Pöhler Dynamic Truth

A Study of the Problem of Doctrinal Development
1. Auflage 2020
ISBN: 978-3-935480-55-0
Verlag: Theologische Hochschule Friedensau
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: 6 - ePub Watermark

E-Book, Deutsch, 464 Seiten

DYNAMIC TRUTH is a reprint of the author's groundbreaking dissertation on Change in Seventh-day Adventist Theology. Submitted in 1995 and initially published in 1999 (Part I) and 2000 (Part II), it is the first and only in-depth study to date dealing with the issue of doctrinal development from an Adventist perspective. Part I analyzes the intricate problem of doctrinal development and presents a historical survey of theories of doctrinal change, classifying them in three ideal types. In the author's view, a dialectic approach concerned about substantial continuity as well as authentic change can best avoid the pitfalls of dogmatic immobilism and revisionism. Part II provides a detailed study of the problem of doctrinal change in a Seventh-day Adventist setting. It analyzes the extent, nature, and direction of doctrinal developments in the light of the religious background of the church and the social forces at work in it. It also discusses the church's response to doctrinal adjustments and Ellen G. White's involvement in, and conception of, doctrinal change. The study concludes that Adventist teachings have been significantly affected by theological and hermeneutical developments under the impact of social forces nudging the church closer towards evangelical Protestantism. Ellen White, co-founder of the church, was personally involved in theological change. Her concept of doctrinal development shows a remarkable depth of insight and presents a well-balanced approach to the dynamics of faith and truth.

Rolf J. Pöhler is Professor of Systematic Theology at Friedensau Adventist University in Germany.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Pöhler, Rolf

Leseproben

Introduction
I would exchange a thousand errors for one truth! John Nevins Andrews From the beginning of my studies I have made it a rule that whenever I come to know a sounder opinion on an issue, I will gladly and humbly give up the first opinion knowing that what we know is very little in comparison to what we do not know. Jan Hus Background and Context As in the life of individuals, so also in the corporate existence of institutions and groups, churches and nations, crisis situations may develop that have an up-setting and disconcerting effect upon the people involved. From its inception, the history of the Christian church is replete with examples of this, one of the best known being the Protestant Reformation and its aftermath of the sixteenth century. In spite of its recent origin, the Seventh-day Adventist Church has not been exempt from such times of crisis. Some of these involved controversies regarding doctrines whose traditional understanding was questioned by some within the community of faith. Apart from the years following the great disappointment of 1844, the most important and best known of these periods is tied to the year 1888. In this century, similar crisis situations occurred when some Adventists4 challenged certain historic beliefs of the church.5 This study was written in the wake of another, more recent one of these theological controversies that proved quite traumatic for a number of Adventists involved in it.6 Judged from the past, similar crises should rather be expected in the future. However that may be, what usually seems involved in such conflicts is the theology, the authority, and the identity of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. In other words, what we are dealing with is a threefold challenge and potential crisis situation: (1) a crisis of theology challenging the traditional and distinctive body of beliefs the church has inherited from its founding fathers; (2) a crisis of authority questioning whether the powers that be are indeed ordained of God to exercise their role in a given manner in the church; and (3) a crisis of identity putting in question the historic and unique self-understanding of the church.7 It has become rather commonplace for Adventists in some parts of the world to speak of the existence of an identity crisis in the church.8 What lies at the bottom of this threefold challenge is, in fact, a crisis of change. The widening gap between the movement’s founders and their spiritual descendants, the growing sense of history and cultural change, and the discovery of certain modifications in the church’s heritage of faith over the years are raising nagging questions as to the timeless validity and continuing relevance of the message, mission, and self-understanding of the church.9 These tensions are heightened by the fact that Western societies have largely become secular and pluralistic segments in a heterogeneous world making it all the more difficult for any Christian denomination to maintain unity of faith, conformity of practice, and singularity of purpose.10 Thus, any new generation of believers needs, in a sense, to establish anew its relationship to the inheritance received from its spiritual progenitors.11 But can, or should, these traditions be modified and adapted to new situations? Must they perhaps even be discarded and replaced by new beliefs? Is change necessary for the growth and advancement of the church, or rather does it constitute an impediment to it threatening its very existence and self-identity? These are questions raised among Seventh-day Adventists today. Psychologically speaking, people generally tend to resist change.12 Besides, in matters of religion, doctrinal adaptations and revisions seem to stand in irreconcilable conflict with the concept of an eternal and revealed truth.13 At the same time, however, the winds of change have repeatedly been blowing with force, if not on the Adventist church premises, then certainly throughout Christendom in general – not to the least in recent decades.14 There are those who see this not merely as a dangerous threat but rather as a welcome opportunity for the Christian church.15 Crisis is a part of life – of that which is vital, dynamic, moving forward ... It is a peak point of decisiveness which either ushers in a significant spurt of growth or a retardation that ranges from stagnation to disintegration or extinction.16 So, in spite of the possible risks involved, the Christian church in general, and the Seventh-day Adventist Church in particular, should face the issue of doctrinal change unhesitatingly – at least, if they want to provide reliable answers to the questions raised by the crises of change. In the view of a renowned church historian, “no task confronting Christian theology today is more vital than the demand that it face this issue squarely.”17 It is in response to Pelikan’s challenge that this work was written. Scope and Purpose In order to be prepared for and properly respond to the periodic challenges of change, the church needs to understand the circumstances as well as the possible reasons and driving forces behind them.18 To this end, an analysis of doctrinal developments in the history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and of the various theological positions regarding doctrinal continuity and change could contribute significantly. More specifically, this document pursues a twofold objective. In the first place, it discusses the problem of doctrinal continuity and change as treated in theological literature in general in order to gain a full understanding of both the issues involved and the possible solutions available for them. By studying Seventh-day Adventism in the wider context and in the light of the history of Christian theology as a whole, the study provides an interpretative framework that may help both Adventists and those studying Adventism to better understand the history and development of the denomination (Part I). In the second place, the study investigates the extent, nature, and direction of doctrinal developments that have occurred in the history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church from its inception until recent years. Over against this backdrop, the document then analyzes the reactions to whatever doctrinal changes were occurring and the conceptions of doctrinal development advanced within the church (Part II). It is hoped that this provides an adequate and solid foundation on which a hermeneutical concept of doctrinal development may be built within the particular context of Adventist theology. In order to avoid possible misunderstandings and false, or exaggerated, expectations, it may also be helpful to indicate at the outset what this study does not intend to accomplish. First, the historical analysis of doctrinal developments does not investigate the manner in which the various Adventist teachings originally came into existence. Instead, it examines how and, to some degree, also why certain of these teachings developed and changed after they did already exist in some, however rudimentary, form. As is shown in Part One, the term doctrinal development as used in theological hermeneutics denotes not the mode of formation but the successive transformation of a doctrine. In other words, it deals with the modification and growth of a teaching following its inception or birth. Second, this work does not provide an exhaustive treatment of the struggle for doctrinal continuity and change within Seventh-day Adventism. Neither does it discuss all the published or unpublished views advanced in this international and, indeed, worldwide denomination, nor does it analyze the many instances where proposed doctrinal changes were resisted and the historic understanding of the church was confirmed. Its focus lies rather on selected doctrinal modifications and their interpretation within the church insofar as they shed light on the theological problem of development.19 In order to keep a proper perspective, the year 1985 has been chosen as the cut-off date for the historical investigation of doctrinal change.20 The historical importance of American Adventism for, and its continuing influence on, the teachings and policies of the denomination provides the rationale for limiting this work, in the main, to the purview of English-speaking North America. Occasionally this horizon is widened by the input from the author’s personal Western European background. Today, both of these regions together represent approximately 12% of the worldwide membership of the Adventist church.21 Third, it should also be clear that the historical analysis of doctrinal developments within Adventism does not provide a criterion for possible doctrinal changes in the future. While such an analysis may and, most likely, will have implications for a theology of doctrinal development, any challenge to the teachings of Seventhday Adventists must be evaluated separately and on its own ground. In other words, doctrinal changes in the past do not, of themselves, provide any justification for doctrinal revisions in the present or in the future.22 Finally, it should be noted that this study does not attempt to develop or present an Adventist theology of doctrinal development. As needed as this may be, its requirements would go beyond the limits of this investigation and must, therefore, await another...