Okay, here's another un-PC comment, if you're Adventist. In the midst of the mild to serious spiritual crises in which I find myself, there is one thing that decidedly doesn't help me. The prophet of our church was hit in the head by a rock, and proceeded to have visions afterward. Hit in the head, followed by visions. If I recall correctly, this was framed as her succeeding with God's help despite the problems caused by the rock injury and then being God's instrument as his prophet and receiving his visions. Looking at it today, I have a hard time as seeing the rock injury and the visions as an un-related thing. Why didn't that ever come up when we were younger? I suppose it's a matter of greater faith to believe the visions were real rather than rock-inspired, but you have to admit, a compelling case could be made that there were no paranormal explanations needed. Of course, I'm no doctor, so I don't know if head trauma can lead directly to hallucinations years later, but it seems well within the realm of possibility. Am I remembering this wrong? I admit it's been a while since I thought about the story.
Two pluses help me here. One, while I heard a lot of EGW talk privately, church activities still seemed to be largely Bible-based. Which I approve of. If we idolized her a bit more it would be harder to swallow. Second, I actually like some of EGW's books, especially the ones she wrote later in life, because I believe she achieved some better enlightenment and became more mellow and far less strident. She may have postulated that black people came from ancestors and monkeys mating or some garbage, and tried a little too hard to make science fit the genesis accounts, but I'm willing to forgive that as the sins of a mildly ignorant and dogmatic youth. I'd like to think that as she aged she realized some of her past beliefs were some form of bullshit.
I think most things that E.G. wrote about science, including that monkey thing (can't remember exactly what you said since I'm in a new window now), she basically "borrowed" or "plagiarized" from other books and Christian authors. There is a good article about it written by a professor at Newbold. Of course he reaffirms his faith in her inspiration despite all the borrowing. But I think most stuff that is in any way scientific she didn't really postulate herself.
ReplyDeleteIt's true she focused more on God's love and grace later in life, which Alden Thompson loves to point out. He said her late writings saved his Christian life, or something like that. Always talked about it in class. In fact, he has a new book out that is on that very subject. You may find it interesting. Look for it. I can't remember the name. Something like, "Out of the fire and into the flames." If I have seriously muffed the title up, I'm sorry, Alden.
It's "Escape from the Flames." Subtitled, "How Ellen White moved from fear to joy and helped me do it too." I attend the class he co-teaches on Sabbaths, and his original idea for the title was "Ellen White Escapes from Hell."
ReplyDeleteAlden's main thrust is his discussion of how Ellen felt the need for the doctrine of an eternally burning hell when she was young and before the Adventist movement started rolling. As she grew older, mellowed, and presumably grew in her relationship with God, she tempered her bombast with much more talk about a loving savior and the joy to be found in relationship with Him. Alden also spends a little time discussing her use of sources available in her time, and how she made no bones about it. People talk about it like it's a major scandal, but in a couple of different places she talked openly about how and why she used other sources, and why she didn't cite them.
As for "rock to the face = visions of heavenly delight". . . I don't know. It would be interesting to see how many other blunt force trauma incidents lead to visions or hallucinations. But I think that the Adventist attitude on EGW's visions is probably based on two factors: the consistency and timeliness of her visions, and the Biblical tests of a prophet outlined by Paul. (Don't ask me for a reference. I'm not a theologian.)
I've just been thinking of an interesting dichotomy. A rationalist will seek a scientific (or at least logical) explaination for every encounter or phenomenon, no matter how miraculous it may seem. A person who lives on faith (I hesitate to say mystic; I don't think that's the sense I'm looking for.) sees the hand of God or other spiritual forces behind every event of his daily life. Because one's logic doesn't speak to the other's faith, and statements of faith are unsatisfying when one is looking for logic and reason, neither sees validity in the other's point of view. And yet, even logic is based on faith: the belief that the universe must be governed by forces that can be understood and rationalized; that logic can, in time, comprehend the universe.
Perhaps, rather than a simply linear relationship between faith and logic, there is some sort of coordinate plane: belief to unbelief on the X, order to chaos on the Y. I'm willing to entertain the existence of a Z axis, but can't identify it at the moment. I thought that "I (heart) Huckabees" was a fascinating film that primarily focused on the schism between nihilism and a philosophy of interconnectedness of everything. I'm not quite sure if that lines up neatly with my chaos to order axis, or if that defines a potential Z.
In the end, I guess what I'm saying is that I don't want to trivialize anyone's position, not even my own. We all feel tension between what we were brought up with and what we experience, think and feel as we grow as individuals. The thing that I have the least patience for is the use of devistating arguments to try to crush a dogmatic opponent into submission. And in that, both people of logic and people of faith have been guilty. The Ph.D. wielding research fellow defending evolutionary science can be just as much a radical fundamentalist as the poorly educated Christian or Muslim or Buddhist.
Not trying to present a devastating argument to crush all opposition, just point out that I'd never thought of it before and don't recall it being addressed. And quite frankly I find it more than a bit interesting. Not saying I'm all about facts and only the facts now, but probably more so than when I was younger. It was just interesting to me. I know you're not accusing, but, just clarifying.
ReplyDeleteYou had me a little concerned there for a minute that I'd been unclear. I'm not trying to accuse you of anything, just establishing a position, of sorts. Maybe more of a philosophy. I don't know. Like you, I'm somewhat intellectually lazy. Maybe it's a partial reaction to the time KVC berated me for saying that I believed there were some very real things or events that science (or logic, but I don't intend them to be interchangable) couldn't explain.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I have always thought that explanation for her visions to sound quite questionable. Is there some proof that getting hit with a rock when you're young causes visions years later? How is one to know? I think it's just something someone brought up because they didn't believe in her visions but wanted a good excuse.
ReplyDelete