 |
|
 |
 |
 Thoughts on Inspiration by Guy Sciortino I have to laugh; it’s the only way I can actually admire the so-called ‘intellectuals’ of our church. Obviously, for our Universities to maintain credibility as education centers in the world, they must produce scholarly works that adhere to universal standards of both philosophical and scientific approval. Under this interdict, the search for truth in our institutions appears at times to have abandoned the God of our traditions and demanded endorsement and recognition from the prevailing schools of thought and publication. Not unlike Israel of old that beckoned after every god in its influential environment, and at the same time paradoxically ignoring the admirable loyalty, be-what-it-may, of the surrounding nations to their own devotions.
Alberto Timm writes, sadly enough, in the Perspective Digest (a mouthpiece for the Adventist Theological Society), a series of commentary about Adventist views on inspiration. It is without doubt an appropriately researched article that recently analyzes such ‘scholars’ as Alden Thompson, Raymond Cottrell, and Richard Coffen, etc. in a discussion of how these ‘Adventist’ professors of theology reflect on the method in which God speaks to humans (as if God’s tongue could actually be dissected within the confines of parochial debate). Nothing unexpected or novel is revealed in the article. Having been subject to the antics of Jack Provonsha when I attended Loma Linda, I realize so readily that to rescue Adventism from the simple-minded, theologians continually discover innovative and rationalized theories to keep faith-based concepts under their control. Otherwise, they could never claim to have studied under Tillich or other such deities in the temples of erudition. (You can quickly perceive how absolutely easy it is to toss out twenty-five cent college words and sound both authoritative and educated).
For example, Provonsha claimed in one of my religion courses at Loma Linda that in order to resolve the conflict of the Genesis account with the evolutionary explanation of dinosaurs, that he believed Satan had created the monsters in that chaotic earth mentioned by Moses. God apparently recreated everything to His satisfaction the second time around, as noted perhaps in an unsophisticated description, because Moses did not have the scientific expertise of which we are so privileged in the 21st Century. All this being taught in an Adventist school without so much as a blink of an eye from the Brethren. What Provonsha (with apologies, since I do not want to speak wrongly of the departed) and some of these other bright bulbs fail to achieve is getting out of their box and actually taking scientific expertise and applying it to challenge the self-serving theories of the world’s all-governing evolutionists. I suppose they feel we have our scientific experts to figure that part out.
Needless to say, I was appalled a few years ago when I returned to Loma Linda on one of my visits and actually inquired about Creation studies at the University from a science professor. Not far from the Adventist campus, in nearby San Diego (actually now headquartered in Texas), is the Institute for Creation research. It is a non-denominational group of scientists who apply their knowledge and efforts to the establishment and support of the Biblical description of the planet’s origins; in the not-so-distant past. I wondered what collaboration our University might have with this noble Institute. The reply to me was that the ICR was not scientific enough for Loma Linda’s taste, implying they were too creationistic in their perspectives. Having read a great deal of the ICR’s publications, I was somewhat confused. A scientist, myself, I found their articles to be quite sound and convincing. But I knew the problem immediately had to do with the fact that ICR articles can not be published in any ‘respected’ science journals around the globe because the universal academic standard is to reject anything that reeks of creationism. Loma Linda obviously wants the esteem of being part of the ‘real’ scientific community. ICR, on the other hand, apparently cares less about homage; and works to prove God’s word. Isn’t it a strange paradox that God does not need the Church to do His work? There are always brave souls in the world that follow His Spirit even without the benefit of having the particular revelations with which God has blessed the believers in Adventism.
Anyway, the point I’m making, if not already clear, is that an article that claims to represent “Adventist” views on inspiration should not be so called if the authors of reference spend more ink (or megabytes in modern parlance) criticizing instead of defending our unique faith. These learned types seem Adventists only in the sense that Catholics are Catholics or Jews are Jews: not because of what they believe, but solely because of their birthright. They grow up, get their precious degrees enabling them to seek an academic position, teach in our Universities, and like an auditory version of Narcissus engage in cogitative self-abuse (paraphrasing a vulgar phrase we used at Boston University to describe professors who got excited hearing themselves speak). Like the bells that Paul described clanging away noisily and making no sound other than ding-dong (or better: ding-dung), these educated men and women do their best to avoid appearing foolish to the mainstream academic community.
This scenario reminds me of Elijah’s response to King Ahaziah (2Kings 1:3), if I might paraphrase once more: “Is there no God in Adventism that you inquire of evolutionary science, the god of this world?” Our Adventist doctrines, established by sweat, hard work, faith, prayers, Bible study, and including the inspiration of Ellen White, have always been the subject of discussion and criticism. It is, indeed, a respectable heritage, commendable for imitation. So let’s finally drop the façade of scholarship as somehow authoritative in these matters. We live in an information-driven society. Anyone can read, on-line, the same books that generate a degree in Hebrew, Greek, Geology, Astronomy, Biblical history, etc, and draw their own conclusions on the subjects. The only things keeping the average populace from obtaining the PhD titles in these areas is not the availability of knowledge or the ability of each church member to understand difficult topics. It is about the time and funds necessary to attend the courses under “approved” guardianship at best. And for many, some people would rather just study the Bible and have jobs that actually impact society rather than sitting in an ivory tower and telling people what they think. (I do have a good job, BTW).
Like the “Church” of the dark ages, what evolutionists and modern scholars seem to fear the most is allowing the general public to have access to the sacred texts; or in contemporary inquisition, to allow the concept of creationism any merit whatsoever. I suppose the true terror of the modern professor is another PhD applying real scientific method to their theories. Fortunately, anyone can know what professors know; it’s only by keeping the “Mysteries” alive in academia that the average person is made to feel that the ‘experts’ are more illuminated than the rest. As one of my teachers once rebuked me, “When you’ve read as much as I have, then you’ll understand what I’m saying.” Well, guess what? At that stage of my life I might have already read as much as the instructor; only not, perhaps, the same books. The fact that I had no PhD after my name obviously made him assume my remarks were unworthy.
And so it is with our theologians. They call themselves Adventist scholars, pat themselves on the back, control our Universities, deny that it’s somewhat a good-old-boy network governing the church and our publishing houses, and help you sleep better at night knowing they represent God’s chosen vessel in the best possible light to the unlearned. Maybe I’m just paranoid from all my reading, especially of historical trends, but my observation is that leaders everywhere find it useful to mimic the ways of the world in order to feel safe. I mean it’s not like a Church has never been corrupted with power: which leads one to question certain historical actions by our leadership. A few years back the General Conference legal department obtained a government copyright on the Seventh-day Adventist name, thereby reassuring our Church body that not just any believer could call themself a SDA without the ‘true’ authority’s sanctioning examination. This means that, even if someone is a baptized SDA and proclaims traditional Adventist beliefs, if the governing body determines you are not subjecting yourself to the supremacy of the church (of which one must not be too critical), then the superior courts can decide your religious destiny. How worldly is this?
It’s a strange paradox however if one is a scholar. A scholar can critique almost anything we believe under the auspices of research in any of our journals (anything except the body’s jurisdiction that is). We call this intellectual curiosity. But let one rogue, conservative lay or clergyman publicly espouse an old embarrassing concept of prophetic warning and the spiritual militia comes asking kindly if you would try and be more ecumenical or at least politically correct. After all, interpretation is still under discussion by the “intelligentsia” at your representative Universities. If prophecy is of special interest to you, have no concerns, they will eventually divulge what Revelation actually states about certain sensitive subjects. It could be possible, you may or may not understand, that EGW’s God spoke to her in a nineteenth Century, culturally-based, post-reformation voice that created, perhaps, her misguided mindset in The Great Controversy about certain other churches. It’s definitelly not an appropriate book for today’s provincial audience, after all. Or at least that’s what all this investigation about inspiration will determine. I’ll sleep better tonight, won’t you: rest-assured that someone smart is working on this hot potato? Not!I suppose at this point I'm no different than the other trees falling in the forest, making a sound that only I can hear. But it's what blogging is about. When the church publications can do what seems only the Independent Ministries are accomplishing, then I will keep my peace. I simply ask, why are our elite journals not producing more evidence like the ICR instead of kicking up dust to darken the light? Am I missing something, or have our scholars just stopped using the Bible as the main source of reference in their bibliographies? Sleep tight! Home | About Us | Bible Study | Billerica Blog | Bible Commentary | Devotional | Online Giving | Ministries | Prayer | Media | Bookstore | News | Calendar | Contact Us | Sermons |
 |
 |
|
|