Yet again, one could honestly ask whether the choice of ‘Arianism’ by the Seventh–day Adventists was an identity-driven necessity (to remain distinct from the Catholic Church),127 or it was the result of an arcane Christology that the founding minds of Adventist theology never fully explained.
126
Randall C. Zachman, John Calvin as Teacher, Pastor, and Theologian: The Shape of His Writings and Thought (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 248.
127 Maurice Wiles, Archetypal Heresy: Arianism Through the Centuries (Oxford: Oxford University
The presumption that the choice of Arianism was a necessity—perhaps to follow the general path of Protestantism as an opposition Catholicism—seems more plausible simply because, at its inception, Christology was treated in an unsophisticated fashion.
It is obvious that the protagonists of Adventism used a limited Christology, since their main preoccupation was to focus on the return of Christ. This seems to make sense particularly as Christ is often compared (even sometimes identified) with Archangel Michael, perhaps in an attempt to draw inferences and parallels with the salvation of the Hebrews from Egypt, as they were pursued by the Egyptian army, and God came to their defence in the form of a pillar of fire, or as an angel. It seems safe to assume however that the identity of Jesus Christ does not fall in line with that of a simple angel, since it is obvious that the expected return of Christ is a divine event in itself.
During early Adventism, the Trinitarian theology encountered a challenging doctrinal excursus in establishing the divinity of Jesus Christ, and His redemptive role. The debates took various positions, ranging from monophysitism, to arianism, derivationism, emanationism, subordinationism, monothelism and apollinarianism, and the Nicene doctrine—even though such standard terminology was rarely used. Furthermore, this excursus was not necessarily triggered by a possible influence of early Christian literature, since extremely few such writings were available in English at that time, and those that were available were generally perceived as the doctrinal arsenal of the Catholic Church, and as such were avoided or challenged.
This excursus was mainly the result of an independent sense of reflection manifested by the Adventist theologians. Therefore, it can be safe to assert that the doctrine developed independently of the early Christian debates and perhaps as parallel exercises of theological intuition; even though they both seem to display a common pool of syllogisms. Conversely, the syllogisms were as natural during the first five centuries of Christianity as they were during the 19th century North America, simply
74
because they attempted to answer the same questions. Was Jesus God for real? Can God take a human body? Was Jesus eternal? Was He created?
To explain complicated doctrines and essentially calibrate them with the Scripture demanded a strong sense of visualization. Abstract concepts had to be visualized through heuristic devices not only for purpose of mnemonic associations, but to provide a safe analogy between the visible and the invisible. It was also necessary to maintain a sense of ambiguity over something as mysterious and crucial to one’s salvation as God Himself. As part of communication, visualization of abstract concepts and their explanation through symbolic language was necessary to indentify one’s needs, and
label them, as much as to identify and classify something as dangerous or irrelevant.
One of the most comprehensive papers to summarize the nature of this doctrinal excursus during early Adventism was written by Norman H. Young, and published in the Adventist Heritage, under the title “Christology & Atonement in Early Adventism.”128
The significance of this paper for this thesis cannot be stressed enough, since it draws parallels between the early Christian debates—which constitute the basis of Orthodox Christology—and the emergence of various Adventist doctrines along with a paradigm shift marked by 1888. As Norman H. Young writes,
“Unlike the two-nature Christology of modern Adventism, the majority of the early Seventh-Day Adventist writers worked within the one-nature model of the Alexandrian Fathers. There were two distinct phases: up to 1888 the emphasis was on the divine Word's metamorphosis into humanity, so that the death on Calvary might be a divine and not merely a human sacrifice. However, after 1888, the major concern was to present the divine power as the energizing cause of Christ's triumph over human sin, a divine power now available to mankind.”129
In summarizing Young’s thematic analysis, it is important to clarify that what he means by the expression “one nature model of the Alexandrian Fathers” is a reference to
128 Norman H. Young, “Christology and Atonement in Early Adventism,” Adventist Heritage: A Journal
of Adventist History, Vol 9, Nr2 Fall (1984): 30–39.
the historical Monophysitism,130 and the expression “Antiochene model,” is used in reference to the official Nicene doctrine.
The strength of Young’s analysis is that he surveys the early Christian views, and explains the interplay between these views and the protagonists of Trinitarian theology during early Adventism. As he writes,
“[t]he early Adventists had difficulty accepting the Nicene doctrine, and this resulted in a Christology which was quite different from the early church models. The first tentative Adventist statements concerning Christ’s pre-incarnational origins were thoroughly Arian in that the earliest writers conceived of Christ as a heavenly created being.”131
While extrapolating upon the nature of the debates, Young surveys some of the most prominent Adventist theologians of the nineteenth century, such as H. C. Blanchard; Dudley M. Canright;132 Roswell F. Cottrell; C. E. Harroun; M.W. Howard; D. D. Hull; Alonzo T. Jones; W.W. Prescott; Uriah Smith; James M. Stephenson; Ellet J. Waggoner; and Joseph H. Waggoner.
The first debates surrounding the divine nature of Christ—regarded exclusively from the pre-incarnation perspective—were entirely Arian.
In 1854, J.M. Stephenson stated that Jesus “must be a created being; and as such, his life and immortality must depend upon the Father’s will, just as much as angels, or redeemed men,” and in 1859, Uriah Smith spoke of Jesus as “the first created being”. However their views were not accepted.133 In fact, Dudley M. Canright denied that Jesus was a created being, and adopted a view which included emanationism, derivationism, and subordinationism. Canright’s view dominated for the second half of
130 As briefly explained in the introduction, as well as in the first chapter of this thesis, Monophysitism is
the Christological doctrine adopted by the Oriental Orthodox Church following split from the Nicene, over Christ’s nature(s) during the Council of Chalcedon in A.D.461.
131 Young, 30.
132 Dudley M. Canright later abandoned Adventism and became one of its resolute enemies, as he wrote
and published a rebuttal of the faith titled, Seventh-Day Adventism Renounced; a work that became highly popular among the Baptists.
76
the 19th century, as it was shared by Joseph H. Waggoner, Alonzo T. Johnes, Ellet J. Waggoner, Uriah Smith, W.W. Prescott and others.134
Yet again, the question led to the struggle for Adventist identity (as to avoid the suspicion of being pseudo-Catholics as far as the doctrine of Trinity was concerned, and to the question of salvation, posed in a most sincere and profound way. As Young attempted to explain,
“Why did the great majority of the Adventist pioneers renounce the Trinity and the eternity of Christ?”—asked Young. “They used various arguments against the doctrine of the Trinity, pointing to its rational absurdity, its papal origins (as they saw it), and its unscriptural nature; but the most frequent argument that they used against the Trinity was that it demanded a two-nature Christology, and this they believed, denied the atonement. If Christ was fully divine and fully human in the one perso n as the Trinitarians averred, then, said the early Adventists, only his human nature died and the cross provided only a human sacrifice.”135
Perhaps unaware of the stimulating intricacies offered by the doctrines of kenosis and hypostatic union—at least as an exercise of mind of anything at all—the rationale offered by the Adventist pioneers was a most sincere rationalization of a dogmatic complexity, since any error could compromise the divine promise for salvation.
“Since the eternal God cannot die,” wrote Young, “only Christ’s humanity or body expired on the cross and therefore (according to the Adventist pioneers’ understanding of orthodox Trinitarianism), his death was only a human sacrifice and not a divine atonement.”136
Therefore, only a one-nature Christ would preserve the divinity; hence the preference for the Monophisite views.137
In an attempt to visualize and defend the preference for the Monophysite view, theologians such as J.M. Stephenson insisted that Christ was neither a “duplex entity,”138
nor a “two whole nature swivel,” as Roswell F. Cottrell put it.139 H. C. Blanchard further derided the two-nature Nicene Christology by offering a rather grotesque visualization: “take one man and one God,” wrote Blanchard, “join them
134 Ibid, 32. 135 Ibid. 136 Ibid. 137 Ibid., 33. 138 Ibid. 139 Ibid., 36.
together and you have one Christ.”140 Indubitably, this was either malcontent, or the illustration of an unsophisticated view, since a person’s visualization reflects that person’s ability to imagine abstract concepts.
Nevertheless, concerned with the question of how to interpret Christ more accurately—from the logic of divine salvation through sacrifice—in 1871, M. W. Howard wrote an article titled “Jesus, Divine and Human,” and published it in the
Review and Herald. In this article Howard emphasized that Christ’s human nature
was neglected, and used a language which his Adventist contemporaries were denouncing. Even though this was a major step, as Young clarifies,
“the real shift in Adventist incarnational thought of the nineteenth century was not a change from the one-nature Christology of the early writers, but a radically new emphasis on the soteriological significance of the incarnation. . . . Prior to 1888 the stress had been on the transformation of the divine Word into human existence in order to provide a divine atonement.”141
In this enterprise, the main pioneer of the new perspective was Ellet J. Waggoner, who accepted that Christ is a deity who proceeded from the Father, but who was subordinated to the Father. According to Young,
“Waggoner was clearly an heir to the Alexandrian tradition of the one divine nature united to human flesh in order to triumph over human sin and corruption. Just as the Alexandrians had taught that the Logos’ victory in the flesh was ‘so that Christ may transmit this condition to the whole of humanity by participation,’ so Waggoner also declared that the Word descended to the level of sinful man, ‘in order that he might exalt man to his own spotless purity.’”142
As Young concludes his survey of the early Adventist Christology, he emphasizes that during the nineteenth century there were two distinct phases in the development of Christology marked by 1888 as a midpoint. Thus, prior to 1888,
“the emphasis was on the divine Word's metamorphosis into humanity, so that the death on Calvary might be a divine and not merely a human sacrifice. However, after 1888, the major concern was to present the divine power as the energizing cause of Christ's triumph over human sin, a divine power now available to mankind.”143
140 Ibid., 35. 141 Ibid., 37–38. 142 Ibid., 38. 143 Ibid.
78
With this perspective set, the development of Adventist Christology bears the imprint of the birth pains of a new religious identity, which strives to set its own course of meaning and structure.
2.10 Conclusion
Concerned with the identity of Jesus Christ in the context of Adventism, this chapter surveyed the debates which erupted in the context of millennialism, and which led to the 1888 momentum; that is the “Righteous by Faith Conference” in Minneapolis. This excursus accounted for episodes which resuscitated the theological paradigms once raised by the Early Christians. These new (yet old) arguments and themes (already presented in the previous chapter) erupted in an environment dominated by the profound social and spiritual transformations of American Protestantism, which was infused by a newfound sense of freedom, nonconformity, and resentment toward dogmatic control. Within the exploration of the historic and the theological milieu that surrounded the birth of Adventism this chapter surveyed some key debates centered on how Jesus Christ related to the Godhead, and continued with an analysis of how Protestant denominations such as Anabaptism, Restorationism, Methodism and Deism had set the stage for Adventist Christology, by creating a fertile ground for theological debates, and also by challenging the incremental shift from Arianism to Trinitarianism. In doing so, special attention was given to the role played by the Millerites (particularly by Ellen G. White) in changing the direction of the Adventist dogmatic discourse in the aftermath of the 1888 Conference; a topic that will be further explored in the next chapter. Nevertheless, one structural limitation of this chapter—which the author takes full responsibility for—is the depth of parallels drawn between Adventism and Eastern Christianity from sociologic and historic perspectives. In an attempt to gloss over such limitation, some of the glaring commonalities between Adventism and Eastern
Christianity had been engaged furtively through references to the search for freedom in general and freedom of worship in particular. The general search for freedom and the attempt to escape an old oppressing world was paramount to each church.
If, for the Adventists, this old world was represented by the political power of England, and by the symbolic religious authority of Rome, for the Eastern Christians, the political and religious power was combined into the Ottoman yoke, and the enemy was far more real and stronger. Therefore, the Eastern Christians fomented their search for freedom predominantly as a spiritual warfare, in the form of abstinence of thoughts and anger management. The derailing of the desire for physical retaliation into a spiritual warfare was made obvious also by the popularity of a book authored by an Italian theologian, Lorenzo Scupolli, The Unseen Warfare, which was translated into Greek and Slavonic and widely circulated; while, ironically, being credited to an Orthodox monk rather than to its real author.144 It was perhaps this quietude of the spiritual war which preceded the flood of nationalism and lit the anti-Ottoman Revolutions across the Balkans. As for the more sophisticated theological debates on Christology, these were mainly the effects of triangulation by the missionary activities of the Jesuits (on the Catholic side), and those of the Lutherans and Calvinists (on the Protestant side) within the borders and at the periphery of the Austro–Hungarian Empire.145
144 Marian Gh. Simion, “War and the Right to Life: Orthodox Christian Reflections” pp. 188–206 in
Sumner Twiss, Marian Gh. Simion, and Rodney L. Petersen (Eds.) Religion and Public Policy: Human Rights, Conflict, and Ethics (Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 191.
80
Chapter 3
Minneapolis 1888: The Righteousness by Faith Conference and the Aftermath of the Adventist Trinitarian Impulses