Many of us remember the story of Nadab and Abihu, the two eldest sons of Aaron, who offered strange fire before the Lord in the wilderness tabernacle and were struck dead as a result (Lev. 10:1-2). What prompted this irreverent course on the part of these young men was the use of alcoholic beverages, which caused them to make no distinction between sacred and common things (verse 9).
Speaking to Aaron directly, God instructed those in Israel’s priesthood—and indeed, Israel as a whole—to “put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean” (verse 10).
There are many ways in which this divine command has been violated by professed Christians. Certainly the substitution of a common working day for the seventh-day Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment is one such violation. The addition by the Pharisees in Christ’s day of numerous man-made requirements to the laws God had given to Israel through Moses and the prophets, is another such case. It was this blending of tradition with the inspired Word that caused our Lord to declare:
In vain they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men (Matt. 15:9).
Strange Fire in Contemporary Christianity
Many contemporary examples of strange fire in Christian circles could certainly be listed. The raucous, often discordant music prevalent in various segments of contemporary Christianity—including some circles of Adventism—would certainly fall into this category. The attempt by some to combine secular political ideologies with the Christian faith is another such example.
Sadly, within recent days, I encountered two cases of strange fire—the attempt to mingle the sacred with the common—on an Adventist website I frequently visit. In the Comments section following one article, one poster published a cartoon alleging the decline of the American family, which listed contraception alongside such practices as divorce and gay marriage. On the gay issue, most assuredly we have the unqualified prohibition of God’s Word against such conduct (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:26-27; I Cor. 6:9-10; I Tim. 1:10), though the distinction between what citizens of a non-theocratic state are allowed and what members of a Bible-believing faith are allowed must always be kept intact. Regarding divorce, Jesus was clear that under certain circumstances divorce and remarriage are permitted (Matt. 5:32; 19:9), even though such parting is always hurtful, with forgiveness and reconciliation—if at all possible—always preferable.
But contraception is an entirely different matter. Nowhere do either Scripture or the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy forbid the practice of birth control in any form. Seventh-day Adventists are not Catholics. Neither can they sympathize with those evangelicals who in recent times have urged fellow believers to “rethink” the issue of birth control, disparaging sexual pleasure even for the married—and offering not a single Bible text in support of their position [1].
In a very pointed statement, Ellen White speaks of those who “commit a crime in bringing children into the world to suffer for want of proper care, food, and clothing” [2]. In the same context she speaks of how “mothers drag out a miserable existence, with children in their arms nearly all the time, managing every way to put bread into their mouths and clothes upon their backs. Such accumulated misery fills the world” [3].
A certain—and illegitimate—killjoy piety seems to proliferate in certain Christian circles, which fails to consider the extent to which Biblical sexuality is intended primarily for pleasure to those united in holy matrimony. Before any children were brought into the world, the Sacred Record describes the intimacy of our first parents in the following verses:
Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh
And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed (Gen. 2:24-25).
The New Testament echoes this glorious truth with the words of the apostle Paul: “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled, but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4). Notice that this verse contains no qualifier as to the bed being undefiled only if the couple is planning to have children.
And of course, who can ignore the splendor of the Song of Solomon, with its lyrical tribute to the physical intimacy God designed to be enjoyed by husbands and wives?
In light of the above, despite contrary voices, it is perfectly appropriate for Bible-believing Christians to rejoice at the modern advances of medical science relative to birth control, making it so every act of marital intimacy need not be calculated as to whether church school tuition is affordable!
Blue Jeans, Holding Hands, and Shorts
In another comment from the same website, another poster reminisced about what he seems to regard as the “good old days” at a prominent North American Adventist college. He writes that the college in his day “was a great school and very spiritual. No blue jeans, no holding hands in public, no shorts unless you were at the gym.”
More strange fire!
Some of us are old enough to remember those so-called “good old days,” in which standards based on the inspired counsel of Scripture and the writings of Ellen White were too often confused with standards of a strictly human or cultural nature. Why a certain fabric should qualify clothing for the forbidden list is difficult for anyone to rationalize. Certainly no inspired statement could be cited for such a rule. And regarding the public display of affection by dating couples, such as the holding of hands, we again find no inspired prohibition. Regarding physical affection of any kind prior to marriage, public or private, the following counsel reflects the wisdom and balance seen throughout Ellen White’s instructions to the church:
Not one word should be spoken, not one action performed, that you would not be willing the holy angels should look upon and register in the books above [4].
Why holy angels should frown on the holding of hands, no one has yet explained. Some may reply that “it’s what it leads to” that makes it problematic. Thankfully, the inspired text refrains from “getting into the weeds” with that kind of prescriptive counsel. Wisdom and restraint are certainly appropriate in such matters, but a plethora of man-made rules tends to produce more harm than good.
On the question of wearing shorts, at the gym or elsewhere, here again the “commandments of men” have too often gained the upper hand, even in the recent history of certain Adventist educational centers. Our purpose here is not to dismiss school regulations of any kind relative to student dress, and certainly not to undermine dress standards in general. But those who believe Ellen White espoused a concrete rigidity relative to bodily exposure, regardless of the weather, will be disappointed by a careful study of her writings. In fact, Ellen White declared that “no one precise style has been given me as the exact rule to guide all in their dress” [5], and that people should be “particular to vary their clothing according to the changing weather” [6].
Conclusion
At a time when doctrinal faithfulness, along with adherence to lifestyle and institutional standards, have suffered dramatic decline in the church, it is easy for those lamenting this decline to look with unqualified favor on the way things were once done, irrespective of whether or not such practices were always based on the inspired writings. But such knee-jerk, reflexive longing for the past is never helpful. Too many of the problems we confront in the church today can be traced to extreme practices in former and even more recent times. Too often, such standards have escaped the scrutiny of the Berean test (Acts 17:11), with many merely assuming that in our present anything-goes world, anything restrictive is likely for the better good of those subjected to such restrictions.
But the fact remains that only God’s biddings are enablings [7]. Human standards, cultural taboos, the opinions of pious and earnest lecturers, do not possess the power for their fulfillment. When such requirements are mingled indiscriminately with the written counsel of God, believers—in particular the young—experience confusion. What God requires of His people is spelled out in the Sacred Writings of the church, whose consensus reflects both balance and common sense. The strange fire of popular culture (whatever label it wears) and man-made piety is quite another matter.
REFERENCES
1. Albert Mohler, “Can Christians Use Birth Control?” https://albertmohler.com/2006/05/08/can-christians-use-birth-control
2. Ellen G. White, Messages to Young People, p. 462.
3. Ibid, p. 463.
4. ----The Adventist Home, p. 55.
5. ----Evangelism, p. 273.
6. ----Testimonies, vol. 2, p. 602.
7. ——Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 333.
Pastor Kevin Paulson holds a Bachelor’s degree in theology from Pacific Union College, a Master of Arts in systematic theology from Loma Linda University, and a Master of Divinity from the SDA Theological Seminary at Andrews University. He served the Greater New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists for ten years as a Bible instructor, evangelist, and local pastor. He writes regularly for Liberty magazine and does script writing for various evangelistic ministries within the denomination. He continues to hold evangelistic and revival meetings throughout the North American Division and beyond, and is a sought-after seminar speaker relative to current issues in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. He presently resides in Berrien Springs, Michigan