THE OBJECTIVES
OF LIBERALISM - IN THE
SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH
“Men are teaching for
doctrine the commandments of men; and their assertions are taken as truth.
The people have received man-made theories. So the gospel is perverted,
and the Scripture misapplied. As in the days of Christ, the light of truth
is pushed into the background. Men’s theories and suppositions are
honored before the Word of the Lord God of hosts. The truth is
counteracted by error. The Word of God is wrested, divided and distorted
by higher criticism. Jesus is acknowledged, only to be betrayed by a
kiss.” —Ellen G. White, Bible Echo and Signs of the Times,
February 1, 1897
A June
1971 issue of Newsweek, in effect, foretold the future. For that
story, its editors interviewed several prominent Adventists who were
hardworking undercover liberals.
“[There are]
liberals in the SDA church, who would like to recover the early Adventist
tradition of dissent” (“The Day of the Adventists,” Newsweek,
June 7, 1971, p. 65). “Tradition of dissent” is scholarly code for
their objective of introducing rebellion in the minds of their students
against the historic standards and doctrines of our people. The liberals
went on to say:
“You will find few seminary
professors who admit to the 6,000 year theory, and many Adventists no
longer believe that the days of Creation were each 24 hours long.”—Op.
cit., p. 66.
Then the
liberals explained to the reporters interviewing them exactly how they
planned to go about it; they told the basis of their attack:
“As a first step toward recovering
the dissenting spirit of the past, liberal Adventists contend, the church
ought to rid itself of dependence upon an exaggerated Biblical
literalism.”—Ibid.
There are even
more hardworking liberals in our church today than back then. And many of
them work quite openly now. They can because they have been so successful
in carefully training and graduating over two decades of liberals who have
entered the work as ministerial interns and gradually moved up through the
ranks to assume important positions in our largest churches, in our
conferences and higher administrative levels, and editorial offices of our
publishing houses.
They have also
been doing their work well, to eliminate “dependence upon . . Biblical
literalism.” And what does that mean? It means to stop taking the Bible
as it reads, stop believing its words and, instead, read into every
sentence the sceptical interpretations of a sin-loving heart.
There is more
than one way to do away with God’s Word, and the liberals have been
busily trying to do it for quite some time.
TRAINED IN WORLDLY
UNIVERSITIES
Where did they
get these ideas? They learned them at the feet of professed Christian
worldlings who are in charge of the religion departments of the great
secular universities of the land.
But why did
our men go there to get their training, when we had teachers in our own
schools and an abundance of truth in the collected writings of the Bible
and Spirit of Prophecy?
They did it so
they could acquire doctoral degrees. This is the origin of the corruption;
this is why our bright young men went to the cesspool in order to drink
the wisdom of atheists, agnostics, and assorted sceptics.
(See The
Branson Report on Accreditation—Part 1-4 [DH–25-28] to learn more
about the crisis in the early 1930s, when our leaders tried to stop the
mounting pressure for accreditation and degrees.)
Although our
colleges in North America rushed to gain accreditation by the late 1930s
and our Bible teachers began doing it by late 1950s, yet it was not until
the latter 1960s that the full effect of the changeover began to be felt.
At first, liberal sentiments were quietly disseminated; but, by the late
1970s, the work to instill modernist bias in the students was rapidly
moving forward.
UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES OF
LIBERALISM
There are
three types of people: Bible believers, Bible rejecters, and Bible
doubters. The rejecters generally show themselves for what they are, but
the doubters make excellent agents which Satan can use to instill
skepticism in the minds of sincere seekers after God. By attending worldly
universities, our men and women place themselves at the feet of Satan, to
be taught by him in the deep things of subtle skepticism. While there,
they are taught the devilish science of clever doubting, insinuation,
quibbling, ridicule, and reinterpretation.
Here are four
of the principles they are taught:
(1) The
present is the key to the past. If it cannot happen now, it never happened
earlier. (2) Every effect has a natural cause. There are no such things as
miracles. (3) Be skeptical of what you read in the Bible. Better yet,
reinterpret it to fit your own selfish scheme of things. (4) Carry on your
work with all due subtlety. The twisting methods of the serpent will help
you keep from being fired while the changeover is in progress.
Here are some
working methods:
Instill in the
student the grand motto: Skepticism is the key to finding truth.
Make each student a shadow of yourself, so he will go out into the church
and its institutions and disseminate doubting and error wherever he goes.
Mold him to believe with all his heart that Scripture cannot be trusted;
that its clear, searching truths must always be explained away. God’s
Word must be twisted to agree with the desires of men who love sin, want
to indulge in it untrammeled by forbiddings, and want to carry their sins
to the very gates of heaven.
At this point,
it would be well to learn more about what our men and women are taught in
the outside universities.
Whereas
classic liberalism denies God entirely, moderate liberalism (the kind
destroying our colleges) admits of His existence and that the Bible has
some kind of God-given authenticity to it. But moderate liberals still do
not believe it is fully inspired, trustworthy, and has an authority we
should bow to. The liberals in our ranks are moderates.
THE HISTORICAL-CRITICAL METHOD
How do the
liberals manage to read all their worldly ideas into the Bible? They use
the historical-critical method of Bible study.
This
deceitful, sceptical process traces its origins back centuries. By the
seventeenth century men were using it, but the clearest statement of the
historical-critical method was formulated by the nineteenth-century German
theologian, Ernst Troeltsch (1865-1923). He developed the six approaches
to Bible study which our men and women, attending outside universities,
are instructed in.
In reality,
the historical-critical method is “Bible criticism”; it is
disbelieving the commands, the promises, and the historical details of
Scripture. In short, it is not taking God at His Word. It is a denial that
the Bible is valid or applicable to our lives today.
Here are six
branches of this satanic science, as formulated by Troeltsch:
1 - Literary-source
criticism assumes that the Bible writers were just copying some
earlier manuscripts or got their ideas from pagan sources. The search is
for “literary sources.” Sound familiar? That is what some of our
people tried to do with the Spirit of Prophecy in the early 1980s, during
the “plagiarism” witch hunt for sources which were never found. (See
our forthcoming book on this; we will announce its publication date.)
2 - Form,
or tradition, criticism goes a step beyond the search for literary
sources—and speculates as to what were the “oral traditions” that
those supposed pre-writings were based on! All this may seem ridiculous to
you and me; but, to young men trained in these godless theories, it is
very serious business. They go out from those institutions of agnosticism,
determined to spread the virus.
3 - Redaction
criticism theorizes as to what might have been in the minds of the
supposed “editors” who changed the Biblical writings still more and
placed them into their final shape.
4 - Comparative-religion
criticism attempts to determine which pagan religions the cumulative
writers and editors of the Bible got their ideas from. (Surely, it is
assumed, they did not get them from God.)
5 - Historical
criticism seeks to apply the findings of archaeology and secular
historical sources to the Bible. But, in the pursuit of this task, it is
assumed that, whenever there a lack of clarity or correlation, secular
sources are always considered to be more correct. In addition, through a
twisted dating pattern, archaeological findings are dated to an incorrect
time period, so they will not appear to agree with (and thereby vindicate)
Biblical events. (See our study on this: “Archaeological Dating,”
which is chapter 35 in our three-volume Evolution Disproved Series.)
Two key aspects of historical criticism is (1) to misdate Scripture in
order to invalidate prophecy; and, (2) if a Biblical event cannot be
established via archaeology (and they generally won’t because of
incorrect dating assumptions; see the above named chapter in our Evolution
Disproved Series), then it must be a fable which never occurred.
6 - Structural
criticism tries to find imagined causal relationships between the
wording of the Bible and imagined “implicit literary structures” of
all literature.
The above six
points deal with the “evolutionary development” which the Bible is
said to have taken from ancient witchcraft and polytheistic cultures, down
through oral traditions, past writers, to editors into its final form,
which is indebted to contemporary heathen literature and not agreeable
with archaeological findings.
DANGER IN DEPARTING FROM
GOD’S WORD
What a maze of
skepticism all that is! Yet our future college and university teachers
have to run that gauntlet, in order to be “qualified” to teach your
sons and daughters. Yet, if they do not submit to that agnostic and
atheistic training, they will not be hired by our colleges and
universities.
Of course,
upon graduating from such institutions, many sincere young people feel
they can “use” those theories and methods without being tainted by
them. But those many years of training have damaged their own thinking.
It is not
possible to partly use liberal methods. The whole package must be
thrown out the window! We must take the Writings as an accurate, fully
inspired, message from God to our souls. We must submit our lives to those
messages, be corrected by them, and be changed by them. Anything less than
this is to deny them.
And this
principle applies both to the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy. There is
no such thing as half-inspired or portions inspired. Over the years,
several folk have told me, “I accepted the idea that part of the Spirit
of Prophecy was written by other people; and now I do not know which part
to believe!” They often end up throwing it all out.
If you want to
be saved, accept the whole Bible and the whole Spirit of Prophecy as
entirely from God. If you want to make shipwreck of faith, start tearing
out the pages here and there. Soon you will have nothing left. And all the
while, Satan will be smiling that hideous smile of his.
Herman Hoen,
in Canada; Charles Wheeling, in Alabama; Vern Bates, in Oregon; and all
the rest of those preachers who say that Ellen White did not write all the
Spirit of Prophecy and that it is not all fully inspired of God will have
to answer for what they have done.
As with the
Spirit of Prophecy, so with the Bible:
“[In spite of years of] skeptical
assault the book still remains, and the men who are now laboring to
destroy it may as well undertake to demolish the pyramids of Egypt with a
tack hammer. Infidels die, but this book still lives. Scoffers fade like
the flowers and wither like the grass, but above their graves this book
marches triumphantly on, and on its pages we read in characters of light,
‘The grass withereth, the flower fadeth, but THE
WORD OF OUR GOD SHALL STAND FOREVER.’
”—H.L. Hastings, Will the Old Book Stand? 1923, p. 349.
“No
man is poor or desolate who has this treasure for his own. When the
landscape darkens and the trembling pilgrim comes to the valley named
‘of the shadow,’ he is not afraid to enter.
“He takes the rod and staff of
Scripture in his hand; he says to friend and comrade, ‘Goodby, we shall
meet again;’ and comforted by that support, he goes toward the lonely
pass as one who walks through darkness into light.”—Henry Van Dyke.
FIVE DANGEROUS CONCEPTS
There are
certain concepts which the liberals try to foist onto God’s people. We
do well to be aware of them. They are regularly used in our schools and
churches, to deceive the faithful into believing a lie:
1 - Apply
different meanings to commonly understood words. Take a Biblical term
(such as atonement, sanctuary, Sabbath, incarnation, resurrection,
inspiration, etc.). Empty the term of its Biblical meaning and inject it
with a liberal meaning. Then preach and teach it. The audience will be
bewildered by the changed meanings to words they know and love and, while
they are still bewildered, you will gradually win them over.
The liberals
will tell you that they believe in the “inspiration” of the Bible.
What they mean is that the Bible is inspired the way Shakespeare, a modern
novel, or Beethoven’s music is. “Oh, yes, I believe the Bible is
inspired!” Satisfied by his answer, you keep listening to his preaching
and trying to figure it out—until you come to like the skeptical
approach.
You will be
told that, yes, Ellen White was a true prophet. What is meant is that Joan
of Ark, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Mother Theresa also are.
2 - Nothing
spiritual ever occurs; everything has a material worldly basis. There is
no supernatural; there are no miracles.
But, if you
suspect this and inquire, you will be told the virgin birth is a
“miracle.” But, what he means is that every birth is a miracle.
Words are
disguised to say what you want to hear, but mean something quite
different, a different view which they are slowly leading you toward.
Nearly every one of us has encountered an Adventist preacher who does
this. Afterward, you are wondering, “What is this all about? Am I losing
my thinking?”
If you grasp
what I am trying to explain, henceforth you will be better able to
identify the handiwork of these liberals.
3 - Everyone
is divine, and God has no justice. Just as the devil said in the
beginning, so believe the liberals. And they want you to believe it too.
Heaven is your home; you are going to live forever; all the religions of
the world are headed to the same place; we are brothers to everyone. The
social gospel is the best gospel. There is no need of grace; and, of
course, you can forget about the law of God. Live to enjoy yourself,
belong to a religious club (the local “church”), and work to change
the social order—and you will have done all you need to in this life.
4 - The
correct theology is whatever the latest fad happens to be. It may be
so-called “liberation theology,” which teaches that the purpose of
religion is to liberate the poorer classes from the power of the wealthy
and overthrow governments. This is very popular in several Catholic
nations.
Or it may be
“feminist theology”; we must liberate women, so they can take over the
churches. Or it may be “Freudian theology”; we should use
psychological theories to explain the Bible.
THE LIBERAL ERROR OF “NEW
LIGHT”
5 -
Progressive revelation is another important liberal principle. It is also
called progressive truth and “present truth.” This liberal concept
teaches that new truths are ever emerging, which are not in God’s Word.
And, we are assured, it is the theologians (defined as men trained in
secular universities) who are the best ones to think them up.
Even though it
is not in Scripture, it is said to be inspired truth anyway. When asked,
“How can you be sure?” the answer is because it is new;
therefore it must be “new light.” “It must be new light, because
Ellen White said we would have new light.” You will find variations of
this error in many places (including among many historic believers). But
it is neither safe nor reliable.
In truth,
there will always be new light for you and me—but that “new light”
will always, only, be found in the Bible or Spirit of Prophecy. It will be
clearly stated and will be found in more than one passage. We will ever be
finding, in God’s Word, what appears to us individually as new light. It
was always there, plainly written in the books; we just had not found it
before.
But, in strong
contrast, the liberal error is that God has not revealed all truth in His
Written Word and we must look outside the Word to find it.
Do not be like
the liberals who direct men to fallible humans and their speculations. My
friend, point men to God and His Word. If you do not do this, souls may be
lost because you pointed them down wrong paths.
Be afraid of
the “new light” these men have for you. It frequently comes premised
on the idea that it is brand new truth, not given in the Bible and Spirit
of Prophecy. —Well, if that is so, then you have no normative
standard by which to check whether it is right or wrong! The best
thing is to immediately depart from such men and take your loved ones with
you.
“The Spirit was not given—nor
can it ever be bestowed—to supersede the Bible; for the Scriptures
explicitly state that the Word of God is the standard by which all
teaching and experience must be tested.”—Great Controversy, p. vii.
“In all His teachings, He [Christ]
dwelt upon the unchangeable positions of Bible truth.”—Upward Look,
p. 313.
THE EMBATTLED WORD FROM
THE 1970s TO NOW
Over the
years, there have been faithful men among denominational leaders who have
sought to maintain the authority of the Bible. Because of the increasing
efforts of liberals in our colleges to teach modernist views, a series of
three Bible conferences were convened one year in the early 1970s.
Entitled the Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutics, 1974, it attempted
to confront the growing historical-critical challenges already bearing
fruit in our church. The conference series was organized by the Biblical
Research Institute and held at three pivotal schools: Andrews University,
Pacific Union College, and Southern College. These gatherings examined the
methods of Biblical interpretation, especially the historical-critical
method.
In each
conference, it was decided that the historical-critical method should not
be used. I suspect the liberals kept under cover, realizing that it would
not be politically wise to do much objecting. As in several other
denominations, our liberals have found they do best carrying their work
forward with stealth rather than publicly having a showdown with
leadership. The result was the publication of a book, Symposium on
Biblical Hermeneutics, which rejected the historical-critical method.
Following
this, as we know all too well, the modernists continued their work in our
colleges, churning out, year by year, more liberal pastors.
In October 1979, one blatant liberal
presentation (at Pacific Union College, before a packed applause-filled
audience) got Desmond Ford in trouble, and Glacier View occurred the next
summer. (See our earliest Waymark tracts.) At that time, in a
telegram sent to N.C. Wilson on Sabbath, nearly the entire staff of
Pacific Union College demanded that Ford not be fired, since he was not
teaching error.
In 1981, a delegation of North
American Bible “scholars” (i.e. college and university Bible teachers,
and some editors and writers) met in Washington, D.C.; and, with great
self-confidence, they declared that no one should worry. The scholars were
smart enough to use the historical-critical method, without tainting
either their conclusions or themselves with liberalism! How duped by the
devil can men become?
“Adventist scholars could indeed
use the descriptive [aspects of the historical-critical] method (that is,
source criticism, redaction criticism, etc.) without adopting the
naturalistic presuppositions affirmed by the thorough-going practitioners
of the method.”—Statement by North American Bible Scholars, at
Theological Consultation II, 1981 (cf. Alden Thompson, “Are Adventists
Afraid of Bible Study?” Spectrum, April 1985, pp. 58, 56.)
Entitled “Consultation
II,” this meeting convened in Washington, D.C., from September 30 to
October 3, 1981, and was attended by a number of denominational leaders.
The
“scholars” came up with the consensus statement (referred to above),
in which they said “the descriptive aspects of the so-called historical-
critical method could indeed to separated from naturalistic
presuppositions and thus could be used by Adventist scholars.” (See
Alden Thompson, Inspiration: Hard Questions, Honest Answers. Review, 1991,
pp. 271-272.)
Poor, fallible
men; they had been so thoroughly indoctrinated by their doctoral
professors at outside universities, that they could not now bear to part
with their precious historical-critical method of reinterpreting
Scriptural passages.
Another official rejection of the
historical-critical method occurred in the late 1980s; this one at an
Annual Council in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. A document was drafted and
approved. Called the Rio Document, 1986, it called on our educators
throughout the world field to reject historical criticism in both forms:
the classical method (denying the miracles and supernatural events in the
Bible) and the “modified use of this method” which retains the
principle of criticism and subordinates the Bible to human reason.
“The
historical-critical method minimizes the need for faith in God and
obedience to His commandments. In addition, . . such a method
de-emphasizes the divine element in the Bible as an inspired book
(including its resulting unity) and depreciates or misunderstands
apocalyptic prophecy and the eschatological portions of the Bible.”—From
the Rio Document, 1986.
“[We must] avoid relying on the
use of the presuppositions and the resultant deductions associated with
the historical-critical method . . Even a modified use . . of the historical-critical method that retains the
principle of criticism which subordinates the Bible to human reason is
unacceptable to Adventists.”—Ibid.
LIBERALS MUCH STRONGER BY 1986
But by 1986,
when the Rio Document was issued, the liberals in the colleges were
far stronger, and many openly expressed their derision for the document.
The situation
in our schools was clearly worsening. And that meant it was worsening for
all of us.
Raymond
Cottrell denounced the Rio document as “myopic” and an attempt
to bring the Bible teachers into bondage (Raymond Cottrell, “Blame It
on Rio,” Adventist Currents, March 1987, p. 33).
Yet, as our
readers well-know, it is the interpretations of these liberals which have
produced the moral and theological crises we now face in standards and
doctrines. Placing men’s ideas above the plain statements of God’s
Written Word have consistently been the problem.
Worldlings
among us were angry that they had not been given a green light to proceed
as fast as possible to corrupt the church. Instead, they would have to
continue their work more stealthily for a time.
At the same
time, there were faithful men who mourned over the increasing losses to
the faith and the mounting apostasy in the ranks.
Speaking of
the liberals in our churches and colleges, one faithful church leader (now
deceased) wrote these words about the liberals among us who are gradually,
inexorably taking us out to the Ecumenicals:
“They are committed believers.
Many of them exhibit the beauty of Christian virtues in their lives. Most
of them love the church. They would like to share the faith and
certainties of our forefathers, but in the honesty of their hearts, they
do not have them. They are unable to see the uniqueness of our message,
the distinctiveness of our identity, the eschatological dimension of our
hope, or the urgency of our mission. Representing a wide spectrum of
religious thought, they attempt to reinterpret traditional theological
Seventh-day Adventist thinking by dressing some of our old doctrines in
what appear to them to be new and attractive semantic garments.”—Enoch
de Oliveira, “A Trojan Horse Within the Church,” Journal of the
Adventist Theological Society, Spring 1991, p. 7.
Throughout all
these momentous years of change,
as modernism has gradually gained the ascendancy in our colleges and
universities, Spectrum magazine and its regional Adventist Forum
meetings have served as a special watering hole for the liberal thinkers
in our denomination. Anything and everything liberal has found approval in
its pages.
“In a well-documented study,
Alberto R. Timm, a scholar in Adventist studies, noted that the
Association of Adventist Forums and its Spectrum magazine became
the main forum for those who assume a ‘revisionist-critical stand’ on
the church’s understanding of the inspiration of Bible writers and Ellen
White . . See Alberto R. Timm, ‘History of Inspiration in the
Seventh-day Adventist Church (1844-1994),’ a paper read at the 1993
Scholars’ Convention of the Adventist Theological Society, Silver
Spring, Md, November 19, 1993, pp. 57-58.”—Samuel Koranteng-Pipim,
Receiving the Word, p. 95.
HISTORICAL-CRITICAL METHOD ALMOST
UNIVERSAL IN OUR COLLEGES
It is of the
highest interest that Raymond Cottrell admitted that, over a decade ago,
nearly all our Bible teachers were using the historical-critical method:
“During the late 1930s,
Seventh-day Adventist Bible scholars began using these historical-critical
principles and procedures in their study; and today, half a century later,
all but a very few do so routinely.”—Raymond Cottrell, “Blame It
on Rio,” Adventist Currents, March 1987, p. 33.
Here
are concurring statements:
“Can this approach—often called
the ‘historical-critical method’—be used by Bible students who hold
a conservative view of scriptural inspiration? Yes . . Indeed, virtually
all Adventist exegetes of Scripture do historical-critical methodology, even
if they are not willing to use the term. The historical-critical
method deserves a place in the armamentarium [weapon room] of Adventists
who are serious about understanding their Bibles.”—John Brunt, “A
Parable of Jesus as a Clue to Biblical Interpretation,” in Adventism in
America, ed. Gary Land, 1986, p. 226.
Brunt, a Bible
teacher at Walla Walla, is one of many strong defenders of the
historical-critical method. So is Alden Thompson, also at Walla Walla, who
wrote this:
“The
clear majority of Adventist biblical scholars
. . favor the use of such descriptive methodologies [of the
historical-critical method, such as source criticism, redaction criticism,
form criticism, and tradition criticism].”—Alden Thompson,
“Theological Consultation II,” Spectrum, December 1981, p. 45.
“The tools [historical-critical
methodologies] that have been developed to help us understand the humanity
of both the living Word and the written word
. . he [the scholar] utilizes them carefully.”—Richard
Coffen, “Taboo on Tools?” Ministry, September 1975, pp. 7-8.
“The question must not be whether
we will employ historical [-critical] methods (because we already do to
some extent) but how far we rely on them.”—William Johnsson, “SDA
Presuppositions to Biblical Studies,” paper presented to Adventist
scholars attending the American Academy of Religion/Society of Biblical
Literature Convention, Chicago, Illinois, October 29, 1975, pp. 44-45.
Regarding the
above statement, it should be noted that, in order to hide their methods,
Adventist liberals frequently refer to the historical-critical method as
the “historical method.” (See Cottrell, “Blame it on Rio,” p.
33; Cottrell, “The Historical Method of Interpretation,” Review, April
7, 1977, pp. 17-18; “A Subtle Danger in the Historical Method,” Review
April 14, 1977, p. 12.) Jerry Gladson mentions that the so-called
“historical method” is just another name for the historical-critical
method, which he himself uses (Jerry Gladson, “Taming Historical
Criticism,” Spectrum, April 1988, p. 34.).
Can one use
the historical-critical method just a little? Eta Linnemann, a major
non-Adventist Bible criticism writer of many years, repented and returned
to God, threw all her writings and articles away, and pled with others to
do the same. She wrote this:
“One can no more be a little
historical-critical than a little pregnant.”—Eta Linnemann,
Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology? 1990, p. 123.
ALDEN THOMPSON’S BOOK
In 1991, the
Review issued a major theological work, produced by Alden Thompson of
Walla Walla College. In this controversial book, based on the
historical-critical method, he says this:
“To a large extent, this book
simply describes the approach to Christian living that Adventists have
always practiced but simply have been reluctant to admit in print.
If anything is unusual, then, it is the candor with which the
‘illustrations’ are laid.”—Alden Thompson, Inspiration: Hard
Questions, Honest Answers, 1991, p. 143.
Writing in Ministry
magazine, McIver said this about Thompson’s book:
“Inspiration is about the
more theological topic of inspiration of the Scriptures, at times it does
deal with issues of methodology and approach, and on occasion specifically
with the historical-critical method. Some involved in the hermeneutical
debate have perceived this book as the archtypical product of
historical-critical methodology.”—Robert McIver, “The
Historical-Critical Method: The Adventist Debate,” Ministry magazine,
March 1996, p. 16.
It is very
significant that this book, Inspiration, which was in reality an
educational workshop for our people in the historical-critical method, was
printed by the leading publishing house in our denomination, in total
violation of the 1986 Annual Council’s position.
Thompson’s Inspiration
was the boldest attempt, up to that time, to popularize higher criticism
for the consumption by laymen and students in our church.
THE WELCOME TABLE
Since then, we
have been especially deluged with articles and books in defense of
women’s ordination. The peculiar ideas found in those publications
represent the historical-critical method in operation: Take a Scriptural
passage, distort it so that it will fit into whatever worldly mold happens
to be in fashion at the time; that is the liberal method of Bible
interpretation.
An excellent
example of this is The Welcome Table: Setting a Place for Ordained
Women, released in 1995 and containing essays by fourteen Adventist
men and women. They include leading church workers such as Bert Haloviak,
Kit Watts, V. Norskov Olsen; as well as present, and former, college and
university teachers such as Raymond Cottrell, Fritz Guy, Edwin Zackrison,
and Ralph Neil; along with a varied assortment of feminists.
(In a similar
Adventist feminist book, one lesbian Adventist pastor declares how she
thanks God for giving her the special gift of being able to enjoy being
married to a woman. (See Frontiers of the Battle Over God’s Word
[WM–746-747, p. 3].)
Keith Burton,
an Adventist New Testament scholar, wrote a paper exposing the
historical-critical assumptions which underlay the women’s ordination
arguments in this book. He concludes with these words:
“The table around which we are
warmly invited to sit is one that already accommodates those who have
attacked the relevance of Biblical authority; those who wish to pretend
that the gnostic image of the primeval and eschatological androgyne is the
one toward which Adventists should be moving; those whose interest is on
the acquisition of corporate power rather than the evangelization of a
dying world; and finally, those who confuse the undiscriminating
limitation of the familial and ecclesiastical roles that have been defined
by the same Spirit.”—Keith Burton, “The Welcome Table: A Critical
Evaluation, unpublished manuscript, 1995, Heritage Room, James White
Library, Andrews University.
It is of
interest that none other than Raymond Cottrell admits the liberal basis
for the Biblical interpretations found in The Welcome Table:
“As a matter of fact, those who
favor [women’s] ordination do so on the basis of the historical
[-critical] method.”—Raymond Cottrell, “A Guide to Reliable
Interpretation,” in The Welcome Table, p. 84.
Here is an
example (from the writings of a non-Adventist Protestant) of the thinking
of the feminists:
“The Bible was written in a
patriarchal society by the people, mostly men, whom the system kept on
top. It embodies the androcentric, that is, male-centered presuppositions
of that social world, and it legitimizes the patriarchal, that is
male-dominant, social structures that held that world together. Its
language is overwhelmingly male-oriented, both in its reference to God and
in reference to people. In short, the Bible is a book written by men in
order to tell their story for their advantage. As such, it confronts both
women and justice-inspired men with an enormous problem. It is not at all
certain that the Bible can survive this challenge, that it can retain the
allegiance of people called to justice and freedom in a postmodern
world.”—Sandra M. Schneiders, “Does the Bible Have a Postmodern
Message?” in Postmodern Theology: Christian Faith in a Pluralistic
World, ed. Frederic B. Burnham, 1989, p. 65.
Francois
Voltaire died over 200 years ago, yet he would have rejoiced to see the
feminists arising to help in the cause of trying to destroy the Bible.
And now it is
coming into our own denomination.
“Our ideology takes precedence
over the ideology of the [Biblical] literature.”—Danna Nolan Fewell,
“Feminist Reading of the Hebrew Bible,” Journal for the Study of the
Old Testament, Vol. 39, 1987, p. 78.
A LIBERAL IS CONVERTED
Eta Linnemann,
Ph.D., was once one of liberalism’s ablest defenders. Thoroughly
schooled in historical-critical theology, this Lutheran Bible scholar
taught it for years in the European universities and wrote books and
articles in defense of it.
Like many of
our own Ph.D.s, this German scholar had been trained in agosticism at the
university where she obtained her doctorate, and afterward labored
feverishly to spread the unfaith.
But then
Linnemann was converted to Christ. And it made all the difference in the
world. This is what our Adventist scholars need: a genuine
conversion to Christ.
In later
years, Linnemann did all she could to atone for her years of skepticism.
Repudiating her former writings, she urged others to abandon the deadly
historical-critical method and return to God as she had done.
Here is her
statement:
“ ‘Why do you say “No!” to
historical-critical theology?’ I have been confronted with this
question, and I wish to state at the outset: My ‘No!’ to
historical-critical theology stems from my ‘Yes!’ to my wonderful Lord
and Saviour Jesus Christ, and to the glorious redemption He accomplished
for me on Golgotha.
“As a student of Rudolf Bultmann
and Ernst Fuchs, as well as of Friedrich Gogarten and Gerhard Ebeling, I
had the best professors which historical-critical theology could offer to
me. And I did not do too badly in other respects, either. My first book
turned out to be a best-seller. I became professor of theology and
religious education . . [and] was inducted into the Society of New
Testament Studies. I had the satisfaction of an increasing degree of
recognition from my colleagues.
“Intellectually comfortable with
historical-critical theology, I was deeply convinced that I was rendering
a service to God with my theological work and contributing to the
proclamation of the gospel. Then, however, on the basis of various
observations, discoveries,
and a resulting self-awareness, I was forced to concede two things I did
not wish: (1) No ‘truth’ could emerge from this ‘scientific work on
the Biblical text,’ and (2) such labor does not serve the proclamation
of the gospel . .
“Today I realize that
historical-critical theology’s monopolistic character and world-wide
influence is a sign of God’s judgment (Romans 1:18-32). God predicted
this in His Word: ‘For the time will come when men will not put up with
sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather
around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want
to hear’ (2 Timothy 4:3). He also promised to send a ‘powerful
delusion so that they will believe a lie’ (2 Thessalonians 2:11). God
is not dead, nor has He resigned. He reigns, and He is already executing
judgment on those who declare Him dead or assert that He is a false god
who does nothing, either good or evil.
“Today I know that I owe those
initial insights to the beginning effects of God’s grace . . Finally God
Himself spoke to my heart by means of a Christian brother’s words. By
God’s grace and love I entrusted my life to Jesus.
“He immediately took my life into
His saving grasp and began to transform it radically.
“I became aware of what folly it
is, given what God is doing today, to maintain that the miracles reported
in the New Testament never took place. Suddenly it was clear to me that my
teaching was a case of the blind leading the blind. I repented for the way
I had misled my students . .
“By God’s grace I experienced
Jesus as the One whose name is above all names. I was permitted to realize
that Jesus is God’s Son, born of a virgin. He is the
Messiah and the Son of Man; such titles were not merely conferred on Him
as the result of human deliberation. I recognized, first mentally, but
then in a vital, experiential way, that Holy Scripture is inspired.
“Not because of human talk but
because of the testimony of the Holy Spirit in my heart, I have clear
knowledge that my former perverse teaching was sin. At the same time I am
happy and thankful that this sin is forgiven me because Jesus bore it on
the cross.
“That is why I say ‘No!’ to
historical-critical theology. I regard everything that I taught and wrote
before I entrusted my life to Jesus as refuse [garbage]. I wish to use
this opportunity to mention that I have pitched my two books . . along
with my contributions to journals, anthologies, and Festschriften.
Whatever of these writings I had in my possession I threw into the trash
with my own hands in 1978. I ask you sincerely to do the same thing with
any of them you may have on your own bookshelf.”—Eta Linnemann,
Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology? Reflections of
a Bultmannian Turned Evangelical, translated by Robert W. Yarbrough, 1990,
pp. 17-20 [emphasis hers].
A number of
our Bible scholars had an opportunity to hear her testimony. She addressed
members of the Adventist Theological Society and later the faculty and
students of the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary at Andrews
University. Her testimony was printed in the Journal of the Adventist
Theological Society, Autumn issue, 1994, pp. 19-36.
So, in the
providence of God, many of our liberal Bible theologians have had the
opportunity to be confronted by her stirring witness.
Oh, that they
would heed it, before it is too late. Those men have the Bible, and they
have the wealth of light in the Spirit of Prophecy. Yet they want to
follow after the ways of the world.
—Vance Ferrell
RETURN TO SPIRITUAL EMERGENCY
|
