Mission College · · 2012-05-10Kai Arasola: 46-61 Mission College. CATALYST is a refereed,...

Institute Press Occasional Papers

VOLUME 3 NUMBER 1 NOVEMBER 2008

Editorial Wann Fanwar : 1 Ellen White’s Concepts On Mental Health Compared With Psychology

And The Health Sciences Joy C. Kurian: 2-13 Measurement of the Support in the Development Stages of an Aspect-Oriented Software Product Line Framework

Germán Harvey Alférez Salinas: 14-24 The Second Invasion Wann Fanwar: 25-32

On the Pursuit of Wisdom and Wilful Ignorance Warren A. Shipton: 33-45 Historical Reflections on Early Adventist Anti-Trinitarianism Kai Arasola: 46-61

Mission College

CATALYST is a refereed, occasional papers publication of the Institute for Inter-disciplinary Asian and Adventist Studies and is published by Institute Press, Mission College, Thailand. The publication is intended to be an online journal with a limited number of hard copies available. The objective of the journal is to publish scholarly as well as professional articles, seminar/forum papers, etc. The journal aims to facilitate scholarly activity among the faculty of Mission College and to engender scholarly exchanges with visiting lecturers, pastors, teachers, or church/institutional administrators within the South-east Asian countries. EDITOR: Wann M. Fanwar (Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Religious Studies, Mission College) COPY EDITOR: Nola Tudu LAYOUT: May Su Thwe Mang EDITORIAL BOARD Kai Arasola (Dean, Faculty of Religious Studies, Mission College), Joy Kurian (Principal Lecturer, Faculty of Science, Mission College), Kamolnan Lakrud (Lecturer, Faculty of Science, Mission College), Nola Tudu (Lecturer, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Mission College). For Inquiry: Wann M. Fanwar Editor, Institute Press Mission College P O Box 4, Muak Lek Saraburi 18180, Thailand Tel: (66) 36-344777 or 36-341505 E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected] All opinions, errors, omissions and such expressed in CATALYST are the responsibility of the authors. © Institute Press, Mission College, 2008 ISSN 1905-6931

mailto:[email protected]

1

EDITORIAL Wann Fanwar

This is the third issue of Catalyst, an interdisciplinary journal of The Institute for Interdisciplinary Adventist and Asian Studies, Mission College, Thailand. This issue is a collage of articles ranging from educational theory to theological studies. Two of the articles in this issue were presented at two different conferences. As such they bring with them both the scholarship and the demand of those conferences. Catalyst is privileged to have these papers grace the pages of the journal.

One article again explores educational theory concepts. Another paper comprises a reflection on Asian theology in as much as it impacts the work of the church. Finally, there is, for the first time, an article from the CIS department which deals with software development.

What is of value to this particular issue is the fact that the authors come from various disciplines: science, theology, and CIS. As such, this marks a development of sorts in the growth of Catalyst. With this rather broad spectrum of papers, Catalyst is well on its way to becoming the inter-disciplinary journal that it was intended to be.

It is hoped that this issue, with its broad participation of academic disciplines, will encourage others to contribute to the continued development of this journal. To encourage more participation, Catalyst solicits articles from every department within Mission College. This appeal is especially for those who are first-time writers, as this affords them the opportunity to get published and come to terms with the implications of that.

CATALYST, Vol. 3, No.1 (Nov 2008)

2

Ellen White’s Concepts On Mental Health Compared With Psychology And The Health Sciences Joy C. Kurian

Abstract

The unique features of Ellen White’s writings are that they are over 100 years ahead of her

time. Her writings contained information not known by the scientists and psychologists of that era and as such, many people have asked, “How could information written so many years ago have value today”? The truth is that many of the principles presented by Ellen White have stood the test of time and have been verified by science in remarkable ways. This paper makes an attempt of comparing some of the writings of Ellen White on mental health with psychology and the health sciences.

After presenting a brief biographical sketch of Ellen White, the author clarifies the concepts of: Mind, Health, Mental Health and Mental Disorder. He then presents the modern perspectives on psychological disorders and makes a comparative study of the relationships of the body and mind by Ellen White and the Psychologists and Psychotherapists of our time. The article briefly covers certain aspects of mental health and emotion illnesses and warns Adventist teachers of Psychology of the growing dangers in their own and allied fields. In conclusion the author presents views on the integration of faith and learning and affirms that a study of the life and writings of Ellen White makes it obvious that her source of information was from God.

Introduction

Brief Biographical Sketch of Ellen White

Ellen Gould Harmon was born at Gorham, Maine, in the north-eastern part of America on

Nov. 26, 1827. Her parents, Robert and Eunice Harmon, were devout members of the Methodist Episcopal Church who had the joy of witnessing their eight children accepting the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour.

When Ellen was nine, on her way home from school, she was seriously injured when she was struck on the nose by a rock thrown by a schoolmate. Severely traumatised by this incident, she remained unconscious for three weeks and grew very weak and frail. With time she did recover but the injury prevented her from being able to continue her education.

Ellen Harmon was moved by the Holy Spirit to study the scriptures diligently, to live a simple life and to wait upon the Lord for His directions. On August 30, 1846, Ellen Harmon was united in marriage to Elder James White who had enjoyed a deep experience in the advent movement. Regarding her marriage, she says, “Our hearts were united in the great work, and together we travelled and laboured for the salvation of souls” (White, 1855-1909, vol. 1. p.75).

In the autumn of 1846 Ellen and James White began to observe the Bible Sabbath, and to teach and defend it. Together they travelled, preached and wrote with great zeal and energy for thirty-six years. However, owing to three strokes followed by paralysis, James White’s health failed him and he passed away leaving Mrs. White to complete her mission and to ‘fight the battle’ alone.

Arthur L. White, one of the seven grandchildren of James and Ellen White, summarises the achievements of this great founder of the Adventist Church in the following manner:

“In brief, she was a woman of remarkable spiritual gifts who lived most of her life during the nineteenth century (1827-1915), yet through her writings she is still making a revolutionary impact on millions of people around the world. During her lifetime she wrote more than 5,000 periodical articles and 40 books; but today, including compilations from her 50,000 pages of manuscript, more than 100 titles are available in English. She is the most translated woman


3

writer in the entire history of literature, and the most translated American author of either gender. Her writings cover a broad range of subjects, including religion, education, social relationships, evangelism, prophecy, publishing, nutrition, and management. Her life-changing masterpiece on successful Christian living, Steps to Christ, has been published in more than 140 languages. Seventh-day Adventists believe that Mrs. White was more than a gifted writer; they believe she was appointed by God as a special messenger to draw the world’s attention to the Holy Scriptures and help prepare people for Christ’s Second Advent. From the time she was 17 years old until she died 70 years later, God gave her approximately 2,000 visions and dreams. The visions varied in length from less than a minute to nearly four hours. The knowledge and counsel received through these revelations she wrote out to be shared with others. Thus her special writings are accepted by Seventh-day Adventists as inspired, and their exceptional quality is recognised even by casual readers. The writings of Ellen White are not a substitute for Scripture. They cannot be placed on the same level. The Holy Scriptures stand alone, the unique standard by which her and all other writings must be judged and to which they must be subject” (White, 1855-1868, vol. 1. p. 1).

Statement of Purpose

The unique and outstanding feature of Ellen White’s writings is that they are over 100 years ahead of her time. Her writings contained information not known by the scientists and psychologists of that era and as such, many people have asked, “How could information written so many years ago have value today?” The fact is that many of these principles have stood the test of time and have been verified by science in remarkable ways. This paper makes a humble attempt of comparing some of the writings of Ellen White on mental health with psychology and the health sciences. Concepts of the Mind, Health, Mental Health and Mental Disorder

The mind is a very complex bioelectric supercomputer. The mind has both hardware and

software. The hardware refers to the actual physical components from which a computer is built. The hardware that forms our mental computer is the brain tissue with its billions of neurons. However, the computer cannot function with only the hardware. It must have functional software which is the operating system like Microsoft Windows. This system gets installed during childhood and constantly undergoes modifications throughout life. In general our culture which includes, the language we speak, the God we worship, our beliefs, values, morals, how we play and interact with others are part of this complex operating system. The hardware and software mentioned above are still not enough for a computer to work. It must also have a faultless energy source. The energy source for our brain is the oxygenated blood that brings nutrients and takes away waste. If something interferes with a reliable and consistent blood flow or if the blood itself is unhealthy, then the function of the brain suffers. Thus, a healthy lifestyle is pertinent for a healthy mind (Jennings, 2007, pp. 9, 10).

The World Health Organization states that “Health is a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity” (WHO, 1947, vol. 1, p. 29). From this definition it is very clear that health is a holistic phenomenon which integrates our body, our mind and our social interactions with our fellow men. Some people blame their genes; they say they have inherited bad genes from their parents and that is why they are suffering. Here is what Neil Nedley, in his CD ROM entitled Proof Positive has to say to such people, “The good news is that even though we cannot change our genetics, we can change our lifestyle. Those lifestyle choices can prevent or forestall the development of diseases for which we are genetically predisposed.” Regarding the most common diseases, Dr. Lamont Murdoch of Loma Linda University School of Medicine has put it aptly: “faulty genetics loads the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.”


4

Way back in 1888, Friedrich Nietzsche said, (2000, Thompson) “Health and sickness are not essentially different, as the ancient physicians and some practitioners even today suppose. One must not make of them distinct principles or entities. In fact, there are only differences in degree between these two kinds of existence.”

Despite the fact that there is no universal or comprehensive definition of mental health, people in the health sciences and other helping professions seem to agree that mental health is a positive state in which one is accountable or responsible, displays self-awareness, is self-directive, is reasonably worry free, and can cope with the usual daily tensions. Such individuals function well in society, are accepted within a group, and are generally satisfied with their lives (Shives, 2005).

Menninger (1946, p. 2) says, “Let us define mental health as the adjustment of human beings to the world and to each other with a maximum of effectiveness and happiness. Not just efficiency, or just contentment, or the grace of obeying the rules of the game cheerfully. It is all these together. It is the ability to maintain an even temper, an alert intelligence, socially considerate behaviour, and a happy disposition. This, I think, is a healthy mind.” This definition is important in that it brings into consideration the relationship of the individual and society. In an extended description of individual mental health, Soddy, (1950, p. 72) suggested, among other points, that the healthy mind can meet with ease all normal environmental situations and that the healthy minded person has the capacity to live harmoniously in a changing environment.

“The American Psychiatric Association (APA, 1994) defines mental illness or mental disorder as an illness or syndrome with psychological or behavioural manifestations and/or impairment in functioning due to a social, psychological, genetic, physical/chemical, or biologic disturbance. The disorder is not limited to relations between the person and society. The illness is characterised by symptoms and/or impairment in functioning.”

It has been aptly said by Hinkle (1973, p. 43) that, “to be alive is to be under stress.” Mental disorder, as we understand it today, is essentially the result of the influence of multiple dynamic forces. It includes a wide range of abnormal states of mood, thought, and behaviour, ranging from mild anxiety and tension to severe disorganising psychosis (Kurian, 1981, p. 1). Mental health and mental disorder are like the two sides of a coin. Mental health is the goal to be attained and mental disorder is the problem that needs to be eradicated from the world we live in. Perspectives on Psychological Disorders

A general view of the perspectives on psychological disorders will make the present essay clearer. There are several psychology books that discus these views at great lengths, however, only a summary taken from Feldman (2008, p. 452) has been presented below:

1) Medical perspective: assumes that physiological causes are at the root of psychological disorders.

2) Psychoanalytic perspective: argues that psychological disorders stem from childhood conflicts.

3) Behavioural perspective: assumes that abnormal behaviours are learned responses. 4) Cognitive perspective: assumes that cognitions (people’s thoughts and beliefs) are central to

psychological disorders. 5) Humanistic perspective: emphasises people’s responsibility for their own behaviour and the

need to self-actualise. 6) Socio-cultural perspective: assumes that behaviour is shaped by family, society, and culture.

The picture within the walls of mental hospitals is saddening. Great numbers of the mentally ill still live shut away behind walls by the prejudices and incomprehension’s of society. The efforts of the most advanced psychiatrists to have the mentally ill treated as other sick people, who can be cured, are likely to remain fruitless as long as the irrational fear of “madness” is not conquered.


5

Today the battle for mental health is being fought on many fronts. The psychiatrist has ceased to be merely a “doctor for the insane.” With the help of his colleagues from other disciplines like genetics, biology, medicine, psychology, anthropology and sociology, he now tries to disentangle the multidimensional mental syndromes to bring about relief to the suffering millions. Body and Mind Relationships Mental Health and Mental Disorder Propounded by Ellen White

In some of the statements presented below by Ellen White, I strongly believe that God truly gave her insightful and discerning words of wisdom which she wrote down for the benefit of mankind. She expounds on several areas of the mind and body relationships. She admonishes all by saying that nine tenths of diseases originate in the mind; that in order to have a healthy brain one needs proper nourishment; that disease is greatly aggravated by one’s imagination; that a cheerful, unselfish heart works against the otherwise ruinous effect of anger, discontent, and selfishness; that some people are sick and will remain sick as they lack the willpower to combat disease; and that the development of a sound mind in a sound body is of the greatest importance.

Ellen White talks of a mysterious interrelationship that exists between the body and mind. She says (White, 1855-1909, vol. 3, pp. 485, 486), “Between the mind and the body there is a mysterious and wonderful relation. They react upon each other. To keep the body in a healthy condition to develop its strength, that every part of the living machinery may act harmoniously, should be the first study of our life. To neglect the body is to neglect the mind. It cannot be to the glory of God for His children to have sickly bodies or dwarfed minds.”

Today it is a known fact that the body and mind are closely related. When one is affected in any way, the other sympathises. Psychologists tell us to avoid reading letters when you are having a meal with the view that if there is distressing news in the letter, it would affect the digestive processes. Way back in 1872 Ellen White said something similar (1872, v. 3, p. 184), “A great deal of the sickness which afflicts humanity has its origin in the mind and can only be cured by restoring the mind to health. There are very many more than we imagine who are sick mentally. Heart sickness makes many dyspeptics, for mental trouble has a paralysing influence upon the digestive organs.”

Modern psychiatric problems were referred to as sickness of the mind or abnormal behaviour in the past and this is prevalent everywhere. Literally, the word abnormal means, “away from the norm”. All societies have certain standards of acceptable behaviour. Behaviour that deviates from society’s notion of normal behaviour is often considered to be abnormal. In traditional psychiatric texts, the terms ‘neurosis’ and ‘psychosis’ are commonly used. People suffering from neurotic disorders, by and large, were believed to retain insight into their everyday thoughts and functioning. They could, however, experience intermittent or constant anxiety or depression. Psychosis on the other hand, was a term used to describe disorders such as schizophrenia and manic depression, where the symptoms experienced by the sufferer were not like those that a normal person would experience (Thompson, 2000).

“Nine tenths of the diseases from which men suffer from have their foundation in this area. It may have started as a small problem at home that appears like a little sore, eating up the energy and weakening the body. Guilt caused by sin sometimes undermines the physical condition which leads to instability of the mind” (White, 1885, p. 59).

The state of the mind affects the health of the physical system. If the mind is free and happy, from a consciousness of right doing and a sense of satisfaction in causing happiness to others, it creates a happiness that will react upon the whole system, causing a freer circulation of the blood and a toning up of the entire body. The blessing of God is a healing power, and those who are abundant in benefiting others will realise that wondrous blessing in both heart and life (White, 1890, p. 13).


6

The brain is the central and chief organ of the mind, and it controls the whole body. If the other parts of the human system are to be healthy, the brain must be healthy too. If the brain is to be healthy, then the blood also must be pure. By practising correct and healthy habits of eating and drinking the blood can be kept pure and in turn the brain will also be well nourished (White, 1932, p. 291).

“The influence of the mind on the body, as well as of the body on the mind should be emphasized. The electric power of the brain, promoted by mental activity, vitalizes the whole system, and is thus an invaluable aid in resisting disease. This should be made plain. The power of the will and the importance of self-control, both in the preservation and in the recovery of health, the depressing and even ruinous effect of anger, discontent, selfishness, or impurity, and on the other hand the marvellous life-giving power to be found in cheerfulness, unselfishness, gratitude, should be shown” (White, 1903, p. 197).

Ellen White says, (1932, p. 106) “In journeying I have met many who were really sufferers through their imaginations. They lacked willpower to rise above and combat disease of body and mind; and, therefore, they were held in suffering bondage. Good health, sound minds, and pure hearts are not made of the first importance in households. Many parents do not educate their children for usefulness and duty. They are indulged and petted, until self-denial to them becomes almost an impossibility. They are not taught that to make a success of Christian life, the development of sound minds in sound bodies is of the greatest importance”.

While giving admonitions to ministers, schoolteachers and students Ellen White emphasises the need to exercise all parts of the body and not just the mental faculties. Here is what she says (1855-1909, vol. 3, p. 490), “When the minds of ministers, schoolteachers, and students are continually excited by study, and the body is allowed to be inactive, the nerves of emotion are taxed, while the nerves of motion are inactive. The wear being all upon the mental organs, they become overworked and enfeebled, while the muscles lose their vigour for want of employment. There is no inclination to exercise the muscles by engaging in physical labour, because exertion seems to be irksome.” How true this is when we look at our administrators and teachers who live a sedentary life-style by spending most of their time in their offices and in committees. They hardly spend time out of doors to exercise and give support to the circulatory, respiratory and all the other vital systems of the body.

Ellen White (1905, p. 241) says, “The condition of the mind affects the health to a far greater degree than many realize. . . Grief, anxiety, discontent, remorse, guilt, distrust, all tend to break down the life forces and to invite decay and death. Disease is sometimes produced, and is often greatly aggravated, by the imagination. Many are lifelong invalids who might be well if they only thought so. . . Many die from disease, the cause of which is wholly imaginary. . . In the treatment of the sick, the effect of mental influence should not be overlooked. Rightly used, this influence affords one of the most effective agencies for combating disease.” Mental Health and Mental Disorder Propounded by Psychologists and Psychotherapists

Psychology as a discipline has become a popular field of study in many colleges and universities today. A large number of students graduate with psychology majors. Some of them specialise in Counselling or Clinical Psychology and enter the teaching profession. Others become counsellors and offer their services in educational institutions, industries, and institutions for the handicapped. Those with a strong background in Clinical Psychology could work in general hospitals or in institutions that take care of psychiatric or behavioural problems.

Psychologists and Psychotherapists support the view that “Mental health is a condition which permits the optimal development, physical, intellectual and emotional, of the individual, so far as this is compatible with that of other individuals. A good society is one that allows this development to its members, while at the same time ensuring its own development and being tolerant towards other societies” (Soddy, 1950, p, 72).


7

There are many psychologists and psychiatrists who support the position of Sigmund Freud, who describe belief in God as a “societal neurosis” and call for intellectual understanding to remove the need for such a belief. Others, who identify themselves as neuropsychiatrists, consider mental illness as a result of chemical imbalance in the brain and try to find medicines that would correct the imbalance (Jennings, 2007, p. 11).

Floyd L. Ruch (1948, pp. 176-177) says, “Strong psychological components often are found in such respiratory illnesses as asthma; heart and circulatory disorders as high blood pressure and neuron-circulatory asthenia which is weakness of the nervous and circulatory systems and skin ailments as urticaria. Medical men estimate that about half of all patients going to physicians have illnesses precipitated largely by prolonged emotional disturbance”.

Aspects of Mental Health and Emotional Illnesses by Ellen White compared with Psychologists and Physicians

Anger

Anger is an emotional state that varies in intensity from mild irritation to intense fury and rage. Psychologists tell us that like other emotions, it is accompanied by physiological and biological changes; when you get angry, your heart rate and blood pressure go up, as do the levels of your energy hormones.

Anger can be caused by both external and internal events. You could be angry at a specific person, like a fellow worker or supervisor or it could be an event, like a traffic jam or a cancelled flight. It could also be caused by worrying or brooding about your personal problems. Memories of traumatic or enraging events can also trigger angry feelings.

Psychologists also tell us that some people are more "hot-headed" than others are; they get angry more easily and more intensely than the average person does. There are also those who don't show their anger in loud spectacular ways but are chronically irritable and grumpy. Easily angered people don't always curse and throw things; sometimes they withdraw socially, sulk, or get physically ill.

Here is what Ellen White (1889, pp. 92, 93) had to say about anger. “If we indulge anger, lust, covetousness, hatred, selfishness, or any other sin, we become servants of sin.” “No man can serve two masters" (Matthew 6:24). If we serve sin, we cannot serve Christ. The Christian will feel the promptings of sin, for the flesh lusts against the Spirit; but the Spirit strives against the flesh, keeping up a constant warfare. Here is where Christ's help is needed. Human weakness becomes united to divine strength, and faith exclaims, “Thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:57).”

There are many people in prison who are serving a life-term as their anger led to the murder of their close kin, friends or neighbours. Here is what Ellen White (1977, vol. 2, p. 519) advised regarding violent anger. “The giving way to violent emotions endangers life. Many die under a burst of rage and passion. Many educate themselves to have spasms. These they can prevent if they will, but it requires willpower to overcome a wrong course of action. All this must be a part of the education received in the school, for we are God's property. The sacred temple of the body must be kept pure and uncontaminated, that God's Holy Spirit may dwell therein.” Guilt

Psychologists and Physicians tell us that Guilt is the inability to forgive oneself for a perceived wrongdoing. Perceived wrongdoing means that you believe you have done something wrong. The wrongdoing may or may not have had negative consequences for yourself and/or others. If others were involved, they may or may not still be angry or hurt by the wrongdoing. A perceived wrongdoing may be an action, a thought or a feeling. If the wrongdoing was an action, you probably


8

think of it as a mistake. You feel guilty for the wrongdoing because you cannot forgive yourself for it. You cannot let it go. If you cannot forgive yourself, you will not overcome the guilt.

It is sin that causes guilt and Ellen White (1956, p. 19) tells us that through a close communion with God one can ask for forgiveness of the sins and God will free us from the burden of guilt. Grief

In a BBC presentation, (Jan. 21, 2008) Dr. Trisha Macnair said, Bereavement is an immensely stressful event that can take a huge toll on the body, causing all sorts of physical problems, including exhaustion, uncontrollable crying, sleep disruption, palpitations, shortness of breath, headaches, recurrent infections, high blood pressure, loss of appetite, stomach upsets, hair loss, disruption of the menstrual cycle, irritability, worsening of any chronic condition such as eczema or asthma, and visual and auditory hallucinations.

This statement is well supported by Ellen White (1977, vol. 2, p. 461) when she wrote to a certain brother. She said, “Your wife was the subject of disease and death. Your grief was just as intense as all your other troubles. You hugged the grief to your bosom, you loved to dwell upon it, and you allowed your mind and thoughts to be selfishly occupied with your grief, and as a consequence your health suffered. Then your daughter's death was indeed a sad blow, but others have passed through the same under more trying circumstances. You allowed this affliction to unman you; you dwelt upon it, you talked of it, you aggravated your soul over a matter you could not change or help. It was a sin to take any of these afflictions as you have done. I know whereof I speak. If the mind is permitted to be clouded with grief, the food is not digested and as a result the system is not well nourished.” Ellen White (1977, vol. 2, p. 458) also talks about how the circulatory system is affected by grief and sadness. She said, “Sadness deadens the circulation in the blood vessels and nerves and also retards the action of the liver. It hinders the process of digestion and of nutrition, and has a tendency to dry up the marrow [interior substance] of the whole system”.

Worry and Anxiety

In a study conducted by the National Institute of Mental Health in the US, it was reported that 16% (over 19 million) Americans suffer from anxiety disorders (Nedley, 2005, p. 125). There are several people in the world today who get worried and anxious about performing even normal duties at home, school or at work. Ellen White tells us that anxiety tends to cause sickness and disease. I have personally come across individuals who were not able to organise their duties when they were given multiple tasks that needed to be performed within a specified time. Very often they would get angry, tense and even develop headaches. Ellen White says, (1905, p. 229) “When wrongs have been righted, we may present the needs of the sick to the Lord in calm faith, as His Spirit may indicate. He knows each individual by name and cares for each as if there were not another upon the earth for whom He gave His beloved Son. Because God's love is so great and so unfailing, the sick should be encouraged to trust in Him and be cheerful. To be anxious about themselves tends to cause weakness and disease. If they will rise above depression and gloom, their prospect of recovery will be better; for "the eye of the Lord is upon them" "that hope in His mercy" (Psalm 33:18).”

Psychologists and Psychotherapists tell us that many diseases result from mental depression and this is well supported by Ellen White (1868, vol. 1, p. 702) who says, “A contented mind, a cheerful spirit, is health to the body and strength to the soul. Nothing is so fruitful a cause of disease as depression, gloominess, and sadness.” She also says that “Many of the diseases from which men suffer are the result of mental depression” (White, 1905, p. 241).

A careful study of the above emotions brings to light the fact that they could easily appear in anybody but a lot depends on the individual’s personality and upbringing for the way he or she handles these emotions. With God’s help, all things are possible. Daniel Goleman (2006, p. 83) who


9

is a specialist in Social Intelligence says, “All emotions are social, . . . you can’t separate the cause of an emotion from the world of relationships—our social interactions are what drive our emotions.” Warren Shipton (2007, p. 79) says, “Developing social and emotional skills is part of the rich framework that we acquire through learning. The basic elements of such learning are the ability to understand and reflect on our own emotions and appreciate and respond to the feelings of others. These competencies enable us to work through social and emotional issues.”

Adventist Teachers of Psychology and Mental Health

Need for a Firm Foundation in the Bible to Withstand the Growing Dangers

Adventist teachers of Psychology and related fields do realise the fact that with the advance in technology and especially the internet, we are in an age of information explosion and we need to be careful in the selection of the materials that we use in the classroom. It is very easy for us to divert the tender minds of the students to that which may appear to be very new and interesting but if it is not carefully and prayerfully presented, it may cause more harm to the students than good and this calls for a solid and firm foundation in the Holy Scriptures.

To support the above view, consider the discussions in some psychology books on the values of hypnotism and psychic healing. Ellen White clearly warns physicians and teachers about it and tells us that we should not subject our minds to hypnotists as our minds will become weak and in turn we could be easily controlled by Satan. About this growing false science Ellen White ( 1977, vol. 2, pp. 713, 714 ) gave a warning to a Physician who favoured hypnosis. She said, “I am so weighed down in your case that I must continue to write to you, lest in your blindness you will not see where you need to reform. I am instructed that you are entertaining ideas with which God has forbidden you to deal. I will name these as a species of mind cure. You suppose that you can use this mind cure in your professional work as a physician. In tones of earnest warning the words were spoken: Beware, beware where your feet are placed and your mind is carried. God has not appointed you this work. The theory of mind controlling mind is originated by Satan to introduce himself as the chief worker, to put human philosophy where divine philosophy should be. No man or woman should exercise his or her will to control the senses or reason of another so that the mind of the person is rendered passively subject to the will of the one who is exercising the control. This science may appear to be something beautiful, but it is a science which you are in no case to handle. There is something better for you to engage in than the control of human nature over human nature. I lift the danger signal. The only safe and true mind cure covers much. The physician must educate the people to look from the human to the divine. He who has made man's mind knows precisely what the mind needs.”

Most of the psychologists are well accepted in society but there are certain schools of psychology like the humanist who believe that man should be the measure of all things, with no need for belief in a Supreme Being. We would call such people atheists who are interested in comparing the behaviour of human beings with animals and would stay away from anything spiritual or religious. This throws out our fundamental belief in a Supreme God who created us and the universe, one who shed his precious blood for our sins on Calvary’s cross and the one who has promised us eternal life if we follow the guidelines He has given us in the Holy Scriptures. We need to warn our students of such theories that are gaining ground.

Many of us are intrigued by the scholarly writings of Sigmund Freud, known as the founder of psychoanalysis and a significant figure in the field of Psychology. His influence permeated the educational field in many ways. However, it is to be noted that Freud was an atheist who contended that religion is but an “illusion.” He argued that early man did not understand the material forces of nature and thus personified the forces of nature and became animists. John Dewey and B. F Skinner were both signatories of the infamous Humanist Manifestos which utterly repudiated faith in God. Carl Rogers known for “client-centred” therapy was religious in his early years but later we see that


10

he turned to skepticism and doubted religious principles. Scholars may have their own views but when we, as teachers, present matters pertaining to the field of Psychology and the study of the brain and its functioning, we need to give our Creator due respect and praise. We need to be watchful of the teachings of Humanistic Psychology which is the basis of virtually all modern psychology as it does not support God, our Creator and the Saviour of mankind.

There are other Psychologists like Charles H. Judd (1939, p. 15) who support Darwinian Evolution by saying, “If . . . psychology is to gain a complete understanding of human nature, it must take into account the findings of the science of biology, which traces man’s bodily structures and some of his traits back to remote origins in the lower forms of animal life.” Eugene Linden (1974, p. 41) says, “Darwin has provided the basis for a paradigm that might explain both human psychology and human behaviour in terms of man’s continuity with the rest of nature.” According to Raymond Surburg (1959, p. 184) “A lengthy comparison of the mental powers of man and the lower animals was made by Darwin, who believed that animals showed evidence of imitation, curiosity, imagination, and even of reason. Darwin’s genetic approach was extended to the study of animal, child, and racial psychology by a number of psychologists.” From the above views, it is quite evident that modern Humanistic Psychology is grounded in Darwinism which is totally in opposition to Creationism as presented in the Word of God and accepted by all Adventists around the world. The Integration of Faith and Learning

As Adventist teachers some of us are very conscious about integrating faith and learning in

our schoolrooms. If “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,” (Ps. 111:10) we should never be afraid to incorporate the Biblical perspectives into the educational process. This is to be carried out very diplomatically especially in schools and colleges which have students of varied religious faiths and beliefs. As we commence with our class session it is perfectly alright to invoke the Holy Spirit through prayer to be in our midst and to help and direct us with the discussions. I have done this in my classes and sometimes I even call upon non-Adventists to pray and they are happy to do it. Many of them are even pleased with the thought that the teacher does not support any sort of discrimination in his class.

Next to the study of the Bible, the study of nature is vital for all Adventist teachers. Being a Biology teacher, whenever possible, I take my students on a journey and present to them the vastness of God’s universe, the unfathomable number of stars, planets, and constellations, the multitude of living creatures, the symmetry and perfection in organisms, the marvellous functioning of the human body and a host of other areas that tell us that these things just did not come into being spontaneously or through the course of evolution but was designed by our Creator God.

In all curricular and co-curricular activities in the school or college we need to inculcate in the students Christian beliefs and values. When the students graduate and face the unknown world, they will be sensitive and committed to share the truth which only comes from God. Even after being employed, I have had students from other faiths telling me that they miss the College where they learnt wonderful truths from the Bible and some of them even request you to pray for them. Sometimes I have had the privilege of meeting my non-Adventist graduate’s boss in town and they tell me that the students from your College are so different and so understanding. This kind of a testimony from their boss makes you feel so good and you have this inner satisfaction that you do play an important role in moulding the life of your students.

The training given in our schools and colleges should testify to the fact that “Teachers and students acknowledge that all truth is God’s truth, and every field of study can broaden and deepen their understanding of truth as revealed in Jesus, the Bible, and nature” (Rasi, 1998).

The admonition given by Ellen White (1977, vol. 1. p. 39) is to be taken to heart by all teachers. She says, “Take no glory whatever to yourself. Do not work with a divided mind, trying to serve God and self at the same time. Keep self out of sight. Let your words lead the weary and


11

heavy-laden to Jesus, the compassionate Saviour. Work as seeing Him who is at your right hand, ready to give you strength for service. Your only safety is in entire dependence upon Christ.”

While talking about the qualities of a teacher, Ellen White (1977, vol. 1. p. 14) says, “The habits and principles of a teacher should be considered of even greater importance than his literary qualifications. If he is a sincere Christian, he will feel the necessity of having an equal interest in the physical, mental, moral, and spiritual education of his scholars. In order to exert the right influence, he should have perfect control over himself, and his own heart should be richly imbued with love for his pupils, which will be seen in his looks, words, and acts. He should have firmness of character, and then he can mould the minds of his pupils as well as instruct them in the sciences. The early education of youth generally shapes their characters for life. Those who deal with the young should be very careful to call out the qualities of the mind, that they may better know how to direct its powers so that they may be exercised to the very best account.”

Adventist teachers are sometimes swamped with their work. However, it should be noted that if we place Christ in our classrooms above our educational achievements, we will receive the vitalising force which comes only from the love of Christ. Ellen White (1905 p. 115) so beautifully presents this thought. She says, “The love which Christ diffuses through the whole being is a vitalising power. Every vital part--the brain, the heart, the nerves--it touches with healing. By it the highest energies of the being are aroused to activity. It frees the soul from the guilt and sorrow, the anxiety and care, that crush the life-forces. With it come serenity and composure. It implants in the soul, joy that nothing earthly can destroy--joy in the Holy Spirit--health-giving, life-giving joy.”

Failures in life brings discouragement and pain; nevertheless, as Adventist teachers we should keep in mind that every failure is a stepping stone to success. We should always look to our Master Teacher who brings healing to the broken hearted. It is interesting to note that God's healing power runs all through nature. If a tree is cut down, if a human being is wounded or breaks a bone, nature begins at once to repair the injury. Our bodies are truly “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalms 139:14) for even before the need exists, the healing agencies are alerted and are ready; and as soon as a part is wounded, every energy is bent to the work of reconstruction and restoration. So also it is in the spiritual sphere. Before sin created the need, God had provided the remedy. Every soul that yields to temptation is wounded, bruised, by the adversary; but wherever there is sin, there is the Saviour. It is Christ's work "to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, . . . to set at liberty them that are bruised" (White, 1903 p. 113)

Conclusion

In his well-researched book, Acquired or Inspired?, Don S. McMahon (2005, p.142) presents these important findings which I quote as they are related to this paper:

1. Ellen White did make medical statements that have not been backed by today’s medical research, but these were mainly in the explanations of the lifestyle principles rather than in the lifestyle principles themselves.

2. Because a few lifestyle statements are as yet unproven does not mean all her lifestyle statements should be rejected.

3. It is interesting to note that her earliest writings in Spiritual Gifts are the best source of recommendations for a healthy lifestyle.

4. A large core of accurate lifestyle statements are in close accord with modern thinking. In these she was more than 100 years ahead of her time.

5. When the knowledge of the mid-19th century is taken into consideration, it is impossible to exclude inspiration from Ellen White’s writings. Ellen White’s writings should not be rejected; it is essential they be carefully studied and appreciatively implemented.

In full support of the integration of faith and learning Ellen White says, (1855-1909, vol, 4, p. 417) “The harmonious healthy action of all the powers of body and mind results in happiness; and the more elevated and refined the powers, the more pure and unalloyed the happiness. An aimless


12

life is a living death. The powers of the mind should be exercised upon themes relating to our eternal interests. This will be conducive to health of body and mind.”

Our Saviour’s words, "Come unto Me, . . . and I will give you rest" (Matthew 11:28), are a prescription for the healing of physical, mental, and spiritual ailments. Although men have brought suffering upon themselves by their own misdeeds and wrong actions, He considers them with pity. In Him they may find help. He will do great things for those who trust in Him (White, 1905, p. 115).

A study of the life and writings of Ellen White makes it obvious that her source of information was from God. Most of her admonitions had no scientific support during her lifetime and were not accepted by the medical community; some were in direct contradiction to common medical knowledge and practice of her day. However, as we study her guidelines on diet, exercise, temperance, rest, sunshine, hydrotherapy, and fresh air, we find that most of what she said has been verified scientifically. She has truly given to the world valuable information on mental, physical and spiritual health and invaluable counsel on how we may prepare ourselves not only for this world but for the world to come.

Works Cited

Feldman, Robert S. 2008 Essentials of Understanding Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill International Edition. Goleman, Daniel. 2006 Social Intelligence, The New Science of Human Relationships. Suffolk: Hutchinson,

The Random House Group Ltd.

Hinkle, L. E. (Jr.) 1973 The Concept of “Stress” in the Biological and Social Sciences. Science, Medicine, and

Man, No. 1. Jennings, Timothy R. 2007 Could it be This Simple? A Biblical Model for Healing the Mind. Maryland: Review

and Herald Publishing Association. Judd, Charles H. 1939 Educational Psychology. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co. Kurian, Joy C. 1981 “Culture and Mental Health.” Unpublished thesis: University of Poona. Linden, Eugene 1974 Apes, Men, and Language. New York: Penguin Publishers. McMahon, Don 2005 Acquired or Inspired? Victoria, Australia: Signs Publishing Co. Menninger, Karl. 1946 The Human Mind. New York: Knapf. Nedley, Neil 2005 Depression, The Way Out. Ardmore: Nedley Publishing. Nedley, Neil 1998 “Proof Positive.” Department of Nutrition, Loma Linda University. Nichols, Francis D., Ed.

1953-1957 The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary: Ellen G. White Comments. 7 vols. plus supplement (vol. 7A). Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association.

Rasi, Humberto Feb. 1998 “Foundational Concepts in Seventh-day Adventist Education.” Christ in the

Classroom, Vol. 25, pp. 311-313


13

Ruch, Floyd L. 1948 Psychology and Life. Chicago: Scott, Foresman & Company. Shipton, Warren A. 2007 Clear Minds in Healthy Bodies. Somchay Press, Pak Chong: Institute Press,

Interdisciplinary Institute for Asian and Adventist Studies, Mission College. Shives, L. Reraca. 2005 Basic Concepts of Psychiatric – Mental Health Nursing. Sydney: Lippincott Wiliams &

Ilkins. Soddy, K. 1950 International Health Bulletin. No. 2, Mental Health. Surburg, Raymond 1959 “The Influence of Darwinism,” in Darwin, Evolution, and Creation. Paul Zimmerman,

ed. St. Louis: Concordia. Thompson, Tony & Mathias, Peter (Eds.) 2000 Lyttle’s Mental Health and Disorder. 3rd ed. New York: Harcourt Publishers Ltd.

White, Arthur L. 2000 Ellen White Woman of Vision. Hagerstown: Review and Herald Publishing

Association. p. 1. White, Ellen G. 1855-1909 Testimonies for the Church. 9 vols. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press Publishing

Association. 1897 Healthful Living. Battle Creek, MI: Medical Missionary Board. 1903 Education. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press Publishing Association. 1905 The Ministry of Healing. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press Publishing Association. 1913 Counsels to Parents, Teachers, and Students. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press

Publishing Association. 1923 Counsels on Health. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press Publishing Association. 1930 Messages to Young People. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing

Association. 1932 Medical Ministry. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press Publishing Association. 1952 The Adventist Home. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association. 1949 Temperance. 1949. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press Publishing Association. 1956 Steps to Christ. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press Publishing Association. 1977 Mind, Character, and Personality. 2 vols. Nashville, TN: Southern Publishing

Association. ________.

1994 American Psychiatric Association (APA). A Psychiatric Glossary. 7th ed. Washington, DC:

American Psychiatric Press. ________.

1947 World Health Organization. Chronicle of the World Health Organization, vol. 1. p. 29.

About the Author: Joy Kurian, PhD, is Principal Lecturer at Mission College. At the time of publication, he is also serving as Acting-Dean for the Faculty of Science. His academic specialties include science and anthropology.


14

Measurement of the Support in the Development Stages of an Aspect-Oriented Software Product Line Framework

Germán Harvey Alférez Salinas

Abstract

A performance goal of a software product line (SPL) framework is the support in the development stages. In spite of its importance, previous researches do not formalise a way to measure this goal.

This paper presents an algorithm based on four metrics that can be used to formalise the measurement of the support in the development stages of SPL frameworks. Specifically, this algorithm is applied in an aspect-oriented SPL framework that was presented in a previous research [1].

Introduction

SPL engineering is about exploiting commonalities among a set of systems while managing the variabilities among them in order to achieve systematic reuse goals, improve time to market, and improve product quality.

Aspect-oriented software development (AOSD) is a paradigm that has a direct relationship to SPLs because one of its main objectives is to separate concerns to promote flexibility and configurability; these two goals are also essential when constructing SPLs. Besides, AOSD can improve the way in which software is modularised with the encapsulation of variabilities in aspects.

In a previous research [1], a framework that uses AOSD in order to manage variability from the early stages of the SPL lifecycle and also improves the traceability of variations throughout every phase in the development of SPLs was presented. This framework is enclosed in the Core Asset Development and Product Development activities in product line development proposed by the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) [2]. Besides, it is designed as a process description and recommendation to use specific existing Unified Modelling Language (UML) [3] models with their extension mechanisms.

A problem that was faced while analysing the performance of the proposed framework was the measurement of the support in the development stages because no formal methods had been created at that time. This support needs to be given in any SPL framework in order to facilitate and accelerate the development of SPLs through the support in each one of the framework stages, traceability of variability in every stage, facility to analyse and modularise crosscutting concerns, and reuse flexibility. As a result, the objective of this paper is to present an algorithm to measure the support in the development stages of an aspect-oriented SPL framework [1].

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 gives a short description of the aspect-oriented SPL framework in which the algorithm to measure the support in the development stages of SPL frameworks is applied. Section 3 presents the algorithm to measure the support in the development stages of SPL frameworks. Section 4 describes the SPL of help desks for plant services departments where the proposed algorithm is applied. Section 5 shows the results after applying the algorithm in the SPL of help desks. Finally, conclusions are given in the last section.


15

Aspect-Oriented Framework to Manage Variability in Software Product Lines Fig. 1 shows the two main activities of an aspect-oriented SPL framework [1], Domain Engineering and Application Engineering, and their mapping with the SEI’s activities. Each activity has its own development cycle. The bidirectional rows indicate that it is an interative process and that traceability can be done between any stage and between the two development cycles.

Figure 1. Aspect-Oriented SPL Framework [1]

Domain Engineering is the process of SPL engineering in which the commonality and the variability of the product line are created. Application Engineering is the process of SPL engineering in which the applications of the product line are built by reusing artifacts.

Table 1 describes the development stages of the aspect-oriented SPL framework.

Table 1. Development Stages of the Aspect-Oriented SPL Framework

Activity Development Stage Description

Domain Engineering

Requirements Engineering

Functional and non-functional requirements common to the entire product line are represented through use cases with variation points that can be used to create product-specific requirements employing extensions and extension points.


16

Evolution and Refinement to Analysis

Mapping rules are used to establish relationships between kernel, optional, and variant use cases, and concerns.

Analysis The feature, class, and sequence diagrams are created.

Evolution and Refinement to Design

To facilitate the reuse and understanding of core assets in different products, kernel classes and aspects are grouped in different packages depending on their stereotypes and preserving the relationships that were created in the class diagram at the Domain Analysis phase.

Design The refined class model is created here.

Implementation Software components and aspects are developed for systematic reuse across the product line.

Application Engineering

Requirements Engineering, Evolution and Refinement to Analysis, Analysis, Evolution and Refinement to Design, Design, and Implementation

The product builders instantiate the production plan, recognising the variation points being selected for the given product depending on the variabilities that were discovered and defined as functional and non-functional aspects in every stage of the Domain Engineering activity.

Algorithm to Measure the Support in the Development Stages of SPL Frameworks

The variable SupportInDevelopmentStages in the following expression indicates the measurement of the support in development stages of a SPL framework:

SupportInDevelopmentStages = X(α, β, γ, δ)

It goes from 1 to 3 where 1 indicates low or non-existent support in the development stages and 3 an excellent support in the development stages. X is a function of four metrics: α, the support in each one of the framework stages; β, forward and backward traceability of variability in every stage; γ, facility to analyze and modularise crosscutting concerns; and δ, reuse flexibility. The following paragraphs explain these metrics:

α = Support in each one of the framework stages. In the case of the aspect-oriented SPL framework, these stages are presented in Table 1.

β = Forward and backward traceability of variability in every stage: According to [4], traceability allows the understanding of why a system was built the way it was, and it allows the better consideration of the impact in design modifications.

Traceability is even more important for Domain Engineering where many decisions must be understood to be able to later derive applications from a common architecture and build components for reuse.


17

γ = Facility to analyse and modularise crosscutting concerns: According to [5+, “crosscutting” is how to characterise a concern that spans multiple units of object-oriented modularity - classes and objects. Crosscutting concerns resist modularisation using normal object-oriented constructs, but aspect-oriented programs can modularise crosscutting concerns because “we call a well modularised crosscutting concern an aspect” *6+. In addition, [1] demonstrates that variabilities in SPLs can be effectively encapsulated into aspects.

With the object-oriented approach, crosscutting concerns produce two big problems: scattering and tangling. “Scattering” is when similar code is distributed throughout many program modules. This differs from a component being used by many other components since it involves the risk of misuse at each point and of inconsistencies across all points. Changes to the implementation may require finding and editing all affected code [5].

“Tangling” is when two or more concerns are implemented in the same body of code or component, making it more difficult to understand. Changes to one implementation may cause unintended changes to other tangled concerns [7].

Scattered and tangled code carries out problems such as a weak understanding of the problem, inability to determine how a change in an artifact affects the others, increases the complexity of adding, removing or modifying requirements, and potentially has a high impact in changes–even the smaller changes in requirements can affect a great part of code and design [8].

δ = Reuse flexibility: An important concept related to SPLs is reuse [9]. According to [10], early efforts focused on small-grained reuse of software code. The cost of creation and use of these small-grained assets often outweighed the modest gains. Over the years, reuse technology has evolved to focus on progressively larger-grained assets. Using this approach, reuse can result in remarkable benefits, such as time to market and improved product quality. Fig. 2 shows the reuse evolution, from subroutines to SPLs.

Figure 2. Reuse History: From Ad Hoc to Systematic [11]

Besides, SPLs can maximise the reuse of a wide variety of assets, such as requirements. Moreover, the knowledge and skills of project personnel and the methods used to develop and evolve a system, among other assets, are reusable [12].

The algorithm to measure the support in the development stages of SPL frameworks is given in Fig. 3.

SupportInDevelopmentStagesCalculation(){


18

/*SupportInDevelopmentStages measures the support in the development stages.*/

float SupportInDevelopmentStages = 1;

/*α represents the support in each one of the framework stages.*/

int α = 1;

/*β represents traceability of variability in every stage.*/

int β = 1;

/*γ represents the facility to analyze and modularise crosscutting concerns. */

int γ = 1;

/*δ represents reuse flexibility. */

int δ = 1;

/*SupportInDevelopmentStages is the average of α, β, γ, and δ.*/

float SupportInDevelopmentStages = 1;

/*If the framework supports each one of the framework stages, then α = 3. If the framework supports some framework stages, then α = 2. If the framework supports a few number or no framework stages, then α = 1. */

if (the framework supports each one of the framework stages)

{

α = 3;

}elseif(the framework supports some framework stages){

α = 2;

}else{

α = 1;

}


19

/*If the framework provides an excellent traceability of variability in every stage, then β = 3. If the framework has an average traceability of variability in every stage, then β = 2. If the framework has a poor traceability of variability in every stage, then β = 1.*/

if (the framework provides an excellent traceability of variability in every stage)

{

β = 3;

}elseif(the framework provides an average traceability of variability in every stage){

β = 2;

}else{

β = 1;

}

/* If it is easy to analyse and modularise crosscutting concerns with the framework, then γ = 3. If it is not so easy to analyse and modularise crosscutting concerns with the framework, then γ = 2. If it is difficult to analyse and modularise crosscutting concerns with the framework, then γ = 1.*/

if (it is easy to analyze and modularize crosscutting concerns)

{

γ = 3;

}elseif(it is not so easy to analyse and modularise crosscutting concerns with the framework){

γ = 2;

}else{

γ = 1;

}

/*If the framework supports an excellent reuse flexibility, then δ = 3. If the framework supports an average reuse flexibility, then δ = 2. If the framework does not support reuse flexibility, δ = 1. */

if (the framework supports an excellent reuse flexibility)

{


20

δ = 3;

}elseif(the framework provides an average reuse flexibility){

δ = 2;

}else{

δ = 1;

}

/*The result of X function is assigned to SupportInDevelopmentStages.*/

SupportInDevelopmentStages = X(α, β, γ, δ);

/*Calculation of the four parameters’ average: α, β, γ, δ.*/

float X(int α, int β, int γ, int δ)

{

float result = (α + β + γ + δ) / 4;

return result;

}

}

Figure 3. Algorithm to Calculate the Support in the Development Stages of SPL frameworks

Description of the Case Study

The aspect-oriented SPL framework [1] was applied in a simplified SPL of help desks for plant service departments. The use case diagram for the case study is shown in Fig. 4.


21

Figure 4. Use Case Diagram for the SPL of Help Desks

There are three roles: Director - he/she is the director of the help desk department. He/she only lists requests; Operator – he/she inputs requests and their specific services, lists requests and services, and updates requests and services; and Solicitant - he/she can submit requests using a Web interface and list his/her requests with their respective services. These three actors must log in into the system to do operations over requests and services.

Some products of the product line require the calculation of the operational costs when there is an input request or input service operation.

Besides, some products require concurrency control for the input request and input service operations (this is a non-functional requirement).

On the other hand, some products of the product line measure the performance (this is a non-functional requirement) of the input request, list requests, input service, and list services operations. In order to take this measure, some products calculate the execution time of these operations in milliseconds and others in microseconds. This calculations help to improve the levels of service quality.

Finally, some products notify by e-mail to the solicitant when a new request or service has been input or updated, or to the operator when a solicitant has input a request from the Web interface. These e-mails can be generated in plain text or in HTML format.

Support in the Development Stages’ Results

The algorithm to calculate the support in the development stages (Fig. 3) was applied in the SPL of help desks (section 4). Table 2 shows the results.


22

Table 2. Framework Goal, Metrics, and Results of the Algorithm to Calculate the Support in the Development Stages Applied in a SPL of Help Desks that was Built Using an Aspect-Oriented SPL

Framework

Framework Goal Metrics Results

Support in the development stages

Support in each one of the framework stages 3

3

Traceability of variability in every stage 3

Facility to analyse and modularise crosscutting concerns 3

Reuse flexibility 3

In the case study, the framework supported each one of the development stages by the easy to follow instructions, such as the ones in the Evolution and Refinement to Analysis phase to establish relationships between kernel, optional, and variant use cases, and concerns. As a result, the support in each one of the framework stages is equal to 3 (α = 3).

Besides, the framework provided an excellent traceability support from the very beginning in the construction of the case study. Forward and backward traceability could be easily done through the UML models, conversion rules, and a table of kernel concerns vs. crosscutting concerns with variants. So, traceability of variability in every stage is equal to 3 (β = 3).

Also, it was very easy to analyse and modularise crosscutting concerns because the aspect-oriented framework allows the encapsulation of variability in aspects and as a result the analysis and modularisation was drastically improved, without scattered and tangled code; these problems

were solved with the use of aspects for measuring performance, calculating the operational costs, controlling the concurrency, and notifying by e-mail. As a result, the “facility to analyze and modularize crosscutting concerns” metric is equal to 3 (γ = 3).

In addition, variability is easily implemented and managed using aspects that can be plugged or unplugged from the SPL in order to create new customised products. As a result, reuse flexibility is equal to 3 (δ = 3).

In conclusion, the support in the development stages is equal to 3:

(α + β + γ + δ) / 4 =

(3 + 3 + 3 + 3) / 4 =

3

This result indicates an excellent support in the development stages of the proposed framework when it was applied in a SPL of help desks.

Conclusions

This research presented an algorithm, based on four metrics, to measure the support in the development stages of SPL frameworks, specifically of an aspect-oriented SPL framework [1].


23

The result of the proposed algorithm goes from 1 to 3 where 1 indicates non-existent support in the development stages and 3 an excellent support in the development stages. In this study, the aspect-oriented framework for SPLs got the highest score in the support of development stages.

Finally, this research allows software companies to apply the proposed algorithm in different SPL frameworks and choose the one that offers the best support in the development stages.

Works Cited

[1] Germán Harvey Alférez and Poonphon Suesaowaluk, “An Aspect-Oriented Product Line Framework to Support the Development of Software Product Lines of Web Applications,” Proceedings of the South East Asia Regional Computer Conference 2007 (SEARCC 2007), Thailand. November 18-19, 2007

[2] Paul Clements and Linda Northrop, “Software Product Lines: Practices and Patterns,” Addison-Wesley, 2002.

[3] Object Management Group, Inc., “Unified Modeling Language,” url: http://www.uml.org, [Accessed 8 January 2008]

[4] Michael Schlick and Andreas Hein, “Knowledge Engineering in Software Product Lines,” Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2000), Workshop on Knowledge-Based Systems for Model-Based Engineering, August 22 , 2000, Berlin, Germany.

[5] Xerox Corporation, Palo Alto Research Center, “Frequently Asked Questions about AspectJ,” url: http://www.eclipse.org/aspectj/doc/released/faq.html, [Accessed 16 February 2007].

[6] Gregor Kiczales, et al, “An Overview of AspectJ,” Proceedings of the European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming (ECOOP), 2001. Springer-Verlag, 2000.

[7] Mik Kersten, “AspectJ: The Language and Development Tools,” url: http://www.parc.com/research/projects/aspectj/, [Accessed 2 April 2007].

[8] Siobhán Clarke, et al, “Separating Concerns throughout the Development Lifecycle,” Proceedings of ECOOP '99 Workshop, 1999. Springer-Verlag, 1999.

[9] Linda Northrop, “Reuse that Pays,” Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’01), 2001. IEEE Computer Society, 2002.

[10] John Bergey, Matt Fisher, Brian Gallagher, Lawrence Jones, and Linda Northrop, “Basic Concepts of Product Line Practice for the DoD,” Technical Note CMU/SEI-2000-TN-001, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, 2000.

[11] Marco Sinnema, et al, “COVAMOF: A Framework for Modeling Variability in Software Product Families,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3154/2004, pp. 197-213, 2004

[12] Lisa Brownsword, Paul Clemens, and Ulf Olsson, “Successful Product Line Engineering: A Case Study,” Proceedings of the Software Technology Conference, Salt Lake City, April, 1996.


24

About the Author: At the time of publication, Germán Harvey Alférez Salinas is serving as Lecturer in the Faculty of Engineering and Technology at Montemorelos University, Mexico. Harvey Salinas also taught at Mission College and was Department Head for its CIS programme. At present he also serves as adjunct lecturer for Mission College.


25

The Second Invasion Wann Fanwar Abstract

This paper is a study concerning the impact of Western theology upon Asian Christianity. It questions the long-term impact and the contemporary viability of this enterprise. In the face of seemingly insurmountable odds, we must wonder whether the theology, and by extension, the missiological task of the Church, based upon Western paradigms, is still feasible in Asia. Perhaps, the time has come for the Church in Asia to consider what it means to be both Asian and Christian and to seek ways of making this dual identity a living reality. The Challenge of Asia

When the Missionary Movement made its presence felt in Asia, it coincided with the arrival of Western Imperialism. To many of the tribes of Asia, Christianity was (at that time) no more than a propaganda tool of the colonial powers. With the French came the Roman Catholic faith and with the English came the Church of England. The arrival of other denominations was often greeted with tight controls imposed by the colonialists, in effect creating denominational enclaves that, in one way or another, suited the whims of the colonial masters.1

As Asian nations, one by one, gained their independence (mostly in the 1950s), the colonial masters returned home while the churches stayed. After some fifty years of missions in Asia, what is the state of Christianity in this continent?

To grasp the implication of this question, we must turn to statistics. According to the latest

available figures, Christianity accounts for only about 3% of Asia's population. To compound matters,

there are six countries in Asia which have no meaningful Christian presence.2 This is the only

continent on this planet with such dismal figures. All of this is true despite the extraordinary efforts

that the Church has played in the lives of nearly every country in Asia (this includes educational,

medical, and social endeavours).3

Another perspective of this state of affairs comes to light in a simple equation: only the Philippines can honestly call itself a Christian nation.4 Even there, the picture is complicated by the strong Islamic presence in the southern Philippines.

Furthermore, Asia is the only continent where all the world's leading religions (Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Shintoism, and Taoism) are deeply entrenched. Not only have these religions dug deep roots in Asia, they have essentially defined ethnic belongingness in Asia. Consequently, Central and West Asia are predominantly Islamic; South Asia is mainly Hindu; while East and Southeast Asia are primarily Buddhist. Certain Asian countries, such as India and Malaysia, are comprised of substantial segments of one or more of these religions.

To postulate that Christian missions in Asia faces challenges unknown anywhere else in the world is truly an understatement. This picture begs a question, "Can Asia ever be Christianised?" I

1 In India for example, the Baptists were assigned Naga territory, while the Presbyterians were given Khasi lands. In Indo-China, the French controlled Protestant proselytisation, while, in Singapore, the Church of England dominated the scene. These movements can be traced wherever the colonialists went. 2 China’s Christian population comprises only 5.7% of its population. By comparison, USA is 85%, Brazil is 93%, and Russia is 60% Christian (Ash, 1997: 160-161). The countries of Afghanistan, Bhutan, Nepal, North Yemen, South Yemen, and Sikkim have less than 0.2% Christians (Barrett, 1982: 3, 612). 3 The number of Christian institutions (educational and medical) in Asia is disproportionate to the number of

believers. 4 Christianity makes up 93% of the population of the country (Ash, 1997: 160-161).


26

suspect that the answer to the question depends largely on our assumptions about Christian theology. Until recent times, such assumptions have been driven by western paradigms of theology and missions. These paradigms created an approach to other faiths and cultures based on a superiority complex which dictated a sense of "we are here to enlighten you who live in darkness." Non-Christian peoples were viewed in two very simple ways: as unsaved pagans who lived in total darkness or as targets for evangelistic goals and ambitions. Without trying to sound overly crass, little thought was given to the deeply-rooted religious and cultural beliefs that already existed in Asia. This was a rather grave miscalculation by the movers of the so-called Missionary Movement.

However, a bigger question must be asked today, "Where does the Church go from here?" This essay is an attempt to reflect on these issues and to try to answer this all important question. In the preceding paragraphs, I have examined the state of affairs of Christian presence in Asia. Here, I will attempt to delve deeper into another issue that is becoming a pattern at this juncture in time. The Second Wave

While the old days of western missionaries may have moved on, there is a new wave of such missionaries all over Asia. This second wave (invasion) is driven by very different motives. Gone are the days of western imperialism and sense of superiority. Today, we live in a global world where Asia is a dominant player in economics and politics. Western powers are no longer the only members of the UN Security Council. The media constantly trumpets the economic successes of Asian giants China and India. While China exports practically everything from computers to clothing, India is a big time player in the IT industry. By every account, this dominance of the two giants is set to explode further.5

While all of this is going on in the world stage, the Church in Asia has quietly gone about with its task in ways still reminiscent of the colonial days. Western missionaries who come to Asia these days are of a different breed, but their mentality is essentially unchanged. They are still here to tell the poor natives about Jesus. That basic drive has not changed. The style has but the content remains the same. Nevertheless, there is a singular difference between this new brand of missions and the old one. Whereas, the first wave of western Christian missionaries came to Asia during the height of Christian revivalism and growth in the western world, this new wave comes at a time when Christianity is losing ground in its home bases.6 Phrases such as, "de-Christianisation of Europe”, ought to send shockwaves through the world of Christian missions. We must honestly wonder whether the new wave of missionaries really bring with them recipes for success or recipes of failed experiments.

It may seem to some that to raise such concerns is sacrilege and that western Christian missions is both essential and inevitable. However, Asian Christians must ask the difficult questions. We must do this for one reason. While we may applaud ourselves for all we are worth, the reality is that Christianity in Asia is spectacularly unsuccessful. Can this new wave of missionaries with their secularised lifestyles really accomplish what must be done?

I think we can all agree that, at the end of the day, it is the completion of the gospel commission in Asia, the final bastion of resistance to the gospel, which is paramount. Having said that, we must also wonder, whether the basic paradigms of western Christianity are capable of truly making that happen. Can the exclusivity of western Christianity really do what it has not been able to do up to now? Are western theology and concept of missions really feasible in Asia? Is there, or can there be, a truly Asian alternative?

5 Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the UK recently admitted that “soon 25 per cent of the world's output could come from just two countries: China and India” (Brown, 2007). 6 It is estimated that net defections from Christianity in Europe and North America are running at 1.8 million a

year. If only church members are considered the losses are higher, while the losses of church attenders is even greater, 6000 a day and 7,600 every day respectively (Barrett, 1982: 7).


27

I hasten to add that glib answers to these reflections may prove more damaging to the cause of God in Asia than any accidental success or failure we may experience. In writing this essay, I intend to be provocative without (hopefully) being offensive. However, my real intention is to explore a truly Asian alternative to Christian missions. This endeavour is driven by a firm conviction that such a task must be done. Views about Salvation

In the subsequent discussion, I will attempt to further elucidate my thinking and I invite careful and reflective readership to join me in this odyssey. In order to build a truly Asian theology, I would like to begin by examining the various views on salvation. We can group views on salvation into three schools of thought.7 While there are overlaps between the schools, there is also decided difference.

On one extreme end of the spectrum is the view that a person can only be saved through a personal knowledge of Jesus Christ. This view is often labelled as the restrictivist school. Essentially, this means that only Christians can be saved. Therefore, people from other religious persuasions must become Christians or they will be lost. The view finds its support in passages like John 14:6: "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" and Acts 4:12: “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which they must be saved.” Such words are taken to mean that the gospel is rather exclusive and only its adherers may receive salvation.

On the opposite end of the scale is the view that all religions are pathways to God and that all people can potentially be saved without becoming explicit Christians. This view finds its appeal in passages like John 8:12: "I am the light of the world." It argues that all light comes from Christ and, therefore, all religions point back to him. This school of thought is called the pluralist view. Basic to this view is the unwillingness to limit salvation to only the Christian gospel as this would consign the majority of the people of the world to damnation.

Somewhere in between the restrictivist-pluralist polarity is the school of thought named inclusivist. This school maintains that the way people are saved lies somewhere between these opposing poles. Throughout the Bible we encounter people who were directly connected to God without any explicit connection to God's people (whether Israel in the Old Testament or the Church in the New Testament). Proponents of this view argue that the Bible presents one primary path to God, but that God is not limited by this path alone. The question of how a person is actually saved lies entirely within the purview of God and his ways, which are totally inscrutable (see Isaiah 55:8-9).

Whatever our personal presuppositions, we cannot dismiss one view and subscribe to another simply because it fits with our mindset better. An honest appraisal of all the options is necessary, in order to arrive at the most biblical and rational conclusion.

If we wish to construct an Asian theology, we must first examine our salvific presuppositions. The traditional, western assumption belongs to the restrictivist school of thought. The willingness of this school to consign millions to hell for lack of knowledge is highly questionable. Additionally, it posits an unbelievable burden upon the Church in Asia which, if it followed only this paradigm, is doomed to failure and unwittingly becomes a cause for the millions of Asians ending up in hell. Yet, to become totally pluralist removes any need to obey the gospel commission (Matthew 28:18-20) and allows people into heaven without any conditions. Such extremism is equally unacceptable.

7 The most helpful treatment of the subject is Dennis L. Okholm and Timothy R. Philips, eds., 1996, Four Views

on Salvation in a Pluralistic World.


28

The Middle Path of Missions

My approach, therefore, must follow the middle path, which in itself is the Asian way. I will begin my theological construct at this point. Before we are in a position to articulate a theology of salvation, we must first aspire to know God. I say 'aspire' because I believe that knowing God in all reality is impossible. However, we have been provided snippets of information about his nature and character in the Scriptures. It must be noted that God is not presented in the Bible in some propositional manner (as western theology is prone to do).8 Rather, God is seen through stories and vignettes about his dealings with humanity.

What this means is, that whatever we think we know about God, it is partial knowledge at best. To put this in another way, most church-going people tend to see God as inhabiting a small box, one that is predictable and, perchance, controllable. Effectually, we would like to control God. Such a God is no more than a figment of our imagination; a kind of comic book character in the mould of Santa Claus or Superman. He exists for our benefit; He lives at our beck and call; he exists only because we say so. Therefore, if some say (as Nietszche did) that God is dead, then He is.

Such a view of God belittles the very word itself. If God is truly God, He must transcend our conceptualisations and imaginations. The polemics of Isaiah the prophet bear this out.9 Moreover, God, by definition, is unexplainable. To claim that we can explain him is to box him up in a small container that we then control. God has to remain, by nature, character, and act, far bigger than any box we can place Him in.

Therefore, when we speak about salvation, we are really conversing about God's activity, which I believe is above scrutiny. It is true that the Bible has provided information about our salvation. This fact is not in dispute. Nevertheless, we must ask ourselves whether this fact is the total picture.

Let us examine the biblical evidence. The Bible clearly portrays the primary means of salvation as God working out his salvific purposes through His people: Israel and the Church. However, it is equally evident that salvation did come to others outside of this parameter. The entire antediluvian race existed outside this parameter, yet there were people there (Enoch, Methuselah, etc.) who were clearly accepted by God. In subsequent periods we meet the likes of Melchizedek (God's high priest in Salem), Jethro (God's priest in Midian and Moses' father-in-law), and Balaam (God's prophet in Babylon).

Evidence indicates that the Amorites (a Canaanite tribe) may have worshipped Yahweh. The evidence also indicates that Abraham acknowledged Melchizedek as God's high priest (see Genesis 14), while Moses was obviously schooled in the knowledge of Yahweh by Jethro. As we move further into Old Testament history, we find God sending prophets (Jonah and Nahum) to the Assyrians in an attempt to save them.

Even in the New Testament we meet Gentiles, like the unnamed centurion and Cornelius, who were already God's people before they became Christians. The initial success of the Church came about as a result of the mass response of so-called 'God-fearers'. In Romans 1, Paul asserts that people could have known God from nature without any scriptural assistance (was Paul propagating salvation through general revelation?).

Ultimately, we must come to terms with Zechariah 13 where we encounter the Messiah telling people in his kingdom about the wounds he had received in the 'house of his friends'. These people are in the messianic kingdom without any explicit knowledge of the Messiah. We must also contend with John 10 and Jesus' words that he has other sheep which do not belong to the same flock.

8 The overdependence on categorisation of theological reality is more a reflection of Aristotelian systematics

than biblical thought. 9 See Isaiah 44:6-23; 46: 5-13; and 55:6-13.


29

At the very least, this data should caution us against pretending that we know everything about God's salvific work. Perhaps, the only thing we can say with certainty is that God has a primary method but he is not limited to that method. We can also say that we have no further knowledge about any other method God may be employing. We cannot assume that the absence of further knowledge is equivalent to the absence of other methodologies.

What I am calling for is the willingness to admit that God ultimately controls the issue of salvation; not us. As to who will be in heaven, only God knows! Such recognition should humble us and remove the evangelistic arrogance that so often pervades the Church's efforts in this world.

Having examined the primary views about salvation and, by default, about God's salvific work, we can now return to the task of how to do theology in Asia. Even the most casual perusal of Asian theologians unveils the sense of scepticism that pervades their works. This scepticism is directed at western theological paradigms. Perhaps, we should begin by outlining the basics of western theology.

Arguably, western theology has been unduly influenced by Greek philosophical paradigms. Nowhere is this more evident than in the compartmentalisation of truth. Taking its cue from Greek and western philosophy, the Christian theological enterprise in the west became totally propositional. Biblical truth is categorised into specific areas with appropriate labels attached to them. Therefore, we speak about theology, christology, soteriology, and so on and so forth.

While this methodology has its merits, it fails on three significant counts. First, it ignores the simple fact that God did not communicate himself in this manner. Scripture is a collage of materials – legal, narrative, poetic, prophetic, wisdom, historical, and epistolary. Divine communication is provided in the form of songs or prayers or parables rather than neat propositions. Second, the methodology calls upon professional practitioners to re-categorise biblical texts to fit certain labels, often at the risk of text-manipulation. The task often seems out of reach for the rank and file believer. Perhaps, the greatest failure of the propositional approach to the Bible is its imposition of a method of reading that is contrary to what the text itself supplies. A case in point is this: whereas the biblical text is predominantly story, western theology reads the Bible as concepts. To put it another way, when God wanted to communicate 'grace', he did not so much explain or define the concept as tell a story about grace.

The sceptical stance of Asian theologians is well-founded.10 This is why we encounter a different approach (or shall we say approaches) in Asian Christianity. Asian theologians would generally agree that theology is at best contingent. They would prefer to speak of theologies rather than theology per se. They recognise that God has to be re-interpreted in every cultural setting. They argue that western Christianity itself is the product of such cultural re-interpretation. They press home the argument that the imposition of this western form of Christianity is a major contributing factor in the distinct lack of success of the gospel in Asia.

To digress somewhat, conversion to the Christian faith often leads to marginalisation and cultural dislocation in Asia, even though Asian cultural values are closer to the Bible than to West. Since the established religions of Asia are adverse to mass response to the gospel, such marginalisation is inevitable. However, much of this has happened due to the Church itself. In

10

J Patmury of India speaks about the connection between Church theology and Imperial patronage and calls for the reversal of this dominant theology. The Veiled critique is quite evident (95: 378-380). Yong-bock Kim of Korea is more forthright in his critique of western theology. He contends that “the Christianity brought by the Western missions to the Asian people is a colonial and imperial religion” (2005: 24). He laments the continuing desire of globalised Western Christianity, especially the fundamentalist forms of it, to create a global Christendom (2005: 18). He argues that the “historical Jesus is a Western construct” but that Jesus is neither Western nor modern. He calls upon Asian Christians “to excavate Jesus the Asian who has been buried in the history of Asia” (2005: 27, 34). The scepticism about western theology is now also being expressed by some western theologians. Kenan B Osborne admits the inability of “Euro-American Christian scholars” to think outside the box on the subject of salvation and he calls upon Asian scholars to rethink this issue so as to make it relevant and workable in Asia today (2007: 98).


30

insisting upon the western cultural baggage of the missionaries, and in equating this baggage with 'truth', the Church merely produced a xeroxed copy of western Christianity. This is evident on many levels: liturgical issues, music in the Church, name changes among converts, theological paradigms, and cultural changes. It is undoubted that most Asian Christians are highly westernised and truly feel more at home in Christian lands than in their own homelands. This may partially explain the large exodus of Asian Christians to so-called Christian countries.

The form of the gospel that came to Asia during the great Missionary Movement came with much cultural baggage. Those early missionaries brought their way of life with them and unwittingly confused that with the gospel. To this day, this particular confusion exists in Asian Christianity.

Some aspects of this phenomenon are hilarious, while others are seriously damaging the cause of the Church. Instances where the new believers changed their eating habits can be brushed off lightly. However, changes in name patterns and liturgical ideas have had a lasting impact. In many Asian countries it is still fashionable to add a Christian name to a person's native name regardless of how discordant that may sound. In most countries, Christians still worship with piano and organ at the expense of indigenous instruments like tabla, harmonium, zither, and a variety of others. Asian Christians even sing translated western hymns, as if this brought them closer to the truth.

What all of this amounts to, is a serious form of cultural dislocation. This dislocation is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it makes Christians misfits in their own native societies. On the other hand, it attracts Christians to the so-called homelands of Christianity.

What does all of this mean? I am convinced that, at the very least, it means the gospel must become indigenised to Asia. Otherwise it will always remain a marginal force.

My interest has to do with the reversal of this trend. With this in mind, I am convinced that only when our paradigm for doing theology has changed will there be any meaningful change in the Church. Doing theology in Asia means that we must take contextual methodologies seriously. A basic premise of this approach is the idea that theology must always remain contingent. The classic approach of the western church is to attempt to dogmatise the gospel. Frequently, this means that there is only one acceptable theology, the Church's. Any deviation is treated with derision, at best, or rejection, at worst. To deviate from the Church's stated position could incur the full wrath of the ecclesiastical order.11 Genuine thought is cowed into submission and God is reduced into a little explainable box.

Such a reductionist approach surely cannot work in Asia, as evidenced in the statistics cited earlier. The sheer complexity of Asia demands an approach that is more open to this diversity. Perhaps, as many Asian theologians maintain, we ought to think of 'theologies' rather than ‘theology’. This is not a denial of truth. Rather it is an acceptance of the multiplex nature of truth itself. God's inscrutability, as expressed in such passages as Isaiah 55:8-9, clues us to the need to utilise another paradigm, one different from the dogmatic approach of western theology.

This paradigm shift recognises that truth is perceived in a relative manner. Biblical truth is a dynamic and living concept (see Hebrews 4:12). As such, it can neither be easily encapsulated in a few statements of faith nor be given a formulaic expression. Our learning of truth will inevitably be driven by our circumstances. In other words, truth is for our perceptions, and our perceptions will always be relative. This is not to say that there is no absolute truth, but that truth is only available to our perception. It is not something that stands apart from our consciousness.

A contextual approach to doing theology has an inbuilt respect for where people are at. It views the gospel as a partner in the scheme of life rather than its competitor. It offers a gentler, more Christ-like version of the gospel. The confrontational approach often associated with past methods is replaced with more adaptable methods. It seems to me that such an approach will produce better long-term results.

11

The irony is that even Protestants who arose from a ‘protest’ against such ecclesiastical abuse have themselves become adept at employing the same leverage.


31

Traditionally, following the classic western evangelistic paradigm, converts are drawn to Christianity through a process of brow-eating. An evangelist and his team would enter a community, set up some meetings, preach a series of sermons attempting to prove the validity of the gospel, and then challenge the attendees to accept Jesus. All this is accomplished with a great deal of fanfare. Once the meetings are over, the evangelist leaves for new hunting grounds, while some poor, underpaid local pastor, or unpaid lay person, is left to try and nurture the new group of believers. Sometimes there is success, at other times there is none. The fall-out rate can also be very high as many of these new converts may return to their former ways. Moreover, many of these new believers have to take the ‘plunge’ all on their own, with little or no support. Even worse, at times they may have to face up to overwhelming opposition from family or society. Such an approach leaves these new converts in a perpetual state of struggle.

It appears to me, that the vast sums of money expended in such endeavours, is simply bad business. My simple opinion is that Jesus’ methodology is probably preferable. Missions, one that involves a live-in experience and has the capability to make the gospel an indigenous experience, is the most viable option for the Church. People need the gospel but they also need to retain their connectedness to life as they know it. They should be able to know the ‘Bread of life’ while eating rice.

Perhaps an analogy from food will help. In different countries people use different staple foods. In some countries it is bread, in others it is pasta; in some it is potato or cassava, while in most of Asia it is rice. These foods look different and are prepared differently. However, all of them provide the same basic nutrient; they are sources of carbohydrate. Carbohydrate is essential to life but it assumes many forms. There is no correct source of carbohydrate. Yet, the carbohydrate itself remains unchanged. The work of the Church is analogous to this. Jesus is the same, and He will always be the same. The question is, “How do we make Him palatable to a particular culture?”

The hit and run evangelistic methods of the past have to be replaced by contextual methodologies which are capable of producing a recognisable Christ wherever the gospel goes. To return to the food analogy, rice eaters should recognise him as their rice. They should not have to learn to eat bread in order to know him. Because of this, it is impossible to speak of a single formula of missions. Each missiological enterprise must discover its own methodology. This essay is a call for the Church to move away from its dependence upon the traditional model of missions towards models that are more permanent; models that can create Christians who are still truly Asian. Theological reflection must also follow suit. Perhaps, when we are willing to do this, we may also be able to change the trend in Asia and turn Christianity into a truly dominant faith in this continent.

Works Cited Ash, Russell 1997 The Top 10 of Everything. New York: DK Publishing, Inc. Barrett, David B., editor 1982 World Christian Encyclopedia. Nairobi: Oxford University Press. Gordon, Brown 2007 “Brown speech in full.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6987515.stm

Access Date: 26 June 2008. Okholm, Dennis L., and Timothy R, Phillips, editors 1995, 1996 Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Osborne, Kenan B. 2007 “Today’s Task for an Asian Theologian.” Quest 5: 89-106. Kim, Yong-bock 2005 “Asians Meet Jesus the Asian: A Historical Reflection.” Quest 4: 17-40.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6987515.stm


32

Patmury, J. 1995 “Echoing a Muted Cry: The Task of Asian Theology.” Asia Journal of Theology 9: 371-

380. About the Author: Wann Fanwar, PhD, is a Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Religious Studies, Mission College. He is also the Director of the Interdisciplinary Institute for Adventist and Asian Studies.


33

On the Pursuit of Wisdom and Wilful Ignorance Warren A. Shipton Abstract

The desire of humanity to understand the universe has been evident from the dawn of historical

records. Many worldviews include the concepts of both a natural world and an unseen realm in a

cohesive framework. The Greek worldview contained these elements and exerted an influence on

Christian thought until the Protestant Reformation. However, this movement was soon followed by the

development of an empirical approach to knowing. In practice this meant that human reason backed by

experimentation began to assert itself over divine revelation leading finally to the search for a unified

worldview in the absence of an unseen realm. These ideas prevailed into the modern era, but a reaction

against the concept that the universe operated as a machine now has led to different ways of thinking.

For example, in the postmodernist way of understanding, objective truth does not exist. In this way of

thinking, reason and the concept of God are both rejected.

Reformation theology gave a unified view of knowledge which held that mankind could reason

about religious ideas, historical details and the cosmos: faith was connected to reason. Modern science

has rejected the need for the unseen realm leaving Christians to choose between accepting the theories

of science and thus admitting that the Bible contains many mistakes and is full of allegorical stories, or

maintaining that the Bible is God’s divine revelation. The former option commonly has been chosen

leading to a collapse of Christian emphasis in many universities whose founders established them on a

Christian basis. Some Christian universities maintain a meaningful presence by emphasising a unified worldview

based on the sureties of the Bible and supported by a vibrant personal experience. Their strength resides in reasserting the significance of character development and a commitment by faculty and staff to the betterment of society. Introduction

The ancient Greeks are thought to have been the first to develop systematic knowledge of the world about them. European science is considered to have its roots among the Greek philosophers of the 6th and 5th centuries B.C. The later period was a ‘golden century’ which ended with the death of Socrates (Sarton 1981, p. 386). He is credited with the dialectic method of enquiry. This involved the formulation of questions to resolve claims and problems and to reveal inconsistencies in arguments. This speculative process ostensibly led to the establishment of truth (Cooper, 1981, pp. 167, 168). Aristotle, in the 4th century B.C., moved beyond the emphasis on speculation and made accurate observations in a disciplined manner and subjected his observations to critical analysis based on reason (New Encyclopaedia Britannica 1983, p. 367). He conceived the world as a unified physical system governed by laws and operating for a purpose. The existence of the physical realm depended, in his view, on the existence of a transcendent God (Feldman 1987, p. 410). Little progress was made beyond these initial advances by other people groups for around a millennium, for all the great names in science until the 7th century A.D. were still Greek (Sarton 1981, p. 386).


34

It is an interesting observation that modern science was born within the framework of Christianity and not from other belief systems. The early modern scientists believed that the universe was made by a reasonable God and that through the exercise of reason they could understand it (Schaeffer 1990a, pp. 326, 332). For them the ultimate source of knowledge and wisdom in the universe came from God the Creator (Prov. 8:22, 23; John 1:1-4, 14). They believed that we live in an open system subject to reordering by God rather than in a closed system regulated by natural laws and chance events. For them this meant there was objective reality and they believed that humans were made for a purpose. The logical order noted in the physical world corresponded in their minds with the record of Scripture. Furthermore, a standard could also be found in the area of values and morals (Decalogue), which represents God’s communication to all people (Schaeffer 1990a, pp. 332-341).

The apostle Peter urged all who followed in the centuries after he wrote to keep the nature of God’s communications foremost. He warned that individuals would arise who would doubt the reality of a personal, infinite God who created mankind, who would scoff at the idea of judgment through the Flood, and who would act as though there were no moral guidelines. He urged all to accept the reality of the Fall and the salvation that Jesus offered (2 Peter 3:2-9). In other words, there is a unified framework of essential knowledge and individuals can live a fulfilling Christian life by following God’s word. Unified worldview

Different cultures and groups within cultures have promoted their particular worldview. These worldviews commonly possessed a religious element which dealt with salvation and an after life. Thus people groups attempted to link the seen with the unseen. For example, by Greek times mankind held that the heavenly (other-worldly) domain was connected with the physical world (natural) domain in a cohesive body of ideas (Alexander 2002, p. 74; Schaeffer 1990b, pp. 268, 269).

The same pattern, but using a different structure, was observed in Christian circles. A unified body of understandings joined the other-worldly and worldly domains of knowledge. Initially it was held that things connected with the heavenly domain were holy, remote, but yet important. The natural world was considered, on the other hand, of much lesser significance. The balance between the two domains changed in Christian circles in the Renaissance period (14th to 17th centuries) where things in the natural world were given greater emphasis on account of an appreciation that they were created by God. Hence, beauty was recognised and an increased interest was shown in human activities and needs. Christians understood that God created the whole person and redeems the whole person (Schaeffer 1990b, pp. 210-216, 223, 224).

Western culture developed around mixed understandings of the Christian worldview, Greek rationalism and pagan religions. This began to change during the Renaissance, Reformation and Enlightenment periods, the period of scientific materialism and beyond. During the Renaissance (14 th to 17th centuries) learning from classical sources (Greek and Arabic) was revived but thought leaders began to turn their attention to empirical evidence rather than received wisdom and thus they highlighted the genius of mankind (Veith 1994, pp. 31, 32).

The Protestant Reformation (16th century) considered that the Scriptures were the final authority, leaving no place for an unfallen intellect with its ability to autonomously determine truth. It also left no place for mankind to participate in the work of salvation. Man’s autonomy was taken away and given back to God – the Scripture alone and faith alone were the watchwords. Mankind understood, on the basis of Scripture, aspects of the nature of God and of man and how both were connected to nature in a unified body of knowledge. Humanity again understood that God had created humans in His image and had rescued them from eternal destruction through the gift of Jesus Christ. The Reformation also emphasized that God created out of nothing and that the infinite, Creator God was separate from


35

His creation. Humans, being created in God’s image, were made for communication with God which set them apart from the animal kingdom (Schaeffer 1990b, pp. 210-222). The Reformation also repudiated an egocentric relationship with God to re-establish a theocentric view of love, a love where God gives to mankind (Nygren 1982, pp. 681-687).

Reason was given the primacy during the period of Enlightenment (beginning in the 17th century). This meant that, for some, the Bible was rejected as the source of true knowledge. For these there were no limits to the accomplishments of human reason. The French Revolution was the highlight of this period where the goddess of Reason was installed in Notre Dame Cathedral. The Festival of Reason in 1793 was the “symbolic climax” to the de-Christianisation movement. The cult of Reason was “an explicit religion of man.” All the churches in Paris were consecrated to reason (Hales 1960, pp. 16, 43; Kennedy 1989, p. 343; Soboul 1974, p. 345; Veith 1994, pp. 27, 33).

With the elevation of reason, the modern age had begun and increasingly thinkers were unwilling to include the idea of an unseen realm in their pursuit of a unified worldview. Some solved the problem by choosing a distant God who they believed had left the universe to run without interference (deists). Others entertained the idea that the unseen deity had a very minor role (Veith 1994, p. 33; Roth 1998, pp. 343-344). This unwillingness to give God a meaningful role was rooted in the presuppositions that modern mankind had embraced, which were driven by the scientific enterprise. In fact, those who embraced and continue to embrace such “modern” thoughts are unwilling to admit that an infinite-personal God exists and created man in His image in a singular act (Schaeffer 1990a, pp. 322-326). It was not long before the post-modern era commenced. Now we find that theories underpinning the modern era have been rejected, the intellect has been replaced by the will, reason by emotion, and morality by an appeal to the relative (Veith 1994, pp. 28, 29).

The history of Western thought commenced with a resurgence of Greek ideas in Christian lands, the emergence of empirical methods altered its course and it has finally led, at least in some sections of society, to a rejection of both rational and empirical methods of knowing truth. In fact, it is held by some that there is no such thing as truth, as we will discover in the next section. Ways of Athens beguiled the world and then …

The emergence of institutions we consider as universities commenced in Constantinople in 849 and in Italy, Paris and England in the late 11th and 12th centuries. The methods the universities adopted early in their existence derived from the methods of the ancient philosophers, particularly Aristotle and the mathematicians. Here the question and dialectics (construction of a thesis, an antithesis and then achieving synthesis) were used. The central ideas promoted in universities were that truth needed to be pursued single-mindedly by questioning and the use of a rigorous analytical approach. This would ensure self-correction of any inadequacies and deliver satisfying conclusions. Hence, an attempt at detached objectivity marked the emerging universities (Haskins 1972, pp. 2-25; O’Malley 2004, pp. 94, 100-102).

The curious thing is that modern science commenced from a platform of belief in a Creator God who had made a universe which was objectively real. The pursuit of knowledge in the arts and sciences initially was seen as a religious activity, even an act of worship and an attempt to repair some of the damage which occurred as a result of the Fall when mankind lost his dominion over nature. The Creator was seen as reasonable and thus mankind was considered capable of discovering something about the reasonable universe by the use of reason. In other words, the observer was made by the Creator God to understand the handiwork of his Maker. It was this very emphasis on creation and the Creator that made modern science possible as a derivative of Medieval theology and this stands in contrast to the


36

fate of scientific endeavours in those cultures which did not hold to the idea of a divine creation (Alexander 2002, pp. 78-85; Schaeffer 1990b, pp. 225-227).

It was soon shown by early investigators in the emerging scientific community that Greek ideas about the physical world were unsatisfactory and this led to an unprecedented level of questioning in all areas of academic endeavour. Faith in Athens (human culture – O’Malley 2004, p. 4) was crumbling (commencing with Copernicus in the sixteenth century). Furthermore, the reticence held by many in the ancient world to explore nature was cast aside. Francis Bacon was foremost in advocating “unroll*ing+ the volume of nature” through experimentation, through the activities of the observer. The idea of unrestricted investigation led to a gradual crumbling of faith in the Bible (eighteenth century) after universities were criticized as places encouraging bigotry, superstition and tyranny and of being the breeding ground for pedants (Alexander 2002, pp. 82-100; O’Malley 2004, pp. 116, 120, 121). The demise of the authority of the Bible has been documented rather extensively for selected American universities around the late nineteenth to mid twentieth centuries. There was a radical departure from the position that ‘truth had spiritual, moral, and cognitive dimensions” to one where true knowledge was considered to reside in the domain of science (Reuben 1996, p. 2). Just as the nineteenth century was about to be born, the notion of freedom became prominent, as articulated in the French Revolution. Among liberal thinkers, the idea of an unseen domain and the concept of redemption were abandoned in an attempt to find universal values. The individual was finally placed at the centre of the universe. The concept of a supernatural God was no longer considered necessary in important scientific circles as empirical investigations continued to sweep mysteries aside. Indeed, Charles Darwin provided a tantalising solution to the puzzle of origins which allowed God to be excluded and the universe to be considered a closed system. According to the empirical method, the only reality is one which can be observed, measured or deduced from data. As a consequence of accepting the Darwinian theory of origins, the ultimate purpose of man has been reduced to the passing of genes from one generation to the next (Dawkins 1989, p. 137; Schaeffer 1990a, pp. 307, 308; 1990b, pp. 227-230; Veith 1994, pp. 33, 34; Wilson 1975, p. 3).

Others around the same time (late 18th to early 19th century) reacted against the notion of nature operating as a machine and proclaimed that it was akin to a living organism and placed God back into it, not as a transcendent person, but as present everywhere. Subjectivity and irrationality were also in vogue as people sought to fulfil the inner life. Another group, for which meaning was relative, sought fulfilment through pursuing rewards in the objective world by acquiring material things. These trends have been refined so that many in the post-modern times in which we live believe that objective truth does not exist. This means that these individuals reject both reason and the idea of God as representing truth (Veith 1994, pp. 36-38, 42-50).

Today universities have become places in search of truth and centres of research, where open exchange of concepts, where experimental science and the dissemination of ideas hold pride of place. Publication of research bared to the probing criticisms of one’s peers is part of the unambiguous and objective pursuit of truth. Neither Aristotle nor Bible is the basis for learning in these establishments, (O’Malley 2004, pp. 121-125). Research and the advancement of knowledge are central to the enterprise, with moral improvement and the betterment of society trailing in considerations to the main endeavour. In fact, universities do not possess an intellectual framework by which they can assess the robustness of moral claims (Reuben 1996, pp. 268, 269). Autonomous man is in control and seemingly at the centre of the universe. Yet, he has found himself in rebellion against God and in despair because no unified view of the world is now visible (Schaeffer 1990b, pp. 232-236).

Not all the beliefs accepted by the Judeo-Christian tradition (Jerusalem – belief in a transcendent, incomprehensible God – O’Malley 2004, p. 6) are in direct opposition to those promoted by ancient and modern philosophers. However, the abandonment of the idea that a supernatural God


37

has a place (in modern scientific thinking) has impacted on religious thought, as we will discover in the next section. Challenge from Within

It was Reformation theology that gave a fresh insight into the possibility of unified knowledge for it held that mankind could reason about religious ideas, historical details and the cosmos. Furthermore, it was faith in Jesus’ sacrifice and resurrection which gave meaning to life (McDowell 1979, pp. 15-367; Schaeffer 1990a, pp. 349, 350; 1990b, pp. 232-241; 1990c, p. 100). The Reformation placed God at the centre of the universe and the scene was set for a realisation that God’s invisible attributes could be read in the marvels of nature through the discoveries of science. However, the Christian world now largely has abandoned the idea of God’s place in the universe. This has allowed God scope to participate in the creation of the cosmos but has excluded Him from directly participating in the creation of mankind (theistic evolution or evolutionary creationism). In effect, the modern scientific understandings of the evolutionary processes have placed faith in reason over faith in the word of God (Schaeffer 1990c, p. 20).

In accepting evolutionary creationism over a literal acceptance of the biblical account, several difficulties are created for Christians. For this group of people, the challenges of evolutionary creationism are more substantial than those which arise from the worldview accepted by the secular scientific community which excludes ideas of there being an unseen domain. Some of the issues and questions are as follows: 1. God as a supernatural being is given a function in the creation of the cosmos and allowed to

participate in a package of miracles, especially as described in the New Testament account (Alexander 2002, p. 445). If we accept this approach, the question arises: How are we to decide what accounts are allegorical and which are real in the biblical record? And by what species of reasoning do we allow miracles at all when the science we embrace so fervently disallows these phenomena?

2. If the Bible creation account is simply one of a number of Mesopotamian and Egyptian creation epic stories to be understood allegorically and if the resurrection is (in the view of some) “a conjuring trick with bones” (Alexander 2002, pp. 321-329, 427), wherein lies the Christian hope of dwelling in a newly created earth coming from God’s hand?

3. If being made “in the image of God,” as recorded in Genesis 1 (vs. 27, 28), tells us merely how mankind related to delegated responsibilities to care for the earth, then where did the race gain its moral perspectives? (Alexander 2002, pp. 361-365, 466).

4. Christians must account for the moral fall of mankind together with the circumstances leading up to the event. If this is not done, then the need for salvation is in question - Christ’s sacrifice served no purpose and Christianity is meaningless (cf. White 1958, p. 45).

5. On what basis do we postulate a moral accounting before God or a judgement? If God has failed to provide an absolute standard of justice, can He be considered a loving and at the same time just God? What are we to make of the claim made by some evolutionary creationists that the theory has “neither moral nor religious implications” (Alexander 2002, p. 302) when those within its ranks can claim that soon “a unifying myth will emerge from evolutionary biology and genetics. In short, science will become religion”? (Bentley 1999, p. 4).

6. For many Christians, a soul had to be inserted in the evolving human line at the appropriate point to set humanity apart from the animal kingdom from which it is considered to have emerged. However, secular scientists see such an argument which requires God to intervene, as an anti-evolutionary intrusion which science cannot tolerate (Dawkins 1997, pp. 398, 399).


38

Besides answering this challenge, How is it possible to have an immortal entity (the soul) in a mortal body? Does not this infer that we possess a Divine element?

7. If God has used the evolutionary process to create the life forms that we see around us, including mankind, then He may be portrayed as “The God of the Galápagos.” This means that “He is not the Protestant God of waste not, want not. He is also not a loving God who cares about His productions. He is not even the awful god portrayed in the book of Job. The God of the Galápagos is careless, wasteful, indifferent, almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of God to whom anyone would be inclined to pray” (Hull 1991, p. 486). This perception contrasts rather poorly with the claim that God is a loving and compassionate God and worthy of worship. Will such a God save us? As a result of the general acceptance of the evolutionary theory, the world has become reduced

in the thinking of many scientists and some Christians to a system akin to a machine, so that it is considered to operate by natural laws and God is remote, if He exists at all. These trends have exerted an inevitable effect on the concept of God, on the significance of human beings, and on love and morals. The scientific community considers life a game of chance. This idea has, in turn, dehumanised mankind. Darwin’s doctrine of the survival of the fittest has led to some spectacularly bleak developments in thought and practice. It also aided in spawning materialism and existential thought (the relative is valued; people create meaning for themselves) as a reaction against the meaninglessness of blind chance taught in evolutionary theory. Christianity has not escaped these trends for existential thought has invaded its ranks. It is now commonly held that the Bible is full of mistakes so that its prime function is to give religious truth rather than factually objective truth. Bible religion has become irrational leaving those who have gone down the path of relative truth with an unknowable God. In fact, they have become mystics through their “antisupernaturalist stance” (McIver 1996, pp. 15, 16; Schaeffer 1990a, pp. 225-243; Veith 1994, pp. 31-38). The predictions of the apostle Peter about declining trust in God’s word have been fulfilled and perhaps surpassed (2 Peter 3:2-10).

If we divorce reason from faith, we have an unknowable God. We have a distorted view of God’s purpose for our lives and will develop characteristics in common with the secular world in that we may begin to live primarily for ourselves or at least for the here and now. Reason and Salvation

Faith has its basis in evidence, for we cannot exercise trust in something that is untrustworthy or intellectually irresponsible (Rice 1991, pp. 19, 217-221). This is the strength of the argument put by the apostle Paul to the Corinthian believers. He reminded them that they were saved through the gospel of Jesus Christ. In presenting the hope of salvation to them, he outlined the evidences for God’s gift by reviewing aspects of the life, death, resurrection and post-resurrection events experienced by various well-known believers (1 Cor. 15:3-11). He asserted that neither he nor the other apostles were bearing false witness (v. 15). The apostle Peter made a similar appeal to eyewitness evidence and indicated that this confirmed the prophetic word thus giving a sound basis for the exercise of faith (2 Pet. 1:16-19).

However, it is also true that faith goes well beyond the evidence (Heb. 11:1). We might illustrate this by referring to Peter’s attempt to walk on the water. He was given evidence that the feat was possible and Christ asked him to come to him. His first steps succeeded but he could not reach beyond the evidence by faith and consequently began to sink into the sea (Matt. 14:25-31). Utmost trust and commitment to God was necessary for both Peter and those who follow. Reason assists our faith and allows us to rationally defend our commencing evidence for the truthfulness of God’s claims in Scripture. Reason is essential to our religious experience, but it is not the most significant element. We must not imagine that the faith experience is subject to rational inquiry or that we can finally dispense


39

with faith. This means that “faith is reasonable, but not a reasoned decision” (Rice 1991, pp. 26, 27, 243, 247-282).

It is only through the exercise of faith that salvation is possible (Heb. 11:1) and we cannot by reasoned efforts attain it through works. This means that: “Ultimately, there are only two different religions, that which builds on faith in Christ, and that which builds on reason in one’s own works.” Martin Luther saw the futility of trying to “flutter up to heaven and seek God” through reason. This idea is destroyed forever when we observe that in the incarnation God descended to us; He has come down to sinful mankind (Nygren 1982, pp. 687-690; 702-704). This was the Reformation view - we cannot be saved through the exercise of reason, but faith is not without a reasonable basis. These ideas have been challenged by developments in thought since then.

This brings us back to the universities where reason is paramount and where faith in reason holds sway. Some Characteristics of Secular Universities

Universities are places where the search for truth goes on, where a unified view of the universe is sought (but in a closed system). Academics seek to find reliable knowledge, to discern pattern and order and to deliver a coherent picture of the natural world. These are institutions where experimental science and the exchange and dissemination of ideas hold central place. Truth is held to be relative so that it can be approached but never reached. There are always further questions to be asked and new vistas to behold and be conquered. Publication of research is exposed to peer criticism as part of the unambiguous and objective pursuit of truth. Research and the advancement of knowledge are central to the enterprise (Alexander 2002, pp. 242-269; O’Malley 2004, pp. 100, 101, 121-125). Academic freedom in the absence of ideological interference is demanded in “the passion for *finding+ truth” (Hofstadter & Metzger 1955, p. 366).

Objectivity is sought in all endeavours but is often difficult to achieve on account of the limitations of methodology and the prejudices of the researcher (e.g., viewpoints developed are predominantly from the perspective of a closed system). Objectivity can suffer when data gathered goes counter to prevailing theories in that reviewers may find it difficult to accept the findings. The status quo is often appealing. This is illustrated by the pioneering efforts of the recent Nobel Prize winners Drs Barry Marshal and Robin Warren (Nobel Prize Organization 2005) to explain the relationship between the bacterium Helicobacter pylori and the formation of ulcers in the human stomach. Their ideas were opposed vigorously in the initial stages (Sweet 1997). Objectivity may also be lost sight of in the competitive environment of universities where publishing priority and recognition are paramount considerations (Alexander 2002, p. 269).

The betterment of society may be a research emphasis with some, but primary considerations are sometimes the rewards offered by high profile projects which give the opportunity for recognition. Access to large, competitive grants, well appointed laboratories, post-graduate researchers and authorship in prestige journals often drives the endeavour. The pressure to publish is intense. Pride of intellect and accomplishment, the pursuit of titles and honours is evident and sometimes brings the worst of the competitive spirit to the fore. Scientists can develop characteristics akin to fanatics (Alexander 2002, p. 269; Guthrie 2003; Lynch 1994, p. 1778; O’Malley 2004, pp. 116, 117). The pursuit of personal goals may also lead to falsification and fabrication of results and plagiarism (Whitebeck 2004) or other devices are used in furthering the “chance to survive in the stormy sea of academic recognition” (Lynch 1994, p. 1780). In secular universities, there is indeed a Darwinian feel to life and character development is often reduced to a consideration of ethical behaviour such as tolerance and honesty (Hofstadter & Metzger 1955, p. 366).


40

This brings us to the challenges the intellectual establishment hands to Christian universities seeking to operate in the same environment. How Will Christian Universities Survive?

The priorities of Christian institutions should differ from secular institutions. Moral improvement and the betterment of society are non-essential considerations in the curriculum of many tertiary institutions but they must hold a central place in the endeavour when it is a Christian institution. The foremost aim of Christian educators should be to develop the character of their clients for “Character is the great harvest of life” (White 1956, p. 90). Perceptions of purpose and moral and ethical imperatives will influence the pattern of thinking. They will not be afraid to claim that there are God-given moral absolutes. Notice the powerful words used by one Christian writer to express the balance sought: “True education does not ignore the value of scientific knowledge or literary acquirements; but above information it values power; above power, goodness; above intellectual acquirements, character. The world does not so much need men of great intellect as of noble character” (White 1952, p. 225). In a somewhat similar vein, Cardinal John Henry Newman, in his discourse on Christian universities (1915), saw the formation of character, the development of virtue and the ability to understand relationships as holding a high priority (Millis 2004, pp. 138,139).

Within the framework we are highlighting, knowledge and power take lesser places in contrast to character development. Knowledge gives power; this is an unquestionable fact of human existence. How power is used depends on values and character. The truly memorable people I have encountered in academic life are those who mix their brilliance with humility – they are few in number. Those who mix their accomplishments with arrogance, pride and a highly competitive spirit are memorable for a different reason. Their character traits ruin their influence. They are not people one chooses to associate with in a trusting, relaxing manner just for the pleasure of the moment. The lessons we might derive from the experience of Daniel and his companions, in the ancient Babylonian halls of learning, have relevance to the modern scene (Dan. 1:8-17).

If character development and virtue are given high priorities, then fidelity to the Bible account will form the basis for learning in these tertiary halls, if loss of a Christian identity, as observed in many former church affiliated establishments, is not to be repeated (Poe 2004, pp. 34-36). Religious truth should be regarded as “a condition of knowledge,” for to omit one branch of knowledge inhibits development of a balanced view of the others (Millis 2004, p. 141).

Christian universities cannot retain their character when they reject the Christian Scriptures. Today theologians from diverse congregations are challenging the very basis of Christian belief (van Biema 1996, pp. 73, 75, 79). God is on trial in the minds of many rather than the other way about. Such higher criticism has brought disbelief in God’s supernatural intervention in the world. For the more liberal minded there is no virgin birth, no resurrection from the dead and definitely no miracle-studded career for Christ (Gledhill 2007, 13). In other words, it is a myth that the Bible is divinely inspired. Others retreat from outright rejection of supernatural events, but are sceptical about the total inspiration and reliability of the Bible. The results are seen in developments within Protestantism in particular which allow practices and beliefs to flourish contrary to scriptural principle (Healy 2001, p. 45). The scourge of higher criticism has swept through the major Christian churches and influences and is influenced by the programs and understandings of thought leaders at universities, whether Christian or otherwise. Today the historical-critical method of interpreting Scripture has all but replaced the historical-grammatical tradition (Canale 2005, pp. 121-125).

Christian universities will not be behind in any good gift (1 Cor. 1:7). They will be known for their research, but pride in superiority of research accomplishments will not mar their witness (Poe 2004, p.


41

70). Intellectual freedom without anchor points in the beliefs and associations of researchers is the stronghold of the secular establishment. Here it is considered that findings generated in such an environment have acquired the “value of universalism” (Hofstadter & Metzger 1955, pp. 365, 366). When the same spirit invades Christian establishments, then the foundations will begin to crumble (cf. Anon., 1987). In fact, when the concept of a unity of knowledge, based on the surety of God’s word, was abandoned, then religion took a back seat at institutions of higher learning (Reuben 1996, p. 132).

The character of an institution and of individuals also is highlighted in their commitment to service for others. This brings to the fore the idea of purpose. What is the purpose of the institution? And what is the driving motivation in training the clients who pass through its halls of learning? Christian universities will survive if they possess a correct balance of faith, trust, knowing, discovery and service and if these are seen in practice (Poe 2004, pp. 68, 69; White 1952, pp. 29, 30). Their task is to introduce students to the great natural principles underpinning the physical, mental, social and spiritual aspects of human existence (Shipton 2007, pp. i-iii) and to teach the enduring values of Christianity (Poe 2004, pp. 76, 77). Faith Based Learning

An important issue that Christians must contend with is the idea that scientific knowledge is the only knowledge that can be termed authentic on account of it being derived through the application of the scientific method. Christians believe that scientific understanding is an important area of knowledge but it is not the only source of authentic information. Science does not possess philosophical or theological neutrality. The reality is that the presuppositions that we hold will change our view of the data (Geisler & Turek 2004, pp. 126-128; Millis 2004, pp. 149, 153, 154). It has been incisively noted that scientific discovery is impossible without faith in ideas, which may be purely speculative. This brings the enterprise into metaphysical territory. It is further held by the scientific world that it is the ability to falsify rather than to verify which enables us to separate between claims of truth or non-truth. If those who believe passionately in the scientific method would retain objectivity, then “Every scientific statement must remain tentative for ever. This is what is demanded by scientific objectivity” (Popper 2002, pp. 16-20, 280). Unfortunately, this is not seen in practice. Name calling is a favoured occupation of some who believe that the domain of scientific knowledge is the only domain that exists.

Running a Christian university involves articulating all learning experiences within a clearly formulated worldview. I believe that such an approach can be offered most effectively by those institutions that accept that life originated through the creative acts of God within a limited time span. In other words, Darwinian ideas on the origin of life are rejected based on substantial challenges to their underlying assumptions. This does not represent a rejection of the scientific method or the findings of science but rather asserts that data can be interpreted in various ways depending on the presuppositions that are brought to the discussion, the objectivity of the research methods used and thus the weight of argument that can be brought to bear on different items of evidence. Different models have been proposed to explain the origin of the earth. Each has its own set of problems and strong points; arguably the recent creation and evolution models are the most prominent and can assemble the most cohesive arguments (Roth 1998, pp. 340-346). Some relatively recent discussions on the evidences supporting evolutionary theory have shown that it has certain profound weaknesses. The Intelligent Design argument first forwarded in its modern form by Dr Behe, from his background in biochemistry, pointed to the many biological structures which are irreducibly complex. He observed that structures and attenuated biochemical pathways cannot be imagined in a form simple enough to allow the building of complex living systems from the simplest building blocks. Too many parts of the complex molecular machinery are required at once making the evolution of such machinery conceivable only by


42

the involvement of a designer. Others have noted the paucity of paleontological (fossil) data supporting the intermediate states commonly suggested as being fundamental to the evolutionary process. This lack of evidence for macroevolution is becoming more embarrassing as the years pass (Walton 2007, pp. 15-24).

Acceptance of a relatively recent creation model presupposes that the Scriptures give an accurate account of events, that they are not full of mistakes and have something beneficial to say to us today. This means that the historical-grammatical approach to the interpretation of the Bible, or something approximating this methodology (Canale 2005, pp. 121-125; McIver 1996, pp. 14-16), will gain emphasis as it did during Reformation times. The end result of such an approach will be that God is reinstated and regarded as the giver of the revelation found in both the Bible and in nature. Basically, this is the substance of God’s last call to the human race recorded in Revelation 14 (vs. 6-12) through the ministry of heavenly agents inspiring human beings. Christian tertiary institutions who intend to fulfil the Christian mandate (Matt. 28:19, 20) will be enlivened by this realisation. One author has summarised it succinctly as follows: “the last message of mercy to be given to the world is a revelation of His (God’s) character of love” (White 1941, p. 415). This applies equally in the classroom as in other avenues of life.

The elevation of the Scriptures also undoubtedly will lead to the enthusiastic support of a theocentric view of agape love where God continues to give to mankind. As one writer has commented, we can only “Fellowship with God on the basis of sin, not of holiness.” This means that we cannot gain merit before God by becoming or doing good, because we cannot do what God has promised to do. The true meaning of agape love will be again revealed and released from the false ideas coming from Greek thought. The possibility of a genuine Christian experience based on trust in God will be made a reality (Mark 2:17; Nygren 1982, pp. 218, 219, 681-687). Faith will again be shown to be the vital link bridging the domains of knowledge. “It forms an umbrella that brings the totality of human knowledge back together.” In asserting this, it is observed that our emotions, motives, values and imagination influence how we view the world and evaluate information. Thus, “the totality of our spiritual being affects our knowledge” (Poe 2004, p. 178). Christian universities will not survive unless those who devise policy or teach programmes are committed Christians who give God’s word priority status and give glory to Him by upholding the values found in His word.

Flowing from the encounter with God experienced by the faculty in Christian universities, clients will be able to sense a connectedness with God through His Spirit. In the lecture room level there will be a clear articulation of the relationship between the sacred and secular realms of reality because those who teach have experienced the vital connections among worldview, religious experience, reasoning and hypothesis making (Millis 2004, pp. 25-27, 167). The model accepted to achieve this will undoubtedly impact on the long term outcome. Where committed Christians teach using a cohesive worldview backed by experiential knowledge of the divine and use this as the basis for discussion of critical issues in an engaging and tolerant manner, they are likely to preserve the distinctive features of a Christian university (Millis 2004, pp. 165-167; Poe 2004, pp. 155-162). Ideally every thought will be subject to divine revelation (2 Cor. 10:4, 5; White 1948, p. 298), because participants in the ministry of these institutions are committed to giving glory to God. Conclusions

The issues facing Christian universities working in an environment almost totally abandoned to any notions of an unseen domain ruled by an infinite, personal God are similar in many respects to those operating for the ancient kings of Israel living among the cultural mosaic of nations that did not accept the idea of a Creator God.


43

The vision and values of Christian universities must answer to the purpose and values of the kingdom of God. This ultimately demands that the word of God is considered authentic, reliable and authoritative. The worldview accepted as foundational to their vision will incorporate knowledge from both the unseen and seen domains in a coherent scheme consistent with the plain reading of the Scriptures in the context of the passage and the history of the times.

The moral and ethical values upheld in God’s word will be illustrated in word and practice by the faculty and staff otherwise the only Christian distinctive about the institution may be its name. Ultimately vision statements and names will not preserve the Christian identity of an institution. An active spiritual life, an acute awareness of the assumptions underlying and the methodological weaknesses associated with the works of recognized scholars, and a spirit of teachability, humility and nobility in the faculty and staff are essential for survival (White 1952, pp. 17, 225).

Herein lays the challenge. Ancient “Jerusalem” failed to fulfil God’s purpose for it (Ezek. 16). In these end times, God has a remnant people who will fulfil His vision (Rev. 12:17; 14:12). It will take the dedication of the administration, the teaching, research and other staff to ensure that the distinctives of Christian philosophy are transmitted to clients and that these will be evident to the observing secular establishment. The great sin (pride - Lewis 1952, pp. 109-114) will continue to seek expression in those who work in Christian institutions. However, the lives of those changed by an encounter with God will be made distinctive by a repudiation of “pride, vanity, jealousy, and envy” (Poe 2004, pp. 70, 71), the very characteristics abundantly present in many tertiary institutions. Christian institutions will be noted for a different reason – the fruits of the Spirit will be evident – “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other” (Gal. 5:22-26 NIV).

Christian universities have an increasingly relevant place in the world. They will survive and flourish as long as those who administer and work in them maintain their commitment to the Creator God and unreservedly accept the sureties of His revealed will and unfailingly share these values and understandings with others in an engaging and tolerant manner. Works Cited Alexander, D. 2002. Rebuilding the Matrix: Science and Faith in the 21st Century. Oxford: Lion Publishing

Plc. Anonymous 1987. A statement on theological and academic freedom. General Conference of Seventh-

day Adventists Executive Committee at the Annual Council Session in Washington, D.C., October 11, 1987.

Bentley, D. 1999. Playing God. The Courier-Mail, Weekend Saturday, June 12, pp. 1, 4. Canale, F. 2005. From vision to system: finishing the task of Adventist biblical and systematic theologies

– Part II. Journal of the Adventist Theological Society vol. 16 (1-2), pp. 114-142. Cooper, J. M. 1981. Socrates, vol. 25, pp. 165-168. In: The Encyclopedia Americana International Edition.

Danbury, Connecticut: Grolier Incorporated. Dawkins, R. 1989. Darwinism and human purpose, pp. 137-143. In: Human Origins, ed. J. R. Durant.

Oxford: Clarendon Press. Dawkins, R. 1997. The Pope’s message on evolution and four commentaries. III. Obscurantism to the

rescue. The Quarterly Review of Biology vol. 72 (4):397-399.


44

Feldman, S. 1987. Aristotle, vol. 1, pp. 410-412. In: The Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. M. Eliade. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Geisler, N.L. & Turek, F. 2004. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books.

Gledhill, R. 2007. Jesus was no miracle worker: the gospel of Jeffrey Archer. The Times, Wednesday, March 21, 2007, p. 13.

Guthrie, M. 2003. Nova gives DNA pioneer her due at last. Boston Herald, April 22, 2003. Online: http://www.providencepictures.com/press_photo51_herald.html (18/04/2007).

Hales, E. E. Y. 1960. The Catholic Church in the Modern World. New York: Image Books. Haskins, C. H. 1972. The Rise of the Universities. New York: Cornell University Press. Healy, R. 2001. Episcopal turf war. Time, Australia, July 9, p. 45. Hofstadter, R. And Metzger, W. P. 1955. The Development of Academic Freedom in the United States.

New York: Columbia University Press. Hull, D. L. 1991. The God of the Galápagos. Nature, 352:485-486. Kennedy, E. 1989. The Cultural History of the French Revolution. New Haven: Yale University Press. Lewis, C. S. 1952. Mere Christianity, a revised and enlarged edition. New York: Macmillan. Lynch, A. 1994. Publication of research: the ethical dilemma. Journal of Dental Research 73 (11):1778-

1782. McDowell, J. 1979. Evidence that Demands a Verdict. San Bernadino, California: Here’s Life Publishers,

Inc. McIver, R. K. 1996. The historical-critical method: the Adventist debate. Ministry 69 (3):14-17. Millis, B. D. 2004. Faith, Learning and Christian Higher Education. Brisbane: Griffiths University, Doctor of

Education dissertation. Online: http:// www4.gu.edu.au:8080/adt-root/public/adt-QGU20061019.120201/index.html (20/04/2007).

[The] New Encyclopaedia Britannica. 1983. Article: History of science, vol. 16, pp. 366-375. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Inc.

Nobel Prize Organization. 2005. The Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine. Online: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2005/press.html (18/04/2007).

Nygren, A. 1982. Agape and Eros, translated by P. S. Watson. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. O’Malley, J. W. 2004. Four Cultures of the West. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press of the

Harvard University Press. Poe, H. L. 2004. Christianity in the Academy. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic. Popper, K. 2002. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Routledge Classics. Reuben, J. A. 1996. The Making of the Modern University: Intellectual Transformation and the

Marginalization of Morality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rice, R. 1991. Reason and the Contours of Faith. Riverside, California: La Sierra University Press. Roth, A. A. 1998. Origins: Linking Science and Scripture. Hagerstown, Maryland: Review and Herald

Publishing Association. Sarton, G. 1981. History of science, vol. 24, pp. 385-390. In: The Encyclopedia Americana International

Edition. Danbury, Connecticut: Grolier Incorporated. Schaeffer, F. A. 1990a. He Is There and He Is Not Silent (1972). In: The Francis A. Schaeffer Trilogy.

Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books. Schaeffer, F. A. 1990b. Escape from Reason (1968). In: The Francis A. Schaeffer Trilogy. Wheaton, Illinois:

Crossway Books. Schaeffer, F. A. 1990c. The God Who Is There (1968). In: The Francis A. Schaeffer Trilogy. Wheaton,

Illinois: Crossway Books. Soboul, A. 1974. The French Revolution, 1787-1799. London: NLB.

http://www.providencepictures.com/press_photo51_herald.html

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2005/press.html


45

Sweet, M. 1997. Smug as a bug. The Sydney Morning Herald, August 2. Online: http://www.vianet.net.au/~bjmrshll/features2.html (18/04/2007).

van Biema, D. 1996. Genesis Reconsidered. Time, Australia, Nov. 4, pp. 71-79. Veith, G. E. 1994. Postmodern Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture. Wheaton,

Illinois: Crossway Books. Walton, J. C. 2007. Origins science needs design rehab. Perspective Digest vol. 12(1):15-24. Whitebeck, C. 2004. Trust and the future of research. Physics Today, November, 2004. Online:

http//www.aip.org/pt/vol-57/iss-11/48.html (18/04/2007). White, E. G. 1941. Christ’s Object Lessons. Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association. White, E. G. 1948. Testimonies for the Church, vol. 8. Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing

Association. White, E. G. 1952. Education. Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing Association. White, E. G. 1956. Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing. Mountain View, California: Pacific Press

Publishing Association. White, E. G. 1958. The Story of Patriarchs and Prophets. Mountain View, California: Pacific Press

Publishing Association. Wilson, E. O. 1975. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Harvard: Harvard University Press. About the Author: Warren Shipton, PhD, is currently serving as president of Mission College. He also lectures in the Faculty of Science, Mission College.

http://www.vianet.net.au/~bjmrshll/features2.html


46

Historical Reflections on Early Adventist Anti-Trinitarianism

Kai Arasola

Abstract

The prevalence of anti-Trinitarianism in early Seventh-day Adventism has been well documented. The purpose of this essay is to look for reasons, the historical background for the Adventist views. It discusses two unrelated historical perspectives: The Restorationist movement of the 19th century America which contributed to the Adventist rejection of the Trinity, and the historical interpretation of the prophecies which further convinced them that doctrines that were slow in development represent apostasy.

Two of the leading Adventists pioneers came from an anti-Trinitarian Restorationist background but all of them lived in a theological climate permeated with doubts concerning the Trinity. While Arianism never was an official doctrine of the movement it was taught in numerous articles until, after about three decades, the church gradually moved closer to mainline Protestantism.

Historicist prophetic interpretation was the foundation on which the young Adventist church was building its doctrines. The identification of papacy or Roman Catholicism as the antichrist was central for the early Adventist hermeneutic. Their views on the Trinity were further confirmed by the fact that Trinitarianism took several centuries to develop and the early Adventists identified it as a Roman Catholic doctrine.

The last part of this essay seeks to stimulating discussion and debate on the Trinity and on the important formative years of Adventism. It includes some reflections and questions on the Trinitarian creeds as well as on the related Biblical data. The latter, rather than historical considerations, must in the end be the Adventist paradigm for understanding the Godhead.

The prevalence of anti-Trinitarianism in early Seventh-day Adventism has been well documented since Erwin Gane’s ground-breaking research on the topic more than four decades ago.i Russell Holt, LeRoy Edwin Froom, Merlin Burt, Jerry Moon, and others built on and substantiated Erwin Gane’s conclusions.ii It is now understood that that not only Joseph Bates, James White, or the well known case of Uriah Smith, represent Adventist anti-Trinitarian sentiments but that virtually all key Adventist pioneers including J.N. Andrews, Daniel Bourdeau, D. M. Canright, Hiram Edson, D. W. Hull, J. N. Loughborough, E.J. Waggoner, J.H. Waggoner, and S. B. Whitney, held views varying from mildly Arian (Christ not eternal but born at a point of time) to a full rejection of Trinitarianism. The one notable exception was Ellen G. White and even her orthodoxy during the pre-1888 phase of Adventism has been questioned at times.iii

The first part of this exploration discusses the Restorationist movement which was an important part of the intellectual and theological climate of 19th century America. This is followed by a short overview of the historical development of Trinitarianism to provide further background for early SDA comments on the Trinity. Both sections are interspersed with samples of Adventist pioneers’ comments, in particular ones which reflect historical reasons behind their rejection of the Trinity.

The final part is intended to stimulate discussion on Adventism and the Trinity. It presents the traditional creeds as the standard definitions of the Trinity and presents questions and reflections related to the Biblical data which, rather than historical considerations, must be the ultimate Adventist paradigm for understanding the Godhead.

The purpose of this research is to provide examples and illustrations and possible clues that may help understand the early Adventist position on the Trinity. They are not presented as a systematic and


47

comprehensive analysis of the topic but as insights or stimuli for discussion and debate on the important formative years of Sabbatarian Adventism.

Why Anti-Trinitarianism – Theological Restorationism

The America of the pioneers can be characterised as a time of reformatory idealism. “Men of seemingly sober judgment expressed repeatedly their confidence that Christians could remake society in the United States according to a pattern fashioned in heaven” is Timothy L. Smith’s assessment of the reformist culture that permeated Ante-Bellum America. Restorationism contributed to the rise of several churches and religious movements including Seventh-day Adventism.iv While his description limits the reforms to restructuring the social order, banishing poverty, eliminating the curse of drunkenness, elevating womanhood, freeing the slaves or providing equal opportunities for education, the movement extended also well into the theological and religious sphere. Winthrop S. Hudson observes that this “reforming idealism” was so integral to the American religious ferment of the early 19th century that it did not leave theology untouched.v

Restorationism, sometimes called Christian primitivism, is a descriptive title for any religious movement which believes that it represents the essence of what it would mean to bring Christianity back to its original form and ideals. In the context of North America the term is applied in particular to a widespread indigenous American phenomenon that started towards the end of the 18th century with the Second Great Awakening and culminated in the rise of a wide range of revivals and churches that represent the full spectrum of 19th century American religiosity. The so called Christian Churches or Connexionists are usually thought to represent the essence of Restorationism. Connexionism grew into thousands of independent churches and had by 1850s up to half a million supporters.vi However, the full picture of Restorationism is much wider. It had a powerful effect on the established mainline churches and contributed to the rise of several religious groups that represented the wide spectrum of American 19th century religiosity. Unitarians, Millerites and Adventists, Latter day Saints, the Watchtower Society, amd, a little later, the Pentecostals all represent the huge impact of Restorationism.vii

Interestingly, many supporters of the Christian Connexion endorsed Millerism.viii This is no surprise because William Miller’s teachings, though a Baptist, reflect Restorationist ideals. For example his Rules of Interpretationix are a good example of a typical Restorationist do-it-yourself approach to the Scriptures and his hermeneutic shows a deep distrust in established church-endorsed views.x

The Restorationist movement’s unwritten ambition was to do to Protestantism what the Reformation had done to Catholicism. Restorationists were distrustful of church organisations and of creeds and while, in general, they did not go for clear-cut doctrinal definitions, they had over the early part of the 19th century increasingly turned against Trinitarianism.xi Joshua V. Himes, a Christian Church minister, became William Miller’s key associate, publisher, travel organiser and congress manager, and his role in Millerism may have been an added attraction that led Connexionists to join Millerite ranks.xii Furthermore, significantly for the topic, two founding fathers of Sabbatarian Adventism, Joseph Bates and James White were both Connexionists.xiii Joseph Bates had joined his wife’s New Bedford Christian Church in 1827xiv and James White was baptised in his parents Palmyra Christian Church at the age of 15 or 16.

While secondary to the topic, it is interesting to note that Adventist historians frequently suggest that the events of 1842, when the established churches rejected Millerism, contributed to the anti-creedal and anti-organisational spirit of early Sabbatarian Adventism.xv However, it is equally logical to suggest that these views match squarely the credophobic and organisation-shunning Connexionist background of the two leading Adventist pioneers. In fact, it is possible to postulate that the overall


48

doctrinal development of Adventism, including their endorsement of, for example, the Sabbath, conditional immortality, or health reform, grew out of the general Restorationist spirit of the times.xvi

The Present Truth Concept

“Present Truth”, a favourite theological concept in early Sabbatarian Adventism, represents the heart of the Restorationist spirit in Adventism. It was no accident that James White chose Present Truth as the title of one of his pioneering publications. The concept implies two ideas. First of all, they believed, that what is taught must be timely, absolutely relevant. “It is clear that we have reached the time when a flood of light is shining from God’s word on the path of the just, and that this light relates to that great event which is immediately impending—the coming of the Lord, and to a preparation to meet it. This we denominate present truth, because it applies to the present time, and is adapted to the wants of the present generation; and it is through this truth that the last church will be sanctified.”xvii

This relevancy was based on theological discovery and dependant on prophecy to show what was important in the last days. Faith in the nearness of the Second Coming underlined the need to proclaim the Sabbath, the state of the dead, or the Sanctuary. However, Adventist pioneers accepted the possibility that there may be Biblical truths that were important at an earlier point in history but not part of the “Present Truth” today. This implies a hierarchy of Biblical teachings. James White stated that there is a truth for each epoch in World history, one for Peter’s time and one for the last days.xviii

However, a further important meaning of the “Present Truth” concept was that only genuine and original Biblical teachings represent truth and therefore nothing but an authentic truth can be Present Truth. This is at the heart of Restorationism. The search was not only for what was relevant but also for what was authentic. A doctrine which had been formulated after the days of the apostles could never be Present Truth. Therefore, “Present Truth” implies a determination to reform the landscape of Christianity from the existing formality into what was original.

Falseness of a late doctrine was an important part of early Adventist argumentation for the Sabbath. The early church kept Saturday but “Romanism” converted the day of rest to Sunday.xix Similarly they saw conditionalism as a clear Biblical doctrine which had been replaced by “pagan” immortality of the soul. Baptism was seen in the same light. The negative development of Christian teachings was, they believed, confirmed by Biblical prophecy. Church councils and creeds had no authority for them and they considered Trinitarianism a post-biblical doctrine which had received its inspiration from Rome. xx Creeds Considered Oppressive

Creedal development begins with simple Biblical confessions of faith. Over the centuries, due to pressures from the Greek rather than the Hebrew mindset, basic confessions of faith grew into intricate carefully worded creeds. The more carefully the Christian doctrines were defined the more suitable they were for causing damage when used as tools of persecution.

As a simple example, one may claim that all Christians of all centuries could probably endorse a broad statement like “Jesus is Lord” (Rom. 10.9). The Adventists clearly understood that issues became much more difficult when small details were brought into the equation. As a historical case in point, one may think of the Trinitarian or Christological word debates centering on words like hypostasis, homoousios, homoiousios, ousia, logos asarkos vs. logos ensarkos which were central in the development of Trinitarianism. Not all church fathers understood these words in the same way, and they were frequently tools of repression and persecution instead of salvation.xxi Because he used the wrong word to express Christ’s nature Apollinaris of Laodicea, a staunch supporter of the Nicene Creed, ended up anathema. Nestorius made the mistake of refusing to use the word “theotokos” and his whole


49

history might have been different had he sooner come across the term “christotokos” which he used later.xxii

It is uncertain how well the early Adventists knew the details of this historical development. It is clear, however, that for a Restorationist (Connexionist) frame of mind minutely defined Christianity was totally unacceptable, and what they knew only strengthened them in their conviction that creedal definitions reflected apostasy. They were convinced that the Bible needs to be interpreted individually within a framework of freedom with the broadest possible formal definitions of doctrine – if any at all.

John Loughborough stated this rather bluntly: “The first step of apostasy is set up a creed…”xxiii While this comment was done in the context of church organisation it still reflects the spirit of the times. James White agreed. “Now I take the ground that creeds stand in a direct opposition to the gifts.” xxiv “Let us suppose a case: We set up a creed, stating just what we shall believe on this point and the other, and just what we shall do in reference to this thing and that, and say that we will believe the gifts, too.”xxv Creeds were thought of as the end of the pursuit for genuine, original faith.

Walter Scragg explains the early Adventist attitude: “…they felt *Christian churches] had calcified their beliefs in ... creedal statements, and [had] fought to defend those statements rather than embark on fresh searches for biblical understanding and truth. The Reformation remained incomplete because it was held back by creeds.”xxvi

At this point one may ask again the question what the Adventist pioneers knew about Church history, in particular, concerning the development of Trinitarianism. There are good reasons to assume that they were not totally ignorant because, as will be shown later, their views on prophetic interpretation had, since the days of William Miller, inspired them to study the rise and impact and meaning of the papacy. Furthermore, their Sabbatarian convictions made them research church history for evidence on the change from Sabbath to Sunday. Their comments on creeds also imply some awareness of the Trinitarian struggles of the first Christians centuries. The simplest evidence for this is John Loughborough’s comments above on creeds as a tool of persecution, and a good historical example is found in the history of Athanasius and Arius. The former was banished 5 times for his views and he spent 17 out of 45 years in exile as the patriarch of Alexandria,xxvii while his main opponent, Arius, was banished two or three times.xxviii Of course, history is full of further examples.

The culture and spirit of early Adventists (including those pioneers who had no Connexionist background) was so resolute against creeds that it was hard for James White to gain support even for the most basic and simple statement of faith needed at the time when the movement took its first organisational steps. If a confessional statement, “Those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus,” was too much for many of the early Adventists, it is no surprise that the long Trinitarian creeds were symbols of apostasy and spiritual repression for them.xxix

Restorationism and General Theological Trend

One more question needs to be asked. Many Adventist pioneers came from traditionally Trinitarian backgrounds but they appear to have given up their Trinitarianism easily. Why? The reason might, of course, lie in the persuasiveness of Joseph Bates and James White, but a further possible reason can be seen in the general spirit of the times.

Traditionally, there had been a fairly strong Unitarian base in Boston.xxx Unitarians (like Connexionists and Millerites) had a distaste for organised churches and established creeds.xxxi In 1819 William Channing was catapulted to prominence for expressing Unitarian views in a sermon in Baltimore. His articles and speeches appealed to those with a somewhat liberal but at the same time reformatory bent. Many Congregationalist churches split off from their mother church to become Unitarian. Ralph Waldo Emerson added interest to this Unitarian opposition to the Trinity by his speech


50

at the graduation of Harvard Divinity School in 1838. Further examples could be cited but it is obvious that Restorationist anti-Trinitarianism was affecting even traditional churches and a critical anti-orthodox mindset was fashionable and modern. xxxii

John W. Gaston III describes how the “liberal” doctrine of Unitarianism was attractive to many Anglicans and Methodists in New England.xxxiii This means that just at the time when Sabbatarian Adventism was formulating its beliefs Arianism was exceptionally strong in American traditionally Trinitarian churches. It is no surprise that even those pioneers who came from a Baptist, Methodist, or Congregationalist background also shifted to anti-Trinitarian positions.

The theological ambience of the early 19th century reflected a reaction against the old Puritan conservatism. Whether it stemmed from the Restorationist movement or simply from people getting tired of the carefully worded and argued dogmas of Protestant Orthodoxy, there was a strong reaction against the old theology, and American Christians were ready to break new ground. It probably indicates a result of this trend rather than its cause, but it has been claimed that the least known and most important theological development of the turn of the century was the discontinuance of the more than one hundred year old tradition of using Turrentin’s massive three volume Institutes of Elentic Theology as the main textbook for Systematic Theology in most ivy league and other respectable American seminaries. Many questioned the old theology and it can be argued that while the Adventist pioneers may well have been wrong in their approach to the doctrine of the Trinity, it seems they sensed well the spirit of their times. It was not necessary to come from an Arian group to turn against Trinitarianism.

Survey of the development of Trinitarianism

Anyone looking at the development of Trinitarianism recognises its long and tumultuous history. It took about three centuries before the doctrine of Trinity was formulated and a further three centuries were needed to iron out the details and conclude the major Christological controversies. The development and expressions of the Trinity were slightly different in the eastern and the western parts of the empire because, as Rodney Stark persuasively argues, there were more Christians with a Jewish background in the east and they, coming from a passionately monotheistic background, had a harder time in coming to terms with a concept like the Trinity.xxxiv

In the struggle to define the Trinity the Bible frequently played a secondary role. As soon as the Romans had stopped persecuting Christians, the Christian started persecuting or excommunicating each other, and people who, while claiming Biblical support for their ideas, somehow ended up using the wrong expressions about the Godhead. For example, St. Hippolytos, one of the most learned Christian teachers of early 3rd Century, expositor of prophecy and defender of Trinitarian ideas against Monarchianism, was accused by Kallistos, bishop of Rome, of being a worshipper of two gods. xxxv It was not easy for the Church to move out of the Palestinian realm and translate Biblical thought into a form intelligible to a Greek mindset. Many of the Trinitarian conflicts were clashes between the Jewish and the Greek modes of thinking.xxxvi

Those involved with church history know how complex the struggle for Trinitarianism was. Students frequently find overwhelming the large number of people, church councils, heresies, creeds, or key words related to the various stages of Trinitarian development. In this complex history some who are now credited for their significant contributions towards a fully fledged doctrine of the Trinity, have also been accused of heresy. For example, Irenaeus was blamed for Modalism because he in some of his statements implied that the one God appears in the form of the Son and the Spirit. God, he states, “is both the Father and the Son.”xxxvii However, he does in some other statements make a clear distinction between God and Jesus. But, as this illustration shows, it is often very difficult to decipher the full picture of the historical situation.xxxviii


51

One may take another example, Tertullian, the apologist and church father who first introduced the term Trinity.xxxix He was also the first of the Latin Fathers and thus originator of Latin theology. This, of course, was extremely significant for the Adventist pioneers who identified Rome with apostasy as well as with the persecuting horn of Daniel and the beast and Babylon of Revelation. While they do not mention Tertullian by name, the principal is very clear. As far as they were concerned the Trinity and apostasy came from the same source. The terms Tertullian used are significant: “substance” and “person”, and his logic to support the unity of the Godhead through expressions like una substantia and una dominatio are decisive in the developing understanding of God.xl What Trinitarians think of as significant steps in the development of the doctrine probably appeared the very opposite to early Adventists who, as it appears, did not even want to consider the meaning of the basic Trinitarian definitions like: Three persons, one substance, and still there is but one God.xli In the east Origen developed the Logos doctrine much further than the Apologists and he was also responsible for authoring the first Christian book on dogmatics. Origen’s scholarship and work on a definition of God represent an important theological development. However, it has also been claimed that he paved the way for Arianism,xlii because he defined God the Father as the source of the Deity. On the other hand, he also stated, “Nothing in the Trinity is to be called greater or less, since the fountain of one divinity holds all his parts by word and reason.”xliii

The first serious threat to the evolving Trinitarianism developed in the East at first but spread quickly throughout the empire causing great excitement in the churches. Starting at the end of the second century, Modalistic Monarchianism engaged all the great doctors of Christianity in a battle against it. Tertullian, Origen, Novatian, and Hippolytos had to draw on their most persuasive logic to stem the rise of this perceived heresy.xliv

The next significant development in the process took place at the School of Antioch where first highly revered Lucian of Samosata combined the Logos doctrine with Adoptionism. After his martyrdom many of his students were selected to important positions in the church and the best known among them, Arius, began his own fight for an Adoptionist form of Logos Christology in Alexandria. According to his view, the Son is a torch lighted at the torch of the Father.xlv God alone, he claimed, is unbegotten, without beginning and eternal, inexpressible and incomprehensible. Jesus on the other hand is what he is by the grace and adoption of God.xlvi

The struggle related to Arianism is among the roughest in early church history. Excommunications, political lobbying; anything but Biblical data swayed the events. In the midst of the Arian conflicts Apollinaris of Laodicea was the first to express the Trinitarian doctrine with reasonable accuracy. However, because he placed such heavy emphasis on the divine logos in Jesus, “God was made flesh” he in due course came to be considered a Docetist and ended up condemned of heresy. The formulation used by his students, the three great Cappadocians, represents the final eastern relational understanding of the Trinity: “We are to believe in one God, because we are to believe in one divine substance or essence (ousia) in three subjects or persons (hypostasis)”. With the work of the Cappadocians the Eastern Church had come to the end of its Trinitarian understanding, expressed first in the Nicene and finalized in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creeds.xlvii

About the same time in the west, Hilary of Poitiers (A.D. 356) completed his book On the Trinity to be followed half a century later by Augustine’s masterly work on the same subject.xlviii Augustine conveyed the doctrine in contrasts and paradoxes, typical of the western understanding, also reflected in the so-called Athanasian Creed (5th Century).


52

Adventist Views on Trinitarian History

One of the most substantial reasons for the Adventist pioneers’ opposition to the Trinity was historical. James White stated that Trinity was based on the “old creed” and therefore not part of genuine original Christianity. The primary point in this is that he thought everything which was formulated after apostolic times was apostasy. He made references to Sunday, state of the dead, purgatory, and reverence to saints or other Catholic doctrines, and connected the Trinity to this same development because it took centuries before the doctrine was fully defined. This is understandable as Adventist pioneers were fully fledged Restorationists who believed in a return to genuinely original apostolic Christianity.xlix That the Trinity was identified as a Catholic doctrine is reflected in D. W. Hull’s statement in the Review in 1859. His two-part article on the doctrine of divinity comments on the Nicene Creed in an interesting way. “The doctrine… was established by the Council of Nice, A.D. 325, and ever since that period, persons not believing this particular tenet, have been denounced by popes and priests, as dangerous heretics. It was for disbelief in this doctrine, that the Arians were anathematised in A.D. 513.” He implies that what the papacy endorsed should be regarded unbiblical and what they condemned, the truth as he proceeds to connect the Trinity with papacy, the "man of sin" and deplores the persecution of those who taught more Biblically.l

Creeds, the Adventist pioneers thought, expressed the Catholic faith. Furthermore, creeds took time to develop and therefore could not represent genuine Biblical truths. Adventism started its gradual shift towards Trinitarianism late in 1870’s and it took two or three decades. Many of the church’s new converts came from Trinitarian Protestant churches and it is possible the change to Trinitarianism contributed to the rising growth rates of the Seventh-day Adventist church in late 19th Century. Misunderstanding the Trinity

It is interesting that some of the Adventist pioneers make references to the Trinity that confuse Trinitarianism with three of the major heresies that relate to the development of the Trinity. This may be an indication that in the end their knowledge of what the Trinity means was not very well founded. Docetism was a Gnostic heresy and extremely popular because Gnosticism was so widespread. It taught that Christ was a spirit and his body was an illusion that people were made to see.li Modalism presented one God appearing in three forms. This was an attractive heresy because it made God understandable and it spread like wildfire during the 3rd century. It also compelled Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytos and others to use all their persuasive powers to keep it at bay. Finally there was tritheism, popular in the eastern parts of the empire, around the time of and after the Trinity had been defined in Nicea (325) and Constantinople (371). John of Damascus and Johannes Piloponus are usually cited as prime examples.lii Docetism - J.B. Frisbie

J. B. Frisbie identifies what he calls the "Sabbath God" and the "Sunday God." The Biblical Sabbath God is not only a Spirit, but also a personal “Being” with a face, hand or other body parts. Referring to creedal expressions in the Catholic Catechism or Methodist literature, he then defines the (non-Biblical) “Sunday God” and suggests that this Trinitarian God is a spirit only and not real and concrete because He is based on ideas which “well accord with those heathen philosophers." liii Admittedly, Frisbie’s argument is anything but clear and to classify it under Docetism is doubtful. But if the “Sunday God” is spirit only, it is possible that he thought that for Trinitarians not only God the Father


53

but also Jesus was a somewhat unreal spirit being. In any case Frisbie’s understanding of the ontological definition that relate to the Trinity are seriously flawed.

Modalistic Monarchianism - Joseph Bates

Frisbie was not the only Adventist pioneer who had totally misunderstood the Trinity. Joseph Bates wrote regarding his conversion in 1827, "Respecting the trinity, I concluded that it was impossible for me to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, was also the Almighty God, the Father, one and the same being."liv In other words, he rejected the Trinity on the claim that it made the Father and the Son identical.

This is an important typical early Adventist anti-Trinitarian statement. However, Bates’ argument is not against the Trinity but against the Monarchianist concept that the Father and the Son are one and the same person. The statement shows that Bates’ understanding of the Trinity was faulty and he condemned what the ancient church and all Trinitarians already condemned as a heresylv because proper Trinitarianism specifically teaches that while the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one, they must also be distinguished as separate persons.

As a note related to the previous examples, one may observe that all Trinitarian heresies were based on an effort to make an incomprehensible and unexplainable Christian God understandable. Adventist pioneers who knew something of the struggles related to the doctrine of Trinity were clearly unaware of what Trinitarianism meant and gave preference to understandable but traditionally heretical versions of the concept of God.

Tritheism and John Loughborough

Another example of an Adventist pioneer rejecting as Trinitarianism what all Trinitarians would also reject as heresy was John Loughborough. In 1861 he wrote that he cannot believe in the Trinity because it implies the existence of three Gods. "If Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are each God, it would be three Gods."lvi

It is unlikely that Loughborough’s comments are in any way related to Justin Martyr who was one of the first to try to explain the Christian God to a pagan audience. Justin Martyr’s teaching was one of the important first steps towards the concept of the Trinity but he has also been accused of tritheism or even polytheism. In his Apology he does his best to refute the claim that Christians are atheists. He admits that Christians indeed reject false pagan gods and goes on to affirm that they instead believe in the true God who is the Father of all virtues. “Both him and the son who came forth from him… and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore…” While this sounds like a well thought statement, it has also been understood tritheistic. What is worse is, leaving the common translations of this text aside that in

Greek angels are included as an object of worship and listed before the Holy Spirit.lvii In another context

he refers to Christ as a second God.lviii Justin may also serve as a good illustration on how difficult it was to explain the Christian God

and how easy it was to choose one’s words inappropriately. Justin Martyr is usually credited with initiating what is known as the Logos doctrine. Logos represented divine reason, consciousness and even essence, which dwelled in Christ. This teaching is often considered the first step towards

Trinitarianism.lix Justin Martyr is not the only church father with difficulties in portraying the Christian God in a culture permeated with Greek thought. One could easily create a list of a dozen fathers who had difficulties in finding the proper expressions.


54

Biblical Study - J.M. Stephenson

The final sample demonstrates the type of use that Adventist pioneers made of the Bible in connection with the Trinity. During the formative years of Sabbatarian Adventism (1854) J. M. Stephenson expressed the pioneer view on the Trinity with forceful vigor. Dealing with the creedal language he claims that Christ cannot have had “co-etaneous existence” with the father for the simple reasons that he is called the son and is “begotten.” If God is the “supreme ruler” it would “be impossible to have two Supreme Rulers at the same time.”lx He clearly states his belief on Christ being created. Referring to Col. 1:15 he presents Christ as, "the first born of every creature." Continuing his argument he claims that creature signifies creation and Christ cannot be the first born of every creature unless he is a created being.lxi The Creeds

One notes that while the Adventist pioneers frequently referred to the creeds their definitions and understanding of the Trinity was far from what is stated in the creeds. The creeds represent the final authoritative statements on the Trinity. While Christological struggles continued in particular in the Eastern churches the doctrine of Trinity was settled with the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed (A.D. 381).

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.

Through him all things were made. For us all, and for our salvation he came down from heaven; and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried. On the third day he rose from the dead in accordance with the scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father. Who, with the Father and Son, is worshipped and glorified, who has spoken through the Prophets.

We believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

We confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the age to come.

Amen.lxii

The next stage in the Creedal development, the Chalcedonian Creed (A.D. 451) represents the growing confrontation between the theologies of the East and West, but because it relates more to Christology than to the Trinity it can be passed in this context. The Western view with its paradoxes is reflected in the Athanasian Creed (5th C, France).

Whoever will be saved shall, above all else, hold the catholic faith. Which faith, except everyone keeps whole and undefiled, without doubt he will perish eternally.


55

And the catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in three persons and three persons in one God, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one: the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated,and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet there are not three eternals but one eternal. As there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensibles but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty. And yet they are not three almighties but one almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet there are not three gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord. And yet they are not three lords but one Lord. For as we are compelled by the Christian truth to acknowledge every person by himself to be both God and Lord, So we cannot by the catholic faith say that there are three Gods or three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made nor created; but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son, neither made nor created nor begotten but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. And in this trinity none is before or after another; none is greater or less than another; But the whole three persons are coeternal together and coequal, so that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped. He, therefore, that will be saved is compelled thus to think of the Trinity. Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe faithfully the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man; God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of the substance of his mother, born in the world; Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching his Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching his manhood; Who, although he is God and man, yet he is not two but one Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking the manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven; He sits at the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence He will come to judge the living and


56

the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies and will give an account of their own works. And they that have done good will go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

Amen.lxiii

The Nicene-Constantinopolitan and Athanasian creeds stabilised the Christian definition of the Godhead and these expressions of the Trinity have held on through the centuries and been scrutinised by the geniuses of Church history, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, Jean Calvin and others. They remain important in spite of the resurgences of Arianism and the onslaught of modern theology. For many Christians the creeds still represent what is a genuinely Christian definition of God and those who do not endorse their doctrines are often classified as being outside the flock or belonging to a cult.

A question worth asking is whether the Seventh-day Adventist Church could or should make more use of the creeds today? After all the church today openly teaches Trinitarianism. Most Adventists would not object to the formulations of the creeds and the church has made a clear turn against its pioneers’ rejection of carefully worded and detailed doctrinal statements. How Adventists may view the Trinity in the New Testament

Today most Seventh-day Adventists, like their church, are fully committed to Trinitarianism. Many Adventists are not only convinced that the Trinity is a fully provable Biblical doctrine but also that it gives them the right to be called Christian in the true and full sense of the word.

The following summary makes no effort to deduct the exegetical and theological correctness of Trinitarianism. The purpose is simply to demonstrate the complexity of the Biblical witness on the topic by listing examples of New Testament texts.

The following proposals may not be acceptable to everyone but each point can be defended with some degree of logic. One may also be a confessing Trinitarian and accept that there are Biblical texts which can be cited as:

1. Evidence for the oneness of God. The Christian church was born in the austerely monotheistic environment of Judaism. Not only Jesus himself, but most of the New Testament writers who first articulated and shaped the Christian faith, were Jews and much of the New Testament was intended for a Jewish audience. Therefore it is not surprising to find New Testament texts that stress the oneness of God. The classic example is Mk 12.29ff where Jesus answers a question on the most important commandment by quoting the shema, Dt 6.4, “’The most important one’, answered Jesus, is this: ‘Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’”

2. Evidence for the uniqueness of Jesus. From the beginning Christians believed not only in God but

also in Jesus. Jesus was the Messiah, pre-existent, the creator, and even divine or God’s “likeness” (2Cor 4.4; Col 1.15). Their life centered on Jesus Christ. The Gospel of John gives the clearest evidence: “The Word was with God and the Word was God… Through him all things were made…” (Jn 1.1,3). The book of Hebrews is equally emphatic in applying even Old Testament Yahweh texts on Jesus (E.g. Hb. 1.10 < Ps.102.25). However, in the final count, such texts are relatively few considering the numerous references New Testament writers make to


57

Christ.

3. Evidence for the personhood of the Holy Spirit. New Testament witness on the Holy Spirit is not nearly as univocal as that on Jesus. However, in particular the Johannine affirmations on the Spirit are far-reaching and communicate (or at least come very close to communicating) the Spirit in personal terms. For example “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you….”(Jn 14.26). Such clear texts, however, are very few.

4. Evidence for threeness. There are also several passages where the three, God the Father, Jesus

Christ and the Holy Spirit are mentioned together. One eager Internet theologian has located 58

such textslxiv but even if that is an overstatement there are several texts. The best known are

Mathew’s baptismal formula (Mt 28.19) and Paul’s doxology. “May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” (2 Cor 13.14;

cf. Eph 4.4-6).lxv

5. Support for Christ being subordinate to the Father. New Testament witness on the Godhead

would be fairly simple if it were limited to texts in the categories above. However, the total picture is more complex as there are also several texts which imply, at least on superficial reading, that Christ or the Holy Spirit are subordinate to the Father or may have had a beginning. For example, “The Father is Greater than I” (Jn. 14.28). Or, “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” (1Cor 11.3)

A few additional notes are in place. The Bible has no clear Trinitarian texts that would in one

passage name both the threeness and oneness of God.lxvi But instead of Trinitarian texts there are clear pointers towards Trinitarianism in the Bible. The triadic passages are important as they present the three persons of the Godhead, and then these can be combined with other texts including some from

the Old Testament background that point to the oneness of God.lxvii Actually, always when speaking about God one should observe that the Old Testament provides

the essential foundation without which the full Christian doctrine of God could not exist. What is implicit in the Old Testament becomes explicit in the New. Against the backdrop of the OT it is easier to understand that Jesus is clearly distinct from the Father, and yet one with him. The OT also helps understand Christ as his role is at times presented through OT quotes.

The final point is, that throughout the New Testament, the uniqueness or the deity of Christ are explicitly affirmed (e.g. Rom. 9:5; Titus 2:13; 2 Pet. 1:1). Because of this biblical testimony, Christians pray to Jesus, worship him, and sing praises to him as God. The church, however, cannot be blamed for understanding its respect for Jesus, as well as the presence of the Holy Spirit, within the boundaries of OT monotheism.lxviii

One may, in fact claim that because NT writers did not themselves explore the full significance of their intricate, and at times conflicting statements, we should not do so either. The Bible, on this topic implies the answers rather than gives them explicitly. Bible writers do not dwell on ontological issues related to the Godhead. While it is possible to draw Trinitarian conclusions through delicate and meticulous exegesis, one may ask whether it is also appropriate to accept that different people may have minor differences in their emphasis and conclusions. Humility and tolerance are in place. Because the subject is so intricate, one should, first of all, never be overly dogmatic or judgmental on those whose views are not in line with one’s own. The fact that the Bible is not univocal on its teaching on God


58

and the Godhead must also be a major cause for the long history behind Trinitarianism. And, finally, more emphasis could be placed on the functional side of worship and prayer than on the theoretical definitions of the doctrine. lxix Final Thought

Augustine concluded his great work On the Trinity with a prayer which represents one of the more profound historical statements on the topic.

“O Lord, the one God, God the Trinity, whatever I have said in these books that is of Thine, may they acknowledge who are Thine; if anything of my own, may it be pardoned both by Thee and by those who are Thine.”lxx

i E.g. Gane, Erwin, The Arian or Anti-Trinitarian Views Presented in Seventh-day Adventist Literature and the Ellen G. White Answer, 1963. http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/gane-thesis/e-gane03.htm#a01, (April 27, 2008). Moon Jerry, Early Adventists Struggle with the Truth about Trinity http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/Trinity%20Review%20art.htm#N_12_ (April 26, 2008). ii E.g. Moon Jerry, Andrews University Seminary Studies, Vol. 41, No. 1, 113-129. Copyright © 2003 Andrews University Press. iii Jerry Moon observes that EGW,s statements from the 1850’s and early 1860’s are ambiguous. According to Moon’s research her earliest clearly Trinitarian statements are from 1869. Moon, Jerry, The Role of Ellen G. White, The Adventist Trinity Debate, Andrews University Seminary Studies, No. 2 (Autumn 2003), 275-292; http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/moon/moon-trinity2.htm (April 29, 2008). iv Smith, Timothy L, Social Reform: Some Reflections on Causation and Consequence; Gaustad, Edwin S, ed. Rise of Adventism, New York, Evanston, San Francisco, London, 1974, p. 18. v Hudson, Winthrop S, A Time of Religious Ferment; Gaustad, Edwin S, ed. Rise of Adventism, New York, Evanston, San Francisco, London, 1974, p. 6f. vi Millard, David, History of the Christians or the Christian Connexion, in Vinebrenner, John, ed. History of All the Religious Denominations in the United States, Harrisburg, PA, 1848, pp. 164-170. http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/dmillard/HCCC.HTM (April 15, 2008). vii

Restorationism, Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorationism (Oct 10, 2008). viii See e.g. Knight, George R, A Search for Identity; Hagerstown, MD., 2000, pp 30-37. ix Miller William, Rules of Interpretation; Midnight Cry, Nov 17, 1842; Views of the Prophecies and Prophetic Chronology; (Joshua V. Himes) Boston, 1842, pp 20-24. Miller’s rules have been republished several times, frequently in later edited versions. Hale Apollos, Second Advent Manual, Boston 1843, 103-106; Bliss, Sylvester, Memoirs of William Miller, Boston, 1853, pp. 70-72; Damsteegt, P. Gerard, Foundations of the Seventh-day Adventist Message and Mission, (Diss.) Grand Rapids, Mi., 1977, 299f; Harrison, John F.C., The Second Coming, London and Henley, New Brunswick, 1979, 200f; Judd, William Miller, Disappointed Prophet, in Numbers, Ronald L and Butler, Jonathan L. eds. The Disappointed, Bloomington and Indianapolis, 1987, 20f; Arasola Kai, The End of Historicism, (Diss.) Sigtuna Sweden, 1990, pp. 50-53.


59

x See e.g. Arasola Kai, The End of Historicism, (Diss.) Sigtuna Sweden, 1990, pp. 53-59. xi Millard, David, History of the Christians or the Christian Connexion, in Vinebrenner, John, ed. History of All the Religious Denominations in the United States, Harrisburg, PA, 1848, pp. 164-170. http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/dmillard/HCCC.HTM (April 15, 2008). Interestingly this thought pattern can still be seen in the work of some scholars. E.g. Adolf Harnacks massive History of Dogma implies that original Christianity had no doctrines and that doctrinal definitions watered down the genuine original Christian faith. See e.g. Harnack, Adolf, History of Dogma…. xii Froom, LeRoy Edwin, Movement of Destiny, Washington DC, 19…. p. . Froom’s comments reflect an apologetic agenda as he tries to show that only one in seven Millerite preachers were from an Anti-Trinitarian background. However, in the process he ignores the “Christian” background of some of the listed pastors. Considering the 19

th C

views one should also keep in mind that all in Connexionist churches were not necessarily Anti-Trinitarian and some in traditional churches may have had Arian or semi-Arian views (e.g. it would be worth checking Stetson’s, Storrs,’ Wenham’s views). Himes standing in Connextionism is reflected in his being called to write a description of Christian Connexion or Christian Churches into Edwards, B.B. ed., Fessenden & co’s Ecyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Brattleborough, VT, 1838. http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/jvhimes/CC-ERK.HTM, April 16, 2008. xiii Knight, George R, A Search for Identity; Hagerstown, MD., 2000, pp 31. xiv McGaughhey, Ken, Seventh-day Adventist Roots VII, LandMarks Magazine, December 1998. http://www.stepstolife.org/php/view_article.php?article_id=1114 (Aril 20, 2008). xv E.g. Kastrati Julian, Against Historical Adventists: The Whites and the Divinity of Christ. © 2004, 2007. http://juliankastrati.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html (April 15, 2008). xvi Millard, David, History of the Christians or the Christian Connexion, in Vinebrenner, John, ed. History of All the Religious Denominations in the United States, Harrisburg, PA, 1848, pp. 164-170. http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/dmillard/HCCC.HTM (April 15, 2008). xvii Bourdeau, Daniel T. Sanctification, or Living Holiness, p. 13. Cf. “In every age there is a new development of truth, a message of God to the people of that generation. The old truths are all essential; new truth is not independent of the old, but an unfolding of it. It is only as the old truths are understood that we can comprehend the new.” White, Ellen G., Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 127. xviii

White, James, Untitled introductory note Present Truth 1/1 July 1849. Guy, Fritz, Mapping the Past: Exploring the Development of Adventist Theology, [Being Adventist in 21st Century Australia], http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/doctrines/au2002conference/guy/guy-past.htm, (April 29, 2008). xix Bull, Malcolm, Lockhart, Keith, Seeking a Sanctuary, Indiana 1989, p. 42; (Google Book Search, Oct 9, 2008). xx “Seventh-day Adventist Eschatology,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_eschatology Wikipedia xxi Lohse, Bernhard, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Philadelphia 1985, pp. 66-90. xxii

Bromiley, Geoffrey W., Historical Theology, An Introduction. Edinburgh, 1978. P. 133. xxiii

Doings of the Battle Creek Conference, Oct. 5 & 6, 1861, Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 18 (8 Oct. 1861): 148. xxiv

White, James S. Biography p. 454. xxv

Cf. references to creeds in Guy, Fritz, Uncovering the Origins of the Statement of Twenty-seven Fundamental Beliefs, Part I, http://www.goodnewsforadventists.com/home/skypage.php?keyid=235&parentkeyid=166 (April 10, 2008) xxvi Scragg, Walter R. L., Doctrinal Statements and the Life and Witness of the Church, unpublished paper presented at workers’ meetings in Vasteräng, Sweden and Manchester, England, between 24 Aug. and 4 Sept. 1981. xxvii Athanasios, Christian History & Biography (Christianity Today); http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/special/131christians/athanasius.html (April 26, 2008). xxviii

Arius, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius (April 26, 2008). xxix Guy, Fritz, Uncovering the Origins of the Statement of the Twenty-seven Fundamental Beliefs, Part 1, http://www.goodnewsforadventists.com/home/skypage.php?keyid=235&parentkeyid=166, (April 29. 2008). xxx Unitarianism refers to belief in the oneness of God, strict monotheism and opposition to the doctrine of the Trinity, and represented other somewhat liberal theological views. See e.g. Unitarianism, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism (Oct 14, 2008).


60

xxxi Unitarians shared the Connexionist and Millerite distaste for creeds and Church organizations. Unitarianism The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Questia, Columbia University, 2004. http://www.questia.com/library/encyclopedia/unitarianism.jsp (April 27, 2008). xxxii

Fischer, Chris, A Brief History of Unitarian Christianity. American Unitarian Conference. http://www.americanunitarian.org/fisherhistory.htm. (April 27, 2008). xxxiii

Gaston, John W. III, A Theological History of Unitarianism. American Unitarian Conference, 2000. http://www.americanunitarian.org/gastonhistory.htm, (April 28, 2008). xxxiv Stark, Rodney, The Rise of Christianity, San Franciscio, 1997, pp. 49ff. xxxv

Hippolytos, Refutation, 9.11; Walker, Williston A History of the Christian Church, Edinburgh 1959, p 70. xxxvi

Stark, Rodney, Rise of Christianity, San Franciscio, 1997, pp. 59ff. xxxvii Irenaeus, Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, ch 47. ACW 16, 78. xxxviii Lohse, Bernhard, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Philadelphia 1985, p.44. xxxix Wikipedia, Tertullian, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian, (April 23.2008). Sometimes also Theophilus of Antioch is claimed as the first to use the term. However, his term is “triad” rather than “Trinity” when he compares the three first days of creation with God – first day for God, second for his Word and the third for his Wisdom. xl Harnack, Adolf, History of Dogma II, Eugene OR, 1997. Pp 231, 257. xli Tertullian, xlii Lohse, Bernhard, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Philadelphia 1985. xliii Harnack, Adolf, History of Dogma II, Eugene OR, 1997. Pp 358. xliv Harnack, Adolf, History of Dogma III, Eugene OR, 1997. Pp 51-73. xlv

Harnack, Adolf, History of Dogma IV, Eugene OR, 1997. Pp 2-13. xlvi Harnack, Adolf, History of Dogma IV, Eugene OR, 1997. Pp 18,19. xlvii Harnack, Adolf, History of Dogma IV, Eugene OR, 1997. Pp 120, 126. xlviii Bromiley, Geoffrey W., Historical Theology, An Introduction. Edinburgh 1978, Pp. 81-95. xlix

See e.g. James White’s defence of Adventism as a turn to the true Bible message. Bible Adventism, Introduction, http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/jswhite5.html. l Hull, D.W., The Bible Doctrine of Divinity, Review and Herald (November 10, 1859), Gane, Erwin, The Arian or Anti-Trinitarian Views Presented in Seventh-day Adventist Literature and the Ellen G. White Answer. Chapter III. http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/gane-thesis/e-gane03.htm#a01, (April 27, 2008). li E.g. Docetism, Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism (Oct 12, 2008) lii Kangas, Ron, Modalism, Tritheism, or the Pure Revelation of the Triune God According to the Bible. Contending for the Faith, http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/responses/booklets/modalism.html, (Oct 12, 2008) liii Frisbie, J.B., The Seventh day-Sabbath Not Abolished. Review and Herald (March 7, 1854). In Gane, Erwin, The Arian or Anti-Trinitarian Views Presented in Seventh-day Adventist Literature and the Ellen G. White Answer. Chapter III. http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/gane-thesis/e-gane03.htm#a01, (April 27, 2008). liv Moon, Jerry, Early Adventists Struggle with the Truth about Trinity. http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/Trinity%20Review%20art.htm#N_12_ (April 26, 2008). The same view was also presented by Hull, D.W., The Bible Doctrine of Divinity, Review and Herald (November 17, 1859), Gane, Erwin, The Arian or Anti-Trinitarian Views Presented in Seventh-day Adventist Literature and the Ellen G. White Answer. Chapter III. http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/gane-thesis/e-gane03.htm#a01, (April 27, 2008). lv E.g. Expulsion of Sabellanians. Lohse, Bernhard, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Philadelphia 1985, pp. 58f. lvi

Loughborough, J.H. Questions for Bro. Loughborough. Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 18 (Nov 5, 1861), p. 184. Moon, Jerry, Early Adventists Struggle with the Truth about Trinity. http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/Trinity%20Review%20art.htm#N_12_ (April 26, 2008). lvii ANF I, p. 164. E.g. Lohse translates his text in this way. Lohse, Bernhard, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Philadelphia 1985, p. 43. lviii Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, ch 56, ANF I, 223ff. Cf. Harnack Adolf, History of Dogma II, Eugene OR, 1997. Pp 111f. lix

Harnack, Adolf, History of Dogma II, Eugene OR, 1997. Pp 208-213.


61

lx Stephenson, J.M., The Atonement; Review and Herald, Nov 14, 1854. In Gane, Erwin, The Arian or Anti-Trinitarian Views Presented in Seventh-day Adventist Literature and the Ellen G. White Answer. Chapter III. http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/gane-thesis/e-gane03.htm#a01, (April 27, 2008). lxi

Stephenson, J.M., The Atonement; Review and Herald, Nov 14, 1854. In Gane, Erwin, The Arian or Anti-Trinitarian Views Presented in Seventh-day Adventist Literature and the Ellen G. White Answer. Chapter III. http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/gane-thesis/e-gane03.htm#a01, (April 27, 2008). lxii

World Council of Churches website, http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/faith/creed.html (April 26, 2008). lxiii Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod website, http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=3357 (April 26, 2008). lxiv

http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-text-triadic.htm (April 23.2008). lxv Lohse, Bernhard, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Philadelphia 1985, p. 38-41. lxvi As a historical curiosity one may note that there was a Trinitarian text in some of the earlier editions of KJV, based on Erasmus’ 1522 rendering of the so called comma Johanneum, John 5.7,8. “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear

witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”lxvi

While this form of the text is known from as early as the 4

th century, there is no early manuscript support for the section in italics.

lxviiLohse, Bernhard, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Philadelphia 1985, p. 38. lxviii Mathison, Keith, Book Review May 26, 2008, The Holy Trinity by Robert Letham; http://www.ligonier.org/blog/2008/05/book-review-the-holy-trinity.html (Oct 12, 2008). lxix This might also suit better the postmodern mindset that usually shuns detailed and dogmatic definitions. lxx Augustine On the Trinity Bk XV, 28.51. NPNF 3, 228. Lohse Bernhard, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Philadelphia 1985, pp. 70.

About the Author: Kai Arasola, PhD, is the Dean of the Faculty of Religious Studies at Mission College. His area of expertise is historical theology.

Date post:	08-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	tranthu
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

Mission College · · 2012-05-10Kai Arasola: 46-61 Mission College. CATALYST is a refereed,...

Documents