in one accord. I think that God can help us to unite on truth. I am firm believer in one truth for everyone. That puts me in a certain camp with people I sometimes don't want to be put with but I believe it still.
The "you" in my comments is not refreing directly to you, Matthew. I'm simpply refereing to who ever the interogator is. I'm not accusing you of being dishonest, nor that you called me dishonest.
I may be able to live with the point that if we stick with one system of thought, we can come to the same conclusions. However, at the deepest level, a person will hardly ever find another person with whom they agree on all points. Ellen and James White had their theological differences! So, who gets to decide which system is accurate? Who ever decides has the power to condemn whoever dosn't get to decide. Adventism is not monolithic. So who gets to decide what the system is? You? Me? Jon Paulien? Roy Gane? The GC in session? All these Adventist entities will see things slightly different and emphasize different aspects. The reality is, even within Adventist theology, thought, and practice, there is a plurality of belief. Who is the decider? Do we need a decider?
Ok, think of it this way:
Does God believe something? If so, then I want to believe what God believes. How's that? ;) God has expressed himself through the Bible and through the things he has created. If I let the Spirit of God teach me the things of God I should be able to come as close as possible to the beliefs of God.
WDYT?
I must say, I've really enjoyed this discussion.
I too want to believe what God believes. But as fuzzy minded as I am and how great God is, I know I will never understand him or what he believes. Paul says in 1 Cor 13, with reguard to love and therefore the foundation of God's universe, "For we know in part and we propohesy in part, but when perfections comes, the imprefect disappears. when i was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, and I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."
I am pessimistic about my ability to know God. I know I can know enough. His teaching and training me are enough to accomplish his purposes. But I cannot know him fully. And as long as I'm processing in an old dark mirror, as long as I'm thinking with my childish brain, I'm bound to make mistakes. God cannot be fully known by anybody on earth. It is my job to see as clearly as I can and to strech my mind to try and understand God... and accept that another person on the same quest will come to different conclusions. Looking through my dark mirror, how can I then call the other person "wrong?" How can I then claim to have it "right" without any doubt? Maybe the real "right" is not the truths we hold, but the ability to accept the other inspite of differences.
There is kind-of two things in question here: is there one truth? And can we know it? I believe the answer to both is yes but for the second I would say that we are limited to knowledge only in our sphere.
You stated very well that we are limited and that we see things differently from our different perspectives. However, I think there are things that we can say with assurance that we are right. Jesus came to save us from sin and is now in heaven preparing a place for us. Don't you think that there are things that we all should know for sure?
The difficult question becomes what are they? ;)
Post a Comment