Institution
of Christian Teaching
Education
Department of Seventh-day Adventists
The
Seat of Authority: Reason and
Revelation
in Seventh-day Adventist Education
By
Kenneth
G. C. Newport, D. Phil
Hong
Kong Adventist College
Clear
Water Bay Road
Hong
Kong
A
Paper
Prepared for the Integration
Of
Faith and Learning Seminar
Singapore,
August 1989
047-89
Institute for Christian Teaching
12051
Old Columbia Pike
Silver
Spring, MD 20904 USA
1.
Introduction
In the course of this seminar we
have often touched upon the question of the relative roles of reason and
revelation in the quest for truth. This
is of course a fundamental question, which must be addressed by all Christian
educators. The very fact that we call
ourselves 'Christian' implies that we accept, in one form or another, the
notion that God has in some way revealed himself to humankind. As teachers, however, we accept also the
idea that human reason has a part to play in the process of learning. Truth does not come in raw indigestible
lumps: human beings are able to think, to exercise their rational minds and to
understand. What, then, are the
relative roles of reason and revelation in the overall quest for truth?
2.
Survey of three Main Views
The question of the interaction
between reason and revelation is by no means a new one. Indeed this question has been the subject of
much debate throughout the history of philosophical theology. The question characterizes the works of such
intellectual giants of as Anselm of Canterbury (c.1033-1109) Thomas Aquinas (c.
1225/6-1274) and Karl Barth (1886-1968).
The answers given to the question of
how reason and revelation are related have been several. Anselm's famous dictum credo ut
intellegam (I believe in order that I may understand), is well
known. For this theologian reason was
subordinate, but not contradictory, to revelation. Faith comes first, learning second. Reason can be used to explain truths already known through
revelation. Thomas Aquinas, whose
theological-philosophical system is still that of the Roman Catholic Church,
took a similar view to Anselm, but was much more positive regarding the powers
of reason. Indeed in his work the Summa
Contra Gentiles (1259-64) Aquinas is concerned to convince by reasoned
argument a non-believing reader of the central truths of the Christian
faith. For St. Thomas, reason and revelation
go hand in hand. Revelation is not a sine
qua non of religious knowledge and reason can help very significantly in
the quest for truth. The much more
contemporary Karl Barth (1886-1968), on the other hand, elevated revelation to
a position of high superiority over reason; for this thinker what God has
revealed may well contradict what we know by reason, but this is because our
powers of reason are fallible. Reason
is subject to revelation; what counts is the Word of God, not the thoughts of
man.
3.
Reason and Revelation in Seventh- Day Adventist Education
With these preliminary remarks in
mind let us now turn to look at the relative roles of reason and revelation in
the Adventist educational philosophy.
The question is by no means an idle one, for it involves the fundamental
epistemological question of 'how do I know?'
It involves also the question of the status of the Bible in our
educational system and that of the role of Ellen White in the quest for the establishment
of truth. We must look at the difficult
problem of what we are to do should reason and revelation ever be seen to be in
conflict. How, then, might we as
Adventist educators verbalize our conviction that God has spoken directly to
man while at the same time maintaining and uplifting the value of human
rationality?
A.
The Bible as the Revelation of God
Fundamental to the Christian
worldview is the belief that the Bible is the revelation of God. Now to be sure what Christians mean when
they make this claim is not always the same thing, but in general all are
agreed that it is the Bible that provides humankind with knowledge about God
and His dealings with the world. So for
example we read in the Bible of the origins of humankind, their fall, redemption
and destiny. God reveals things about
himself: the commandments reveal something of his character, and the writings
of Paul unpack the significance of the events in the history of salvation. Christians accept the Bible as God's self
disclosure.
Adventist belong to the conservative
wing of biblical interpretation, and despite the debate within Adventism as to
which precise method of interpretation should be adopted, in general Adventist
agree that the Bible is God's unchanging truth. Adventists may disagree on what
the Bible means, but they are in agreement as to what the Bible is. The Bible
does not simply record other people's encounter with God, though this is a part
of it. The Bible is not simply a history book intertwined inextricably with the
cultures(s) in which it was written. As conservative Christian Adventists
accept that the Bible is the direct, and not the second hand revelation of God.
They accept that the Bible is able to reach across the gulf which separates our
culture from the culture of ancient Israel or that of first century Palestine.
In the Adventist view, then, the Bible is not simply another dusty ancient
history book; it is the living word of God to man and the depository of
revealed truth.[1]
This very conservative understanding
of the Bible has many important consequences.
The most important in the context of the present discussion is that we
as Adventists must recognize that our view of scripture leads us to place the
Bible at the top of the list of epistemological authorities. The revelation of God, as recorded in the
Bible, is true. In the Adventist view, what the Bible contains is not open to
question, for to question the integrity of the Bible is to question the
integrity of God himself.
B.
The Adventist View of Man and the Fall
If Adventists are positive in their
view of scripture, they are scarcely less so in their view of man. Indeed, the
very fact that we as a Church can seriously raise the possibility that it is
possible for a believer to live without sin suggests that we are not as negative
in our view of the nature of man as are many Protestant denominations.
In the Adventist view man is in the
image of God and this image was not lost at the fall. The image may have faded somewhat, but it was not lost.[2]
Adventist Theology emphasises also the freedom of man. The great controversy is
a real theme in Adventist theology, but in this controversy man is more than
simply a pawn who is shoved and pushed around by the players. Man has real choices to make and can
appreciate spiritual things; man can do good and is not totally enslaved by
sin. Luther said that the human will,
both before and after conversion, was like a donkey going wherever the rider
directs. If the devil is the rider it
is ridden to death and destruction; if God is the rider it is ridden to
justification and eternal lie. The
donkey cannot choose its own rider or make a move towards either of them. The beast is pure passivity under the
complete control of external forces.[3]
In Luther's view Man is a bad tree and thus produce only bad fruit and this
includes the fruits of intellectual inquiry;[4]
this is not the view of the Seventh-day Adventist church. Rather in the
Seventh-day Adventist view man is free, rational, thinking, decision-making
individual.
C. Rationality as a Human-Divine Attribute
This very positive view of the
nature of man (at least in the context of protestant Christian circles) which
is taken by the Adventist Church leads to an emphasis by Adventists upon man's intellectual
capabilities. In the Adventist
worldview, man is capable of rational thought and that rational thought can
lead him to truth. Adventist are not mystics declaring all to be a divine
mystery; nor are they of the view that man's rational capabilities were so
affected by the fall that they can lead now only to error. Adventists have not
given up on human knowledge, and it is no coincidence that Adventists are at
the cutting edge in many of the areas of human inquiry. It is fundamental to
the Adventist theological framework, and consequently to its educational
philosophy, that man is able to think rationally and accurately about the world
in which he lives. This capability
extends even to the realm of the truth about God. Few denominations stress the
extra-biblical revelation of God in nature as much as the Adventist Church.
Indeed, we often give the idea that God can be proven by the cosmological
(watch-maker) argument.[5]
It is we as Adventists who stress
that there will be many in heaven that have never heard the name of Jesus, and
we are very happy to use cliches like 'that person lived up the light that he
had'. We feel comfortable with the idea
that a person could know something about God even without the Bible.
The Bible, then for the Adventist is
not the only way to know God. Indeed, the Bible is the most complete
revelation, but it is not the only way in which God has disclosed himself to
man. Man's own mind is capable of
reaching out at catching at least a very faint glimpse of God.
Adventists are not without biblical
foundations for their belief that the Bible is not the only channel through
which God has revealed himself. Paul
states clearly and unequivocally that all human beings know that God exists,
that he is good and that he requires certain moral standards. This is the crux of his argument in Romans
1-3. All are guilty, Jews and Gentiles
alike, for all knew God's character and all have sinned against him. There is in Paul, then, clear evidence for a
natural revelation.[6]
D. Implications of Biblical Conservatism and Positive Anthropology
What we have said above leads us to one important conclusion: we are not able to say, as we so often do, that 'Man is finite, God is infinite and man cannot therefore hope to understand God'. Now of course sometimes this statement is necessary and we must learn how to deal with conflicts of faith and reason. We must know our limitations and be prepared to acknowledge that God is ultimately greater than we. However, as a basic educational philosophy the view that man cannot understand God simply will not do. If we really do believe the 'God is infinite, I am finite and never shall the twain meet' line, then the logical thing to do is close down our schools and colleges and retreat into a hermit-like existence and seek God through subjective means. However, as Adventists we accept that God has revealed himself and that man is able to understand that revelation. To say with Paul that we see now only dimly (1 Cor. 13:12) is not to say that we do not see at all.
E. The Integration of Reason and Revelation
We come now to the main question
addressed in this paper: how can reason and revelation be integrated by the
Seventh-day Adventist teacher? From what we have said it will be obvious that
we are not of the Thomist school of thought.
Reason and revelation and not co-equal. By reason we may know some
things about God, but what we can know is very limited. When a person considers the world he may
come to the conclusion that someone created it, but it is doubtful that he
could come up with a full-blown doctrine of creation or the Sabbath as a
memorial to it. An individual may
realize the fact that this world is not as it ought to be, but he will not know
why or what is the solution to the problem.
Reason, then, is of limited use in
establishing divine truths. It can take
us so far, but no further. Reason may
provide us with a few crumbs, but it is only in the Bible that we are offered
the full menu. However, where reason
surely comes into its own is in the explanation and application of revealed
truths (as Anselm argued). In fact the
Christian is rather like a schoolboy who has been given the answer book to all
the math problems set for homework. He
has the answer for they have come to him through revelation. The Christian knows the answers to life's
fundamental questions 'Who am I ? What is reality? Where am I going?' Now he
must try to explain those truths to give some intellectual content to his
faith. After all, man is both spiritual and mental, and if his spiritual side
is satisfied by faith accepted formulas, his mental faculties will need a
different kind of food. The Adventist
teacher must not be intellectual lazy or adopt a simplistic 'God said it, I
believe it, that settles it' approach to Christianity. Rather he should advocate the 'God said it,
I believe it, now I will try my best to make sense of it' approach. The same God who gave man the ability to
believe gave him the ability to think, and to fail to think is no less harmful
to the Christian life than a failure to believe.
Reason and revelation, then, do go
hand in hand, but it is revelation rather than reason that assumes the
lead. Revelation guides reason and
revelation is the judge of reason. This
is a very basic point which springs naturally from the Adventist understanding
of scripture, revelation and inspiration. In the Bible God has provided a
filter through which human knowledge can be strained. What comes out the bottom is revelation informed knowledge; what
remains on the top is the debris of human error. All teachers need to know where their ultimate of epistemological
authority lies. This needs to be
communicated to the student so that the student knows on what basis the teacher
judges truth.
F. The Role of Ellen G. White
Since we are dealing with Adventism
we must go on to ask one more question, and this is perhaps the most difficult:
what is the role of the writings of Ellen White in establishing religious
truth? The Seventh-day Adventist Church
has accepted the writings of Ellen White as being inspired and has
traditionally looked to her for guidance and knowledge. It is however doubtless true to say that
within Adventism there is a wide diversity of opinion concerning the nature of
Ellen White's writings and their relationship to the scriptures. This diversity of opinion ranges from
'Spirit of Prophecy fundamentalism' to much more liberal understanding of Ellen
White's writings. Indeed, though the
persons themselves would probably stop short of saying it, the natural result
of some Adventists' understanding of the Spirit of Prophecy would be to afford
these writings complete equality with the Bible itself. There is no logical or qualitative
difference between the inspiration which came to Ellen White and that which
came to the apostle John. Others,
however, prefer to see Ellen White's writings not as the Bible volume 2, but as
being in some way qualitatively different.
Such persons would no doubt quote the passage by Ellen White herself to
the effect that she was lesser light bringing men to the greater light.[7] Still others emphasize the extent to which
Ellen White was a product of her time and a messenger to it. How then are we as Seventh-day Adventist
teachers to view the writings of Ellen White?
And how are we to use her in the promotion of learning in our classroom?
These are very difficult questions
and they cannot be answered unless we first conceptualise our own understanding
of the relationship between Ellen White and the scriptures. In short, where are we going to place Ellen
White in the hierarchy of epistemological authorities?
The situation faced by the Adventist
in this area is in fact very similar to that faced by the Roman Catholic, and
the Catholic model may help us to bring our own thoughts into focus. The Catholic believes that the Bible is the
revelation of God, but into this understanding he must integrate his belief
that God also reveals himself through the Church. For the Catholic the relationship between the Bible and the
Church is simple: the Bible is the revelation of God and the Church is the
inspired interpreter of the text.
Indeed, part of the authority of the Church lies in its unique ability
to interpret the sacred text. This not
the only reason for the Church's authority, but it is one major contributing
factor.
Is this our understanding of Ellen
White? Is she the Seventh-day
Adventist's pope? This question has
been bluntly put and may stir up some emotions, but we as Seventh-day Adventist
educators do need to think seriously about it.
How do we view the relationship between the Bible and Ellen White?
We do not have time here to discuss
the various views that have been advanced. Rather let us simply suggest a model
that may be of some value. Let us illustrate
this with three diagrams.
1 2 3
Bible Bible EGW Bible
EGW EGW
Believer Believer Believer
In the first diagram the suggestion
is that Ellen White is only way to a complete understanding of
scripture. Indeed, according to this
view the only way to approach scripture is through the writings of Ellen White,
for unless we have not only inspired text but inspired commentary upon that
text we will go astray in our thinking.
In the second diagram the suggestion
is that Ellen White is not really a commentator on the text so much as a
revealer of new light. Ellen White and
the Bible together make up the sum of God's revelation to mankind. One can draw truth from the Bible or from
Ellen White and although the two obviously interact and agree, there is no
necessary connection between them. The
relationship between Ellen White and the Bible, according to this view, is the
same as the relationship between the gospel of Mark and the book of
Romans. They share a great deal and
agree on fundamental points, but each has its own distinctive part to play in
the total process of God's self-disclosure.
In
the third diagram it is plain that Ellen White is seen as a (not 'only')
way to scripture, but not on a level with it.
Scripture is first and the authority of Ellen White rests upon her
fidelity to scripture. Ellen White is a
'lesser light' and in fact the light which she has is only a reflection of the
true light. Perhaps a parallel with
Hebrews might reinforce the point, for what we get in Hebrews is not is much
new knowledge as an explanation and midrashic amplification of truth already
found, though not understood, in the Old Testament. So too Ellen White explains the Bible and what she says must be
judged by it. Now of course Ellen White
has a great deal to say especially in the areas of health and eschatology which
is not spelt out specifically in the Bible, but still we must use the Bible to
see if what she says makes sense. Ellen
White's authority rests upon the authority of the Bible; it is only as she
explains and interprets the principles laid out in scripture that she can be
looked to for guidance.
In the recent publication by the
Ministerial Association of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists,
the position that Ellen White is a guide to scripture and not to be put on a
level with it is clearly emphasised.[8]
According to this publication the
Bible is the supreme standard and all doctrines must be taken from the Bible
and not from the writings of Ellen White.
Ellen White is a guide to the Bible; she is a helper who assists the
seeker in his quest for truth. Whatever
Ellen White says must be subjected to the test of scripture. Very similar statements were made in 1981 in
the Adventist Review.[9] Here we read that 'Mrs White's writings are
not addition to the Bible'.[10] And further that 'the canonical Scriptures
constitute the norm by which all other prophetic messages are to be tested'.[11] Now these sort of statements have been made
before and since in the Seventh-day Adventist church, but on practical level
they have scarcely sunk in.
This is of course the very criticism
made of the Seventh-day Adventist Church by Anthony Hoekema.[12] According to Hoekema the Seventh-day
Adventist Church confesses one thing, but in fact believes another. Thus while
the official Adventist position is that doctrines are not drawn from Ellen
White and that Ellen White is in fact a little lower than scripture, in reality
the Adventist places Ellen White on a level with scripture and does use her
writings as a source of revelation.
Especially, Hoekema argues, Seventh-day Adventists use Ellen White to
establish interpretations of a biblical text which would otherwise be impossible
to arrive at.
It must be said that Hoekema has
touched Adventism on a raw nerve.
Adventists do, on the whole, treat the writings of Ellen White in much
the same way as scripture. What the
church does and what it says are in a state of tension. However, whatever the weaknesses of its practice,
the Seventh-day Adventist Church has a right to be judged according to its
theory. The official Adventist position
is that the writings of Ellen White are not on an equal level with scripture
and that in fact the scriptures 'retain authority even over the gifts that come
through the Holy Spirit, including guidance through the gift o prophecy'.[13] What is more according to the statement of
faith on the issue the Bible contains all the knowledge necessary for man's
salvation.[14] Thus it ought to be possible, in theory at
least, to teach even biblical subjects without Ellen White. Some might argue that to leave out Ellen
White is to miss an important dimension in Adventist spirituality; this may
well be so, but the basic content of the Seventh-day Adventist faith ought to
be demonstrable from the Bible and the Bible only. We will draw out some of the implications this has for the wok of
Adventist teachers below.
4.
Implications for Teachers.
Let
us now try to draw some practical lessons from what have said and make it
applicable to the classroom situation.
There are four main points that need to be made.
A. The Role of Revelation
The first point to be noted is that
the Christian teacher must be fully aware of where he places the seat of epistemological
authority. Let us not fool ourselves;
conflicts between faith and learning do arise, and unless we have gone through
the process of deciding whether it is reason or revelation which is going to be
allowed the deciding vote we will be at a loss as to what to do. This is a point we need to make clear to our
students. The view that the scriptures
are a divine and therefore true revelation of God is so fundamental to
Christianity in general and Seventh-day Adventist in particular that it cannot
be allowed to slip from view. We must
bring this basic belief up to a high level of consciousness and let it be known
that we accept the authority of someone else (God) in preference to what we can
workout for ourselves. The Adventists
educator must make his position absolutely clear to students and fellow
educators alike. Of course, most often
there will not be a conflict, the Bible says little about the specifics of
computer technology or medicine, but where conflict does arise we must be clear
as to why we listen to the voice of revelation rather than to that of reason.
B. The Role of Reason
This is not to say that reason is of
no use in our schools. Indeed, if this
were so the whole process of education would be a waste of time. As Seventh-day
Adventists we accept the view that man does have reasoning powers and although
those powers may have been corroded by the fall they have not disappeared
altogether. As we have seen, Paul
himself says that God has revealed himself to all, and even those who do not
have written scripture can know something about God; Anselm too argued that one
could prove that God exists by logical argument (the ontological argument being
Anselm's own favourite), and yet both Paul and Anselm were unequivocal in their
assertion that faith is the ground of all knowledge. In the classroom, then, we will want to make this clear to the
students. We accept the Bible as the
revelation of God, but we do not take this as an excuse for slovenliness. Rather we will pursue knowledge and
understanding with as much vigour and determination as any non-believer for it
is our firm conviction that man has the ability to think rationally and indeed
the duty to do so.
C. The Role of Ellen G. White
We come now to the difficult
question of the role of Ellen White in the classroom. We have seen that this is one area where the Seventh-day
Adventist Church needs to conduct more study.
The theory runs that Ellen White is not to be considered on a level with
scripture, but the practice is that her writings are treated as such.
The theory should be placed before
the students clearly. They should be
allowed to judge Mrs White for themselves and feel free to question and
criticise what she has said. At the end
of the day the teacher, especially the Bible teacher, should be capable of
leaving Mrs White's comments out altogether and still be able to teach the same
doctrine. Mrs White should be treated
as she saw herself, as an aid to scripture, and not as scripture itself.
When it comes to eschatology and
health especially this approach will be difficult. Much of the detail that we have concerning last day events is
drawn from the writings of Ellen White.
However, in such circumstances a clear division should be made and the
students should be told that this part of the class is based upon scripture
alone, this part upon scripture and Mrs White.
The former is not open to question, the latter is.
This is not to say that we should relegate
the writings of Ellen White to the class of 'other authors'. The students
should know that the teacher personally accepts that God was at work in the
ministry of Ellen White in a very direct way.
The teacher does accept that the writings of Mrs White were inspired.
However, the students should also know that the writings of Ellen White are not
scripture and that Seventh-day Adventism is based ultimately upon the
Bible. Adventism is possible without
Ellen White, although some might judge that Adventism without Ellen White would
be of a somewhat impoverished kind.
D.
Conflicts: The Integration of Faith and Ignorance
Points
one, two and three lead us onto our fourth point. We have said that as Seventh-day Adventist teachers we accept the
authority of the Bible and think of it as the final authority. We will of course employ reason in the
building of our total worldview, but at the end of the day it is revelation
which is the guiding principle of our epistemological system. However, an obvious question arises, and
that is what if reason and revelation should conflict? What should we do in these situations?
Conflicts between reason and
revelation come in two kinds. First
there are conflicts that arise as a result of imperfect knowledge: a revealed
truth seems to be irrational, but this is only because we do not as yet have
the full picture before us. All the
data is not yet in and one day the thing will become plain. As Paul says 'now I understand in part, then
I shall understand fully' (1 Cor 13:12).
Perhaps one possible example of this is the story of creation. Now in all honesty we must confess that we
still have difficulties fitting some of the things we think we know into the
creationist framework. How, for
example, is it possible for all those stalactites and stalagmites to have
formed if the earth is only about 6,000 years old?
Scientists tell us that on the basis of their observations they have calculated that these things take millions of years to form, how then can the world have existed for only 6,000? Or again, when fossils of living organism are found and are dated to millions of years BC, how is this possible given the biblical view on the age of the earth? However, this sort of problem is one to which we can imagine having an answer one day. The question to be asked when faced with this sort of problem is 'how is possible' and not 'is it possible'. We believe that it is possible, but we do not know how. In this situation the Christian teacher might advise his student to have faith in the word of God and await the answer to the apparent problem. In other words we deal with the apparent inconsistency by denying that any such inconsistency in fact exists. Reason and revelation are not in conflict, they only appear to be.
Much more serious are the kinds of
anomalies and consistencies that involve a serious irrationality to which human
reason has a natural aversion. For
example the doctrine of the Trinity: the Bible says that God is one, but it
also says that there are three individuals all fully God and all distinct from
each other. Now this is a problem. Reason tells us that 1+ 1+ 1 = 3; but
scripture tells us that this is not a hard and fast rule, for on one occasion
at least 1+1+ 1 = 1. Despite the
countless gallons of ink spent in discussing it, it appears to be impossible to
see a way around this problem. What is
more the problem seems destined never to be solved. In these situations the Christian teacher will need be clear
regarding his position. He must acknowledge
that his reason has let him down. His
reason has been weighed in balances of scripture and found to be wanting. However, such a judgement is only possible
if the teacher has already thought through the question of where he places the
seat of epistemological authority and can bring this guiding principle to bear
at this point.
This is not an excuse for
intellectual suicide. What we are
talking about here is very much a measure of last resort. However, when all avenues have explored and
have been found to be blind we must be able to swallow our intellectual pride,
abandon our rationality and submit to the revelation of God. God is a revealed God and he is a God of
order; however in the last analysis God is greater than we and there are many
things about him that we do not know and probably never will. Christianity is not wholly rational and it
cannot be tied up in neat packages and delivered to non-believers. Paul of course says as much in 1 Cor 1. This
inability to solve all difficulties is a weakness of all worldviews whether
religious or otherwise.
The fact that Christianity is in
part non-rational is one of the most difficult things for a twentieth century
Christian teacher to accept and it is even more difficult for him to
communicate to students. At this level
Christianity is very much a religion of faith and perhaps the most important
thing we can do in the classroom when faced with this situation is show to our
students that we know our religion is faith based and that we are not ashamed
of it. As one person has said 'I will
not allow those things I do not know about God detract from the things that I
do know'.
In concluding let us offer a
suggestion as to what an Adventist statement on the relationship between reason
and revelation might look like. Perhaps
it would run something like this
Seventh-day Adventists
acknowledge the fact that God has chosen to reveal himself to man. It is God's revelation, in all its forms,
that provides mankind with an infallible guide to truth. Seventh-day Adventists also affirm that man
has the capability of rational thought and emphasize that it is man's duty to
exercise this God-given ability in the quest for truth. Seventh-day Adventists are committed to
achieving a faith-based but rationally supported understanding of truth in all
areas of human inquiry.