Books: Book Review

The Problem of Pluralism

Reviewed by C. Raymond Holmes
Professor of Preaching and Worship, S.D.A. Theological Seminary, Andrews University
Author, Baptized but Buried Alive

In 1984, American Methodists celebrated 200 years of existence as an organized church. The question of where Methodism had come after 200 years was on many minds. In which direction would it go now?

In 1988 the Seventh-day Adventist Church commemorated the centennial of the historic 1888 Minneapolis General Conference. Scholars and others carefully plotted the course of Adventism over the last 100 years, but little was heard concerning the direction Adventism may be headed as it enters its third century. Perhaps we can learn something from The Problem of Pluralism that will help us avoid at least one of the dangers we face as a church. Should theological pluralism be welcomed and encouraged in the Seventh-day Adventist Church? A thoughtful reading of Walls's book may help us find the answer.

In the introduction Walls quotes the president of United Theological Seminary, who said: "United Methodism ended its second century with all the clarity of vision of a wiperless windshield in the middle of a storm" (p. 3). That was evidenced during the 1984 General Conference of the United Methodist Church (UMC) held in Baltimore. Delegates worried over the lack of unity in the Church and the subsequent absence of a sense of purpose and direction.

Struggle Over Identity

There was a real struggle over the matter of Methodist identity. What was it that bound United Methodists together? Hoping to recover identity, the delegates took two major actions: 1) a four-year study of the mission of the UMC was inaugurated, and 2) a commission was established to write a new doctrinal statement that would be voted on in 1988.

Why was a new doctrinal statement required? Because since 1972 the UMC had been guided officially by the principle of theological pluralism. It had "recognized as viable the whole range of viewpoints and options represented in contemporary theology" (p. 5). Doctrinal diversity and tension, ferment and dialogue, were seen as a promise rather than a threat, a way of achieving freedom from restrictive rules that bound Methodism to established standards of doctrine. So for an entire decade the UMC experienced a growing confusion about what it believed and about Methodist identity.

The Problem of Pluralism is a penetrating analysis of what happens when a Church adopts theological pluralism. In Chapter 1 the author discusses ways in which pluralism is used in theological literature. In Chapter 2 he analyzes the definition of pluralism found in the Methodist Discipline, and in Chapter 3 he exposes pluralism as unfaithful to John Wesley's theology. In Chapter 4 the author shows how those who are committed to theological pluralism are intolerant of conservative and orthodox theologians who insist that there is absolute and final truth.

Chapter 5 is the heart of the book—an exposition of Wesley's doctrine of Scriptural authority in relation to Christian experience. Chapter 6 is devoted to the proper role of theology in the light of the temptation to replace doctrine with theology. This, of course, would make the authority of contemporary theologians greater than that of Biblical writers. In the Epilogue the author concludes: "It is crucial that we reclaim our doctrinal heritage if we are ever to experience genuine renewal" (p. 123).

Consequences of Pluralism

What have been some of the consequences of the acceptance of theological pluralism by the UMC? Walls discusses three major consequences that have impacted negatively on the life and faith of his church.

1. Breakdown of Theological Consensus

The breakdown of theological consensus among Methodist theologians. Efforts to define doctrine in normative terms met with more and more opposition and therefore mixed signals were being given to the constituency. There was a departure from Christianity's long tradition that "basic doctrine can and should be rather specifically defined" (p. 13). Methodist theology became "decidedly eclectic, with less and less specific attention paid to its Wesleyan sources" (p. 11).

Walls's opinion is that among those who may disagree on secondary issues there ought to be "profound agreement on basic doctrine" (p. 14). He quotes an Anglican spokesman who asks, "Are there any effective controls today over what ordained and licensed teachers of the church may say and write?" (pp. 14-15).

2. Debate Over Theological Language

A debate over the nature of theological language. What is the function of theological language? Is it to make factual claims that "must be maintained, even if those claims contradict truth claims of other religions or theological traditions?" Or should theological language be used "metaphorically in order to eliminate contradictions?" (p. 27).

Walls is critical of such metaphorical use of theological language. He agrees that "statements about the truth are not to be identified with the truth, [and that] more than one verbal statement of the truth may be allowed" (p. 34). However, in order for such statements to be recognized as true statements they must be consistent and complementary with each other. "Conversely, if different statements which purport to describe the same truth are plainly contradictory,... one of them must be rejected as false" (p. 35). After all, theological language was intended to communicate what is true.

God's love is the source for doctrine: "How can our response to God's love in Christ be the source for all Christian doctrine, since some of our responses conflict with others? In these cases, whose response is to test whose? Are all responses to be accepted as valid interpretations of doctrine?" (pp. 46-47).

In orthodox theology "the emphasis is on God's revelation, not our response. The test for Christian doctrine is whether it is true to that revelation" (p. 47). Unless, of course, it is no longer believed that the writers of the Bible perceived God's revelation accurately. To focus on the human response as the basis for doctrine is a major shift in theological method and hermeneutics.

3. Substitution of Human Experience for Scripture

The substitution of human experience for Scripture as the authoritative source for doctrine and direction for Christian living. This is the reduction of "statements about God and alleged supernatural events merely to claims about man and his experience" (p. 36). An example of this would be that the story of Jesus changing water to wine at Cana is not a statement about His divinity, but a statement about the immature and superstitious faith of the early church.

The author demonstrates that John Wesley made a distinction between theological opinions and essential doctrine. It is essential doctrines that "define the limits of tolerance" (p. 67). These essential doctrines are non-negotiable because biblical faith involves certain definite and specific beliefs. Many theological differences are not simply verbal but substantial.

Walls addresses some serious questions to those in his church who hold that the human response to God is the source of doctrine. Theological pluralism by its very nature has to be satisfied with tentative truth. "Anyone who insists on any truth claim at all cannot embrace the principles of pluralism without thereby calling his own truth claim into question" (p. 73).

Crisis of Authority

Contemporary theology, points out Walls, is marked by a crisis of authority. When the Bible is no longer seen as the final authority for doctrine, faith, and life, other claims to authority are made—the authority of the church, or of religious experience, or of theological pluralism.

"To accept the authority of Scripture is to believe that Scripture gives us an accurate account of how God has revealed Himself. It is to believe that the events recorded in Scripture...actually happened.... To accept the authority of Scripture is to accept, furthermore, the interpretations of God's saving acts which were given by prophets and apostles, including moral and practical directives" (p. 81). Experience must not be used to place limits on the authority of the Bible. It is never that Scripture must be consistent with what the church knows by experience, but that the church's experience must be consistent with Scripture.

Truth vs. Pluralism

The very nature of Adventism, with its claims for the truth, precludes the adoption of theological pluralism. They are incompatible, for to adopt theological pluralism would mean that doctrinal affirmations would be "reduced to the status of conjecture" (p. 74). How would it be possible to sustain any kind of fruitful evangelism in such a theological climate? Adventists have believed that the truth itself was enough to guard against doctrinal erosion. But there are those who also believe that, given enough uninterrupted and unchallenged time in an atmosphere of tolerance, our understanding of the truth will be sufficiently altered so as to bring about a new Seventh-day Adventist identity.

There is certainly room in the SDA Church for differences of opinion on issues that do not involve testing truths. But what about essential doctrines such as the authority of Scripture, the validity of Ellen White's writings, and the nature and meaning of the Atonement? Are there any controls over what our ministers and teachers preach and teach? Cultural and ethnic pluralism for a world Church is one thing; doctrinal pluralism is another. The latter cannot be justified on the basis of the former. Theological pluralism is not a matter of simply recognizing human diversity. To affirm the one does not require affirming the other. Adventism may be especially vulnerable to theological pluralism because it has not adopted a formal confession or creed. This can make it easier to introduce interpretations of the faith never intended by founders who believed it wise to take the non-creedal route. Therefore Adventism must be especially watchful.

An Interim Step

Theological pluralism is not the ultimate goal, but only an interim step toward theological liberalism. If conservatives can be convinced that pluralism is not a threat to orthodox Adventist faith, more than half the battle for liberalization will have been won. If it is recognized among us that there are both conservative and liberal congregations, and that conservative or liberal pastors must be found to serve them, then theological pluralism has been accepted as a principle, whether it be official or not.

Theological pluralism suggests theological evolution, implying that the religious experience of today's believer is a much more mature faith than that of the Biblical writers, and that the thought of contemporary theologians is more reliable than that of the Biblical writers. Theological pluralism sets itself up as the judge of all theological claims. It excludes as unacceptable all who dare to claim more than a tentative status for doctrine. Thus an approach which demands such wide tolerance is most intolerant of traditional orthodox views. It does not hesitate to engage in name-calling, using terms such as "fundamentalist," "reactionary," "divisive," "ignorant," "unsophisticated," and "traditionalist" to brand those who hold to unchangeable and absolute propositional truth.

Theological pluralism inevitably leads to religious pluralism. That is to say, when the principle of pluralism is applied to the spectrum of the religious world it leads to the conclusion that Christianity is not unique among world religions. Likewise it leads to the conclusion that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is not unique among Protestant churches. Thus pluralism threatens the very identity of the SDA Church.

Doctrine Unsettled

Theological pluralism holds that "all doctrinal opinion is viable" (p. 49). If adopted, such a view would prove destructive to the Adventist message and mission. Our mission grows out of our message. The only way we can tell whether we still have an Adventist message is if it can be identified in specific terms. Pluralism does not allow for that.

Truth "Confessional"

Another way of promoting theological pluralism by the use of theological language is to state that "truth is confessional." Such a statement sounds good but is very misleading. If it is understood in the sense that truth must be confessed, there is no problem. But if it is understood in the sense that truth is whatever a group of people confess it to be, there are major problems. It would mean, for example, that the seventh-day Sabbath is truth only for those who confess it to be so. It would also mean that the religious experience of the group becomes more authoritative than Scripture. Using theological language in this way is a momentous step to take. At stake is the Biblical and Adventist position.