Why Consultation II?

It all began Wednesday, September 30, 8:30 A.M., in the General Conference chapel and ended on the tenth floor of the North Building at 5:30 P.M. Sabbath, October 3. Consultation II, an opportunity for church leaders, scholars, and others to discuss joint concerns was scheduled just prior to Annual Council, thus affecting considerable savings, since most administrators in attendance would be in Washington anyway. The 187 registered delegates from the world field represented administrators, teachers, editors, evangelists, depart mental directors, lay people, pastors, and retirees. These were divided into ten discussion groups of approximately twenty members each that met during the morning hours. The plenary sessions conducted in die afternoons received reports on conclusions reached by the various study groups, and general discussion followed.

It was the desire of Neal C. Wilson, General Conference president and chairman of the Consultation meeting, to have no formal papers presented. This makes "it possible," he said, "for us to work and grow together through discussions.... I have discovered that when we arrange for formal papers to be presented, there are always some who feel that we predetermine a. particular direction from the outset, which in a sense prejudices a more objective examination of a question. It will be our purpose, therefore, to exchange ideas." Thus no particular doctrinal theological positions were dis cussed, but rather there was an examination of areas that affect church unity and policy, mutual responsibilities of church and workers, and the church's decision-making mechanism.

The General Conference president had made clear the reasons for this important meeting in a letter sent to participants several weeks prior to its convening. He wrote: "As you read through this agenda, I am sure you will recognize that some of these topics are critical to the development of strong understanding, mutuality, confidence, trust, and morale. We need to keep building bridges and do everything we can to develop a harmonious thrust on the part of our theologians and Bible teachers and administrative leaders. At this particular time in the history of the church and of our world, and with the mission that has been bequeathed to us, everything hinges upon the certainty of our message and our singleness of purpose. It is our privilege to make full commitment to Christ and to carry these precious truths to every man's door on Planet Earth."

Even a brief glance at the list of questions prepared for discussion (see p. 27) indicates that thirty mornings, rather than the three allotted, would be needed to cover adequately the broad spectrum.

General observations

The concept of a Consultation II to follow Consultation I, which convened at Glacier View, Colorado, in August, 1980, was not only helpful and wholesome but vital. This bringing together of various minds from different segments of our working force and from every continent on earth was beneficial in a number of ways:

1. It emphasized that ours is a multilanguage, multinational world church.

2. It helped us to understand that, although we may not all see every point in the same way, we are all brothers and sisters in Christ.

3. The rubbing of shoulders in group discussions had a tendency to break down feelings of isolation and independence, resulting in deeper Christian fellowship and mutual respect.

4. The freedom to express ourselves without fear of reprisal created a healthy attitude toward one another and the church.

5. Listening to one another made us more aware of our responsibility to be judicious in our statements and helped to squelch rumors and misunderstandings.

As chairman of one discussion group, I personally felt the leading of the Holy Spirit in our midst. Our seasons of prayer were heart warming. I came away feeling that these, my brothers, were earnest Christians and that all of us were seeking to know God's will and to do it. For me this created confidence in the Lord's leading and in my fellow workers.

One Important issue

Although a number of concerns were aired, one, I feel, is of immense importance and basic to our understanding of the Bible. I refer to our system of Biblical interpretation. It is the duty of our Adventist ministry to be acquainted with this subject I personally want to study it more thoroughly than I had time to do prior to, and during, the session. To a great degree the future health and progress of our movement is contingent, I believe, on our understanding of this subject and the use of proper procedures and sound approaches to Biblical study. One decision from Consultation II was that broad-based committees should be formed to consider methods of Biblical study, as well as the stewardship of Seventh-day Adventist Church workers, including academic freedom. The results of these studies will be shared widely in order to receive response and reaction from the world field before position papers are developed.

Although the 1974 Bible Conferences focused on hermeneutics, perhaps many did not sense their significance. According to some among us, Adventism is maturing; hence we need more sophistication in this area. Certainly all of us need to study the Bible more thoroughly than ever before, but such studies should lead to establishing truth. None would deny the need to search for more truth. "We see through a glass, darkly," and although we profess to be God's remnant people, there is much more truth to discover, learn, and practice.

Pikte's question to Jesus, "What is truth?" requires an additional one—"How does one find truth?" These two questions can be used as reference points for the rest of my editorial.

Is the Bible the word of God?

This may appear to be a foolish question, but to some theologians the Bible and the word of God are not synonymous. Accordingly, the Bible is seen as a series of documents by human authors which need to be studied with the same methods as any other ancient or modem literature. If my understanding is correct, historical criticism (which encompasses the procedures of what was earlier called lower criticism and higher criticism) uses such procedures as source, form, tradition, and redaction criticism. All have certain presuppositions that see the Scriptures and their interpretation in quite a different way from what Seventh-day Adventists have tradition ally held. Now that I have said this, it is important to note that there is a wide range of positions on the part of those who use the historical-critical method.

It is also important to understand that individual interpreters of the Bible have for centuries given consideration to the authorship of specific Bible books, the date of their composition, their historical background, meaning of words, grammar, the particular theology of a Biblical writer, et cetera. But historical criticism asks new questions. It is concerned not only with the meaning of the text but also with its "truth value." Individuals schooled in this system approach the Scriptures with the objective of ascertaining by methods of historical science what can be asserted as true and credible. The statements in the Bible are not accepted simply because they are declared to be. so in Scripture. The Biblical accounts of Creation, the Flood, the Exodus, and Jesus' resurrection are accepted only if a historical or scientific case can be made for their validity.

Likewise, the nature of the Bible's inspiration is not determined by the clear statements of Scripture about itself. This leads some to see the Bible as the product of a literary evolutionary process—simply a sociological and cultural phenomenon; others view God as somehow superintending the development of the traditions of Israel and the early church as they were passed on from generation to generation. Still others would see God as more specifically guiding the prophet in his choice of the traditions and their reinterpretation even when there is seen to be little or no continuity between the traditions and their reinterprettion. There is, of course, a wide spectrum of understanding as to the involvement or noninvolvement of God in this process, just as there are various concepts of theistic evolution held by Christian scholars who do not accept the Genesis story at face value as literal history. In general, however, inspiration is seen as acting primarily upon the community.

Historical critical method and Bible Interpretation

To many minds there may be only a hairline difference between the historical critical method of determining what the word of truth is and our traditional way of discovering truth. But there is a danger that the "hairline" difference can become a grand canyon and have a tremendous negative impact on our doctrinal structure, and in turn affect our mission.

It is my understanding that the Seventh-day Adventist Church has always held the principle that the Bible is its own interpreter. This means that one must be willing to listen to the entire message of Scripture as each of its parts bears upon a particular topic. It means that a true understanding of a passage is determined by a reference to the rest of Scripture. This concept arises out of Scripture's own self-understanding. What is that self-understanding? How does the Bible see itself? Scripture sees itself as coming into existence, not by the will of man, but by holy men speaking as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (see 2 Peter 1:19-21). In fact, some of the writings of the Spirit-controlled prophets were incomprehensible even to themselves (see 1 Peter 1:10-21). In many places the message of the prophets and apostles is referred to as the word of God. Paul very specifically claims that the message he brought was the word of God and not the word of man (see Gal. 1:9-12; 1 Thess. 2:13). Many of the Old Testament prophets refer to their message as the word of God (see 2 Sam. 23:2; Jer. 1:9). Seventh-day Adventists have believed that not only is the Holy Spirit the all-pervasive element in giving us the Scriptures but He is the compelling force in a person's acceptance, belief in, and understanding of them.

The historical critical method basically treats the Bible as any other book. It must be accepted and interpreted as one would any piece of literature, ancient or modem. Thus even the question of the meaning of a text is answered from a quite different perspective. For example, the historical critical method questions the unity of the Bible, because it recognizes only the sociological and cultural setting out of which each individual document arose. The divine is not given the constitutive role and thus it is not recognized for its unifying function. One passage can be used to interpret another only if it can be shown that the life setting out of which the two arose is the same.

This point is crucial, I believe, and is, in fact, the key that locks up truth rather than unlocking it. If the historical critical method is correct here, we might better use Bible Readings for the Home, which has led thousands to an understanding of our message, to start fires in our fireplaces on a cold winter evening rather than expecting it to guide people into the truth. If historical criticism is correct here, Leviticus 16 throws no light on Daniel 8:14; the Sabbath can be reinterpreted to become only a symbol of rest from sin, but not a literal memorial of a seven-day Creation week, much less a part of the three angels' messages and a test for these last days; the Old Testament can be used to help interpret the New, but the New Testament cannot be used in interpreting the Old! In short, a number of our fundamental beliefs would end up in oblivion or at best be reinterpreted to such an extent that they would lose their meaning and power.

In my early evangelistic experience a Methodist minister disagreed with my explanation of the state of man in death. I suggested he take an exhaustive concordance and look up every text using words such as death, grave, spirit, and sou! and then come back and share his findings with me. This he did and was amazed at the clear picture that emerged from his studies. Although a handful of texts seem to speak to the contrary (when interpreted independently from the rest of Scripture), the great bulk of texts have a harmonious thrust that helped him to understand that man is mortal. He stated, "And to think I've been preaching a lie for thirty years!"

I fully realize that the methodology I recommended to my Methodist friend would be classified as the proof-text method, which some minds hold in disrepute. Yet I have a marvelous and trustworthy example in my Lord, who was able to touch the lives of two men when "he began with Moses and all the prophets, and explained to them the passages which referred to himself in every part of the scriptures" (Luke 24:27, N.E.B.).^*

In concluding this section I realize that the principle of the Bible as its own interpreter recognizes the importance of the historical setting within which God conveys His message through the prophet to man. While attempting to understand the passage in its immediate Biblical and historical context attention is also directed to the meaning of words and grammatical relationships. But in using historical backgrounds, meaning of words, forms of literature, and grammatical relationships, I emphasize again that the prevailing principle is the context and teaching of the whole Scripture—the Bible as its own interpreter.

Consultation II and historical critical methods

With this brief synopsis of one important issue, I will share a few observations regarding statements made during the plenary sessions. Some that dealt with die nature of Scripture and the method for Biblical study raise the question whether the issue of historical criticism is a live one within the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Are we as a church faced with the possibility of moving in the direction of using the historical critical method, including such attending methods as form criticism, tradition criticism, and redaction criticism? What would such a move mean for the church? For its message? For its future? Would it compromise our commitment to the absolute authority of the Bible?

Study materials handed out at the beginning of the Consultation made a clear distinction between the idea that the Scriptures resulted from God revealing Himself to those living at a particular point in history and the idea common to the historical critical methods drat the Bible is a product to some degree of historical and cultural circumstances. This is not to say that God does not take into account the circumstances and situations in which He finds people. God reaches people where they are. But there is a difference between God's speaking to people in a historical, cultural setting and the historical, cultural setting creating the Scriptures. Several comments seemed to have moved in the direction of the latter option. Might this mean that die Old Testament sacrificial system of the sanctuary was originally developed by the pagans, borrowed and sanctified by the Hebrews, and then used by God as a vehicle to teach the salvation story? Or was this system revealed by God to Moses as the Bible claims very clearly?

Several affirmed the usefulness of "critical tools" for purposes of evangelism and for answering questions of doubting members. It is by these tools, they say, that answers can be given to thoughtful, questioning nonbelievers and to members who are struggling with doubts about inspired writings. It is by these methods that difficult problems can be solved in ways that maintain the members' integrity and the authenticity, credibility, and authority of the Scriptures.

What do such concepts mean? Are we to use the norms of the secularist, the tools of contemporary historical science, to ground the faith of the secularist? Upon what does the authenticity, credibility, and authority of Scripture rest? Does it rest upon what can be demonstrated as true by means of the historical critical method or by means of psychology or geology? If one accepts the credibility of the Bible because he can make a scientific case for it, then wherein does authority reside? In the Bible or in the scientific method? Is science, then, the final authority rather than the Bible? Is a member's integrity maintained because he rests his case on the historical critical method or because his faith is founded on die Bible—a "thus saith the Lord"? Do we assume that some universal principles and truths resident in the universe and in man form the basis for accepting the Bible into the canon of truth, or do we accept the Bible as the basis of our understanding and knowledge?

One explanation made a rather clear distinction between the earthen vessel (the Bible) and the word of God heard through the gospel. According to this idea, historical critical methods may be used only to describe the vessel—language, style, culture, worship, tradition—that the Word of God uses to convey itself to human beings. The historian can evaluate the pot but not the treasure inside. Faith alone under die Holy Spirit can hear, discover, and appropriate God's Word to us. By use of the inductive approach, one studies the clues of the data of Scripture in order to ascertain the historical circumstances under which the Biblical writings arose. By this means one discovers what the text is so that he can develop a method appropriate to the text in order to understand the divine message that is expressing itself through the text.

This concept raises some questions. Is the Bible the word of God? Or does the word of God merely express itself through the Bible? Is it really possible to separate the message from die vessel? Ellen White refers to the Bible as presenting "a union of die divine and the human. Such a union existed in the nature of Christ, who was the Son of God and the Son of man. Thus it is true of the Bible, as it was of Christ, that 'the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.' John 1:14."—The Great Controversy, vi. If we divide the vessel from its contents, can we also divide the divine nature of Christ from His human nature? If so, would this then mean that one can appropriately use scientific methods to determine the truthfulness of the Biblical assertion that the earth was created in six days, but that the same method cannot appropriately be applied to the "mes sage" of Genesis 1—that God is the Creator? One might also question the appropriateness of determining the nature of the Bible by an analysis of the "data" of Scripture, rather than by an acceptance of its clear statements regarding its own origin and nature.

Some very positive statements were also made at the plenary sessions: that the Bible in both Testaments is die inspired and authoritative word of God; that each portion of Scripture makes a distinct and unique contribution to total Biblical faith; that the Bible is a unity and therefore interprets itself, the Old Testament interpreting die New Testament and vice versa, with each author's work contributing to and enriching the message of the whole; that the records of die Bible are historical and trustworthy; that the Holy Spirit is indispensable and essential for true understanding; that the Bible's message is accessible to every person and understandable by every believer.

While avoiding the extreme of those who wish to interpret Scripture as any other book by overlooking die divine element, we need to recognize another extreme, which likewise has its dangers and difficulties. This extreme refuses to use any tools available in seeking to understand the meaning and message of God's Word.

The conviction that the Bible is its own interpreter could possibly lead (although it does not have to) to the belief that only an inspired commentary (such as the Spirit of Prophecy) should be used to interpret and unveil die deeper meanings of God's Word—no commentaries, no sermon helps, no Bible dictionaries, no Greek and Hebrew word studies, and no books on the archeology, geography, and ancient history of Palestine. This extreme tends to deify the Bible, while the other brings it down to the level of man's intellect and imprisons it within human reason.

As Seventh-day Adventists, we do not accept the theory of divine diction or demand absolute perfection in the language of Scripture. "The Bible must be given in the language of men. Everything that is human is imperfect. Different meanings are expressed by the same word; there is not one word for each distinct idea. The Bible was given for practical purposes."—Selected Messages, book 1, p. 20.

Considering all facets of the Consultation, I am convinced that it was a good session. We need more such meetings so that we can zero in on some of the specific questions I have asked. This subject of the Scriptures needs serious attention. It cannot be dispensed with in a hasty or superficial way. Our theology and mission are at stake. One need not look too far to see what has happened to other churches who have failed to deal with this problem forthrightly. It is my prayer that the belief of the Swiss reformer Zwingli, as related in The Great Controversy, page 174, will be that of every one of us:

"'The Scriptures,' said Zwingli, 'come from God, not from man, and even that God who enlightens will give thee to understand that the speech comes from God. The word of God . . . cannot fail; it is bright, it teaches itself, it discloses itself, it illumines the soul with all salvation and grace, comforts it in God, humbles it, so that it loses and even forfeits itself, and embraces God.' The truth of these words Zwingli himself had proved. Speaking of his experience at this time, he afterward wrote: 'When ... I began to give myself wholly up to the Holy Scriptures, philosophy and theology (scholastic) would always keep suggesting quarrels to me. At last I came to this, that I thought, "Thou must let all that lie, and learn the meaning of God purely out of His own simple word." Then I began to ask God for His light, and the Scriptures began to be much easier to me.'"—J.R.S.