Ponder Anew 2!

Who Started the Branch Davidian Fires at Waco? Another Response to Kenneth G. C. Newport

This is the text of my response to Kenneth G. C. Newport's presentation at the Loma Linda University Campus Hill Church on November 17, 2007.  Since then I have added the material in the brackets.  For my summary of Newport's presentation, my response and the discussion that followed, please visit the Spectrum Blog.  It may be necessary to use the Archives for November 2007.

Kenneth Newport's work [The Branch Davidians of Waco: The History and Beliefs of an Apocalyptic Sect.  Oxford University Press, 2006.  xi + 379 pp.] on what went wrong at Waco is scholarship at its best.  Tediously researched, precisely written and dispassionately argued, it is an overwhelmingly positive contribution. 

Its value for Seventh-day Adventist thought and life is especially great.  I hope that many advanced Sabbath School classes around the world will discuss one of its seventeen chapters each week.  Few experiences can do more to help us understand what it means and does not mean to be a Seventh-day Adventist today.

Newport's scholarship in his book is so excellent that my understanding of its central thesis is the only thing with which I disagree.  I take this to be that "the end-time scenario at the heart of SDA thinking almost since the movement began, including such concepts as the remnant, the continuation of the prophetic gift, and the nearness of the end, provides the basic canvas upon which the distinctively Branch Davidian apocalyptic images can be painted." (41)

It is particularly in the next sentence that Newport goes further than I can.  "More broadly," he writes, "Koresh differed in degree and detail more than in kind from countless millions of his fellow Americans who, the statistics indicate, have "'no doubt' that Jesus will one day come to earth again." 

I am unable to follow Newport when he suggests that these differences were more quantitative than qualitative.  It is difficult for me to put David Koresh and Billy Graham in the same family photograph, for example.  Likewise, it is almost impossible for me to picture David Koresh and Ellen White holding hands.  Their differences strike me as more than a matter of degree. 

[They are differences in kind.  Branch Davidian theology is not an elaboration, extension or intensification of either Seventh-day Adventism or American Christianity more generally.  It is their grotesque and diametrically opposed distortion.  It retains some of the terms and themes but it turns them upside down and inside out.

Perhaps the most obvious example is that for a century and a half SDAs have typically refused to bear arms, even in times of war, choosing out of moral conviction and their community's special skills, sometimes at great personal sacrifice, to serve in the military as medics who treat wounded friends and foes alike.  David Koresh, on the other hand, had a phallic obsession with fire arms and he gathered a huge and diverse supply of them at Mount Carmel, just as he collected compliant women. This is a reversal, not a development, of SDA theology.  In conversation Newport acknowledges this; however, he gives it less importance than I do.] 

More generally, Newport attributes more of what went wrong at Waco to what the Branch Davidians believed than I can.  "Theology, talk about God, and understanding of God, and an understanding of God's purposes for the world were what made them tick.  It was for theology that these believers lived.  It was for theology too that some of them died," he writes. (16)

Although they would probably say that they lived and were prepared to die for God, not theology, many Branch Davidians would probably agree.  But perhaps this is to accept their understanding of themselves too uncritically.  My view, based on Newport's research, not mine, is that theological, psychological and ethical pathologies on both sides of the conflict converged to cause what happened.

If these three pathologies had plagued only the Branch Davidians or only the government's agents, I doubt that we would have seen Waco's flames.  Also, if in either or both sides any one of these three factors had not been present, I again doubt that we would have seen them [though about this I am less certain. In any case, as I see it, we are dealing with two sets of three pathologies, or six in all.  All six were raging out of control on April 19, 1993.  It was a perfect recipe for horror.]

Newport convinces me that the Branch Davidians probably ignited the flames of Waco. "Did the biblical text inspire this act of self-destruction?" he also asks in tonight's presentation. "I think it did, or at least I think that there was a direct relationship between the texts, what the Branch Davidians thought those texts meant, and what happened on April 19, 1993."

I agree; however, I doubt that by itself their reading of these texts would have caused the Branch Davidians to light the fires.  In addition to this theological pathology, very serious psychological and ethical pathologies probably made their contributions too.  Otherwise, why is it that out of millions of Seventh-day Adventists around the world and many more millions of other Christians in North America, less than a hundred of them died at Waco?  [Humanly speaking, this is a huge loss; however, statistically speaking it is insignificant.] 

[What caused this difference?  I think that Newport might have given this question more attention.  If he had, I think he would have placed much more emphasis upon the many points at which the line of thought from Victor Houteff to David Koresh fundamentally changed its theological inheritance.  It is notoriously difficult to discover why things are different by concentrating upon how basically similar they are.]

Both sides exhibited theological pathologies [on April 19] in that they both tried to force the hand of God in human history.  "In God we trust," declares the civil religion of the United States.  Among other things this means that neither the nation as a whole nor any group within it is authorized to usurp the role of divine providence.  Also, at our best, though we must concede that we are often at out worst, we Americans trust God, not the AFT or FBI, and certainly not the guns of David Koresh.  Forgetting this is a huge theological problem.

Neither David Koresh and his followers nor those in the government who managed things on April 19 were dysfunctional psychotics.  About this Newport is certainly correct.  This does not mean that they all deserved a clean bill of psychological health, however. 

A quick look down a list of psychological disorders gives one pause.  Here are some possibilities that I would like to discuss with a fully qualified professional:  Acute Stress Disorder, Antisocial Personality Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder, Dependent Personality Disorder, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Paranoid Personality Disorder and Sleep Terror Disorder.

It is unlikely that everyone on both sides of the conflict suffered from one or more of these pathologies.  It is even less likely that only a few of them did.  My view is that we cannot understand what went wrong at Waco unless we take such psychological factors into account.

Both sides exhibited serious ethical pathologies.  Two of the most common temptations are sloth, living like less than a human being, and pride, living like more than one. 

I think that the Branch Davidians at Waco gave in to the temptation of Sloth.  In important areas of his personal life David Koresh lived like an animal and his followers did little or nothing to stop him. 

I think that the representatives of the government gave in to the temptation of pride.  They did not want to be humiliated, shamed or held to scorn by their apparently unmanly inability to bring the stalemate to a close [after the better part of two months], most particularly not on the grasslands of Texas!  Faced with the prospect of sacrificing either their sense of honor or the lives of the Branch Davidians, they made their choice.

Does this mean that we Seventh-day Adventists can avoid all responsibility for what wrong?  My answer to this question is "no."

The proof-text method of studying Scripture can cause problems by allowing one to combine a verse from here with a verse from there and both of them with yet another text in a third location, all taken out of their settings, in order to prove anything.  Koresh was the king of proof-texting and a few--very few-- SDAs and others were wrongly impressed.  Even one is too many.

Another problem is the high value some in our circles place upon deference to religious authority.  We know that we are supposed to be "thinkers and not the mere reflectors of the thought of others;" however, sometimes we are very hard on those who think for themselves.  This, too, is a big problem.  Every time we squelch someone who questions or proposes something by demanding uncritical obedience to arbitrary authority, we throw fuel onto the fires of [the next] Waco.

We should always think for ourselves but never think by ourselves!

I close with an expression of my gratitude to Kenneth Newport.  We can only hope that all former Seventh-day Adventist professors who become Anglican priests and academic administrators will serve us so well! . 

Kenneth Newport Explains the Fires of Waco

The Branch Davidians themselves started the fires in which they died on their compound, Mount Carmel, in April 19,1993 near Waco, Texas and they did this because they belived that this is what the Bible told them to do.  Kenneth G. C. Newport contended for these conclusions in a presentation at the Loma Linda University Campus Hill Church on the evening of Wednesday, November 14.  For my summary of his remarks and my response, please visit the Spectrum Blog.

Richard Rice Discusses Open Theism

Richard Rice, a theologian at Loma Linda University who launched the most recent expression of "Open Theism" and gave it its name, explained its basic themes to several dozen universities students on Friday, evening, November 14.  For my summary and reactions, please visit the Spectrum Blog and SDA Gender Justice.

Bill Cork on the Humanity of Jesus and Ours

Bill Cork is assembling some interesting material on the humanity of Jesus and the idea of original sin.  I hope he keeps scouting for such things and bringing them to our attention.

Jan Paulsen to Bronwen Larson on the Andrews University "Questions on Doctrine" Conference

Dear Mrs. Larson:

I was very pleased to receive your positive report. I have had similar comments from others and, on the whole, the conference seems to have been a wholesome, and possibly healing, experience. For that I am very thankful and glad.

Yours in His service,

Jan Paulsen

President

General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists

Christianity and Particularity

Here is something I posted on the current Spectrum Blog discussion of "I'm an Adventist because....."  The Spectrum Site is worth visiting too!

Several of us have commented on the differences between being a Christian and being a Seventh-day Adventist, usually indicating that the first is prior in some way to the second. In many ways this makes sense.

Yet I doubt that it is possible entirely to separate these chronologically or experientially. When anyone becomes a Christian he or she necessarily becomes one of some sort. No one gets to become a Christian as such.

When we become Christians we do so either as SDAs, Roman Catholics, Baptists, Methodists.......or some mix of these. We might deny this but this is usually because we are unaware of the pedigrees of the types of Christianities we embrace.

There are no birds as such, only particular kinds of birds. There are no horses as such, only particular kinds of horses. There are no flowers as such, only particular kinds of flowers. True, these all may have mixed pedigress; however, none of them is wholly without one.

We might call this the principle of particularity. Nothing exists unless it exists in some specific way.

This is why I am not ashamed that I am a Seventh-day Adventist Christian. At least I know part of my pedigree!

"Adventist Today" Comments on the Andrews University "Questions on Doctrine" Conference

For reports and commentaries on the Andrews University Questions on Doctrine Conference by Ervin Taylor, Arthur Patrick and Robert Johnston, please visit Adventist Today.

Bronwen Larson to Jan Paulsen on the Andrews University "Questions on Doctrine" Conference

Jan Paulsen, President
General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists
Silver Springs, Maryland

Dear President Paulsen,

Because I had the privilege of attending the "Questions on Doctrine" Conference at Andrews University with my husband, David Larson, who teaches at LLU, I thought I would give you my report as a “non-theologian!”

I have accompanied Dave to many conferences, workshops and meetings during the years we have been married, but have never had as positive and as poignant an experience as I did at this one. Maybe this is due to the following:

(1) I grew up in Australia, attended Avondale College when Desmond Ford was still teaching there, and experienced some of the fallout from Glacier View in the 1980s.

(2) I watched colleagues drop out of the ministry and even leave the church due to the contentious debates and the way some of these were “mishandled” by Conference leadership.

(3) I have seen the devastation in my home state of South Australia where scores of people, including pastors who are friends, left the church and are still bitter.

(4) I came to this country in 1983 and as a Chaplain I have listened to the hurt and pain of many who have been affected by the controversies.

(5) I have experienced the painful consequences of these conflicts upon people on all sides of the debate, including the family of my father-in-law, Ralph S. Larson.

(6) I learned at the QOD Conference just what had happened. I never understood until last week what really caused all the pain and heartache; I had only seen the aftermath.

(7) I watched healing take place at the QOD Conference. Things were tense on Wednesday evening and on Thursday, but by Friday people were more relaxed. Conversations were taking place between people who had been “fighting” for 50 years. The guards came down, and the body language was much more inclusive and positive.

(8) The communion service on Sabbath was both historic and miraculous. To see George Knight, Angel Rodriguez and Colin Standish standing behind the communion table brought tears to Dave’s and my faces. That is why the photo on the Spectrum web site is blurred!

(9) Despite living in Australia until 1983, I had never met the Standish brothers until last week at the QOD Conference, except for a very brief encounter with Colin on September 1 at my father-in-law’s (Ralph S. Larson’s) memorial service. I enjoyed being able to sit down with them in the cafeteria, conversing about our respective families who both have roots in South Australia. They both exhibited friendship and acceptance, and it was wonderful to see others relating to them in a positive way also.

(10) This conference, which was very well organized, gave people the long-needed opportunity to share their views, listen to others’ positions, and start to heal relationships that have been damaged for so long. People in our church have desperately needed to know, and experience, that it’s OK to believe a little differently and still be part of God’s family. The QOD Conference at Andrews University beautifully provided this opportunity. May what has begun, continue!

I will be eternally grateful that three younger leaders in our church, Julius Nam, Michael Campbell and Jerry Moon, and the current Dean of the Seminary, Denis Fortin, had the foresight, optimism and courage to make such an event possible.

With warm regards,

      Bronwen

Bronwen F. Larson
(GC Employee 1992-1997)

George R. Knight on the Historical Inaccuracy of "Questions on Doctrine"

While traveling to Andrews University for the recent Questions on Doctrine conference, I took another look at the controversial book's 2003 Annotated Edition. 

I was struck again by how historically inaccurate its 1957 edition sometimes was.  George R. Knight wrote the 2003 book's "Preface," "Historical and Theological Introduction" and "Annotations."  Speaking primarily of the work of LeRoy E. Froom, W. E. Read, and R. A. Anderson, who were all prominent Seventh-day Adventists leaders at the time, here are examples of what he says:

It appears that Froom and his colleagues were less than transparent on the denomination’s position on the topic since the mid 1890s. (vx)

Suspicion of the Adventist conferees having hedged on the truth of the traditional Adventist position is seemingly confirmed.  (xvi)

It is much more difficult to justify the Adventist conferees’ presentation and manipulation of the data they presented on the human nature of Christ.  (xvii)

The authors at times push the facts a bit too far.  (xxx)

Thus Questions on Doctrines not only supplied a misleading heading, but it also neglected to present the evidence that would have contradicted the heading.  (516)

Some assertions were less than straightforward and transparent.  (517)

The authors of Questions on Doctrines sought to avoid those statements of Ellen White that Christ had a sinful nature and also to leave the impression that she held that he had a sinless human nature. (518)

The authors of Questions on Doctrines apparently were tempted to avoid some of Ellen White’s strong statements in their compilation and to provide the misleading heading.  (518).

They were tempted to manipulate the evidence a bit.  (520)

With those manipulations of the data and personal insinuations the gauntlet had been cast down.  (521). 

LeRoy Froom and his colleagues in the evangelical dialog had not told the truth. (521)

Unfortunately there does appear to be elements of a betrayal in the manipulation of the data and in the untruths that were past on.  (522)

The moral of the story is that complete honesty and openness in all dealings is always important, no matter how uncomfortable the situation.  (522)

Over the years people have lodged at least two complaints against Questions on Doctrine.  The first is that some of its theological positions are not sound.  No agreement has emerged about this and perhaps it never will.

Theological positions develop from a complex interaction of many different variables, including the backgrounds, experiences and temperments of people.  In theological matters there always is an irreducible pluralism. This is true even in Scripture. 

George R. Knight, who is sympathetic with QOD's theological positions at its most controverted points, confirms the validity of the second complaint.  It is that QOD's 1957 edition is not an entirely reliable guide to Adventism's theological history.

Knight establishes that, in ways that are too massive to be ignored and too intentional to be excused, Froom, Read and Anderson did not portray their historical material accurately.  That one of the denomination's official publishers first printed the book and many of its leaders actively promoted it compounds the problem.

Regrettably, throughout the fifty years since its publication, many of those who tried to bring QOD's historical inaccuracies to the denomination's attention have been treated harshly.

My father, Ralph S. Larson, was one QOD's most outspoken critics and for this and related reasons he paid a heavy price.  That everyone can now know that on the historical issues he and his colleagues were right all along evokes powerful and mixed feelings in me.  On the one hand, I am glad that the truth is now out.  On the other hand, I am sad that the controversies about the book have caused so much needless pain all around the circle.

How much better it would have been for everyone if Froom, Anderson and Read had let the historical evidence speak for itself and then agreed or disagreed as they thought best!

To Colin MacLaurin on "Sinful Human Nature" and "Total Depravity"

Here is something I posted at the "Spectrum Blog." I suggest visiting it; however, to find things there one almost must use "Search."

 

Hi Colin!

It is my impression that before QOD many SDAs held that the humanity of Jesus was like our own.

Since then increasing numbers have held that it was more like that of Adam and Eve before they sinned.

A third proposal is that the human nature of Jesus was like ours in some ways but like theirs in others.

I think that we should no longer discuss the matter using the terms of previous generations because today they often leave the wrong impression.

To say that Jesus had a "fallen" or "sinful" nature is almost always to make it seem that he was ethically defective in some way. No one in the QOD discussions believes that, of course.

"Total Depravity" is another perfectly good theological expression that I think we should not use today because it often leaves a wrong impression too.

Many people who hear it in our time think it means something like "completely psychotic." This is a mistake. The expression actually means that every aspect of a human person has been damaged somewhat by sin.

For instance, if we think along with Freud of superego, ego and id, all three have been damaged but not entirely destroyed by sin.

I'm not advocating Freud's depiction of the human self; I am merely trying to use it to illustrate another point.

Scripture says that Jesus was tempted in all points but was without sin. I think that this is as all we need to say on the subject.

Aristotle said that we should seek no more precision than the topic under consideration inherently allows. I agree!

Thank you!