Stephen
Terry, Director
From
Reading to Understanding
Commentary
for the January 4, 2020 Sabbath School Lesson
Jesus answered, "I am
the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through
me." John 14:6, NIV
In 1869, a few short years after the American
Civil War, Pope Pius IX convened Vatican I in Rome to deal with several
pressing issues within the Roman Catholic Church. Several centuries had passed
since the most recent council had met in Trent. One of the foremost issues on
the agenda was advancing the doctrine that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was
herself immaculately conceived and therefore also without sin, which enabled
her to bear a son without sin. Of course this begs the question of how this
could be if Mary's mother was not also immaculately conceived, but for some
reason, this was not recognized as a valid reason to challenge the idea of
Mary's posthumous promotion. However, since there is no biblical mention of
Mary being immaculately conceived, this could only be established by papal
decree. This brought up the related issue as to whether or not the pope could
be considered infallible in his decisions. There was a strong argument against
this because of Pope Honorius I. In the seventh century, confronted by a
squabble between two factions quarreling over whether Christ's will consisted
of separate human and divine wills or simply one divine will, Honorius decided
to favor one faction over the other in order to quell the argument without
consulting both factions. Later popes and councils condemned his decision as
erroneous. Popes then were therefore arguably not infallible. In order to
firmly establish the new doctrine about Mary, this had to be dealt with. In the
end, it was decided that the pope was indeed infallible, but only when speaking
ex cathedra. By declaring that
Honorius was not, but the current pope was, the issue was resolved and not only
the Marian doctrine was established but the manner of papal infallibility as
well. By declaring his speech to be ex
cathedra, the pope could now establish irrefutable doctrine by fiat, firmly
establishing the hierarchical nature of the church as an entity with a sinful,
yet paradoxically infallible, human being in charge.
This is peculiarly significant as we
begin this quarter's study in the book of Daniel, for the introductory lesson
appears to closely parallel the issues that faced Vatican I with a similar
solution being offered up. Much of what is to come in the quarter is going to
depend heavily on references to Ellen White's writings as authoritative
declarations regarding doctrine, especially when we examine chapters eight and
nine. These chapters have often been interpreted in unique ways that bolster a
singular understanding of the Millerite movement that brought together believers
from various denominations in the 1840s to prepare for the Parousia. While that
didn't take place, some of those believers united in their search for answers
to the Great Disappointment of 1844, and two decades later, formed the
Seventh-day Adventist Church. Key to their understanding and theological
development were writings by Ellen White, acknowledged by the fledgling
Adventists as prophetic. The degree to which the denomination recognized her
prophetic gift vacillated from time to time. At one point, the church sent her
off to Australia in order to lessen her influence which they felt was interfering
with church administrators in the United States. While this resulted in
positive changes, such as the establishment of Avondale College in Australia,
it also demonstrated that not everyone was in full recognition of any sort of
infallibility regarding Ellen's prophetic gift. To complicate matters, she also
said that she was not infallible. Two examples of her declarations regarding
infallibility may be found in Letter 27, written in 1876 and in "Selected
Messages, Book 1, pages 415 and 37. It did not help support a position of
infallibility when she also used selections in her inspired writings taken
verbatim from other authors and those originally uncited quotes were at times found
to be factually in error. While this was consistent with her stated position on
infallibility, it did not sit well with those who wished to use her writings as
an authoritative source to provide indisputable commentary on the Bible. They
needed her to be infallible in order to have that authority. This is sometimes
expressed in conversation whenever a question is raised about her biblical
interpretation with the response, "Don't you believe in Ellen White?"
The implication made is that one cannot be a faithful Seventh-day Adventist
without accepting the infallibility of Ellen White.
There is an underlying reason for this
to be the case that goes beyond commonly discussed issues such as vegetarianism,
eating cheese, or Christmas celebrations. A key doctrine of Seventh-day
Adventism is the Investigative Judgment, the belief that judgment of mankind
began in 1844 and is continuing until the Parousia. While there is little
support for this biblically, Ellen White supported the idea in her writings. In
all fairness, like some of her other sources she cited, the idea did not begin
with her prophetic gift but was instead proposed to the early Adventists by a
faith healer, Hiram Edson. But her support of his interpretation has created a
dilemma. If she is fallible, then the idea of the Investigative Judgment can be
re-examined and is open for revision or even rejection. But the church
officially denied that possibility at Glacier View Ranch, Colorado in 1980
where they defrocked theologian Desmond Ford for suggesting such a
re-examination. A line in the sand had been drawn regarding the infallibility
of Ellen White and several others were purged from church offices, both clergy
and laity, over the issue. Nonetheless, not all could be dealt with in this
attempt to silence the issue. Those who held no church office or denominational
employment could not be coerced into abandoning their concerns, and defrocking
Desmond Ford actually allowed him the freedom to continue to speak and publish without
fear of retribution. But even apart from his influence, members began to
question these things on their own, and coming at the issue from several different
perspectives found that the issue of prophetic infallibility was ripe for
examination.
This has brought us to the current crossroad
that the quarterly's first lesson seeks to resolve. Instead of Mary's
immaculate conception, substitute the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment.
Both are equally questionable as both are based on little or no biblical
support and a desire to resolve a theological dilemma. In the first instance,
how could a sinful woman conceive a sinless Savior, and in the second, how
could the apparent failure of William Miller's predicted Second Advent be
explained? In each instance, an alternative authoritative source was needed,
and in order to quell all dissension, that source needed to be infallible. The
solution for the Catholic Church, was to create a conditional infallibility for
papal authority. Our lesson reveals that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is apparently
establishing the same for Ellen White. Elias Brasil de Souza, writing as a
representative of the Biblical Research institute of the General Conference,
divides prophecy into two categories. What he calls Classical Prophecy is
conditional and therefore not infallible. This would be equivalent to the
treatment of the decision made by Honorius I as fallible based on the conditional
aspect of its development. The second category, Apocalyptic Prophecy, de Souza
maintains is infallible. This is essentially saying that when Ellen White is
speaking apocalyptically, she is infallible just like when the pope is speaking
ex cathedra. Of course the end result
is also equivalent. The church is seeking to bolster its ability to quell all
dissent, no matter how weak the doctrine might be, not by evidentiary means but
by authority alone. Whenever the church has claimed such authority, truth has
been made subject to power, and persecution of those seeking truth may be
sought to the limit of what civil authority allows. In fact, it is precisely
this desire to assert authority that creates a temptation for the church to go
so far as to seek the intervention of civil authority to enforce its decrees.
As Adventists, we have long been
concerned about the manifestation of such authority as represented in the symbolism
of Revelation, especially in chapter thirteen. We often claim that the
government is going to do all these things, even claiming that the lamb-like
beast in that chapter is the United States government, but in doing so we fail
to recognize the lessons of history that reveal it is the church that asks the
government to grant it civil authority to persecute, not the other way around.
When we establish infallible hierarchical authorities within our denominations,
we are building the foundation for such a possibility. We point our fingers at
other religions and how they have such control of their governments that they
oppress and even kill those who dissent, but we fail to see that our desire for
the government to enforce religious belief is fruit from the same tree. In
spite of this quarter's lessons and the direction it wishes to take us, perhaps
now is a good time to begin questioning that direction and whether it is good
for the denomination and for us personally to go down that road.
