by warren s. ashworth * the lesser...1. greater light/lesser light. the 6 the standard of character,...

5

ourselves of the relationship herwritings should have to Scripture.

What was Ellen White’s view ofScripture? Did she believe her writ-ings to be equal to or even superiorto the Bible? Did she understandthem to be an indispensable addi-tion to the Bible?

To understand the answers tothose questions correctly, it is imper-ative that we understand her view ofrevelation and inspiration.

Ellen White’s Understanding ofRevelation and Inspiration

The introduction to The GreatControversy and pages 15 to 23 ofSelected Messages, Book 1, containthe clearest statements Ellen Whitewrote to aid our understanding ofhow God communicates divinetruth. Though she did not believethat God dictated His messagesword for word to His speciallychosen messengers (except on rareoccasions), she would have firmlyrejected the contemporary “encoun -ter” view that holds that no divinemessages were communicated to theprophets and that the Bible thereforecontains no absolute, normativetruth. Though she did not believethat every individual word chosenwas inspired (i.e., “God-breathed”),she did believe that the prophetswere inspired. “Inspiration,” shewrote, “acts not on the man’s wordsor his expressions but on the manhimself, who, under the influence of

the Holy Ghost, is imbued withthoughts.”1

She explained, “The writers of theBible had to express their ideas inhuman language. It was written byhuman men.”2 Thus she believedthat the “writers of the Bible wereGod’s penmen, not His pen.”3And toclarify further she added, “the wordsreceive the impress of the individualmind. The divine mind is diffused.The divine mind and will is com-bined with the human mind andwill; thus the utterances of the manare the word of God.”4The messagesof the prophets, whether written ororal, were overshadowed and im -bued, she believed, by the guidingministry of the Holy Spirit. Thus shecould declare, “I take the Bible just asit is, as the Inspired Word. I believeits utterances in an entire Bible.”5

Mrs. White acknowledged thatthere are mistakes in the Bible, butassured, “All the mistakes will notcause trouble to one soul, or causeany feet to stumble, that would notmanufacture difficulties from theplainest revealed truth.”6 It was herposition that the essential truths ofScripture had been providentiallypreserved intact for all time. Thus,while acknowledging the presence ofmistakes, she could declare, “In HisWord, God has committed to menthe knowledge necessary for salva-tion. The Holy Scriptures are to beac cepted as an authoritative, infalli-ble revelation of His will. They are

4

s Seventh-day Adventists, wecon sider ourselves to be the“rem nant” in Revelation 12:17(KJV). In harmony with thecharacteristics of that remnant,

we will have the “testimony of Jesus,”which the apostle John identifies asthe “spirit of prophecy” (19:10, KJV).

Not having been born into a Sev-enth-day Adventist home, I wasshocked when at age 16, I first heardthat Adventists believed Ellen G.White to be a genuine manifesta-tion of that spirit of prophecy. Andas I soon discovered, she was oftenquoted in Adventist pulpits.

My father, a Baptist, attended aSeventh-day Adventist church onlytwice, and both times came awayasking, “Who is this Ellen White?Why don’t they use the Bible?” Henever became an Adventist. That wasin the 1950s. Times have changed,and the locus of Adventist preachinghas gravitated more solidly to theBible, but we still do well to remind

THE LESSERAND THE GREATER

LIGHTS

B Y W A R R E N S . A S H W O R T H *

AUnderstanding of the relationship

between Scripture and the writings of Ellen White is key to understanding her ministry.

*Warren S. Ashworth, Ph.D., retired,has served as a professor of theology atRiver Plate College, Argentina; An- drews University, Michigan; and Pa- c ific Union College, California.

7

correcting error, and of reproving andrebuking secret sins. This part of thework is wrought by what the Scrip-tures term Spiritual Gifts. These exist,not for the especial good of the per-son to whose trust they are commit-ted, but for the benefit of the wholebody of the church.”10

The understanding of the earlyleaders of the church was paralleledby Ellen White in her statement atthe close of her first book in 1851: “Irecommend to you, dear reader, theWord of God as the rule of yourfaith and practice. By that Word weare to be judged. God has, in thatWord, promised to give visions inthe ‘last days’; not for a new rule offaith, but for the comfort of His peo-ple, and to correct those who errfrom Bible truth.”11

In those early views are enun - iated several of the principal pur-poses for the writings of EllenWhite. James White identified per-

haps the two most important ones:First, to lead us to God, and second,to lead us to the Word. Uriah Smithidentified three others—clarifyingand explaining the Bible, correctingerror, and reproving and rebukingsecret sins. In that initial writtendescription, Ellen White added twomore—for the comforting and con-soling of His people, and to bringthose back who wander from Bibletruth. Those seven purposes alonewould justify the value of, andexplain the enduring interest in, thewritings of Ellen White.

Metaphors for UnderstandingTo aid understanding of the pur-

poses for which God has communi-cated through Ellen White to Hispeople in this late hour of human his-tory, and to more clearly perceive therelationship of her writings to theBible, six metaphors prove helpful:1. Greater Light/Lesser Light. The

6

the standard of character, the re -vealer of doctrines, and the test ofexperience.”7

Though we believe that the Bibleis an “infallible revelation of Hiswill,” and is the “standard,” unlikemost other denominations we donot believe that the genuine gift ofprophecy ceased with the death ofJohn the Revelator. Since our incep-tion as a denomination, we havebelieved that Ellen White was an -other in the long line of prophet-messengers who—though not ca -nonical and different in purposeand function—were as inspired astheir prophetic forebears. This doesnot mean, however, that her writ-ings are on an equal footing withScripture. Just as those propheticwriters who followed Moses werejudged to be genuine only if theydid not contradict formerly re -vealed truth (Isa. 8:20), so the NewTestament writers were judged bytheir faithfulness to the teachings ofthe Old Testament. In the same way,all later prophets must be judged bytheir unswerving confirmation ofthe entire Bible.

Pioneer Views of the Lesser andGreater Lights

As early as 1847, James White,while holding to a prima scripturaview, confirmed that God wouldcontinue to utilize the gift ofprophecy. “The Bible,” he explained,“is a perfect and complete revela-

tion. It is our only rule of faith andpractice. But this is no reason whyGod may not show the past, present,and future fulfillment of his word, inthese last days, by dreams andvisions, according to Peter’s testi -mony. True visions are given to leadus to God, and His Written Word;but those that are given for a newrule of faith and practice, separatefrom the Bible, cannot be from God,and should be rejected.”8

The same year the church wasorganized, Uriah Smith took issuewith the sola scriptura position thatmany were using to repudiate anypost-biblical manifestation of theprophetic gift. He wrote, “TheProtestant principle, of ‘the Bibleand the Bible alone,’ is of itself goodand true; and we stand upon it asfirmly as anyone can; but when reiter-ated in connection with outspokendenunciations of the visions, it hasspecious appearance for evil. . . .When we claim to stand on the Bibleand Bible alone, we bind ourselves toreceive, unequivocally and fully, allthat the Bible teaches.”9

Under the title “Our Use of theVisions of Sr. White,” J. N. Andrews,as editor of the Advent Review andSabbath Herald, wrote in 1870, “Thework of the Holy Spirit may be di -vided into two parts: First, that whichis designed simply to convert and tosanctify the persons affected by it.Second, that which is for the purposeof opening the truth of God, and of

Though we believe that the Bible is an “infallible revelation

of His will,” and is the “standard,” unlike most other denomi-

nations we do not believe that the genuine gift of prophecy

ceased with the death of John the Revelator. Since our inception

as a denomination, we have believed that Ellen White was

another in the long line of prophet-messengers who—though

not canonical and different in purpose and function—were as

inspired as their prophetic forebears.

9

rather than to search diligently forthe hidden treasure.”14

2. Earlier Light/Later Light. TheBible, written by some 40 writers,the first of whom wrote more than3,000 years ago, has been God’ssupreme revelation of His will andpurpose universally and across time.In contrast, God called a modernprophet near the end of time to callpeople back to that earlier light.Thus she is that later light, reflectingand amplifying the earlier light.3. Testor/Testee. Every nation of the

world has national standards of mea-surement, establishing a recognizednorm to which all other measure-ments are compared. Though theworking standards may be indistin-guishable from the national standard,they are never used to test the na -tional standard, but are always testedby it. In the same way, while thebeauty, veracity, and relevance of thewritings of Ellen White may be indis-tinguishable from the Bible, they arealways and only the “working stan-dard” to be tested by the Word.4. National Map/State Map. Rec-

ognizing that Ellen White wrote farmore than is found in the Bible, themetaphor of the “National Map/StateMap” is particularly relevant. Thereare maps that cover everything, fromthe entire world, emphasizing themajor characteristics of the planet, tolocal maps that cover a very smallgeographical area but do so in greatdetail. She was told, “Your testimony .

. . is to come down to the minutiae oflife, keeping the feeble faith fromdying, and pressing home uponbelievers the necessity of shining aslights in the world.”15 The Bible por-trays the great themes of God and Hisplan, and fundamental principles forChristian living, but in her writingsGod helps clarify for us the minutiae. 5. Field/Lens. According to Denton

Rebok, a well-known North Ameri-can Adventist minister and a lifelongstudent of Ellen White’s writings,Ellen White believed that Mrs. S. M. I.Henry had, in her metaphor of the“Field/Lens” captured “as clearly andas accurately as anyone could ever putinto words,” the relationship of herwritings to the Bible.16 Mrs. Henrysaid that the writings of Ellen Whitewere like a lens and telescope throughwhich we can look at the Bible, andare “subject to all telescopic condi-tions and limitations.”

“Clouds,” she explained, “mayintervene between it and a heaven fullof stars,—clouds of unbelief, of con-tention; Satan may blow tempests allabout it; it may be blurred by thebreath of our own selfishness; thedust of superstition may gather uponit. . . . If the lens is mistaken for thefield we can receive but a very narrowconception of the most magnificentspectacle with which the heavens everinvited our gaze, but in its properoffice as a medium of enlarged andclearer vision, as a telescope, the testi-mony has a wonderfully beautiful and

8

first of these metaphors comes fromthe Book of Genesis: “God made twogreat lights: the greater light to rulethe day, and the lesser light to rule thenight” (1:16, NKJV). Ellen White usedthis passage to create one of the mostapt metaphors for understanding thevalue and purpose of her works.

By 1902, the church’s educationalinstitutions were deeply in debt, andMrs. White had decided to dedicatethe proceeds from the sale of Christ’sObject Lessons to the reduction of thedebt. In a published letter, she urgedall church members to help in thismissionary venture, assuring themthat the book contained “precious,comforting light” and that from thebook’s pages, “this light is to shineinto the hearts of men and women,leading them to the Saviour.”12

A little later in her letter, sheexplained, “The Lord has sent hispeople much instruction, line uponline, precept upon precept, here a lit-tle, and there a little. Little heed isgiven to the Bible, and the Lord has

given a lesser light to lead men andwomen to the greater light.”13 Thusshe draws attention to two impor-tant realities: The Word of God issorely neglected, and her writingswere given to draw all back to it.

In a statement the meaning ofwhich cannot be misunderstood, shedeclared, “The Bible is the only ruleof faith and doctrine. And there isnothing more calculated to energizethe mind, and strengthen the intel-lect, than the study of the word ofGod. . . . If God’s word were studiedas it should be, men would have abreadth of mind, a nobility of char-acter, and a stability of purpose, thatis rarely seen in these times. Thou-sands of men who minister in thepulpit are lacking in essential quali-ties of mind and character, becausethey do not apply themselves to thestudy of the Scriptures. They arecontent with a superficial knowledgeof the truths that are full of richdepths of meaning; and they preferto go on, losing much in every way,

Ellen White explained, “The Lord has sent his people

much instruction, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a

little, and there a little. Little heed is given to the Bible, and

the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to

the greater light.” Thus she draws attention to two important

realities: The Word of God is sorely neglected, and her

writings were given to draw all back to it.

1110

for the human dilemma. And shehas much to teach regarding ourunderstanding of final events,Christ’s second coming, and thepreparation needed to meet them.Though she died almost a centuryago, she is still regarded by most Sev-enth-day Ad ven tists as a genuineprophet-messenger of God who hasproved be yond doubt the fruit of herlife and labor.

There is, however, an aspect of herministry that merits especially carefulinvestigation: her role as interpreterof Scripture. Raoul Dederen notesthree salient features of her in thisrole. First, “As interpreter of the Bible,Ellen White’s most characteristic rolewas that of an evangelist—not anexegete, nor a theologian, as such, buta preacher and an evangelist. . . . Shewas in the typical prophetic attitude,primarily desirous to press the textinto service for the immediate objec-tive, that of the spiritual quickeningof her hearers or readers.”

Second, “she never fails to em pha -size the relevancy of the passage toher readers, and the importance of aproper response to the Word of God.”

Third, he notes a “conspicuousfeature. . . the amazing ease withwhich biblical quotations and allu-sions come from her pen. . . . Hermind was thoroughly impregnatedwith the Scriptures.”20

Since her writings were soimmersed in the Word, it is not sur-prising that A. T. Jones, in 1894,

should have described her as an“infallible” interpreter of the Bible,even going so far as to state that thebest way to study the Bible was“through them.”21 Though othermodern self-proclaimed prophetscast themselves as the necessarylooking glass through which torightly interpret Scripture, EllenWhite categorically rejected such arole. She emphatically declared thather writings are never to be putahead of the Bible.22

However, she recalled how, in herearly ministry, “the power of Godwould come” over her and she “wasenabled clearly to define what istruth and what is error.”23On severalother occasions she confirmed thatwhat she wrote was accurate andcorrect. “There is one straight chainof truth, without one heretical sen-tence, in that which I have written.”24

The testimonies, she asserted, “nevercontradict His Word.”25

The conclusion is unavoidable:Ellen White must have believed thatwhen she made statements regard-ing doctrine, as well as any othertopic, her statements were biblicallyand doctrinally sound. If that is true,why then did she oppose the use ofher writings to determine doctrinalcorrectness?

In 1910, when the church leaderswere divided over the meaning ofthe meaning of the word daily inDaniel 8, S. N. Haskell insisted thatthey should come to an understand-

holy office. . . . They are not theheavens, palpitating with countlessorbs of truth, but they do lead the eyeand give it power to penetrate into theglories of the mysterious living wordof God.”17

In other words, a telescope doesnot create more stars; it simplyenables us to see more clearly theones that are already there. In sup-port of that view, Ellen White wrote,“The written testimonies are not togive new light, but to impress viv idlyupon the heart the truths of inspira-tion already revealed. Man’s duty toGod and to his fellow man has beendistinctly specified in God’s word;yet but few of you are obedient tothe light given. Additional truth isnot brought out; but God hasthrough the Testimonies simplifiedthe great truths already given and inHis own chosen way brought thembefore the people to awaken andimpress the mind with them, that allmay be left without excuse.”18

6. Captain/Pilot. This final meta -phor is one that many find particu -larly useful. Uriah Smith, 32 years ofage at the time he wrote this in an edi-torial for the church paper, evidenceda clear understanding of the matter:“Suppose we are about to start upon avoyage. The owner of the vessel givesus a book of directions, telling us thatit contains instructions sufficient forour whole journey. . . . but he alsotells us that the latter part of our jour-ney will be especially perilous. . .

‘but for this part of the journey,’ sayshe, ‘I have provided you a pilot, whowill meet you, and give you suchdirections as the surrounding cir-cumstances and dangers may require;and to him you must give heed.’

“With these directions we reachthe perilous time specified, and thepilot, according to promise, appears.But some of the crew, as he offers hisservices, rise up against him. ‘Wehave the original book of directions,’say they, ‘and that is enough for us.We stand upon that, and that alone;we want nothing of you.’ Who nowheed that original book of direc-tions? those who reject the pilot, orthose who receive him, as that bookinstructs them? Judge ye.”19

Ellen White as Interpreter of Scripture

In most areas of church and per-sonal life we, as a church, haveacknowledged and valued the pres-ence of a God-given “harbor pilot”for these troubled and challengingtimes. Through her writings EllenWhite continues to exalt the Wordand call all back to the study of it.The principles and truths of Scrip-ture are clarified and simplifiedthrough her coming down to theminutiae. A call to godly living andrenouncing of sin is a note soundedfaithfully throughout her writings.In books like Steps to Christ and TheDesire of Ages she provides hope,consolation, and heavenly solutions

13

White’s writings are primarily forma-tive, not normative, because theyspeak in subservience to the author ityof Scripture, that is not to stay thatGod did not, on occasion, use her tocorrect doctrinal errors. At criticaljunctures in our denomination’s his-tory, she was used by God to alterdoctrinal views significantly. Regard-ing the late 1840s, she wrote: “At thattime one error after another pressedin upon us; ministers and doctorsbrought in new doctrines. We wouldsearch the Scriptures with muchprayer, and the Holy Spirit wouldbring the truth to our minds. . . . Thepower of God would come upon me,and I was enabled clearly to definewhat is truth and what is error.”28

In 1898, to counteract the semi-arianism of Uriah Smith, she statedunequivocally, “In Christ is life, orig-inal, unborrowed, underived. . . . Thedivinity of Christ is the believer’sassurance of eternal life.”29

At the General Conference sessionof 1901, she publicly refuted the“Holy Flesh” fanaticism that had beenembraced by the conference leader-ship and workers in Indiana. Inresponse to their belief that each mustacquire a state of physical sinlessnessas an essential preparation for trans-lation, she wrote, “The teaching givenin regard to what is termed ‘holy flesh’is an error. All may now obtain holyhearts, but it is not correct to claim inthis life to have holy flesh. . . . Nohuman being on the earth has holy

flesh. It is an impossibility.”30

In 1903, when the leadership andthe church began to anguish over Dr.John Harvey Kellogg’s espousal ofpantheism, she wrote, “In the bookLiving Temple there is pre sented thealpha of deadly heresies.”31

And in 1905, in response to A. F.Ballenger’s views on the sanctuarythat denied the fulfillment ofprophecy in 1844 and repudiated theheavenly ministry of Christ in theinvestigative judgment, she was cate-gorical: “When the power of God tes-tifies as to what is truth, that truth isto stand forever as the truth. No aftersuppositions contrary to the lightGod has given are to be entertained.Men will arise with interpretations ofScripture which are to them truth,but which are not truth.”32

While God wants His peopleearnestly to wrestle with the Word inthe continuous quest for truth, whensome arose who instead misappliedthe Word, He acted through Hisprophet to distinguish for all the linebetween truth and error.

“The fact that Mrs. White’s ownparticular calling and vocation wasthat of a prophet suggests that herrole is not merely devotional or pas-toral, nor yet exegetical or theologi-cal, but prophetic. Although herministry exhibits elements of allthese other roles, it is apart fromthem, distinct. Prophetic authority isauthority to bring God’s message tobear on the root problems of human

12

ing of the term as judged by thewritings of Ellen White.

She responded: “I entreat ofElders H, I, J, and others of our lead-ing brethren, that they make no ref-erence to my writings to sustaintheir views of ‘the daily.’ . . . I can-not consent that any of my writingsshall be taken as settling this matter.. . . I have had no instruction on thepoint under discussion.”26

It is important to note that shedid not want any of her writings tobe used in settling this doctrinalcontroversy. While it is reasonable toassume that what she had writtenwas correct, she was, nevertheless,not presenting a theological or exe -getical explanation.

Reflecting on this controversy, W.C. White felt he understood the rea-son for his mother’s position. “Someof the brethren,” he wrote, “are muchsurprised and disappointed becauseMother does not write somethingdecisive that will settle the question asto what is the ‘daily’ and thus bring anend to the present disagreement. At

times I have hoped for this, but as Ihave seen that God has not seen fit tosettle the matter by a revelation[through] His messenger, I have comemore and more to believe that it wasthe will of God that a thorough studyshould be made of the Bible and his-tory, till a clear understanding of thetruth was gained.”27

It is reasonable to draw a numberof conclusions from the experiencewith the “daily”:• Ellen White consistently refused

to be the arbiter of truth. No doctri-nal position was to be determinedand defended on the basis of “EllenWhite says.” • She wanted all to “wrestle” with

the Scripture.• Using her as final arbiter would

inevitably lead to biblical illiteracy.• In order to have any lasting

credibility with our own churchmembers, let alone with Christiansof other faiths, all our doctrinesmust be based solely and completelyon the Bible.

Though it is true that Ellen

Though it is true that Ellen White’s writings are primarily

formative, not normative, because they speak in subservience

to the authority of Scripture, that is not to stay that God did

not, on occasion, use her to correct doctrinal errors.

At critical junctures in our denomination’s history, she was

used by God to alter doctrinal views significantly.

15

uring the past decade, a fresh,enlightening breeze has beenblowing into every corner ofthe house that Darwin built.The enterprise promoting this

sea change, known as IntelligentDesign (ID), began to cohere in themid-1990s.

Lehigh University biochemistMichael Behe published his bookDarwin’s Black Box, in which he con-vincingly showed that many bio -logical structures display “irreduc -ible complexity.” Structures likevision cascades, cellular cilia, bacter-ial flagella, and other “molecularma ch ines” require many complexand coordinated molecular workingparts. Behe combed the literature insearch of evolutionary scenarios in -volving many small steps, to accountfor the origin of such structures, but

found them few and far between,and totally inadequate.

For biological machines to work,all—or most—of the molecularparts are needed at once. The com-plexity cannot be reduced to somemuch simpler state. Individual com-ponent proteins, or small selectionsof them, do not function at all.Hence the Darwinian mechanismcannot build the observed complex-ity by gradual selection of increas-ingly efficient precursors. Irre-ducibly complex mechanical andelectronic machines offer a pertinentanalogy and are known to be theproducts of intelligent minds takingadvantage of natural laws. Conse-

ORIGINS SCIENCENEEDS DESIGN REHAB

B Y J O H N C . W A L T O N *

DThe boat containing evolution’s most precious

cargo seems to be leaking.

*John C. Walton, Ph.D., D.Sc., is aProfessor of Chemistry at the Univer -sity of St. Andrews, Fife, Scotland.

14

existence, to search out human per-versity, and highlight human poten-tial in Christ. A prophet may arguetheologically, may offer devotionalreflection, and may minister pas-torally to God’s people, but his mes-sage is usually more disturbing thana pastor’s, more challenging than adevotional writer’s, more grippingthan a theological formulation, andmore relevant than an exegeticalexposition.”33

Seventh-day Adventists continueto investigate, broaden, and deepentheir understanding of the gift ofprophecy and its multi-faceted trea-sure of heavenly guidance throughthe life, labors, and writings of EllenWhite. But the study and use of herwritings come with a call for discre-tion: “In public labor do not makeprominent, and quote that whichSister White has written, as author ityto sustain your positions. . . . Bringyour evidences, clear and plain, fromthe Word of God. . . . Let none beeducated to look to Sister White, butto the mighty God, who gives in -struction to Sister White.”34

If as Seventh-day Adventists webelieve all that the Bible teaches, wewill cherish the writings of EllenWhite, and if we believe all that EllenWhite teaches, we will cherish andexalt supremely the Word of God.

4 Ibid. 5 Ibid., p. 17.6 Ibid., p. 16.7 The Faith I Live By, p. 13.8 A Word to the Little Flock, p. 13.9 Uriah Smith, Advent Review and Sabbath

Herald (January 13, 1870).10 J. N. Andrews, Advent Review and Sab-

bath Herald (February 15, 1870).11 Early Writings, p. 78.12 “An Open Letter From Mrs. E. G. White

to All Who Love the Blessed Hope,” AdventRe view and Sabbath Herald, (January 20,1903), p. 15.

13 Ibid.14 Fundamentals of Christian Education, p.

126.15 Life Sketches, p. 202.16 Denton Rebok, Believe His Prophets

(Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publ.Assn., 1956), p. 181.

17 S. M. I. Henry, The Gospel of Health(January 1898), pp. 25-28.

18 Testimonies for the Church, vol. 2, p. 605.19 Uriah Smith, “Do We Discard the Bible

by Endorsing the Visions?” Advent Review andSabbath Herald (January 13, 1863).

20 “Ellen White’s Doctrine of Scripture,” in“Are There Prophets in the Modern Church?”Supplement to Ministry (July 1977), p. 24H.

21 HM Extra (December 1894).22 Evangelism, p. 256.23 Gospel Workers, p. 302.24 Selected Messages, Book 3, p. 52.25 Ibid., p. 32.26 Ibid., Book 1, p. 164.27 W. C. White to P. T. Magan, July 31, 1910.28 Gospel Workers, p. 302.29 The Desire of Ages, p. 530.30 Selected Messages, Book 2, p. 32.31 Ibid., Book 1, p. 200.32 Ibid., p. 161.33 Ron Graybill, “Ellen White’s Role in

Doctrine Formation,” Ministry (October1981), p. 1.

34 Selected Messages, Book 3, pp. 29, 30.

REFERENCES1 Selected Messages, Book 1, p. 21. 2 Ibid., p. 19.3 Ibid.

1716

quently, Behe argued that biologicalmachines are powerful evidence ofintelligent design in biology.

At about the same time, Berkeleylaw professor Phillip Johnson ap pliedhis relentless logic in his book Darwinon Trial to show that the full diversityof Darwinian evolution is not sup-ported by compelling factual evi-dence from paleontology or by em -pirical data from biology. Mostimportant, Johnson highlighted thefact that the main support for Dar-winian theory derives from its philo-sophical assumptions. Evolutionistssee science as essentially materialistand based on philosophical natural-ism. Only chance and the laws ofnature are admitted as acceptableexplanatory tools. Any interpretationdeparting from this narrow arena willautomatically be rejected as non-sci-ence or—worse still—as superstition.

But how is it possible to decide ifsomething has been designed or if thedesign is only apparent? An impor-tant step was taken by mathematician

and philosopher William Dembski,who established criteria for detectingdesign. Dembski drew attention tothe fact that detecting design isalready a well-established scientificactivity in fields such as forensic sci-ence, archaeology, and cryptology.Methods employed with obvious suc-cess in these areas to distinguishcriminal from accidental activity, todifferentiate artifacts from naturalobjects, and to decode messagesshould also be applicable to biologicalstructures and to events in nature.

In his book The Design Inference,Dembski described a general methodhe called “specified complexity” foridentifying design and distinguishingit from the effects of natural causes.He demonstrated that systems exhib -i ting high complexity combined with“specification” are always producedby intelligent agents. To be “speci-fied,” an object or event must corre-spond to an independent pattern ordynamic sequence. An example ofspecification would be a dart board

with a bull’s eye in the center. Thebull’s eye is the specified target. Ran-domly throwing darts is unlikely toresult in hitting a bull’s eye. There issomething special about hitting abull’s eye in a board on a wall that isvery different from throwing darts,then drawing a bull’s eye aroundthem wherever they hit. The differ-ence is that the bull’s eye is specified.It turns out that nature—and partic-ularly biology—is equivalent to along series of bull’s eyes that have allbeen hit by darts. When somethinghas the property of specified com-plexity, it is logical and rational toconclude it was designed.

Dembski, Stephen Meyer, andothers have applied the specifiedcomplexity criterion to biologicalphenomena and find good agree-ment with Behe’s conclusion thattheir origin implies intelligent de -sign. It is especially significant thatthe ID criterion enables data fromacross a spectrum of scientific areasto be rationalized. Physicists havediscovered that the existence of lifein the universe depends on a highlyimprobable balance of fundamentalfactors, often referred to as the “finetuning of the universe” or as “an -thropic coincidences.” Application ofthe specified design criterion to thiscosmic enigma also signals in tel ligentdesign as the most likely cause.

It is apparent that this is a fresh,logical, and rational way of thinking,which enables design to be detected

independently of any philosophicalor religious beliefs. Objective thinkerswill welcome this as a way of shed-ding light on some of science’s mostperplexing impasses. In practice, ID isgrowing in influence among scientistsand philosophers who are willing toconsider design as a third fundamen-tal cause along with chance and nat-ural law. On the other hand, the oldschool of materialists, who hold thatonly chance and necessity are admis-sible causes, oppose ID with everymeans their powerful establishmentpositions give them.

Richard Dawkins and JerryCoyne are long-time members ofthis vintage group and are ada -mantly opposed to ID. No surprisesthere! The intolerant tone of thearticle written by Dawkins andCoyne, “One Side Can Be Wrong,”which appeared in the Guardian onSeptember 1, 2005,1 shows that anemotional and ideological attach-ment to their worldview has ledthem deeply into wrong territory.For them, evolution should brookno rivals. Origins research is one ofthe softest sciences, so proponentsparticularly need to cultivate animpartial and objective attitude.

One label Dawkins and Coyneimmediately stick on ID is: “There isnothing new about ID. It is simplycreationism camouflaged with a newname.”2

The major players in ID scienceemphatically reject this assertion.

[H]ow is it possible to decide if something has been designed

or if the design is only apparent? An important step was

taken by mathematician and philosopher William Dembski,

who established criteria for detecting design. Dembski drew

attention to the fact that detecting design is already a

well-established scientific activity in fields such as forensic

science, archaeology, and cryptology.

1918

Proponents of ID regard it as a sci-entific research program that in -vestigates the effects of intelligentcauses. ID advocates such as Beheand Dembski are not young-Earthcreationists and do not reject evolu-tion.

Dembski intends to use ID to re-examine design as a way of remain-ing true to science. Meyer observedthat rather than fo cusing on whichnat ural istic expla-nation is most rea-sonable for the ori-gins of life onEarth, we should belooking at what ac -tually caused life.The spec i fied com-plexity criterion forde tecting designmakes no appeal tosacred books and isindependent of allre ligious author ity.

Phillip Johnsonremarked that “Ourobjective is not to impose a solution,but to open the most important areasof intellectual inquiry to fresh think-ing.” Of course, ID research hasimportant implications for creation-ism, but support for creationism isnot its objective. ID advocates acceptevolution, but they doubt that it cando everything that Darwinists claim.Their purpose is to follow the evi-dence wherever it leads. This state-ment has become a slogan of ID

advocates and is entirely in harmonywith the open-minded attitude withwhich any scientific investigationshould be pursued. It is im portant tounderstand that ID is not a claim thatmiracles occur. Rather, it seeks to es -tablish whether de sign is an actualfeature of the universe that cannot beduplicated by the effects of naturallaw and chance.

Early in their article, Dawkinsand Coyne say, “So,why are we so surethat intelligent de -sign is not a real sci-entific theory, wor-thy of ‘both sides’treatment? Isn’t thatjust our personalopinion? It is anopinion shared bythe vast majority ofprofessional biolo-gists. . . . If ID reallywere a scientificthe ory, pos itive evi-dence for it, gath-

ered through research, would fillpeer-reviewed scientific journals.This doesn’t happen. It isn’t that edi-tors refuse to publish ID research.”3

As already mentioned, for mater-ial naturalists, “real science” admitsonly chance and necessity as validcauses. Dawkins and the majority ofhis evolutionary peers automaticallyrule out ID on these philosophicalgrounds and consider it a waste oftime to evaluate the evidence.

The majority of professionalbiologists work in institutions dedi-cated to evolution and its sister dis-ciplines. Many institutes are specifi-cally named “Evolutionary Biology”or some variant of this. The researchfunding, the livelihoods, the careers,the professional reputations of allthese scientists depend on adherenceto evolutionary orthodoxy. Objec-tivity on foundational questions oforigins is not an option for them inthese circumstances. The majorityscientific opinion cannot be taken asa trustworthy yardstick for gaugingthe validity of ID.

In any case, Dawkins and Coyne,after making their misleading point,admit that it is nonsense: “But ofcourse science does not proceed bymajority vote among scientists.”4

It is totally unsurprising that IDresearch is not reported in mainlinescience journals. Contrary to Daw -kins and Coynes’ assertion, editors

routinely refuse to publish. WhenRichard Sternberg, editor of the Pro-ceedings of the Biological Society ofWashington, published a single pa -per by Cambridge-educated StephenMeyer making the case for ID, heimmediately became the subject of acloset campaign of ridicule andintimidation. “They were saying Iaccepted money under the table,”said Sternbert, “that I was a crypto-priest, that I was a sleeper cell oper-ative for the creationists.” He wasadvised not to attend a biologicalsociety meeting because feelingswere running so high that ordercouldn’t be guaranteed.

An independent agency, the U.S.Office of Special Counsel, examinede-mail traffic emanating from theSmithsonian Institution, whereSternberg held a fellowship, andnoted that “retaliation came in manyforms. . . . Misinformation was dis-seminated through the Smithsonian

The majority of professional biologists work in institutions

dedicated to evolution and its sister disciplines. Many

institutes are specifically named “Evolutionary Biology” or

some variant of this. The research funding, the livelihoods,

the careers, the professional reputations of all these scientists

depend on adherence to evolutionary orthodoxy.

Objectivity on foundational questions of origins is not an

option for them in these circumstances.

2120

and to outside sources. The allega-tions against you were later deter-mined to be false.”5

Editors are well aware of theintimidation and harassment theywill face, so it is small wonder theyshy away from publishing articlesfavorable to ID. It is ironic forDawkins of all people to denigrate IDbecause, he writes, “Its advocatesbypass normal scientific due processby appealing directly to the non-sci-entific public and—with greatshrewdness—to the government offi-cials they elect.”6 Yet these are exactlythe methods he himself adopts! Hismain contribution to science is theseries of popular books expoundinghis brand of evolution to the generalpublic. In fact, Dawkins is following along line of evolutionists includingCharles Darwin, Thomas Huxley, andStephen Gould, all of whom haveappealed directly to the non-scien tificpublic in books and popular articles.

Dawkins and Coynes’ belief that it isfine for evolutionists to appeal di -r ectly to the public, but wrong forthose who disagree with them, isdeeply revealing of their ultra-parti-san approach.

According to Dawkins and Coyne,ID scientists make unreasonabledemands for evidence: “One side[evolution] is required to produceevidence, every step of the way. Theother side is never required to pro-duce one iota of evidence, but isdeemed to have won automatically,the moment the first side encountersa difficulty—the sort of difficulty thatall sciences encounter every day, andgo to work to solve, with relish.”7

For more than a century, evolu-tionary scientists have been promis-ing that laboratory science willsomeday discover a quantifiablemechanism for evolutionary change.Scientifically rigorous explanationshave also been promised for: how

life originated; how the genetic codeand new genetic information couldarise; how complex biological or -gans like eyes, cilia, etc. originated;how new biological species devel-oped from ancestral forms and whythe fossil record does not show the“innumerable transitional forms”Darwin expected.

ID scientists do not denigrate thehuge progress that biologists havemade in understanding how smallerchanges have come about, how newvarieties of animals and plants areproduced, i.e., microevolution ingeneral. Evolutionists assert that thelarge steps to really new structures(macroevolution) are just an accu-mulation of smaller steps. It is verysignificant, however, that even afterall this time, verifiable laboratoryevidence is completely absent, thefossil record presents major prob-lems, and only fanciful scenarios areon offer. The point ID scientists aremaking is that the time has nowcome to examine alternative expla-nations in which design is evaluatedalongside natural causes. The relishwith which scientists work in solvingorigins problems could be pleasantlyenhanced by adding the ID criterionto their arsenal of scientific tools.

Dawkins and Coyne believe:“Biologists, on the other hand, canconfidently claim the equivalent‘cinematic’ sequence of fossils for avery large number of evolutionarytransitions. Not all, but very many,

including our own descent from thebipedal ape Australopithecus.”8

This claim is seriously at oddswith considered opinion in the sci-entific literature emanating fromspecialists in paleontology. Forexample, Tom Kemp says, “Theobserved fossil pattern is invariablynot compatible with a gradualisticevolutionary process.”9

Even evolutionist icon StephenGould admitted: “The history ofmost fossil species includes two fea-tures particularly inconsistent withgradualism: 1. Stasis. Most speciesexhibit no directional change duringtheir tenure on earth. They appear inthe fossil record looking prettymuch the same as when they disap-pear, morphological change is usu -ally limited and directionless; 2.Sudden appearance. In any localarea, a species does not arise gradu-ally by the steady transformation ofits ancestors; it appears all at onceand ‘fully formed.’”10

The fossil record does not supplyevidence for macroevolution. Whatis more, if the fossil record weretruly as portrayed by Dawkins andCoyne, there would have been noneed for the “punctuated equilibria”hypothesis to have been formulatedto try and explain the universal gaps.

Dawkins and Coyne keep up theircourage by suggesting: “Not a singleauthentic fossil has ever been foundin the ‘wrong’ place in the evolution-ary sequence. Such an anachronistic

Evolutionists assert that the large steps to really new

structures (macroevolution) are just an accumulation of smaller

steps. It is very significant, however, that even after all

this time, verifiable laboratory evidence is completely absent, the

fossil record presents major problems, and only fanciful

scenarios are on offer. The point ID scientists are making is that

the time has now come to examine alternative explanations in

which design is evaluated alongside natural causes.

2322

fossil, if one were ever unearthed,would blow evolution out of thewater. As the great biologist J. B. S.Haldane growled, when asked whatmight disprove evolution: ‘Fossilrabbits in the pre-Cambrian.’”11 Thisis to seriously underestimate thecapacity of evolution to absorb badnews! When it comes to the fossilrecord, even Charles Darwin admit-ted that it was strong evidenceagainst his theory and appealed tothe incomplete nature of the recordto try to get around this.

Not surprisingly, Dawkins andCoyne also appeal to the incom-pleteness of the record. But appeal-ing to fossils that have not beenfound, and trying to explain awaythose that have been found, hardlyconstitute strong evidence support-ing Darwinism. There is a great dealof flexibility about exactly what theright evolutionary sequence is.

Furthermore, geochronology is farfrom an exact science. Different dat-ing methods frequently give discor-dant results. Samples for radioactivedating may contain contaminationfrom younger material or from oldersource rock so that the right date canusually be found, either by selectionfrom available samples or by selectionfrom the range of dates. A nice exam-ple of this process unconsciously inaction during the controversy overthe date of skull KNM ER 1470 fromthe Lake Tur kana region of Kenya isdescribed by Roger Lewin in his book

Bones of Contention.Nor do grossly out-of-place fos-

sils like rabbits in the pre-Cambrianpresent any threat to evolution. Evo-lutionary palaeontologists knowsuch fossils are impossible andtherefore they always classify themeither as intrusive, i.e., buried at alater date by human or naturalmeans, or they are labeled frauds.Sufficient doubt to discredit the findcan always be raised.

For a recent example, considerthe report by Bennett, Huddart, etal., of fossil human footprints in vol-canic ash near Puebla, Mexico, datedto 40,000 years by a variety of tech-niques including radiocarbon analy-sis,12 which challenged evolutionaryviews about the timing of humanentry into the Americas. No surprisethat it was rapidly followed by arebuttal from Renne, et al.13 re-datingthe footprints by a gigantic leap to 1.3million years and redefining them as“markings” caused by erosion. Al -though many anachronistic fossilshave been found, evolution routinelyshrugs them off.

Dawkins and Coyne assure usthat “in fact, the bacterial flagellumis certainly not too complex to haveevolved, nor is any other livingstructure that has ever been care fullystudied. Biologists have locatedplausible series of intermediates,using ingredients to be found else-where in living systems.”14

This is largely wishful thinking.

What is meant by “located”? Does thismean located in the fossil record,located in laboratories, or located inthe imagination? When it comes toexplaining the origin of the bacterialflagellum, and similarly complex,information-rich biological organ -elles, evolutionary ingenuity hasfound little to offer, as recourse tobiochemistry textbooks and journalshas demonstrated. Of course, a few,short “plausible series of intermedi-ates” for these organ el les may be“located” in imaginary scenarios re -garded even by their or i ginators asincomplete and highly ten tative. Sci-entific imagination knows no limits!But the broad picture of this area ofevolution is noteworthy for thescarcity of ideas and their insubstan-tial character.

The oft-repeated dictum “evolu-tion is fact” has become a passwordritually affirmed by orthodox Dar-winians. Even distinguished academ -ics like Dawkins and Coyne cling tothis shaky prop: “The weight of theevidence has become so heavy that

opposition to the fact of evolution islaughable to all who are acquaintedwith even a fraction of the publisheddata. Evolution is a fact: as much afact as plate tectonics or the helio-centric solar system.”15

The trouble is, the word evolutionhas become too ambiguous in itsmeaning. In many contexts, evolu-tion means simply change, and whowould deny change in the naturalworld? There is indeed a large vol-ume of evidence that microevolu-tion happens. This is not in dispute;but neither is this the process ID sci-entists are addressing. To quotePhillip Johnson: “The point . . . iswhether [microevolution] tells usanything important about theprocesses responsible for creatingbirds, insects and trees in the firstplace.”16

All the evidence favoring evolu-tion is of the “finch beak” kind: smallvariations within a known species orclosely related group of species. Fossilsequences of trilobites showing sizegradations are well known, as are the

The word evolution has become too ambiguous in its

meaning. In many contexts, evolution means simply change,

and who would deny change in the natural world? There is

indeed a large volume of evidence that microevolution

happens. This is not in dispute; but neither is this the process

ID scientists are addressing.

24

laboratory experiments developingfruit flies with divergent morphology.The problem is that this kind of evi-dence does little to advance knowl-edge of how trilobites or fruit fliescame into existence in the first place.That evolution was supposed to beabout the origin of species has be -come lost in a maze of trivia.

For about 150 years, science hasstriven mightily to explain the originsof everything in terms of only chance,allied with the laws of nature.Dawkins and Coyne offer nothingnew, just the same unsubstantiatedassertions and unfulfilled promisesthat have led origins science intodecades of sterile wandering. Originsscience seems gripped in a mesmericaddiction to games of chance. It isnow time to check into de sign rehab.Their article shows that Dawkins andCoyne are still in full denial. Theprime objective of the ID enterprise isto establish design as a basic cause,along with chance and natural law,and hence to advance understandingof how complex biological and other

structures originated. There arehopeful signs that a new generation isrecognizing this as a logically sound,rational, and reasonable program.

25

hroughout history, many faithtraditions have perceived arelationship between the phys-ical and the spiritual nature ofa human being. In their discus-

sion of this relationship, these tradi-tions have shown some curious sim-ilarities and striking differences inthe various links between diet andreligion.

HinduismThe complex system of Hinduism

has proved to be very resilient. It hasabsorbed elements of various other

religions over thousands of yearsand yet maintained its distinctivecharacter. Hindus believe in manygods, reincarnation, and karma (un -derstood as how one’s actions in pre-vious lives morally affect the currentcycle of existence).

Regarding diet, Hinduism todaydiffers from what is known of itsoldest forms. During the Vedic pe-

WORLD RELIGIONSAND THE

VEGETARIAN DIET

B Y J O A N N D A V I D S O N *

TGoing meatless is a cultural phenomenon

that appears in many major faith traditions throughout history.

*Jo Ann Davidson teaches SystematicTheology at the Seventh-day Advent -ist Theological Seminary, BerrienSprings, Michigan

REFERENCES1 Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne, “One

Side Can Be Wrong,” Guardian (September 1,2005); see http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.htm.

2 Ibid.3 Ibid.4 Ibid.5 See http://www.rsternberg.net for Stern-

berg’s own restrained account of the affair.6 Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne, op cit.7 Ibid.8 Ibid.9 Tom Kemp, Fossils and Evolution

(Oxford, England: Oxford University Press,1999), p. 16.

10 Stephen. J. Gould, quoted in Phillip E.Johnson, Darwin on Trial (Downers Grove,Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993), p. 50.

11 Dawkins and Jerry Coyne, op cit.1 2 S e eh t tp : / /www.roya l soc . ac .uk /

ex hibit.asp?id=3616&tip=1.13 Nature (2005), p. 438.14 Dawkins and Coyne, op cit.15 Ibid.16 Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial

(Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press,1993), p. 68.

�

2726

teaching undoubtedly were vegeta r -ian, not all Hindus practice thisrestriction.

Though many Hindus today andin the past have eaten meat, there isnevertheless a strong vegetarian tra-dition within Hinduism. Today it isgenerally motivated from issues con-nected with reincarnation.

BuddhismBuddhism and Hinduism have

many similarities. Both originatedin India and both believe in karmaand reincarnation. Buddhists rejectthe idea of the self or soul, however,believing it to be an illusionbrought about by one’s attachmentto worldly things. The Buddhataught that life is a stream ofbecoming, in which no permanentself endures. Individuals are com-posites of perception, feeling, voli-tion, intelligence, and form, all sub-ject to the law of karma. Life is

essentially suffering, desire is thecause of suffering, and the path toNirvana (or salvation) involves ces-sation of all desire. Non-attachmentto food was practiced as one way towithdraw from desire. Recognitionof the shared life of all creatures ledto compassion for animals.

Of the two chief branches of Bud-dhism, Theravada, the older of thetwo, is present in Burma, Ceylon,Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, Tibet, andMalaya. The Mahayana tradition isfound in China. Both occur in Viet-nam, while Japan has yet another tan-gent originally brought from China.

Attitudes toward meat consump-tion are noticeably different withinthe two main traditions. In Thera -vada Buddhism, meat-eating hascome to be largely condoned, whilein Mahayana Buddhism, meat con-sumption is frowned upon. Thesedifferences are very apparent insome of their rituals.

r iod in India (after about 2000 B.C.),Hindus ate meat and sacrificed ani-mals extensively. Conception of anafterlife included a “heaven,” wherethose who had acquired enoughmerit through the presentation ofsacrificial gifts were likely to go.

Vegetarianism emerged graduallyin Hinduism. Around the seventhcentury B.C., some Hindu sages be -gan to advocate a meatless diet,though they were probably a minor-ity. A major upheaval around thesixth century B.C. in India deeplyaffected Hinduism. This led to theformation of the Buddhist and theJain religions, both of which put in -creased emphasis on the sanctity ofall life, including animal life.

In the third century B.C, the In -dian King Asoka converted to Bud-dhism, and Buddhism became theofficial religion. Asoka himself gaveup most, if not all, meat consump-tion. Eating flesh meat was almostentirely done away with at the royalcourt, and the killing of some kindsof animals was prohibited entirely. Itis said that Asoka was converted toBuddhism after viewing the carnagethat resulted from one of the greatbattles of the day.

Economic factors also affectedmeat consumption. It was becomingmore and more expensive to pro-duce meat because of the pressurethat overgrazing and deforestationwere placing on the land. Some ofAsoka’s decrees, such as restrictions

on forest-cutting, demonstrate anearly sensitivity to the relationshipbetween ecology and human lifeonly now slowly emerging in mod-ern Western thinking.

After about 1000 B.C., meat-eatingapparently was widely restricted. TheUpanishads of this period were thefirst Hindu scriptures to mentiondoctrines suggestive of reincarnation.And other selections of writingsstated that one could eat meat onlywhen the animal was sacrificed ritu-ally.

Hindu vegetarianism received itsstrongest advance from the Krishnacult, from whom reverence for thesacred cow originated and persists tothis day. The followers of Krishna,who began propagating their view inthe first few centuries A.D., were strictvegetarians, and Hinduism camemore and more under their influence.

From the third century A.D.onward, restrictions on the use ofbeef increased. In the fourth century,the Law of Manu again restrictedmeat-eating to sacrificial occasions.The life of Krishna was recorded inthe Bhagwat Purana during the fifthcentury. Upper castes in India resistedthe trend toward vegetarianism, andit seems that they continued to eatbeef as late as the ninth or 10th cen-tury. After the translation of theBhagwat Purana into Hindi (15thcentury A.D.), no orthodox Hinduwould kill a cow or eat beef. Thoughthe orthodox followers of Krishna’s

Buddhism and Hinduism have many similarities.

Both originated in India and both believe in karma and rein-

carnation. Buddhists reject the idea of the self or soul, how -

ever, believing it to be an illusion brought about by one’s

attachment to worldly things. The Buddha taught that life is

a stream of becoming, in which no permanent self endures.

Individuals are composites of perception, feeling, volition,

intelligence, and form, all subject to the law of karma.

2928

good karma to be reborn as a human.However, animals can eventuallyachieve salvation. In fact, there aremany stories of the prior existences ofthe Buddha, often as an animal.

Even though it is meritorious toabstain from meat, not all Buddhistsrefrain. Yet there is a very strong tra-dition of vegetarianism in Buddhism,since the Buddha commanded his fol-lowers not to kill animals. The vio-lence of slaughtering animals for foodand the restless craving for fleshmeats reveal modes in which humansenslave themselves to suffering. Theethical doctrine of ahimsa, or non-injury to living beings, shared by bothHindu and Buddhist religious tradi-tions, derives from the convictionthat violence to creatures, whoseforms and identities through reincar-nation are fluid, has consequences forkarma. Motivation for the meatlessdiet does not seem to emerge fromecological issues or concern for thephysical health of the Buddhist.Mahayana affirmation of spiritualpotential in all sentient life, coupledwith the Theravadin emphasis oncompassion and karma, gave rise tothe centrality of the meatless diet inBuddhist thinking.

JainismThe Jain religion came into exis-

tence around the sixth century B.C.,about the same time as Buddhism.Jainism shares several beliefs withHinduism and Buddhism, including

reincarnation, karma, and nonvio-lence.

According to the Jains, the entireuniverse is alive. One should abstain,as much as is possible, from violencetoward any living creature. Every-thing, including rocks and stones aswell as plants and animals, is insome sense alive. The idea of ahimsa,or nonviolence, is heavily stressed bythe Jains, having far-reaching impli-cations for them.

There are five types of beings inthe Jain universe, each having onethrough five senses. These aregrouped accordingly, ranging fromthe five-sensed beings (humanbeings, infernal beings [inhabitantsof hell, or the lower regions], andsome animals) down to the one-sensed beings, or nigodas (vegetablebodies, earth bodies, water bodies,fire bodies, and wind bodies), pos-sessing only the sense of touch.

Though it is worse to cause harmto a higher being than to a lowerbeing, the Jains carry the doctrine ofahimsa to its ultimate. Ideally, oneshould not harm any kind of being.This can be accomplished only bythe Jain monks, who do as little aspossible and are supported in this bythe lay community. The path to sal-vation involves purifying the soul ofits contaminations with matter. Aslong as the soul is enmeshed in mat-ter, violence is inevitable, as count-less nigodas would be destroyed evenin the simple act of taking a walk.

Theravada Buddhist monks begfor food and are to accept what theyare given. To receive some foods butto reject others signifies an attach-ment to the world, a trait that monksare supposed to suppress. Certainprinciples regarding flesh foods arealso operant. No monk can kill ananimal or accept meat speciallyslaughtered for him. Moreover, cer-tain kinds of meat cannot be eatenunder any circumstance. The Bud-dha forbade eating the meat of ele-phants, horses, dogs, serpents, lions,tigers, bears, hyenas, and panthers,even if they had died natural deaths.The Buddha also clearly enjoinedmonks to abstain from killing ani-mals, so that all creatures of what -ever kind could live. In most Thera -vada countries today, though, layBuddhists regularly eat meat.

In the Mahayana Buddhist tradi-tion, the monks do not beg for foodat all. They prepare their own food,which they buy, grow, or collect asrent. The Mahayana monks in Chinawere strict vegetarians in ancienttimes and remain so today. In China,

all animal foods, onions, and alcoholwere either forbidden or customar ilyavoided. This included the use ofanimal products in dress with a pro-hibition on the use of silk or leather(not observed in Theravada Bud-dhism). However, dietary abstinencefrom meat was an ancient Chinesetradition that apparently predatedthe arrival of Buddhism.

Not only are Mahayana Buddhistmonks vegetarian, but so are manyBuddhist lay believers in China. Peo-ple other than monks take a lay Bud-dhist ordination of from one to fivevows. Almost everyone takes the firstvow, which prohibits killing any sen-tient creature. This is usually inter-preted to mean or imply vegetarian-ism. However, there is disagreementon this point. Some argue that theinjunction against taking the life ofsentient creatures means only thatone should not personally slaughteranimals or eat an animal expresslykilled for personal benefit.

In reincarnation, an animal mayhave to go through eons of existencesbefore finally accumulating enough

In reincarnation, an animal may have to go through

eons of existences before finally accumulating enough good

karma to be reborn as a human. However, animals can

eventually achieve salvation. In fact, there are many stories of

the prior existences of the Buddha, often as an animal.

3130

nized, however, that the HebrewBible records in Genesis that the firstdiet of humankind was vegetarian.Even the animals did not eat meat:“God said, ‘See, I have given youevery herb that yields seed which ison the face of all the earth, and everytree whose fruit yields seed; to you itshall be for food. Also, to every beastof the earth, to every bird of the air,and to everything that creeps on theearth, in which there is life, I havegiven every green herb for food’; andit was so. Then God saw everythingthat He had made, and indeed it wasvery good” (Gen. 1:29-31, NKJV).

Jewish writers have noted thatimmediately after giving these dietarylaws, God saw that everything He hadmade was “very good” (Gen. 1:31,NKJV), implying inclusion of eventhe vegetarian diet. After the Flood,however, meat consumption was per-mitted: “‘Everything that lives andmoves will be food for you. Just as Igave you the green plants, I now giveyou everything. But you must not eat

meat that has its lifeblood still in it’”(9:3, 4, NIV).

Some vegetarians have arguedthat this passage actually supportsvegetarianism, since it is impossibleto drain the blood entirely from theanimal. Others have quoted only thephrase “You must not eat the flesh”out of context. Both the Ebionites inthe first century A.D., and the Soci-ety of Bible Christians in the 19thcentury, argued that blood couldnever be entirely drained from theanimal.

Parallel passages in Deuteron -omy (12:23, 24, 27, 28) imply thatthe injunction against eating bloodis fulfilled if a person pours theblood “‘out on the ground likewater’” (vs. 16, NIV). Talmudic com -mentators agree that Adam was notpermitted to eat flesh. But after theFlood, eating meat was permitted.

Upon their settlement in Ca -naan, the Israelites were also per-mitted the use of animal food, butunder careful restrictions, which

Dietary restraints are thus veryprominent for the Jains. Meat, alco-hol, honey, or any of the five kinds offigs are forbidden. The single-sensednigodas are especially present wher-ever sweetness or fermentation isinvolved. Thus, consuming honey oralcohol brings untold millions ofthese nigodas to an untimely andviolent death. However, since this isdoes not involve violence againsthigher beings, Jains may on occasionconsume medicine with honey orwine in it, but they may never con-sume meat. Even meat from an ani-mal that has died a natural deathcontains innumerable nigodas andmust be absolutely avoided.

Jains are decidedly ascetic. Theirvegetarianism arises from the neces-sity of purifying the soul of itsattachments to and contaminationfrom matter. The ultimate objectiveis denial of the body and purifica-tion of the soul, as a necessary stepto win the soul’s release from matter.

IslamOriginating in the divine revela-

tion to Muhammad in early seventh-century Arabia, the Koran speaks ofa single God who is creator and sus-tainer of the universe. To Himbelongs all that exists on earth andin heaven. Islamic theology tradi-tionally has focused on religiousquestions regarding God’s nature,His relationship to His creation,human destiny, and the laws that

gov ern community life. Issues in -volving the relationship of humansto other forms of life, such as ani-mals and the natural world, aretreated indirectly for the most part.

Yet God is clearly implied as rulingall of creation, not just human beings.Non-injury to life-forms and com-passion for all living things are rarelyexplicitly mentioned. However, asense of the generous beauty andabundance of the Earth pervadesIslamic texts. All things belong to Godand should be treated accordingly.Sacred places in which humans areforbidden to slay animals except inself-defense play a pre-eminent rolein Muslim culture. The existence ofthese sacred sites where slaughter isforbidden suggests a spiritual aver-sion to the violence inherent in killinganimals, even when its occasionalnecessity is recognized.

For Muslims, meat that is accept-able to eat is called chalal, the fleshof “clean” animals that have beenproperly slaughtered. Scavenger ani-mals, for example, are forbidden asfood. It is also taught that animalsacrifice indebts humans to thosecreatures whose suffering transfig-ures their own. That an animalcould be surrogate for another im -plies Islam’s conception of the com-monality of all creaturehood.

JudaismAmong present-day Jews, only a

minority eat no meat. It is recog-

For Muslims, meat that is acceptable to eat is called chalal,

the flesh of “clean” animals that have been properly slaugh-

tered. Scavenger animals, for example, are forbidden as food.

It is also taught that animal sacrifice indebts humans to

those creatures whose suffering transfigures their own. That

an animal could be surrogate for another implies Islam’s con-

ception of the commonality of all creaturehood.

33

are even mentioned in the Deca-logue expresses the importance ofcompassion for animals in Judaism.

2. God’s covenants include ani-mals. A striking example of this is inHosea: “‘I will also make a covenantfor them with the beasts of the field,the birds of the sky, and the creepingthings of the ground. And I willabolish the bow, the sword, and warfrom the land, and will make themlie down in safety’” (2:18, NASB).

This is not the first reference toGod’s cove nants with animals.The much-earlier Noahiccovenant made after theFlood did the same: “‘Iestablish My covenantwith you and withyour descendants afteryou, and with everyliving creature that iswith you: the birds,the cattle, and everybeast of the earth withyou, of all that go out of the ark, everybeast of the earth. Thus I establish Mycovenant with you: Never again shallall flesh be cut off by the waters of theflood’” (Gen. 9:9-11, NKJV). Andwhen speaking to Jonah, God alsoincluded animals in His descriptionof His mercy toward the city of Nin-eveh (Jonah 4:11).

3. Humans also have an obliga-tion to relieve the suffering of ani-mals. “A righteous man cares for theneeds of his animal” (Prov. 12:10,NIV). Deuteronomy 22:4 enjoins a

person to assist a fellow-country-man’s ass or ox lying in the road. InExodus 23:5, this obligation isextended to the ass or ox of even anenemy.

4. Exodus 21:28-32 expresses theidea that animals, along with hu -mans, are held responsible for theiractions.

5. The Psalmist writes of God’s“com pas sion on all he has made”

(145:9, NIV) and that Godprovides food for bothhu mans and animals(104:24-30).

6. In Proverbs, theant is praised for itsindustriousness (6:6-8). Rock-badgers, lo -custs, ants, and liz ardsare said to be “ex -tremely wise” (30:28,NIV).

7. Human beingsand animals suffer a

common fate. “Man’s fate is like thatof the animals; the same fate awaitsthem both: As one dies, so dies theother. All have the same breath; manhas no advantage over the animal.Everything is meaningless. All go tothe same place; all come from dust,and to dust all return” (Eccl. 3:19, 20,NIV).

Several Talmudic commentatorsconclude that one can infer fromthese and other passages that reliev-ing the suffering of an animal is abiblical law. It is apparent that ani-

32

tended to lessen the evil results. Theuse of swine’s flesh and other un -clean animals was prohibited. Of theclean meats permitted, the eating ofthe fat and the blood was strictly for-bidden. Only healthy animals couldbe used for food. No creature thathad died of itself, or from which theblood had not been carefullydrained, could be eaten.

Some Jewish writers argue thatthe original meat-free diet was theone God intended for all human -kind. Permission to eat meat wasgranted by God only after it becameapparent that humans were going togo their own way regardless of whatGod told them. One Jewish authorobserves: “Only after man provedunfit for the high moral standard setat the beginning was meat made partof the humans’ diet.”1 Accordingly,while it would not be a violation ofthe law to eat meat, it would bemorally superior to abstain.

Jewish writers also describe theconsiderable evidence in the Hebrew

Bible that God’s ultimate hope is fora world in which no animals arekilled, even by other animals. Thisportrays a world that, in respect todiet, is like the Garden of Eden.Through the prophets God promisesa world where even the now-carniv-orous animals will again be vegetar-ian: “They shall not hurt nor destroyin all My holy mountain, for theearth shall be full of the knowledgeof the Lord” (Isa. 11:9, NKJV). Thisprophecy is repeated in Isaiah 65:25.

Many Jewish materials also notethat animals are regularly includedin God’s solicitude in the HebrewBible:

1. In Exodus, animals, as well ashumans, are included in the obser-vance of the Sabbath (20:10; 23:12).The Sabbath commandment in theDecalogue (20:8-10) along withExodus 23:12 and Deuteronomy5:12-14 are used by some to reasonthat animals must be free to roam onthe Sabbath day and enjoy the beau-ties of nature. The fact that animals

Jewish writers describe the considerable evidence in

the Hebrew Bible that God’s ultimate hope is for a world in

which no animals are killed, even by other animals.

This portrays a world that, in respect to diet, is like the

Garden of Eden. Through the prophets God

promises a world where even the now-carnivorous

animals will again be vegetarian.

35

states that they did not kill animalsfor food. Porphyry also writes thatmeat was forbidden for the Essenes.Clement of Alexandria, an earlyleader of the church and a notewor-thy vegetarian, also wrote that meat-eating and animal sacrifice wereinterconnected.

The destruction of the Temple inA.D. 70 by the Romans made itimpossible for Jews to offer sacrificesthere, rendering the relationship ofmeat-eating to sacrifices proble -matic. After the destruction of theTemple, apparently many Jews gaveup meat-eating altogether, and infact, meat consumption nearly diedout at the time.

Josephus described the basicprinciple of all Judaic laws as mercy,even to animals: “Ill-treatment evenof a brute beast is with us a capitalcrime.”2

The modern Jewish vegetarianmovement arose in the 19th centurywith the publication of Aaron

Frankel’s book Thou Shalt Not Kill,or the Torah of Vegetarianism. RabbiM. Kosowsky, who was not a vege-tarian, stated that vegetarianism was“the highest pinnacle of ethicalachievement.”3

ChristianityThe Christian tradition is linked

with and informed by the many con-cepts of Judaism on diet, due to theinclusion of the Hebrew Bible or OldTestament into the Christian canon.The religion of both the Old and NewTestaments is not a religion of asceti-cism, such as in Buddhism and Hin-duism, where by refusing to eat anddrink one avoids being contaminatedby matter and thus can draw closer toGod. “The God of the Bible definesHimself as the God of life. And infact, eating and drinking are oftenlinked with worship. The Bible alsoprescribes, both explicitly and implic-itly, a special diet in tune with theGod of creation, the God of life.”4

34

mals are entitled to consideration,even if they are to be used for farmwork or to be slaughtered. Even theprocess of slaughter itself is carefullyregulated. The procedures are dealtwith in the Talmud.

Presently, Jewish vegetarians ar -gue that the compassion for all livingthings mandated by a reverence forGod’s creation is most obviouslyexpressed in kashrut (kosher) di -etary laws. Many commentatorsclaim that kosher prohibitionagainst killing all but certain kindsof animals, and even then only in ahumane manner, is a codification ofthe divine concession to human -kind’s bloodlust. It is a systematizedattempt to wean the appetite untilone attains the spiritual maturity toforgo flesh foods entirely.

But kashrut is not only a remnantof the original divine intention. It isalso one obvious way to integrate theholy into the basic human act of eat-ing. It has been suggested that Godprovided many laws and regulationsrelated to the consumption of meatas a reprimand, and also as a re -minder that animals’ lives are beingdestroyed—in the hope that thiswould eventually lead people back tovegetarianism in the messianic pe -riod.

In light of these claims, presentJewish vegetarian writers argue thata meatless diet is a logical extensionof the Judaic spiritual tradition.Rabbi Kook, the first chief rabbi of

the newly formed nation of Israel,even argued that returning to a non-violent diet is one of the necessaryconditions for the Messiah’s coming.He maintained that if this is so, asthe prophet Isaiah said (11:6, 7),then a diet that approximates theideal of peaceful harmony among allcreatures does indeed make straightthe way for the Lord.

Jewish writings point out that theOld Testament often implies a meat-less diet. In the Song of Songs, thedivine bounty is mentioned in termsof fruits, vegetables, vines, and nuts.The Book of Deuteronomy also con-tains descriptions typical of theTorah’s positive depiction of the non-meat diet: “For the Lord your God isbringing you into a good land—aland with streams and pools of water,with springs flowing in the valleysand hills; a land with wheat and bar-ley, vines and fig trees, pomegranates,olive oil and honey; a land wherebread will not be scarce and you willlack nothing. . . . I will send rain onyour land in its season, both autumnand spring rains, so that you maygather in your grain, new wine andoil” (Deut. 8:7-9; 11:14)

The Essenes, a prominent groupwithin Judaism during Jesus’ time,connected sacrifices and meat-eat-ing. Josephus states that the Essenesmade no animal sacrifices and addsthat they lived in the same way thatthe Pythagoreans did among theGreeks, being vegetarian. Philo

The Essenes, a prominent group within Judaism during

Jesus’ time, connected sacrifices and meat-eating.

Josephus states that the Essenes made no animal sacrifices

and adds that they lived in the same way that the

Pythagoreans did among the Greeks, being vegetarian. Philo

states that they did not kill animals for food. Porphyry also

writes that meat was forbidden for the Essenes.

37

and Isaac Leib Peretz.Issues of continuity/discontinu-

ity with Judaism are regularly dis-cussed in the Christian tradition.Some argue that the Jewish distinc-tions between clean and uncleanmeat are no longer binding today inthe Christian era.

It is important to note that withregard to diet, however, Israel’sdietary stipulations were God-or -dained: “The food laws are seen inthe Pentateuch as a product of God’srevelation and not as an invention ofa priestly school or other specialgroup of people in Israel.”7

The distinction between cleanand unclean meats is plainly evidentin the early chapters of Genesis—long before the Jewish nation was inexistence. And later, when theclean/unclean principle is againhighlighted in Leviticus 11, at theend of the discussion there is thekeyword “holy” (kodesh).

The scope of the dietary laws isnot only the human body, but thewhole human personality as aninseparable entity. This is in com-plete accord with the fundamentalconception of Judaism, which alwaysstrives at a unity of matter andmind, body, and soul.

In the New Testament, JesusHimself calls for the same completecommitment to God of mind, soul,and strength (Mark 12:33).

Presently, some Christian writerscite Peter’s vision as evidence that

the Old Testament stipulationsbetween clean and unclean meatsare now superseded, yet Peter clearlyunderstood that the meaning of thevision had nothing to do with diet,but was instructing him in culturalissues. God’s response to Peter iscrucial. God never asks Peter to eatthe unclean animals, but to stop call-ing the clean animals koinos, defiledby their association with the un -clean.

Some modern versions have mis-takenly translated the word koinos as“unclean” in several New Testamentpassages, but it simply does notmean “unclean.” For example, inRomans 14:14, 20, Paul does not saythat no foods are unclean. He saysthat no food is koinos, “common,”defiled by association with theunclean. Paul is rejecting the currentJudaic principle of defilement byassociation, and not the law of cleanand unclean foods. To be faithful tothe apostle Peter’s understanding ofhis vision, it cannot be used to argueagainst the divine stipulations ofclean/unclean meat.

Perhaps the largest and most sig-nificant group of Christian vegetari-ans today is found within the Sev-enth-day Adventist tradition. ThisProtestant denomination recom-mends vegetarianism to their mem-bers, of whom nearly one-half donot eat meat. Those who do chooseto eat meat are careful to observe theclean/unclean distinction. Because

36

In the history of the ChristianChurch, though the meatless diethas never been demanded of itsadherents, many have chosen it:• James the Just, the brother of

Jesus and first head of the church inJerusalem after the death and ascen-sion of Jesus, was a vegetarian. BothHeg isuppus and Augustine testifythat James was even raised as a vege-tarian.5

• Both Athanasius and his oppo-nent Arius were strict vegetarians. Infact, many early church fathers werevegetarian, including Clement ofAlexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Heir -onymus, Boniface, and John Chry -so stom.• Basilius the Great, in the fourth

century, was a vegetarian who dis-cussed the morality of eating meat.•Many monasteries, both ancient

and modern, have practiced vegetar-ianism. Boniface (672-754) wrote toPope Zacharias that he had begun a

monastery that followed the rules ofstrict abstinence, whose monks donot eat meat or enjoy wine or otherintoxicating drinks.• In the modern era, John Wesley,

the founder of the Methodist Church,extolled the virtues of the meatlessdiet: “Thanks be to God: since I gaveup flesh and wine, I have been deliv-ered from all physical ills.”6

Some of history’s greatest hu -man itarians were vegetarians and/orstrongly in favor of vegetarianism,including Plutarch, Leonardo daVinci, Sir Isaac Newton, Jean JacquesRousseau, General William Booth,Ralph Waldo Emerson, Percy ByssheShelley, John Harvey Kellogg,Horace Greeley, Susan B. Anthony,Leo Tolstoy, Upton Sinclair, H. G.Wells, George Bernard Shaw, AlbertSchweitzer, and Mahatma Gandhi.Jew ish humanitarian vegetariansinclude Isaac Bashevis Singer,Shmuel Yosef Agnon, Franz Kafka,

Some Christian writers cite Peter’s vision as evidence

that the Old Testament stipulations between clean and

unclean meats are now superseded, yet Peter clearly

understood that the meaning of the vision had nothing to do

with diet, but was instructing him in cultural issues.

God’s response to Peter is crucial. God never asks Peter to eat

the unclean animals, but to stop calling the clean animals

koinos, defiled by their association with the unclean.

39

moral, and the physical powers aredepreciated by the habitual use offlesh meats. Meat eating derangesthe system, beclouds the intellect,and blunts the moral sensibilities.. . . Your safest course is to let meatalone. . . . The mortality caused bymeat eating is not discerned; if itwere, we would hear no more argu-ments and excuses in favor of theindulgence of the appetite for deadflesh. We have plenty of good thingsto satisfy hunger without bringingcorpses upon our table to composeour bill of fare.”12

“The moral evils of a flesh dietare not less marked than are thephysical ills. Flesh food is injuriousto health, and whatever affects thebody has a corresponding effect onthe mind and the soul.”13

White exhorts the developmentof healthful eating habits motivatedby the desire to glorify God in ourbodies and to preserve physical andspiritual health. The major worldreligions manifest dietary concerns,but the diet proposed in the Judeo-Christian tradition is the mostwholistic, involving ethical, ecologi-cal, eschatological, and spiritual is -sues. Vegetarianism, based on the

scriptural principles found alsowithin Judaism, markedly yieldseven present benefits.

38

of their dietary practices, Seventh-day Adventists have frequently beenthe object of scientific studies in -volving the relationship of diet tohealth. Published results have con-sistently found that Adventists livelonger and enjoy better health thanthe rest of the population in theUnited States.

Ellen White, one of the foundersof the Seventh-day Adventist Church,wrote expansively on the im portanceof diet. She speaks of the significanceof the diet given by God in the Gar-den of Eden and discusses manyissues involved in eating meat:

“Not an ounce of flesh meatshould enter our stomachs. The eat-ing of flesh is unnatural. We are toreturn to God’s original purpose inthe creation of man.

“Is it not time that all should aimto dispense with flesh foods? How canthose who are seeking to becomepure, refined, and holy, that they mayhave the companionship of heavenlyangels, continue to use as food any-thing that has so harmful an effect onsoul and body? How can they take thelife of God’s creatures that they mayconsume the flesh as a luxury? Letthem, rather, return to the whole-some and delicious food given to manin the beginning, and themselvespractice, and teach their children topractice, mercy toward the dumbcreatures that God has made and hasplaced under our dominion.”8

White was also sensitive to the

grave problem of diseased animals:“Flesh was never the best food;

but its use is now doubly objection-able, since disease in animals is sorapidly increasing. . . . Could youknow just the nature of the meat youeat, could you see the animals whenliving from which the flesh is takenwhen dead, you would turn withloathing from your flesh meats. Thevery animals whose flesh you eat, arefrequently so diseased that, if leftalone, they would die of themselves;but while the breath of life is inthem, they are killed and brought tomarket. You take directly into yoursystem . . . poison of the worst kind,and yet you realize it not.”9

The treatment of animals raisedfor slaughter also concerned White:

“Think of the cruelty to animalsthat meat-eating involves, and itseffect on those who inflict and thosewho behold it. How it destroys thetenderness with which we shouldregard these creatures of God!”10

“Those who use flesh foods littleknow what they are eating. Often ifthey could see the animals when liv-ing and know the quality of the meatthey eat, they would turn from itwith loathing.”11

White viewed diet wholistically,discussing how the physical and thespiritual natures are affected by whatis eaten. She observed that diet islinked not only to health, but also toholiness, recalling the Old Testamentprinciple: “The intellectual, the

REFERENCES1 J. Hurewitz, “The Care of Animals in

Jewish Life and Lore,” in The Jewish Library,L. Jung, ed. (London: Soncino, 1968), vol. 1.

2 N. N. Glatzer, The Writings of Josephus(New York: Meridian, 1960).

3 Joe Green, “The Jewish Vegetarian Tra-dition,” Johannesburg, South Africa (October1969). Cited in Richard H. Schwartz, Judaismand Vegetarianism (New York: Lantern,2001), p. 215.

4 Steven Bouma-Prediger, For the Beautyof the Earth: A Christian Vision for CreationCare (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), p. 125.

5 Cited in Carl Skriver, Die vergessenenAnfange der Schopfung und des Christentums(Bad Bellingen, Germany: Order of theNazoreans, 1977). English translation, TheForgotten Beginnings of Creation and Chris-tianity, now in manuscript, Section II, Part 4.

6 Quoted in Steven Rosen, Food for theSpirit: Vegetarianism and the World Religions(San Diego: Bala/Entourage, 1990), p. 108.

7 Jiri Moskala, The Laws of Clean andUnclean Animals In Leviticus 11: TheirNature, Theology, and Rationale: An Intertex-tual Study (Berrien Springs, Mich.: AdventistTheological Society, 2000), p. 192.

8 Counsels on Diet and Foods, p. 380.9 Ibid., pp. 384, 385.10 Ibid., p. 383.11 Ibid., p. 388.12 Counsels on Diet and Foods, p. 391.13 The Ministry of Healing, p. 315.

�

41

substitute for Scripture. They cannotbe placed on the same level. The HolyScriptures stand alone—the uniquestandard by which her and all otherwritings must be judged and to whichthey must be subject.”3 This is alsoexpressed in the official FundamentalBelief No. 18, entitled “The Gift ofProphecy,” which states that the writ-ings of Ellen G. White “also makeclear that the Bible is the standard bywhich all teaching and experiencemust be tested.”4 At the same time,Fundamental Belief No. 18 affirmsthat “her writings are a continuingand authoritative source of truthwhich provide for the church com-fort, guidance, instruction, and cor-rection.”Therefore, her statements onCreation and the origin of life raisecrucial questions on important topicssuch as the nature and scope of inspi-ration, the relationship between thewritings of Ellen G. White and theBible, proper hermeneutics, and theauthority of inspired writings asopposed to science.

These issues and their implica-tions are crucial not only for ourunderstanding of Ellen G. White andher statements on Creation and evo-lution but also for our understand-ing of the biblical position of Cre-ation and related issues.

Ellen G. White Affirms CreationThere is no need to spend much

time recounting that Ellen G. Whitedid believe in Creation and affirmed

it time and again. Yet it is helpful tobriefly remind ourselves of a fewaspects that were affirmed by EllenG. White with regard to Creation. Ellen White affirmed a supernat-

ural Creation. According to her, Cre-ation was not the result of naturalcauses.5 Rather, in Creation, theagency of a personal God is mani-fest. “‘The earth came forth from thehand of its Maker.’”6 For EllenWhite, all things were created byGod.7 To her, the power to create was“the prerogative of God alone.”8 Cre-ation belongs to God, and humanbeings belong to God by Creation.Hence, the creation of Adam andEve did not take place throughimpersonal factors in nature butthrough “the agency of a personalGod.”9 Thus, humanity was thecrowning act in God’s creation, notof Satan.Ellen White affirmed a creation in

six literal, historically consecutive 24-hour days. The days of Creationwere not “vast, indefinite periods,covering thousands or even mil-lions of years.”10 To her “each suc-cessive day of Creation . . . consistedof the evening and morning, like allother days that have followed.”11

The days of Creation were real 24-hour days, as we know them today.She “was shown that the first week,in which God performed the workof creation in six days and rested onthe seventh day, was just like everyother week.”12 Thus the seventh 24-

40

he issue of Creation and evo-lution has more far-reachingimplications for the Seventh-day Adventist Church than theDesmond Ford issue had in

the 1980s. What is at stake is muchmore than simply a conflict that canbe easily tucked away as a clashbetween faith and science that oth-erwise has relatively little impact onthe rest of what we believe.

The doctrine of Creation is soprominent in the Bible and in thewritings of Ellen White—and it is sointimately connected with otherfundamental beliefs—that a changein this point inevitably would affectother foundational teachings of theBible that we as Adventists uphold.Thus, Creation recently has beentermed “the Sine Qua Non of Ad -

ventism.”1 It is “an article of faith onwhich the Seventh-day AdventistChurch stands or falls.”2

Ellen G. White’s statements onCreation and related issues inevi tablyraise important questions. From itsinception, the Adventist Church hasmaintained that Ellen White wasinspired in the same manner and tothe same degree as biblical prophets.Adventists, however, do not believethat her writings are “another Bible.”A recent book on the fundamentalbeliefs of the Adventist Church, pub-lished by the ministerial association ofthe Gen eral Conference of Seventh-day Ad ventists, unambiguously states:“The writings of Ellen White are not a

ELLEN WHITEAND CREATION

B Y F R A N K M . H A S E L *

TEllen White’s definition of science

was fundamentally different

from that in common use today.

*Frank M. Hasel, Ph.D., is Dean of theBo genhofen Seminary in Austria.

4342

God did not create matter when Hebrought the world into existence iswithout foundation. In the forma-tion of our world, God was notindebted to pre-existing matter.”20

Ellen White affirmed the historicalreliability of Scripture and un der -stood the events described in theBible as actual historical happenings,including God’s creation of the Earthin seven literal days, a global flood,and God’s miracles. Given the clearaffirmation of a Creation ex nihilo inthese statements, Ellen White did notsupport the existence of life forms onEarth before the six-day creation. Sheupheld a high view of Scripture, inwhich all Scripture is believed to beinspired by God and therefore pro-vides a trustworthy and reliable ac -count of His involvement in thisworld. This raises the question of herrelationship to natural science.

Ellen White and ScienceWhile Ellen White clearly af -

firmed a literal understanding of thebiblical Creation account, she was

not antagonistic toward natural sci-ence. The words science and sciencesoccur frequently in her writings. Sheused the word science in a variety ofways. Frequently, she used it in itsroot meaning of “knowledge” (fromthe Latin scientia): “the science ofsalvation,”21 “the science of theBible,”22 “the science of Christian -ity,”23 or “the science of cooking.”24

When the apostle Paul visited Ath -ens, he met “logic with logic, science[knowledge] with science, philoso-phy with philosophy.”25

She also used the word science todescribe physiology, which shecalled “the science of life,”26 “the sci-ence of human life,”27 or “the scienceof health.”25 It was especially in thearea of health and medicine thatEllen White appreciated the findingsof medical science, encouraging Ad -ventists to enter these fields. Shereferred to the work of medical mis-sionaries as “scientific work.”29

It was the study of nature, how -ever, that she called “natural science.”She believed that “[n]atural science is

hour day of Creation week formsthe basis of the institution of theSabbath day at the beginning of theworld. The Sabbath was institutedat the close of Creation week.Therefore, the Sabbath is as old asthe world itself and is a memorial ofCreation and a commemoration ofCreation for all humankind. EllenWhite wrote: “Just how God accom-plished the work of creation in sixliteral days he has never revealed tomortals. His creative works are justas incomprehensible as his exis-tence.”13

Ellen White affirmed a recent Cre-ation. In contrast to very long peri-ods of time for the development oflife on this Earth, she clearly rejectedmillions of years as would be “re -quired for the evolution of the earthfrom chaos.”14

Neither did she propose indefi-nite periods of time since the begin-ning of Creation. Instead, for her,the age of the Earth was to be mea-sured within a short chronology ofa few thousand years. She clearlyconnected a short chronology withthe reliability of the biblical recordand warned that those who try to“account for God’s creative worksupon natural principles . . . areupon a boundless ocean of uncer-tainty.”15 She stated: “I have beenshown that without Bible history,geology can prove nothing.”16 Sheasserted that “the time of [fossils’]existence, and how long a period

these things have been in the earth,are only to be understood by Biblehistory.”17

Thus, in contrast to very long agesas proposed by evolutionary theoryand in contrast the so-called active“gap or ruin-and-restoration theory,”in which matter and life were suppos-edly created eons ago and multiplecataclysms and creations took placeover a very long time period, EllenWhite supported a recent creation oflife and hu mans.

Creation Ex NihiloAnother aspect that Ellen White

connected with God’s supernaturalCreation was the idea that pre-existing matter was not needed forCreation. “In the creation of theearth, God was not indebted to pre-existing matter. ‘He spake, and itwas; . . . He commanded, and itstood fast.’ Psalm 33:9. All things,material or spiritual, stood upbefore the Lord Jehovah at His voiceand were created for His own pur-pose. The heavens and all the hostof them, the earth and all thingstherein, came into existence by thebreath of His mouth.”18 She thusaffirmed what the writer of theEpistle of Hebrews stated underinspiration: “‘Through faith weunderstand that the worlds wereframed by the word of God, so thatthings which are seen were notmade of things which do appear.’Heb. 11:3.”19 To her, “the theory that

Ellen White did not support the existence of life forms

on Earth before the six-day creation. She upheld a high view

of Scripture, in which all Scripture is believed to be

inspired by God and therefore provides a trustworthy and

reliable account of His involvement in this world. This raises

the question of her relationship to natural science.

4544

that such harmony is not possiblewhen modern science is conductedindependent of any explanation ofGod and even in opposition toGod’s Word. “I have been warned,”she wrote, “that henceforth we shallhave a constant contest. Science, so-called, and religion will be placed inopposition to each other, becausefinite men do not comprehend thepower and the greatness of God.”33

This science, falsely so called, isbased on conceptions and theoriesof humans to the exclusion of thewisdom of God as revealed in Hiswritten Word. She warned that“when professedly scientific mentreat upon these subjects from amerely human point of view, theywill assuredly come to wrong con-clusions. . . . The greatest minds, ifnot guided by the word of God intheir research, become bewilderedin their attempts to trace the rela-tions of science and revelation.”34

For her, “one of the greatest evilsthat attends the quest for knowl-edge, the investigations of science, isthe disposition to exalt human rea-soning above its true value and itsproper sphere. Many attempt tojudge of the Creator and His worksby their own imperfect knowledgeof science.”35 When natural causesare the sole explanation for whattook place in Creation and the sub-sequent history of this Earth, “sci-ence, falsely so-called, has beenexalted above God.”36 She opposed a

naturalistic worldview of sciencethat excludes God from scientificen terprise.

The Integration of Science Into Faith

A harmonious relationship be -tween Scripture and science canoccur, however, if science is inte -grated into faith in such a way thatScripture is retained as the superiorand ultimate authority. Ellen Whitewrote in 1894: “Science, so-called,human reasoning, and poetry, can-not be passed on as of equal author-ity with revelation.”37 In her bookThe Ministry of Healing she wrote:“Only that which He sees fit to revealcan we comprehend of Him. Reasonmust acknowledge an authority su -perior to itself. Heart and intellectmust bow to the great I AM.”38 Else-where she wrote: “Many professedministers of the gospel do not acceptthe whole Bible as the inspired word.One wise man rejects one portion;another questions another part.They set up their judgment as supe-rior to the word; and the Scripturewhich they do teach rests upon theirown authenticity. Its divine author -ity is destroyed.”39

In contrast to “so-called” science,Ellen G. White believed that “truescience” is in harmony with Scrip-ture. It has been correctly pointedout that “the platform from whichEllen White considered the naturalsciences was the Bible. She had

a treasure house of knowledge fromwhich every student in the school ofChrist may draw.”30 Statements likethis make it clear that Ellen White wasnot antagonistic toward natural sci-ence. She did not keep faith and sci-ence separate from each other or rele-gate faith and science to differentareas that had nothing to do witheach other. This would have meantthat faith is not relevant to all areas oflife. Instead, she was convinced thatGod is the ultimate author of Scrip-ture, and she also believed that “Godis the author of science” and therefore“[r]ightly understood, science andthe written word agree, and eachsheds light on the other.”31 This raisesthe important question of the rela-tionship between Scripture and sci-ence, especially as it touches uponquestions in the area of Creation andevolution.

The Relationship Between Scriptureand Science

Perhaps one of the most impor-tant and encouraging aspects of

Ellen White’s understanding of therelationship between Scripture andscience is the confidence that theycan be in harmony.

For Ellen White, nature and theBible have the same author, andtherefore one can expect harmonybetween them. The revealed Word ofGod and the natural world will be inagreement for “[a]ll truth, whetherin nature or in revelation, is consis-tent with itself in all its manifesta-tions.”32 Thus, for Ellen G. Whitethere was indeed a friendship be -tween faith and science—but not inthe sense that God brought into beinga creation that evolved according toevolutionary processes for billions ofyears. To her, atheistic, evolutionarytheories were incompatible with bib-lical faith. To connect these ideas withbiblical Creation would be a wrongattempt to bring natural science andScripture into harmony.

Conflict Between Science and Scripture

Ellen White was keenly aware

A harmonious relationship between Scripture and

science can occur, however, if science is integrated into faith

in such a way that Scripture is retained as the superior

and ultimate authority. Ellen White wrote in 1894: “Science,

so-called, human reasoning, and poetry, cannot be passed on

as of equal authority with revelation.”

4746

accepts the Bible as a reliable recordof events is not hampered by thatworldview, as many would claim,but actually has an advantage. Mostscientist are only familiar with onebasic understanding of earth historyand do not actively ask critical ques-tions of their paradigm.”44 In otherwords, faith does not prevent thebeliever from thinking. It ratherenables the believer to think prop -erly—according to God’s revealedwill and thus to search for creativenew solutions that are in harmonywith God’s Word.

Thus, rather than adapting bibli-cal ideas to the latest outlook in sci-ence, Scripture can have a uniqueinput on science by asking questionsthat could function as a source ofimpetus in developing new strate-gies of scientific research. WolfhartPannenberg’s remarkable wordsdeserve to be taken seriously: “Thetheologian must not be too quick to

adapt theological ideas and languageto the latest outlook in the sciences,especially where such adaptationrequires substantial readjustment oftraditional doctrine. The theologicalvision of the world can also functionas a challenge to science and as asource of inspiration in developingnew strategies of research.”45 Such aperspective opens up new windowsof opportunities for fresh investiga-tion of origins on the basis of Scrip-ture.

To Ellen White, being a Seventh-day Adventist meant, among otherthings, affirming a recent, literalCreation in six consecutive, 24-hour days. In dealing with the com-plex issues of Creation, we have toremember that our faith cannot bebased on science as our finalauthority, but must be based onGod’s Word—even when we havequestions without answers. AsLeonard Brand has aptly stated:

absolute confidence in Scriptureand believed that everything, in -cluding scientific theories, had to bemeasured by the Word of God.”40

For Ellen White, “the Bible is not tobe tested by men’s ideas of science,but science is to be brought to thetest of the unerring standard.”41

This means that she integrated nat-ural science into faith. The integra-tion of science into faith impliesthat faith—or Scripture—has pri-ority over science.

It seems that Ellen White waswell aware of the theory of evolu-tion that was firmly entrenched inthe scientific community at thebeginning of the 20th century, par-ticularly in regard to geology, whichhad developed the most detailedaccount of evolutionary thoughtand the need of long ages. Thereforeshe seemed to mention especiallythe science of geology in connec-tion with the issues related to cre-ation and evolution. “Geology hasbeen thought to contradict the lit -eral interpretation of the Mosaicrecord of the creation. Millions ofyears, it is claimed, were requiredfor the evolution of the earth fromchaos; and in order to accommo-date the Bible to this supposed rev-elation of science, the days of cre-ation are assumed to have been vast,indefinite periods, covering thou-sands or even millions of years.Such a conclusion is wholly un -called for. The Bible record is in

harmony with itself and with theteaching of nature.”42

It should be remembered thatthough nature and science haveGod as their author, neither Scrip-ture nor Ellen White attribute thequality of inspiration to nature orscience. The Bible is God’s inspiredbook. Na ture/science is not. Natureis God’s creation and came intoexistence through God’s specialdesign. As such it reveals somethingabout God, its Creator. But natureand science are not inspired. Fur-thermore, nature as it presentlyexists is af fected by sin and there-fore might render an ambiguousperspective that needs the clear andtrustworthy revelation of God’sinspired Word on the origins of lifeon this Earth. Though Ellen G.White frequently used the phrase“the book of nature” to speak ofGod’s creation as revealing some-thing about God’s love and power,she clearly differentiated and distin-guished “the book of nature” fromthe “pages of inspiration,”43 thusindicating that to her the Bible wasthe final authority.

Implications and Prospects for the Adventist Church

On the basis of the priority andsuperiority of Scripture, some re -markable possibilities open up to thebelieving scientist and theologian.As paleontologist and biologistLeonard Brand has said: “One who

It seems that Ellen White was well aware of the

theory of evolution that was firmly entrenched in the scien -

tific community at the beginning of the 20th century,

particularly in regard to geology, which had developed the

most detailed account of evolutionary thought and the need

of long ages. Therefore she seemed to mention

especially the science of geology in connection with the

issues in Creation and evolution.

4948

His nature and His desire to save aworld that is lost?

Does the way Christian scientistsand theologians do science and the-ology erode or enrich our faith inGod’s supernatural Creation? Howcan we engage in science and the o l -ogy and pass on our findings in sucha way that this engagement enrichesour faith?

These are some questions thatdeserve to be taken seriously, and theanswer we will give to them will haveconsequences far beyond the issue ofCreation versus evolution. It willimpact many other fundamentalbeliefs and ultimately impact ourmission and growth.

15 Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 93.16 Ibid.17 Ibid., pp. 92, 93.18 The Ministry of Healing, pp. 414, 415.19 The Faith I Live By, p. 24.20 Ibid.21 Acts of the Apostles, p. 474.22 Fundamentals of Christian Education, p.

415.23 Child Guidance, p. 296.24 Ibid., p. 372.25 Acts of the Apostles, p. 244.26 Christian Service, p. 152.27 A Call to Medical Evangelism and Health

Education, p. 33.28 Christian Service, p. 138.29 Counsels on Health, p. 370.30 Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 125.31 Counsels to Parents, Teachers, and Stu-

dents, p. 426.32 Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 114.33 Evangelism, p. 593, italics supplied.34 Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 113.35 The Ministry of Healing, p. 427.36 Christian Education, p. 84, italics sup-

plied.37 Review and Herald (November 20, 1894).38 Page 438.39 Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 39.40 Gerhard Pfandl, “Ellen G. White and

Earth Science,” Journal of the Adventist Theo-logical Society (Spring 2003), p. 180.

41 Counsels to Parents, Teachers, and Stu-dents, p. 425.

42 Education, pp. 128, 129.43 Acts of the Apostles, p. 571.44 Leonard Brand, “Integration of Faith

and Science,” Journal of the Adventist Theolog-ical Society (Spring 2003), p. 133.

45 Wolfhart Pannenberg, “Theology andPhilosophy in Interaction With Science: AResponse to the Message of Pope John Paul IIon the Occasion of the Newton Tricentennialin 1987,” in Robert J. Russell, William R.Stoeger, S.J., and George V. Coyne, eds.

46 Leonard Brand, op cit., p. 122.47 Ibid., p. 133.

“The God of the Bible is the greatestscholar of all time, and Scripturedeals in the highest levels of schol-arship, not just in comforting inspi-rational themes. (When God ar -ranged to have Genesis written, Heknew vastly more about radiomet-ric dating than we will everknow.)”46 If God “knows muchmore than we do about earth his -tory, and if we know Him and trustHis Word we can benefit from theinsights in Scripture.”47

To dismiss inspired statementsmade in Scripture and by Ellen G.White as irrelevant, outdated, orincompatible with a naturalistic un -derstanding of Creation raises anum ber of important questions withserious consequences.

Is the Bible indeed the final normand ultimate authority in professingFundamental Belief No. 1? Can bib-lical statements about salvation betrusted if they are dependent uponhistorical events (like the historicity

of Adam at Creation and JesusChrist as the second Adam)?

What role do the writings ofEllen G. White play for Adventists?Can we still maintain that her writ-ings are “a continuing and authori-tative source of truth which providefor the church comfort, guidance,instruction, and correction” and also“make clear that the Bible is thestandard by which all teaching andexperience must be tested” as Fun-damental Belief No. 18 states? Arethere degrees of divine inspiration?

Furthermore, can a God who usesan evolutionary process as Hismethod of Creation really be wor-shiped and adored as good and lov-ing? Does a God who causes the suf-fering and death of countless billionsof organisms and life forms—eventhe extinction of entire species—share the same values and the good-ness with which He is constantlyrevealed in the Bible? Aren’t the good-ness and love of God fundamental to

Can a God who uses an evolutionary process

as His method of Creation really be worshiped and adored as

good and loving? Does a God who causes the

suffering and death of countless billions of organisms and

life forms—even extinction of entire species—

share the same values and the goodness with which He is

constantly revealed in the Bible?

REFERENCES1 Jiri Moskala, “The President’s Page: Cre-

ation—The Sine Qua Non of Adventism,”Journal of the Adventist Theological Society(Fall 2001), p. 1.

2 Ibid.3 Seventh-day Adventists Believe: A Bibli-

cal Exposition of Fundamental Doctrines (Sil-ver Spring, Md.: General Conference of Sev-enth-day Adventists, Ministerial Association,2005), p. 258.

4 Ibid., p. 247.5 Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 113; Spiritual

Gifts, vol. 3, pp. 94, 95.6 Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 44.7 Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 362.8 Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 264.9 The Ministry of Healing, p. 415.10 Education, p. 128.11 Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 112.12 Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 90.13 Ibid., p. 93.14 Education, p. 128.

50

he Koran claims that Islam isthe same religion given toNoah, Abraham, Moses, andJesus. It alleges that God re -veals truth in stages, so it

claims to be a “fuller explanation” ofScripture. As such it is “scripture,” amessage for all the world.

The fuller explanation is aboutGod. Inspired angels declared thatGod is one God. So the Koran pro-claims the one God called Allah.Jesus’ ministry on earth, His deathfor all humanity, and His post-ascen-sion intercessory ministry are re -placed by presenting Him as only ahuman prophet. By contrast, Mu -hammad is said to be the finalprophet who came to give this fullerrevelation of God, allegedly fuller

than Christ’s revelation. The Koranclaims that Jesus predicted thatMuhammad would come after Him.It says Muhammad is a “beautifulpattern [of conduct] for any onewhose hope is in God and the FinalDay.”1 His life is claimed to be amodel for those desirous of obtain-ing the good goal of eternity—areward rather than a redemption.Christ is not God. The Koran says

God is “too high” for any partners(like Christ and the Holy Spirit). Infact, God curses those who thinkChrist is the Son of God—there is

THE ISLAMIC VIEW OF SALVATION

B Y N O R M A N R . G U L L E Y *

TWhat Islam asserts to be the inspired word of God outlines a drastically different version of the way in

which humankind can face the future.

*Norman R. Gulley, Ph.D., is aResearch Professor in Systematic The-ology at Southern Adventist Univer -sity in Collegedale, Tennessee.

©Getty Im

ages

5352

ompensed [fully] for all its actions,and none will be unjustly dealtwith.”15 “Those who do wish for the[things of] the Hereafter, and strivetherefore with all due striving, andhave Faith, they are the ones whosestriving is acceptable, [to God].”16

Re ward is in direct relation to en -deavor. “Then those whose balance[of good deeds] is heavy, they willattain salvation: but those whosebalance is light, will be those whohave lost their souls; in Hell will theyabide.”17

The Koran says, “Enter ye theGarden, because of [the good]which ye did [in the world].”18 Thefocus is on reward, not redemption.Hell is mentioned repeatedlythroughout the Koran and oftenwith the most lurid details. Al -though the reward is a Garden withstreams running beneath it, and thatis often mentioned, too, the fear ofan eternal hell would be stimulusenough to cause devotees to try tosave themselves. The Koran says,“Save yourselves and your familiesfrom a Fire.”19

Hell. The Day of Judgment isoften referred to throughout theKoran. God is “strict in punish-ment,”20 for “severe is His chastise-ment.”21 God says, “I will punishthem with terrible agony in thisworld and in the hereafter, nor willthey have anyone to help.”22 In hell,“as often as their skins are roastedthrough, we shall change them for

fresh skins, that they may taste thePenalty.”23 In the flames there will benothing but “the heaving of sighsand sobs:”24 There will be great thirstin hell. But all they have is “boilingfetid water.” “Indeed ye shall drinklike diseased camels raging withthirst!”25 Focusing on one sufferer,the Koran says, “In gulps will he sipit, but never will he be near swallow-ing it down his throat: death willcome to him from every quarter, yetwill he not die: and in front of himwill be a chastisement unrelenting.”26

That unrelenting punishment for allin hell is described as follows. “In themidst of boiling hot water will theywander round!”27

The inhabitants of hell are en -gulfed in flames. God says, “Everytime it shows abatement, we shallincrease for them the fierceness ofthe Fire.”28 (Note the plural weagain.) “For them will be cut out agarment of Fire: over their heads willbe poured out boiling water. With itwill be scalded what is within theirbodies, as well as [their] skins. Inaddition there will be maces of iron[to punish] them. Every time theywish to get away therefrom, fromanguish, they will be forced backtherein, and [it will be said], ‘Taste yethe penalty of burning!’”29 Those inhell will cry to God to get out towork deeds of righteousness. But Hetells them they must suffer for theirpast deeds, for there is no helper forwrongdoers.

only one God. It is blasphemy to sayGod had a son, and those saying itwill receive “the severest penalty.”2

They will go to hell. In the mean-time, Satan’s authority is over them.

The Koran demotes Jesus to oneof the prophets. It claims He did notdie on the cross; it only looked as ifHe did. Islam claims that Jesus wastaken to God and is silent aboutChrist’s post-ascension intercessionin heaven. Islam claims Jesus willreturn to Earth in the end-time tocomplete His prophetic ministryand fight the anti-Christ.

Yahiya Emerick, author and prac-ticing Islamic believer, claims that“according to the sayings of theProphet Muhammad, Jesus willspeak to the Christians and Jews ofthe world and convert them toIslam. He will succeed in breakingthe worship of the cross and stop theeating of pork. . . . Jesus will be thespiritual head of a transnationalgovernment of peace.”3 This will lastfor 40 years, during which time Jesuswill marry, have children, die, and beburied in Medina next to the graveof the prophet Muhammad.God and Muhammad. According

to the Koran, judgment is a sum-mons to God and His apostleMuhammad. “It is such as obey Godand His Apostle, and fear God anddo right, that will win [in the end].”4

The exhortation is, “establish regularprayer and give regular charity; andobey the Apostle; that ye may receive

mercy.”5 In that Day of Judgment,God “will call to them, and say:‘Where are My ‘partners’? Whomyou imagined [to be such]?”6 Yet“We shall reward them.”7 Note theplural “we,” which appears often.This seems to be God and Muham-mad, for often God and His apostleare mentioned together, but at othertimes it may be a plural used of theone God, for it is used even for OldTestament times.Salvation by works. Salvation in

Islam is not a gift. It has to be earnedthrough vigorous works. The Koransays, “Do good; for God loveth thosewho do good.”8 Charity “will removefrom you some of your [stains of]evil.”9 “Those who believe, and dodeeds of righteousness, and establishregular prayers and regular charity,will have their reward with theirLord.”10 “He will be their Friend,because they practised [righteous-ness].”11 A person can “abound inmerit.”12 Every person “gets everygood that it earns, and it suffersevery ill that it earns.”13 “Those whobelieve, and suffer exile and strivewith might and main, in God’scause, with their goods and theirpersons, have the highest rank in thesight of God: they are the peoplewho will achieve [salvation].”14

Either the Garden or hell willreward each person. One has tomerit entrance into either. “One Dayevery soul will come up strugglingfor itself, and every soul will be rec-

55

“Luke famously described the cit-izens of Athens as ‘spending theirtime in nothing but telling or hear-ing something new.’ Imagine whathe would have said about thedenizens of advanced consumercapitalism, for whom the pursuit ofnovelty has become a veritable patri-otic obligation. We spend our timenot so much telling or hearing, asbuying and selling, a new kind ofeverything under the sun” (AndyCrouch, in Books and Culture).

“As with the skirt of her mantlethe dark of the sunset wipes out theday, so with her sleep the nightmakes a man fresh for the new day’sjourney. If it were not for sleep, theworld would not go on. To feel themystery of day and night, to gazeinto the far receding spaces of theirmarvel, is more than to know all thefacts of science and all the combina-tions of chemistry.

“A little wonder is worth tons ofknowledge in truly knowing whatthe universe means” (George Mac-

Donald, The Poet’s Homecoming).

“The endless cycle of idea andaction,

Endless invention, endless experi-ment,

Brings knowledge of motion, butnot of stillness;

Knowledge of speech, but not ofsilence;

Knowledge of words, and ignoranceof the Word.

All our knowledge brings us nearerto our ignorance,

All our ignorance brings us nearerto death,

But nearness to death no nearer toGod.

Where is the Life we have lost in liv-ing?

Where is the wisdom we have lost inknowledge?

Where is the knowledge we havelost in information?”

(T. S. Eliot, “The Rock”).

“Believing things on authorityonly means believing them because

54

REFERENCES1 The Qur’an: Text, Translation and Com-

mentary, by Abdullah Yusuf Ali (Elmhurst:Tahrike Tarsile Qur’an, 2001), 33.21, hereafterabbreviated as Qur’an.

2 Qur’an 10.68–70.3 Yahiya J. A. Emerick, The Complete Idiot’s

Guide to Understanding Islam (Indianapolis:Pearson, 2002), pp. 106–108, 206, 207.

4 Qur’an 24.51–52, cf. 47.33.5 Qur’an 24.56.6 Qur’an 28.62.7 Qur’an 39.7.8 Qur’an, 2.195.9 Qur’an 2.271.10 Qur’an 2.277.11 Qur’an 6.127.12 Qur’an 11.3.13 Qur’an 2.286.14 Qur’an 9.20.15 Qur’an 16.111.16 Qur’an 17.19.17 Qur’an 20.15.18 Qur’an 23.102.19 Qur’an 16.32.20 Qur’an 66:6.21 Qur’an 2.196; 2.211; 3.11; 4.2; 5.98.22 Qur’an 11.102.23 Qur’an 3.56.24 Qur’an 4.56.25 Qur’an 11.106. 21.100.26 Qur’an 56.55.27 Qur’an 14.16, 17.28 Qur’an 17.97.29 Qur’an 22.19-22.

The so-called fuller understandingof Scripture in the Koran does notlive up to its claim. When Christ cameto reveal the Father, He said, “‘Anyonewho has seen me has seen the Father’”(John 14:9, NIV). He did so as theGod-man among humans. His min-istry was an outpouring of God’s loveto humans, and His death was theonly way they could be saved. Christtaught that God so loved the worldthat He sent Him to be the Savior(John 3:16). To reject this revelationof God is not a fuller revelation ofGod, but an attempt to hide the truthabout God.

The gift of salvation is denied,for according to Islam, Christ didnot die, and salvation can be gainedonly through a rigorous system ofworks. All the time devotees arefocused on what they have to do forGod rather than on what God hasdone for them. Rather than a fullerrevelation of God, there is a revela-tion of one who is unlike God. Hisdemands are heavy, with five timesof prayer each day and other worksto earn, or merit, heaven. Believersare constantly reminded of hell inthe Koran. The horrors of that placeand the unfairness of an eternalpunishment for not doing enoughgood works reveal God as a tyrant.

The fact that some in hell want tocome out to do good deeds may sug-gest that they are not merely rebels,for such would curse God. To them,God shows no compassion, only a

seeming delight in increasing andprolonging the torture. The Moslemview of hell without Calvary givessuch a distorted picture of God thatthe resulting system of human worksfor salvation is a counterfeit replace-ment for God’s gift of salvation. TheKoran never says Allah is love.

MORE TO THE POINTA P E R S P E C T I V E D I G E S T F E A T U R E

56

you have been told them by some-one you think trustworthy. Ninety-nine per cent of the things youbelieve are believed on authority”(C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity).

“The various layers of rock thatwe see over Earth’s surface cansometimes be compared to the layersof a wedding cake that lie neatly oneabove the other. One can think ofthe geologic column as a slicethrough all the tiers of the cake. Theslice gives the order and type of allthe layers. Similarly, the geologic col-umn is a representation of the orderof the layers of rock we find onEarth’s surface, together with thetype of each layer” (Ariel A. Roth,“Climbing Up and Down Throughthe Geologic Column,” in Let theEarth Speak).

“I once won an argument with aheathen friend of mine who—after Ihad whacked away his last scrap ofdefense, after I had successfully cutoff every possible escape route thathe could use, after I had backed himinto an inescapable corner and hithim with a great inarguable truth—blew me away by simply saying, ‘I donot want to be a Christian. I don’twant your Jesus Christ.’ There wasno argument left to be had or won.Faith is a matter of the will as muchas it is of the intellect. I wanted tobelieve in Jesus. My friend wanted tobelieve in himself. In spite of how

convincing my reason was, my rea-son was not compelling” (RichMullins, The World as I Remember It:Through the Eyes of a Ragamuffin).

“At some centuries’ distance, wesee clearly that the most secular soci-eties have in their turn given birth tomonstrosities and that atheistictotalitarianism has undoubtedlysurpassed all revealed religions inhorror” (Bernard Cottret, Calvin: ABiography).

“Evangelistically oriented wor-ship can interfere with a congrega-tion’s reverential praise of God. Anemphasis on evangelistic worshipcan lead to liturgical techniquesdesigned to entice and convertrather than worship” (Quentin J.Schultze, High-Tech Worship).

“Imagine accident upon coinci-dence upon freak, heightened bymysterious phenomena of order andreplication, and there you have it.that natural process should haveproduced complicated animals whoexist in vast aggregations is conceiv-able. But, I submit, that they shouldbe suited to living happily—in vastaggregations or in farming villagesor as hermits on tops of moun-tains—is a stroke of thinking soremarkable in a supposedly nonthe-ological context that it takes mybreath away” (Marilynne Robinson,The Death of Adam).

5757

he first summer I workedfor the Shillington (Penn -sylvania) Roofing Com-pany, I learned an impor-

wooden ruler. I took a measureon the board—24 inches—and cut it off. Exactly. Finally,I’d done some real work. Hur-

tant lesson about measuring. Iwas new to the trade, the “gofer” whoran errands for everyone. I cleaned upthe mess made when we tore off theold shingles. I picked scraps of dry oldtarpaper clinging tightly to the bushesand collected nails from the grass witha magnet on the end of a broom han-dle. I kept the workers supplied withshingles, nails, tarpaper, caulking,whatever. I held the soldering-ironpots and kept them hot with charcoalwhile the workers soldered copperflashing around chimneys.

For weeks, I carried a hammerand nails, a utility knife, a square, aruler, and pencil in my carpenter’spouch, but never used them. Oneday I got a break. An older guynamed Ed called down from theroof, “Hey, Rosedale” (that’s whatthey called me), “cut me an 8-inchboard 24 inches long, and get it uphere as fast as you can.”

I whipped out my new pencil and

rying up the ladder, it felt good to bemore than a clean-up and errandboy. But when Ed placed the boardinto the opening, it fell short of therafter on one end by almost a 16th ofan inch.

“This isn’t 24 inches,” he said. “It’stoo short!”

So I ran down the ladder andquickly cut another board. I laid mynew ruler on the board, carefully lin-ing up edges of the board and end ofthe ruler with my finger. Then Ilooked at the 24-inch mark. This iswhat I did before, I assured myself. Imarked the point, laid the square,drew the line, and cut it with the cir-cular saw.

When Ed laid this second boardinto the opening, he became omi-nously silent. This time it was toolong, by an 8th of an inch or so.

“Give me your ruler,” he de -manded sharply. When I handed itto him, he opened it up and laid it

T

T H E P R E S I D E N T ’ S P A G E

Larry L. Lichtenwalter

TAKINGMEASURE

5958

Here is a generation of God’speople who are not only used as ameasure against all others (our tra-ditional approach), but a final gen-eration who themselves are takingmoral and spiritual measure ofeverything around them by God’sstandard of measure (covenant com-mands and the testimony of Jesus).But, even more important, they are ageneration who allow themselves tobe measured by the very divine stan-dard they use. They keep the com-mandments of God and hold the tes-timony of Jesus Christ.

They are biblically measured—prophetically measured. Everythingin their life is by the Book—Scrip-ture as a whole, the Ten Command-ments in particular, and a worldviewprophetic vision that places the ever-lasting gospel in the urgency of anapocalyptic context (14:6-13). Thereis insufficient space here to trace thesubtle progression in Revelation ofmore general terms like “the word ofGod and the testimony of Jesus”(1:2, 9; 3:10; 6:9) to more specificand pregnant terms as “the com-mandments of God and the testi -mony of Jesus” (12:17; 14:12), butthe latter’s occurrence in the book’schiastic apex lets us know thatthough every generation of God’speople were confronted with the pri-ority of Scripture and the gospel, thefinal generation will be confrontedwith Scripture’s concrete commandsand the eternal gospel set in an

apocalyptic context (see Rev. 12:17;14:6-13; 19:10; 22:6-10). This gener-ation will place their own selvesagainst these divine standards andsurrender themselves to them ac -cordingly.

Every measurement has somestandard by which there is assess-ment. When they “keep the com-mandments of God,” it means thosecommandments are significantenough to gauge their life by and tobe used as a rule to measure thethings that the dragon and contem-porary culture hurls in their face.When they “hold the testimony ofJesus,” it means that they understandhow prophecy places the gospel inan urgent apocalyptic context thatdemands personal response.

Here is a generation who havemeasured truths from Scripture andprophecy and have determined theirvalidity, a generation that then turnaround and measure themselves bythese very truths. It is a generationthat only after doing so, measuringtruth and self by such truth, measureeverything they hear and all othersby them as well.

But don’t we already do thesethings?

I wonder!We are quick to use this passage

to prove our remnant status, buthow about our remnant nature, ourremnant essence, our remnant coreas biblically measured people or abiblically measured person? How

down on the roof. Then he openedhis own ruler and laid it alongsidemine—carefully lining up all theincrements.

Expletive.“These rulers say the same,” he ex -

claimed. “Now get the *&)@#! downthere and cut me that board right—or don’t bother coming back up hereat all or back to work tomorrow!”

You can imagine the care I tookmeasuring and cutting that boardfor a third time. My reputation as aproductive worker—my job—wason the line. It was just a rough-cutpine board that no one would likelyever see again—mere fractions of aninch in play. I was just a teenager. Itwas just a summer job. But it was animportant measurement!

Scripture’s last book reminds usof how taking proper measure ofthings can make the difference ofeternity: “the dragon was enragedwith the woman, and went off tomake war with the rest of her off-spring, who keep the command-ments of God and hold to the testi-mony of Jesus” (Rev. 12:17, NASB).This is one of the most importanttexts in John’s Apocalypse. It appearsin the apex of Revelation’s chiasticstructure and theological center. It’sa verse that outlines in a nutshell thebasic players and the basic issues ofthe final crisis of the Great Contro-versy. Two players: the dragon andthe rest (or remnant) of the woman’soffspring.

Revelation 12 depicts the drag-on’s relentless pursuit of God’s faith-ful people. The dragon has beenmaking war with the people of Godthroughout history, but withoutsuccess. So now, as the end ap -proaches (following the 1260years), the dragon goes away tomuster all the help he can. He’s notrunning away from the battle; he issimply regrouping for the final con-flict. In chapter 13, we read how thedragon calls up a monster from thesea and a monster from the land.They are the dragon’s allies at theend of Earth’s history.

But Revelation 12 also gives mea-sure of the incredible resolve of thosewho genuinely love and follow Godand Jesus Christ: They “keep the com-mandments of God and hold to thetestimony of Jesus” (12:17, NASB,italics supplied), a measure echoedlater in 14:12. We’re quick to use thispassage to outline the qualities ofGod’s people and then apply it toour Adventist Church—to claimremnant status. Our evangelists useit to help listeners take measure ofthe end-time issues and know whatchurch God is calling them to.

I don’t disagree, but I wonder ifthat’s enough? I yearn for somethingdeeper than a quick list of attributesthat we can so easily apply to our-selves and then use in leading peopleto Christ. What does this passage sayabout the real nature of God’s last-day people?

61

onnie Bassler, aPrince ton Universityre searcher, has foundthat bacteria talk toone another. They actually

communicate.Hunched over a counter in a

pitch-black laboratory, she gentlyshakes a Petri dish containing astrain of marine bacterium, and thedish begins to emit a visible blueglow. Eerie!

Dr. Bassler explains: “When one ofthese bacteria is all alone, it doesn’tglow. . . . But it does send out chem-ical signals that say, ‘Hey, I’m here’ .. . and it listens back for other bacte-ria sending the same signal.

“When enough bacteria are doingthis, they know they have a quorum.All of a sudden, they light up and doall sorts of other things to act in con-cert, like a super-organism.”1

This bizarre phenomenon wouldamount to little more than one ofthose little scientific curiosities thatappear in Ripley’s except that thisresearch has led to a potentially moresignificant discovery: Bacteria ap -

pear to have a kind of uni-versal language. The littleblue-glow guys are able tocommunicate with bacte-

ria of other kinds whether the othershave the capacity to glow or not. Allhave a common chemical that facili-tates this ability to “talk” to oneanother.

And this, of course, suggests theintriguing possibility that scientistscould actually prevent or alter theharmful consequences caused bysome bacteria by interfering in someway with their ability to communi-cate.

So once again bioscience mayhave stumbled across a familiar bib-lical theme. Where have we heardbefore of a case in which the harm-ful effects of a group of organismshave been forestalled by interferingwith its ability to communicate? Is itpossible that God may have a bit of aknowing smile on His face?

Though there are obvious differ-ences in the two scenarios, the possi-bility that scientists could actuallyinterfere with the communication of

B

W O R K S T A T I O N T W O

Gary B. Swanson

OF BABEL ANDLUMINESCENCE

60

often do we use this passage to mea-sure our own hearts, our own innerprivate worlds of thought and feel-ing, choices and values?

We apply these measures againstall others to show they are part offallen Babylon, but how often do wemeasure ourselves by them? Scrip-ture? The Commandments? Theprophetic vision of things given tous by Daniel and Revelation and thathave been affirmed, mirrored, mademorally and spiritually practical andvivid in the writings of Ellen White?We are not to take the text and use itto measure others. We are to use thetext to measure ourselves first andforemost.

The phrase “by the book” is anidiom. It means doing somethingstrictly according to the rules orestablished guidelines—properly,correctly, without variance. It cancome across as legalistic. Rigid. Sti-fling. Saying an organization is runby the book often represents a criti-cism of how the organization ismanaged. It implies that the organi-zation lacks flexibility and is unre-sponsive to changing needs.

But going by the book can alsoexpress professionalism, integrity,and faithfulness. The focus of Reve-lation 12:17 is neither legalistic norrigid. Rather, it speaks of heartfeltand humble obedience to biblicaltruth and an apocalyptic propheticvision of reality. It’s about a genera-tion that go by the book because of

their allegiance to God, not becauseof institutional or traditional val-ues. These are not just arbitraryrules; they are “commandments ofGod.” This is not just any old testi-mony; it is “the testimony of JesusChrist”—a picture of the eternalJesus who is controlling history andcalling the world to repentance inlight of His soon return. The sober-ing reality is that if we are not regu-larly reading either Scripture (espe-cially Daniel and Revelation) or theSpirit of Prophecy, we will measureby some other standard. And it willmake all the difference in both howwe will live and what we will tell theworld.

It takes something to be so mea-sured, biblically, prophetically: faith,patience, self-surrender (Rev. 14:12).Contemporary humanity wants tobe set free from the doctrinal andethical absolutes of Scripture. Ourpostmodern contemporary societydoesn’t value structure or concretebehavior. It would consider itselffree from the moral, spiritual, doc-trinal implications of this criticalpassage in Scripture’s last book. Butlike measuring and cutting thatrough-cut pine board for a thirdtime, something critical is on theline—not just a summer job—eter-nity. No mere fractions of an inchare at play, rather the grand moraland spiritual truths for life todayand our witness to the world.

Are you so measured?

6362

then everything will make eminentlygood sense to anyone who wishes toconsider the meaning of it all. Theonly possible response will be, “Why,yes, of course!”

So in the meantime, while weawait the final chapters in God’s vastmetanarrative, our role as Christiansis to communicate to the world Hislove and His promise and His hope.

“The inhabitants of the heavenlyuniverse expect the followers ofChrist to shine as lights in the world.”5

And as we shine, if we surrender our-selves to the power that is availablethrough God, it will amount to farmore than a mere blue glow.

was the only way to save us. Noamount of tower building could everaccomplish that.

If it could ever be said that Godwas impulsive, this would have to beit. In giving up His own Son to saveus, He was operating under animpulse of love. “This is how weknow what love is: Jesus Christ laiddown his life for us” (1 John 3:16,NIV).

But beyond the mere salvation ofour species, there is also the goal ofdemonstrating God’s character tothe watching universe. This issue iswhat is known to theologians andphilosophers as theodicy: “A vindi-cation of God’s goodness and justicein the face of the existence of evil.”4

Ultimately, of course, God doesnot have to vindicate Himself toanyone anywhere. If He truly didhave to prove Himself, then whoeverit is He’d be proving Himself towould be superior to Him. There isno such thing as a court of publicopinion before which God mustdefend Himself.

It’s far more a matter that whenall is said and done, when Christreturns and establishes His everlast-

ing kingdom, when sin has beenblotted out finally and irrevocably,

�

bacteria resonates with the story inthe Book of Genesis in which Godconfused the language of those whowere building the Tower of Babel.

At that time, seemingly exasper-ated, He stepped in to prevent thecompletion of the city and towerthat were being erected in directdefiance of His covenant with thesurvivors of the Flood to “fill theearth” (Gen. 9:1, NKJV). You don’tgo about filling the Earth by mobi-lizing in one place and designing astrategy to protect yourself againstan event that God had promised Hewouldn’t repeat anyway. Yet that wasthe plan.

So God intervened in this effortby confusing their speech and thus“scattered them abroad from thereover the face of all the earth, andthey ceased building the city” (Gen.11:8, NKJV). Neat solution.

The parallels for our time areunmistakable. We’re still ignoringGod’s promises and grasping athopeless ways to save ourselves.Every false religion, every humanphilosophy, is nothing more than avariation on the Babel theme: to saveourselves by our own efforts.

And we are, in a sense, even todayliving in a cosmic Petri dish. As thebeings on this Earth who havebrought upon ourselves the disas-trous path that human history hastaken, we are being observed withrapt attention. “In this speck of aworld the whole heavenly universe

manifests the greatest interest, forChrist has paid an infinite price forthe souls of its inhabitants.”2 The restof the universe is intently watchingour pathetic blue glow and wonder-ing how it will all come to an end.

And God’s offering of this “infi-nite price” was nothing less thanastonishing. God, the ultimate scien-tist, literally injected Himself intothe Petri dish and became a bacter -ium.

C. S. Lewis has described this jar-ring image as the “irreverent doc-trine.” That God should lower Him-self to this level is beyond humanimagination. Even to think about itseems almost a sacrilege. Yet this iswhat He did.

“What is beyond all space andtime,” Lewis wrote, “what is un -created, eternal, came into nature,into human nature, descended intoHis own universe, and rose again,bringing nature up with Him.”3

Of all the unfathomable myster-ies of the universe, the Incarnationhas to be one of the greatest. First,how could something like this—per-manently “clothing” divinity in theform of humanity—be accom-plished? Second, why would He doit?

We know more about the “why”than we’ll probably ever know aboutthe “how.”

Simply put, the most immediateanswer to why God would do such athing is that He loves us, and this

REFERENCES1 See http://www.npr.org/templates/story/

story.php?storyId=6061852, accessed Novem-ber 11, 2006.

2 Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 176.3 “The Grand Miracle,” in God in the

Dock, Walter Cooper, ed. (Grand Rapids,Mich.: Eerdmans Publishing Company,1997), p. 80.

4 See http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/theodicy, acces -sed No vember 16, 2006.

5 Testimonies for the Church, vol. 9, p. 22.

by warren s. ashworth * the lesser...1. greater light/lesser light. the 6 the standard of character,...

Documents