In debates over women's ordination, the date of creation and slavery, some Adventists seek to simplify and focus the matter by insisting that the only data worthy of consideration are the words in the Bible. The Bible plus nothing is presented as the historical foundation of Adventist thought. Adventism does, indeed, do a superior job of "whole Bible" theology. However, Adventist theology is not the inevitable outgrowth of the plain meaning of the Bible. It is a creatively constructed, divinely inspired, pastorally effective theological system with roots in at least five "books."

It is dishonest to minimize the dominance of Biblical interpretation in the development and defense of Adventist beliefs. It is significant that in several areas where Adventists have dissented from common Protestant viewpoints, Biblical scholarship has moved conspicuously toward the Adventist interpretations of Scripture. E.g. the nature of death, apostolic Sabbath-keeping and the absence of Biblical warrant for Sunday-sacredness.

It is also inaccurate, if not dishonest, to claim that our theology comes from the Bible plus nothing. We have been people of The Book, but also people of the "red books"-Ellen White-and people of "God's Second Book." In addition, we have been informed by the books of the work of the Holy Spirit in our denominational life and in the broad sweep of Christian history. These four additional books have shaped our theology and Biblical interpretation.

Book One: The Bible

The Bible is preeminent among us. Always has been; always will be. It has demonstrated its effectiveness in life-change and solace. In many instances its historical veracity has been confirmed after decades of scholarly cavil. We are confident that God has spoken in the Book, and that it is the authoritative revelation of Jesus who is himself the Divine Word. However, Adventists have strongly dissented from the conservative Protestant teaching of inerrancy.

"The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history" (Doctrine One). But having said all that, Adventists still insist that the social standing, career, education and spirituality of the Bible writers affected what they wrote. There is a "perfect harmony" in the Bible resulting from the operation of the Holy Spirit, but the surface of the text can present discrepancies or contradictions (The Great Controversy, p vi.) "The underlying harmony" can be discerned by "the thoughtful, reverent student."

Every system of Biblical interpretation requires the use of rationality and discrimination. In every system, readers have to weigh the relative merit of divergent emphases. Believers will rightly look for an underlying harmony. But thinkers will acknowledge that the discernment of that harmony is not wholly objective. Thoughtful, reverent Christians will discern different harmonies depending on their temperament, education, personal history and social setting.

Every theology-Adventism, evangelicalism, Catholicism, the religion of the Quakers, Pentacostalism-represents a choice among Biblically-rooted options. Some emphasize Paul over Matthew, Daniel and Revelation over the gospels, the on-going work of the Spirit over the authority of the written text, the corporate understanding of the Bible over individual conviction. Every one of these theologies claims to represent the real underlying harmony of Scripture.

Fundamentalists insist these differences are rooted in our sinfulness, not in the text. There are no significant differences within or among the Bible writers. They quote Ellen White, "there may appear, to the superficial, careless, or prejudiced reader, to be discrepancy or contradiction, where the thoughtful, reverent student, with clearer insight, discerns the underlying harmony." Then they point to liberals as "superficial, careless or prejudiced" because we notice the discrepancies and contradictions. They see themselves as the "thoughtful, reverent student[s] with clearer insight."

Maybe they are right. But it seems wiser and more honest to make sure that the underlying harmony we claim to discern accounts for, or at least accommodates, the surficial discrepancies rather than ignoring them or insisting they aren't real. Our theology will be stronger and more persuasive if it comfortably accounts for the obvious narrative differences of Genesis One and Two and the theological differences between Galatians and James. The fundamentalist approach is to come up with the one "true" perspective and to explain away any divergence as merely "apparent." The problem with skeptical scholarship is that it fails to see the underlying harmony. The problem with fundamentalism is that it pretends there are no discrepancies. A mature approach will allow each story, each writer to speak clearly in its own voice while recognizing their place in single community.

Book Two: Creation

We are people of the Book, but we are not people "only of The Book." Adventists are creationists. More than any other denomination, we worship God as Creator. The universe was created by God, and except for sin-blighted Earth, continues to perfectly reflect his creative intention. And even Earth, however marred by sin, still reveals God. We affirm our appreciation of Earth as a revelation of God every Sabbath. We reinforce it by our deep involvement in the health sciences. Perhaps our boldest affirmation of nature as a valuable source of significant and reliable information is our confident use of the phrase "God's Second Book." The Second Book includes information from the natural sciences, social sciences and our own experience. It reinforces the Bible's use of anthropomorphism as a model for God.

Nature does more than testify to the truth of the Bible; it serves as an independent vehicle of divine communication. The Bible is not simply a redundant system saying the same things as the Bible. God says things in nature that he does not communicate through the Bible. While Adventists have not formally recognized "natural theology," our work in creation science and our teachings regarding the connection between the "laws of health" and moral law evince the authority we ascribe to nature as a source of religiously significant information.

When Adventist astronomers present evidence that the universe is fourteen billion years old, they are working outside Biblical categories but not outside Adventist theology. When Adventist geologists work to read the evidence in nature regarding the age of terrestrial life, their work is affirmed by our historic affirmation of the world as the handiwork of God.

There are fundamentalists among Adventists who insist that information from science is hopelessly corrupted by the sinfulness of humanity. They derisively dismiss any statements of science that appear to undermine the plenary authority of traditional understandings of the Bible. This applies primarily to historical rather than empirical sciences. But the same human corruption that distorts our reading of nature also distorts their reading of the Bible.

Our experience of nature teaches us a number of things: Wife-beating is evil, no matter what Paul writes about submissive wives. A steady diet of beef is bad for you no matter what Moses said. We don't just call the elders when someone is sick. We prohibit tobacco use in spite of its absence from Biblical mention. We don't really believe God stores rain in jars in the sky. We don't classify bats as birds. We don't believe the sun was created on the fourth day. We don't execute recalcitrant children. We disagree with Paul's declaration that single life is better than married life. We prohibit slavery despite the Bible's accommodation of the practice.

Adventist reading of the Bible is strongly influenced by our reverence for and involvement in the Book of Nature.

Book Three: Ellen White

While Ellen White's writings have not been foundational for our doctrine, they have been enormously influential. She has shaped every aspect of Adventist life, from our prophetic interpretation to our health message to education to ecclesiastical structure to theology. Adventism in its present form would not exist apart from the influence of Ellen White.

Some Adventists are very wary of admitting this. They are afraid we will be labeled cultic by conservative Protestants. They are afraid Luther and Calvin or Walter Martin would disapprove. (Of course, both Luther and Calvin have literal blood on their hands from the killings they approved. So, I'm not sure why we pick them as our touchstones.) But get over it. Ellen White is a major authority in the Adventist Church and always will be.

In our doctrinal statement about the Bible, we very carefully avoid the use of the word "only." "The Holy Scriptures are the only infallible revelation of His will. They are the only standard of character, the only test of experience, the only authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the only trustworthy record of God's acts in history" The omission of the word only is necessary to accommodate our doctrinal statement about Ellen White, which states, "As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction" (Doctrine 17).

For a liberal like myself to affirm Ellen White as an inspired authority says as much about my understanding of inspiration as it does about my views on Ellen White. In addition to recognizing the wonderful and formative influence she has had on the church, we can identify in her personal work dishonesty, plagiarism, and historical and scientific inaccuracy. In short, the fact that she was inspired means that God used her to shape the church but does not mean she was/is infallible. On occasion, we have to correct her. But even in this correcting, we have to remain open to her corrective role toward us personally and corporately.

If Bible inspiration worked anything like inspiration for Ellen White, then rather than tying ourselves to the scientific and historical content of Scripture, we should look more to its theological and moral intent. (That is not to deny all historicity to the Bible. I am convinced it has far more historicity that liberal orthodoxy asserts and far more ahistorical poetry than literalism allows.)

Book Four

The fourth Book is the on-going work of the Holy Spirit in the church. We believe our church has been brought into existence by the deliberate activity of God. We trust that the Holy Spirit is active among us to bring us into an ever-increasing understanding of truth. The preamble of our statement of beliefs reads: "Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God's Holy Word." While I envision a more active role for the Spirit than most Adventists would allow, we can at least agree that the Holy Spirit's role is not limited to empowering us to say more loudly and persuasively what we have already said. We may have to learn something new. We may even have to unlearn a few things. The daunting challenge is how do we distinguish the voice of the Spirit from all the other voices? The corporate church responds to the Holy Spirit; it also responds to economic, cultural, geo-political and racial forces. Hardly any decision is ever purely "spiritual." Yet a believer trusts that somewhere in the crosscurrents, the Holy Spirit is actually able to guide the church in making decisions that reflect the will of heaven. We believe things because the church believes them.

Book Five

The fifth book is what God has written and is writing in the history of all Christians. A hundred years ago, the Adventist Church was reshaping its understanding of the Trinity. Under the influence of Ellen White and Christian history it moved away from the views of James White and Uriah Smith, the two most influential men in the church. We came into line with the orthodox views developed in the first five hundred years of Christianity. Over time, we are gradually "reverting to the mean" of classic, orthodox Christianity. Some may lament this movement. But it is inexorable. We still bring a distinctive voice to the table of Christian conversation. But we understand that our identity cannot be derived straight from the Bible without giving any attention to the way the Bible has been read by other Christians around the world and across history.

None of these books is flawless. And our reading of all of them is affected by our prejudices, pride, culture, personal history, education, intellectual ability, humility, etc. By consciously honoring all of these books as the writings of God, our misreading of any one of them is more likely to be corrected. Honoring what God is saying through all of them may keep us from using traditional readings of the Bible to justify long-practiced oppression like the racial segregation of the American South of my childhood, the culturally-sanctioned mistreatment of women, the work-related abuse of children in American-owned, foreign-situated factories. Reading all the books will keep us from uncritically adopting the "assured results of scholarship" as the touchstone for reading the stories of Jesus. It will allow us to receive the wisdom God has planted in the Christian Church during the past two millennia without being enslaved by the limitations of medieval or Reformation culture. It will keep us from closing our minds to what God reveals through science.

While there is no single, infallible point of contact with God, we live the full assurance that he is not far from every one of us (Acts 17:27). If we will seek the Lord with all our hearts, we will find him. Behold, he stands at the door and knocks. If we will open the door, he will come in and share dinner with us. His ultimate intention is to give us a place on his throne (Jeremiah 29:13; Revelation 3:20-21). This is the deepest harmony in Scripture. It is the central meaning of Nature, the climax of Ellen White's theology, the goal of the Holy Spirit and history.

It is the theology that makes the books worth reading.