Space For Doubt

There is a fun thought experiment of what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object.

It’s a bit of a silly analogy, but you can think of the unstoppable force being the deconstruction movement and the immovable object being the status quo.

Because I am most aligned with SDA beliefs historically, I consider “our” interpretations of stories and (some of) our beliefs to be the immovable objects in this scenario. However ironically, I also believe SDA doctrinal beliefs are uniquely well suited to handle the modern deconstruction movement.

One of the doctrines we (at least in theory) believe, is Present Truth.

“Present truth is the principle that certain biblical truths are relevant to God’s people at specific times in history. God sends the Holy Spirit to reveal truths that help us better understand how to interpret and apply His Word in a present moment.“

Present Truth has been applied before to adopt NEW principles or stances, but, to at least those who I’ve asked, there doesn’t appear to be an instance where we actually changed our interpretation on anything. (if you are reading this and know of an example of this, please please please contact me! I would love to understand the how/why/what of whatever it is. I have no problem admitting I’m wrong)

This…is a bit of a problem. The SDA church has a foundational member named Ellen White, who wrote a number of works shedding light on her understandings of scripture, life, nutrition, etc. Many members of the SDA church view her at or near equal to the bible in terms of “inspiration”. Right, wrong, or indifferent, SDA readers here cannot deny this is true.

She was a champion of the idea of Present Truth. She had this to say:

I can’t think of a more clear invitation to deconstruct than this. To ask the hard questions. To….gasp…..change our minds?

A few years ago, I came across a paper by an Andrews Theological Seminary Masters student. In the opening paragraph, he mentioned something along the lines of (I can’t seem to find that paper at the moment)

“Is it time to abandon our Noachian flood narrative?”

The paper went on to list the numerous and significant obstacles that exist with continuing to maintain this traditional interpretation. It talked about there eventually being a point, perhaps now, where this becomes an untenable interpretation.

So why is it so hard to change? Why is this object so gosh darn immovable? Why can’t we apply our doctrine of present truth to change an interpretation of something so immaterial to the story of salvation?

I have a few theories, but mostly I think? It’s fear. Fear of changing one thing just leading to a cascade of having to change other things. Better to just keep with the status quo. After all, who is the arbiter of truth? Is it a majority vote at the General Conference?

The church would do well to heed caution at this being a permanent stance.

St. Augustine of Hippo had this to say:

“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

“Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. 

The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

Mic drop.

I hope that hits home for you as powerfully as it did for me. We live in a day and age where we can make sense of things in a fashion just unavailable even 100 years ago. We can use Present Truth to adapt our interpretations and doctrines.

Will we? I was always a hard “No” on that, but lately….I’ve come around to a “possibly maybe…..if the pressure is just right, and the pain of holding the old doctrine rises to an unbearable level…then maybe”.

Do you want to know something interesting about the irresistible force paradox? The theory of relativity says there is no such thing as an immovable object.

I’m looking at you SDA church….

Peace.