Hey Rich,

Thanks for a great overview of this book and review of Singer's ethical thought.

Like you, I respect Singer greatly, not because I agree with his conclusions, but because he consistantly works out and holds a ethical position--utilitarianism (the greatest good, defined by "pleasure" for the greatest number--including animals, since they can feel pleasure/pain.)

The conversation gets interesting when one critiques Singer, not for his conclusions, since they are consistent, but his utilitarianism in general.

Bentham/Mill argued that Christian ethics, understood correctly is utilitarianism! God wants the greatest good for the greatest number.

This raises the interesting question, that has been raised already here on other threads about the relationship between God's commands (i.e. Christian ethics) and normative ethics--utiltarianism, deontological ethics, virtue ethics, etc.

Rich,
Thanks for this. You have good company in not agreeing with his positions or conclusions- many Christians also agree with you on Singer.

Zane,
Great comment. Your question is key. Well done!

Zane:

I have major problems with utilitarianism on two fronts. First, any consequentialist ethic has the infinite regress problem - i.e. what is the original grounding? Divine Command folks like to think that they have the better answer - God. But naive DC theory begs the question of which divinity wannabe is the god of choice. My second concern is the standard problem of how one arrives at a calculus to measure goodness. Remember, of course, JS Mill's comment about a Socrates dissatisfied is better than a pig satisfied. Mill starts to unravel Bentham, even though he would espouse utilitarianism. I especially like Bernard Williams' treatment of these issues in Utilitarianism - For & Against. But if I understand Singer's essential grounding to be the Golden Rule then it is interesting that he arrives at this inductively and somehow applies utility weightings to drive his ethics.

Johnny:

I actually agree with Singer far more than I would have thought - given that my world-view differs significantly from his. And I think too many Christians react against Singer without reading him adequately.

Rich

Rich,
Fair enough.

Great summation of Singer's philosophy. There is much to agree with, particularly this:

"His bedrock turns out to be what Christians call the Golden Rule."

Not only Christians, it predates the Hebrew and Christian Bible by the incorporation in more than a dozen world cultures and religions. The ability to live harmoniously among others, regardless of their customs and beliefs, is the true test of letting your actions speak louder than words. Were this motto followed, it would be the end of most of this world's misery.

Hey Johnny, taking a thesis break, huh? Great to hear from you.

Rich,

If I understand utilitarianism correctly, it's grounding is common human experience. We may not all agree that God exists, but we can all agree that pain is bad, and pleasure is good. We can, thus, also agree that we should increase pleasure in the world and decrease the amount of pain. Actions that increase pleasure are thus good and conversily, actions increase pain are "bad."

Bentham provides a felicity calculus where one can can consider numerous factors (like purity, duration, etc.). Mill sees the problem of this degenerating into hedonism, and distinguishes between "lower"/animal and "higher"/human pleasures.

I'm not aware of Singer's understanding of the Golden Rule, but I'm thinking he'd say that the Golden Rule really is the utilitarian principle of "the greatest good for the greatest number" or that the Golden Rule is derived from it somehow.

Don't I want to have pleasure increased in my life? We'll so does my neighbor!

I can also imagine that Singer would appeal to neo-Darwinian biology that tries to to explain human moral sentiments by appealing to the benefits such sentiments have toward the survival of groups and species.

Rich,
This is a good post you've written- I appreciated it. Singer is very provocative and I thought I'd give one example of how:.I want to learn more about how Peter Singer "hammers home the ethical responsibilities the advantaged have toward the disadvantaged" since folks in the disability movement believe the opposite is true. I agree with you that Christians would do well to familiarise themselves with Peter Singer.

If you are trying to minimise suffering, the obvious solution is to minimise the number of people suffering - i.e. kill as many people as possible as swiftly and as painlessly as possible.

Arguably

- the kind of 'aid' that has been provided to many countries has actually maximized the amount of suffering

- the inability to let people near us die has also maximized their suffering

- our society abhors doing a proper cost-benefit analysis of (for example) elderly health correction V child health protection V education, resulting in maximizing the suffering of the poor and the elderly

Atheists and Theists alike seem to have real trouble doing the actual calculation and carrying out the demonstrably optimal action...

/Bevin

The value of Singer's thought and writing is his emphasis on the here and now. Too much of religion focuses on the sweet by and by! Ethics has an urgency about it and is results oriented. Singer won't let his reader ignore the now dimension of human existance.

However, I think a better view is presented by Paul. A view that seizes and copes with the present yet presents the assurance of an eternal loving Father.

We fall short in the here and now, yet Peter faces a bleak future. I think we need each other.

Peter has the question. God has the answer--unfortunately neither of us have really listened to God. The best conclusion one can draw from Peter is: "Brighten the Corner Where You Are"--now! I agree and I think God does also. Wish Peter understood that. Tom

Johnny, the context of my statement 'hammers home the ethical responsibilities the advantaged have toward the disadvantaged' was Singer's contention that the so-called First World has economic & moral responsibilities to relieve suffering in the Third. It was not commenting on disabled individuals. However, it is true that some who are disabled have negative views toward Singer. But consider these quotes from the book:

P 317: "my views in no way threaten anyone who is, or ever has been, even minimally aware of the fact that he or she has a possible future life that could be threatened. But there are some who have a political interest in preventing this elementary fact from becoming known. These people are now playing on the anxieties of the disabled ..."

Or, p 325 (taken from an interview):

"[interviewer] Another group of people concerned by some of your ideas have been handicapped people who, perhaps totally mistaken, see in some of the things that you have written about a possible threat to people like them.

[Singer] That's a misunderstanding of my views, and a particularly unfortunate one, because it has caused distress to some people with disabilities. I have written that every disabled person should be supported in trying to live the best possible life that he or she can, as long as he or she wants to do so - as with all of the rest of us."

What Singer has written as quoted above is consistent with my reading of his views in the rest of the book FWIW.

Thanks Rich. I read your review and reserved the book at the library. I think I'll like it but I'm waiting to hear what he has to say about infanticide - that's one that pushes me out of my comfort zone to put it mildly.

I've always liked what I've heard about him and animal rights. I appreciate my SDA background for training me to be vegetarian even though the reasons I would be one now are different from that background. Compassion for other living things has been a very rich part of my spirituality and I wish I could say Christianity had fed that but it wouldn't be true. In fact, most of the time I find it a liability.

I don't think it has to be that way though and the younger generation seems to be doing better at paying some attention and rethinking the dominion stuff. I think this is one area that Christianity has a lot to learn from other faith traditions, or even like Singer, from non-believers.

Singer

expresses his steely pessimism in order to poke and prode action not to primarily to incite dissent. He is willing to be misunderstood, if the results are an improvement in the human condition.

His cause is with those who walk by on the other side. He would have it other.

I doubt he will be anymore successful that other observant critics of human nature.

Each generation are critics of the last and insist on making the same mistakes--take a good look at Wall St. Tom

I Don't know if someone observed this "enlightened view" of Zoophilia as noted by wikepedia on Peter Singer.

Is this Spectrums next major cause? ;~)

"In a 2001 review of Midas Dekkers's Dearest Pet: On Bestiality,[28] Singer stated that "mutually satisfying activities" of a sexual nature may sometimes occur between humans and animals and that writer Otto Soyka would condone such activities. Singer explains Dekker's belief that zoophilia should remain illegal if it involves what he sees as "cruelty", but otherwise is no cause for shock or horror. However, Singer does not claim to endorse the views of either Dekker or Soyka, merely to be explaining them. Singer believes that although sex between species is not normal or natural,[29] it does not constitute a transgression of our status as human beings, because human beings are animals or, more specifically, "we are great apes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

This seems to be a little strange but I guess he made his fellow Australian sheep hearders happy,secure and accepted.

I Don’t know if I can digest much of Peter’s enlightened relevancy.Perhaps we shouldn't fear Peter but perhaps the sheep should!

pat

Rich,
Let's be clear. There are different assumptions. One believes in a creator God, humans as being uniquely created in Gods image, fallen humanity, redeeming and resurrected Christ and great controversy. The other denies these things.

You're right in saying that Singer is keeping Christians from getting lazy. If our moral tradition is as poor as he claims, we'd do right to abandon it for something else.

Or we can, as you suggested, use Peter Singer to strengthen the quality and depth of our own ethical inquiry. I agree with you.

One tact would have us critically engage Peter Singer in his debate. The other tact would see us asking what our Christian faith has to say to moral problems we face today. One lets Singer set the terms of our inquiry while the other starts from within our own Christian faith including all the assumptions contained therein.

Thanks!

Hi Rich!

Thank you for this excellent review and for your knowledge of philosophical ethics from which it springs.

There are good conversations with Peter Singer on YouTube. In general his position has all the strengths and weaknesses of any form of utilitarianism.

Yes, utilitaraianism can and often does affirm some version of the Golden Rule. Mill certainly did. But this is always derivative from and secondary to the principle of maximizing total utility, however defined and however distributed. This is a problem for me.

I very much apprecaite what he did in "Animal Liberation." It is so much better than the Kantian tradition's view that we have no direct obligations to animals, only indirect ones not to treat them in ways that would degrade us.

While in Melbourne, Singer bought vegetarian food from the SDAs!

Again, thank you for an excellent review!

Dave

Provocateurs seem to fascinate us, and we excuse or overlook their excesses as mere hyperbole. The problem is their primary audience are young immature immpressionalbles.

Peter means to shock because he doesn't like what he sees in the so called "do gooder". He looks for feet of clay, finds them, and the shocks them. He writes as a serious, thoughtful, rebel with a cause. His shock syle is his repetitive tool.

My point is: given the past two thousand years of Christianity, much is of his derision is deserved. Far more monsterous acts have been defended as "keeping the faith".

The question remains, why should a thoughful provocateur deny
the divine solution as the proper corrective for a world gone mad. If you can see the problem and can also see a rational resolution--why reject that solution and then overtly condone the status quo even in jest, derision, or fatalism or as normative?

In every university, I have either attended or did a site visit, a Peter Singer was present, in some form or another. Few as facile with the pen as Peter, and thus not so well known. He is the Geore Bernard Shaw of our day.

He is our indictment. Jesus Christ through Paul is our salvation. Let us all pledge to be more Christ like and less Singer like in the days ahead. Tom

I not certain why Peter Singer's atheism is relevant when we are discussing ethical norms.

Utilitarianism stands or falls on its own merits, with or without theism.

One of the things I like very much about utilitarianism is that it makes it possible for the atheist and the theist together to ask what course of action would yield the greatest possible overall good and together to work to implement it with neither one trying to convert the other.

Any reservations I have about utilitarianism spring from normative ethical theory, not theology.

Thank you!

Dave

Good ethical behavior should know no boundaries:
Christians, Buddhists, atheists, and others can
approach morals equally. As David says, we should judge behavior devoid of one's personal belief system.

That is what I have learned to appreciate in both Jesuit and secular universities: one's personal faith is no excuse or reason for behavior that is either moral or immoral. We should do good because it is the right thing to do. Our conscience guides us into doing the right thing unless it has been perverted by early environment. Evidence of this is seen in some cultures where murder is condoned for breaking their "moral codes." But so was it condoned in the Old Testament, by their god.

Ethics is not derived from a religious source, as many are, or have been very unethical according to our contemporary rules.

Dave you say,

"I not certain why Peter Singer's atheism is relevant when we are discussing ethical norms."

How might religious understanding/theism have something to do with the ethics of this statement?

"Singer believes that although sex between species is not normal or natural,[29] it does not constitute a transgression of our status as human beings, because human beings are animals or, more specifically, "we are great apes."

pat

"Ethics is not derived from a religious source..."

My question would be, then where does it come from? From shared human experience only? From cultural norms that have become codified through time? And what then causes certain norms in various cultures to be recognized universally as good or desirable? Does it spring simply from the level of our humanity? Is it from the spring of human consciousness and consciense? If so, is our ethical consciousness and consciense informed only from our human experience, or is it possible that there an "extra-human informer" at work in all ages, cultures and circumstances?

I can't help but hear Romans 2:14-15 in my ears...

"Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show the work of the law written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them..."

Ethics not derived from a religious source would have been a non-sequiter to Paul...since all ancient cultural, world and ethical views sprang from such. But Paul seems to be implying that Israel's God was at work everywhere, not just "in Jerusalem." According to this text, it can be seen in the ethical lives of all, with or without the written law, and thus also leaves all without excuse (another topic).

Maybe, in our contemporary situation, I can agree that ethics and religious trappings or organizations do not necessarily go hand in hand. We have certainly seen far too much of the opposite. But, a true ethical sense, as I understand Paul, is encoded within us and is also prompted from without us, by God. This is the case, whether we know it or not, or acknowledge it or not. And it seems equally valid for Mother Theresa, Peter Singer, and all the rest of us.

Thanks...

Frank

As far back as we can extend, all cultures have had some religious belief. They formed their own religion (as all religions are man made) and incorporated principles that suited their particular manner of living.

Surely, no one can claim that good moral and ethical principles originate from religion. Most condoned and even believed their god ordered killings, child sacrifices, and stoning for breaking religious codes.

This is the origin of the Golden Rule; also the biblical statement that to love one's neighbor fulfills the law. Loving one's neighbor as himself would assure good morals, would it not?

Elaine,

What if loving your neighbor as yourself took Singers position on animal sex and his neighbor also agreed in love. Would that make and assure good morals?

pat

I like to start with something that strikes me as indisputable. This is that, as Elaine says, there are many people who don't believe in God who lead ethically commendable lives.

I am aware that this says nothing about their eternal destiny, but that's not the issue just now. We are talking about moral responsibility in this life.

Do I know any atheists with whom I could safely leave the keys to my house while on vacation? Certainly. And do I have a hunch that Peter Singer might be one of them? Yes.

IF in some setting sexual commerce with animals yielded the maximum possible value for all concerned, of course he would allow it because this is what it means to be a utilitarian. But we are talking about a very big "IF!" One that cannot be expected to occur.

Insofar as I have objections to Singer's project they concern his utilitarianism, not his atheism.

Thank you!

Dave

Dave,

If "humanity" and it's "self imposed understanding" form ethical certainty how would you understand this comment by EGW? What problems might one perceive with humanities ability to make proper choices and if they are normally ethical why would there be a problem creating such a statement?

"Rapidly are men ranging themselves under the banner they have chosen, restlessly waiting and watching the movements of their leaders. There are those who are watching and waiting and working for our Lord's appearing; while the other party are rapidly falling into line under the generalship of the first great apostate. They look for a god in humanity, and Satan personifies the one they seek. Multitudes will be so deluded through their rejection of truth that they will accept the counterfeit. Humanity is hailed as God. {TM 364.3}

Thank you,

pat

How might religious understanding/theism have something to do with the ethics of this statement?
"Singer believes that although sex between species is not normal or natural,[29] it does not constitute a transgression of our status as human beings, because human beings are animals or, more specifically, "we are great apes."
pat

Pat I'm not sure I am understanding your question but it is simply a fact that we are animals and we are great apes. That doesn't mean we aren't really cool animals but animals we are. Saying we are great apes is no different from saying we are mammals - it is simply a biological classification. One doesn't have to agree with common descent with modification to acknowledge that. I suppose it can be offensive if one considers how the term animal is used in everyday language but from a biological standpoint there is no getting around it. I don't know why a theist would have trouble with that.

Thanks Beth,

For me, the bottom line is how do I determine a final authority...or is it even possible? I realize that is anathema in postmodern thought as well as much liberal theological thought to imply propositional truth about God can be known much less conveyed by human language.

I then think of Deut.29:29;Deut.30:11-14.that says God's words are knowable. So for me as a Christian, the final authority for me is scripture. It is not the "concensus of 'humanity' or Professors of Bioethics."

I suggest that an atheist would not come to many "ethical" conclusions through the concepts of "general revelation" as one to whom those conclusions are given and knowable in scripture through special revelation...That also goes for liberal theologians that as a rule do not have a high regard for the inspired nature of scripture for faith and practice or grossly redefine it through the prism of higher criticism.

Yes, I am an animal but not a great ape or a "lover" of sheep!
;~)

All the best and regards,

pat

To move the discussion away from ethics to inter-personal relationships: I suggest the following story.

My dad as the youngest son of eight chidlren, three were older boys. Each, living on the shore of Lake Michigan chose sailing as a introductory career--an uncle was Captain of the Hollond, Michigan lighthouse.

John signed on at the age 16 to the General Meade, a Corp of Engineers dredge, designed and charged with deeping the harbors of the Great Lakes. As he boarded the ship (boat) (dredge) for the first time, he had to climb a Jacob's ladder.

As he reached the top, A sailor on board said: "What's your name son." Dad responded: " John Zwemer sir". At which the sailor hauled off and hit dad full in the face. As dad told the story, he said, he almost lost it and fell back into Lake Michigan. But he held on and found his way to his bunk. He stowed his gear and returned to deck to report to the first mate. On the way, he met the sailor that had hit him. Dad said, his lips were so swollen that he could look down and see them beyond his nose. As they passed, dad said, sorry, I didn't get your name. The fellow gave dad his name, and dad hit him in the face as hard as he could, knocking the fellow back against the bulkhead. Dad had sent the winter shoveling coal into a Holland Electric Company boiler--an eight hour shift was about 16 tons of coal. Dad said, you know I never had any trouble on the General Meade after that. Sometimes one just has to get another's attention. Dad's duties for two summers were to row the Captain or First Mate back and forth across a harbor as they took soundings in order to deterimen where they needed to dredge. Of course, dads, leg, back, shoulder and arm muscles were as strong as steel given his winter work at the Electric Company. When it came to dad, phsycial Confrontation was not a wise idea.

I never met a man who was so tough but oh so gentle. The lesson he taught me was choose the high ground and then stand there though the heavens fall. Tom

As if sex with animals is the biggest ethical dilemma in the world today...

...but it is a good way to avoid the raw relevant questions that someone like Singer raises

/Bevin

I've really appreciated hearing Rich, Zane and Dave on this as they work outside of the narrow enclosure that is Christian Theological Ethics. When Dave says- "Any reservations I have about utilitarianism spring from normative ethical theory, not theology." I believe that is a reflection of his authentically Adventist location within academia and his personal interests. I also think it reflects a different approach to ethics than that held by other Christians.

There are theologians who are ethicists that have Christianity as providing the beginning of their inquiry, the locus of their study and also their final criterion. That does not mean that our morality is inaccessible to the rest of the world. These theologians see the Christian task as providing an alternative example, a Christian witness if you will, to the world.

The question isn't if Christian ethics is isolated from Singer but rather how Christian ethics should relate to non-Christian ethics. The fact is that while Adventists do have an anabaptist heritage we also find in Ellen White an almost Roman Catholic comfort with nature as a source of religiously significant information.

So if you're straddling two camps, the sacred and the secular, if you stand firmly in one while talking to the other, or even if you believe there is no such thing as the mundane, since our beginnings you've got a home within Seventh-day Adventism. I hope that group ethos, our corporate search for truth which I feel is our progressive heritage, forever defines our relation to what Ellen White called new light. A church that believes and searches for truth while not succumbing to dogmatic hubris.

Unlike other Protestant traditions our denomination didn't come out of a systematic theology carefully constructed by one person. Currently at Andrews they're starting work on an Adventist systematic theology. That's a good thing in so far as it is seen as part of our ongoing task to discern truth. It would be tragic if it were the end of Adventist theologising.

I'm excited about their effort because I feel it's regrettable that our own tradition hasn't produced theology with the depth we can muster. I believe that is due to a denomination-wide postpartum depression since 1844 that has seen a disproportionate amount of effort, personal and institutional, devoted to that area.

Johnny, you have sensed and realize the problem with SDA theology: It has not moved past rationalizing and addressing its origins that had no one with theological training or scholarship. Always intent on proving that it has the "Truth" and beyond investigation, its leaders have been left behind the other major theological figures that have emerged since the mid-nineteenth century. There's a lot of catching up to do! Surely, that is one of the reasons that rarely, is an SDA theologian mentioned in any of the other works of Christian or Hebrew theologians. I have many such books in my library and can never recall seeing a footnote, citation, or bibliography showing an SDA theologian. There has to be a reason!

Bevin,

I would lie to think that I can accept a "true comment or thought" regardless of the source. While EGW is sometimes in error for example, I accept wholeheartedly her comments that ring true to my understanding of scripture. If Ratzinger says the sky is blue and it is, I care not that he is the pope concerning the issue at hand.

My point is that I weigh when possible my ethics first of all by scripture. Of course there are explicit and implicit applications and...sometimes areas of grey.
After that I generally tend to favor those with whom I have developed trust and share a worldview.

When one makes comments completely out of sync with my world view, I am reticent to place them at the top of my reliabilty list for other areas...Singer on animals and sex i.e.

Thus our doubts as bloggers for example of the SDA who spoke to the Neo-Nazi group.He undoubtably says some true things but causes us to doubt his reliability in other areas by his position regarding Jews and the neo-Nazis he spoke to under the picture of Hitler on Hitler's b-day.

All the best,

pat

Richard Rice started the "openness of God" school of contemporary Christian thought with the book he wrote with that title, which Clark Pinnock picked up. This has become a signicant theological tradition that crosses denominational lines and caused much discussion, pro and con.

Sigve Tonstad's book on "Revelation" was published by T & T Clark, one of the best academic presses in theology anywhere in the world.

Wonil Kim established and continues to lead the "Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures" section at the American Academy of Religion where the world's most accomplished scholars in that field meet.

Larry Geraty has served as President of the most repected archaelogical society in the world.

Sirof Sorajjakool has published several books in non-SDA presses that range from depression and taoist and Christian thought, health and healing in clinical contexts and, especially, human trafficing for which he has an international reputation.

Johnny Ramirez and Ed Hernandez are well known researchers in Hispanic North American Christiniaty.

Bailly Gillispie is one of the world's top leaders in the psychology of religious growth.

Richard Davidson's 800 page study of sexuality in Scripture is now off the press.

Our own book, "Christianity and Homosexuality: Some Seventh-day Adventist Perspectives," is being requested by those in other denominations precisely because of its denominational specificity. This was also the case with our earlier book on "Abortion." The PCUSA used our work on that subject to guide its own denomination's work.

Andy Lampkin has a NIH grant to study attitudes toward the medical establishement among African Americans.

Mark Carr's book on virtue ethics in medicine, which Tristram Engelhardt describes as "brilliant," is published in a distinguished series of bioethical books.

James Walters also has a grant from the NIH to study the correlations, if any, between various religious beliefs and degrees of health. How many books has Jim published? I don't recall. Several anyway His What is a Person? being a huge hinge in bioethical theory, as his thinking in "moral status" in the multi-volume Encyclopedia of Bioethics.

Jon Paulien is one of the movers and shakers in the Society of Biblical Literature section on Apocalyptic Literature.

Roy Branson has made important contributions in three areas: bioethics, American religious history and Apocalptic thought.

Several of our people have written textbooks in the ancient languages that other universities use.

I've just started!

Actually, pound for pound, our denomination is making contributions to the wider theological world that far exceed what others expect from a denomination as young, small and poor as ours. And they notice. The SDA theological guild is doing more than its fair share!

The real problem is not between it and the rest of the theological world. It is between it and rank and file members of the denomination who have no idea what is going on and, in many cases, are not in a position to appreciated it.

This is the gulf! And it is huge! So deep and wide that one sometimes dispairs of bridging it. One reason I participate in these threads is that I see this as an opportunity to start building that bridge. But sometimes I almost dispair.

Why? Becaue even here,on these threads, so often the options are still posed as they were 30 years ago in the discussions surrounding Des Ford. That was three decades ago and even then his ministry was directed more toward the laity, who were often greatly blessed by what he preached, than the academy

The SDA theological guild left these discussions and moved on to other, more timely, things years and years ago. I can't recall when there was a paper at the Adventist Society of Religious Studies on that conflict.

Why? Partly because after Krister Stendahl's work, it is increasingly acknowledged by everyone in all denominations that Luther read Paul through Augustine's eyes in ways that distorted Paul in fundamental ways. Stendhal was a Lutheran scholar and bishop!

Time marches on, brothers and sisters! If we are still hung up on the issues that interested Adventism in the 1970s, we are so far behind that it will take a great effort to catch up. Many may not even try. Alas!

Rich Hannon has been reading all these years and it shows!

Thank you!

Dave

Johnny!

You write: "The fact is that while Adventists do have an anabaptist heritage we also find in Ellen White an almost Roman Catholic comfort with nature as a source of religiously significant information."

Exactly! Some bewail this, wanting us to ease back from our anabaptist and catholic traditions in the direction of the the likes of Luther and Calvin. I'm happy to go some of the way down that street, but not the whole distance.

Good work!

Dave

Dave,
Love that list! I would add Jerry Winslow whose book Triage and Justice and other notable activity in ethics societies has made him a respected consultant and Samuele Bacchiocchi who some say is the most cited Adventist theologian. Not to many people know of him within our church but David Trim (Newbold) is a well respected expert in military history. John Webster is active in the Karl Barth Society of North America which I think is pretty cool. But didn't you notice? Their ages are all within 30 years of each other!

That list is made up of people now living. Many of whom I know, have read, and studied from. I consider them part of our present not our past. Is there something to that?

I'm sticking with my idea that early Adventist theology was primarily focused on addressing the great disappointment firstly and then progressed onto wider, but still internal, discussions.

I read your comment as suggesting that moment was somewhere post Glacier View. I think that would be the moment when we moved on. Although many haven't, generally Adventist theology has. But where did we begin to look elsewhere? I think it started with Froom.

I'd like to hear further thoughts on this because I've read about J.N. Andrews being our first scholar although I've never come across anything he's written. I have read some Froom and Nichol and I would say that they show the beginnings of an articulation of Adventist theology which increasingly sought, in addition to addressing internal concerns, to engage wider Christianity.

Someone previously mentioned Thiele's book on Old Testament chronology. I wonder if that was one of the early SDA academic theological contributions to the wider world. Of necessity, in the medical fields there had been more interaction all along.

Bull and Lockhart seem to think that the wave of Adventist theological scholarship has crested and that we are now in decline. I used to worry about that too.

But no longer! The younger generation is coming on strong, and not a moment too soon!

Dave

Dave,

Your above list was interesting as was this comment, "Why? Becaue even here,on these threads, so often the options are still posed as they were 30 years ago in the discussions surrounding Des Ford. That was three decades ago and even then his ministry was directed more toward the laity, who were often greatly blessed by what he preached, than the academy."

I am not sure what you meant by this but I will have a brief comment.

It is my belief that the SDA church will never get past the need to KNOW CHRIST. I believe that is best found in the concepts of Sola's of Scripture,Grace,Christ,and Faith. The wealth of scholarship on this is immense in the Reformation writings and scholars that followed in those traditions.

Those principles understood properly is, I submit, the basis of all true knowledge.We still struggle on those issues as a church and we are still in the wilderness.

regards,

pat

Hey Johnny,

About your comment:

"The question isn't if Christian ethics is isolated from Singer but rather how Christian ethics should relate to non-Christian ethics. The fact is that while Adventists do have an anabaptist heritage we also find in Ellen White an almost Roman Catholic comfort with nature as a source of religiously significant information."

I agree with you that this is the heart of the issue.

However, I think we're much more Anabaptist in our thinking and practice than RC.

You refer to systematics, and I think we as Adventists need to figure out our official stance on the relationship between nature, sin, and grace (in Catholic lingo).

By this I mean:

Nature: How much goodness can we expect to find in the created order and outside the church?

Sin: How much damage did/does sin do to our natural ability to understand "truth", and our desire and ability to do it.

Grace: How does God work in our lives before we come to "believe" in Christ, and afterward, to counteract the damages of sin.

This is central to figuring out the relationship between Christian and normative ethics, and more broadly between the church and culture (or in put slightly differently between theology and philosophy).

The two Christian communities, IMO, that do this well are Catholicism and the Reformed tradition. Both have a healthy theology of God's truth being revealed outside Scripture. Catholics emphasize the goodness of the created order; Reformed thinkers emphasize sin and depravity, but also have a doctrine of common grace that counteracts this.

Anabaptists and Adventists have traditionally emphasized the impact "sin" has on "the world." Since we have been so eschatology driven, at least traditionally, we haven't bothered finding much truth, beauty, or goodness in the world, at least theologically speaking; it's all going to burn!

Adventists can learn from both Catholics and Reformed thinkers. (Dave as impressive as your list is, none of the theologians/scholars mentioned seem to deal with this issue. Pat, I'm with you on the importance of the writings of the Reformers. I think a close examination of them shows a familiarity of "secular" humanistic authors, as well as Scripture.) We need to expand our reading of Genesis to become truly theological, i.e. include a robust theology of creation an its implications, not just debating the length the process might have taken. We also need to think seriously about the work of God's Spirit outside the confines of the church.

Hi Pat!

As I think back on the 1970s, it seems to me that the point of departure for many theological discussions was the need for the assurance of personal salvation because at the time many SDAs were uncertain and worried about it. But these people heard the "good news" and shared it with their children who rightly do not doubt that God loves them. "Where do we go from here?" they wonder.

Thanks!

Dave

It is somewhat bewildering for some of us to hear that the church has moved on. This seems to be the great divide, those that live in academia and those that live outside (which includes the Adventist Review). Would "rank and file members of the denomination" include conference leaders?

That discussions get stalled in time would suggest that they were never settled. The "bridges" to be built would be going nowhere.

I asked the question in my review: how many of us would vote to have the U.S.-Mexico border made completely open, with no immigration restrictions?

This brings me up, personally, against a set of difficult issues. If your yearly income is at or above $47,500 you rank in the top 1% as measured world-wide. And the rich (us) are barricaded, so to speak, inside First World nations for the most part.

What would happen if Mexico could immigrate freely? I think a huge influx would occur that would dramatically alter our economy and perhaps topple it. So - pragmatically - one could argue that we should not do this. But set aside this pragmatic issue for the moment as I think it masks a more fundamental point. Which is: how should we use our wealth to help our world-wide 'brothers & sisters'? The quote I pulled on this from Singer has to do with removing the emotional and geographical distance and revisiting our obligations.

Now, it is also true - as you can discover if you Google a bit - that Singer has admitted he personally has not fully lived up to his own mandate. But appealing to this is also begging the question.

There are a couple of considerations that Singer has not taken into account - at least in the book. One is that the cost of living varies greatly across the world. And a large income is partly offset by correspondingly high expenses. But I can hear him say to this: Fine. Let's allow for these expenses, then decide how to deal responsibly with the rest of your $. Another consideration - more problematic I think - is the need to save for an adequate retirement and not outlive your money. Here it gets tricky to determine whether holding assets rather than distributing them is being a good steward toward you & your family or whether it is a cop-out excuse to pile goods high and not trust God. This is a tough one. I don't think the 'George Muller Plan' of living is God's ideal. But neither is the PHD (piled higher & deeper) plan either. And while we muddle about our finances - people die.

Zane,
"I think we're much more Anabaptist in our thinking and practice than RC." Of course I agree.

Everything after "You refer to systematics, and I think we as Adventists need to figure out our official stance on the relationship between nature, sin, and grace (in Catholic lingo)." I enjoyed.

I want to agree with you fully but there is one exception, since it reads too pessimistically for me. I know that lots of ground isn't covered by Adventist theology past but Dave's point, that Adventist theology is improving in depth, breath and rigour, is true. This is one of the things Bull and Lockhart talk about in Seeking the Sanctuary.

We have reason to be optimistic! Moreover, through our brief encounters in person and online, I see you as part of that future. We need good philosophers!

Rich,
I like Brazil's immigration policy. For example, they impose the same visa restrictions on US nationals that the United States imposes on Brazilian nationals.

One of the most influential reasons that there is such a divide between academia and most SDA members is that the far larger number are biblical literalists who are fearful of, or unaware of how to apply discernment in the many and various imageries used in the Bible. When those who read all the Bible literally, they arrive at a far different interpretation than those who read with knowledge of metaphor, analogy, poetry, narrative, and Hebrew hyperbole, so typical in the OT.

While the Bible is clear and simple in how to be saved, it is not so in all the various genres and that is where the confusion begins. Until the SDA members are better educated in literature and history (most in the U.S. have far more education than the new third world converts) there will be an increasing divide which we already have observed. Eventually, the church will have to come to recognize that there are, essentially, two churches, and with different beliefs and agenda. This has been most prominently demonstrated in the refusal to admit women to full ordination privileges by those in third world countries. The NAD has, by their rulings, allowed the larger membership to dictate to the smaller. Democracy is not always ruled by powerful numbers but, as Supreme Court rulings have affirmed, the rights and privileges of minorites that must be protected. But, of course, the church has never claimed to be a democratic institution, or even a representive republic, but a hierarchy, much like the Roman Catholic church. However, unlike that church, we do not allow our best theologians to speak if it does not agree with administration. Where is an SDA theologian of Pope Benedicts' stature and when he speaks, does he dare question stated doctrine?

Rich

Even trying to imagine a just global economic order is very difficult for me!

Sometimes I think one way to get at is is to make use of Maslow's hierarchy of needs instead of comparing "our" standards of living with "theirs."

Maybe we will say to each other around the world, we will do our best to make sure that your basic needs are met. After that you are on your own.

We quickly get into sensitive issues, though. Exmple: taking seriously the population explosion problem, some nations in Western Europe have reduced their birth rates with very outside little presssure. Meanwhile, some people in other parts of the world have been wholly heedless of the need to restrict the number of their offspring, some families having half a dozen children and more.

I am not convinced that in this situation the richer nations are ethically obligated to open their borders to those who have not decreased their birth rates and have no intention of doing so. I'm willing to hear the contrary case, though.

Here is where I believe the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church is still in the Dark Ages and that this is causing much needless hardship. To deny people the moral and spiritual right to "artificial" conception in circumstances like these is exceedingly irresponsible, in my view.

In other words, these are hard questions Thahks for raising them!

Thanks!

Dave

Dave,

What in my view has not occured is an intelligent understanding of JBF. I have not seen it on this blog outside of us talking about Ford and the 70's.

What have they taught their children. Yes, God loves them and is not willing that any should perish. So?

Are they sinners? Yet sinners? Are they reckoned righteous? Are they then to grow in holiness? Is Christ our savior and example. What does that mean? Does true Christian service and proper motive proceed conversion?

I would suggest for the most part SDA's don't share an understanding of the "Protestant Heritage" we assume we were to continue.

It isn't... been there, done that...once! It is mindful in our walk each day and each generation has the responsibility to teach it to the next.

What I see on this Spectrum site as far as leadership is, "been there done that...let's create a political,social,economic paradigm" to live out our beliefs.

If "any" had really "been there", I would suggest they would never see fit to give up their Savior for Him as an example only. They would see their continual need and express it and praise God for the grace we have in Christ...as one does and purposes the attitudes and "example deeds" as fruit.

Thanks,
pat

Elaine

I agree.

I have forgotten the exact numbers, but when I was told not long ago what percentage of SDAs around the world have been members for less than five years, and what percentage of our members around the world can neither read nor write, I was amazed. "Blown away!" as we used to say.

Three things: (1) We have a HUGE educational challenge on our hands; (2)As you say, we must allow for more regional differences and (3) we must keep these things in mind when thinking about church governance.

The other side of it is that in almost all the nations around the world, even the poorest, there are SDAs with good educations and comfortable lives. They have spiritual needs too that we often overlook. Thank you!

Dave

Pat

You write: "It isn't... been there, done that...once! It is mindful in our walk each day and each generation has the responsibility to teach it to the next."

I'm with you 100%.

You also write: "What in my view has not occured is an intelligent understanding of JBF."

Here is where my difficulties lie. On the one hand, I agree that if we aren't as straight as we can be on JBF, we are in trouble. On the other hand, I am aware that in our community of faith there is more than one "proper" understanding of it.

I think we can do a lot to help bring these various theological strands together in better understandings and more effective forms of service all around the circle.

But I anticipate that there will always be an irreducible pluralism on these issues, as I think there is in the New Testament itself.

No matter how hard we try to speak with the same theological accent, some of us will still sound a bit like Anabatists, Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Calvinists, Orthodoxes, groups that never achived perfect consensus either.

Maybe this is a good thing. Maybe we have four Gospels, each with a distinctive theological perspective. Maybe its good we have both Paul and James/Peters.

Some try to smooth out these differences in Scripture. I think Christians over the centuries have been wise to let them be.

Thanks again!

Dave

Rich,
I didn't ask after you corrected me earlier in the post. You said- "I actually agree with Singer far more than I would have thought - given that my world-view differs significantly from his."

Can you elaborate on how your world view differs and how that results in you agreeing and/or disagreeing with Singer in this book? I am interested in hearing how your divergent world views results in disagreements and agreements both. I am as interested in examples which highlight agreements in areas one would assume there to be disagreement as I am hearing you say the ways in which your ethics, because of your world view, differs from his.

Johnny: my world-view differs from Singer in that:

1) I am a Christian and (cautiously) hold the Bible to be normative. I say cautiously because there is an exegetical challenge to avoid wooden literalism and I am a compatiblist in that I anticipate the revelatory and experiential sources that fund my world-view - to ultimately agree (and I experience dissonance if I do not get resolution). Singer is atheistic and consequently admits no revelatory source.

2) Singer is a utilitarian and I am not - at least in the sense of considering that to be my only, or even primary, ethical perspective. In an earlier comment I noted two problems I have with utilitarianism (see above for those who are interested). I neglected to note a third, which is a standard complaint against utilitarianism, that of allowing the 'greatest good' principle to outrank everything. Even things that I would consider generally normative, like promise-keeping and the concept of universal justice (although dilemmas like the classic 'Jews in the Barn' example force careful qualification even here). A pure utilitarian would believe such values would have to be subordinated if somehow a greater amount of happiness could be achieved.

As to my surprising degree of agreement ... I found that how he drove the Golden Rule axiom to ethical positions was frequently consistent with how I would expect a Theist similar to me to drive them. And perhaps farther. A rationale for vegetarianism, for example, that I think is more important today than the standard SDA rationale. His discussion of what it means to have a 'right' to live and choose one's destiny was, I thought, carefully considered. I cannot just take for granted that humans have some universal right - biologically - but believe I should hold a more expanded view of what it means to be - or remain - human. So if, for example, I became brain-dead, am I still human? Biologically yes, but that's all. And, if a baby is born so damaged as to have no cognition? What then? Do we expend scarce societal resources when there is no prospect of the baby obtaining humanity, at least by this Singer-type definition? We will pull the plug for a brain-dead adult. What about a no-prospect child? This is what Singer is criticized for - his 'infanticide'. It is very, very limited and carefully qualified. There are some hard trade-offs we must make in this sin-stained planet that have no clear Biblical norm driving them, unless you wish to operate simplistically. Here I find Singer making sense and his utilitarianism (however, generally problematic) has some teeth.

Rich,

Thank you for your careful disection of Singer's philosophy dealing with ethics. I came across Peter Singer's thinking when I was working on my doctoral dissertation dealing with the dramatical shift of our Adventist attitude towards the practice of abortion.

In spite of Singers denial, I believe that his philosophical thinking is still top down. Regardless of the fact that he is an atheist, he was still created in God's image, and there is the source for his ethical concern for the fair treatment of people and animals.

When my cat catches a mouse, he has no ethical concern about the pain and suffering he is inflicting on his victim. The same can be said about a pack of wolves. Most humans, on the other hand, are affected by the sight of pain and suffering. Why? Because they were created in the image of God. A sense of justice and fairness is imbedded in their psychis regardless of their religious views.

I am in agreement with much of what Singer has to say about ethics, and there is a lot with which I strongly disagree. His criticism of the biblical notion of dominion is erroneous, I believe. Adam was perfect in character when he was created, for which reason he was granted the responsibility of caring for the animals the Lord had created. As long as he perfectly preserved his God-given image of God, his dominion was akin to God's dominion over us. It was meant for the protection of those under his rule.

He is wrong in assuming that a top down philosophy works against the interest of animals. Is God concerned about the pain ans suffering of animals? I believe he does. Look how the lord reprehended Prophet Balaam for striking the animal he was riding on. Remember also what God dold Jonah about his insensitivity for the welfare of thousands of human beings and also thousands of animals.

Can we learn anything from one who does not believe in the existence of God. I believe we can. Abraham was God's prophet, yet he was reprimanded by two kings for his willingness to place his wife under terrible danger for the sake of his own benefit and safety. Was there anything Abraham could learn from two pagan and idolatrous kings? The answer is "Yes."

You did mention the fact that Singer is being criticized for his view on "infanticide." That is true. Nevertheless, there is one aspect of this issue that I do agree with. He argues that our present practice of abortion doesn't make sense. We kill the baby before it is born whithout any assurance that the diagnosis is 100 percent accurate, and there has been many documentd cases of misdiagnosis. This means that we must have unfairly sacrificed the lives of many unborn babies.

He suggests that it would more practical and fair to let the baby develop and once it is born, then we can more accurately ascertain whether the prognosis was accurate or not. In this, I tend to agree with Singer. If we are determined to kill certain group of human beings-the handicapped--then it makes more sense to do this after birth, because then we are prone to make a fewer number of mistakes.

I believe that abortion is wrong, deadly wrong, and that we have no right to take away the little or much potential life of the unborn. It is a direct violation of God's Decalogue. Nevertheless, if we are so callous that we must kill, then doing so after birth is a fairer way of doing this!

Rich,
Thanks for your reply!