Memory, Meaning & Faith

2012 Seminary Scholarship Symposium: "Reception of Ellen White’s Trinitarian Statements by Her Contemporaries (1897–1915)"

Presentation

Denis Kaiser, Ph.D. student in Adventist Studies and Historical Theology at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary in Berrien Springs, MI, presented his research on the topic: “The Reception of Ellen White’s Trinitarian Statements by Her Contemporaries (1897–1915).” 

Introduction

Kaiser pointed out that various scholars had already done historical research on the semi-Arian position of the early Seventh-day Adventists, the development to the Trinitarian position, and Ellen White’s role in that developmental process. Researchers who had looked at Ellen White’s writings paid primarily attention to the content of her Trinitarian statements and the authenticity of the original handwritten and typed manuscripts containing her own interlineations. What has not been done so far and what Kaiser aimed to do through his research is to focus on how Ellen White’s contemporaries received her Trinitarian statements during her own lifetime. The study examined the reception and use of her two famous statements that (a) the Holy Spirit is “the third person of the Godhead” and (b) there are “three living persons in the heavenly trio.”

2012 Seminary Scholarship Symposium: "A Theology of Music Among Sabbatarian Adventists, 1849-1863"

 

Presentation

Professional musician David Williams, Ph.D. student in Church History at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary in Berrien Springs, MI presented his research paper with the title: "A Theology of Music Among Sabbatarian Adventists, 1849-1863". 

 

Methodology

Williams examined the writings and hymnbook publications of the Sabbatarian Adventists from 1849-1863 to derive their theology of music. In order to demonstrate their theology of music, he sought to a) demonstrate the value of music among Sabbatarian Adventists through their prolific hymn publication, b) show from their writings theologies of true and false music, and c) present their belief about music and its role in the Christian life. 

Leaning on Quentin Skinner's (*1940-) teaching, that historians must begin by seeing things their way, Williams studied the development of the Sabbatarian Adventist theology of music without placing the music within the known categories of systematic theology. Neither did he want to disregard the notion of a theology of music alltogether. Starting to see things their way, his purpose was not to classify music according to our modern theological systems, but rather to describe the meaning of music in terms in which these early Adventists understood it.

They did not use the phrase theology of music, but they however did discuss music in highly theological terms. Williams' thesis is that music was not ancillary among Sabbatarian Adventists, but rather, they demonstrated a theology of music that was central to their life and eschatological hope. 

 

Adventists and Ecumenism: The Good and the Bad

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

• This article renders the response of Dr. Nicholas Miller to Dr. M. Kinnamon's address "The Ecumenical Movement and Why You Should Be Involved" at the Seminary Scholarship Symposium, February 2, 2012 at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Andrews University, in Berrien Springs, MI. 
• M. Kinnamon is the former General Secretary of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA. A summary of Kinnamon's address can be found here. 
• N. Miller is professor at the SDA Theological Seminary and director of the International Religious Liberty Institute. 
• Please note: Since Miller responded to Kinnamon directly, terms like "you/your" are directed at Kinnamon, not at the audience and not at the readers of this blog. 

 

Adventists and Ecumenism: The Good and the Bad

A Response to Dr. Michael Kinnamon

Thank you, Dr. Kinnamon, for your challenge to our complacent and even lazy thinking about interchurch fellowship. As Adventists, we all too often show apathy towards other Christians and their churches, and mentally justify it on vague theological grounds, such as “standing for the truth” or avoiding “compromise.”

But all too often it is simply an unwillingness to move beyond the familiar and the predictable of our comfort zones. You have challenged us to think carefully about our view of God’s church, in both its visible and invisible aspects. We need this challenge, because in many Adventist circles, “ecumenical” has become a dirty word.    

Caution is needed on this topic, but too many of us throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is, I believe, a positive ecumenism, and a problematic ecumenism. I would like to explore both the positive and the problematic in reacting to your paper.   

The “Found” World of Genesis 1 Part II: How Does Science Inform Theology

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

 

  

 

Sometime back, I examined the claims of Professor John H. Walton of Wheaton College to have uncovered the “lost” world of Genesis 1. There, I examined his argument that Genesis 1 was consistent with other Ancient Near Eastern literature in only concerning itself with functional origins, not material origins.Thus, he believed that the Genesis account was silent as to when the physical stuff of the earth, plants, animals, and even humankind was actually made.

This concern with functionality, Walton claims, allows for the teachings of evolutionary biology to remain largely unaffected by the Biblical account, as there is really no conflict between the two accounts, once they are properly understood. I argued that Walton’s arguments were problematic for Adventists, who see both a functional and material story in Genesis, and who also would have significant theological problems with their Great Controversy framework if God used suffering and death to bring about His good creation.

But given the topic, it would be remiss not to say something about science. Religious scholars believe that scientists do not take the Bible and theology seriously enough, and the opposite is also true. Scientists are often frustrated by the apparent lack of willingness to listen by their theologian colleagues. No doubt we all have much to learn and improve in the skill and art of listening.

"Thou Shalt Not Kill": What Kind of Killing Is Forbidden? Is All Killing Forbidden? (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17)

By Dr. James J. North, Jr.*

This study is an effort to establish what kind of killing is and is not included under the 6^th commandment. Based on views passed on from generation to generation, many Seventh-day Adventists (SDAs) have considered the Commandment to prohibit murder, killing in war, suicide, killing in self- and family-protection, etc . . .  We have used the commandment to frown on, if not to prohibit, the bearing of arms, guns, as instruments of war, of law enforcement, and of hunting. Many would not have a weapon/gun in their homes as an instrument of self and family protection for fear of a home intrusion that might cause them to kill the intruder. 

The commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” is translated into English from the original Hebrew in two texts in the OT, Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17. They are both statements of the 6^th Commandment, given initially by God from Mt. Sinai (Exodus 20:1-17) and repeated by Moses (Deuteronomy 5:1-21).  

Reminders

The principal translation that brought the Bible and the Commandments in English to us is the King James Version, the translation authorized by King James I. of England, completed in the year 1611. The phrase, “Thou shalt not kill” is the 1611 (KJV) English translation of the original Hebrew language of the 6^th Commandment. 

So we start with a gentle reminder that the Word of God in English was preceded by and sprung from the Word of God in Hebrew. Thus the meaning of the English must be first and foremost interpreted by the meaning of the Hebrew.

A second reminder and beginning point in this study is that our understanding of Scripture is not static. A number of factors have caused and will cause us to adjust our understanding of the Bible—archeological discoveries, studies of the ancient languages, historical research, and systematic Bible study. “The path of the just is as a shining light that shineth more and more unto the perfect day” (Proverbs 4:18). (see JPST—“The path of the righteous is like radiant sunlight, ever brightening until noon.”). Difficult as it may be, we must be willing to adjust our understanding of Scripture when exegetical, historical, and contextual study corrects our views, even when these views have been handed down to us by revered leaders and writers.   This was the experience of our SDA pioneers, who grew as they studied and restudied Scripture. They learned and changed. This has been our history and it will be our future.

Are Children Born Sinners?

 By Edyta Jankiewicz, Ph.D. cand.*

 

Although Adventists reject a purely Augustinian conception of original sin, the official teaching of the church affirms that Adam’s sin “resulted in the condition of estrangement from God in which every human being is born. This estrangement involves an inherent tendency to commit sin.”[1] This must, of necessity, include children. Despite much discussion regarding the nature of humanity, however, little of the contemporary Adventist debate has pertained directly to children; thus, Adventism does not have a complete or systematic theology of the nature of children.

The Lost and Found World of Genesis 1

By Roy E. Gane (Old Testament Department, SDA Theological Seminary, Andrews University)

 

 Here I would like to respond to the January 30, 2011 post by my friend and colleague Nicholas Miller (Department of Church History, SDA Theological Seminary, Andrews University) titled: “The ‘Found’ World of Genesis 1: Is Theistic Evolution a Meaningful Option for Seventh-day Adventists?” Dr. Miller was reacting to the Friday evening and Sabbath afternoon presentations at Andrews University on January 21-22, 2011 by my friend John H. Walton of Wheaton College, author of The Lost World of Genesis One. On Friday evening, Dr. Walton presented his approach to comparative methodology: how to understand the Old Testament within its ancient Near Eastern context. On Sabbath afternoon, he applied his approach to Genesis 1, proposing that this account of the Creation week (of literal days) recounts God’s assignment of functions to components of Planet Earth and its environment to inaugurate it as a cosmic temple in which he took up residence and began his rule.   

Miller raised a number of issues that deserve clarification and further discussion. I will not attempt to provide solutions to all the problems he raised, but will try to identify some productive directions in which we can make progress regarding (1) understanding comparative methodology, (2) what is at stake regarding a comparative approach to Genesis 1, and (3) the role of Andrews University in hosting scholarly debate.

I agree with Miller on several important points, including the need to pay careful attention to methodologies and philosophies behind them, the assessment that theistic evolution is not in harmony with Seventh-day Adventist teaching, and the opinion that we at Andrews University need further thinking and discussion concerning choices and formatting of opportunities for live interaction with scholars who are impacting the wider academic community in some ways that may be challenging to us. However, my perspective differs from that of Miller in some ways, at least partly because we work in different disciplines: While he is a church historian, I am in the area of Hebrew Bible and ancient Near Eastern studies, like Walton.

"Be Holy For I Am Holy" - God's Call for Holiness

By Teresa Reeve (New Testament Department, SDA Theological Seminary, Andrews University)

 

It would make a great addition to the billboard messages from God that sprang up along freeways across the country a few years ago:

                     “You shall be holy for I am holy.”
                                                        Sincerely,
                                                                God

This message from 1 Peter 1:16* seems clear and unequivocal, it can be read in a moment while speeding along one’s way, yet it stimulates recurring questions and ruminations that refuse to let us rest.  For some, it also stimulates feelings of discouragement and despair as they consider how far they are from attaining to the holiness of God.   

What Does This Call Mean?

    So what is meant by the call to holiness in 1 Peter? The concept of holiness, expressed by the Greek word, hagios and its cognates, is important throughout the epistle. Key to understanding 1 Peter’s use of hagios is that, when used of created persons and objects, the word means: “set apart to the divine.” It was thus also employed to describe things and persons considered fit to approach God— those that are “pure” and thus acceptable to Him. Hagios is regularly used as the opposite of koinos (common).

Mission Priority: Reforming Christians or Converting Non-Christians?

By Gorden R. Doss (Department of World Mission, SDA Theological Seminary, Andrews University)

As Martin Luther, John Calvin and the other Protestant Reformers developed their theological positions they also developed deep missiological commitments. Millions of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, animists and others knew little or nothing about the Bible and had not accepted Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. The Reformers knew the history of Roman Catholic missionaries who had served over the centuries among non-Christian peoples. They quickly became convicted of their obligation to proclaim the Protestant way of being a Christian to non-Christian peoples. Therefore, they launched a systematic plan of global mission. They would not only work to reform the church from within but also to convert non-Christians to Jesus Christ.

Historic Reality
Sadly, the real narrative is quite different from this wishful narrative. The Reformers focused almost exclusively on missio interna (internal mission, to reform Christians) and ignored missio externa (external mission, to convert non-Christians). The first significant Protestant mission to non-Christians was initiated by Pietists in the eighteenth-century. Count Nicolaus von Zinzendorf (1700-1760) set the stage for William Carey (1761-1834) and others to launch what would be called the “Great Century” of Protestant mission—the nineteenth-century. From Luther’s nailing of the 95 Theses in 1517, three centuries would pass before a strong Protestant missionary movement to non-Christians would be under way.

What’s the Truth about Christian Headship and Submission?

By Martin Hanna (SDA Theological Seminary, Andrews University)

 

 

Many sincere Christians engage in vigorous debate about headship and submission and relations between men and women. This blog seeks to clarify selected issues involved in this debate by surveying some insights on this subject from the Bible and Ellen White’s writings.    

What the Bible says

What does the Bible say? Literally translated, Paul writes about “submitting to one another in the fear of God; wives, to your own husbands as to the Lord” (Eph. 5:21-22). The submission of a wife to one husband is grounded in the headship modeled by Christ who is the one head of the church. “The husband is head of the wife as also Christ is head of the church and he is the Savior of the body. . . . Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her” (5:22-23, 25-26).

Christ’s example of servant headship is to be followed in the home as well as in the Church. The “rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and . . . exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Mk. 10:42-45).

Voluntary, Mutual Submission (Carroll Osburn)

 

 

In the NT, . . . . When a person is called to submit, submission is always voluntary . . . . The middle sense of hupotassomai meaning “voluntary submission” is found in several NT texts, e.g., Rom 13:1 (“Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities”), 1 Cor 16:16 (“submit to such as these”), and Eph 5:21 (“Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ”).

It seems to me that the theme of Ephesians 5:15-6:9 is daily conduct of the Christian life. Paul specifically enjoins the readers in 5:15 to “take care how you walk, not as unwise but as wise.” Rather than singing the songs of drunkenness (v. 18), Christians should sing decidedly Christian songs that underscore and encourage the Christian walk (v. 19), continue with a daily prayer life (v. 20), and show mutual deference (“voluntary submission”) to one another (v. 21).

The appeal in v. 22, then, is for wives to demonstrate “voluntary submission/mutual deference” to their husbands. The way husbands show “voluntary submission/mutual deference” is by loving their wives. In a reciprocal relationship, a Christian couple can “walk wisely.”

Similarly, the way children demonstrate “voluntary submission/mutual deference to their parents is by obeying them. Parents demonstrate this attitude by helping their children to mature through responsible instruction and upbringing. In this reciprocal relationship, Christian families can “walk wisely.”

Too, the way Christian slaves demonstrate “voluntary submission/mutual deference” to their masters is through obedience and diligent work. The way masters demonstrate this “voluntary submission/mutual deference” is by avoiding threatening, domineering behavior. In this reciprocal relationship, Christians can “walk wisely” in the culture of slavery in operation at the time.

In this sense, “mutual submission” in v. 21 is urged of all Christians . . . . This is certainly in line with the teaching throughout the NT that Christians are to submit to one another”—Matt 20:26-28; Phil 2:3; 1 Pet 5:4-5. . . .

This author concludes that in Eph 5:21-24 Paul calls for a mutual submission, a voluntary deference for all Christians, whatever their roles in life. It is vital to understand that neither Paul nor Jesus before him called for the radical overthrow of hierarchalism. Both had ideals along egalitarian lines, yet both worked within cultural systems of the day—whether regarding slavery or gender roles—and taught Christians to “walk wisely” given certain cultural constraints. Paul’s admonition for mutual submission is still valid for twenty-first century Christians.

Carroll D. Osburn, Women in the Church: Reclaiming the Ideal (Abeline, TX: ACU Press, 2001), 166-169, 171.

Questions:

• Do Christian slave masters facilitate the voluntary submission of their slaves when they treat their slaves as the masters would want to be treated (Eph 6:5-9)? Does this Christian practice contribute to undermining the view that slaves were the property of their masters?

• Do parents facilitate the voluntary submission of their children when they lovingly teach them the ways of the Lord? (Eph 6:1-4). Does this Christian practice contribute to undermining the view of children as the property of their parents?

• Do husbands facilitate the voluntary submission of wives when they love their wives and give themselves for their wives? (Eph 5:22-33). Does this Christian practice contribute to undermining the view of wives as the property of their husbands?

 

Bill Hull on a New Form of Discipleship

 

“Three movements—classic discipleship, spiritual formation, and environmental discipleship—are now converging to create a new, full-bodied discipleship, with the potential to transform the church in the next twenty-five years.” – Bill Hull in The Complete Book of Discipleship

Questions

According to the Shema (Deut 6:4-9), the Magna Carta of Judeo-Christian religious education (discipling),...

1. What is the prerequisite for involving oneself in Christian education/discipling?

2. What is indicated as the method for Christian education/discipling?

3. What is implied as being the prime learning environment?