June 15, 2008
June 13, 2008
June 12, 2008
June 11, 2008
June 09, 2008
June 08, 2008
April 28, 2008
Democracy Matters: Winning the Fight Against Imperialism. by Cornel West. Penguin Books, 2004. 229 pages.
May 30, 2007. This the book my colleagues and I recently discussed at the new home of Professor and Mrs. Andy Lampkin here in Loma Linda.
I am impressed by how intensely "American" it is in its great hopefulness. Like so many of us who are also Americans, West apparently thinks that people can "fix" things, that it is actually within humanity's power to improve life for everybody all around the world. Not everyone is convinced of this.
West's argument is that the United States today is beset by economic, militaristic and religious fundamentalism against which it must rally the resources of its "deep democratic tradition," as seen in the legacies of Greek Socratic questioning, Hebrew prophetic practice and "dark hope."
He claims that we can detect this "tragiccomic hope" in the writings of Ralph Waldo Emmerson, Herman Melville, James Baldwin and Toni Morrison and that we can hear it in the blues, jazz and hip-hop.
West writes with the learning and passion we rightly expect from the foremost public theologian in America today. He uses democracy matters as both a noun and a verb. He is a Christian, but a fundamentalist.
As West sees them, the three overlapping fundamentalisms that now threaten those of us who are Americans compel us to face the sad plight of our nation that from its beginnings has proclaimed the ideals of liberty and justice for all while imperialistically denying these rights to millions of people within and beyond our borders.
He pinpoints the issue of race as the clue by which to understand our entire culture.
I admit without pleasure that as a white middle class male American his emphasis upon race sometimes makes me feel uncomfortable. This is what he rightly intends!
West's critiques are actually even-handed. His assessment of the Israeli/Palestinian struggle calls on both sides to act in their common interests without either one losing its identity and security. He criticizes philosophers John Rawls and Richard Rorty as well as theologians Stanley Hauerwas and John Milbank for stifling in different ways the public expression of religious moral convictions while acknowledging the positive contributions each is otherwise making. His assessments of blues, jazz and hip-hop are more judicious than many.
The examples of this book's decency and fairness are numerous.
West comes across to me as an American who calls upon all of us who are also Americans to live more and more in harmony with our ideals rather than our imperialistic impulses and practices. He does not write as an "outsider," a "former" or "anti" American ethically speaking, but as one who who lives and moves and finds his being in our culture and in its never-ending moral struggles.
We wondered in our discussion if his celebration of our "precious democratic experiment" is grounded in an optimistic or pessimistic view of human nature. Probably both. In any case his confidence that we Americans can do better cries aloud from every page.
Some might think that his hopeful conviction that we can make democracy work at home and gently (no shock and awe!) take root and flourish in different cultural soils abroad is altogether too American. I don't.
January 26, 2008
Kyle Fedler on "Bioethics and 'Biblical Personhood'"
Kyle Fedler, Chair of the Religion Department at Ashland University in Ohio, was the speaker on January 17 for the second of nine presentations on "The Moral Status of the Human Fetus" in the Jack W. Provonsha Lectures Series at Loma Linda University. This series is organized by LLU's Center for Christian Bioethics. Mark Carr is the Director and Dawn Gordon is the Manager.
Fedler's title was "Child or Chattel: Biblical Views on the Moral Status of the Embryo." It was clear from the outset that for him the Old and New Testaments constitute a religious canon and not merely a cultural classic. They do for me as well.
The conclusion of his presentation was that combining Biblical perspectives with contemporary scientific knowledge yields the conclusion that the new life should be viewed as a human person from about four to five weeks of gestational age and onward.
This presumably allows for contraceptive measures that frustrate implantation, like IUDs and RU486, so-called "morning after pills," stem cell research and discarding unclaimed embryos at fertility clinics.
Fedler reminded the audience that the Old and New Testaments were written in a variety of genres over a number of centuries a long time ago and that neither makes any direct reference to abortion, pro or con. Arguments from silence either way need to be viewed with caution, he stated.
He reviewed a number of passages that people use in support of the full personhood of the fetus. Some of these speak against shedding human blood(Genesis 9:6) and for having many children IGenesis 13:16 & 15:5). Other passages depict God interacting with prenatal human life: Isaiah (Isaiah 49:1) Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:4), a psalmist (Psalm 139:13-16) and Job (Job 10:8-11).
Fedler also referred to two passages that seem to accord less than full personhood to the fetus. In one of these (Numbers 5:11-28), he said, the priests are instructed to give women who are suspected of being unfaithful to their husbands a potion that will cause them to abort if they are guilty. This suggests that the lives of fetuses was less important than determining what the women had actually done.
The second passage (Genesis 2:7) states that at creation God breathed "into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being. " Fedler said that some infer from this passage that the new life should not be viewed as a person until he or she can independently breathe, shortly after birth.
Fedler also commented on the most controversial passage of them all:
When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman's husband demands, paying as much as the the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. Exodus 21:22-24. New Revised Standard Version.
He identified three interpretative translations. In the New Revised Standard Version one finds the most frequent reading. This is that the lighter penalty of a fine is appropriate if the woman miscarries but experiences no further harm. If she, the woman, is harmed above and beyond the miscarriage, the more severe penalty is required.
In the New International Version the woman does not miscarry; she prematurely gives birth to a living infant. If this is all that happens, the fine applies. But if in addition to this either the mother or the prematurely born infant is harmed, then the greater punishment is required.
Both the NRSV and the NIV are contemporary translations, the first more "ecumenical" and the second more "evangelical" as people in the United States often use these terms.
Felder checked the Septuagint as well. In this ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament Hebrew, the distinction is between an unformed and formed fetus when the woman miscarries. If it is "unformed," presumably because it is very young in gestational age, the fine is the penalty. If the fetus is formed, presumably because it is further along in the pregnancy, it is the more drastic "life for life, eye for eye" and so forth.
Fedler noted that some see in the New Testament condemnations of pharmakeia (Galatians 5:19-21 and Revelation 9:21) a warning against using drugs that cause abortions. He also notes that the text uses brephos, a Greek word for "child," when it declares that John jumped in his mother Elizabeth's womb when she heard the greeting of Mary, who was pregnant with Jesus.
Finding none of these passages definitively illuminating, whether in the Old or New Testament, Felder followed Richard Hayes in The Moral Vision of the New Testament (HarperSanFrancisco, 1996) in seeking guidance from seemingly unrelated passages that may actually be more helpful. One of these is the story Jesus told about "The Good Samaritan" (Luke 10:25-37) in which the boundaries between those who are worthy of our protection and assistance are broadened to include more those often left out.
Another is the suggestion that Christians ought to follow the example of Jesus Christ, "Who though he was in the form of God, did hot regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself,taking the form of a slave" and so forth (Philippians 1:5-7). Instead of giving us specific instructions, Fedler suggested that passages such as these depict in broad strokes what kinds of people those of us who are Christians should be and what kinds of things we should do."
Fedler's own proposal was that "somewhere between two weeks and four weeks the embryo undergoes developments that result in it becoming what the Bible would characterize as a person." This rests upon what he understands "Biblical personhood," to be, on the one hand, and scientific evidence, on the other.
"Possessing human DNA is neither sufficient nor necessary for being a 'person,' he held. It is not sufficient because things like skin cells have human DNA and no one thinks of them as "persons." It is not necessary because there may well be "persons" who do not have human DNA. If I recall correctly, Fedler described ET as a "person" of this sort.
To be a "person" in the Biblical sense of the term, Fedler contended, is to be an individual who either has the ability to be in relationships--presumably, I'm guessing, with self, others and God--or this potential. He held that the new life begins to possess this potential between four and five weeks of gestational age because this is when its central nervous system begins to form. Before then its structure is too simple.
Both at the beginning and at the end of his presentation, Fedler emphasized that there is no "definitive moment" before which nothing matters and afterward everything does. Rather, from fertilization to birth the entire process of human gestation is a relatively smooth process. But after a month or so the new life has developed enough neurological complexity to require us to treat it differently, he contended.
.................................
If there had been an opportunity, I would like to have explored several issues with Fedler.
The first of these would have concerned Exodus 21. Although I respect and appreciate the care with which he examined its various interpretations, I find it unnecessary to do so because the verses in question are embedded in a passage that contains much material that we rightly do not apply to our lives today. The very verses in question portray the woman as the property of her husband who deserves to be compensated if she is harmed.
Instead of doing what Fedler did, I think it is appropriate to exhibit this and then to move on to other things, having established that no one can legitimately appeal to this portion of Scripture in making his or her case about the moral status of the human embryo.
My second question would have concerned the likely implications of his emphasis on "personhood" at the other end of life. I believe that his position implies that humans who have permanently lost the ability to enter into relationships are no longer "persons" in the technical way he is uses the term. The implication of this would seem to be that in such cases we need not--or perhaps even should not--prolong the individual's life but instead do everything we can to make his or her process of dying as comfortable and dignified as possible.
I agree with Fedler's emphasis upon "personhood" and I endorse these likely implications. I suspect that he endorses them too; however, I would like to know for certain. I also hope that we can replace "person" and "non-person" with terms that are less likely to be misunderstood. But I'm not sure what they might be!
My third question would have concerned the importance he put on the fourth or fifth week. I am not sure what he would find ethically acceptable before this and what he would find ethically unacceptable after it. He did say that his position does not mean that before the first month "anything goes." We can therefore presume that he would also that it does not mean that after this time "nothing goes." But to my recollection Fedler was not more specific than this.
But why choose the first month? It seems to me that implantation is the most dramatic change in an otherwise relatively smooth process and that from then on we need to keep in mind that we are dealing with two biologically human and living entities. Once it has successfully implanted, the new life has the potential, meaning the inherent power, to become a human person and that as gestation progresses it increases moves toward this goal.
Already at implantation, within the first week or so, in my view, it is a potential human person. Before that, the conceptus, and before that the ovum and sperm, are not potential but possible human persons. What happens around the fourth or fifth week is important; however, as Felder himself said, the entire process is relatively smooth. I would say that this is so after implantation but not before.
For me this means that those of us who are Christians should be much more hesitant about terminating an established pregnancy than discarding or using in research or therapy embryos that have not implanted. Although this provides much opportunity for manipulating stem cells, it amounts to a strong ethical presumption against abortion and this presumption intensifies as the pregnancy progresses.
All presumptions can be overturned and a number of additional factors can overturn this one. These include rape, incest, serious fetal malformations and significant threats to the woman's physical, mental and social wellbeing.
Just as in a court of law an individual is presumed to be Innocent until the evidence establishes otherwise, so also I think that those of us who are Christians should presume that an embryo that has successfully implanted should be protected until other factors indicate the contrary. The default position is "pro-life" but this is presumptive, not absolute.
My responses to Fedler are endeavors in Christian bioethics that say nothing about what laws or other public policies should regulate the practice of abortion for all citizens. All laws should embody ethical principles but not all ethical principles should be embodied in laws.
My view is that at present and well into the foreseeable future some national norm along the lines of Roe v Wade is the most appropriate public policy, all things considered.
January 15, 2008
Albert E. Reece on Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research
"Possibly, but not yet," was the answer. The question was whether medicine can continue moving forward without acquiring human embryonic stem cells. The key term was "embryonic."
E. Albert Reece, a Seventh-day Adventist physician who now serves as Vice President and Dean of the School of Medicine at the University of Maryland, is the one who proposed the answer.
Delivered on Thursday evening, January 10, at Loma Linda University, his presentation was the first of what will be nine weekly lectures on "The Moral Status of the Human Embryo." I hope to post a report like this one for all nine.
This is the "Jack W. Provonsha Lecture Series" for 2008. It is organized by the LLU Center for Christian Bioethics. Doctor Provonsha was a minister, physician and ethicist who taught at LLU for many years. Mark Carr is the Director of the Center and Dawn Gordon is the Manager. Thanks to them, the series is off to a good start!
Thousands of human embryos are discarded each year because they are no longer needed in fertility clinics. Can patient care progress without looking to them for stem cells? Although this a factual question, it emerges from intense ethical controversy.
Beginning with what he called "Stem Cells 101," Reece indicated that very early in human pregnancy when the new life is a microscopic cluster of cells, scientists can coax them into becoming many different kinds of tissues that can be helpful in treating patients. They gradually become more specialized, moving from "totipotent," to "pluripotent" and "multipotent" and presumably on to "unipotent," or nearly so, when they are of little therapeutic value.
The trouble is that, although reliable surveys show that their number is declining, many Roman Catholics and Protestants object on moral grounds to acquiring stem cells from human embryos because doing do kills them and, they hold, wounds society. This is why George W. Bush restricted financial support from the federal government to research on the so-called "Presidential Lines" that were on hand when his administration took over.
But these lines are few in number and some of them have been contaminated. Many hope that the next President will reverse Bush's policy so that the federal government can join private financiers, individual states like California and New York and other nations in providing funding.
Meanwhile a number of researchers who are looking to other sources in order to circumvent the ethical controversies are having some success. Stem cells acquired from adults can be "reversed engineered," to use a term I incorporate from other discussions, to function in important ways like those from embryos. Although this is a promising alternative, Reece asserted that embryonic stem cells remain "the gold standard."
Not looking to them has several "opportunity costs," he stated. Over time more patients are likely to suffer and die and the financial expenses of caring for them will soar. Also, more indirect "human costs," that are real even though they are less able to be quantified, will ripple through society. We need informed and responsible ethical positions, he stated.
Reece held that the conclusions toward which a group of Seventh-day Adventist specialists have been moving is "subtle, balanced and middle of the road." This emerging stance holds that attempts to acquire stem cells from other sources should continue but that acquiring them from embryos should be limited to techniques that neither harms nor kills them.
This startled some in the audience because many all over the world have taken it for granted that acquiring stem cells from embryos inevitably compromises their well-being. How could it be otherwise?
Reece countered that it increasingly appears that very early on scientists can remove one cell from the developing cluster without harming the others. Indeed, in a dramatic flourish, he read to the audience from the Internet a report in the Washington Post for January 10, which was published just a few hours before he began his Loma Linda lecture, that scientists "have created several lines without harming embryos." How could anyone be more up-to-date than that?
So far my reactions to these remarkable events are mixed. On the one hand, I admire the tenacity and ingenuity of the scientists who are doing everything they can to get around the ethical debates and the restrictions by President Bush they prompted. On the other hand, their impressive and successful efforts, which may not have occurred were it not for the ethical controversies, strike me as only postponing the larger and more basic question: What are we ethically permitted to do with our thousands of frozen embryos, or "pre-embryos" as many prefer to call them?
So far we have three primary alternatives. One is to discard them. Another is to find couples who are able and willing to adopt them. And a third is to "store them indefinitely." A fourth alternative gives me pause. This is to refuse to discard any frozen embryos but to allow them to be transferred to another fertility clinic where that will.
There is some precedence even for this, however. For many years some physicians who have declined for ethical reasons to do certain procedures have referred their patients to other competent doctors who will. Some physicians who will not perform abortions do this with clear consciences, for example.
Using the terms in their most literal meaning, I find it helpful to distinguish between "possible" human persons and "potential" ones even though we often use these words interchangeably. I reserve the term "potential" for (1) ova that (2) have been fertilized by sperm and (3) have successfully implanted in a human uterus or, perhaps eventually, its artificial substitute.
By themselves sperm and ova are "possible" but not "potential" persons because they lack the inherent power to continue through the pregnancy. I would say the same thing about a fertilized ovum that has not successffully implanted. It, too, is a "possible" but not a "potential" human person.
This is why I have no unconditional moral objection to IUDs or other contraceptive measures that hamper implantation. And this is why I have no categorical objection to acquiring stem cells from microscopic pre-embryos before they have implanted. But the discussion continues!
January 02, 2008
Hitchens, Christopher. "The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever." Philadelphia: Da Capo Press, 2007. xxvi - 499 pages.
At the Melbourne airport on the way home from Adelaide where I attended a conference at the University of South Australia, and spent some time with my wife's family, I purchased this anthology and I'm glad I did. I'm still reading it and will probably continue doing so for some time, selecting this or that as I see fit.
It is a remarkably comprehensive and convenient collection of material by thoughtful nonbelievers. It includes things from legendary figures such as Hobbes, Spinoza, Hume, Marx, Darwin and Freud. It also offers reflections by some of the most eloquent and energetic doubters of our time: Richard Dawkins, Daniel C. Dennett, Sam Harris, Michael Shermer, and Hitchens himself.
I strongly recommend it as a useful resource for all who are interested in religious belief, whether pro or con. Although it offers few new arguments, it is a handy compendium of the existing ones.
Hitchens' emotional intensity exudes from his "Introduction" to the book as a whole as a well as from his shorter ones to particular authors. On his first page, with many similar outbursts to come, he refers to religious beliefs and practices with expressions such as "useless prayers," "bogus 'miracles," "idiotic ceremonies of hysterical thanksgiving, "primitive stupidities and "old superstitions." He depicts the writers with whom he agrees as "great" (Dennett) authors of "elegant contributions" (Shermer) who write with "courage and humor and intelligence in the face of dumb and sinister religiosity" (Dawkins).
We usually tiptoe around such excess in order not to disturb talented but troubled people. We should take Hitchens more seriously than that, however. Although he is more shrill than most, his voice is representative of a growing number of citizens who are alarmed. Most of these are unbelievers, but quite a few are believers. I am a member of the second group.
We believers know that we can flourish with unbelievers who laugh at us but do us no greater harm. We cannot survive with other people of faith who would compel all of us to believe and do what they require.
This is why I share the concerns of Hitchens and his comrades even though I disagree with their atheistic conclusions. We live in an era of increasing religious strife despite, or perhaps because of, the powerful secularizing forces of the last several centuries. These developments should bother all of us.
Hitchens and his colleagues would probably be nonbelievers in more favorable times; however, I doubt that their atheism would be as devout and fervent. Eschewing the still small voice, they scream "Beware!" "Look out!" "Danger ahead!" We should all take heed.
There is something these atheists know but perhaps do not take seriously enough. This is that we human beings are "pattern-making mammals," to use Hitchens' apt expression.
One of the ways we differ from other animals is that we conceive the most comprehensive accounts of all things that we can and then we pinpoint our little lives within them so as to give us some sense of who we are, what we should admire [worship!], how we should live, when we are out of line and whether we can do anything about it.
Providing comprehensive schemes in which we meaningfully locate ourselves is the primary business of religion. Explaining unusual events, advocating this or that deity or gluing societies together isn't. Neither is some combination of these. Serving the needs of "pattern-making mammals" by mythos creation is what religion is all about. Some religions do it better than others, all things considered.
It will not do to tell people again and again that their lives have no purpose other than what they can give them, that there are no standards of right and wrong other than what they prefer, and that there is no future other than what they can create.
Even this is an implicit religion or mythos, of course; however, it is one that has very little staying power. One exception might be the earliest form of Buddhism that invites us to embrace total meaninglessness and inescapable suffering and gives us ways to cope. But even it was not able to remain this austere among the masses for very long.
In saying this I am not trying to promote any particular mythos or religion even though I am a Christian of sorts. Because I believe that they rest upon a false dichotomy, I am not even holding out for the usual forms of supernaturalism. I am only trying to depict human life as I think it actually is. The horrific failure of every society so far that insisted by the force of arms upon complete secularism supports my claims, I believe.
Let us say it again: The antidote to bad religion is not no religion but good religion.
If faced with the necessity of choosing between absolutely no religion or mythos at all, on the one hand, or religious fanaticism, on the other, most people will choose the second and some of them will be very bright. And yes, I do use the term "bright" advisedly.
Hitchens and company rightly criticize much religious belief and practice and it easy to find in them an abundance of credulity and cruelty. So far, so good. Yet this is not enough.
They or others who share their convictions must also propose some explicit comprehensive scheme and place our lives within it . They must offer their own religion or mythos so that we can compare it with others.
We are doomed if we try to live without any at all.
December 01, 2007
John B. Cobb, Jr. on Intercessory Prayer
I found some recent reflections by Claremont theologian John B. Cobb, Jr. on intercessory prayer very helpful. Others may too! They are at Process and Faith.
November 17, 2007
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.
November 10, 2007
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.
November 09, 2007
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.
November 07, 2007
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!
November 06, 2007
"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.
November 04, 2007
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!
November 01, 2007
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!
October 31, 2007
Bill Cork on the "Questions on Doctrine" Conference
Bill Cork has posted two excellent reflections upon having returned from the recent "Questions on Doctrines" conference at Andrews University. In the second he summarizes how much the debating parties actually have in common. I'm looking for ways to make this more widely available. Let's spread the good news!
October 30, 2007
The "Questions on Doctrine" Conference: Daily Reports by Richard Rice
The "Questions on Doctrines" Conference at Andrews University, October 24 - 27, about a book that has caused fifty years of controversy within the Seventh-day Adventist denomination, surpassed my expectations in every way. My thanks to Julius Nam, Michael Campbell and Jerry Moon for planning and bringing about so outstanding a weekend! For excellent daily reports by Richard Rice, please visit the "Spectrum Blog" and use "Search."
October 23, 2007
The "Questions on Doctrine" Conference: Heading to Andrews University
It is 4:39 a.m. California time on Tuesday, October 23, and my wife and I are on our way to Andrews University in Berrien Springs, Michigan for a three-day conference celebrating the 50th anniversary of the book Questions on Doctrines (Washington, D. C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1957).
This book undoubtedly has caused more controversy within the Seventh-day Adventist Church than any other the denomination has published. Authored by a small group of leaders in response to inquiries to Donald Barnhouse and Walter Martin, two very conservative Protestants, it is widely credited for making Adventism more credible in the eyes of such Christians while also creating much division within it. This theological discord has continued for half a century.
Some summarize the debate as one over whether the human nature of Jesus Christ was like that of Adam and Eve before the Fall [prelapsarianism] or after the Fall [postlapsarianism]. This seemingly arcane question continues to be debated outside the denomination as well, albeit without a literal reading of the stories of the "first parents" of all human beings, with theological giants as influential as Karl Barth and Wolfhardt Pannenberg taking sides. Both are postlapsarian.
Philosophical and theological differences are often like points on a compass. If one is traveling short distances their variations hardly matter. But the further away from the compass one goes, the more the lines established by its different points diverge. They can eventually be so great that a difference in only five or so degrees can cause one to miss the destination if it is thousands of miles away. Likewise, in the short run theological differences have negligible consequences. In the long run they can matter a great deal.
In this case the difference between the prelaspsarian and the postlapsarian views of the human nature of Jesus is an unimaginably small variation on the theological compass, so tiny that within the last couple of weeks, Jan Paulsen, the denomination's world-wide leader, a theologian himself who earned his doctorate at Tubingen University in Germany, stated in public that he doubted the value of the upcoming conference partly because he can't imagine that the contesting doctrines would be of any interest to a postmodern person in Europe, a business man in Asia or a farmer in Africa.
This comment has itself become a matter of further discussion with some agreeing, others disagreeing and still others thinking that this new debate about Paulsen's remark not worth anyone's time and energy!
Because for years my position has been very much like Paulsen's, I am surprised that I have been invited to the conference and even to present a paper. My recently deceased father was very active in these debates, especially during the last fifteen years of his life; but as far as I can recall this is the first time I will have commented on them in public because I have felt that I have more important things to do. Some at the conference may be surprised that my father and I have both been postlapsarian all along because his reputation for being traditional is as great as my reputation for being the opposite.
This demonstrates that it is not the case that one of the positions is "conservative" and the other "liberal," even though some may try to frame the issues this way. We are talking about overlapping but somewhat different paradigms within which there are more and less traditional stances.
Generally speaking, the prolapsing position emphasizes the differences between Jesus and the rest of us and thereby the importance of God's forgiving graciousness. Some say that it eventually leads to moral irresponsibility. The postlapsarian emphasizes the similarities between him and us and therefore the significance of God's empowering graciousness. Some say that it leads to legalistic perfectionism. The first sees him more as "Saviour" and the second more as "Lord."
My view is that the unattractive implications that each side attribute to the other are exaggerated. I also believe that both sides have shared certain unpersuasive premises that have resulted in what theologian James Gustafson, who long taught at Yale and the University of Chicago and then Emory University, in another context called "a misplaced debate."
So, we're off! This should be an interesting weekend!
October 19, 2007
Thoughts After Seeing "For the Bible Tells Me So"
Last weekend my wife and I saw "For the Bible Tells Me So," a movie about how we straight Christians relate to gay and lesbian ones. it is a sobering account. I recommend it very highly!
If you can't see it now, watch for the DVD. It should be available early in 2008. More information is available at its web site.
For reviews by Daneen Akers, Obed Vazquez and Jacqueline Hegarty and me, followed by a lively thread of comments, please visit the "Spectrum Blog."
The more I look into these matters, the more convinced I am that the most important ethical issue at this time is not what gay and lesbian people do in private but what straight people do in public.
When last did we hear of homosexual men hurting or even killing a heterosexual man? Although this probably happens, it seems to me that usually it is the other way around. Straight white Christian men like me may be the most dangerous animals on earth, particularly when we think that something is "unnatural."
Yet what we take as "natural" and "not natural" partly reflects our circumstances. We see this in the New Testament itself and how we read it. In his letter to the first Christians at Rome, Paul describes homosexual activities as "against nature." Most Christians take him seriously at this point, even if they end up partly disagreeing. But in his correspondence with the first Christians at Corinth, Paul says that nature teaches that it is disgraceful for men to wear long hair. Perhaps he was wrong about this or perhaps there was something about the situation in Corinth that gave long hair on men a negative meaning there that it does not have everywhere. My point is that most of us do not take Paul seriously enough at this juncture even to wrestle with what he says. Why?
If we stick with Scripture a bit longer, we will notice that it condemns homosexual activity and condones slavery. But many Christians today say that it should be the other way around, that we should condemn all forms of slavery and condone some types of homosexual activity, and they say this in the name of Scripture! Some find this puzzling and who can blame them?
One way to understand all this is to note that Christians differ in how they interpret and apply Scripture. In a way that is roughly analogous to how people differ in the readings of the Constitution of the United States, some view it as static and the others see it as dynamic.
Another way to put this is to say that for some Scripture is a series of snapshots of the past that depict how we should live in the present. For others it is more like a movie that has not yet ended. We can see the people and the plot and we can trace the direction in which they are moving; however, it is up to us to continue the story. This is how I see it.
Slavery is discredited by the trajectories of Scripture and so is treating women as property. We can say the same things about the movements from patriarchal and monarchical forms of government to democratic ones and the responsibility of the group to the accountability of the individual. In all these cases the important point is to trace the trajectory and to move forward in the direction to which it points.
Thinking of the trajectories of Scripture highlights how important it is that we neither excise nor ignore any portion of it. We must know where we have been in order to know where we should go. Those who have no past also have no future. Scripture is the Christian's memory. It sets the course. It plots the play. It moves us into the future with a sense of moral direction. Without it we would be lost.
October 15, 2007
Sigve Tonstad on God's Coercive or Persuasive Power in the Book of Revelation
Last night faculty and friends of the Loma Linda University School of Religion discussed a book by one of its newest professors. Published by T &T Clark in its Library of New Testament Studies series in 2006, the revised St. Andrews University doctoral dissertation is titled "Saving God's Reputation: The Theological Function of Pisits Iesous in the Cosmic Narratives of Revelation." Sigve Tonstad, a physician and Biblical scholar from Norway, is its author.
As indicated by the Greek words in its title, Tonstad's book examines the meaning of the expression "faith of Jesus" as found in Revelation 14:12. Over the centuries, commentators have tried to clarify the meaning of these words in several ways. Tonstad makes an unusual case for understanding them to mean "the faithfulness of Jesus," and thereby God, to others rather than the other way around. I think that the phrase therefore becomes analogous to the exclamation of some Psalms that "God's steadfast love endures forever."
Because he cannot make it on linguistic grounds alone, Tonstad buttresses his case by providing a detailed study of the entire book of Revelation and this is where things get more interesting and controversial. Most commentaries these days on the last book of the New Testament make the conflict between the first Christians and the Roman empire its foreground and the cosmic conflict about the way God governs the universe its background. Reversing these, Tonstad holds that the imagery of cosmic conflict is primary.
In addition, even if it is qualified by some commentators, there is a widespread impression that in the Book of Revelation God conquers all foes by violently abolishing them. Tonstad reverses this as well. He holds that the book's imagery of the victory of the "slaughtered lamb" suggests that God prevails by using persuasive rather than coercive power.
Either one of these major revisions would have been provocative. Taken together they constitute a major challenge to most interpretations. Tonstad avers that his case is a "complementary and partly contrary" alternative. This puts it gently!
One might anticipate that responses to his book would probe both his emphasis upon the theme of "cosmic conflict" and his proposal that in the book of Revelation God wins by using persuasive power. These are exactly the directions last night's discussion headed with one addition. This is that we explored not merely what the ancient document says but what we should say today about its central question: If God is as good and powerful as so many say, why do we see so much evil around and within us?
This question always expresses the greatest possible objection to Biblical faith, whether Jewish, Christian or Islamic. It is the problem of theodicy, or the "justice of God." When it comes to monotheism, in the end it is the only question worth discussing. If we believers answer it in ways that are at least partially satisfactory, much falls into place. If we fail here, nothing else matters.
Although in this volume Tonstad does not engage his Biblical scholarship with contemporary philosophical theology, I hope that in time that he or others will bring them together in mutually fruitful ways. I believe that his emphasis upon God's persuasive rather than coercive power in the Book of Revelation should be interesting to process theologians and vice versa, for example.
It will be tempting for these to square off against each other as to whether this is how God chooses to act (Tonstad, I think) or is compelled by the inescapable nature of reality to do so (process theology). I hope that this does not happen because I think it more important for them to collaborate against other positions in providing an alternative to what Alfred North Whitehead called "the deeper idolatry."
This is the tendency of Christians and others to depict God as a capricious dictator rather than the loving parent for whom Jesus of Nazareth lived and taught. Because it is the case that in the long run we become like those we worship, the future of human civilization rests in part upon which form of power we most prize. We have magnified our reliance upon coercive power beyond measure and we can see the results. Perhaps it would be helpful to try another approach. It is difficult to imagine that the outcomes would be worse.
October 14, 2007
Ralph S. Larson (1920 - 2007)
Memorial Service
Loma Linda, California
September 1, 2007
Our father was born on November 14, 1920 near Salem, Oregon. He was the eighth child in a family that would include five sons and four daughters, once his younger sister Doris was born. Of the nine children in his family of origin, she is the only one who still lives and we are delighted that she and her husband are with us today from Maryland. His mother’s family, which was of Irish and Scottish descent, traversed the Great Plains in the wagon trains of the nineteenth century. His father was an undocumented immigrant from Sweden.
The men in his family worked in the forests, lumber mills, dairies and businesses of the Pacific Northwest. He might have lived a similar life had he not become a Seventh-day Adventist through the evangelistic campaigns and radio broadcasts of Elders Dan and Melvin Venden, the “true” Venden brothers who are respectively the uncle and father of Louis and Morris. One evening when he was a teenager, after listening to one of their radio sermons, he knelt beside his bed and quietly gave his life to God.
He studied at Walla Walla College, quit for a while to earn some money when his father died, and returned to continue his preparation for ministry. He noticed that in the meantime Jeanne Reiderer had arrived on campus from Ketchikan, Alaska. Although she was in a steady relationship with another man, she noticed him too. They were married after our mother had graduated and worked in Portland, Oregon for a year because she refused to walk down the aisle with anyone until she had proven that she could support herself.
They transferred to La Sierra College where she worked and edited the student newspaper. He studied during the day and drove taxi cabs at night, often delivering military men to March Air Force Base. They lived in one of the tiny cabins that still stand on the west side of the campus. After he graduated, he did his ministerial internship in Elko, Nevada where they lived in a house that had been built out of used railroad ties. This was the start of sixty years of ministry.
The Early Years of Ministry (1946 – 1966)
In 1946 he took our mother and me, when I was three weeks old, to Hawaii by way of Alaska to see her family. With her gregarious and intelligent help, he pastored the church in Kappa, Kaui for three years, moved to the congregation at Hilo on the “Big Island” for another three and then transferred to the Central Church in Honolulu for an additional four. By then our family had expanded to include Thomas, who was born in Honolulu in 1948, and Karen, who was born in Hilo in 1950. Along the way, in order to benefit the church schools, he had helped run a poi factory on Kauai and an orchid exporting business on the Big Island.
In 1957 the Hawaiian Mission ma