The secularization of La Sierra University

The story is an old one, oft repeated. Harvard was founded in 1636 to train Congregationalist and Unitarian clergy. Yale was founded in 1701 by the Colony of Connecticut, primarily to train ministers for the colony. Presbyterians founded Princeton in 1746 to train young men for the gospel ministry. Congregationalist minister Eleazar Wheelock established Dartmouth College in 1769. Brown, Wake Forest, and The University of Chicago emerged from the Baptist denomination. Vanderbilt and USC were once Methodist universities but are no longer. Duke, Emory and SMU maintain ties to the Methodist Church but are essentially secular. These and many other famous and prestigious universities were founded by religious people, with religious motives, for religious purposes, usually to train ministers. But as time passed, their ties to their founding denominations were cut or became nominal, their religious purposes were obscured or lost, and they became secular. In fact, they typically became quite hostile to biblical faith (see, e.g., the Emory faculty's hostility to the biblical faith of Dr. Ben Carson, who was invited to speak at Emory's commencement ceremony). Why does this change always happen? Why do colleges founded by Christian denominations always lose their religious purpose and mission? There are many reasons—academia's hostility to faith, the desire to conform to worldly academic standards, methods and philosophies, etc.--but based upon what we can observe happening in real time at La Sierra University, finances are also a factor. In 2008, in order to get a lower interest rate on its debt on the Price Science Complex, La Sierra issued tax-exempt municipal bonds. But in order to issue those bonds, La Sierra had to pledge that, “no portion of the proceeds of the Bonds will be used to finance or refinance any facility, place or building used or to be used for sectarian instruction or study or as a place for devotional activities or religious worship or in connection with any part of the programs of any school or department of divinity for the useful life of the project.” Hence, the Price Science Complex may not be used for “sectarian instruction or study,” and every court that has ruled on the issue in the past 35 years has ruled that creationism—or creation science, or intelligent Design—is sectarian and religious in nature.

Perhaps even more jarring is the language of religious neutrality from the controlling California Supreme Court case, California Statewide Community Development Authority v. All Persons Interested in Matter of the Validity of Purchase Agreement (2007) 40 Cal.4th 788. The court held that in sectarian schools issuing the tax-exempt bonds:

the information and coursework used to teach secular subjects must be neutral with respect to religion. Of course, religion may be an object of study in classes such as history, social studies, and literature, just as in public schools, in a manner that neither promotes nor opposes any particular religion or religion in general. But a class that . . . as part of the instruction information or coursework . . . promotes or opposes a particular religion or religious beliefs may not be taught in facilities financed through tax-exempt bond financing.

So, in order to legally issue the tax-exempt bonds, La Sierra's “secular” curriculum must be neutral with respect to religion, and must not promote any particular religion (such as Seventh-day Adventism).

But can La Sierra guarantee that its curriculum is religiously neutral, that it doesn't promote any particular religious view? In fact, it has already done so. In the Official Statement of the LSU bonds, (available online) at page A-5, the University states: “Thus, La Sierra does the things most other universities do: all information and coursework used to teach secular subjects are neutral with respect to religion.” That's not the Supreme Court of California talking; that's La Sierra University describing its own curriculum: neutral with respect to religion.

Is a curriculum that is “neutral with respect to religion” consistent with the Seventh-day Adventist philosophy of education? Let's spend a moment with some of the relevant texts.

True education means more than the perusal of a certain course of study. It means more than a preparation for the life that now is. It has to do with the whole being, and with the whole period of existence possible to man. It is the harmonious development of the physical, the mental, and the spiritual powers. It prepares the student for the joy of service in this world and for the higher joy of wider service in the world to come. Education 13

Since the purpose of education is to prepare the student for this life and for the life to come, every branch of learning, every academic discipline, should show the student something of God, some aspect of the character of God:

In a knowledge of God all true knowledge and real development have their source. Wherever we turn, in the physical, the mental, or the spiritual realm; in whatever we behold, apart from the blight of sin, this knowledge is revealed. Whatever line of investigation we pursue, with a sincere purpose to arrive at truth, we are brought in touch with the unseen, mighty Intelligence that is working in and through all. The mind of man is brought into communion with the mind of God, the finite with the Infinite. The effect of such communion on body and mind and soul is beyond estimate. Education 14

Whatever the line of investigation, whatever the discipline, we seek to bring the student into communion with the mind of God.

With this goal in mind, should an Adventist school teach its “secular” subjects in a religiously neutral manner? Can it do so? Most would assign history classes to the category of “secular” curriculum, but consider what Ellen White says about the teaching of history:

Let [history] be considered from the divine point of view. As too often taught, history is little more than a record of the rise and fall of kings, the intrigues of courts, the victories and defeats of armies--a story of ambition and greed, of deception, cruelty, and bloodshed. Thus taught, its results cannot but be detrimental. The heart-sickening reiteration of crimes and atrocities, the enormities, the cruelties portrayed, plant seeds that in many lives bring forth fruit in a harvest of evil. Far better is it to learn, in the light of God's word, the causes that govern the rise and fall of kingdoms. Let the youth study these records, and see how the true prosperity of nations has been bound up with an acceptance of the divine principles. Let him study the history of the great reformatory movements, and see how often these principles, though despised and hated, their advocates brought to the dungeon and the scaffold, have through these very sacrifices triumphed. Such study will give broad, comprehensive views of life. Education 238

Clearly, history is not to be taught in a religiously neutral manner. What about science, another “secular” subject; can it be taught in a religiously neutral manner?

Since the book of nature and the book of revelation bear the impress of the same master mind, they cannot but speak in harmony. By different methods, and in different languages, they witness to the same great truths. Science is ever discovering new wonders; but she brings from her research nothing that, rightly understood, conflicts with divine revelation. . . . Inferences erroneously drawn from facts observed in nature have, however, led to supposed conflict between science and revelation; and in the effort to restore harmony, interpretations of Scripture have been adopted that undermine and destroy the force of the word of God. Geology has been thought to contradict the literal interpretation of the Mosaic record of the creation. Millions of years, it is claimed, were required for the evolution of the earth from chaos; and in order to accommodate the Bible to this supposed revelation of science, the days of creation are assumed to have been vast, indefinite periods, covering thousands or even millions of years. Such a conclusion is wholly uncalled for. The Bible record is in harmony with itself and with the teaching of nature. Education 128-129

Science is to be taught in a way that harmonizes with revealed religion, with the Genesis record, not in a religiously neutral manner. Even mathematics should be taught with a redemptive purpose:

Since the goal of math class is to connect the student's mind with the mind of God, and to develop both the mind and the character in the twin pursuits of both education and redemption, then any aid given to the “secular” pursuit of "mere" arithmetic also aids “Religious Instruction. ” The entire premise of religious education is that it is entirely sacred, not secular. It is holistic, not dualistic. Religion is part of the warp and woof woven into the fabric of life in a religious school. There are no secular subjects. (Brief for the Interfaith Religious Liberty Foundation, et al, as Amicus Curiae, p. 17, Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793 [2000], co-authored by Alan Reinach, Director of Religious Liberty for the Pacific Union Conference).

Indeed, there are no secular subjects. Religion is woven into the fabric of Adventist education, into every academic discipline.

This philosophy is reflected in the General Conference Educational working policy:

... a balanced, integrated curriculum will address the major developmental needs in the spiritual, intellectual, physical, social, emotional, and vocational realms. All areas of study will be examined from the perspective of the biblical worldview within the context of the great controversy theme.

All disciplines are taught from a biblical perspective, in the context of the great controversy theme. There are no subjects that are examined in a religiously neutral manner.

Faulkner once wrote that the past is never dead; it's not even past. In an Adventist school, the “secular” curriculum is never religiously neutral, it's not even secular. The Seventh-day Adventist philosophy of education is clear: The purpose of education is to bring the student into communion with the divine mind; all subjects are to be taught from the biblical worldview. Every discipline plays its role in bringing the student into communion with the mind of God, preparing the student for Christian service in this life, and for the never-ending, glorious education of the life to come.

Any Adventist school that boasts that “all information and coursework used to teach secular subjects are neutral with respect to religion” has deviated, flagrantly, from the Adventist philosophy of education. Yet that is exactly what La Sierra has done. It has deviated from the Adventist philosophy of education, and has issued tax-exempt municipal bonds that it could not legally have issued were it faithful to its religious mission.

I wonder if all of La Sierra's Trustees, including such high church officials as Ricardo Graham, President of the Pacific Union Conference, Larry Caviness, President of the Southern California Conference, and Gerald Penick, President of the Southeastern California Conference, know that the University publicly declares its coursework to be “neutral with respect to religion.” The church officials on La Sierra's Board of Trustees are not there because of accomplishments in business, industry, science, literature, or the professions. They are there for one purpose and one purpose only: to ensure that La Sierra is providing its students with a truly Seventh-day Adventist education. If they won't insist that La Sierra stay true to its religious mission, who will?

Spiritual formation: friend or foe?

“Stay away from that stuff,” I was warned. Not drugs, but worse--I was considering Spiritual Formation. Surprised, and duly daunted, I thought I had just entered a twilight zone: a Christian theologian was discouraging me, a Christian, from pursuing a doctorate in Spiritual Formation. My inauguration into the controversy had begun. For me, the term “Spiritual Formation” was an apt descriptor for my desire to pursue formation in the image of Christ. But as I came to understand, spiritual formation is an umbrella covering biblical and unbiblical beliefs. Though my friend the theologian was right in being wary, I came to believe he was wrong in his all-inclusive toss of the proverbial bathwater.

Here’s the problem. The positive elements of Spiritual Formation are thrown out by conservatives rejecting anything that comes with the term, while on the other side, the liberal Christians seem to embrace whatever comes with it. Both are in danger of not testing the spirits by the word of God (1 Jn. 4:1). If we are truly in pursuit of Christian development, “Spiritual Formation” must not be seen as a single spirit, but rather the individual tenants within its nomenclature must be considered individually.

Fasting, prayer, Bible reading, and service are all clearly biblical components of Spiritual Formation. Contemplative prayer, though it sounds good, can mean the clearing of all thoughts from the mind in an effort to truly commune with God, whose thoughts are said to be beyond human capacity. Therefore, the closest one can come to communion with the infinite God is to not think. The roots of that belief can be traced back through various spiritual schools of thought, but not to the Bible. Though it is true that proponents of this belief often point to biblical passages, it is not within the wider context of the biblical passages.

My real concern is for those who are not rooted in a growing biblical faith. Perhaps someone has been reading one of these Christian mystics and is moved by the deep thoughts offered within their works that articulate well the beauty of God, and a desire to be one with Him. But when the author’s name is mentioned, another member overhears who has been reading a different kind of book, one that lists that author as a Spiritual Formation heretic, and he then slams the person for reading that author: Christian development squashed in the name of Christ.

I’m not saying that I would endorse the reading of the first book or discourage the reading of the second book. The wider issue is that what moved the first person was a passage about the desire to grow in oneness with Christ, and in condemning the author, the second person was inadvertently condemning a biblical thought--the ruling passion of Christ that we would be one with Him (Jn. 13-17).

As a church known for keeping a lukewarm distance from God (Rev 3:14-18), we should admire the overruling motivation of Spiritual Formation writers to be one with God. But if we do not seek that oneness according to His Word, then we will miss the mark we aim for. Both individuals in my little scenario represent growing factions in our church. But if they individually determine to worship God according to His Word, they will grow in that oneness with Him and each other.

Though as a doctoral candidate, I must be familiar with Spiritual Formation authors to have credibility with others in the field, I go to the Word for my spiritual formation.

Colossians 3:16 says, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.”

Male and female, in the image of Christ

The Apostle John makes it clear that Jesus Christ is not only the world’s Redeemer, but also its Creator. Jesus formed Adam and Eve with his own hands, creating them in His image. This image of God, imparted to humanity, is often thought of in terms of God’s creative power being imparted to us in a few specific ways. Our abilities to reason, reproduce, and be stewards of the earth are often among the most commonly mentioned. The crowning act of God’s creativity, however, was in God’s redemption of this world, and I would argue that it is in the marriage relationship that we humans most fully partake of the redemptive aspect of God’s image.

The Bible often refers to the Church as the “Bride of Christ,” and Paul used this analogy in Ephesians 5 to explain to husbands and wives how they ought to treat each other:

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

We well know that what Christ did for the Church was the most painful and difficult thing anyone has ever done, and we are familiar with the above passage, but we frequently fail to connect these two pieces of knowledge. If we place our dealings with our spouses in the context of Christ’s sacrifice on behalf of the Church, the solemnity of our duties, the nature of our struggles, and the eternal and glorious nature of our rewards become clear.

In practical terms, husbands are called to unconditionally love their wives, and wives are called to unconditionally respect their husbands (Love and Respect, Emerson Eggerich). Wives, for the record, our calling as husbands is just as difficult as yours. Both callings require humility that only Christ can impart. When a husband is called to love his disrespectful wife, or a wife is called to respect an unloving husband, Satan will be right there with the same temptations he threw at Christ in Gethsemane: “Your suffering is pointless, your humility will be taken advantage of, nobody will accept your sacrifice, you will be rejected, and there will be no reward.”

Often, our mistreatment of each other has a specific goal—we are trying to get the other person to realize that they have wronged us, to apologize, and ultimately to treat us as we wish to be treated. In acting this way, however, we attempt to do the work of the Holy Spirit. Only God can convict people of sin. By usurping the Holy Spirit’s role, we actually hamper the work of sanctification that God is doing in our spouse’s life.

If, on the other hand, we make Christ’s humility and forgiveness our modus operandi, treating our spouses according to the Divine mandate and patiently waiting for the Holy Spirit to work in our spouses’ life, we become fuller partakers of not only Christ’s nature, but also Christ’s reward.

Vision through blindness

In this world a first impression is extremely important. It is one of the main determining factors for everything from developing relationships to getting jobs. We often determine whether or not we like someone when we first meet that person, but first impressions can often be wrong. There are many situations in which we need to rely on our first impressions of people in order to make wise decisions, but if first impressions are our only guides, we will miss out on many meaningful relationships. Former President Abraham Lincoln understood this when he said, “I don’t like that man. I must get to know him better.” If God based His decision regarding the fate of humanity on the things that are easily seen on the surface, we would all be lost, but because of His infinite love and mercy, He looks beyond what is seen on the surface and into our hearts. Isaiah chapter 42 contains one of the Old Testament prophecies concerning Jesus:

Behold! My Servant whom I uphold, My Elect One in whom My soul delights! I have put My Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the Gentiles. He will not cry out, nor raise His voice, Nor cause His voice to be heard in the street. A bruised reed He will not break, And smoking flax He will not quench; He will bring forth justice for truth. . . . I the LORD, have called You in righteousness, And will hold Your hand; I will keep You and give You as a covenant to the people, As a light to the Gentiles, To open blind eyes, To bring out prisoners from the prison, Those who sit in darkness from the prison house. (Isaiah 42:1-3, 6-7)

These two passages of Scripture are very straightforward, but later on in the chapter God says something that may sound strange. “Hear, you deaf; And look, you blind, that you may see. Who is blind but My servant, Or deaf as My messenger whom I send? Who is blind as he who is perfect, And blind as the LORD’s servant? Seeing many things, but you do not observe; Opening the ears, but he does not hear.” (Isaiah 42:18-20) We generally consider blindness and deafness to be negative things. I have been totally blind since birth. I remember one day in high school when a fellow student questioned me about my blindness by asking, “Have you been…that way…all your life?” She could not bring herself to utter the word blind in casual conversation. Jesus warns us against spiritual blindness. “Because you say, ‘I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing’—and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked—I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see.” (Revelation 3:17-18).

So why is Jesus, the one who confronts us because of our spiritual blindness and opens the eyes of the blind, referred to by God as being blind and deaf? Jesus answers this question in John chapter 8 verses 15 and 16 when He says to the Pharisees, “You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one. And yet if I do judge, My judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I am with the Father who sent Me.” The Pharisees judged according to the flesh. They drew conclusions about the people around them based on what they saw and heard. When they brought to Jesus a woman caught in adultery, they saw a hopeless sinner deserving of death, but Jesus saw a wounded soul, a bruised reed, a broken heart in need of His love and forgiveness. By turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to what others perceived on the surface, He was able to see what they did not see. Because Jesus sees what we do not see, His judgment is always true. There is a form of blindness that God wants us to possess. It is the kind of blindness that He possesses. When Jesus was on the earth, this blindness enabled Him to look at those who were looked down upon by society and see so much more than everyone else saw. While society only saw their sins, Jesus saw what they could become through the power of His grace.

What a different world this would be if we all had the vision that comes through blindness! As my mind wanders back through time, I remember situations during which this kind of vision would have changed my relationships with certain people had I possessed it. As I recount these stories, I will change the names of the people in them for the sake of privacy, but the lessons I have learned will forever remain the same.

From the sixth grade through the eighth grade I attended a small school that was run by the Adventist church that my family attended. It was during that time when a little boy named Tommy came to our school. He was probably about five years younger than me. He was intelligent, but he was very different from the other kids. It was hard to put a finger on exactly how he was different, but the way he communicated indicated that he struggled in his social interactions with others. One morning during worship, one of the teachers asked us if we had any prayer requests, and Tommy raised his hand and said something that was totally unrelated to the subject at hand. I confess that I was not always patient with him. There were times when I was nice to him, but not on a consistent basis. One day he was accused of doing something that he claimed he did not do. The teachers came to the conclusion that he was guilty, and I vividly remember his angry tears as he adamantly claimed his innocence. Of course, I have no way of knowing whether or not he was guilty, but when I remember his anguish as he pleaded his case, I am left to wonder if he really had done anything wrong. All of this took place shortly before lunch and recess. When the time for recess came and the kids and teachers went outside, there was a brief moment when Tommy and I were alone in the classroom. Poor little Tommy asked a question that no child should ever have to ask. “Why me?” You would have thought that seeing Tommy in such emotional pain would’ve forever changed the way I treated him, but tragically, later on, I joked about the incident with other kids. If I could relive this experience with the vision that comes through blindness, I would not only be patient with Tommy, but I would be a source of comfort, encouragement, and support to him. I would befriend him, not some of the time, but all of the time.

Around the same time there was a yearly camp for visually impaired children that I attended a few times. There was a girl named Cindy who also attended the camp, and she was developmentally disabled. Because of her developmental disability, I was uncomfortable in her presence. She had a negative attitude and was not enjoyable to be around. I never once heard her laugh, and I wonder, in fact, if she even smiled. I’ve heard it said that a smile isn’t just something you see; it’s something you hear as well. I never heard a smile in her voice. The first time I met her, she and I shared a room with two other girls. The radio was on, and Cindy did not like the music that was playing. She said, “I never grew up listening to that junk!” Close to the end of one of the camp sessions, one of the teachers who organized the camp asked us if we wanted to have the camp next year, and Cindy responded by saying, “No way!” When I later asked Cindy why she did not want to have the camp next year, she answered, “All the kids tease me.” The memory of her words has never left me. If I could relive this experience with the vision that comes through blindness, I would reach out to her and get to know her. I would try to make her laugh. In response to her complaint about the music on the radio, I would ask her what music she liked. Maybe I would discover that we had similar music interests. Perhaps underneath all of that negativity I would find a person that I would enjoy being friends with.

When I was a sophomore in high school, I became acquainted with a student named Jack who was not liked by the other students. I remember once hearing a girl say to him, “You’re not someone; you’re something!” Jack apparently came to the conclusion that negative attention was better than no attention, and he acted like an annoying little brother. One day, on a whim, I decided to reach out to him. I said, “Hi, Jack. How are you?” I will never forget the transformation that resulted from a simple question. The annoying little brother persona immediately fell away, and Jack emerged. He and I began to talk, and I discovered that he was a nice kid. I was just getting to know Jack, when, tragically, one night Jack and two of his siblings were killed in a house fire. Jack’s death was painful for me, but it was even more painful for the kids who had mistreated him. If I could relive that experience with the vision that comes through blindness, I would not wait to reach out to Jack. I would start getting to know him immediately. Perhaps if I had done this when I had the chance, I would’ve discovered a good friend.

What I learned from these experiences is that the time we have with others on this earth is short. We have a window of opportunity to reach out to those whom God has placed in our path, and when this window is closed, we may not get another chance. May we all pray that God will give us the vision that comes through blindness! It is this vision that will enable us to see others as God sees them. This vision will cause us to look upon others with compassion, and through our words and actions they will see what God is really like. They will not only hear the Gospel, but they will see the Gospel, and many will be led to the feet of Jesus.

Cultural Vegetarians?

A friend recently stated his belief that vegetarianism is simply a construct of SDA church dogma and is really a matter of culture. He argued that from a scriptural standpoint it simply “isn’t there.” What surprised me most is the fact that my friend is also an SDA pastor. I don’t mean to imply that this pastor is representative of all or even most of Adventist leaders, but it is certainly something I have heard frighteningly often. His argument was essentially that there are many things in Adventism that are more cultural than Biblical and vegetarianism is one of them. Vegetarianism?! There are a plethora of independent films of late that explore the multifaceted relationship we have with food in terms of our physical health, global sustainability, etc. Diet for a New America, in which Jon Robbins sends out a Lennon-style plea to take action on his dream to move toward a vegetarian lifestyle, was an early effort. Super-Size Me makes the case that fast-food is more threatening to the world than terrorism. The producer, Morgan Spurlock, ends his 30 days of bingeing on burgers and fries with a vegan detox diet in order to lose the weight he gained (not to mention regain some of his former functionality!). Forks over Knives was recently advertised as showing in a local church (perhaps in an effort to help their desperately sick members? In all seriousness, most churches have a prayer list as long as my arm with cancer and needs for surgery of various sorts figuring prominently.)

Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead was an indie film I recently saw where a professional man takes to juice fasting for 60 days in order to lose about 100 lbs. FOODMATTERS was made by two former nutritionists who faced a personal experience with disease which motivated them to find answers outside of conventional medicine. Average Joe on the Raw documents a young man’s journey who decides that he doesn’t want to be average anymore. Tests reveal he has several vitamin deficiencies as well as hypogonadism, which truly shocks him. After 30 days on a raw, vegan diet, his test results show the reversal of all his deficiencies, including reaching a normal testosterone level without any hormone supplementation.

Many more miraculous plant-based experiences have been documented in books, films (and CHIP programs in our own circles), literally saving peoples lives. But is there more to vegetarian eating than a reversal of lifestyle disease? Is vegetarianism supported Biblically?

While viewing yet another independent film titled Raw: The living food diet, a statement was made by a young woman who, I’m pretty sure, is not a Christian. She said rather poignantly, however, “If you believe that the purpose of our lives is to get closer to the garden of Eden, then being raw is for you. Because when you eat raw you are eating from the garden and you are truly living in paradise.” Without analyzing this statement too deeply, in the flow of the documentary she was simply making a plea to do the right thing and look toward fulfilling our true purpose here on earth. However, I found it fascinating that she would sight the Biblical Eden diet as the goal when some (if not most) evangelical Christians (Adventists too?) would perhaps rather that the tree of life bear cuts of steak, burgers and chicken--everything but those things that are strictly “unclean” (not to mention meat analogues) instead of luscious, in-season fruit. But what exactly was the Eden diet?

Again, without exploring this too deeply I offer this text. “And God said: Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed which is upon the face of the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed, to be your food” (Genesis 1:29).

For me, this explanation is very helpful but a little restrictive, especially when I’m staring at a cheese lasagna in the church potluck line! But that’s the point. God’s truth meets us where we are and causes a confrontation with our fallenness.

Of course, arguments can be made that God permitted the introduction of meat into the human diet after the flood for various reasons including scarcity of plant matter, merciful shortening of life, etc. And of course those who eat meat are not automatically “outside of the fold.” And many (mostly believers I fear) often argue about the prevalence of meat eating in the New Testament Church and even in Christ’s life here on earth. The arguments are endless about “freedom in Christ” and the kingdom not consisting of food and drink, etc. And there a compelling arguments on both sides. My fear, however, is that all of these arguments betray a superficial understanding of God’s interaction with our fallenness and his ultimate goals for humanity.

If one takes a serious view of scripture, it is notable that the whole tenor of God’s interaction in the mutable realm is with restoration in mind. A major part of this restoration is returning to a state where death is obsolete. Interestingly, many outside of the Adventist context have come to an understanding of this on a deeper experiential level than we have, even without the benefit of a high view of scripture or an understanding of God’s plan of redemption. The way we eat is not rooted purely in Adventist culture. It is rooted in God’s plan for restoration. It is Biblical to the core.

Unfortunately, what is uniquely a part of Adventist culture (not to mention God’s people in general as prominently displayed in Scripture) is to sheepishly cower in the face of truth and attempt to “get by” with the bare minimum disruption in our own comfort and lifestyle. To put it bluntly, what is in fact cultural for all fallen creatures, not just Adventists, is to rebel against anything that smells of Biblical restoration. And more to the point, Adventists have always been too comfortable being the tail and not the head. Our denominational insecurity fuses with our own fallen and lustful desires to bring about a radical marginalization of truth. If we can excuse our own sinful tendencies as simply cultural, our consciences are quieted. And as we debate about whether or not diet is a cultural issue, a salvational issue or an issue of non-importance, we are being ravaged by all the lifestyle diseases of affluence and compromising not only our own growth, but our witness to those around us.

But the point is not to beat up on us as a people. God wants us to be restored and diet is a part of that. Exploring why we view diet from a certain perspective can be very helpful in exploring our understanding of our own fallenness, our own resistance to the work of restoration in our lives. It’s not dogma, not culture, not a battering ram. It is a gift.

Pacific Union committee authorizes women's ordination

At their March meeting, the Pacific Union executive committee voted to table until May 9 a motion that would immediately approve the ordination of ministers without regard to gender. They also set up an Ordination Study Committee to outline the steps necessary to make gender-neutral ordinations a reality as soon as possible. Today at the La Sierra University Alumni Center, that committee delivered their report to the full executive committee. The committee replaced the original motion with a new one and voted overwhelmingly to call a special constituency meeting, tentatively scheduled for August 19.

The committee voted separately on the main motion, including the preamble. The preamble and main motion were approved by a vote of 42-2. The process, which includes calling a special constituency session, was approved unanimously.

Voted (preamble):

• Whereas Scripture is clear that the end-time Church is blessed precisely because men and women preach God’s message (Joel 2:28-29 and Fundamental Belief 17);
• Whereas we are commanded to “act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with our God (Micah 6:8);
• Whereas “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for all are one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28);
• Whereas “differences between male and female must not be divisive among us” and “we are to serve and be served without partiality or reservation” (Fundamental Belief 14);
• Whereas the Seventh-day Adventist Church is co-founded by a woman, Ellen G. White, who remains an authoritative and guiding voice;
• Whereas the Pacific Union is enriched by Spirit-filled women who are responding to God’s call in our schools, churches and conferences;
• Whereas the Seventh-day Adventist Church assigns Unions the final decision-making authority and responsibility with respect to ordination (NAD Working Policy L45 05 3, Spring Council 2012 116-12G Report);
• Whereas the Pacific Union Conference voted its full commitment to Women’s Ordination, August 30, 1995 (reaffirmed May 12, 2010 and March 15, 2012);

Therefore, [main action]

• The Pacific Union Conference Executive Committee will approve or disapprove candidates for ordination without regard to gender, effective when the Union Bylaws are amended.

The Process

Voted, approval for the following process:

• Because the Pacific Union Conference Executive Committee is committed to following denominational procedures and processes, and to facilitate the involvement of the entire Union constituency, a special constituency session will be called to consider amendments to the Pacific Union Conference Bylaws to clearly authorize the ordination of ministers without regard to gender.
• The Pacific Union Conference Bylaws Committee will examine the Union bylaws and suggest amendments to clearly authorize the ordination of ministers without regard to gender.
• The Pacific Union Conference will provide an informational packet for the delegates, pertinent to the issues to be discussed in the special constituency session.

Both the study committee and the executive committee made it clear that they are committed to following established church processes and procedures. Their recommendations and actions were guided in large part by a summary of church structure prepared earlier this year by the General Conference and distributed at GC spring meetings. The full name of the document is The General Conference and Its Divisions — a Description of Roles and Relationships in Light of Organizational Structure Development, Current Governance Documents, and Practices. That documents makes clear that:

Authority and responsibility in the Seventh-day Adventist Church is not centralized in a hierarchical structure. Instead authority and responsibility is distributed throughout the Seventh-day Adventist Church structure ….

The distribution of authority and responsibility in the Seventh-day Adventist Church is illustrated by the following examples of how and where final decision-making authority and responsibility are located ….

The document goes on the explain that the “final authority and responsibility” for deciding who will be a church member is located at the local church; the “final authority and responsibility” for the employment/assigning of pastors and other workers resides at the local conference; and the “final authority and responsibility” for deciding who will be ordained is officially located at the unions.

The committee also considered that the same paragraphs that declare ordination decision are to be made by the unions, not by the divisions or the General Conference, include this counsel:

It is to be understood that the exercise of authority and responsibility is done within the context of the belief, values, and policies of the entire church. No entity is authorized to exercise its authority and responsibility in a manner that is contrary to the interests of the whole church and its activities in fulfilling its mission.

Obviously the distribution of authority found in the Seventh-day Adventist Church can result in tension between world-wide policy and the “final authority and responsibility” which has been assigned to the congregations, conferences and unions. The GC document has much to say about balancing those centers of authority, especially in the final Conclusions and Recommendations:

The following paragraphs and sentences are chosen from the Conclusion to the GC Spring Document. The full document will be made available in the next few days.

The distribution of authority and responsibility in the Church along with the recognition that “authority rests in membership” presents significant challenges in finding a balance between centralized authority (actions of the global church) and the more localized authority (actions of the constituency) in churches, conferences and unions.

At the same time the church has worked to preserve unity, the effect of church growth has enlarged the understanding of diversity and its rightful place in a worldwide community. To expect that every entity in the world church will look and function exactly like every other entity of its type may in itself become an impediment to mission. The development of structural designs in the history of the church indicates that unity must be built on a stronger foundation than uniformity.

There must be room to recognize the need for a legitimacy of local adaptation of policies and procedures that facilitate mission while not diminishing the worldwide identity, harmony and unity of the Church.

The relationship among the entities of the church is more than a matter of law and policy. Therefore attempts to codify that relationship will always be inadequate. The primary strength of the Church comes not from its structure but from its collective desire to live out a commitment to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Such a commitment embraces a call to community.

Pacific Union executive committee members made it clear during discussions this week that they are committed to taking seriously the “final” authority and responsibility that the Seventh-day Adventist church has assigned to unions. And they made it clear that their call for a special constituency session is not to be interpreted as a way to delay the ordination of all whom God has called to ministry. It is rather, the result of a commitment to follow church procedures and to make sure the final action, whatever it is, is backed by the full authority that the Seventh-day Adventist Church has assigned to the Pacific Union Conference.

CONTACT:

Gerry Chudleigh Communication Director 2686 Townsgate Road Westlake Village, CA 91361 Mail to: (PO Box 5005, 91359) www.puconline.org Office: 805-413-7286

Source: Pacific Union Conference

La Sierra biology professor terminated over creation-evolution controversy

This press release was issued by Lee Greer and his lawyer Chris Heikaus Weaver. Riverside, CA — May 09, 2012 — It’s not every day that a church-affiliated University terminates a biology professor for proposing a way to teach creation as a theological position alongside evolutionary science in classes on origins, but that is exactly what happened to La Sierra University’s Dr. Lee Greer.

Dr. Greer has been a biology professor at La Sierra University for 5 years and was only one year away from tenure review. Since early 2009, he has seen an ongoing conflict in the blogosphere and on campus over the teaching of evolution in LSU’s biology program. This conflict has created divisions between the University and the Church and even threatened the school’s accreditations with the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) and the Adventist Accrediting Association (AAA).

During the conflict, Dr. Greer, an evolutionary biologist by research discipline, reached out to conservative students on campus, as well as to conservative Trustees of the University’s Board, and also Church officials, notably the Adventist North American Division Vice President for Education, Larry Blackmer. Consulting with these and other individuals, Dr. Greer drafted an informal “Joint Proposal of individual La Sierra University Faculty and Trustees” that he hoped would balance the interests of the biology faculty who need to teach evolutionary science and students who need to learn it, with the concerns of the Church and constituents, who want the inclusion of creation in this Seventh-day Adventist institution.

Dr. Greer’s Joint Proposal suggested continued inclusion of evolution by “teaching and research in the various disciplines of the modern sciences according to the most up-to-date and rigorous standards of the published science . . . including the data which highlight the strengths and weaknesses of various models.” The proposal also suggested that biology faculty affirm and incorporate “the Biblical concept of creation, including the Seventh-day Adventist understanding of Genesis 1 and 2, as a faith position at the classroom level, when questions of origins are discussed.” The proposal noted that “creation is not a scientific construct. It is a faith construct. The conviction of Divine Creation lies beyond the purview of the methods of empirical science, and cannot be subjected to them. Nevertheless, faith and science can and should interact.”

This proposal was endorsed by the majority of La Sierra’s biology faculty and by four Trustees. Although signed on to by individuals, explicitly not on behalf of the University, the informal proposal was welcomed by the Board chair and also officials of the Adventist Church. The Board of Trustees voted to affirm the document by officially adopting it verbatim as a “curriculum proposal.”

According to Dr. Greer, “I intended the proposal to be a suggested compromise to finally put an end to the conflict over the teaching of evolution on our campus, by safeguarding the scientific integrity of our program, the affirmation of the official denominational position, and the University’s continuing accreditations."

Unfortunately, the Administration’s response to the independent proposal was not positive. “It seemed to me that President Randal Wisbey was upset that biology faculty, such as myself, had independently exercised our academic freedom by proposing a solution,” Dr. Greer said. In addition, three of the four Trustees who signed were removed because of their role in the Joint Proposal. The Administration insisted that the biology faculty sign a hastily-written, official apology memo over the release of the informal proposal. Because of the memo’s mischaracterizations and errors of fact, Dr. Greer refused to sign giving his reasons in summary—despite several warnings communicated to him that failure to sign would place his faculty position in jeopardy. Two months later during the Christmas break 2011, Dr. Greer was notified that his contract at LSU would not be renewed. Furthermore, he was informed that this “does not constitute a ‘for cause’ termination.”

Dr. Greer is convinced that the University terminated him because of the informal proposal. “Before this, things were going positively – the University often let me know how well I was performing. The provost thanked me by letter ‘for the many stellar things which you have done, and continue to do, to enhance the learning experiences of our students.’ The termination of my appointment really came out of the blue, especially since I had been assured shortly before Christmas that no problems were anticipated.” To many it is evident that the issue was neither Dr. Greer’s teaching, his research publications and presentations, nor his service on campus and beyond, including for the City of Riverside, and his widely-reported work on the Navajo Nation.

Kathryn Proffitt, a former LSU Trustee who individually endorsed Dr. Greer’s informal Joint Proposal, agrees with Dr. Greer’s assessment, “For a faculty member to take the initiative to suggest an approach-in-principle to resolve this long-standing controversy, which was acceptable to the Church, was extraordinary. Rather than losing his position, Professor Greer should have been commended. President Wisbey has done a great injustice to Dr. Greer."

Dr. Greer hoped for a fair, expeditious hearing and to return for the new school year in the Fall, after the facts had been revealed. On February 23rd, he filed a grievance which, if successful, would have led to his reinstatement. His expectations were ended when LSU’s lawyer sent a letter that in effect attempted to close the door on the grievance process for Dr. Greer.

This leaves Dr. Greer with little recourse other than filing an action against the University for violating his contract, which guaranteed him complete academic freedom to teach and publish without interference from the University. His attorney, Chris Heikaus Weaver, remains hopeful that such a move will be unnecessary, stating, “Dr. Greer was trying to incorporate creation into La Sierra’s science classrooms in a way that would respect the Church's beliefs, while maintaining scientific integrity. I have to believe that once the University’s Trustees understand this, they will reverse course and let Dr. Greer get back to the teaching and research he loves.”

A letter to 'Seventh-Gay Adventists' interviewees

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers. Galatians 6:7-10

Regardless of your position as individuals in the film "Seventh-Gay Adventists," I commend you for your honesty and boldness in sharing what has undoubtedly been a difficult walk for each of you. Without question God loves you. And as a child of God, I love you with His love also.

The fallout from the church’s silence on this biblical issue has been devastating. I was a victim of Satan’s lies and deceptions as well. There was no hope or help delivered from the church during my childhood, teenage years and adult life. Because of this silence I was propelled into a sensual abyss. I desperately wanted to be wanted, needed and loved. Yet in the midst of Christ’s believers, I was isolated, alienated and rejected. The loneliness was overwhelming and it took very little to tempt me with the feelings that resulted in “acceptance” by the gay community.

In the spring of 2009, I was struck with a contemplation one day that was inspired by the Holy Spirit without any question whatsoever. God spoke to me and asked me to consider the relationship that He had desired from me all along. Unquestionable clarity was revealed to me. It was not about me. I had had it all backwards. It is about Jesus Christ, my redeemer and creator and how to live according to His plan. Not mine. As I surrendered fully to Him, He revealed truth after truth and gave me strength to begin to continually abide and depend on Him. Each day He revealed more and more of His love to me. As I studied and prayed, I wondered how I could have missed what He had wanted to convey to me since childhood. Satan had deceived me with lies of being unwanted, unloved and unimportant. My day of rejoicing had arrived.

I gave myself to Jesus Christ and became a “New Creation” in Him (2 Corinthians 5:17). This requires dying to self daily. I didn’t have any idea that the church still seemed to be in the dark regarding how to reach out to those with same-sex attraction. We need to consider here that there has been a hundred and fifty year history of silence and ignorance. What we don’t talk about, grows like a bacteria in the dark. In fact during the silence, an entire culture and community of gays developed.

Emerging victorious in Jesus, I began to openly share the clarity revealed to me by God and His Word. Now if we don’t believe that God’s Word is inspired by Him, we are at great risk. We then might as well believe in anything. But God’s Word is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Matthew 24:3, Hebrews 13:8. If we don’t believe God’s Word, this is where the danger begins.

In the fall of 2009 I was invited to share my testimony at Andrews University during the conference on Marriage, Homosexuality and the Church. Daneen Akers and Stephen Ayers, (producers of "Seventh Gay Adventists") were present at the conference and their work had begun on the film. They heard my testimony and I had contacted them about the film, not realizing the intended angle. By January, it seemed apparent that they were not seeking any testimonies from same-sex attracted individuals who have been redeemed and are choosing to live sexually pure through Christ.

I wrote an article for the Adventist Review which appeared in the April 15, 2010 issue conveying my concern that the film would not represent those who have given their lives to Christ and live sexually pure. The film’s producers contacted me and the Review’s editor asking for a retraction to be printed. Since this film is about loving those who are same-sex attracted, my question is why haven’t they given a voice to those who also suffered so many years of alienation by the church, but have returned to worship God and interact with His family while living a sexually pure life?

So this brings us to the core of what the film is about: God’s approval or disapproval of homosexual sex. If you read His Word there is no question as to where God stands on this issue. I was recently contacted by a “Gay Christian” who pointed out to me that God loves him and his same-sex partner just the way they are, and that they are familiar with the nine “hate verses” regarding homosexuality in God’s Word. Our God is a God of love and He has not compiled “hate verses,” but has given instruction on sins that are displeasing to Him. Due to the fact that gays and homosexuals have not seen the reflection of God’s love in His people, one can begin to realize why more and more alienated souls have gathered together in their spiritual darkness and created their own truths and are seeking to manipulate God’s approval.

But God’s Word is clear about His desires. He asks that we cast all our burdens upon Him. He asks for our trust and our faith regardless of what our feelings are telling us. There are a lot of feelings that come naturally to people that wouldn’t meet God’s approval much less man’s approval. But for some reason, many are seeking to make an exception for this clearly defined sinful behavior.

With such strong feelings of desire, lust, love, etc., Bible-banging is not going to make any of those feelings less intense. So what actually brings a soul into living according to God’s will? We have got to see the reflection of the love of Jesus in those who claim to be His children. Leading a soul to Christ must be done gently and lovingly under the guidance and direction of the Holy Spirit.

John 8:32 says, “Then you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.” It doesn’t say your feelings will set you free. But if we are not personally and intimately connected to Christ, we are not likely going to be able to help a struggling soul engage with Him in the relationship He intended.

Jesus loves each and every one of us as His own precious child. A child for whom He shed blood and died for while we were still sinning (Romans 5:8). What are we willing to give up for Jesus? Every mention of homosexuality in God’s Word is in a negative connotation. There is no sanctified instruction from God for homosexual unions as there are for unions between a man and a woman. Why would one even venture to take over for God? Doesn’t this sound much like Lucifer saying that he knows better, or has a better plan? Do you see the terminal risk involved? Jeremiah 17:9 says “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” We cannot afford to trust our feelings, especially under the duress and deception of Satan.

Sin is natural. We were all born with it. Choosing Christ is unnatural. It is everything that Satan claims is impossible. We are at the end of this great controversy between Christ and Satan. We are exactly where Christ has told Satan there will be a people who will remain steadfast in truth and trust regardless what they feel. “I waited patiently for the Lord; And He inclined to me, And heard my cry. He also brought me up out of a horrible pit, Out of the miry clay, And set my feet upon a rock, And established my steps. He has put a new song in my mouth— Praise to our God; Many will see it and fear, And will trust in the Lord” (Psalm 40: 1-3).

Without self-denial and without a love-relationship with Jesus stemming from humility, we will fail to see His plan for us.

Dear precious children of God, this is not a constructed prayer that begs for the same-sex attracted person to miraculously become straight. This is a humbling of ourselves before our Creator and asking Him to help us fall more in love with Him each day. Thy will, not my will. Lay your heart in His hands. Surrender completely to Him and let Him make you a “New Creation” in Him. Allow the change to be one that draws you to holiness. Then listen as He guides and directs you. Yes… it’s possible. He may want you to live a celibate life for Him, whether you are attracted to the opposite sex or the same sex. But let Him decide what He wants for you that is in accordance with His Word. Insisting that we know better than Him will only align us with the enemy.

Is it painful? Sometimes. Sometimes my carnal nature just wants to be next to warm flesh that says I love you. But Jesus would rather that I know He loves me. His love, and my trust in that love, brings eternal life and a relationship that will grow forever and ever. Shaping my relationships around what currently feels or seems good, ends here. God is seeking those… those precious few who will make Him their God and obey Him out of love. These are the ones He wants to spend eternity with. Do you see the difference? Can you see how always putting self first is too dangerous for God to allow?

I want you to know with all my heart, that with Christ all things are possible to them that love Him (Philippians 4:13), all things that are according to His plan, not ours. Job endured horrendous trials and mental pain. As we have been given Job as an example, how can we seek our own pleasure in this modern age? How can we not come to God and say, "Lord, I am yours; do with me as you will. Make me a servant of yours?” If that sounds impossible to you, think about it. Pray about it. Invite Him to take control of your life. He’ll do it! I promise! There isn’t anything that He won’t do for you that is better than what you can possibly imagine for yourself. But be careful not to play God. Be careful not to listen to the power of suggestion rather than the love and truth of Jesus.

Experience this: "you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light” (1 Peter 2:9). He deeply desires a one-on-one intimate relationship with you. He died to save you. He knew you and chose you … before you were born.

I am passionate about God’s love and redemption regardless of the sin. I want to ask you, whoever might be reading, whether you have been in the church your whole life or if you have shaped your life around your own truths and feelings, to consider this, forgive and seek forgiveness. Everyone of us are ignorant. We have much to learn. Let’s heal together. Not a single person on this earth can claim perfection in and of their own. Jesus offers us His righteousness if we will accept it. It is a lifelong transforming process. But He asks us to model ourselves after Him. Live as He lived. Resist temptation. Surrender. Abide in Him.

As for the film “Seventh Gay Adventists,” ask God to put love in your heart that will draw all sinners to Him, not condone their sin. Be careful not to put your own salvation at risk by sympathizing with the sin rather than the sinner. Love deeply with the love of Jesus. Love is a two-way relationship. Because of our love for Christ, He will grow us and we will want to obey His commands. He is righteous and He is just. He is the Almighty.

If you are a pastor, leader or teacher and you are interested in presentations that exemplify the changing love of our beautiful Savior through those He has redeemed, please do not hesitate to contact me. Four ministries under the umbrella, "Coming Out Ministries," are available to come to wherever you are. We give weekend presentations, week of prayer, and college presentations that bring to light the changing power of God.

This article originally appeared at Know His Love as "Seventh Gay Adventists--Movie vs God's reality." It is reprinted by permission of the author.

Southern Calif. Conference votes for women's ordination

A Southern California Conference (SCC) survey shows significant support for women's ordination from pastors, executive committee members and lay members of the region committees. However, only 45 percent responded to the survey, and of the 71 pastors who responded, 66 percent thought women's ordination was a cultural issue. The SCC voted May 1, 2012, to support ordination of women to gospel ministry and to encourage the Pacific Union Conference Executive Committee to implement its action after receiving the reports from the surveys.

SCC Women's Ordination Survey

2SCC Votes to Support Ordination of Women

'Seventh-Gay Adventists' film an emotional appeal, not a biblical one

Seventh-Gay Adventists, a documentary film advocating for the acceptance of gays and lesbians in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, asks Adventists to think twice about what it means to love their neighbor. The independent film follows three gay and lesbian individuals, as they attempt to reconcile their Adventist identity with their sexuality. David, Marcos and Sherri express their struggles with coming out in an Adventist community, yet attempting to remain in it. All of them relate that at one time they had tried to become straight, but with no success. David tried for five years, eventually leaving fellowship with the Adventist church and finding a non-denominational church with his new partner Colin.

Marcos also leaves the church after being fired as a minister for cheating on his wife with another man. He eventually finds and begins attending Second Wind, a church created by Greg & Shasta Nelson. Later in the film the church closes for financial reasons, and seizing the opportunity, Marcos realizes his dream of being a pastor again and begins his own church.

Sherri and Jill’s story is different because they continue to fellowship with a Seventh-day Adventist church. They tell of the mixed reactions they received from members, but that over all, the church has been very accepting, even allowing Jill to head up the new Adventurer club, which no one was willing to lead out in. There is some initial apprehension when their current pastor Loren Seibold leaves, because they are unsure how the new pastor will treat them. Their eldest daughter is baptised by the new pastor later in the film.

Producers and married couple Daneen Akers and Stephen Eyer do a masterful job at provoking an emotional sympathy for the struggles and pain each couple experienced at the hand of individuals and leaders within the church.

“The ultimate question we wanted to ask is how do we treat each other,” Eyer says. “We wanted to begin a conversation that would break stereotypes, and allow gays to tell their story, and not just have a film talking about gays.”

Akers and Eyer originally had planned to do an issues film, inspired by the political buzz generated by Proposition 8 in California. The proposition says only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. They initially were angry with Proposition 8, but after delving into the personal stories they were following, they decided to tone the film down and focus exclusively on the individuals.

“We wanted to start a thoughtful conversation through story,” says Akers.

The couple spent three years following the lives of about 12 individuals, eventually narrowing it down to the three seen in the film.

Stories are a powerful form of propaganda. The film tells stories in a very non-confrontational style, but the message is loud and clear. With the exception of a few intimate scenes of the couples kissing and a protracted scene of David receiving a backrub from Colin without his shirt, there’s not much to take offense at. The film shows the very mundane activities of each couple. The stereotypes of gay and lesbians as uncommitted, promiscuous sex fiends are absent.

While the film did produce some food for thought, the manner in which the subject is presented is biased against the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s understanding of the biblical view on homosexual behavior. The film is deceptive and artful in its normative presentation of homosexual behavior. It presents homosexual behavior in the most benign way with little regard for the plain texts in the Bible, which prohibit it.

The premise of the film shows you can be gay and Adventist. However, it is impossible to reconcile homosexual behavior with being a Seventh-day Adventist Christian, and here is where the film completely misses the boat. Christians cannot identify with sin while calling themselves Christian. Paul said in 2 Corinthians 5:17, “Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come” (NASB). A gay Adventist is an oxymoron. When we’ve died to self and become a new creature in Christ, we will no longer identify ourselves with the sins of our past. Yet the film attempts to place sexual identity and the desire to be with someone over the Bible and our need to place God’s will before our own. It’s not a film about dying to self and coming into a loving and obedient relationship with Jesus, it’s about taking any measures to please and appease self.

Consider Akers, a fifth generation Adventist, who hasn’t attended an official Adventist church in years. Due to their work on this film, Akers and Eyers have found it difficult to find a church to attend, according to Akers. While she and her husband appear to identify themselves with the Seventh-day Adventist Church, they are opposed to the church theologically regarding homosexuality, which puts them at a disadvantage in the conversation about the intersect of Adventism and homosexuality.*

“Ultimately it’s a question of hermeneutics--how do we interpret the Bible,” Akers said during the Palm Springs screening.

She couldn’t be more correct, but the film doesn’t address what the Bible says with any depth, relying exclusively on emotion appeal.

And the lack of representation from individuals who have overcome homosexual behavior is concerning.

“Initially Daneen [Akers] told me I was the person they were considering to represent those who had been living the gay lifestyle and were now celibate,” Wayne Blakely of Know His Love Ministry said. Blakely is also participating in a merger of ministries dealing with homosexuality called Coming Out.

Blakely said he and his colleagues offered Akers and Eyer their stories of freedom, but the producers didn’t want anything to do with them.

“If [Eyer and Akers] are calling for a reconciliation, is it a reconciliation to God or to the world?” said Blakely. “God's word is not a message of hate, but a message of love. Some Christians are accused of being homophobic, because they’re not placing their stamp of approval on someone's lifestyle. You say you're unable to love your child without condoning their behavior? My parents’ loved me while I was living a gay lifestyle, but they never stopped praying for me and they never condoned my lifestyle.”

Blakely is concerned the film doesn’t give any representation to those who have started a new life in Jesus, and who have overcome homosexuality through the power of Jesus’ healing and restoring grace. This doesn’t mean anyone has labels of gay or straight; it means they are a new creature in Jesus, denying self, ready to be obedient to what a loving God asks in His word.

In response to this lack of representation, Akers said: “A film is really an exploration of a question, and our questions were: how does someone reconcile being both Adventist and gay, and is there a home in the Adventist church for those who are on the margins? The story of celibate gays also deserve attention, as all of our stories do, but it's a very different story because celibate gays live within the church's prescribed standards. That just wasn't the intersection we ultimately wanted to explore because that's not where the real identity challenge is.... We didn't connect with anyone who seemed appropriate to profile in depth with the rigor that participating in a film like this requires.”

It doesn’t appear the producers were interested in how Blakely and others had overcome their sin, but were more interested in promoting stories that nicely condone homosexual behavior in the church, while at the same time desensitizing people to the serious nature of sin. The film pushes a homosexual-behavior-is-acceptable agenda, and doesn’t give a gay person any resources or hope for overcoming sin.

There is no doubt the church has not always dealt with the issue of homosexuality in a loving manner. The church needs to ask forgiveness, and those who have been wronged need to forgive, even if not asked.

Too often “love the sinner but hate the sin” is repeated, but without any knowledge of how this plays out practically. What does it look like to love a brother or sister in Christ who chooses to participate in homosexual behavior and yet hate the sin? It’s a challenge all Christians ask who have friends or family choosing a gay lifestyle.

What’s dangerous about this film is its treatment of homosexuality. Unlike other sins that are universally recognized as such, homosexual behavior is no longer being considered a sin by an increasing number in the church. That poses a problem for the church. The church has not educated its membership adequately, and hopefully this film will stir the laity and church leaders to be more proactive in teaching what the Bible says about how we should love each other and what appropriate boundaries should be made both in the church and in personal relationships with people who choose to live in sin.

Unfortunately, this film will do more to desensitize members to sin than anything else, and if the church remains complacent about the film’s influence, it will also hold some responsibility for the souls it did not educate or help. Even if the producers are misguided, at least they are speaking. We are to be hot or cold, not somewhere in the politically-correct middle.

* UPDATE 5/7/12 Clarification as to why Akers and Eyer no longer regularly fellowship at a Seventh-day Adventist Church.

The blessed hope; what sustains it?

A strong expectation of the end of time can make the continued passage of time an embarrassment. Even worse, it can lead to giving up on the expectation. Embarrassed Adventists and disillusioned Adventists are not an unknown species. How then are we to sustain expectation in the face of apparent delay? This question has pressed itself upon me over the last few years, coming at me in bits and pieces and at the oddest of times--not a sustained reflection, but more an existential reflection that has arisen out of the experiences and questions of daily life. That is how I would characterize my end of the world pondering.

At the same time I must admit that my scattered reflections have been possessed of an undergirding concern. It has seemed to me that just when we should be anticipating more than ever long awaited events, then either distraction or lethargy seizes us. Many times I have said to my wife, and only those who are readers of Lewis' Narnia books will understand this, “It is time for Puddleglum to stick his feet into the fire.” If there were ever a time when we cannot afford to be caught spiritually napping, certainly it is now.

But I must make clear that this is not to give expression to an overweening personal concern. It should not be primarily a self-concern which fuels a desire to stay awake, but rather a concern for the glory and truth of God and for the salvation of those who do not yet know Him. Indeed self-concern is only proper when it is a concern to not fail of engagement with these larger realities, which are the true and proper concerns of humans anyhow.

But back to our question: how do we sustain expectation, when what we have been expecting seems so long in coming? In the light of this question a new thought came to me, out of the blue, as I drove home from the woodshop to eat my lunch. My thought had to do with the way we think about time, especially the time of His coming.

The End of Time or the Time of the End?

We cannot think of the coming of Jesus in terms of a specific point in time. He himself told us this when he said, “No man knows the day, nor the hour.” Jesus’ statement makes this particular waiting unique in the annals of salvation. The faithful in Noah's time knew not only that an end was approaching, but they also knew the time of that end. One hundred and twenty years had been granted and signified in the very year of fulfillment by the death of Methuselah. Abraham was told the year that his descendants would be delivered from bondage. The exiles were told by Jeremiah the number of years their captivity would continue. And finally, Daniel was given insight as to the very year that Messiah would accomplish his greatest work, the work of blood atonement. In all these cases men and women could point to a specific time. Specificity had been given them. The “day and hour” were known.

But the last great prophecy is different. The long stretch of the 2300 days does not bring us to the end of time, but only to the time of the end. And that is why we must think of time differently. But how then are we to think of it? What is involved in knowing that we are in the “time of the end” that makes it different from knowing the “end of time”?

The answer to that question, I have come to believe, is this: Knowing the “end of time” would focus our attention upon a specific point in time and the event which will take place at that point, namely the second coming of our Lord. But not knowing that point and knowing only that we are in the “time of the end” focuses our attention on essential developments which will culminate in that end.

I can still remember Jon Paulien in seminary class emphasizing the apparent oddity of Satan going “off” to make war. The Greek word that we translate “off” literally means “he left,” “he departed” (Revelation 12:17). So we have the idea, “Satan went away—he departed—so as to make war.” What seems to be pictured is a strategic retreat, a retreat for the purpose of re-grouping and re-launching the offensive anew. It has been my growing conviction for some time now that the Enlightenment was the start of this new offensive, Satan's counterattack to the Reformation.

That Satan should be checked and have to begin again along a new line is nothing new. God has checked him before. Only this time God has revealed to us that this will be the last time. This is the last time that Satan will rearm himself. This is the last time he will engage in a new offensive. The deceptions and distortions launched by the thinkers of the Enlightenment will not be replaced by yet another system. They will only come more and more to fruition. And this insight gives focus and shape to our “waiting.” We do not wait blindly for a mere point in time. We wait and watch the development of an identifiable system of thought, which as it grows into full fruition signals the approaching end. Even unbelievers have recognized this truth. The erudite and learned George Steiner, who surveys the philosophical and artistic state of western civilization in his book, Grammars of Creation, makes the startling statement, “There are no new beginnings.”

And so watching the development of the outlook and the way of life rooted in the Enlightenment is somewhat like watching a drop of water on a leaf. Swelling with the falling mist it moves recognizably towards the point when it will burst and break away. You know this will happen, and the more it swells the closer you know that moment to be, even though you do not know the exact moment it will occur. And so we see the fullness accumulating, though we know not the time of its end.

But then again, this waiting period is not one-sided. God has also engaged. In 1844 He initiated the divine movements that would culminate in final victory, sifting, testing, judging, lifting up truths essential for the times, calling people out, calling them to move higher, to find the true foundations, to give witness to the true pattern and to grow in it themselves.

And we as Adventist have been privileged to be a part of this waiting period, to have been at the front of this movement. But I sometimes fear that we have been content with merely mapping events, giving shape to an eschatology identifiably Adventist, and patting ourselves on the back that we have it all figured out. In such a scheme events can only be waited for, engendering a kind of passivity, centered in self-concern, spiced at times with wide-eyed apocalyptic fervor.

With this attitude we should not be satisfied. We must dig deeper. We should go back again and again to the books of Daniel and Revelation, not so much to map out events, as to be made vitally aware of the spiritual issues which are at the root of present conflicts. Satan is working through his agents to redefine the whole playing field of life—spiritually, intellectually, culturally—to bring men and women to the point where biblical faith is no longer accessible to them. And against these movements we can and must engage or be swept away ourselves in the growing flood.

Disappointed with delay? Distracted by the seeming inattention of God—the silence—as the world increasingly slides into a moral pit? We should shift our focus. That which began in the Enlightenment on one side, and in 1844 on the other continues to develop apace and in every new development we may find, not only the confirmation of His soon coming, but also the call to engagement for the sake of a world that is fast losing its grip on the truth. There is no time to think of delay and to collapse into distraction and disappointment. Even now all things move towards the climax.