Slavery, Sabbath, War, and Women

In the introduction to this closely reasoned book Willard M. Swartley poses the problem faced by every interpreter of the Bible: Will the text be allowed to shape the interpreter, or will the interpreter shape the text? Swartley says, "All serious interpretation must seek to let the text speak and call the interpreter into its service, both in thought and action" (p. 22).

Presuppositions

Swartley recognizes that each interpreter views the Biblical text through a certain set of "glasses" or presuppositions, and then reveals his own: (1) one must take the historical/cultural context seriously; (2) there is diversity within Scripture, a dialogue between biblical writers, and the four Gospels are the final authority; (3) the basic moral and theological principles of the entire Bible have priority over specific statements that are in tension with those principles; (4) all texts on a subject are not of equal significance and therefore cannot be harmonized into one rational, propositional truth; and (5) specific texts cannot be used moralistically to silence a pervasive moral emphasis (summarized from p. 23).

But views such as his are not confined to his own tradition. The relevance of this book for the issue of Biblical interpretation within the Adventist Church is dramatized by the following presuppositions echoing Swartley, recently published by an Adventist writer: (1) the original intent of the writer is determinative; (2) a text such as 1 Tim 2:12 represents counsel for a specific situation and is not a universal command; (3) Jesus is the supreme example of human relations, which implies the superior authority of the Gospels over the Epistles; and (4) it is necessary to take into account the direction of Scripture.

Swartley applies his presuppositions to four case issues which comprise the first four chapters: (1) "The Bible and Slavery," (2) "The Bible and the Sabbath: Sabbath, Sabbath-Sunday, or Lord's Day?," (3) "The Bible and War," and (4) "The Bible and Women: Male and Female Role Relationships". Chapter 5 is entitled, "How Then Shall We Use and Interpret the Bible?". The five chapters are followed by extensive appendices, endnotes, indexes, and a bibliography. For the sake of brevity I have chosen to limit my comments to two of Swartley's issues: Women, because that is the issue before the church now, and Sabbath, because it is so central to our identity as a church.

Sabbath

In chapter two the author analyses three ways in which Christians read the Scriptures regarding the question of the Sabbath: "(1) The Sabbath position, the seventh day holy; (2) The Sabbath-Sunday position, one day in seven holy, and (3) the Lord's Day position, all-days-in-one holy" (p. 65). Swartley analyzes the three approaches, showing how principles of Bible interpretation operate and making statements both in support of the historical-critical method of interpretation, and critical of it. Then he tips his own hand; he raises the issue of unity and diversity within Scripture, asking, "Do some texts command Sabbath observance while others prescribe Sunday observance and still others warn against all holy day observance?" (p. 95). His own presupposition of diversity in Scripture makes it virtually impossible for him to arrive at a definitive position on the Sabbath question. Thus he leaves the entire matter up to the confessing community, relying heavily on what he calls the "discerning insight of the community of faith" (ibid.).

Tradition

For Swartley the practice of the church in the second and third centuries becomes an authoritative principle of interpretation when the interpreter is faced with seeming biblical diversity on the Sabbath issue. By contrast, the Seventh-day Adventist Church has rejected the practices of church and society as principles of interpretation, seeking instead to bring the community of faith into harmony with Scripture. Applying his third presupposition, Swartley says that for the seventh-day Sabbath position, the underlying moral principle is that of the specific day. In the one-day-in-seven position the moral principle operating is the essence of the Sabbath rather than a specific day. He says, "This position, while emphasizing the significance of the resurrection, also maintains that Jesus did not abolish the Sabbath. The Lord's Day does not replace the Sabbath; the Lord's Day continues the Sabbath" (p. 76). I will comment more on this reasoning later.

Women

In chapter four Swartley analyzes what he contrasts as the hierarchical and the liberationist positions regarding the role of women. Logically applying his presuppositions concerning cultural conditioning and the priority of basic morals, the author makes the judgment that Paul's interpretation of Genesis 2 (1 Cor 11:3-16) was a "rabbinic interpretation" (p. 190). What is evident in 1 Corinthians 11-14, he says, are "larger goals of the gospel". By this he means, using his presuppositions #4 and #5, that "in view of other scriptural testimonies which give women prominent roles in early church leadership (thanks to the diversity of the canon), the 1 Corinthians 11 teaching on male headship should not be translated into a church policy that prohibits women from functioning in church leadership roles" (pp. 190-191).

While the Bible has obvious cultural elements, did these determine its message? Feminist interpreters, who claim that the Bible is conditioned by its culture, end up with an interpretation conditioned by their own culture, rejecting what they term a male perspective while promoting a female perspective. Swartley insists that the influence of presuppositions governs interpretation; he dismisses the idea that there can be a disinterested, dispassionate, objective search for truth. The interpreter's presuppositions can lead to a "defense of the status quo and the screening out of those perspectives which might challenge one's ideology" (p. 185). Many Adventist pro-ordinationists have, on the other hand, screened out all the Bible has to say about male headship and female submission while focusing on the Bible's message of male/female equality. For them, equality and male headship/female submission are incompatible. Anti-ordinationists, however, have not screened out the biblical concept of male/female equality in their recognition of headship. They see the two concepts as compatible and reflecting the harmony found in Scripture. The problem is not with Scripture but with both men and women who refuse to take seriously the roles God has assigned to them. That requires repentance, not reinterpretation.

Objective Search

Adventists certainly agree that presuppositions influence interpretation, and that there is personal interest and even passion involved, but we still think it is possible to make an objective search. True objectivity takes into account everything the Bible has to say on a given subject or issue. This is what Adventist anti-ordinationists have done in accepting what the Bible has to say about both male/female equality and male headship/female submission. The difficulty is caused by the presuppositions that influence interpretation. There is a difference between Adventist interpretation and feminist interpretation of Scripture. The question the Adventist Church faces is, Which approach will be adopted? Shall we abandon the Adventist for the feminist interpretation of Scripture? If we take the feminist position that texts such as 1 Timothy 2:12 are culturally conditioned and were applicable only to Paul's day, what prevents us from saying the same thing about texts like 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, which condemns idolatry, homosexuality, and drunkenness, or even about Exodus 20:8, which commands the keeping of the Sabbath?

Personal Experience

My own experience provides a relevant example of how the cultural conditioning principle of interpretation works in practice. Twenty years ago when I was confronted with the seventh-day Sabbath, I went for counsel to three Protestant theologians, who all responded in virtually the same way. They upheld the principle of Sabbath-keeping, while insisting that observing the Sabbath on the seventh day is to be viewed as part of Hebrew culture. Modern culture has accepted Sunday as the day of rest. That counsel sounded good to one looking for every possible way to avoid making a decision in favor of the seventh-day Sabbath. However, as I applied the reformation principle of sola scriptura to every statement in the Bible about the Sabbath, one conclusion became obvious to me: the three theologians were wrong and the Bible was right. As the 1974 Bible Conferences reminded us, Adventists have held that neither ancient nor modern culture can be allowed to interpret Scripture.

Of course one can deny that it is a rejection by reference to the principle of superior/inferior texts, or to the principle of primary overriding values, as Swartley and many feminists do. But these principles do not come from Scripture.

Unity of Scripture

From our early days, we Adventists have held that there is a basic unity or harmony to Scripture, and that when looking at apparently contradictory passages, we must seek for their underlying harmony. But Swartley says, "The rule itself [of Scriptural harmonization] functions to silence precisely that which may stand out as different, different both from what the interpreter thinks and different from other text messages" (p. 186). Why does he say this? Because he has rejected harmonization as a principle of interpretation. He is applying his own principle of diversity in Scripture. He says, "The interpreter must be prepared to encounter diversity of thought among biblical texts" (p. 186).

Big Themes

He does speak of Scripture's "unity and diversity" (p. 188) as foundational. But he sees unity only in the big themes such as that of one God, the story of the covenant people, the kingdom of God, and the mission of God's people. Some viewpoints of individual writers, such as Paul, do not fit into these themes, he says. Therefore, the interpreter must look for the big themes rather than the details, for details often represent Scripture's diversity and are not applicable in all ages.

In practice this means that the big theme of Sabbath is a unifying factor, while the specific day for its observance is a diverse factor. It means that the theme of servanthood, as found in the footwashing, is a unifying factor that does not necessarily require the actual practice. It means that the theme of male/female equality is a unifying factor, whereas Paul's statement in 1 Timothy 2:12 represents diversity. According to Swartley's understanding, in such cases the interpreter is required to opt for the big themes and simply ignore what Moses, Jesus, or Paul says. Given such a presupposition, the feminist interpreter would say that equality represents the divine element in Scripture, while 1 Timothy 2:12, because it appears to contradict equality, represents the human element.

If there is no harmony, the interpreter can pick and choose which of the diverse views are acceptable under each circumstance. It seems that the latter is the more dangerous and unreliable, since the interpreter is more likely to be influenced by his own prejudices and biases.

These are not parallel views of interpretation; they are divergent and lead the church, its message and mission, in different directions. It is no wonder that church members are confused, hearing conflicting and divergent interpretations. Both interpretations cannot be right, but there may be elements in both that are right. If we lay aside the drums long enough to look for these elements, perhaps we could find a solution that would recognize God's calling of women to ministry on the one hand, and preserve the integrity of Scripture and the unity of the church on the other.

Bible Interpretation

Perhaps we should be thankful that the issue regarding the ordination of women has alerted us once again to the very serious matter of biblical interpretation. While it has brought us to the very brink of disunity, perhaps it was God's plan to use this touchy issue to call our attention to the even more serious matter of how the Bible is interpreted in our search for solutions to issues affecting the life and mission of the church. Even some pro-ordinationists are alarmed over some of the ways the Bible has been interpreted to persuade the church to ordain women. As disciples of Christ, all of us must submit our views to the authority of Scripture. Surely the Lord has given to our church the means through which we can find an equitable solution. Let us have the faith to believe that as we search the Bible and the counsel of Ellen G. White, as we worship and pray together, He will show us the way, the way of fidelity to truth, righteousness, and unity.