Core Adventist Hermeneutics
Mervyn Maxwell begins by stating that there is a difference in hermeneutic between what he labels Adventist “essential characteristic doctrines” and “nonessential secondary” ones. In other words, the motivations and methods of study that led to our core beliefs are not the same as the ones that have led to some other common Adventist beliefs.
Maxwell begins by describing early Adventists’ views on their interpretation methods or hermeneutics. The prime directive of these early Adventists was that scripture should be its own measure. Maxwell presents quotes about the importance of accepting a straight-forward interpretation of scriptures rather than mystical or “spiritualizing” approaches that simply made things more difficult to understand (such as the approach used by the early theologian Origen). In other words, the Bible should be read “literally”, but this literal reading should be done within the Bible’s own framework.
As to what this Adventist framework is, Maxwell shows how Adventist writers expanded on earlier reformers’ use of looking at typology in the Bible. For example, while earlier reformers looked at verses pointing towards the cross, early Adventists also looked at types or examples pointing to a wide range of prophecies including the 2300 day prophecy and the literalness of the second coming.
As Adventists developed a richer in-Bible framework for interpretation, they continued and expanded on the reformers’ rejections of traditions from outside the Bible. Rejecting non-Biblical traditions led to the Adventist beliefs regarding the seventh-day Sabbath and the state of the dead (conditional immortality).
After early Adventists had arrived at these beliefs, they continued to study. Following out all the implications of these beliefs led to a deeper understanding of the larger Biblical narrative. Studying the literal second coming, the literal judgement, and the narratives of Daniel and Revelation led to a strong understanding and emphasis on the over-arching "Great Controversy" narrative. Adventists began to view all of their beliefs within this context. All of what are considered Adventist core beliefs are directly connected to this Great Controversy narrative: Sabbath, the sanctuary, state of the dead, the second coming and the spirit of prophecy. It also informs Adventist understandings of creation, the nature of sin, salvation, the third angel’s message, prophecy, and so on. All these beliefs came out of a process that Maxwell describes as “follow[ing] basically the hermeneutical principles established during the Reformation” (209).
Hermeneutics Underlying Nonessential Views
In contrast to the processes that led to Adventist core beliefs, Maxwell lists two different motivations for belief that have not always led us to sound bible study or sound biblical beliefs: prophetic speculations and a desire to facilitate evangelism.
Being always ready to see confirmation of our beliefs regarding various prophecies and end-time events is a recipe for speculation. Adventists have fallen into this trap several times, the first time being 1844. In a similar vein Uriah Smith wanted to interpret Armageddon as a ‘local military engagement’ because world events at the time made such an interpretation possible. The case of speculation with the biggest modern impact was likely speculation about the second coming occurring following Adventist membership reaching 144,000. I suspect this event in our history still influences Adventist interpretations of words like ‘remnant.’ Likely modern interest in the 2520 could be lumped into this "speculation" category.
The second motivation Maxwell discusses is “Evangelistic Misapprehensions,” in other words, desires to make evangelism more effective. Maxwell gives the example of the conflict in 1888 over the identification of some of the horns in Revelation. Both sides held to similar hermeneutics or methods of reading the bible; however, the ‘against’ side seemed to be motivated strongly by evangelistic concerns: If we change our interpretation of one ‘horn,’ won’t this shake faith in our interpretations of others? This fear of being seen as changing or unsure on things seems to have direct parallels to an adolescent trying to solidify an identity so as to be attractive to the opposite sex, and within Adventism this tension has resulted in us having 28 fundamentals even as we decry creeds.
If we combine these motivations, speculation and evangelism, I think we can understand the seeming conflict between our motivation to have believers in every kindred, tongue and nation, and our becoming more and more resistant to ongoing Bible study and further development of our beliefs.
Looking at Question of Women’s Ordination
If I look at the immediate motivator for this study of Adventist hermeneutics, the debate over women’s ordination and the recent General Conference, it appears that most of what Maxwell has said has a direct bearing. First, the debate about ordination has ranged through both categories of hermeneutical approaches. Gender equality is a powerful movement in the world, as is resistance to it. Depending on your location or community, taking a stand for or against the ordination of women has been portrayed as a necessary step for the winning of souls. Not only do people view their side as being necessary, but a large percentage of those involved consider the resolution of the issue to be a necessary step towards presenting a clear front for evangelism. To paraphrase one African pastor at the GC: “When I am doing an evangelistic series, and a person asks me if the Adventists ordain women, or do not ordain women, what am I to answer?” The motivation of saving souls pushes us toward an immediate resolution, and leads to immediate conflict.
On the other hand, coming at this question from the direction of the Great Controversy narrative leads to an entirely different question: why do we have ordination at all, and what is it? It seems clear that much of our understanding of ordination is a result of not having entirely dispensed with tradition as a foundation for belief, as well as having not entirely thought through the implications of God’s stance on free-will and the meaning and place of authority within the plan of salvation. The question of male versus female seems to be peripheral at best to an understanding of the Great Controversy narrative. Maxwell points out that verses used today in support of women’s ordination, in particular Galatians 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus”, are quoted out of context. They are looked at neither within the context of the immediate chapter and book, nor within the larger framework of the Great Controversy. In his view, this is a key mark of the questionable hermeneutics underlying non-core beliefs.
Future Questions
In light of Maxwell's story, it would appear that an obvious question to ask regarding why I hold any belief is "what are my motivations?" While motivations definitely do not invalidate a particular position, suspect motivations should definitely be reason enough to take a second look. Likewise, it seems that trying to understand how my beliefs connect to the Great Controversy is an important step towards making my beliefs coherent, rather than simply a disparate collection of assertions.
Maxwell, Mervyn C. "A Brief History of Adventist Hermeneutics." Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 4, no. 2 (1993): 209-226. http://www.atsjats.org/publication/view/485
No comments:
Post a Comment