THE
IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENTAL FACTORS
IN
THE FORMULATION OF ADVENTIST DOCTRINE
Presented
for the Institute for Christian College Teaching
Union
College
Lincoln,
Nebraska
by
Dick
Winn
Assistant
Professor of Religion
Pacific
Union College
018
- 88 Institute for Christian Teaching
12501
Old Columbia Pike
Silver
Spring MD 20904, USA
I. THESIS
Though
a world-view is rooted in a reality, which far transcends the human mind, that
view can be understood and expressed only
by cognitive and linguistic elements, which make sense to one's mind. When
seeking to understand the world, one brings to the task meaning structures,
which are shaped by several factors. In addition to the influence of one's
immediate culture, meaning-structures are also influenced by one's individual
stages of cognitive, moral, and psycho-social development. These
developmentally-shaped perceptions strongly influence one's pre-conscious
assumptions about God, sin, redemption, the law and obedience. This paper will
consider how moral development influences preferred formulations of key
Adventist doctrines. It proposes that doctrinal variations may be based, not so
much upon the selection and interpretation of Bible passages, but upon one's
developmentally-influenced perceptual paradigm.
II. THE CONSTRUCTEDNESS OF CHRISTIAN
TRUTH CLAIMS
"Neither
is new wine put into old wineskins; if it is, the skins burst, and the wine is
spilled, and the skins are destroyed; but new wine is put into fresh wineskins,
and so both are preserved." (Matt. 9:17,
RSV)
In the communication
interplay between the mind of God and the mind of humans, God supplies the wine,
and we bring the wineskins! From his infinite storehouse, he supplies
appropriate measures of truth into our finite containers. But because his truth
is living, dynamic, "fermenting," we are warned not to try to place
it in old, brittle, too-small modes of understanding.
Unless
we bring meaning making structures that are fresh and supple, the resulting
encounter will be destructive, and the wine of understanding will be wasted.
Though the Bible is rich with "the taste of new wine," it does not present truth in the form of refined
doctrinal statements. Though the cross, for example, is its central event, the
Bible does not offer a systematic
doctrinal-theological explanation of why the cross was necessary. Though the
writers were uniformly against sin, we find a diversity of descriptions of sin,
but no foundational definition.1 To the surprise of many Adventists,
the Bible does not contain a doctrinal explanation of the sanctuary. Far from
being a tragic oversight, we will find that this pattern could have significant
advantages.
The Bible is the narrative
telling of God's active interaction with the human race.2 It is a story, not a doctrinal textbook.3 God's truths are revealed by what he does
with real people in actual circumstances in specific historical moments. They
are not packaged in systematic formulas, thoroughly checked for internal
coherence and consistency. There is an important difference between truth-as
it-is, and our descriptions of it. God reveals himself in the vital, turbulent
drama of human history, not through a theologian's typewriter.
This
leads us to an important assertion: Doctrine is a human construct. It is a post-revelatory activity of
the Christian community in which we seek to give orderly, systematized
expression to key elements of
Christian faith and experience. Doctrine is a human artifact, not to be equated
with revelation itself. (We are nourished by the wine, not by the wineskins!)
Though the truths, which doctrines seek to express, are of supra-human origin,
all the building blocks of that expression are drawn from the available
catalogue of meaningful human expressions. This premise does not ignore the
teaching role of the Holy Spirit among serious Christians; rather it recognizes
that even the Holy Spirit must employ those elements of meaning, which have
currency among humans lest he speak nonsense among us.
The Seventh-day Adventist
church has long ago disassociated itself from the ranks of the verbal
inspirationists. We hold that even inspired authors are free to choose from the
forms of expression those words, which will have greatest meaning to themselves
and their intended audience. Indeed, this is the thrust of the Incarnation:
God's thought "packaged" for human understanding. So, when a church desires to give formal
expression to the beliefs, which define its boundaries, the members do not wait
for God to compose a finished product. With much prayer, the church must still
craft its own wineskins.
What
are the building blocks which we employ as we construct our own statements of
belief? Essentially, these meaning-elements come in three "sizes,"
ranging from specific to broad. The first, most basic element is words. Stating
the obvious, there is no special vocabulary which we use for talking only about
God. We employ the same ordinary words that we use for speaking of human
experiences. And the more extensive our experiences, the more readily we can
grasp divine realities .4
Because the words that we employ to
speak about God are limited in their meaning- carrying by the finiteness of
human experience, these words, no matter how carefully selected, cannot equal divine, infinite realities. Even the
finest of theological statements cannot exhaust the full meaning of the larger realities of which they
speak. At best, they can only "hint at" ultimate truth. Thus it is
always appropriate for us to phrase our truth claims with much humility and
tentativeness. We will be less likely
to speak of religious statements as being absolutely "true" or
"false" in themselves. Using Ellen White's image of "present
truth," we will see them as increasingly adequate statements.
Our
words have meaning as they are deployed within the second level of meaning-making
units. Words are like brush-strokes on a painter's canvass. Each stroke of
itself is of little value in itself; but when placed in creative relationship
with other strokes, the result is a visual image, which the mind registers as
familiar. In a similar manner, when our words are placed in a creative pattern
with other words, they call forth larger patterns of recognition within the
hearer. These second-order constructive elements are often called metaphors. They
evoke a network of associative meanings that go beyond the key word itself.
For example, the Bible
employs many metaphors to express the great realities of sin and salvation. The
medical metaphor views sin as though it were a disease or illness. Salvation is
viewed as God's work in making one well, or of healing. Thus we speak of Jesus
as the Great Physician. The financial metaphor envisions our sin problem as an
impossible indebtedness, and as Jesus cancels that debt, we understand more of
the meaning of forgiveness. The courtroom metaphor expresses sin in terms of
the breaking of a law or legal code, with resulting sentence of condemnation
and impending punishment. When Jesus bears that punishment as a substitute, it
makes the pronouncement of acquittal legally defensible. There are many more
such metaphors in Scripture, that by every possible means, we might understand.
Every
metaphor can have its value, some more for some people or at certain times in
history. But no single metaphor can tell the whole truth. The history of
Christianity is filled with painful stories of what happens when people build
their whole theology on a single, reified metaphor. Even a Spirit-selected
metaphor, used by an inspired author, is still only that: a metaphor.
Which
brings us to the third and most difficult component of this construction
process. This is called a paradigm, which
is a broad, over-arching metaphor, which speaks to the larger nature of
reality. Some refer to it as a
root-metaphor.5 It seeks to
make sense, not out of a single idea, but out of the larger framework of
existence within which all lesser meanings find their place. An excellent development of the use of
paradigm in seeking for broad understandings is Thomas Kuhn's description of
how scientists think.6 He argues (among other things) that it is
impossible to think a paradigmatically, and that scientific research has moved
forward in all fields, not so much by adding new data within an existing
paradigm, but at the times when an entirely new paradigm provides a broader
frame of reference which can encompass new research that the old paradigm could
not explain. An illuminating example of such a paradigmatic shift is the familiar account of the
endeavors of Copernicus and Galileo to move beyond the geocentric view of the
universe to the heliocentric cosmology.
In spite of opposition from the Church and from many Aristotelian
scientists, the new paradigm finally was accepted, because it made better sense
out of the new data, and solved more problems.
To
a very large extent, paradigms are held pre-consciously. Within any given
discipline, it is simply the assumed framework of the textbooks and key
thinkers. And because it has been so
helpful in solving the problems, which the community of scholars is addressing
at the time, it often goes unchallenged; indeed, it can almost appear to be
sacred.
Paradigms
are alive and well, though largely unacknowledged, in the realms of religious
thought. They are the fundamental frames of reference and mind-sets which we
employ (pre-consciously) as we seek meaning
in the vast realm of religious conversation and insights. Many seemingly
unsolvable doctrinal conflicts could be seen as the attempt to resolve
anomalies within a paradigm that is too small.7 Understanding can
move forward significantly when a community becomes aware that it is employing
paradigms, and seeks more adequate ultimate frames of reference.
III.
DEVELOPMENTALLY INFLUENCED PARADIGMS
Whenever
one seeks to find meaning in a vast and quite abstract body of data, the use of
a paradigm is a virtual necessity. This is particularly so in the realm of
religious understanding. A child growing up in a religiously-oriented home has
an immense amount of non-concrete
information--about sin, God,
angels, heaven, salvation, repentance, judgment, etc.--to try to arrange into a
meaningful whole.
The
study of developmental psychology casts light on the perspectives and
capacities of one's mind which one brings to these meaning-making activities at
various stages of life. James Fowler, for example, in Stages of Faith,
draws upon the work of several influential developmental theorists: Jean
Piaget, Erik Erickson, and Lawrence Kohlberg.8 He synthesizes their
research to show the markedly different way in which religious faith functions at
the different stages of one's life.
Which brings us to the specific proposals
of this paper. Based on my study and observations over a period of several
years, I believe that levels of moral reasoning serve very much like preconscious
paradigms by which one formulates an understanding of that ultimate moral
issue: sin and salvation. One can draw
quite direct parallels between one's stage of moral reasoning and one's
preferred orientation doctrinally.
Before
studying Diagram 2, please note the
following:
(1) The beginning point for understanding each
stage as a religious paradigm centers around the nature of a wrong act (sin),
and the response of an authority figure (God) to that wrong act. Shifts in perspective in these two areas
precipitate all that follows.
(2)
It must be observed that moral development is not guaranteed. There are many
adults who continue to reason at the lower stages.
(3)
Because a basic religious paradigm is so deeply implanted in one's childhood,
it is often held sacredly against any subsequent change. Yet many adults
continue to enjoy moral development in the non-religious areas of life. When a wide dichotomy develops the results
fall into two options: (a) rejection of religion as "outgrown,"
irrelevant; or (b) setting religion aside into the realm of ceremonies, ritual,
emotional affect, or nostalgia.
Study
Diagram 2 (page 12), first
vertically, then horizontally.
Stages of Moral
Development & Doctrinal Preferences: Are They Related?
|
Moral Stages & key moral reference points:
(As per L. Kohlberg)
Some sample doctrines:
|
Preconventional
(Stages 1,2)
|
Conventional
(Stages 3,4)
|
Postconventional
(Stages 5,6)
|
|
Values: External
Motives: fear of punishment, desire for
rewards.
Indicators: 1. Authority figures prominent
2. Mutual manipulations.
3. Internally consistent system of theology
not required
|
Values: external
Motives: conform to conventional norms; uphold
abstract (partly arbitrary) "law and order"
Indicators: 1. Justice is punitive
2.Personhood subordinated to social good.
3.Intergrates theology largely through
upholding justice.
|
Values: internal.
Motives: harmony with universal principles,
love.
Indicators: 1 Cause and effect
2.Truth oriented theology
3.Respect for personhood individual rights.
|
|
1. The meaning of SIN
|
Affront, offense against the authority,
dignity of a lawgiver, eliciting anger toward the offender. Primarily a behavioral problem.
|
Behavior, which violates a legal/moral code,
resulting in a deficit of merit – a negative valence that must be rectified
to uphold justice.
|
Alienation from God, and from the principles
of His kingdom.
Primarily a relational problem, resulting in
destructive behaviors.
|
|
2. The purpose of the Cross: The ATONEMENT
|
Jesus died to appease the wrath of an offended
Lawgiver by suffering a punishment equal in magnitude to the terrible
offense.
|
Jesus died to satisfy justice to experience
the just punishment of the law in our place.
Once punitive justice has been upheld, forgiveness is possible.
(The "forensic model" of the
atonement)
|
Jesus died: (a) as an expression of love to
win us back into relationship with God. (b) as an essential revelation to the
universe of the principle that separation from the Life-giver cause Second
Death.
|
|
3. Prevailing perception of GOD'S CHARACTER
|
An offended Deity who is jealously intent on
upholding His holy dignity and power.
|
A righteous Judge, dutifully obligated to
uphold justice and exact full submission to law from all His subjects.
|
A loving Father, longing to heal us with His
accepting love, and teach us by His wisdom – brining us into full personhood.
|
|
4.The believer's predominant MOTIVE
|
To avoid offense against a holy God who will
inflict extrinsic punishment, and to win His favor and extrinsic blessings.
|
Gratitude for forgiveness "won" by
Jesus on the cross; and duty to obey the just requirements of the law.
|
Having been healed by the love relationship
with God, one is motivated by the inner promptings of love' and one's mind
has been thoughtfully aligned with principles of universal truth.
|
|
5.The purpose of the SABBATH
|
An essentially non-meaningful expression of God's
arbitrary will given as a test of our willingness to obey (i.e. submit)
|
A symbol of the "rest" of
forgiveness won by Christ on the cross; and/or an assumed obligation upon all
who worship a God of "law and order"
|
A celebration of relationship with God,
preserved and enjoyed in sacred time, and a vital symbol of our purposeful
aligned with principles of universal truth.
|
|
6.The purpose of the final JUDGMENT
|
God examines our performance to determine the
proper reward or punishment. Jesus pleads to "soften" the righteous
justice of the Holy Father. The
performance of believers is the essential focus.
|
God determined who has claimed Christ's
subsitutionary righteousness. Thus salvation does not violate the upholding
of justice (Since this issue was death with on the cross, final judgment is
minimized by some).
|
God defends the redeemed as fully healed,
restored to relationship, against the accusations of Satan. The truthfulness and effectiveness of
God's methods (character) is the primary focus.
|
|
7.The final DESTRUCTION of the wicked.
|
God's final act of righteous vengeance against
the violates of His holy law, an act of punitive destruction.
|
"Law and order" requires that some
suffer longer than others before die; thus their punishment upholds this
principle.
|
Respecting their freedom, God allows all who
have chosen separation from Him to experience the consequences of their
choice-the Second death.
|
IV.
SOME THEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
The
premises of this paper--that some doctrinal orientations are rooted in
developmental paradigms--may have important implications for the life of the
church beyond the religion classroom. Proposing some of those implications may
illustrate and enrich the pedagogical concerns, which follow.
(1)
It seems evident to this author that the Seventh-day Adventist church has
formulated its basic doctrinal positions in keeping with Stage 4 terms of
Justice-reasoning. This should not be
surprising when one considers that: (a) more than 75% of the adult, membership,
especially during their formative years, are likely to be thinking at that
stage in the non-religious aspects of their lives; and (b) almost without
exception, the predominant modes of Christian
expression
in the denominations from which our founders came indicate Stage 4 reasoning or
below! 10
(2)
When God prepares to speak meaningfully to his people, he demonstrates a
commitment to "talk our language." He has moved upon inspired persons
[in our particular setting, upon Ellen White] to express spiritual insights in
terms, which are predominantly appreciated and grasped by the hearers of the
original message. Thus when Ellen White
speaks of such matters as the cross, the atonement, and the final destruction
of the wicked in Stage 4 terms, we need not regard these as inaccurate
statements. Indeed they are entirely
accurate within that paradigm.
At
the same time, it would be a violation of her own wishes for us to view that statement
as having exhausted for all time the full meaning of those issues.11
I am personally satisfied that Ellen White herself experienced stage
development throughout her 65-year span of ministry, and that her writings may
reflect the resulting changes in orientation.12
(3) Personal salvation is
independent of stage categories. A person who comes to Christ driven by fear
will be loved and forgiven just as fully as the one who has discovered that
"perfect love casts out all fear." in a relationship with Christ
however, we find the richest resources for moral/religious development;
specifically: (a) unconditional love and acceptance- -thus freeing one from the
fear of another's rejection as a moral motivator; and (b) the wise teaching of
a sensible, non-arbitrary God whose pathways are inherently blessed.
(4) If salvation is independent of stage growth, why then
should one desire it for oneself or for others? May I propose three reasons?
(a) The higher levels of understanding enable us to speak so much more
eloquently and coherently about our God. Compare, for example, the God-images
of one who obeys God out of fear of hell, with the God-images of one who obeys
because of admiration for the sensibleness of all God's orderly, inherently
rewarding laws. (b) The more comprehensive paradigms allow us to deal more
adequately with more complex theological problems. I am personally persuaded
that the reason Minneapolis 1888 and Glacier View 1978 leave so much lingering
non-resolution is that they were both attempts to solve an anomaly within the
same paradigm. And (c), doctrinal concepts appreciated at the higher levels of
understanding leave the believer less vulnerable to personal discouragement as
her ethical/intellectual life moves on to the higher levels of reasoning. I am convinced that Adventist theology
shines the brightest in all its details at a post-conventional level of
understanding; that every key doctrine of the church finds its richest, most
enduring expression in the relational/revelational paradigm.
V.
SOME PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
If
the perspective proposed above is valid, then there are some practical
implications for the classroom teacher that bear consideration.
(1)
The teaching of religion cannot be limited to the imparting of data or information
from Scripture, as vital as that is. We must recall that Jesus rebuked the most
diligent Bible scholars in history for their copious study of the Work--but all
from the wrong paradigm (John 5:39,40).
We must participate with Jesus in urging that same paradigm shift: the
purpose of being a spiritual person is not to learn a lot of Scripture that God
might be pleased with us; but to become pleased with God through meeting him in
Scripture.
(2) Stage growth, for a healthy
person, is a life-long adventure. James
Fowler13 has proposed a challenging description of the nature of
truly adult faith. We should prepare our students to recognize that stage
growth is normative for them for the
remainder of their lives. The student who expects his religious formulations to
be fully in place during the college years, with only minor refinements in
details in the years to come, is in for a mid-faith crisis as his thinking
matures on other fronts. Though we should teach with certainty and confidence,
we should encourage our students to hold their truth claims with an agility in
which their personal Christian self-identity is not tied directly to the
precise formulations of a single paradigm.
(3)
If stage growth is normative, then we have cause to be very patient, appreciative,
and understanding of those who express their faith in terms less adequate than
our own. When Paul wrote to churches
that had a spread of moral stages in their ranks (Romans 14, I Cor. 8), he
urged the more mature to bear patiently with the less mature--because the
reverse is not possible!
(4)
The Sermon on the Mount is a classic example of how one helps others to
experience stage growth. Jesus acknowledges their former understanding, which
was itself the product of divine instruction. "An eye for an eye" is
Stage 4 justice reasoning. it makes sense to one who believes in distributive
justice. But then Jesus implies its inadequacy, and proposes a distinctly
higher frame of reference, the "universal principles" concept of
loving even those whom one would define as an enemy. His audience did not uniformly understand or appreciate his new
teaching. But an important principle is illustrated in how Jesus went about
advocating it. Stage growth happens when one begins to sense the inadequacy of
one's present mode of thought, feels the cognitive dissonance of unresolved
tension, and then finds the reasoning of the next higher stage to be more
satisfying.
But
a student does not always transition forward to the next higher stage at times
of dissonance. Often, people will retrench and become defensive in their
former, more familiar stage of understanding. It appears that the factor, which
makes the difference between growth and retrenchment, is whether the dissonance
is experienced in the presence of a warm, non-judgmental person or group. No wonder that Jesus, the Master Teacher, is
described as one who came not to -condemn,
but to save (John 3:17).
Following
Jesus, example, then, the teacher will focus on two important aspects of the
valuing process: (1) asking questions which expose the inadequacy of one's
present paradigm, 14 and (2) providing an emotionally supportive
atmosphere in which students will feel tangible safety in bringing their
present understandings up for review.
(5)
Most of what young people hold to be true about God is not based on the content
of Bible classes. Most of it comes from their encounters with authority
figures, especially at the moments of infraction (running afoul of the house
rules, as Gaebelain describes it). Ideally, the teacher should model the
highest motivational appeals when urging better behavior. Even if an immature
student knows only the motivation of fear, that fear should be focused toward
inherent or supplied consequences, not toward the teacher's personal rejection
or anger. For it is the teacher's
personal interaction with the student which carries the heaviest God content.
And that, more than all
else, underscores why we teachers should seek an ever clearer perception of who
God is, in the context of his response to our running afoul of the cosmic
"house rules!"
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Berger,
Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality.
Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, 1967. A foundational study of the way in which
our perception/construction of reality is rooted in a social context.
Duska,
Donald, and Mariellen Wahlen, Moral Development: A Guide to Piaget and
Kohlberg. New York: Paulist Press, 1975. An exploration of
developmental theory and its implications
for religious education at various age levels. An excellent treatment of
God-images at various stages.
Dykstra,
Craig, and Sharon Parks, Faith Development and Fowler. Birmingham, AL:
Religious Education Press, 1986. An appreciative but not always agreeing
critique of Fowler's study of faith development. Proposes alternative
understanding.
Fowler,
James M., Becoming Adult, Becoming
Christian. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1984. A sequel to Stages of
Faith, carrying developmental theory into the adult years. Compelling
reading for anyone experiencing adult crises of faith.
------
Stages of Faith. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1981. Viewed as a
meaning-making activity of the human mind, faith is explored from the point of
view of the developing capacities of the total being. Excellent summaries of
the works of Kohlberg, Piaget, and Erikson. Very important book.
Freiburg,
Karen L., Human Development: A Life-Span Approach. Boston: Jones
and Bartlett, Publishers, 1987. A current, widely researched textbook in human
development. Cognitive development themes are relevant to this study.
Gillespie,
V. Bailey, Religious Conversion and Personal Identity. Birmingham, AL:
Religious Education Press, 1979. An excellent analysis of conversion as a multi
-contextual event, including social, psychological, experiential, emotional,
and developmental factors; by an Adventist author.
Joy,
Donald M., Moral Development Foundations: Judeo-Christian Alternatives to Piaget/Kohlberg. Nashville, Abingdon Press, 1983. An
excellent analysis of classic development theory, showing areas of both
resonance and disagreement.
Kotesky,
Ronald L., Psychology From a Christian Perspective. Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1980. A popularist survey of fundamental psychological
principles, especially as they parallel Christian premises.
Kuhn,
Thomas S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The
university of Chicago Press, 1970. A widely-acclaimed study of the way in which the scientific community interprets its
findings through the use of paradigms, and the resulting tensions when these
paradigms are outlived and are replaced by new ones.
Lindbeck,
George A., The Nature of Doctrine. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press,
1984. A disturbingly compelling study
of Christian doctrine from a cultural-linguistic approach. Emphasizes the human
constructedness of our truth claims, with implications for the permanence or
changeableness of our formulations.
MacCormac,
Earl R., Metaphor and Myth in Science and Religion. Durham, N.C.: Duke
University Press, 1976. A scholarly comparison between theologians and scientists showing their similar use of metaphors
to explain their data, with emphasis on their similar limitations.
Schreiter,
Robert J., Constructing Local Theologies. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books,
1985. Designed for missiology classes, Schreiter argues that all formulations
of doctrine (even in the New Testament) are made up of elements of meaning
rooted in certain cultural-linguistic settings.
Shelly,
Judith Allen, The Spiritual Needs of Children. Downers Grove, Ill.:
InterVarsity Press, 1982. Written to assist health professionals who deal with
spiritually distressed youth, it contains helpful insights into the nature of
youthful spirituality.
Shelton,
Charles M., Adolescent Spirituality. Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1983. A
nearly definitive work on the complex nature of adolescent spiritual patterns.
Informed by the works of Ignatius Loyola, Piaget, Erikson, Kohlberg, and
Fowler, it analyzes virtually every aspect of adolescent religious life.
Wright,
J. Eugene, Erikson Identity and Religion. New York: The Seabury Press,
1982. Erikson's quest to understand religious experiences from a psychosocial
point of view is appreciatively brought forward by a Baptist scholar and
pastor, with many practical applications.
Endnotes
1.
Compare, for example, I John 3:4, Rom, 14:23, and John 16:9, and note their
entirely different frames of reference.
2.
For the development of the theme of the Bible as narrative of salvation
history, see G. Ernest Wright, God Who Acts: Biblical Theology As Recital (London:
SCM Press, 1952).
3.
For a more complete discussion of the nature of doctrine, and of its
relationship to Scripture, see George A. Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine (Philadelphia:
The Westminster Press, 1984), pp. 116-120.
4. Thus, as in I John 4:12, it is genuine
expression of human love which makes believable the assertions about God's
love.
5. See Earl R. McCormac, Metaphor and Myth in
Science and Religion (Durham: Duke University Press, 1976), pp. xii, xiii,
for a discussion of the way in which scientists and theologians employ
metaphors in a similar manner.
6. Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962).
7. For example, the
on-going debate about whether Jesus took the prefall nature of Adam, or the
post-fall nature, is rooted in a paradigm, which sees nature as the root
problem of sin. A relational paradigm appears to resolve such a conflict.
See this author's If God Won the War ... (Mountain View: Pacific Press
Publishing Assn. (1982), pp. 10-28.
8. In James Fowler, Stages
of Faith (San Francisco: Harper and Row: 1981).
9. Kohlberg has been chosen principally because moral
development, with its concerns for matters of right and wrong, very nearly
approximates religious concerns. Further, his research has generated a rich
body of illustrative and comparative studies from several Christian
researchers. And finally, his categories are readily grasped by people who are
somewhat new to the field of developmental psychology.
10. Consider, for
example, the strong appeal to the fear of hellfire which fueled much of the
English Revival, thus setting the groundwork for the religious fervor of 18th
century New England, and Millerism.
11. Compare Ellen
White's treatment of the final destruction of the unrepentant as recorded in The
Great Controversy, p 673, with that recorded in The Desire of Ages,
pp.763, 764, for a clear portrayal of the same event described from two
different paradigms. The description, which people will quote as the
"definitive treatment", may well reflect their primary stage of
religious reasoning.
12. See Alden
Thompson's series, "From Sinai to Golgotha" (ADVENTIST REVIEW:
December 10-31, 1981), for an excellent treatment of the theme of Ellen White's
growing understanding.
13.
See James Fowler, Becoming Adult, Becoming Christian (San Francisco:
Harper and Row, 1984), especially Chapter VI.
14. For example, when a student suggests that Jesus
"pleads with the Father for us" in the heavenly sanctuary, you might
ask whether Jesus and his Father hold different attitudes toward us, or whether
the Son is more merciful than the Father. When the "substitute merit"
view of justification is being discussed, ask if the Father is impressed with
merit. And if so, why?
