Virtues of Prophetic Realism in Times of a Broken Dialectic: On Reconciling Modern Critique of Knowledge with Common Failures in System-Building Christian Wannenmacher Abstract In this article, the author first considers the ethical side of approaching truth and then ponders the appropriate framework to benefit from the lessons in system-building during the history of philosophy. According to his mind, philosophical analysis is mo e a i st u e t of iti ue of o e’s own theological reasoning and less an instrument for constructive reasoning with a missionary purpose. But in general, philosophical reasoning is only useful for analysis and orientation as long as the Holy Spirit effectively leads the way. – No one inspired by the Scriptures can expect to reverse the outcome of problems accumulated during more than two millennia of human reasoning. Not a single system that survived is perfect. Nevertheless, Adventists should be aware of these patchy and sometimes hidden accomplishments to bridge the gap between philosophy and theology and see these as a part of different attempts to sift through the evidence. In doing so and thus by improving access to critical knowledge the author expects that the Sanctuary eventually will be restored and vindicated. The paper closes with several suggestions on what Adventist philosophers need to discuss within their burgeoning society. To read the whole document, see link here. Zusammenfassung In diesem Artikel geht es dem Autor zunächst um den ethischen Aspekt bei der Annäherung an die Wahrheit; erst dann erwägt er die Lehren, die aus den misslungenen Systembildungen gezogen werden können, um innerhalb eines angemessenen methodischen Rahmens davon zu profitieren. Seiner Meinung nach ist die philosophische Analyse mehr ein Instrument der Kritik des eigenen theologischen Denkens und weniger ein Instrument der Konstruktion von Argumenten in missionarischer Absicht. Ganz allgemein gilt, dass philosophisches Denken zur Analyse und Orientierung nur dann hilfreich ist, wenn der Heilige Geist den Vollzug wirklich anleitet. – Niemand, der sich von der Heiligen Schrift hat inspirieren lassen, wird erwarten, das Ergebnis all derjenigen Probleme umkehren zu können, die sich in der mehr als zwei Jahrtausende andauernden Geschichte der menschlichen Vernunft angehäuft haben. Kein einziges überliefertes System ist vollkommen. Dennoch sollten Adventisten sich dieser uneinheitlichen und teils verschlüsselten Errungenschaften, die Grenze des Verstehens zwischen Philosophie und Theologie zu überwinden, bewusst sein, und sie als Teil von unterschiedlichen Versuchen ansehen, das Gegebene zu mustern. Dadurch und durch einen verbesserten Zugang zu wirklich notwendigem Wissen erwartet der Autor, dass das Heiligtum letztendlich wiederhergestellt und gerechtfertigt wird. Der Beitrag schließt mit einer Reihe von Vorschlägen, die andeuten, welche Themen adventistische Philosophen innerhalb ihrer gerade entstehenden Vereinigung diskutieren sollten. Résumé L’auteu de l’a ti le pa le tout d’a o d de l’aspe t thi ue elatif au fait de s’app o he de la v it . Ensuite, il évalue le cadre approprié pour profiter des leçons concernant la formation des systèmes du a t l’histoi e de la philosophie, fo atio ’a a t pas ussi. Selo l’opi io de l’auteu , l’a al se philosophique constitue plutôt un instrument de critique pour la pensée théologique que l’o a ue d’ t e u i st u e t de la o st u tio d’a gu e ts da s u ut issio ai e. Généralement parlant, la pensée philosophique est seulement utile pou l’a al se et l’o ie tatio ua d le Sai t Esprit guide réellement cette démarche. – Une personne qui se laisse inspirer par le Saint Esprit ne s’atte d pas à renverser le résultat des problèmes qui se sont accumulés durant plus de deux ill ai es d’histoi e de la aiso hu ai e. Au u s st e ui a t p opos et ui a su v u ’est parfait. Cependant, les adventistes devraient être conscients des a uis, a uis ui e s’av e t pas être unifiés et qui sont parfois difficiles à déchiffrer, mais qui visent à amoindrir le fossé existant entre la philosophie et la théologie. Ils devraient les considérer comme faisant partie de différentes tentative de p e d e e o sid atio les vide es ui e iste t. L’auteu est d’avis que le sanctuaire se a fi ale e t estau et justifi pa e iais et pa l’a s à la o aissa e iti ue. L’a ti le se termine en proposant les sujets dont les philosophes adventistes devraient discuter dans leur association qui vient de naître. 

Spes Christiana 22–23, 2011–2012, 31–61 Virtues of Prophetic Realism in Times of a Broken Dialectic: On Reconciling Modern Critique of Knowledge with Common Failures in System-Building Christian Wannenmacher Abstract In this article, the author first considers the ethical side of approaching truth and then ponders the appropriate framework to benefit from the lessons in system-building during the history of philosophy. According to his mind, philosophical analysis is more an instrument of critique of one’s own theological reasoning and less an instrument for constructive reasoning with a missionary purpose. But in general, philosophical reasoning is only useful for analysis and orientation as long as the Holy Spirit effectively leads the way. – No one inspired by the Scriptures can expect to reverse the outcome of problems accumulated during more than two millennia of human reasoning. Not a single system that survived is perfect. Nevertheless, Adventists should be aware of these patchy and sometimes hidden accomplishments to bridge the gap between philosophy and theology and see these as a part of different attempts to sift through the evidence. In doing so and thus by improving access to critical knowledge the author expects that the Sanctuary eventually will be restored and vindicated. The paper closes with several suggestions on what Adventist philosophers need to discuss within their burgeoning society. Zimmerfreuden Wenn ich mittags fenstersteh / und die große Landschaft seh, / dampft mir plötzlich Bratenrauch / in den reinen Tannenhauch. Regst umsonst vom Erdenjoch / Flügel der Ekstase – Ochs und Hammel steigen noch / Göttern in die Nase. Christian Morgenstern (1871–1914)1 1 “Chamber-Joy: At noontime standing with a melting gaze / catch scenery through open window double glazed, / Suddenly the smell of roasting meat was in the air / to overpower the pure whiff of some conifer. // From earthly yoke you stir in vain / with wings of ecstasy – / Since beef and lamb will move again / into the nose of Gods to be.” I tried my best to translate this piece by Bavarian poet Christian Morgenstern, who was inspired by English literary nonsense. Although a mystic influenced by Arthur Schopenhauer, Friedrich Nietzsche and Rudolf Steiner – the originator of Christian Wannenmacher 1. Athens or Jerusalem, Wisdom and Philosophy The title of this symposium, “Athens and Jerusalem Revisited”, suggests a historical perspective, and the conjunction ‘or’ can moreover indicate a strong opposition in the wake of partisans from the early Christian lay theologian Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus to the late political philosopher and GermanJewish émigré Leo Strauss.2 Another facet of the topic has to do with the current context of the formal establishment of a Society of Adventist Philosophers, and thus is concerned with the relevance of the discipline for the Adventist Church at large. This aspect was alluded to in the symposium’s subtitle “Adventism and the Love of Wisdom” and seems to imply a similarity between wisdom and philosophy. Therefore I discern a tension within the title and between the common main title phrase and the more special subtitle. We will have to come back to some of the implications later. For my present purpose, I will render this phrase a little more precisely into three subsequent questions at issue, though each for themselves may sound blunt: Why philosophy? What does philosophy have to do with Adventism or the Adventist message? Why should we establish philosophy as a much more visible discipline in the Adventist educational framework now? I struggled with the first question during my initial decade of study. I struggled with the second question in the second decade, after my conversion. And now, I am struggling with the third question. However, I am hopeful that I can incorporate into my answer – especially with regard to the historical layer – some illuminative results concerning all three of the questions. But although the presentation attempts to answer the third question concerning the establishment of the discipline – while I am taking into account the question concerning philosophy as self-determination up against the Adventist denominational identity – I do not intend to work all of them through step by step because parts of my answer are as scattered across the paper as they came to awareness during different periods in my life. The main structure of the paper thus is twofold: First I consider the ethical side – our attitude or mindset – in approaching truth and then I ponder on the appropriate framework to benefit from the lessons in system-building during the history of philosophy. anthroposophy – he clung to the crude facts of realism. It thus boils down to the question: Are we, at the end of the day, all realists? 2 Compare e.g. Strauss’ “Preliminary Reflections” from 1967 (repr. 1983) with Tertullian, De praescriptione haereticorum, vii: “Worldly wisdom culminates in philosophy with its rash interpretation of God’s nature and purpose. It is philosophy that supplies the heresies with their equipment. ... From philosophy come those fables and endless genealogies and fruitless questionings, those ‘words that creep like as doth a canker.’ To hold us back from such things, the Apostle testifies expressly in his letter to the Colossians that we should beware of philosophy ... What has Jerusalem to do with Athens, the Church with the Academy? What have heretics to do with Christians? Our instruction comes from the porch of Solomon, who had himself taught that the Lord is to be sought in simplicity of heart. Away with all attempts to produce a Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic Christianity!” (Quoted according to the translation by Greenslade 1956, 35) 32 Virtues of Prophetic Realism 2. Is There a Privileged Approach to Truth? To oversimplify, there are apparently three modes of access to truth3 (or what one considers to be truth): (1) immediate, i.e., “from above” through the Holy Spirit; (2) mediate or indirect through a skillful combination of human reason and divine revelation; or (3) “from below”, i.e., in a fierce, logical exchange of blows of opposing arguments in a discussion involving propositions of faith and reason. These modes, at least, are suggested in quotations from Ellen White, Karol Wojtyla and the Jewish historian of philosophy, Norbert Samuelson. I will quote them in reverse order: Religious philosophy necessarily is polemical. ... If there was no challenge from outside ... then there would be nothing to talk about ... It is the external challenge that determines the agenda (Samuelson 1989, 288). According to this approach every comparative study in the twilight zone between philosophy and theology tends to be apologetic. With considerable irony Heinrich Heine, who knew about the significance of philosophy, in his Religion and Philosophy in Germany therefore advised religionists to stay away from philosophical debates, as the following quote illustrates: From the instant when a religion seeks support from philosophy, its ruin is inevitable. It seeks to defend itself and sinks even deeper into destruction. Religion, like every other form of absolutism, should be above justification (Heine 1902, 110). The second position we find championed by Karol Wojtyla, a Polish phenomenologist better known as John Paul II, who, in 1998, in his encyclical Fides et ratio, affirmed what the Roman Catholic Church holds to, at least since 1870: The Church remains profoundly convinced that faith and reason “mutually support each other”; each influences the other, as they offer to each other a purifying critique and a stimulus to pursue the search for deeper understanding. ... Philosophical thought is often the only ground for understanding and dialogue with those who do not share our faith. The current ferment in philosophy demands of believing philosophers an attentive and competent com- 3 When I speak of “three modes of access to truth” I do not intend to tackle what philosophers specifically call epistemology. Here I merely try to consider the ethical side of approaching truth which can be fierce, balanced or exceptionally gifted. The problem is actually how to reach a balanced middle ground knowing that the dogmatic approach is not really wanted and the approach through the spirit is not in our hands. Both – human reason and divine spirit – have had their influence on philosophical system-building and critique but now we are living in times of their broken dialectic. Nevertheless in my presentation I will abide by a dialectical approach to their relation in order to readjust their interrelation. For the purpose of a short historical introduction into the classification of systems running up to our times see Pannenberg’s sketch on page 42 (including footnote 15) and for the term ‘stage of broken dialectic’ notice further the remarks at the end of part 5. 33 Christian Wannenmacher mitment, able to discern the expectations, the points of openness and the key issues of this historical moment.4 And the last mode of access to truth, which I became acquainted with at the end of the first decade of my philosophy studies, was the Adventist position. This position was insistently put forward by Ellen White in a sermon in the year 1891: Those who would be successful in winning souls to Christ, must carry with them the divine influence of the Holy Spirit. But how little is known concerning the operation of the Spirit of God. ... Christ has promised the gift of the Holy Spirit to his church, but how little is this promise appreciated. How seldom is its power felt in the church. ... With the reception of this gift, all other gifts would be ours; for we are to have this gift according to the plentitude of the riches of the grace of Christ, and he is ready to supply every soul according to the capacity to receive. Then let us not be satisfied with only a little of this blessing, only that amount which will keep us from the slumber of death, but let us diligently seek for the abundance of the grace of God. ... No one is prepared to educate and strengthen the church unless he has received the gift of the Holy Spirit.5 I am aware that Ellen White had much more to say about philosophy at large thereby touching on different strands of so-called “extra-biblical worldviews”,6 but let me repeat the central and most important phrase in the passage just quoted: “With the reception of this gift, all other gifts would be ours.” And given this biblical exhortation it is quite puzzling that all three paths claim to be capable of reaching to the core of the entire spectrum of truth, and of representing or penetrating it. For our purpose the question “Why philosophy?” should momentarily be transformed into the question “What kind of a philosophy?” Today, a type of controversial apologetics is known not only from the Catholic side. It uses a number of philosophical arguments to (a) preserve faith against the accusation of being irrational, and (b) better reach its mission-oriented purpose through the power of the superior argument. As a quite recently converted Seventh-day Adventist, I always 4 See paragraphs 100 and 104 of the encyclical Fides et Ratio (September 14, 1998) with reference to the Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith Dei Filius, IV (First Vatican Ecumenical Council), DS 3019. 5 “It is not for You to Know the Times and the Seasons”, Sermon at Lansing, Michigan, Sept. 5, 1891, in White 1987, 960. 6 The proper place of the Bible in education was the underlying context for her final 19th century reflection on the impact of the natural sciences and accompanying philosophies (cf. Knight 1986 and 2008b). William Miller in his “Rules of Bible Interpretation” (cf. Damsteegt 1977, 299–300) deliberately had countered deism in 1841 without naming it explicitly. Ellen White endorsed Miller’s rules in Review and Herald (November 25, 1884, 738), but the book Education, her major contribution in this field, was released not until 1903. Leading Academics of her time, such as John William Draper (1874) and Andrew Dickinson White (1896), in their major works were led by the notion of a deep conflict between science and religion instead. I owe my awareness of the historical background of Ellen White’s position also to suggestions given by Denis Fortin and Gary Burdick. 34 Virtues of Prophetic Realism felt a bit uncomfortable with dogmatic kinds of faith which, in self-sufficient trust in the achievements of reason, defends itself or, in some cases, even attacks. The sharp sword of logic is not necessarily the same as the “double-edged sword”, or, perhaps even more applicable, the scalpel of the Bible (Heb 4:12).7 There seems to be a certain distance between dogmatic arguments and the practice of faith as demanded by Jesus; for many of the common philosophical arguments probably cannot be supported sufficiently by the Bible. It seems that these apologists dared to step on a terrain that, in the end, would lead them far away from the faith that is presented in the Bible. The distance, then, is not only that of time or language, but also that of essence. Furthermore it is my observation that an academically induced linguistic confusion is spreading even within the Seventh-day Adventist Church.8 There are several reasons for this. To start, one should assume that there is always a close connection between language and thinking. But then there is also the element of persistence, through which the various positions, through a change of words, seemingly conform to each other progressively (pseudo-morphosis). Traditionally, it was the philosopher’s task to assign to the various concepts a meaning that is unambiguous. Logical Positivism was the last movement in the history of philosophy to attain this goal in grand scale. But the main stream of Analytical Philosophy of our days has become much more sensitive to the history of philosophy again. Therefore the business of conceptual clarity has again become more difficult because, on one hand, scientific insight has increased in detail, and on the other hand, the task remains difficult because the persistence of great contradictions in interpretation. Under the postmodern conditions of today, all things exist quasi on equal footing with each other and many a Seventh-day Adventist despairs over the quasi-equal validity of the various answers, longing for the ultimate argument or harmony in a greater group. Given the overall complexity, a basic assumption in the History of Ideas is that certain elements are constantly repeated, yet they are increasingly complex in combination. George Santayana holds: Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it (2011, 172). 7 “For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” (NKJV) – “His powerful Word is sharp as a surgeon’s scalpel, cutting through everything, whether doubt or defense, laying us open to listen and obey. Nothing and no one is impervious to God’s Word.” (The Message) 8 One can find a somewhat ironic illustration of this tendency in Knight 2008a, 52. Compare Zackrison 2004 touching on the mildly sarcastic comments of the early Adventists about the “Doctors of Divinity” (125). 35 Christian Wannenmacher But philosophers have to be aware that the wisdom of Qohelet (being existentialist avant la lettre) seems to be even more radical: Repetition is likely even when we know the past. Thus, let me quote again from Ellen White’s Lansing Sermon: It was thought that Solomon knew God. ... But although Solomon had had great light, he became lifted up in himself, and imagined that he was wise enough to keep himself, so he separated from God. ... He forgot the benefits that God had bestowed upon him; he forsook the sacred temple of the Lord, but he afterwards repented, and turned from his evil ways. But did Solomon know God when he was doing according to the ways of idolaters? – No; he had forgotten the rich experience of his youth and the prayers he had made in the temple. ... The candlestick was removed out of its place when Solomon forgot God. He lost the light of God, he lost the wisdom of God, he confounded idolatry with religion. ... Do you imagine that you can give the third angel’s message to the world while you are still carnal and corrupt, while your characters are still sinful? “No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment; for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse.” Unless your hearts are emptied of sin every day, unless you are sanctified through the truth, you would better not touch the message of God (White 1987, 960–961). Notwithstanding his exemplary failure, Solomon remains the OT biblical model for wisdom.9 But how should Adventists pay heed to what Ellen White here says, especially with regard to her application? When we compare all the NT writings, Paul made the most frequent use of the word “wisdom” (hokhmah; sophia), i.e., the biblical concept for philosophy.10 The presence of the word and the motif of wisdom prove that Paul was a critical interpreter who knew the contexts of the Hellenistic traditions very well. His talk on Mars Hill is the biblical starting point into a maze, if not a mess.11 Is the Apostle Paul to blame because the subsequent discussion was leading into the decontextualization of Jewish thought in Greek metaphysics? Does it not boil down to this: Paul could harmoniously bring together the doctrine of tselem elohim with the imitation of God’s condescendence in Jesus Christ. The Church fathers, however, were beginning to reconstruct the two doctrines about our practical behaviour within the framework of Greek metaphysics. This way of deconstruction led to merely theoretical penetration in a systematic fashion instead. And eventually there were two highly artificial and theoretically radicalized terms resulting, 9 According to Daniel Krochmalnik, professor for Religious Education at Hochschule für Jüdische Studien in Heidelberg, Qoheleth teaches an “Anti-Genesis”, and Jewish philosophers abide by the “ferment of decomposition”. The list of similarities of Greek philosophy and Hebrew wisdom seems quite long: “Negative ethico-theology, demiurgic creation, philosopher king, ideal state, providence, allegoresis, and foremost, the common enemy – myth” (Krochmalnik n.d., 7, translated by C.W.). 10 I take the identity claim here as a premise, but I do admit that showing more clearly how this claim actually works in historical and systematic terms would be an extra burden. Therefore mind the suggestion of a task list at the end of this paper. 11 For more details of the historical complexities see the case study in section 5 of this paper. 36 Virtues of Prophetic Realism namely Thomas Aquinas’ concept of Analogia entis and Nicolas of Cusa’s counter-concept of coincidentia oppositorum.12 Luther’s case seems to be very similar to Paul’s, inasmuch as Luther criticized the Thomistic use of Aristotle but appreciated Aristotle because of his logic and political ethics.13 Of course, by recent standards, Luther’s knowledge of Aristotle and Augustine was limited, though it helped him to demarcate the newly discovered biblical justification against the Scholastic doctrine of virtues and its ecclesiastical application. Thus, it should be our task to discover Paul and Luther as authentic figures in the history of philosophy. And that includes them not only in isolation but also their relationship to Plato, Aristotle and Kant (to name just the most important ones). Tracing this route we may eventually see the most important determining factor influencing the Church fathers of Western Christianity more clearly. Adventists should not refrain from understanding the influential facts in the development of Christian doctrine, and thereby in certain limits sift the sediment of human understanding in the history of ideas. 3. How to Study Philosophy Suitable for an Adventist Context In looking back to the fate of the Jewish, Catholic and Protestant encounter with philosophy, we have to pay heed to Fernando Canale’s principled caveat. He drew the line as follows: “I am convinced that if Adventist theology opens its doors to a systematic theology whose operative principles are derived from any sort of human philosophy, very soon Adventism will become a subspecies of Evangelicalism, losing in the process not only its identity and uniqueness, but also the reason for its existence and mission” (Canale 2001, 130). This sharp cut, however, presupposes a reliable knowledge of philosophy and the driving forces in its history to prevent the interpreter from being lead into paradox and thereby lose his orientation. This is true not only for systematic theology, but also for church history and exegesis.14 12 This reshuffle of positions was depicted in more detail by the author under exactly the same title “Analogia entis or Coincidentia oppositorum?” (Wannenmacher 2008). 13 Luther interpreted Aristotle according to William of Ockham appropriated by Gabriel Biel. Counter to his intentions the subsequent Lutheran orthodoxy made him fiercely dogmatic and made his biblical studies an iron cage similar to the Catholic tradition. Inter alia this served to provoke higher criticism. 14 Nearly every proposition in the context of philosophy can turn out to be self-refuting. Therefore we have to face the crucial question of how far we can engage in given systems of philosophy to secure the starting point for the ongoing Adventist endeavor. I do not believe that Adventist insights depend on current 19th century propositions only, e.g. coming from the Scottish common sense philosophy in particular. Much more pressing is to ask how far the pattern of Adventist thought can draw upon a variety of selected building blocks common to existing systems of philosophy and whether there is a peculiar fabric to the Adventist way in bringing them together. 37 Christian Wannenmacher Let us first look briefly at a very influential European representative of mainstream Protestantism. Wolfhart Pannenberg, a Lutheran theologian with a strong leaning towards Catholicism, has suggested a model of development that reconstructs the history of philosophy in the spirit of Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel. The following five types are forms that are played through in sequence, but that also partially coexist simultaneously. Pannenberg discerned (1) radical opposition (e.g. Tertullian); (2) theological outdoing or exceeding (e.g. Augustine); (3) coequal coordination (e.g. Thomas Aquinas); (4) principled differentiation (e.g. Immanuel Kant); and finally the famous Hegelian sublation (or “Aufhebung”) through the dialectic operation of his system of logic.15 If one only considers the great references, one will find a model that, in many ways, is similar to that of Francis A. Schaeffer. This model builds the foundation of Escape from Reason and The God Who is There, which formed a trilogy together with He is There and He is Not Silent.16 Is there anything in Adventism which could be compared to this model of chronological periods? Walter Eberhardt, a 20th century German Adventist church historian at Friedensau, published a four volume work on church history (Eberhardt 1968, 1973, 1979, 1993), in which he offers a unique Adventist perspective displaying a considerable amount of knowledge common within the framework of the History of Ideas. Daniel Heinz observed that his more or less pronounced model of decadence for the entire church history attempts to show that “Reformation” is not a singular historical event, but, instead, requires a perpetual renewal. Thus, Heinz claims that Eberhardt, in his explanation, avoids both a monopolizing of the term “Reformation” and its dissolution in a faceless ecumenical pluralism. His is a work in the best tradition of liberal Adventism. What his narrative lacks is a description on such a level that theologians trained in philosophy would accept that kind of church history as suitable. Another church historian with a solid understanding of philosophy from an educational point of view, George Knight, recently wrote a book with the provocative title, The Apocalyptic Vision and the Neutering of Adventism (Knight 2008). In the face of the drifting apart styles of piety in the Adventist world, he gets straight down to the nitty-gritty. Knight makes no secret of his own experience: During those long years I studied philosophy for my doctorate. But by the time I received my degree I had concluded that philosophy was bankrupt in terms of answers to life’s most basic questions. And that was important, since 15 Pannenberg 1996, 20–36. The Hegelian term Aufhebung covers different, even contradictory meanings like “to elevate or lift up”, “to keep or preserve”, “to cancel or abolish”, “to transcend”. According to Paul Ricœur this process finally provoked a “stage of broken dialectic” (Ricœur 1985, 643–644; cf. reprint 1986, 356–358). 16 The series of lectures at Swanwick, UK, under the title “Escape From Reason: A Penetrating Analysis of Trends in Modern Thought” resulted in a trilogy of which the second volume now entitled “Escape from Reason” was the first volume of the trilogy to be published, and condensed his vision of the history of thought (see Schaeffer 1982, xix–xx). 38 Virtues of Prophetic Realism I had entered my studies hoping to find the real meaning of life that had eluded me in my Adventist experience (ibid., 8). In forcefully bringing forward the Adventist dilemma with positivistic modernity, George Knight misses the big picture not only in studying philosophy but also in conversation with some erudite Adventist students of the bible (ibid., 52). Being incidentally a typical commonsense American he made some tough choices during his career to remain true to himself and the truth God revealed to him gradually. Despite his sometimes rather down-to-earth enunciation he nevertheless reveals himself as a liberal “in the traditional and honorable sense of the word”.17 It marks true liberals to ask more from themselves than from others. And therefore he comes in as a living role model, because he seems to be a mindful, selfconscious and courageous “in-betweener” as I understand “liberal” according to the traditional way of the word. But let me explore this a bit further by contradistinguishing two well-known figures in the Anglophone religious arena. C. S. Lewis and Francis A. Schaeffer have also tried to avoid any faceless Christian apologetics in the tradition of enlightened philosophy of religion. Both names have a good ring to them in the Protestant world of North America. Their intellectual adventures were varied in their success and created various dangers.18 Of C. S. Lewis it can be said that he is diligently read, and sometimes quoted, even in the Catholic world – which is still present in the corporate structures of society in Europe. Together with his wife, Josef Pieper (1904–1997), the popular German expert on Plato and Aristotle from the University of Münster (North RhineWestphalia), has translated a book by the “great theologian of laity”.19 He further comments, “I consider the book on pain to be not only C. S. Lewis’ most important work; I much rather believe it should be hard to find in the entire philosophical-theological literature of our time any writing which is talking about issues important to people in such a comprehensive, clear, descriptive, light-hearted and at the same time serious way.”20 17 McGrath 2001, 104: “Liberalism, in the traditional and honorable sense of the word, carries with it an inalienable respect for and openness to the views of others; as such, it ought to be a fundamental element of every branch of Christian theology (including neo-orthodoxy and evangelicalism, to be discussed shortly). However the term has now come to have a developed meaning, often carrying overtones of suspicion, hostility, or impatience towards traditional formulations and doctrines.” With reference to John Macquarrie he observes that ‘liberal’ became itself a party label which then usually turns out to be extremely illiberal. 18 C. S. Lewis is precious to different theological camps because of his self-depreciating sort of humour and his allegorical and poetic power. Some try to transform him into an icon, or try to pocket his fame, not the least for a variety of Pentecostal avowals (e.g. Tony 2004). In contrast Francis Schaeffer opened the floodgates to political takeover of fundamentalism himself because of his definitive sense for questions of theological doctrine and matters of power in society (Padderatz 2007, 121). 19 Pieper 2000, 243. Also Robert Spaemann (1927–), the predecessor in the concordat chair of Wilhelm Vossenkuhl, my retired Doktorvater, at Munich University, and a friend and close ally of the current Pope Benedict XVI, reads and cites C. S. Lewis (and not Francis Schaeffer) frequently. 20 Compare the author’s translation of Pieper 1985, 17 with Pieper 2003, 359–360. 39 Christian Wannenmacher The same inter-denominational appreciation was not reached by Francis A. Schaeffer. The reason for this may be that, to the very end, this fundamentalist Calvinist behaved much more belligerently than the Anglican Don of literary criticism from Oxbridge. The famous irenic and sometimes ironical insistence of C. S. Lewis’ Platonism stands in a peculiar contrast to the legacy of F. A. Schaeffer. After World War II, inspired by Hans Rookmaaker, the neoCalvinistic Dutch historian of art, Schaeffer had turned to the analysis of contemporary art-making as a means of diagnosing culture. This methodological approach in his (Argus-eyed) observation later led him to castigate ceaselessly and relentlessly the supposed “cultural relevancy” of Christendom as a form of currying favour. In all attempts toward dialogue, the hard form of Calvinism, with its unified way of thinking and its demands regarding the establishment of the rule of Jesus Christ over the entire spectrum of life, ultimately maintained the upper hand. Verbally, Schaeffer may reject any Christian chauvinism, but he nevertheless contributed significantly to the rise of this attitude among the “Bible believing” silent majority (“Moral Majority”) of the United States.21 Due to this deplorable trend, and even in spite of it I share the concern of Christian believers who think that it is necessary to resist false doctrine, presumption, arrogance and pride, because “it is Satan’s work to pervert the investigative powers of the mind.”22 The founding generation of the Adventist Church anticipated something that is called “resilience” today. Ellen White knew that the fact that there is no controversy or agitation among God’s people, should not be regarded as conclusive evidence that they are holding fast to sound doctrine. There is reason to fear that they may not be clearly discriminating between truth and error.23 21 “In the preceding years, the well-known evangelical theologian Francis Schaeffer had been lobbying Falwell to use his mounting influence to combat the rising tide of secular humanism.” (Gilgoff 2007, 82) – “Borrowing heavily from evangelical thinker Francis Schaeffer’s How Then Shall We Live? LaHaye claims that the hearts and minds, along with the sovereignty of the American people, are under threat from a small but highly influential cabal of international elites he calls secular humanists” (Shuck 2005, 65). 22 Ellen G. White, “The Mysteries of the Bible a Proof of its Inspiration” (1948 [1882–1889], vol. 5, 701) – “A certain pride is mingled with the consideration of Bible truth, so that men feel defeated and impatient if they cannot explain every portion of Scripture to their satisfaction. It is too humiliating to them to acknowledge that they do not understand the inspired words. They are unwilling to wait patiently until God shall see fit to reveal the truth to them.” (Ibid.) 23 Ibid., 707. “God desires man to exercise his reasoning powers; and the study of the Bible will strengthen and elevate the mind as no other study can do. It is the best mental as well as spiritual exercise for the human mind. Yet we are to beware of deifying reason, which is subject to the weakness and infirmity of humanity ... As real spiritual life declines, it has ever been the tendency to cease to advance in the knowledge of the truth. Men rest satisfied with the light already received from God’s word and discourage any further investigation of the Scriptures. They become conservative and seek to avoid discussion ... When no new questions are started by investigation of the Scriptures, when no difference of opinion arises which will set men to searching the Bible for themselves 40 Virtues of Prophetic Realism Therefore, considering it from the point of view of the gospel, Schaeffer’s theology of resistance, in my opinion, represents something like a flaw of categories, which cannot be found with Ellen White. As a Methodist in the tradition of Arminianism, she knew better how to differentiate between doctrine and life, cause and effect, the power of human effort and the support of the Holy Spirit, – including in situations where resistance really was necessary. For she wrote, I am afraid of anything that would have a tendency to turn the mind away from the solid evidences of the truth as revealed in God’s Word. I am afraid of it; I am afraid of it. We must bring our minds within the bounds of reason, lest the enemy so come in as to set everything in a disorderly way.24 At the same time, she warned against the misapplication of reason: Caviling and criticism leave the soul as devoid of the dew of grace as the hills of Gilboa were destitute of rain. Confidence cannot be placed in the judgment of those who indulge in ridicule and misrepresentation. No weight can be attached to their advice or resolutions. You must bear the divine credentials before you make decided movements to shape the working of God’s cause.25 I think she was pleading with us here to walk in the spirit of Christ-like forbearance, the same Spirit who spoke through James in ways plain and perspicuous for his time. And it was James who said that one should understand that mere disputation does not edify: Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show by good conduct that his works are done in the meekness of wisdom (James 3:13).26 to make sure that they have the truth, there will be many now, as in ancient times, who will hold to tradition and worship they know not what.” (Ibid., 703 and 706) 24 “Warnings Against Deceptive Claims of the Spirit’s Guidance”, in White 1958, 43, on the occasion of an interview in St. Helena on Nov 12, 1908 by a zealous man and his wife related to their remarkable experiences dating back for about three years. 25 “Danger in Adopting Wordly Policy in the Work of God” (1892), in White 1915, 325. The motif of aridity pervades her writings: “We need to break up the monotony of our religious labor. We are doing a work in the world, but we are not showing sufficient activity and zeal. If we were more in earnest, men would be convinced of the truth of our message. The tameness and monotony of our service for God repels many souls of a higher class, who need to see a deep, earnest, sanctified zeal. Legal religion will not answer for this age. We may perform all the outward acts of service and yet be as destitute of the quickening influence of the Holy Spirit as the hills of Gilboa were destitute of dew and rain. We all need spiritual moisture, and we need also the bright beams of the Sun of Righteousness to soften and subdue our hearts. We are always to be as firm as a rock to principle. Bible principles are to be taught and then backed up by holy practice.” (White 1948 [1901], vol. 6, 417–418) 26 James 2:17 maintains a living faith, which is ready to suffer trials and endure temptations (1:1, 12), being “swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath” (1:19). We are not expected to hold our faith “with partiality” (2:1), to let our untameable tongue acting as she pleases (3:1–12), to indulge in “bitter envy and self-seeking” in our hearts, not to “boast and lie against the truth” (3:14). “Do not speak evil of one another, brethren.” (4:11) “Therefore be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord ... Do not grumble against one another, brethren, lest you be condemned.” (5:7, 9) – “But the 41 Christian Wannenmacher 4. Towards an Adventist Notion of Prophetic Realism Why are these distinctions and exhortations so crucial and necessary for Adventist philosophers? Here we have to speak about the graduate and post-graduate degrees that the last generation of teachers inherited from different academic institutions around the globe. I do not want to put these into question as such or in special cases, but I cannot desist from shifting the general awareness to the question of what the different directions of expertise eventually do to our Adventist message if we do not heed the advice given.27 And, therefore, I would like to quote Carsten Johnsen as a starting point for a plea in favour of something I want to call “prophetic realism”, since he was one of the few Adventist thinkers of the 20th century with a strong philosophical background:28 Seventh-day Adventism emerged as a particularly realistic form of Protestantism, embracing an astonishingly complete spectrum of Biblical philosophy. (Johnsen 1982, 130) Some readers may think that I am overdoing things with my emphasis on realism. But it would be difficult to be too emphatic on this point in this context. The Bible has other words for that realism. One designation is »the love of the truth«. So two characteristics of realism are outstanding: (1) Realism is not a built-in equipment of man’s present nature. It is a miracle. (2) It comes to man as a gift of grace. It is freely offered by God. It is freely received (or refused) by man (Johnsen 1980, ch. 8, part 6). Regardless of the many turns (they may be called transcendental, linguistic, cultural or iconic), the notion of realism (i.e. to be emphatic on reality or Wirklichkeit) has always been, and still is, a central subject in philosophy. Kant shifted the ontological question significantly and gave it an epistemological turn. Meanwhile philosophers used to speak of ontologies in the plural more reasonably because they assume that different sets of concepts (categories of being) can generate an object of knowledge differently. But realism had its representatives and champions in all times and areas. Today, we have a long-standing and ongoing discussion about realism in the sciences. During the Middle Ages, there was an analogous discussion about the realism of universalia. Aristotle was considered an wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy.” (3:17) 27 In this part of my argument for ‘prophetic realism’ I will in some footnotes repeatedly quote from the corpus of Ellen White to indicate her deliberate support of the legitimate intentions of modern critique of knowledge in her testimonies. As will be adumbrated in the conclusions of this paper, there was an intricate connection between the critique of knowledge and moral anthropology already in Kant’s initial approach to his project of critical philosophy. I worked more on that inner-Kantian link in “Accountability and Real Tension: Anthropological Supposition of Man’s Evil Nature in Kant’s Moral Philosophy” (1992). 28 Beside Carsten Johnsen, the poly-linguistic philologian, I know only of two other prominent Adventists who deserve to be counted as partly philosophical in mind: The Swiss theological anthropologist Jean R. Zürcher and the American bioethicist Jack W. Provonsha. 42 Virtues of Prophetic Realism ontological realist (universale in re) because he assumed the perception of real objects. The idealist Plato was a universalia realist (universale ante rem), and nominalists like William of Ockham paved the way towards a modern empiricism and constructivism (universale post rem). There are many opposites to realism. First, there is the idealism or scepticism in metaphysics. Then, there are the extreme forms of subjectivism or constructivism in epistemology; in ethics, this is normally called “relativism”. Immanuel Kant’s transcendental idealism, in a rather intricate way, is also realistic. Within the Seventh-day Adventist Church, too, there is a discussion about realism. There are tendencies towards idealism or constructivism; whereas, on the other hand, “prophetic realism” is claimed and presented resolutely by opposing camps.29 However, the Adventist prophetic outlook is not only aligned with an eschatological message but should also be conceived as a distinctive model of truth. For a better understanding of what that means I want to quote the famous first two sentences from chapter 24 of the Great Controversy: The subject of the sanctuary was the key which unlocked the mystery of the disappointment of 1844. It opened to view a complete system of truth, connected and harmonious, showing that God’s hand had directed the great advent movement and revealing present duty as it brought to light the position and work of His people (White 1911, 423). In the last sentence Ellen White made clear that she wants to talk about the Prophetic activity and actuality of the End-time Church. In the subsequent chapter she then referred in symbolic terms to the procedures in the temple, i.e. to the intercourse between the High Priest and his people from the heavenly perspective of the biblical revelation, and to the importance and impact of these transactions in respect to the presentation of the Three Angels’ Messages for the time being until Christ’s return. What is remarkable and peculiar to this doctrine of the 29 See for instance Carsten Johnson’s criticism: “I see my brother in the faith and colleague Jack Provonsha as a fairly typical exponent of an attitude which a large number of our learned theologians today are gradually adopting. You may feel awkwardly perplexed when you try to evaluate some of these people. On the one hand they may manifest a warm appreciation of something as radically characteristic of Seventh-day Adventism as Ellen White’s writings. On the other hand they may go squarely against most essential points of the explicit realism contained in those writings.” (Ibid.) The next generation of scholars, intellectuals and administrators in the Adventist church had to face even more diversity and pluralism in interpretation, not only in the pews. In this respect, the manifestation of excitement aroused by the third quarter of the 2006 Sabbath School Quarterly was unprecedented. A more level-headed scholarly commentator wrote: “For reasons which are still mysterious to me, Clifford Goldstein wants to hold to a strict historicism, rather than move to a modified historicism or a modified idealism, a position which would recognize the value of multiple applications.” The late Hans LaRondelle in one of his last published papers stated a baseline in this hermeneutical debate by maintaining: “Adventist Bible scholars are becoming increasingly convinced that the traditional historicist applications of God’s Word need to be re-examined and to be more critically evaluated by a contextual exegesis, guided by Christocentric hermeneutics” (LaRondelle 2010, 87). 43 Christian Wannenmacher Heavenly Sanctuary is the fact that it is both a didactical model of salvation and an eschatological activity viz. actuality of a living community alike. This central metaphor does not only lead to better understanding of salvation history but also serves the church to realize a causal, potent and operative mechanism of action in the present. But this causal connection is not a bare mechanism, it is a relationship, and due to its dynamics it is also a mystery. Both aspects – the hermeneutical and the causal notion together – were named “a complete system of truth” by Ellen White.30 Unfortunately there are not a few Adventists who have problems with a realistic interpretation of the biblical sanctuary today. To them the traditional Adventist interpretation – or better: our customary behaviour in present dealings with it – deems to be a kind of Punch and Judy Show.31 The Adventist Church nowadays suffers no lack of senior scholars or intellectual high potentials. In Europe, a rapid diversification in the spectrum of employment and education is taking place. But when teenagers and young adults ask difficult questions, for which they think they can find no place in the Adventist church, they leave as a result. To create a demanding and nurturing atmosphere we need thinking and diligently studious members in our congregations who are able to follow doctrinal debates from an even-tempered, assured and confident vantage point without losing sight of the basics. This balanced approach needs a role model. On the occasion of Jack Provonsha’s memorial service in 2004, Fritz Guy named him “a church theologian – in the highest sense of the term” and certainly not “a theologian’s theologian”.32 Every clear thinking theologian stands out a bit, I think. The more one reflects the current philosophical landscape within oneself, the more the notion of God’s plan of salvation will seem dramatic and battered. At the same time, one will also discover new possibilities to proclaim the message in ways that were hitherto unheard. In order to make progress in communicating the gospel as good news while at the same time also clinging to the basics, one has to be a passionate and unpretentious thinker.33 30 “Returning to the Sanctuary ... Adventism has extensively discussed the matter of time, but failed to give the same importance to the matter of place ... Following the text, ... systematic theology approaches the biblical doctrine of the investigative judgment not as literary text, but as a complex of ideas which say something about a reality” (Canale 2001, 126–127). 31 First of all, in trying to understand what was at stake in the Ballenger debate (well received by Ludwig R. Conradi and Desmond Ford), I was inclined to think about the Heavenly Sanctuary conceived as a distant theatre and the debaters having puppets in their hands moving them from one department to another. Meanwhile I think this debate itself – or our present dealings with it – resemble the mentioned Punch and Judy Show and thus the greater audience does not know what Adventists actually are talking about, see e.g. Tanya Erzen’s review under the ironic headline “Seeking Some Light on Adventism” (Erzen 2001). 32 Guy 2004, 6. Provonsha’s foci points of reflection on his bio-ethical holism were the theory of freedom, the character and essence of agape, God’s presence, the change of the notion of God through Christ, research in symbolism, and the task of a prophetic minority. 33 “It is important that in defending the doctrines which we consider fundamental articles of faith we should never allow ourselves to employ arguments that are not wholly sound. These may avail to silence an opposer, but they do not honor the truth. We should present sound arguments that will not 44 Virtues of Prophetic Realism As a young Catholic I started my undergraduate studies in philosophy assuming that anthropology steers politics. For that reason, I wanted to get to the bottom of what Christian faith is all about, and find out whether it is still ruling society. I spent at least one semester with the Munich School of Philosophy of the Jesuits, but their introduction to the historical-critical approach was no relief. My longing for genuine faith was bound to become an extra burden among different duties and responsibilities within my studies. Later a much-admired Protestant professor of philosophy, and respected friend of Wolfhart Pannenberg, told me that Cardinal Peter Damian’s idea is no longer valid. Damian (1007–1072) had taught that philosophy should serve theology like a maidservant. However, according to Hegel, philosophy asserts and successfully vindicates her autonomy, and inherits the business domain and assets of theology. This advice was combined with a Zen Buddhist metaphor to motivate my subsequent vocation as a student in the Master program: Before anyone can try to answer a kōan he should stand the test in cleaning up the latrine pit. I tried my best to follow his advice, but in the end our relation broke entirely because there was no mutual ground in rating Kant’s doctrine of radical evil. Yet to make a long story short this was how I eventually made my own experience with some “Christian philosophy” taught in the first decade of my university studies. Thus, I concur mainly with George Knight’s assessment, but I would not agree with the further suspicion that the idea of the “project of modernity” (as spelled out by Jürgen Habermas) therefore is entirely misconstrued. The critical starting point of modernity was inevitable. Its overstatement is not.34 With the help of God and by support of his messengers, who were able to present “Christian Faith 101” (as my entry-level course), I experienced a conversion during my Master’s examinations. Notwithstanding all of the turmoil, I was then able only silence our opponents, but will bear the closest and most searching scrutiny. With those who have educated themselves as debaters there is great danger that they will not handle the word of God with fairness. In meeting an opponent it should be our earnest effort to present subjects in such a manner as to awaken conviction in his mind, instead of seeking merely to give confidence to the believer.” (White 1948, vol. 5, 708) – “The Bible with its precious gems of truth was not written for the scholar alone. On the contrary, it was designed for the common people; and the interpretation given by the common people, when aided by the Holy Spirit, accords best with the truth as it is in Jesus.” (Ibid., 331) 34 Cf. Habermas 1997, 44– 46 and 2003, 112: “Meanwhile, it is true, it had become evident from the course of history that such a project was asking too much of reason.” – “Men who imagine themselves endowed with mental powers of so high an order that they can find an explanation of all the ways and works of God, are seeking to exalt human wisdom to an equality with the divine and to glorify man as God ... If it were possible for created beings to attain to a full understanding of God and His works, then, having reached this point, there would be for them no further discovery of truth, no growth in knowledge, no further development of mind or heart. God would no longer be supreme; and men, having reached the limit of knowledge and attainment, would cease to advance.” (White 1948, vol. 5, 702–03) 45 Christian Wannenmacher to use the work of Immanuel Kant to find my way into the Adventist family.35 Beyond the farewell lectures of Pannenberg in 1994, I needed good reasons, after I had found the biblical truth, to return to serious philosophical investigation, so to speak. Therefore, I had to go through the temptation not to overestimate or underestimate the insight I had already gained.36 In the same year – 1994 – I befriended Hans LaRondelle. In the beginning of our continued dialogue he made a statement that I have never forgotten. He emphatically said: “Philosophy and Theology do not merge. There is an angel with a flaming sword to guard the way to the tree of life.” Later I learned that therewith he actually was quoting Karl Barth (LaRondelle 1971, 29, footnote 137). To summarize my answer concerning the relevancy of philosophy in Adventism, I dare to say that it is more an instrument of critique of our own theological reasoning (the Jewish position), and less an instrument for constructive reasoning with missionary purpose (the Catholic position). But, in general, it is only useful for analysis and orientation as long as the Holy Spirit actually and effectively leads the way. And here maybe a further note of clarification is needed to distinguish the proper Adventist position about the present subject from the Papal RomanCatholic position on the relation of the two disciplines: In order to reach a truly balanced middle ground, avoiding that human reasoning gains the lead and by the same token appreciating God’s truth “from above” entering the human realm, we may think of the Messiah being fully divine and fully human and thus relating to but not being produced or limited by human reason and experience. When Adventists were thinking about inspiration and incarnation they actually were already touching on the proper relation between human reason and divine spirit. I cannot cover that discussion here but in order to perceive the boundaries of knowledge, I plead with every serious student of theology to pay due respect to Solomon and Paul as exponents of a genuine biblical approach to wisdom instead. Both had to go through trying temptations and I think both, not by accident, became role models for today. For me the rival theories that compete for particular 35 Both of my academic theses hitherto are making a good case for interpreting Kant’s affirmation of original sin as the valid starting point to a realistic Christian anthropology. In Accountability and Real Tension (1992) I reconstruct the syllogism of Book one in Kant’s Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone. In my dissertation “The Problem of Evil – Vital Changes in the History of an Idea” (2011) I re-contextualize Kant’s insight into a framework I conceive again as ‘prophetic realism’. A brief outline of my findings I try to give in the following section “A Case Study in Prophetic Realism”. 36 “Many feel that a responsibility rests upon them to explain every seeming difficulty in the Bible in order to meet the cavils of skeptics and infidels. But in trying to explain that which they but imperfectly understand, they are in danger of confusing the minds of others in reference to points that are clear and easy to be understood. This is not our work ...God would have all the bearings and positions of truth thoroughly and perseveringly searched, with prayer and fasting. Believers are not to rest in suppositions and ill-defined ideas of what constitutes truth. Their faith must be firmly founded upon the word of God so that when the testing time shall come and they are brought before councils to answer for their faith they may be able to give a reason for the hope that is in them, with meekness and fear.” (White 1948, vol. 5, 705–706 and 708) 46 Virtues of Prophetic Realism attention and that try to insinuate themselves into my belief system are reminiscent of the many wives of Solomon. The power of theories is quiet but very strong – and their influence happens generally by gravitating very slowly. Solomon told his story. Paul instead, with Pharisaic zeal, worked like a demolition expert in order to further secure the biblical foundation of the burgeoning Jesus movement.37 5. A Case Study in Prophetic Realism The following overview of the history of philosophy serves to corroborate the Adventist approach to the Biblical meta-narrative in a special way. The progression of the doctrinal development in the history of philosophy seems to fit the vision Daniel had about the Heavenly Sanctuary in chapter 8:10–14. To my mind, the appropriate interpretation of the Sanctuary is not obscure, quite the contrary!38 From the very beginning when I was confronted with biblical eschatology, I read those passages in terms of the History of Ideas. And Revelation chapter 12 was my entrance. Alfred North Whitehead once remarked that the history of philosophy is only “a series of footnotes to Plato”. Given the overwhelming influence of Kant’s epistemological dualism in Protestant modernity, this observation is probably more than true because the Western Christian tradition of philosophy was constantly accompanied by the Acheronian dream of a life without laws. This bad dream of chaos did not only haunt Immanuel Kant and Augustine; it actually went as far back as Plato and Parmenides as well.39 Next to Platonism, the hermetic tradition of Egyptian wisdom transformed into something that we later were getting to know as scientific knowledge. In his book Moses the Egyptian Jan Assmann, the famous German Egyptologist, has presented to us a picture of Europe’s scientific roots without really having chosen between Athens and Jerusalem.40 There is some truth to it because a so-called 37 Compare the standard rendering “expert builder” in 1 Cor 3:10 with 2 Cor 10:4–6. For further interpretation of Paul’s role model as guard of the temple and ambassador to the heathen see Wannenmacher 2009, 184–185. 38 Eventually I hope my main argument can contribute to bridging the Adventist conflict regarding the symbolic meaning of the term ‘daily’. According to the old view the passage refers to Roman paganism, and according to the new view it refers to Christ’s heavenly ministry (cf. Kaiser 2011, 6– 34). 39 In his most important study Klaus Heinrich comes to the conclusion: “All propositions in logic (that is my statement) are propositions in order to de-demonize ...it is according this way a rationalized aspect, as justice or truth, of the generating and engulfing Great Goddess, who stands as the great generating and engulfing totality behind the entire ensemble” (Heinrich 1981, 54 and 41). 40 Assmann 1997. – “The reminiscence of Egypt inter alia had shaped our self-conception by forcing the dualism between ‘Athens and Jerusalem’ open. It has kept alive an awareness that Athens and Jerusalem is looking back on a third world which is preceding and was molding both. In the occidental cultural memory Egypt represented a cultural deep time that bridges the antagonism of Ath- 47 Christian Wannenmacher “third force” (so named by Richard H. Popkin) in the early modern period helped to enlighten the dark Middle Ages and actually brought forth the Natural Sciences (Popkin 1992; Fried 2001). The driving energy behind or within their struggles for knowledge was what the Adventist Church calls the “Great Controversy theme”, i.e. a close and direct confrontation of mutually exclusive claims in Salvation history. Thus the Natural Sciences, as we now know them, were eventually occasioned by apocalyptic thought. This alone could be an amazing fact. But given the ecological crisis, any level-headed observer moreover has to acknowledge that the application of the acquired technical skills pushed the world nearer to the predicted point of the return of Jesus Christ. And above all the ultimate apocalyptic crisis since 1844 according to prophecy would appear as deterioration in ethics.41 In short, the two crucial periods “Hellenism” and “Enlightenment” represent the macro-stages in the history of philosophy. Both of them deserve further inquiry on a micro-stage level. For instance, Augustinianism, as the centre pillar of the Christian tradition, was not truly internally homogeneous. During his life, Augustine tried to come to terms with Plato and Paul alike. The CanadianCatholic philosopher Charles Taylor knows about a “hyper-Augustinian” view in theology (Taylor 1989, 246). Taylor defends Erasmus, who as a Platonist clung to the idea of liberating again the Scholastic form of philosophy. From an Adventist perspective Luther’s theology was more biblical than the mix of traditions entertained by Erasmus. But in his Erasmian spirit Taylor is right to put his finger on a wrong notion of predestination. Here we face a serious problem in the theology of Augustine. Due to Hellenism and its Gnostic Heritage, which first and foremost was a shortcoming comprehension concerning the problem of evil, the question must be raised whether Greek metaphysics was the appropriate vantage ground. This problem is not only in force when approaching the Holy Scriptures, but also when doing anthropology and ethics at large.42 ens and Jerusalem, Paganism and Christianity, Science and Revelation etc. as ‘theologia prisca’ (primordial theology) or ‘philosophia perennis’ (eternal philosophy).” (Assmann 2004.) 41 At the very beginning of Book One of Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone (1792), Kant contested the notion of decline or progress in morals with regard to Horace and Seneca. But in the final passage of The End of All Things (1794) in contrast he drew a line between two kinds of Christianity suggesting that an illiberal and ungentle kind of Christian creed will outdo the legitimate moral one. 42 Therefore I would reject any well-meant introduction to our topic – like the following one – purely on methodological grounds: “Waiting for Godot divided reality into two spheres – one was mechanistic and atheistic and secular, in which irreducible truths exist only as mathematical equations ... the other a spiritual dimension that transcended a single-tiered existence and proclaimed that irreducible truth doesn’t originate in the creation but in the Creator ... The divide isn’t some twentieth-century question ... Between these two centers of gravity a black fog looms. The option of a compromise, of a balance, of some Hegelian synthesis between them at the end of history doesn’t (ultimately) and can’t (logically) exist. There’s an impassable distance between Athens and Jerusalem.” (Goldstein 2003, 22) On the level of description it accepts what the author by argument ultimately wants to contest or to surmount. But that is impossible. Given these premises Goldstein 48 Virtues of Prophetic Realism Behind these questions looms what Adolf von Harnack referred to as the “Hellenisation of Christianity”,43 and what I interpret as what the OT prophet Daniel more specifically anticipated as the taking away of the “daily” (tamid).44 And because the head of the Egyptian Pharaoh loomed behind the bow of Odysseus, I support the assumption that the problem of evil resurfaces at the interface (or junction) of the two traditions of Athens and Jerusalem. Accordingly, the first stage of what I want to call a de-contextualization of Hebrew thoughts in Greek metaphysics was nolens volens the outcome of Paul’s discourse on Mars Hill. In the aftermath, Augustine’s De civitate Dei, together with Luther’s De servo arbitrio, triggered the ensuing debates that were connected to the unmanageable concept of evil. Augustine shifted the focus of the problem from Unde malum? to Unde malum faciamus?45 Because he took the biblical notion of God’s foreknowledge increasingly seriously the faculty of human will was thus burdened with the doctrine of original sin, which had lasting influence for centuries with a remarkable shadow.46 Luther endorsed that it is necessary for a Christian to know God and his power of providence.47 Knowing him thus means to cope with necessity, especially in Salvation history. Luther was the first who publicly and intensely accused the papacy as an organized system of religious power of being the Antichrist foreseen by Daniel and affirmed by Paul.48 And because Luther was convinced that this insight would be condemned to solipsism without trust in God’s word, as seen in chapter 6. And additionally, I do not see how it fits the truth of the sentence quoted from C. S. Lewis, saying: “Creatures are not born with desires, unless satisfaction for those desires exists.” (Ibid., 109) This is a PlatonicAugustinian premise and it doesn’t fit with the Fideistic turn Goldstein arrives at eventually. 43 “The first stage of any real influx of definitely Greek thought and Greek life is to be fixed at about the year 130. It was then that the religious philosophy of Greece began to effect an entrance, and it went straight to the centre of the new religion ... We are here concerned, however, not with the second and third stages, but only with that influx of the Greek spirit which was marked by the absorption of Greek philosophy and, particularly, of Platonism.” (von Harnack 1908, 215–216) Harnack differentiated between Platonism as the centrepiece of the entire phenomenon and Gnosis (or Gnosticism) as the “acute (phase of) Hellenisation” (Ibid., 220 and 223). 44 The reader will find a more detailed analysis of the interconnection of both debates in my doctoral dissertation (“The Problem of Evil” – Wannenmacher 2011). 45 See Confessiones III,12 and De Libero Arbitrio I,2.4. Paul Ricœur explains the transition as follows: “The most important corollary of this negating of the substantiality of evil is that the confession of evil grounds an exclusively moral vision of evil ... For this form of nothingness, there is no need to search for a cause anywhere other than in a bad will” (Ricœur 1985, 639). 46 “The price to pay for the coherence of this doctrine is an enormous one.” (Ibid., 640) 47 “THIS, therefore, is also essentially necessary and wholesome for Christians to know: That God foreknows nothing by contingency, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His immutable, eternal, and infallible will.” (Luther, Bondage of the Will, sect. IX, cf. 1823, 26). 48 “The reformer’s growing conviction that the office of the papacy itself – not merely some evilliving or erroneous pope – was to be identified with the Antichrist because of its opposition to the preaching of the gospel was an important part of the breakthrough to a full-fledged Reformation position, though he became aware of it only gradually over the course of several years. Once he accepted it, Luther maintained this view until his death with a fierce conviction that was not above scatological invective.” (McGinn 2000, 201–202) 49 Christian Wannenmacher came from God by provision he had an additional struggle in incorporating this imposition into his doctrine of God.49 Thus he worked out a quite dark idea of a Deus absconditus. But Luther did not subscribe to what the Calvinists hold to as double predestination. Before and after De servo arbitrio he didn’t stress his denial of human freedom as insistently as they did later. So we have to be prepared that Luther is not speaking in favour of the predestination of the salvation or destruction of individuals. The kind of determinism Luther proposed is supposedly not exactly the same kind of determinism which later becomes a problem for the philosophers of enlightenment.50 It is rather the determinism of God’s providence revealed through the prophetic and apocalyptic passages in Scripture. The second stage of de-contextualization took place in the German Enlightenment with its emphasis on the conception of universalizability. Next to Thomas Aquinas’ realism, we find in Kant’s “Transcendental Idealism” a second classic “solution” to the conflict between the moral (viz. prophetic) and the natural worldview. The “German Socrates”,51 Immanuel Kant, held his share in the Gnostic shape of the modern debates in philosophy. In his heavy reference to a Mundus Intelligibilis he was still deeply in debt to Platonism. And to give a clue in the direction of anthropology, Kant was not only against the Augustinian concept of original inherited sin52 but also de-mythologized Satan as a mere personification of inner or subjective drive-springs. Thus Kant affirmed a sharp dualism of moral motivation.53 49 Looking back to the year 1517 he remarked in 1537: “However, I came upon it quite innocently; for I never would have dreamed this twenty years prior to that day. Rather, if someone else had taught such a thing, I would have damned and burned him. But God is the cause, because he did such things miraculously.” (Martin Luther, Tischreden. Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe Vol. 3, 438–39; quoted according to McGinn 2000, 202) – Twelve years earlier, in De servo arbitrio, Luther declared: “I myself have been offended more than once, even unto the deepest abyss of desperation; nay, so far, as even to wish that I had never been born a man; that is, before I was brought to know how healthful that desperation was, and how near it was unto grace.” (Luther 1823 [1525], 227, sect. XCIV) Thus Bernhard Lohse explains the doctrine by Luther’s special experience: “Luther’s distinction [between ‘Deus absconditus’ and ‘Deus revelatus’] indicates the abysmal experience of contestation and loneliness, certainly countervailed by divine mercy and grace” (Lohse 1995, 185; translated by C.W.). 50 Cf. Lohse 1997, 85 with Lohse 1995, 185f. But Luther knew what is at stake: “For after all, a conscious conviction has been left deeply rooted in the heart both of the learned and the unlearned, if ever they have come to an experience of these things; and a knowledge, that our necessity, is a consequence that must follow upon the belief of the prescience and Omnipotence of God. And even natural Reason herself, who is so offended at this necessity, and who invents so many contrivances to take it out of the way, is compelled to grant it upon her own conviction from her own judgment, even though there were no Scripture at all.” (1823, 228, sect. LXIV) 51 In a poem of Johann Wilhelm Ludwig Gleim from 1769 actually Moses Mendelssohn deserved the title because of a proof of Immortality in his Phaedon. 52 “But whatever may be the origin of the moral evil in man, the most unsuitable of all views that can be taken of its spread and continuance through all the members of our race and in all generations is, to represent it as coming to us by inheritance from our first parents” (Kant 1889, 347). 53 “It is not difficult to find in Kant’s writings on morals remarks that seem to suggest the underlying presence of an almost Manichaean view of human motivation” (Engstrom 1987, 435). 50 Virtues of Prophetic Realism Afterwards, Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel took the Kantian paradigm to the extreme. Against his version of the Zeitgeist dominating idea of the hidden cunning of reason (List der Vernunft) both Schelling and Kierkegaard tried to recontextualize the biblical and the metaphysical realms with different perspectives and results. Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling had already tried to catch up with the naturalism of his times when the younger Kierkegaard began to work through the poisoned inheritance of his melancholic, anxious, deeply pious, and fiercely intelligent father. After his Freiheitsschrift in 1809, – in which Schelling explained the origin of evil in God as an unleashing process of God’s nature by man, – he silently drafted his “Objective Idealism” as his second philosophy, though it was not published during his lifetime. And Søren Kierkegaard’s life constellation itself was somewhat prophetic since he continued to deal with the Concept of Anxiety from 1844 onwards and finished his work and his life when his father’s estate was used up in 1855. To my mind, they were slightly ahead of their times. But to cleanse a Sanctuary, it takes more than some brilliant philosophers who were fighting the mighty necessities of their discipline. Therefore, let us briefly pay attention to Ludwig Wittgenstein. As a son of a Protestant father and a Catholic mother – both having Jewish origins (Stern 2000) – young Wittgenstein at suggestion of his sister Gretl thought in the wake of Schopenhauer and Kierkegaard. After finishing his Tractatus LogicoPhilosophicus he dismissed his initial strategy to solve religious problems by means of analysis of language. In 1927 then he provoked the Vienna Circle logical positivists – some of them were also of Jewish origins or had such family ties – by reading poetry in their meetings.54 In his Tractatus he already tried to surmount the character of language as a logical representation of reality in order to demand silence in respect to “the mystical” as ineffable and rather maintained the idea that what the mystical shows can be indicated but cannot be put into words. Instead of a philosophical delineation of the absolute (which he deemed absurd) he – in his Zen-like religious epistemology – thus insisted on the special severity in contact with the divine dimension, strongly influenced by Leo Tolstoy’s The Gospels in Brief and William James’ notion of rebirth presented in the Gifford Lectures Varieties of Religious Experience. Maybe Wittgenstein left a CatholicAugustinian notion of God talk for an approach which could be seen as a more Jewish one. In his Philosophical Investigations Wittgenstein finally found relief in the idea of “solving” metaphysical problems by the insight that different 54 “At Schlick’s request, Wittgenstein agreed to meet Carnap and some other members of the Vienna Circle, but it immediately became apparent that their intellectual positions were far apart – perhaps, unbridgeably so. To begin with, Wittgenstein was unwilling to discuss technical points in philosophy with the members of the Vienna Circle, and he insisted rather on reading poetry to them, especially the poems of Rabindranath Tagore. (Given his Tolstoyan position, this insistence may not have been as willfully irrelevant as it must have appeared to his audience.) Only gradually did he gain enough confidence to engage in philosophical discussion on frank and equal terms; and even so, he found this much easier with Schlick and Waismann than with Carnap and the more fervently positivistic members of the Circle” (Janik und Toulmin 1973, 215). 51 Christian Wannenmacher spheres of reality obey different sets of rules followed in respective languages games which correspond to a way of life. Thus Wittgenstein kept hold of the view that “the tendency of all men who ever tried to write or talk Ethics or Religion was to run against the boundaries of language”.55 To my mind this shows merely that it was an impossible duty for a sole genius like Wittgenstein to fuse logic and ethic without being supported and happy within a sound tradition.56 But Wittgenstein’s aphoristic style, i.e. numbered paragraphs “like well-driven nails”, exhibits resemblance to Qoheleth. In fact they were the outcome of slowness – slow reading, intense thinking and condensed writing.57 Wittgenstein behaved like Jeremiah towards a self-satisfied people being sure of having a temple with accustomed rituals – and Fritz Guy and Maury Jackson were right in reminding the audience of his enduring importance (Guy 2010 and Jackson 2012). But as James Barr’s critical approach to linguistics in Biblical theology as contrasted with Fundamentalism in the wake of Wittgenstein had amply shown, this approach is not sufficient to do constructive work in a systematic fashion. Nevertheless it remains a necessary criticism. In Paul Ricœur’s rich œuvre, a lot of the considerations merge which were already mentioned. Ricœur did spend a considerable amount of his life at the University of Chicago and tried to enhance the dialogue between hermeneutical and analytical discourse in philosophy. During this time he worked out his theory of interpretation (Ricœur 1976, 1978, 1981, 1991), and the most important applications of his theory we find in Time and Narrative (1984–1988) and Oneself as Another (1992). Moreover, he collected and analyzed the symbolic forms to avert evil and saw the history of philosophy and theology for the time being consummated in the second stage of the de-contextualization, which he named “The Stage of ‘Broken’ Dialectic” (particularly Ricoeur 1986, 356). Paul Ricœur aimed towards a recontextualization of both the biblical and the metaphysical realms but dared to speak out that he fell short of his own expectations. 55 Wittgenstein 1965, 11–12. – “It is unbearable to be unloved; it is unbearable to be half-loved; it is more unbearable to be strongly loved – there is no stillness at all then” (Brodkey 1994, 253). 56 “The renunciation of TLP with its rigorous logics and semantics, particularly in its logicoempirical interpretation, widely was received as liberating by analytical philosophers because it seemed to make way for the discreteness of the meaning of religious discourse. It needed some time of critical examination to find out that there is still a legitimate question about the redeemability of religious claims. The turn in Wittgenstein’s philosophy which was rated to be too radical in the light of his strongly self-critical words, was one of the reasons why there was such reference to Wittgenstein” (Schrödter 1979, 161). 57 See Wittgenstein 1998, 44, 94, 146: “In philosophy the winner of the race is the one who can run most slowly. Or: the one who gets to the winning post last.” (MS 121) – “Sometimes a sentence can be understood only if it is read at the right tempo. My sentences are all to be read slowly.” (MS 134) – “This is how philosophers should salute each other: ‘Take your time!’ ” (MS 138) 52 Virtues of Prophetic Realism 6. Conclusions My overview shows that the gap between Athens and Jerusalem still remains or – in terms of the history of ideas – even slightly increased. In that respect I would like to subscribe to and amend Clifford Goldstein’s diagnosis (Goldstein 2003, 22). Nevertheless some brilliant philosophers partly succeeded in fighting the mighty necessities of their discipline no philosopher inspired by the Holy Scriptures can expect to reverse the outcome of problems accumulated during more than two millennia of human reasoning. But Adventists should still be aware of these patchy and sometimes hidden accomplishments to bridge the gap and see these as a part of different attempts to sift through the evidence. I hope in portraying the history of philosophy accordingly to thus improve the critical knowledge that the Sanctuary eventually will be restored and vindicated. To summarize my approach to the question “Why should we establish philosophy as a much more visible discipline in the Adventist educational framework now?” I can refer to a very short but intricate answer given by Immanuel Kant in the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, “Innocence is indeed a glorious thing, but it is very sad that it doesn’t take care of itself, and is easily led astray. For this reason, even wisdom – which consists in doing and allowing more than in knowing – needs science [Wissenschaft], not as something to learn from but as something that will ensure that wisdom’s precepts get into the mind and stay there” (Bennett 2008, 13; cf. Kant, Akad. Ausgabe IV 405). That is to say, that in order to stay mindful, conscious and preserve one’s identity to act accordingly one has to understand one’s errors after being so educated and already having received knowledge from a great spectrum of philosophy and science. Philosophy, i.e. human wisdom, is a latecomer with intent to secure the fundamentals but in constant danger to overdo its case. Therefore man needs divine wisdom as corrective on top of that. Because the common sense is torn and embarrassed by opposing claims, Kant was willing “to take a step into the field of practical philosophy”, if not happy to agree to restart the speculative endeavour.58 When Adventists begin to see a similar need after 150 years of innocence, existing within an increasingly Gnostic Modernity, they must heed the experience of the exponents of the Jewish Haskalah and their successors in the Wissenschaft des Judentums,59 not to fall prey to the 58 “Practical philosophy” is a term in Kant’s critical project that involves more than only ethics as a discipline. Thus Kant tried to fill the gap left by David Hume’s sceptical blow against the traditional project of metaphysics, and by the same token to synthesize and secure necessary ideas like duty, freedom and God into a comprehensible “critical” philosophical discourse vis-à-vis the sciences and the witness of biblical revelation. In this way he was led to his conception of “Ethicotheology”. For a more detailed introduction see Wood 1970, or a shorter one in Sturch 1975. 59 In the shadow of the Shoah Gershom Scholem gave their methodological dilemma a sharp focus (“Mitokh Hirhurim ‘al Chokhmat Jisra’el [Reflections on Modern Jewish Studies]”, Luach ha’Aretz, Tel Aviv 1944, 94–112) by maintaining that acquiring skills in the arts of the enemy entails 53 Christian Wannenmacher same kind of assimilation or ineffectiveness that seems to characterize many philosophers who have sought to do more than merely produce another footnote to Plato.60 The Adventist movement after 150 years has acquired a momentum when philosophy (in the sense of human wisdom corrected by divine wisdom) becomes necessary, although it is dangerous to think that reason alone can solve the problems we are gradually becoming aware of. Therefore let me scatter suggestions for a broad scope of subjects that pertain not only to theology but also to the field of the history of philosophy. I just wanted to present my case study as a specimen. Philosophy begins with the right questions. I am not sure that I can yet articulate carefully enough what Adventist philosophers need to discuss. Here are my suggestions: The equation “Wisdom is the biblical concept for philosophy” means that the endeavour we know as ‘philosophy’ is not exclusively Greek, but that the Greek philosophers modified a standard of reflection known as ‘wisdom’ in the ancient scriptures. How is this claim to be corroborated in historical and systematical terms from an Adventist perspective? In Adventism there is a venerated tradition of a debate under the catchwords “justification” and “sanctification”, whereas philosophy since the Enlightenment usually does not treat the question of moral motivation in relation to the question of salvation. What impact has the splitting of these viewpoints had? Is therefore e.g. Lawrence Kohlberg’s model of moral development an appropriate approach to the spiritual dimension as put forward within the Scriptures? Which standards and whose rationality is operative in our debates about the doctrine of God and the creation/evolution puzzle? I would like to know more about the implications of the Doctrine of the Sanctuary for the hermeneutical question at large. Which are the logically necessary prerequisites to Schleiermacher’s idea of hermeneutics, taken in light of the PlatonicAristotelian tradition? Does this set of logical conditions in any case match to the doctrine of the sanctuary? How materially should the handling of the hermeneutical question proceed? Has Spinoza’s historical struggle with immortality had any impact in relation to the Adventist position of the denial of Platonism? Do Adventists rebuke along with the idea of recollection in Platonic anamnesis also the maieutical element? And what are the implications for the Adventist discourse about the Bible and revelation? the danger of spiritualizing the basics and be sentimental about the remaining difference. Fifteen years later his judgment was more tempered and lenient (cf. Scholem 1963, 147–164). 60 “Students won’t learn to think outside the box until they know they’re in a box. A big part, then, of what we do is to teach questions and that questions have histories. Like the concepts designed to address them, questions are invented, forgotten, and sometimes remembered. And for students, what could be more exciting than the idea that Western philosophy, far from being mere footnotes to Plato, is a history of inventions?” (Larrimore 2004, 52) 54 Virtues of Prophetic Realism How are Adventists to explain the intricate relationship between Platonism (and its partial rejection in the Enlightenment) and the Gnostic shape of the secular age (drifting towards spiritualism)? No satisfying research has been done about the relation and position of the Adventist pioneers regarding the philosophical debates of their time. Did they recognize these and – given their circumstances – could they relate to them at all? After all, the question remains: Are investigations into the history of philosophy the only appropriate function of philosophy in Adventism? Or is there room for systematic philosophy in Adventism? When I see the struggles in our church I am not sure whether the idea of an “ideal speech situation” can serve as a model for the Adventist procedure in philosophical discourse. And to say the least: Faith is not Science. But let me pose the question in a more poignant way: Are Adventists not eventually eroding their high esteem for the prophetic worldview when they start a more systematic and constructive discourse in the field of philosophical theology? Any proper answer to this perennial open question has to be clothed with humility. Thus I want to close with a quote of exhortation and consolation alike: We are not to consider that the smartness of men and women will bring success. People may have all the learning possible for a human being to comprehend, and yet they may be alone; without Christ they can do nothing. Do you walk humbly before Him? Have you a cherishing of inward sins, heartburnings against anyone? Are you seeking God with all your heart? We can bear to be separated from everything else but the Spirit of God. We want the inspiration of the cross, making us to fall helpless, and the Lord will lift us up (White 1994 [1891], 97). 55 Christian Wannenmacher Reference List Assmann, Jan: Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism. Boston: Harvard University Press, 1997. Assmann, Jan (Interview by Katarina Holländer): “War Moses ein Pharao?” tachles. Das jüdische Wochenmagazin, April 2, 2004. Augustine of Hippo: Confessions and Enchiridion. Transl. and ed. by Albert C. Outler. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1955. Augustine of Hippo: The Problem of Free Choice. Transl. and annot. by Dom Mark Pontifex. Westminster: Newman Press, 1955. Bennett, Jonathan: “Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals.” 2008. Online: http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/f_kant.html, accessed June 1, 2012. Brodkey, Harold: Profane Friendship. San Francisco: Mercury House, 1994. Canale, Fernando L.: “Is There Room for Systematics in Adventist Theology?” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 12, 2001, 110–131. Damsteegt, P. Gerard: Foundations of the Seventh-Day Adventist Message and Mission. Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1977. Eberhardt, Walter Heinrich: Wege und Irrwege der Christenheit von der Urgemeinde bis zur Vorreformation. Berlin: Union Verlag, 1968. Eberhardt, Walter Heinrich: Reformation und Gegenreformation. Berlin: Union Verlag, 1973. Eberhardt, Walter Heinrich: Aufklärung und Pietismus. Berlin: Union Verlag, 1979. Eberhardt, Walter Heinrich: Christenheit zwischen den Revolutionen. Berlin: Union Verlag, 1993. Engstrom, Stephen: “Conditioned Autonomy.” Philosophical and Phenomenological Research 48, 1987, 435–453. Erzen, Tanya: Review of Calvin W. Edwards and Gary Land: Seeker After Light: A. F. Ballenger, Adventism, and American Christianity. H-AmRel, H-Net Reviews, July 2001. Online: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev .php?id=5313, accessed October 7, 2011. Fried, Johannes: Aufstieg aus dem Untergang: Apokalyptisches Denken und die Entstehung der modernen Naturwissenschaft im Mittelalter. Munich: Beck, 2001. Gilgoff, Dan: The Jesus Machine: How James Dobson, Focus on the Family, and Evangelical America Are Winning the Culture War. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2007. Goldstein, Clifford: God, Gödel, and Grace: A Philosophy of Faith. Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 2003. Greenslade, S. L. (transl.): Early Latin Theology. The Library of Christian Classics 5. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1956. 56 Virtues of Prophetic Realism Guy, Fritz: “Remembering Jack Provonsha: A Theological Appreciation.” [Speech at the Jack W. Provonsha memorial service, September 22, 2004, Loma Linda, California] LLU Update, December 2004, 6. Guy, Fritz: “Philosophical Thinking, Theology, and Kenosis: What Philosophical Thinking Does for Theology.” Paper presented at the Society of Adventist Philosophers Annual Meeting, Atlanta, November 18, 2010. Habermas, Jürgen: “Modernity: An Unfinished Project.” Maurizio Passerin d’Entrèves and Seyla Benhabib (eds.): Habermas and the Unfinished Project of Modernity: Critical Essays on the Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1997, 38–55. Habermas, Jürgen: “Faith and Knowledge.” Jürgen Habermas: The Future of Human Nature. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2003, 101–115. Heine, Heinrich. The Prose and Poetical Works. Vol. 9: Germany. New York: Croscup & Sterling, 1902. Heinrich, Klaus: Tertium datur: Eine religionsphilosophische Einführung in die Logik. Dahlemer Vorlesungen 1. Frankfurt a.M.: Roter Stern, 1981. Jackson, Maury. “The Heresy Tertullian Overlooked: On Prescription against the Apologist’s Use of Rhetoric.” Spes Christiana 22–23, 2011–2012, 15–30. Janik, Allan, and Stephen Toulmin: Wittgenstein’s Vienna. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1973. Johnsen, Carsten: The Maligned God. Sisteron: The Untold Story Publishers, 1980. Johnsen, Carsten: Day of Destiny: The Mystery of the Seventh Day. Loma Linda: The Untold Story Publishers, 1982. Kaiser, Denis: “Ellen White and The ‘Daily’ Conflict.” Ellen White and Current Issues Symposium 2010. Berrien Springs: Center for Adventist Research, 2011, 6–34. Kant, Immanuel: Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason and Other Works on the Theory of Ethics. 4th, revised edition. Transl. by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott. London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1889. Kant, Immanuel: „Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten [1785]“ Königlich Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Hg.): Kant’s gesammelte Schriften. Vol. 4. Berlin: Reimer, 1911, 387–463. Knight, George: “A System in Search of Identity.” The Journal of Adventist Education 48, 1986, 15–17 and 34–37. Knight, George: The Apocalyptic Vision and the Neutering of Adventism: Are We Erasing our Relevancy? Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 2008a. Knight, George: “The Missiological Roots of Adventist Higher Education and the Ongoing Tension Between Adventist Mission and Academic Vision.” The Journal of Adventist Education 70, 2008b, 20–28. Krochmalnik, Daniel: “Was ist jüdische Philosophie?” N.d. Online: http://dkrochmalnik.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/was_ist_juedische_ philosophie1.pdf, accessed June 1, 2012. 57 Christian Wannenmacher LaRondelle, Hans K.: Perfection and Perfectionism: A Dogmatic-Ethical Study of Biblical Perfection and Phenomenal Perfectionism. Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1971. LaRondelle, Hans K.: “The Historicist Method in Adventist Interpretation”, Spes Christiana 21, 2010, 79–89. Larrimore, Mark: “Evil and Wonder in Early Modern Philosophy: A Response to Susan Neiman.” J. B. Schneewind (ed.): Teaching New Histories of Philosophy: Proceedings of a Conference. Princeton: The University Center for Human Values, Princeton University, 2004, 51–60. Lohse, Bernhard: Luthers Theologie in ihrer historischen Entwicklung und in ihrem systematischen Zusammenhang. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995. Lohse, Bernhard: Martin Luther: Einführung in sein Werk. Munich: Beck, 1997. Luther, Martin: On the Bondage of the Will [1525]. Written in Answer to the Diatribe of Erasmus on Free-Will. tr. by Henry Cole, London: Simpkin and Marshall, 1823. McGinn, Bernard: Antichrist: Two Thousand Years of the Human Fascination with Evil. New York: Columbia University Press, 2000. McGrath, Alister E.: Christian Theology: An Introduction. Oxford: WileyBlackwell, 2001. Padderatz, Gerhard: Amerika: Mit Gewalt in den Gottesstaat. Halle: Mitteldeutscher Verlag, 2007. Pannenberg, Wolfhart: Theologie und Philosophie: Ihr Verhältnis im Lichte ihrer gemeinsamen Geschichte. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Pieper, Josef: “‘Mutterwitz’ – Über die Sprache von C. S. Lewis.” Inklings 3, 1985, 171–175. Pieper, Josef: Religionsphilosophische Schriften. Werkausgabe, vol. 7. Hamburg: Meiner 2000. Pieper, Josef: Autobiographische Schriften. Werkausgabe, suppl. vol. 2. Hamburg: Meiner, 2003. Popkin, Richard: “The Third Force in Seventeenth-Century Thought: Skepticism, Science and Millenarianism.” Richard Popkin: The Third Force in Seventeenth-Century Thought. Leiden: Brill, 1992, 90–119. Ricœur, Paul: Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning. Fort Worth: Texas Christian Press, 1976. Ricœur, Paul: The Rule of Metaphor: Multi-Disciplinary Studies in the Creation of Meaning in Language. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1978. Ricœur, Paul: Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences: Essays on Language, Action and Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Ricœur, Paul: “Evil. A Challenge to Philosophy and Theology.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 53, 1985, 635–648. Repr. H. Deuser (ed.): Gottes Zukunft – Zukunft der Welt. Festschrift für Jürgen Moltmann zum 60. Geburtstag. München: Kaiser, 1986, 345–361. 58 Virtues of Prophetic Realism Ricœur, Paul: From Text to Action: Essays in Hermeneutics II. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1991. Samuelson, Norbert M.: An Introduction to Modern Jewish Philosophy. New York: SUNY Press, 1989. Santayana, George: The Life of Reason, or, The Phases of Human Progress; Introduction and Reason in Common Sense. [1905] Marianne S. Wokeck and Martin A. Coleman (eds.): The Works of George Santayana. Vol. 7.1. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2011. Schaeffer, Francis A. The Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer: A Christian Worldview. Vol. 1: A Christian View of Philosophy and Culture. Wheaton: Paternoster, 1982. Scholem, Gershom: “Wissenschaft vom Judentum einst und jetzt.” Gershom Scholem: Judaica. Vol. 1. Frankfurt a.M.: Bibliothek Suhrkamp, 1963, 147–164. Schrödter, Hermann: Analytische Religionsphilosophie: Hauptstandpunkte und Grundprobleme. Freiburg and Munich: Karl Alber, 1979. Shuck, Glenn W.: Marks of the Beast: The Left Behind Novels and the Struggle for Evangelical Identity. New York: New York University Press, 2005. Stern, David G.: “The Significance of Jewishness for Wittgenstein’s Philosophy.” Inquiry 43, 2000, 383–401. Strauss, Leo: “Jerusalem and Athens. Some Preliminary Reflections.” Leo Strauss: Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983, 147–173. Sturch, R. L.: “The Ethico-Theology of Immanuel Kant.” Journal of Theological Studies 26, 1975, 342–360. Taylor, Charles: Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989. Tony, Richie: “Transposition and Tongues. Pentecostalizing an Important Insight of C.S. Lewis.” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 13, 2004, 117–137. von Harnack, Adolf: What is Christianity: Lectures Delivered in the University of Berlin during the Winter-Term 1899–1900. 2nd ed. by Thomas Bailey Saunders. New York and London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons/William and Norgate, 1908. Wannenmacher, Christian: “Zurechnung und Realrepugnanz: Anthropologische Voraussetzung der bösen Natur des Menschen in Kants Moralphilosophie.” [Accountability and Real Tension: Anthropological Supposition of Man’s Evil Nature in Kant’s Moral Philosophy]. M.A. thesis, University of Munich, 1992. Wannenmacher, Christian: “Analogia entis or Coincidentia oppositorum? St. Paul, Rudolf Otto and Ellen White on the Nature of God and of Humanity.” Paper presented at the Gloria Patri Interdisciplinary Conference “For in Him We Live, and Move, and Have Our Being”, Wyboston Lakes, Cambridge 2008. 59 Christian Wannenmacher Wannenmacher, Christian: “Lässt sich dieser Sprengstoff entschärfen?“ [Review of Antje Vollmer: Gott im Kommen?, München: Kösel, 207] Stufen: Zeitschrift des Adventistischen Wissenschaftlichen Arbeitskreises, no. 87–90, 2009, 180–188. Wannenmacher, Christian: “The Problem of Evil – Vital Changes in the History of an Idea.” Dr. phil. diss., University of Munich, 2011. White, Ellen G.: The Great Controversy between Christ and Satan. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1911. White, Ellen G.: Life Sketches. Mountain View: Pacific Press, 1915. White, Ellen G.: Testimonies for the Church. 9 vols. Mountain View: Pacific Press, 1948. White, Ellen G.: Selected Messages. Vol. 2. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1958. White, Ellen G.: The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials. Washington, D.C.: Ellen G. White Estate, 1987. White, Ellen G.: Sermons and Talks. Vol. 2. Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 1994. Wittgenstein, Ludwig: “A Lecture on Ethics [1929].” The Philosophical Review 74, 1965, 3–12. Wittgenstein, Ludwig: Culture and Value. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1998. Wood, Allen W.: Kant’s Moral Religion. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1970. Zackrison, Edwin: In the Loins of Adam: A Historical Study of Original Sin in Adventist Theology. Lincoln: iUniverse, 2004. 60 Virtues of Prophetic Realism Zusammenfassung In diesem Artikel geht es dem Autor zunächst um den ethischen Aspekt bei der Annäherung an die Wahrheit; erst dann erwägt er die Lehren, die aus den misslungenen Systembildungen gezogen werden können, um innerhalb eines angemessenen methodischen Rahmens davon zu profitieren. Seiner Meinung nach ist die philosophische Analyse mehr ein Instrument der Kritik des eigenen theologischen Denkens und weniger ein Instrument der Konstruktion von Argumenten in missionarischer Absicht. Ganz allgemein gilt, dass philosophisches Denken zur Analyse und Orientierung nur dann hilfreich ist, wenn der Heilige Geist den Vollzug wirklich anleitet. – Niemand, der sich von der Heiligen Schrift hat inspirieren lassen, wird erwarten, das Ergebnis all derjenigen Probleme umkehren zu können, die sich in der mehr als zwei Jahrtausende andauernden Geschichte der menschlichen Vernunft angehäuft haben. Kein einziges überliefertes System ist vollkommen. Dennoch sollten Adventisten sich dieser uneinheitlichen und teils verschlüsselten Errungenschaften, die Grenze des Verstehens zwischen Philosophie und Theologie zu überwinden, bewusst sein, und sie als Teil von unterschiedlichen Versuchen ansehen, das Gegebene zu mustern. Dadurch und durch einen verbesserten Zugang zu wirklich notwendigem Wissen erwartet der Autor, dass das Heiligtum letztendlich wiederhergestellt und gerechtfertigt wird. Der Beitrag schließt mit einer Reihe von Vorschlägen, die andeuten, welche Themen adventistische Philosophen innerhalb ihrer gerade entstehenden Vereinigung diskutieren sollten. Résumé L’auteur de l’article parle tout d’abord de l’aspect éthique relatif au fait de s’approcher de la vérité. Ensuite, il évalue le cadre approprié pour profiter des leçons concernant la formation des systèmes durant l’histoire de la philosophie, formation n’ayant pas réussi. Selon l’opinion de l’auteur, l’analyse philosophique constitue plutôt un instrument de critique pour la pensée théologique que l’on a que d’être un instrument de la construction d’arguments dans un but missionnaire. Généralement parlant, la pensée philosophique est seulement utile pour l’analyse et l’orientation quand le Saint Esprit guide réellement cette démarche. – Une personne qui se laisse inspirer par le Saint Esprit ne s’attend pas à renverser le résultat des problèmes qui se sont accumulés durant plus de deux millénaires d’histoire de la raison humaine. Aucun système qui a été proposé et qui a survécu n’est parfait. Cependant, les adventistes devraient être conscients des acquis, acquis qui ne s’avèrent pas être unifiés et qui sont parfois difficiles à déchiffrer, mais qui visent à amoindrir le fossé existant entre la philosophie et la théologie. Ils devraient les considérer comme faisant partie de différentes tentatives de prendre en considération les évidences qui existent. L’auteur est d’avis que le sanctuaire sera finalement restauré et justifié par ce biais et par l’accès à la connaissance critique. L’article se termine en proposant les sujets dont les philosophes adventistes devraient discuter dans leur association qui vient de naître. Dr. des. phil. Christian Wannenmacher, managing partner of Stella Norte Consulting, taught introduction into the history of philosophy at Friedensau Adventist University from 2009 to 2011. He currently is chief editor of the Society of Adventist Philosophers. E-mail: wannenchrist@gmail.com 61 62