Child TV star Angus T. Jones is baptized into SDA Church

Actor Angus T. Jones, best known for his role as “Jake Harper” on the hit television show “Two and a Half Men,” has become a Seventh-day Adventist. Jones plays the son of “Alan Harper” (played by actor Jon Cryer) and the nephew of “Charlie Harper” (played by Charlie Sheen before he left the show and was replaced by Ashton Kutcher). Jones was born in Austin, Texas. His family moved to California when he was four years old, when his father took a job working for a relative who lived about an hour west of Los Angeles. Jones' parents decided to see if he could become a child actor, and he met with rare early success, appearing in several television commercials. At the age of eight, Jones auditioned for “Two and a Half Men,” a show created by producer and “show runner” Chuck Lorre. After three meetings, the last of which was a reading with Sheen, Jones was given the role. The show became a ratings winner, and has run for ten seasons (notwithstanding that star Charlie Sheen was fired during the eighth season after making disparaging personal comments about Lorre).

Jones attended a Christian school when not on the set; when he was shooting, studio tutors kept him up to date with the classwork at his school. Midway through his senior year in high school, Jones began to be strongly drawn to God. During a conversation with a school friend, Jones felt what he later described as a “baptism of the Holy Spirit;” he felt that God was using his friend to prompt him to change his life and take his religion seriously. Jones visited a variety of Sunday churches, often several in one day, but did not find one that seemed a good fit for him.

Through a friend who “could never go out with us on Friday Night,” Jones learned of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and began attending the Valley Crossroads Church, a predominantly black SDA church in Pacoima, in the northeastern San Fernando Valley of suburban Los Angeles. The first time he attended, the pastor's message spoke to him personally in a powerful way. After attending Valley Crossroads for several weeks, Jones was approached by the church's Bible worker, Nelson Jones, and asked if he wanted to study the Bible. Angus was impressed by what he was shown and eventually made a decision to be baptized. He was baptized on the Friday evening before he graduated from high school, with several relatives and family members present. He continues to learn and grow in the faith, and currently attends meetings on Monday and Thursday nights.

Jones' interview with Connie Vandeman Jeffery at the Adventist Channel can be seen here:

Jones has also given an interview to Christianity Today, which can be read here:

Although baptizing a celebrity presents the Seventh-day Adventist Church with opportunities for publicity, in this instance it has caused our Church more headaches than benefits. Unfortunately, Jones gave a video interview--subsequently uploaded to YouTube--to an independent interviewer, not affiliated with the official church, who holds a number of eccentric and conspiracy-oriented views. Tabloids and celebrity gossip sites in the United States and even Great Britain have wrongly characterized the interviewer as Jones' “spiritual advisor” and, worse, have attributed the interviewer's eccentric personal views to the larger Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Jones' public testimony has created a professional conflict in his own life, as well. “Two and a Half Men” glorifies the Charlie Sheen character's playboy lifestyle, depicting him in numerous casual encounters with numerous women--obviously, the show did not call for Sheen to play anyone other than himself--while depicting the Jon Cryer character, who pines for the ex-wife who divorced him, as a hapless loser. In the interview uploaded to YouTube, Jones called the show “filth” and urged viewers of the interview not to watch the show. Naturally, a highly-paid actor (Jones reportedly earns upward of $300,000 per episode) telling people not to watch his show created a buzz on celebrity gossip and showbiz sites. On November 27th, Jones' publicist issued a statement that affirmed Jones' gratefulness to the producers, writers, cast and crew of the show, but pointedly did not retract Jones' stated view that the show is not appropriate viewing for a Christian believer:

“I am grateful to and have the highest regard and respect for all of the wonderful people on Two and Half Men with whom I have worked over the past ten years and who have become an extension of my family. . . . I apologize if my remarks reflect me showing indifference to and disrespect of my colleagues and a lack of appreciation of the extraordinary opportunity of which I have been blessed. I never intended that.”

The problems created by one rogue interview demonstrate how careful and discreet the church needs to be with regard to celebrity members. It would have been good idea to assign Jones a church publicist shortly after his baptism to advise him on public statements and interviews. Such a procedure might have spared Jones and the Church the considerable embarrassment the bad interview has caused both. It is to be hoped that this incident will prompt the church to develop a policy for future such situations, even though they will be very rare.

The falling mantle: from Anabaptist to Advent believer

My mantle was a black, broad-brimmed hat and pants that buttoned

And then a new mantle fell. It was called

"the Advent Movement."

American religious history is filled with churches you’ll never find on 5th Avenue or, for that matter, on main street in Paducah, Kentucky. Hundreds are listed in any comprehensive handbook of denominations. Just for a sampling, you’ll encounter such oddities as the Dunkards and Shakers, the Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists, Hephzibah Faith Missionary Association, Fire Baptized Holiness Church of God of the Americas, and, if that isn’t enough, the Old German Baptist Brethren.

That was my church, as it had been for seven generations of my family.

It’s not anymore, and that’s the reason for this story.

Most of you’ve probably never heard of an Old German Baptist congregation and surely have not attended one--though recently Perspective Digest printed an Adventist pastor’s report of visiting one in Washington State. Old German Baptists originated in Schwarzenau, Germany, in 1708. A blend of Mennonite, Anabaptist, and Pietism, they moved to American in 1729, where they found freedom to worship God in peace. Today they number only about 5,200, and are generally viewed as either Amish or Mennonites. Think of them as Amish in Chrysler Minivans.

Certainly nothing in my childhood motivated me to leave my church. Boyhood memories overflow with scenes of sincere worship and fellowship. That 80 percent of German Baptist youth remain in the church is testimony to the attraction of the German Brethren way of life. My people have ever valued hard work; thus the skill to start one’s own business is treasured more than an academic degree. So it was with me. I had 25 years of construction experience under my belt when I turned 40 last year. I also had a solid, TV-free education in the ABCs and enough of the rest of the alphabet to know the difference between good and evil.

Elijah’s Mantle

As you might expect of a church with direct ties to the Anabaptist Reformers, membership doesn’t come like royal birth; you make the choice for believer’s baptism when you’re ready, not before. For me, this choice came in 1984, two years after marriage. I was baptized in the chilly spring that flowed through my Uncle Carl’s farm in Covington, Ohio. I witnessed no heavenly phenomenon as I brushed the water from my eyes--just the quiet realization that I was carrying the torch for another generation. My fellow members expected this of me, and I determined to fulfill my twentieth-century Anabaptist role as best I could.

An ancient story stoked my determination. In my mind’s eye I saw Elijah and Elisha cross the Jordan. They stood for a moment, the hand of the elder resting gently on the shoulder of the younger. A request is made, a conditional promise given, and they move on. Then, a celestial chariot swoops down, and Elijah steps on board. Behind he leaves only the emblem of a fulfilled promise. Nothing on earth is so precious to Elijah as that old piece of cloth. . . that old piece of Elijah’s mantle. Twelve years ago the Lord led me back to this story and left me with the conviction that I too had been given a mantle. My mantle was a black broad-brimmed hat and pants that buttoned. (No genuine mantle would have a zipper.) And it came with a question every believer must answer: Did your mantle fall from heaven or from men?  Little did I know at that moment the answer I must give....

My Better Half

My wife’s name is Nancy [Nancy Riley]. (She has no middle name, Roland. There were 12-children and they evidently ran out..). She grew up in Scottville, Michigan, with her eleven siblings in a barn converted into a house. Like me, she completed a total of eleven grades of education. Unfortunately she received her diploma through a GED program 2-years ago. Now she’s a lot smarter than me, a little fact that comes up occasionally.

How did we meet? At church of course. Nancy and I saw each other across crowded rooms from 1977-1980. Instantly we knew. That it was too crowded-I mean. We finally met after church one night in Maple Grove, Ohio (October 25, 1981). I was 21 years old, and Nancy was 18. My older sister was so excited that we were finally meeting, that she stood faithfully by my side and answered every question that Nancy asked me. My sister  meant well. As Nancy and I stood outside under the shadow of those beautiful fall-colored maple trees for which the place was named, the trees were almost ugly by comparison.

As a baptized member of the church, Nancy wore a dress made according to pattern. Her modest dresses differed only in pattern and color from that of other German Baptist women. She also wore a lace "prayer covering" --symbolic of the head covering (veil) Paul advocates in his letter to Corinth. She was now living in Ohio with close friends of her family. Unable to erase the memory of her from my mind, I phoned her two nights later. She said yes.

Our first date consisted of attending a baptizing together. I picked her up and we went to church that night, joining 150 other German Baptists to witness the immersion of four young people into the church. I had attended a hundred of these events throughout my childhood, but this was a magic evening. Not yet a member of the church, I was already feeling the clarion call to commit my life to the way of my fathers. I knew that I would walk down into that water someday soon. What was I waiting on? I was waiting until I was completely ready, because I wanted to give the Lord my all. However, I must confess that the young woman at my side consumed most of my attention that evening.

Our second date (courtship) consisted in going to church together again at a communion time for the Stillwater congregation of German Baptists (near Dayton Ohio). People had journeyed a few hundred miles to convene in this annual communion service. Nancy and I were excited to be together again. After seven months of dating (on Mother’s day 1982), I asked Nancy another question. She said yes, and we were married in the fall of 1982-almost a year after we began being sweethearts.

We were united on October 2, 1982 in Brookville, Ohio. It is not the custom of my people to conduct weddings inside their church buildings--thus we were married in a community center owned by my Uncle Glen Miller. Another uncle of mine performed the ceremony--the same one in whose creek I was baptized (Carl Bowman). He did a good job--like always.

Probably 200 guests were present. Decorations were very modest (maybe a few flowers and some candles). Nancy wore a white dress made in the uniform pattern of the church and I (because I wasn’t yet a member of the church) wore a rented tuxedo. Pretty snazzy stuff.

Normally, a member of the church is not encouraged to marry a non-member, but in this case, people knew that it was just a matter of time before I made my commitment to God. The Lord soon gave us two sons, Dylan and Nathan. They are 16 and 13 as I write this.

By late 1986, I had been a baptized member of the Old German Baptist Brethren church for almost three years. It was a good life; I felt comfortable in the approval of my peers.

In October of 1986 Nan served me our usual breakfast of bacon and eggs. I drank my usual cup of orange juice, carried my breakfast dishes as usual, kissed Nancy on the cheek as usual, and headed out to my business workshop--again, as usual. Little did I know that the Lord was planning something most unusual for me. He was about to deliver a mantle, a mantle that constituted a potentially life-changing question--Had it come from God or from man?

Nights of the Burning Heart

Next month (November), Nancy and I shared a Saturday evening meal in the home of a business partner (Eric and Shirley Rich, the couple who Nancy had lived with here in Ohio). As we ate, Eric showed me a colorful brochure that had been put into his mailbox advertising something called a Daniel and Revelation seminar. Eric and I discussed it at length, and we finally decided to attend the opening meeting that very night. Knowing the suspicion with which our church colleagues regarded anything our church had not originated, we didn’t advertise our decision and determined that if it wasn’t "good," we wouldn’t go back. Though I can’t speak for the rest of the audience that night, I can tell you that two German Baptist listeners were bit between the ears with something powerful, something not of this earth! There was indeed a revelation of Jesus Christ, and I found myself irresistibly drawn to him.

On the following Monday night Eric and I gathered up our families and returned. Early! Got a good seat. Night after night the Holy Spirit opened my mind to hitherto unseen Bible truths. Like the disciples of old on the Emmaus Road, we said to each other, "Did not our hearts burn within us as he opened the Scriptures to us?" I attended all twenty-one of the remaining meetings, even after circumstances prevented Eric from returning. By the close of the seminar I had learned three compelling truths:

The Bible is held together by extraordinary power. That power is a Person. That person is Jesus, the Christ!

A Complete Nitwit

The evangelist preacher was Dr. Pieter Barkhuizen. A powerful preacher from South Africa, he was the Ohio Conference Evangelist for a while. About 45 years old, he and his wife Yvonne made a good team for truth. To these great foundational truths, Pieter had added others: the conditional immortality of the soul, the impending judgment all must face, the everlasting gospel, the Sabbath rest, and the panoramic view of redemptive history (Great Controversy). These wonderful revelations were like water from a deep well, all pointing to Jesus and his unbelievable love. Now I had a problem! Where had these truths been for seven generations? "Where were you, Jesus? Why have these plain truths been hidden from me?" I was shaken to the core. Revelation seminar indeed!

I did the only thing I could think of. I got out my Bible and began to study it carefully. Maybe I’d missed something. Seven generations can’t be wrong! So I resolved to disprove this new message. During the next two years of intensive study, I learned that if a pillar of faith topples, it is a false pillar, without biblical foundation.

At the end of two years of research, I had earned the suspicion of my wife, who silently observed her well-respected husband confirm a message he had sought to refute. Her fears were realized: I was about to go from well-respected husband and church member to complete nitwit in the eyes of my family and erstwhile friends. Had I mistaken the strictures of conviction that bound me for a mantle? I was sorely torn between the pull of my heritage and the power of the Advent message. One night in the spring of 1988, I fell to my knees and prayed with the intensity of one faced with loss of home and heritage. "Father, please help me! You alone know and understand the struggle within me. Take it out of my hands. May your will be done."

That did it. When morning broke, a startling series of events revealed the guidance of a heavenly hand. God had heard. Now he was guiding. I had passed through my Gethsemane. My feet were directed step by step in the path of the Advent movement. And, believe me, not one step went unreported! Rumors spread from Ohio to California and back again, embellished several times over. In two weeks I became a social and spiritual pariah. Through it all I clung to the revelation of Jesus Christ that had challenged and then transformed my heart. I recall thinking that it should really bother me to walk away from the heritage of my forefathers, but it hadn’t. Nothing mattered to me but doing the will of my heavenly Father. Nothing. The Advent mantle had fallen in my path. I picked it up and made it mine. Jesus is coming soon, and I wanted to be ready!

Walking Together

Walking away from seven centuries of tradition--particularly in such a close-knit distinctive body as that of the Old German Baptist Brethren--is never easy nor casually done. But for me it was the only road to peace. I surrendered to God in late 1988, and the peace he brought still warms my heart. On January 7th of 1989, I was baptized into the Advent Movement without Nancy’s support. Only a husband or wife can know the trauma and tension when only one is baptized into a new faith, particularly when one continues to live with neighbors of the old tradition. You can imagine my joy when, on August 19, 1989, Nancy ended her own spiritual struggle and joined me in the fellowship of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Once again, no divine presence appeared over the Wagoner household to signal God’s approval to the community. Nor did a heavenly being make itself visible in our kitchen or workshop. However, the Scriptures I had loved as a boy blossomed into living truths, foremost that one who said, "I am the way and the truth and the life" (John 14:6 NW). And that presence is indeed a heavenly phenomenon.

Reflections

Now, as a defender of the Advent heritage, I find myself asking whether Adventists can learn anything from the descendants of the Anabaptists. You bet!  Let’s start with............

Simplicity

Funny how modesty and simplicity often keep company. Take clothing, for example. My wife and I occasionally find ourselves missing the simplicity of our Anabaptist days. We share a longing sharpened by the world’s fascination with seduction. We see attire (or the lack of it) in Adventist pews--seductive attire-that would not have made it up the aisle of our former church. There. Got that off my chest! Simplicity has other dimensions, like never feeling any pressure to keep up with the proverbial Joneses. We can cultivate a virtue treasured by my family from my boyhood--the virtue of gratefulness stripped of material competition. (However, I do suspect that some of my grandfather’s friends may have occasionally coveted their neighbor’s new buggy or horse-drawn plow. On this point, the Lord may have some sanctification to develop in both pastures.)

Manual skills

Good craftsmanship is a receding shoreline in America. I know this as a contractor. People are slowly losing the desire and ability to work skillfully with their hands. The Anabaptists have moved into this vacuum, surprised at first to learn that the skills they take for granted are highly prized. My Amish cousin Abe once hung his head when he showed me a beautiful handmade bureau chest he had made for a daughter. "I’m not really a craftsman like the man down the road," he apologized. I almost laughed out loud. In New York City they would fight each other for a chance to own one of his oak and walnut bureaus. No cheap plastic in this masterpiece.

Sure, it could be argued that Amish technology is sub par; after all, they use air saws and hand tools to get the job done. But in this setting, skill is an easy master over the electrical cord. Hands can be trained, as were the Lord’s in his youth. Most Anabaptist daughters are taught at minimum the invaluable skills of cooking and sewing, well fitting them to be homemakers.

Historically, Adventists have placed a premium upon academics linked to vocational skills. I’ve learned that until a few decades ago, one could not graduate from an Adventist college without having acquired aptitude in some vocation. Perhaps it was inevitable that in an increasingly urban-oriented age exploding with new discoveries, that church members would gravitate to population centers. I’m happy, of course, for the Adventist church’s medical ministry, though teaching how to live and alter lifestyles, emphasized in the early sanitariums, seems to have been substantially diminished in America. As for education, I’m all for it, when it’s the right kind. Some types close more doors than they open. Somehow, I think I’d be even happier if Adventist youth were being taught quality manual skills. This was good enough for the Lord, it should be good enough for his church. May he grant each of us a degree in wisdom.

Family Togetherness.

I read much today about parents spending quality time with their children. The term seems to excuse a minimum of time with them if one shouts love instead of whispering it. Quality time doesn’t come during a 70-mile-per-hour day; it comes in quiet times when time itself slows down and love blossoms. It begins when we learn it’s okay to say no for the sake of the family. We need to ask whether it’s really necessary for both father and mother to work. Or is it made necessary only by our desire for the things of a world that is passing away? Most Anabaptists have avoided this pitfall. They also take the marriage vow seriously and look for ways to strengthen the union rather than for loopholes to put asunder what the Lord has joined. I’m grateful for their example.

I must also reflect for a moment on the harmonious alliance between the genders of my former people. Men and women gratefully accept their own roles and live in peace. The lines are clear and without friction between them. I am grateful for this example too.

Entertainment

Most Anabaptists grow up without a television set, as Nancy and I did. After we became Adventists, we tried havine a TV for two months, the time it took for us to see what television is made of and that it "ain’t gittin any better" (as Grandma would say). So we threw the set out, along with its sinister influence. When people ask why we don’t have one, we just say, "We can’t afford it." And that surely is true.

Another reason: We are having too much fun without one. We have a woodworking shop out behind the house, where the whole family can get excited about a project. We have a designated welding area also. We also have a dirt bike track back in the woods, where you could often find Dylan-16, Nathan-13, and me. We have a softball field in our four-acre yard. We’re just too busy for Hollywood. Yes, we’ve got enough money for a TV. But, as I said, we just can’t afford it. I hope you can’t either.

Wearing the Mantle

Isn’t there something the Anabaptists can learn from us? Yes. Much! So much. Just look at the precious truths that the Lord has given us, truths that were lost sight of throughout the Middle Ages. Truths that were trampled during the long age of apostasy and persecution. The Anabaptists, their tree planted firmly on the Reformation waterside, often paid the supreme price as they sought to pass on the doctrine of Believer’s baptism. But like the other Reformers, they laid down their spiritual weapons too early, and spent their remaining energy holding onto the truths they had rather than continuing their search. Thus it remained for the Lord to raise up a small band in the 1800s who were willing to challenge the world with the news that Jesus is coming again.

Today my Anabaptist friends desperately need many of the Scriptural insights that we Adventists have. Too few have a desire to look deeper into Bible teachings. Too often they simply set their feet in the path to truths grandpa walked. “If it was good enough for Grandpa ........". Knowing the power of the truth that laid hold of me, I am persuaded that many of my former brethren will stand with me when they discover what I discovered in the Scriptures--not simply academic truths intellectually presented and absorbed. Rather, the truth as it is in Jesus. Powerful! Living! Convicting!

Look! There’s a mantle on the ground in front of you. Old. Worn. Threadbare. Lacking the luster of discovery. A mantle that symbolizes how some who have been long in the way--years, decades, centuries--regard truth. Yes, them, descendants of the Anabaptists. But also us, descendants of the Adventist pioneers.

No parent can put that mantle on our shoulders. No grandparent. It doesn’t work that way. It works the way it did with me. A Bible in hand. Knees bent in prayer. Conviction pressed home on the heart by the Holy Spirit.

There’s a mantle in front of you! Pick it up, my friend. Look at it. Ask yourself: Did your mantle fall from heaven or from men?

A musician’s perspective on contemporary christian music

It is not my purpose in this article to cast moral judgment on contemporary Christian music. What I hope to show, rather, is a musician’s perspective on how a trend toward contemporary Christian music affects a church and its worship service. The last two times I’ve been to Loma Linda University Church, the worship service has been led by younger people, and all of the songs that they chose would fit into the contemporary Christian genus. Up until very recently, LLUC sung primarily hymns during church. (They might go back to hymns next week—two Sabbaths is not a statistically significant sample.) I believe that the atmosphere of the worship service and the reaction of the church to the songs and the song leaders are instructive, particularly because the congregation was not used to such worship services. (Only the style was unfamiliar. The songs chosen were known by all, young and old, and the words were on the screen.) Just to clarify, the music was not loud, nor was it accompanied by drums.

The most obvious change from previous Sabbaths was that the congregation barely sang. There were people quietly mumbling along, but very few people engaged in any of the songs, and many of the people politely did nothing. There are various reasons for this, having to do with both the song leaders and the music.

First, the musicians almost always treat this type of song service as a performance. The people that wrote many of these songs wrote them for the purpose of performing them at their Christian Rock concerts, and the song leaders have carried on the tradition of performing on stage. The problem with this is that performance is diametrically opposed to congregational worship. When one has the attitude of a performer, he or she seeks to become the center of the audience’s attention, rather than leading the congregation to focus its attention on God. The difference can be quite subtle. It is possible to be a humble and soft-spoken performer, and still fail to focus the audience’s attention on God.

The music itself has characteristics that inhibit people from engaging in worship as well. The first has to do with the intellectual level of the music. When I teach a child to play the piano, the first thing they learn is to play a single melody line. A short while later, they learn to add simple chords to the melody line. In a few more days or weeks (if they practice), they are playing songs that contain simultaneous melodic lines in both hands (think of simple works by J. S. Bach). Eventually, the students move on to three- and four-part works of ever increasing complexity (think of “O Sacred Head” or “Break Forth O Beauteous Heavenly Light”). These songs actually have four simultaneous lines of music. Each line has a melodic beauty of its own, and together they form a work of sublime harmonic beauty and interest. When a person has grown up singing hymns, they have been educated in an art form that calls forth the higher levels of intellectual appreciation and aesthetic response. The bulk of contemporary Christian music is stuck at the second stage of music education that I listed above—simple melodies accompanied by simple chords. I think that one of the main reasons hymn-singing congregations feel uncomfortable with contemporary Christian music is that it pulls them back to their second month of childhood music lessons. As an analogy, think how a congregation would feel if a visiting pastor got up to preach a sermon, and started acting out the cradle roll lesson with a perfectly straight face.

A related problem is that the song leaders often pick keys that are too high or too low for some of the people in the congregation. This can be a problem with hymns, too, but when a church sings hymns out of the hymnal, there is a ready solution: sopranos, altos, tenors, and basses each have their own part written out for them. One might think I’m asking too much of congregations here, but I know from much experience that there are very few people in the world who cannot learn to sing well, and most people who do not think they have much musical talent can actually learn to sing in parts with a few years of practice. (It really can take a few years.)

This brings me to an educational consideration. At the academy I attended, we sang hymns and choral songs for several hours a week. Choir was mandatory, and we performed regularly. After a year or two (or occasionally three or four) at the school, most of the students had the capacity to sing well as part of a group and had learned to enjoy singing. Every time we sang, the church rang with rich four-part harmony. When it came to learning new songs, there were enough good readers in the church to carry most any hymn on the first or second run through. All of this was accomplished mostly by mere exposure to the music, rather than dedicated attempts by the faculty to educate us in music.

On the contrary, I’ve noticed that the trappings of contemporary Christian music generally correlate with an overall decline in the musical ability of congregations. The first problematic characteristic of the contemporary style of worship is the movement away from hymnals and written music, which is related to the educational problems mentioned above. This virtually guarantees complete musical illiteracy in all the members of the congregation that do not actively seek out a musical education elsewhere. The second such characteristic is the move away from traditional instruments like the piano and the organ, which are more conducive to a higher level of musical education than guitars or drums, and are much better for leading congregations in four-part harmony. These factors combine to make learning new music cumbersome and limit the complexity of the new songs that are introduced.

Finally, I have noticed that there is an inverse relationship between the volume coming from the stage and the volume of the audience’s singing. The obvious reason is that most full-fledged contemporary Christian praise services are so loud that they do not allow anyone to really hear his or her own voice. In this setting, people feel that they are not contributing to the worship service by singing. The result is that very few people even try to compete with the sound system. On many occasions, I’ve witnessed the congregation spontaneously start singing when the band cut out for a few bars, only to stop and settle back into audience mode when the band came back in.

Supporters of contemporary worship often object that young people will not come to church or get involved with the worship service if we do not play contemporary Christian music. Music appreciation, however, is primarily an issue of education. I have, at various times in my life, appreciated nearly every musical style invented since the dawn of Western musical notation back in the Dark Ages, including modern classical music that very few people can tolerate for more than a few seconds. (In fact, I wrote a thesis on such music.) As I mentioned above, contemporary Christian music is more accessible to those with a very limited musical education, but the fact that it does not seek to improve the musical education of the congregation is a fatal flaw. Singing beautifully as a congregation requires some education and effort. We should, as congregations, strive to make beautiful singing a reality, and in so doing, we will bring up our children to appreciate music of the highest quality.

Adventist president calls for December 1 Day of Prayer, fasting to support falsely accused members

Seventh-day Adventist world church President Ted N. C. Wilson today called for an International Day of Prayer and Fasting on December 1 to rally support for the release of two Adventists currently imprisoned in the West African country of Togo. Wilson and top church executives who voted the emphasis day at a November 20 morning business meeting said the event will raise awareness of the plight of Antonio dos Anjos Monteiro, Sabbath School and Personal Ministries director for the church’s Sahel Union Mission, headquartered in Lome; and Bruno Amah, an Adventist lay member and businessman in Lome.

Adventist lawyers and human rights activists have called for both men’s release since they were detained in March for conspiracy to commit murder. A Togolese man implicated Monteiro and Amah as conspirators in an alleged blood trafficking network, but a police search of Monteiro’s home and local church headquarters did not produce evidence. Since then, local authorities have recognized both men’s innocence.

Diplomatic efforts to secure both men’s release are expected to continue. Today church leaders established a working group to oversee efforts led by John Graz, director of Public Affairs and Religious Liberty for the Adventist world church. Church leaders are enlisting the support of members worldwide to raise further awareness through a social media campaign to promote the December 1 Day of Prayer.

“We are asking the entire world Seventh-day Adventist Church to join in prayer and fasting on December 1,” Wilson said. The world church leader met with both men in prison earlier this month during a tour of West Africa.

“These are falsely accused, innocent church members and we are pleading with the Lord for his intervention so that they can be reunited with their families and continue their work,” he said.

ANN Staff

Try a non-GMO Thanksgiving

Try something different this year for Thanksgiving--go non-GMO!

In Togo, Cape Verdean Adventist pastor imprisoned on dubious charges

The Northern Asia-Pacific Division is asking members to prayer for the immediate release of Antonio dos Anjos Monteiro who was detained in March for conspiracy to commit murder. https://twitter.com/nsdadventist/status/270926119149133824

Seventh-day Adventist lawyers and human rights advocates are calling for the immediate release of an Adventist pastor imprisoned in Togo on what they say are spurious charges.

Antonio dos Anjos Monteiro was detained in March for conspiracy to commit murder after a Togolese man implicated him and two other Christians, one an Adventist, as conspirators in an alleged blood trafficking network.

The accuser had earlier confessed to the murder of some 20 young girls, claiming he worked for a criminal ring that trafficked human blood. The man had met Monteiro when the pastor previously ministered to him.

Monteiro, a native of Cape Verde, has served as the church’s Sabbath School and Personal Ministries director for the Sahel Union Mission, headquartered in Lome, Togo, since 2009.

Even though a police search of Monteiro’s home and local church headquarters failed to turn up evidence, local newspapers earlier this year published inflammatory photos depicting containers of blood alongside stories detailing the allegations against Monteiro.

“To say that Monteiro is innocent I think almost goes without saying,” said Todd McFarland, an associate general counsel in the Office of General Counsel at Adventist world church headquarters.

“The suggestion that an Adventist pastor would hire someone to murder young girls and then traffic their blood is bizarre, fanciful and false," he said.

Public pressure to solve last year’s string of murders, however, continues to thwart his release and exoneration, McFarland said. Prior to Monteiro’s arrest, human rights groups had accused Togolese police of not doing enough to solve the crimes.

In mid-September, church leaders met with government officials in Togo to expedite the case. The group included Gilbert Wari, president of the church’s West-Central Africa Division, which oversees Togo; John Graz, Public Affairs and Religious Liberty director for the Adventist world church; McFarland; and a lawyer from the church’s Sahel Union Mission.

“[The lawyer] is very hopeful. She said our visit created a strong impact on the government,” Wari said.

“At first we could see that the government thought they were just dealing with a small church in the corner, but now with this level of support and mobilization, they see that the Adventist Church is a worldwide church,” he said.

The Adventist Church's top international liaison is currently working with the ambassador of Togo to help secure Monterio’s release.

“The ambassador cordially welcomed me and promised to contact high level officials from the president’s cabinet to facilitate the release of Pastor Monteiro,” said Ganoune Diop, the church’s representative to the United Nations. Diop, who met with the ambassador in July, has since requested a follow-up meeting.

Graz said he wants governments to know that an innocent Seventh-day Adventist facing arbitrary detention is not alone.

“He has millions of brothers and sisters around the world ready to rally in support. We will do everything in our power to help get Monteiro released, and we are confident that justice will prevail.”

There are more than 5,300 Adventist church members in Togo, and close to 880,000 in the church’s West-Central Africa Division.

Monteiro, who was initially held in solitary confinement in jail for 14 days, has since been transferred to the Civil Prison of Lome, where pre-trial detainees such as himself are held together with convicted felons.

Despite deplorable prison conditions, Graz said Monteiro remains “optimistic and in good health.”

“We strongly believe that Monteiro is a modern-day Joseph,” Wari said, referencing a Biblical story in which an Old Testament figure is falsely imprisoned. “Everything seemed desperate and hopeless, but God was working and he was able to glorify his holy name through the crisis.”

By Elizabeth Lechleitner/ANN

La Sierra rejects gay, lesbian club

The Press Enterprise, a newspaper covering Riverside and San Bernardino counties in Calif., covered a story about a group of gay and lesbian students trying to become an officially recognized club at La Sierra University.

A group of gay and lesbian students at La Sierra University is trying again to gain official recognition for their club, six months after the university denied it because of Seventh-day Adventist Church teachings on homosexuality.

The club, Prism, reapplied for recognition last month, hoping that attitudes of members of the 2,400-student Adventist university's Student Life Committee have changed, said Prism president Rebecca Kern. "It's also a way for us to say out loud that we're not going away," said Kern, 23, a fourth-year student who is lesbian and Adventist. Prism members are holding their first public event Saturday, Nov. 17, but the mix of workshops and entertainment is taking place at UC Riverside because La Sierra doesn't permit non-sanctioned clubs to hold events on campus.

Non-approved clubs cannot promote their events on campus with leaflets or postings in university buildings, and they cannot reserve campus meeting rooms.

La Sierra spokesman Larry Becker said organizations viewed as violating Adventist beliefs cannot gain recognition.

"The committee felt that while the university values all students and is against harassment in all forms, this group's mission does not align with Seventh-day Adventist beliefs on sexuality," he said. "La Sierra is a Seventh-day Adventist university, so we support the values of the SDA Church. That is why they were turned down." (Read more)

NPUC FAQ page on women's ordination issue

The following is taken from NPUC FAQ page: Why is the North Pacific Union Conference (NPUC) discussing the topic of women’s ordination?

Our Seventh-day Adventist Church, since the early pioneers and Ellen White’s own ministry, has stood for the priesthood of all believers not restricted to age, ethnicity or gender. Because this issue has been discussed for decades and recently brought to a head by recent decisions of other union conferences, many members and leaders have asked NPUC leadership to address it candidly and objectively. Although our current NPUC bylaws do not preclude the ordination of women, we feel it is important to examine biblical counsel and the good advice of our Northwest believers.

Does this place the NPUC in a position contrary to world church policy?

We do not believe so, and have not currently taken any position that would contradict our church’s official stance. We respect our world church leadership and understand the challenges they face in addressing diverse cultural norms around the world. Yet our church structure, with its geographical divisions, unions and local conferences, is uniquely set up to adapt the outreach of its mission and message to cultural differences. Since union conferences have been tasked with the responsibility of determining ordinations within their territories, the NPUC feels this topic is important and appropriate to address here.

What about the world church study on the theology of ordination? How will that impact any NPUC action?

That world church committee is tasked with bringing a report in 2014. It is possible but not certain that it will be an agenda item at the 2015 General Conference session. Some have actively wondered if perhaps our system of ordination is not even biblical, but rather, based on a tradition far removed from our own Protestant roots. Our NPUC Ad Hoc Committee received its own study on the topic of ordination in a paper by Dr. John McVay, incoming Walla Walla University president. A copy of that document, entitled “Reflections on the Theology and Practice of Ordination in the Seventh-day Adventist Church,” is available online. As the world church studies its theological stance on ordination, we will eagerly join in that discussion. In the meantime, our own discovery process will move forward.

What process has been put in place to pursue a NPUC-wide decision on this issue?

More than a year ago, the NPUC executive committee set up a smaller Ad Hoc Committee on Women in Leadership which met during 2012 and looked at the issue from the perspectives of history, mission, church policy and unity. It presented a recommendation to the November 14 executive committee meeting that favored a decision in favor of the ordination of women. Executive committee members felt that before any firm decision on the issue is finalized an intentional effort should be made to bring as many Northwest members into the discussion as possible. Because of this, the executive committee voted at the Nov. 14 meeting to inform and educate members about the issue of ordination without regard to gender, to invite them to add their voice to the discussion and to allow for a potential future special constituency session to bring any proposed action to a vote.

So no timeline has yet been set up for any firm decisions?

No … however, that will be determined as soon as possible and presented here and on the soon-to-be-created NPUC Women in Leadership website.

Has the NPUC leadership already made up their minds? Is this process just an empty exercise?

Many of our executive committee members and other leaders believe strongly in the value of equal inclusion of women in all facets of Adventist ministry and leadership. Many others are supportive of women in ministry, but very opposed to the idea of ordaining women. No decision has been made, or will be made, without a clear process of conversation, active listening, biblical study and prayer. Some of that has already happened, and now we are expanding the invitation to all Northwest members. Through the process we will also stay in touch with our world church and division leaders.

Will the NPUC share any documents or reports that were developed by the Ad Hoc Committee?

Yes, the paper by Dr. John McVay referred to above, “Reflections on the Theology and Practice of Ordination in the Seventh-day Adventist Church,” is currently online and others will be online and linked here shortly.

How do we share our personal feedback to NPUC leadership on this issue?

As soon as NPUC leadership has determined an active process and timeline for discussion, more information will be added to this FAQ to provide instructions on how and where you may respond in a structured way to this issue. In the meantime, you are welcome to email your response to talk@gleaneronline.org. We plan to set up an NPUC Women in Leadership blog that should be online the week after Thanksgiving, where you can join a more public conversation. We realize there are many strong feelings about this topic on all different sides of the issue. Remember that it’s very possible for good people to have very different perspectives, so keep respect in the center of your comments.

As questions and comments come in, this FAQ page will no doubt adapt and expand. Thanks for being a respectful part of this ongoing process.

NPUC approves motion to call special session to address women's ordination

The North Pacific Union Conference Executive Committee met yesterday for their quarterly meeting, and voted to call a special constituency meeting to address ministerial ordination without regard to gender. They also voted to "inform and educate members of the rationale toward biblical church leadership without regard to gender; 2) engage and encourage constituents in structured conversation and discussion on women in ministry." The date for the special constituency meeting has not been set:

During their regularly-scheduled quarterly meeting held Nov. 14 in Ridgefield, Wash., North Pacific Union Conference executive committee members voted to engage Northwest membership in a discussion on gender-inclusiveness in gospel ministry. They approved a motion to 1) inform and educate Northwest members of the rationale toward biblical church leadership without regard to gender; 2) engage and encourage constituents in structured conversation and discussion on women in ministry; and 3) call a special session of the NPUC constituency to address ministerial ordination without regard to gender. The motion was presented in response to extensive reports provided by an Ad Hoc Committee on Women in Leadership which met during 2012. No date was specified at the meeting for a proposed constituency session, but that will be determined as the process for discussion and decision-making is further defined within the next month. As a start to the discussion, an initial FAQ page is now available, as is a research document from Dr. John McVay, incoming Walla Walla University president, entitled “Reflections on the Theology and Practice of Ordination in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.” Additional documents from the NPUC Ad Hoc Committee on Women in Leadership will be available online soon.

Islam in Bible prophecy Part II

In part one, we saw that the rise of Islam is prophesied in Revelation Nine, and we discussed the Fifth Trumpet and First Woe. In this article, we will continue to explore Revelation Nine, examining the Sixth Trumpet and Second Woe, after which we will discuss the time prophecies.

The sixth angel sounded his trumpet, and I heard a voice coming from the horns of the golden altar that is before God. Rev. 9:13

The Hebrew sanctuary was a model of the original in heaven (Ex. 25:40; Heb. 8:5; Rev. 11:19; 15:5). There were two altars with horns on their four corners---the altar of burnt offering in the courtyard and the altar of incense in the first apartment---but the altar of incense was made of acacia wood overlaid with gold (Ex. 30:1-10), whereas the altar of burnt offering was overlaid with brass (Ex. 27:1-8). Hence, the heavenly original here referred to is the golden altar of incense.

The altar of incense is in the first apartment of the sanctuary, indicating that this prophecy concerns a time before the second apartment was opened, as it later would be (Rev. 11:19). This means that the anti-typical day of atonement, the investigative judgment, has not yet begun. Thus, we should expect that this prophecy will have been fulfilled prior to 1844.

Incense was burned on the golden altar every morning and evening, a perpetual sweet savor before God (Ex. 30:7-9). The incense symbolizes the prayers of God's people (Psalm 141:2; Rev. 5:8; 8:3-4). Just prior to the sounding of the seven trumpets, an angel took a censer, filled it with fire from the altar, and hurled it to the earth (Rev. 8:5). This seems to indicate disapproval and disgust and likely portends that the prayers of Christendom would not be efficacious to spare them from the coming catastrophes symbolized by the seven trumpets.

In Bible prophecy, horns symbolize kings or nations (Dan. 8:15-27; Rev. 17:12). In this instance, the horns of the golden altar symbolize the kingly power of God, His power to establish kingdoms and pull them down (Dan. 4:17; Jer. 1:10; Luke 1:52). That the voice came from the horns of the golden altar symbolizes that the coming catastrophe would be a judgment from God, and an exercise of His ability to set up and pull down kingdoms.

It said to the sixth angel who had the trumpet, “Release the four angels who are bound at the great river Euphrates.” And the four angels who had been kept ready for this very hour and day and month and year were released to kill a third of mankind. The number of the mounted troops was two hundred million. I heard their number. The horses and riders I saw in my vision looked like this: Their breastplates were fiery red, dark blue, and yellow as sulfur. The heads of the horses resembled the heads of lions, and out of their mouths came fire, smoke and sulfur. A third of mankind was killed by the three plagues of fire, smoke and sulfur that came out of their mouths. The power of the horses was in their mouths and in their tails; for their tails were like snakes, having heads with which they inflict injury. Rev. 9:14-19

Previously in John's visions, we see four angels holding back the four winds of strife (Rev. 7:1-4). Now, God commands them to loose destructive forces that had previously been held back. The River Euphrates symbolizes a barrier to invasion from the east. The Turks originated in south-central Asia, on the east side of the Euphrates River, and from there migrated across that river and into Palestine and Asia Minor.

The number two hundred million has no known significance. The number is variously translated as twice ten thousand times ten thousand, two myriads of myriads, and two hundred thousand thousand. Obviously, no mounted army of 200 million has ever been fielded, so the number is likely not intended literally. It seems intended to convey a numberless host, a huge force impossible to defeat.

The figure killed by this immense force is given as one third of mankind. Here we must understand that Scripture is not intended as a general history of the world. Rather, it is the story of redemption which focuses on the righteous line, the history of believers, from Adam to Noah to Abraham to Moses, to the Hebrews, and finally to the Christians. Since this prophecy points to events in the Christian era, it is concerned with the plight of Christians, not with all of mankind. Given that Christianity had primarily taken root in the post-Roman Mediterranean world, it is a fair estimate that, between the Arab and Turkish Muslim conquests, a third of Christendom was lost. In saying that a third of mankind was killed, the prophecy is predicting that a third part of the Christian world would be swept away; this prophecy was fulfilled by the loss of Christian North Africa, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, and Asia Minor/modern Turkey.

This point is worth dwelling on, because the religious facts of the pre-Muslim Mediterranean world are today long lost in the mists of time. The most important bishoprics of the 4th through the 7th Centuries were Constantinople, Alexandria and Rome, and their relative importance was often ranked in that order. The Bishop of Rome was a titular first among equals, but the other two often had more real power because of the economic and political prominence of their cities. Of course, Alexandria was overrun by the Arab conquest and Constantinople by the Turkish phase of Islamic conquest.

Moreover, many of the most famous and influential “church fathers” were from places now well within the dar al-Islam (the “house of Islam”): Augustine (354-430 AD) was Bishop of Hippo, now Annaba, Algeria; Tertullian (160-225 AD) was Bishop of Carthage, now in Tunisia; Origen (185-254 AD) was from Alexandria, Egypt; Ignatius (35-110 AD) was Bishop of Antioch, now in Syria; and Polycarp (69-155 AD) was Bishop of Smyrna, now Izmir, Turkey. The most noteworthy of the Greek-speaking fathers were from places that are now Islamic: Clement, Athanasius, and Cyril were all of Alexandria; John Chrysostom and Gregory Nazianzus were Archbishops of Constantinople, Basil was of Ceasaria, Gregory of Nyssa hailed from what is now southern Turkey, and John of Damascus was obviously from Syria. Additionally, the “Seven Churches” of Revelation—Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea—were all in Asia Minor, which today is thoroughly Muslim western Turkey. All of these places were predominantly Christian before the Arab and Turkish conquests made them predominantly Muslim.

The Muslim conquest of so much of the Christian world would rightly have been seen as an epochal catastrophe for Christendom and the Christian religion. Christianity's birthplace along with several of its leading bishoprics and teaching centers were lost to Muslim domination. The notion that there would not be a Bible prophecy addressed to such earth-shaking events is symptomatic of a peculiar ignorance of history. We would expect to find a scriptural warning of this catastrophe, and indeed we do.

The colors that John saw on the breastplates are traditional Turkish colors, particularly red and yellow, which have figured prominently in Ottoman flags down through history. The Turks had a remarkable red dye known as “Turkey red” (originally developed in India) made from madder root by a very tedious and complex process, but the result is as striking and almost as lasting as the red in a garnet gemstone. (The British military later dyed their famous red coats with a madder root dye.) The Turks also came up with a bold yellow dye made from Persian berries. Blue has also figured prominently in Turkish cloth, though not as much as red and yellow. These colors identify the mounted host as Turkish.

The fire, smoke and sulfur that came out of the horses' mouths doubtless refers to the Turks' use of gunpowder. Gunpowder was invented by the Chinese in the 9th Century, and came to the west over the trade route known as the silk road, which meant that it reached Muslim domains before reaching the Christian West. Muslim armies began using gunpowder as early as the middle 13th Century, about a hundred years before it came into use in the West. At the first Ottoman siege of Constantinople, in 1422, the Muslim forces deployed cannons. For the final conquest of Constantinople, in 1453, a Hungarian armorer cast a 27-foot long cannon that was used to lob massive stones at the ancient walls of the city This enormous and loud weapon doubtless left a deep impression on all who saw and heard it; it heralded a new kind of warfare, with exotic new weapons that belched fire and smoke.

We have seen that, in the first woe, “it was given to them that they may not kill them, but that they may be tormented . . .” But in the second woe the third of mankind is spoken of as being “killed.” Why is the Arab conquest called torture, whereas the Turkish conquest is compared to death? Perhaps because even though the Arab conquest stripped the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire of most of its territory, that empire still existed. The ancient seat of Constantine—that great center of Greek-speaking Christianity and scholarship—still stood and would continue to stand for seven more centuries after the Arab conquests. But that ended with the fall of Constantinople. After 1453, the Byzantine Empire was well and truly dead, never to return; its former territory was encompassed within the Ottoman Empire, and its proud capital was now the seat of that Muslim empire. Christendom was permanently dead and buried in that third of the old Roman Empire.

Christianity would continue to exist in pockets of the Muslim territories, and still does today. But those overrun by the Turks, and thereby exposed to their “tails that bite like snakes” (Rev. 9:19), would learn the same hard lessons that those conquered by the Arabs had previously learned—along with some new ones. To the usual terms of the dhimmi or “treaty” that we discussed in Part I, the Turks added a new form of oppression, unknown to the Arabs and not sanctioned by Islamic law: the devşirme, or “blood tax,” pursuant to which the Christians of Greece and southeastern Europe were required to give some of their children to the Turkish Sultan as slaves, to be raised as Muslims. These children were destined for the Janissaries (the Turkish professional military), the harem, or, in the case of select few of the best and the brightest, the administration of the Sultan's government. It has become fashionable in scholarly circles to argue that the poor Christian peasants were happy to have their children follow this path of advancement into an elite class of civil and military servants, but ask yourself whether you would like to have your children forcibly taken from you and raised as Muslims.

The rest of mankind that were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the work of their hands; they did not stop worshiping demons, and idols of gold, silver, bronze, stone and wood—idols that cannot see or hear or walk. Nor did they repent of their murders, their magic arts, their sexual immorality or their thefts Rev. 9:20-21.

This passage makes all the more obvious that the Islamic conquests were divine judgment upon the apostate Christianity of the middle ages. Eastern Christianity had fallen into a species of idolatry involving the veneration of murals, or wall paintings, known as icons. This degrading practice continued even after the chastening of Muslim domination (the Muslims being exemplary in their rejection of all types of image-making); indeed, the Eastern Orthodox still venerate icons today. Western Christianity had a similar problem with idolatry involving statuary. Statues of pagan deities, such as Jupiter, were brought into churches, given biblical names, and venerated; this encouraged pagans to join the Catholic Church, but unconverted idolaters corrupted the church from within. And, as Rev. 9:21 indicates, when the Second Commandment is violated, every type of degrading immorality follows in the train of the idolatry (Ex. 32:5-6; Rom. 1:21-27).

Sadly, the two thirds of Christendom still alive and intact after the Arab and Turkish Muslim conquests did not repent of the gross apostasy. If anything, the fallen church of the West was hardened in its rebellion against revealed truth and the God of heaven. The fall of Constantinople meant that a rival variant of Christianity was swept aside, leaving the Bishop of Rome to claim universal headship of the Christian Church. The Roman Church not only continued its apostasy and blasphemous pretensions, it grew ever worse.

A Note on the Time Prophecies

There are two time prophecies in these passages. Rev. 9:5 states, “They were not allowed to kill them but only to torture them for five months,” and Rev. 9:15 states, “These four angels had been kept ready for an hour, a day, a month and year, to kill a third of mankind.” Josiah Litch (1809-1886) was a prominent Methodist preacher in the Millerite movement in the years leading up to 1844. Litch agreed with William Miller on the day-year principle of prophetic interpretation, pursuant to which a day of prophetic time equaled one year of real or literal time; this was a commonly accepted principle of prophetic interpretation, including among Methodist commentators such as the noted Adam Clarke. Litch applied the Fifth and Sixth Trumpets to Islam, as did most in the historical school of prophetic interpretation, and hence sought an application of the time prophecies to the Ottoman Empire, which was very much a going concern in the late 1830s.

The five prophetic months of Rev. 9:5 equals 150 actual years. Litch anchored the beginning of this period to the Battle of Bapheus, which Edward Gibbon, in his monumental work “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” dates to July 27, 1299. Bapheus was the battle in which Osman/Othman, after whom the “Ottoman” Turks would be named (to distinguish them from the pre-existing Seljuk [or Seljuq] Turks), rose to prominence by inflicting a defeat on the Byzantine forces. Going forward 150 years from July 27, 1299 takes us to July, 27, 1449. Although Constantinople did not fall until May, 1453, Litch argued that the fact that the Byzantines were forced to seek the Turkish Sultan's intervention in a dispute regarding succession after the death of John VIII Palaiologos (1392-1448) –and hence Sultan Murad II crowned Constantine XI Palaiologos as the next (and, as it happened, the last) Byzantine Emperor—meant that Byzantium had effectively fallen under Turkish domination, and the capture of Constantinople four years later merely dramatically illustrated that reality. With the fall of the Byzantine Empire, the torture ended and the death began.

The next prophetic time period, “an hour, a day, a month, and a year,” equals 391 literal years, plus—if the “hour” is given a prophetic time value—two weeks. Writing in 1838, Josiah Litch predicted that the Turkish power would be overthrown sometime in August, 1840 (the prophetic period expiring on August 11, 1840). In 1840, a 16 year-old Sultan, Abdülmecid I, was at war with Muhammad Ali, an Ottoman officer of Albanian extraction. Ali had been sent as Ottoman viceroy to Egypt shortly after the end of Napoleon's brief invasion, but was a far more able administrator than the sultans he served, and he effectively established his own personal kingdom; by 1838 Ali was ready to declare independence from the Ottoman Empire. Ali had defeated the sultan's forces at the Battle of Nezib, and the commander of the modest Turkish fleet had just handed it over to Ali. At this point, the European powers--including Great Britain, Austria, Prussia and Russia--intervened on behalf of the young sultan, signing in London, on July 15, 1840, a pact ordering Ali to withdraw from Syria and Lebanon, in return for which he and his descendants would be given hereditary rule of Egypt (which his descendants did rule until 1952).

This ultimatum, which the powers enforced by blockading the Nile and shelling Ali's positions in Lebanon and Syria, reached Ali in Egypt on August 11, 1840, the exact date Litch pointed to as the end of the prophetic time period of Revelation 9:15. There was a remarkable parallel to the beginning and end of the prophetic period: both were demarcated not by an absolute fall, but by a weakening to the point where old enemies were dictating terms. In 1449, the Byzantines were so weak that the Turks had dictated the Byzantine succession, and in 1840, the Ottoman Porte was so frail that the Christian powers dictated a modus vivendi to the sultan and his rogue viceroy, and enforced it on both. Ellen White writes of the encouragement that Litch's astonishingly successful prophetic interpretation brought to the Millerite movement, particularly in its vindication of the day-year principle:

When it became known, multitudes were convinced of the correctness of the principles of prophetic interpretation adopted by Miller and his associates, and a wonderful impetus was given to the advent movement. Men of learning and position united with Miller, both in preaching and in publishing his views, and from 1840 to 1844 the work rapidly extended (GC 335).

Although the Ottoman Empire did not fall until the First World War, its power to persecute Christians was interfered with. It was called “the sick man of Europe;” Britain and France propped it up mainly as a buffer against Russian imperial expansion; the frustration of Russia's attempts to expand its empire southward became such a fixture of Victorian-era British foreign policy that it became known as “the great game,” and assistance to the Turks (such as in the Crimean War) was part of this game. But Western help came with a price: the Turks were forced to abolish the jizyah (the poll tax on non-Muslims) and numerous other features of the ancient treaty or “dhimmi,” as the European powers competed with each other to be seen as the protectors of the Christian peoples of the Ottoman Empire.

Obey God and government—in that order

On a Sabbath preceding the U.S. presidential election, Ray Navarro, pastor of the Tempe Seventh-day Adventist Church in Tempe, Arizona, gave a thought-provoking sermon entitled “Should Christians Vote?” He shared Biblical insight into how a Christian is to relate to secular governments and politics as well as the historical views of the Adventist church regarding this issue. Throughout the message, he shared a principle that he wanted the congregation to remember: “Obey God and government.” With great emphasis, he added, “In that order.” This is a relatively simple principle, one with which many of us are undoubtedly already familiar. Some reading this article may find what I am about to share basic—perhaps too basic. If that is the case, then feel free to move on to a more thought-provoking article. However, from my conversations with Adventists and non-Adventists, especially in the political climate of today, I have come to realize the importance of reminding ourselves where our obligation to respect and obey civic governments belongs in our Christian priorities. I would also like to pose the question: How effectively do we implement this principle in our daily lives?

Romans 13:1-7 is referred to by some as The Charter of Christian Civic Responsibility, for in it the apostle Paul lays out to the Christian citizens of the city of Rome how they were to relate to the Roman government. By extension, the teachings found within this passage of Scripture also provide a blueprint for how Christians should relate to the governments of today. We are told:

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience' sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God's ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

The Scripture is clear: it is the duty of a follower of Christ to obey government. Paul even goes so far as to state that those who do good have no reason to fear governing authorities. We are to obey the laws of the land, pay our taxes, and respect those in authority. This principle is re-enforced by the words of Christ. When the Pharisees attempted to ensnare Him with the question: “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar?”

He responded: “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:15-22).

To put it in simplistic terms: God expects His children to be model citizens. Every passing year sees a perceived worsening of society, a further collapse of the family unit, and more erosion of morality. We often bemoan the state of our countries, and we have a tendency to romanticize ages passed, ignoring the troubles of those times and focusing only on what we believe were the best qualities. Yet if our societies are so bad, what are we as individuals doing about it? Christ calls His people “the salt of the earth” and “the light of the world”, but have we become salt without flavor or lights hidden under baskets? (See Matthew 5:13-15.) The Lord wants us to be model citizens for His glory so that, by obeying the laws of the land, we present ourselves as good examples to our neighbors.

In 2007, an out-spoken Christian creationist, Dr. Kent Hovind, was sentenced to ten years in prison for tax fraud. Founder of an adventure land focused on Christian science and dinosaurs in Pensacola, Florida, Hovind was found guilty of not paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes. He claimed he did not have to pay taxes because everything he owned belonged to God. Many people might look at this situation, shake their heads, and perhaps say to themselves: “He must not have read what Jesus said in Matthew 22:15-22.” Hovind’s lack of obedience to civic laws brought ridicule towards creationists, Christians, and even mockery of God in the months following his conviction and sentencing.

While that is a rather extreme example, what about the little things we might do every day that break the laws of the land? Things that may have become second nature to us and we no longer view them as serious offenses? There are some among us who speed. Not only do we speed, we joke it off, brag about it, or perhaps use it for anecdotes in sermons without realizing that the very act of speeding breaks a traffic law and is blatant disobedience to the government that established that law. Traffic laws are not arbitrary; they exist for a reason, and the most important reason is to protect lives. By habitually driving over the speed limit, an individual demonstrates a severe lack of respect for the lives of others sharing the road with them, for the lives of passengers in their own vehicle, and for their own life. How many of us have been driving down a city road or interstate, and without warning a car speeds by us or cuts us off. A dangerous situation is barely avoided, or sadly, in some cases is the cause of accidents. Yet there on the bumper of the offending vehicle is a sticker that proclaims to all the world that they are Christians. How is such behavior glorifying to the Lord?

The principle of 1 Corinthians 10:31 applies to much more than just what we eat and drink. Everything we do should be done to the glory of the Lord. The Lord expects us to be His examples to our communities, and part of that responsibility includes obeying the secular government. How can we, as Adventist Christians, proclaim the importance of keeping, for example, the seventh-day Sabbath according to the law of God if we have no respect for and openly break the laws of the country in which we live?

But what about the places in the world where the governments are corrupt? Or where some of their laws make it difficult or impossible for citizens to follow the laws of God and their consciences? Are Christians required to obey the laws of men even when these laws go against God and conscience? Let us go back to the very beginning: “Obey God and government… in that order.”

We are to obey civil authorities as long as such authorities are inline with the teachings and principles of the Lord and His Word. As Seventh-day Adventists, we hold a unique perspective of end-time events, a part of which is the belief that there will come a time when the enemy, to enforce false worship of the beast and its image, will manipulate civil governments. Even today in some countries and regions, there are governments that execute authority over the people that are not in harmony with the will of the Lord. There are severe punishments for opposing corrupt officials, religious freedom is non-existent, and even basic human rights are stripped away from the people. In these situations, the follower of Christ must clearly understand that his/her priority is to obey God first.

The three Hebrews Hananiah (Shadrach), Mishael (Meshach), and Azariah (Abed-Nego) were faced with such a situation when King Nebuchadnezzar set up a golden statue and ordered all to bow down and worship it. Though up until that moment, these three men were ideal citizens of Babylon, obedient to the king and his laws, this particular order would have them go against the law of God.

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego answered and said to the king, “O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If that is the case, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us from your hand, O king. But if not, let it be known to you, O king, that we do not serve your gods, nor will we worship the gold image which you have set up” (Daniel 3:16-18).

Even in the face of certain death, these men stood true to their conscience and their choice to obey the Lord. Daniel, during the reign of Darius, made a similar decision when the king issued an order that for thirty days, all the people in the land were to pray to and worship the king only (Daniel 6). The choice was clear: disobey God but obey the civil government or obey God and disobey the government. Daniel refused to disobey the Lord and willingly went to the lion’s den. When the apostles were brought before the Sanhedrin and ordered to stop teaching Christ, they responded: “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:27-29).

The Scriptures are clear: whenever the laws of the land are in harmony with the laws of God, we are to obey these laws. Whether it is something large like paying taxes or small like following the traffic laws, if we do that which is good, we have nothing to fear from just governments. Also, our exemplary behavior brings glory to the Lord and aids in our witness for Him to our communities. However, when the laws of men and the laws of God come into conflict, our obedience is always to be to the Lord first. Obey God and government, in that order.

ELDER = PASTOR = BISHOP? (Part II)

The subject of ecclesiology in the New Testament is a broad, interconnected and complex one. Therefore, as we consider this one aspect, there will inevitably be other areas left unresolved. Further studies dealing with deacons, ordination, apostles, E.G. White's understanding, etc. are needed, and will be proposed (Lord willing). The hermeneutical intent of these articles is to follow where the biblical evidence leads, and make conclusions based upon reasonable and consistent lexical, contextual and comparative evidence. In the investigation of these articles, two interesting points regarding leadership structure in the church have emerged: 1) There is a distinction between the offices of presbuteros, episkopos and poimen, and 2) while some offices are spiritual gifts (conferred by the Spirit and recognized by the Church), others are positions established through external, objective and verifiable criteria through prayerful evaluation by the church. This is not the final word on this subject, more research should be done. Part two has been added to help clarify some of the initial conclusions. I also wish to apologize for the technical nature of this article, but feel that some of these issues must be tackled. A word needs to be made in regards to lexical studies and hermeneutics in general. Ferdinand de Saussure has stated that in language “tout se tient” (all things hold together). What he means is that language must be viewed as an interconnected system in which the context provides the clues as to the meaning of the individual words used. Theologian Henry Scott Baldwin makes the following salient points:

1. Lexical studies are nothing more than the summaries of contemporaneous uses of the word under consideration. Lexis is a description of what people who use the word normally mean to indicate.
2. We have a pre-understanding of the word based on its use in other contexts. This is the dictionary meaning (denotation) we have in our lexicons. We then attempt to apply the meaning to the present context, and then check to see if the resulting sentence makes sense using this meaning.
3. This methodology seeks to separate verb and noun. There are numerous examples in Greek where the verbal form does not correspond to all the meanings of the noun. We cannot uncritically assume that a noun we are studying is exactly equivalent to the verb forms in every one of its uses.

As shown in the first article, there are impressive lexical (dictionary) differences between the office of presbuteros and episkopos. An inaccurate understanding of what a word means at the time it was written, will negate all the good contextual, syntactical exegesis we may attempt. There is no doubt that context plays a critical role in an accurate understanding of the text. However, the meaning of the written words are the very foundation of an accurate biblical study. The context will determine which meaning should be used, but the objective starting point is to understand how a word was understood when the author wrote it. The lexical definition, therefore, should not be underestimated, when considering the meaning of a passage.

When dealing with the issue of hermeneutics--the self-authenticating, Protestant principle that Scripture interprets Scripture--should be maintained. We cannot assume that a specific passage or biblical writer will make sharp differences and distinctions between closely related subjects within a chapter, epistle or even all their writings. Examples of this include most of the fundamental beliefs (i.e. justification/sanctification, the differences within the trinity, etc.). It would be far more difficult to understand what Paul means when he penned “absent from the body and present with the Lord” if we didn’t have non-Pauline passages to help us know when we will be present with the Lord. Therefore, when approaching the subject of ecclesiology, we shouldn’t assume one writer will present the corpus of material, nor should we expect to necessarily find the answers to differences within a single passage or context.

1. Are elders (presbuteros) and bishops (episkopos) different and distinct offices?

A. Lexical and comparative evidence shows a distinction as seen in part one, the lexical meanings for presbuteros include primarily administrative, executive and judicial functions:

These definitions matched the biblical evidence when applied to this office. We also noticed that the primary definitions for episkopos focus on guarding, investigative and supervising roles. These definitions harmonize with the comparative biblical evidence as well. We should not underestimate the importance of lexical (dictionary) meanings.

While it is tempting to “run to the text” first and attempt exegesis, we will come up short unless an accurate understanding of the primary and extended meanings are discovered. Only after we know what a word meant when it was originally used, can we apply it to a biblical passage and context and hope to understand it.

B. The offices of episkopos and presbuteros seem to be indicated:

While this should not be the only argument in favor of an office for the episkopos and prebuteros, it is a supportive one. The Greek word episkope has several different meanings (Please see footnotes for a lexical breakdown). There are essentially three definitions for the Greek word episkope:

1. Visitation, inspection, examination (usually by God, in mercy or judgment, He looks into, searches)
2. Office of episkopos- specifically, ecclesiastical overseer.
3. Office (generally), leaders of Christian communities, position, assignment (The N.T. uses episkope in the sense of ‘office’ as well as ‘visitation’)

There are four references for episkope:

1. Lu. 19:44 “. . . knewest not the time of your visitation.”
2. Acts 1:20 “ . . . his bishoprick let another take.” (KJV)
3. 1 Ti. 3:1 “if a man desire the office of a bishop . . .”
4. 1 Pet. 2:12 “. . . glorify God in the day of visitation.”

Both Luke 19:44 and 1 Peter 2:12 harmonize nicely with definition one when episkope is placed into their contexts. Acts 1:20 is contextually referring to apostles, so the meaning of an “office in general” would best align with this passage. Gerhard Kittel supports this understanding: “the apostolic office is described as episkope. . . The term is used for the apostolic office in Acts 1:16 only because the selection of a replacement was seen to be a fulfillment of the prophecy in Ps. 108:8.” The context of 1 Tim. 3:1 refers to the episkopos (1 Tim. 3:2). Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the “office of episkopos” (and not an “office in general”) is what Paul is referring to in 1 Tim. 3:1. Kittel agrees with this conclusion: “The term episkope in 1 Tim. 3:1 does not derive from Acts 1:20 or its O.T. original. It is newly coined on the basis of the title episkopos, which had meantime established itself in the early Church. This is the more easily possible, of course, because episkope is already used for ‘office’ in the language of the LXX.”

An argument in favor of an office for the presbuteros can be made from the word presbuterion. Lexically, there is support for a distinct office or body (Please see footnotes for references) which represents these officers. With presbuterion, there are essentially two meanings:

1. Office, body, college, assembly, council of elders, “body of eldership.”
2. Council or Senate of Jews (Sanhedrin), Christian Church, or any body.

There are two references of presbuterion in the N.T.:

1. 1 Timothy 4:14- “. . . hands of the presbytery (presbuterion).”
2. Acts 22:5- “. . . and all the estate of the elders (presbuterion).”

In Acts 22:5, the context is referring to the Jewish Sanhedrin, so definition two would apply. In 1 Timothy 4:14, the context is the Christian Church, not the Jewish body, so it is likely that it refers to the body of elders (definition one).

C. The names of the words themselves indicate they are offices, not functions:

For this study, we have been looking at presbuteros and episkopos as nouns. If these words indicated a “function” rather than an office, they would be represented by a verb or an adjective. For example, episkopeo is the verb “to look diligently.” While there are adjectival and verbal forms of these words, we have only been focusing on those represented by a noun.

D. Presbuteros and episkopos are referenced in different situations and with other offices:

Presbuteros

Episkopos

Acts 14:23 “ordained elders in every church”

Phil. 1:1 “with the bishops and the deacons”

Acts 15:2,4,6 “the apostles and elders”

1 Tim. 3:2 “a bishop must be blameless”

Acts 20:17 “called the elders of the church”

Acts 25:15 “chief priests and elders”

Titus 1:5 “ordain elders in every city”

2. Is “pastor” a spiritual gift that is it given to all leadership?

In an effort to justify a calling or leading to pastoral ministry (the modern name for “Pastor“ does not seem to be in harmony with the biblical roles of episkopos and prebuteros), some are using the “Gifts of the Spirit” argument to support their belief. It is true the poimen (pastor) is a spiritual gift; it is listed in Eph. 4:11. But as we saw in Part One, the definitions for this word are specific, and do not include the meanings denotated for the presbuteros and episkopos. Furthermore, the biblical references for pastor (poimen) parallel the lexical meanings. In my opinion, this is significant, since it undermines the major propositions in favor of a subjective calling of God into the office of presbuteros or episkopos.

Finally, some see this gift as a function or activity that all or most leadership positions receive. The following include several reasons why this is untenable:

1. Ephesians 4:11 -- “He gave some pastors....” It doesn’t say “He gave many” or “He gave all.” 1 Cor. 12:8-10 -- "The Holy Spirit gives . . . To one, to another . . . ., to another . . ., etc." signifying a selective distribution not a comprehensive one. Romans 12:4,5 -- Paul states that “all members have NOT THE SAME OFFICE . . . Having gifts differing....” Therefore, the gifts of the Spirit (including poimen) are selectively given by the Spirit to certain individuals. There is no textual evidence that poimen, or any other gifts, are given to a majority of the church;
2. The noun poimen refers to a position. The verb poimaino refers to an action. The position of nurturing and caring is a spiritual gift, but this was not given to the presbuteros and episkopos. While the presbuteros were admonished to “feed (verb poimaino) the church of God” (Acts 20:28) and to “feed (verb poimaino) the flock of God” (1 Pet. 5:2), they were never asked to be the poimen (noun) in the Church of God. The action of feeding, caring and nurturing are simply duties Christ enjoined upon the leadership of His church (“feed My sheep" (Jn 21:16), not gifts.
3. Can elder (presbuteros) perform the duties of bishop (episkopos) and vice-versa? There is persuasive evidence that an elder (presbuteros) can and should perform the duties of a bishop (episkopos). As noted in Part One, the presbuteros has the extended function of overseeing, and therefore can also be considered as an episkopos. This is seen in the following passages: Acts 20:17, 28 Paul “called for the elders [presbuteros] of the church. . . take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers [episkopos] . . .”; Titus 1:5,7 “... and ordain elders [presbuteros] in every city ... a bishop [episkopos] must be blameless.”

Biblical evidence shows that the presbuteros fulfilled both its own roles and that of the episkopos:

Administrative/Executive

• Acts 15:2,6 “the apostles and elders [presbuteros] to consider this question . . . Consider this matter.” (See also Acts. 16:4; Acts 4:5,8,23)

Judicial

• Matt. 27:12 “He was accused of the chief priests and elders [presbuteros] . . .” (See Mk 15:1; Lk 9:22)

Investigative/Guardian

• Acts 20:31 “. . . therefore watch . . .”
• 1 Pet. 5:2 “. . . taking oversight . . . Of a ready mind”

The function(s) of the episkopos are outlined in 1 Timothy 3:2-7 and Titus 1:6-9. In these passages, the episkopos’ duties do not include those of the presbuteros. Rather, they are in harmony with the lexical understanding of this office.

• Instructing -- 1 Tim. 3:2 “...able to teach" (didaktikos)
• Guarding -- 1 Tim. 3:5 “...take care (epimeleomai: to take care, Careful attention- of the church of God.”)
• Inspecting/Supervising/Review -- Titus 1:9 “Exhort (parakaleo). . Gainsayers"; Titus 1:9,13 “Convince (elegcho) . . . Gainsayers . . . Rebuke (elegcho) them sharply . . ”

An overview of the New Testament evidence does not show the episkopos functioning as an executive, administrative or judicial authority as do the presbuteros. Therefore, from the weight of evidence, the office of presbuteros can function as an episkopos, the episkopos obviously functions as itself, but the episkopos does not fulfill the role of the presbuteros.

4. Who is called to pray over the sick?

Interestingly, James 5:14 calls for the elders (presbuterous) to “pray for the sick of the church.” We have traditionally referred to this verse as referring to the local elders. At this point there is no attempt to take a dogmatic position on specifically who the presbuteros are, but it is certainly within the lexical understanding of presbuteros, to be involved in the caring and nurturing functions of the church, including prayer for the sick. Furthermore, unless we are compelled otherwise by Scripture, the episkopos and poimen are not included in this injunction.

5. Is the office of apostles (apostolos) linked with that of the bishop (episkopos)?

At first glance, Acts 1:20 seems to say that the office of the apostles is the same as the office of the episkopos, "his bishoprick (episkope- KJV) let another take." We have already seen that the office of the episkopos was referred to by episkope, but should the “office of the apostles” be understood in the same way? As already seen, the word episkope has three meanings: 1) Watching over, visitation, inspecting; 2) The office for an episkopos; 3) An office or “charge“ in generally.

From the context we know that Peter was speaking of an “office” and not an “action”- so meaning #1 is not possible. Also, we know from the context, the object of Peter’s presentation were not “Episkopos”- but rather “Apostolos.” Therefore, it is not referring to the office of the Episkopos, but to an “office” in general. This is why several translations have rendered it:

• “Let another man take his office” (NASB)
• “his office let another take” (ASV, RSV)
• “Let another take his office” (ESV)

Therefore, the office of apostles is not connected with the office of the episkopos. Rather, we must use the extended meaning for the word episkope and its meaning should be office or position.

6. Is the position of pastor distinct from its function?

The pastor (noun poimen) as discussed in part one, had the basic role of: guardian, nurturer, guide and teacher. As we discussed in question two above, there are times when the elders (presbuteros) were instructed to feed (verb poimano) the church of God. However, since feeding, nurturing and caring were actions, and not spiritual gifts, we must make a distinction between a function and a spiritual gift. Here are a few examples of presbuteros acting out the poimano:

• 1 Peter 5:1-4 "The elders [presbuteros] who are among you I exhort . . . To feed [verb form- Poimano] the flock of God which is among you..."
• Acts 20:17,28 "[Paul] sent to Ephesus and called for the elders [presbuteros] of the church. . . take heed . . . to shepherd [verb poimano] the church of God..."

This point is important, since some want to interchange the verbal forms of a word with the noun forms. In doing so, they neglect the contextual and the lexical meanings for the word. No where in Scripture do we see the presbuteros given the spiritual gift of being a pastor (poimen) whether explicit or implicit. While they lexically fulfill the functions of the poimen (nurturing, caring), they were not referred to by the poimen (noun).

In conclusion, after re-evaluating the N.T. testimony regarding the presbuteros, episkopos and poimen, the weight of evidence leans strongly in favor of three distinct and separate offices. As stated in the disclaimer, a thorough treatment of this subject should include the confirming influence of E.G. White’s statements. However, at this point, only a biblical study is possible due to time constraints. The role of pastor (poimen) is a spiritual gift, while elder and bishop are not (presbuteros, episkopos). What difference does all this make, especially in light of the current discussion regarding ordination? When church members assert their right to become a pastor by reason of an inner calling from God, we must ask them to which position are they called? If they feel called to the nurturing, caring and teaching position of the pastor (poimen), they have a legitimate argument to fulfill this role. If, however, they feel that it is the administrative, executive, judicial role of the presbuteros or the inspecting, watching role of the episkopos to which they are called, then the church must evaluate that subjective calling with the objective criterion that are listed in 1 Timothy 3:2-7 and Titus 1:6-8. Scripture must be the final arbiter of all callings, leadings, or gifts or we are left with wild subjectivism with no check or restraint. Finally, although a discussion for another day, bear in mind that the list for episkopos and presbuteros mentioned in Timothy and Titus, not only includes gender specificity, but also marital status and child-rearing responsibilities. We need to be consistent in our exegesis of these passages, by focusing so hard on one area, we may fail to account for other important criteria.

Footnotes will be added soon.

Homosexual students: what to do?

One of our readers alerted us to a recent posting on The Student Movement website, the official newspaper for Andrews University. The words "sexual orientation" were added to a list of personal characteristics protected from harassment and discrimination; however, the change has confused some gay students because they felt the school was acknowledging their presence, but limiting their freedom to express their relationships as heterosexual couples. The handbook states on page 176, “We expect students to refrain from all premarital and extramarital sexual relationships and inappropriate displays of affection, including displays of romantic affection between individuals of the same sex.”

One gay student said, "As a gay student on campus, there is no support for students or faculty that identify as LGBT." The article doesn't specify what kind of support they're looking for. Are these students who acknowledge that the homosexual lifestyle is sinful and they want freedom from their sins? Or are they wanting a club that makes them feel good about their lifestyle?

There's a lot of talk in the church about how we should treat homosexuals in the church. One issue that complicates this discussion is that the church is dealing with what appears to be an increasing number of homosexuals and supporters that no longer think the homosexual lifestyle is sinful. Are churches following the biblical steps outlined in the Church Manual for members who engage in sin and refuse to repent and turn from their sin?

No church officer should advise, no committee should recommend, nor should any church vote, that the name of a wrongdoer shall be removed from the church books, until the instruction given by Christ has been faith- fully followed. When this instruction has been followed, the church has cleared herself before God. The evil must then be made to appear as it is, and must be removed, that it may not become more and more widespread. The health and purity of the church must be preserved, that she may stand before God unsullied, clad in the robes of Christ’s righteousness....

“‘Verily I say unto you,’ Christ continued, ‘whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ Page 57

Our universities and colleges should do absolutely nothing that encourages students to continue in their sins, but be ever diligent in loving and encouraging them to over come their sins. Creating clubs that promote sin is not the answer.

I applaud Andrews University for recognizing the need to protect gay students from harassment, but also drawing the line.

This year, Andrews University edited policies in the Student Handbook on pages 174, 176, and 184, of the 2012-2013 Student Handbook, adding the words “sexual orientation,” to the list of personal characteristics protected from acts of harassment and discrimination. This has rekindled an ongoing debate regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students on campus.

Steve Yeagley, Associate Dean for Student Life, said, “We wanted to clarify the position of the church.“

According to Yeagley, a task force, comprised of AU’s faculty, staff, and legal team, came together to adjust the harassment and discrimination clauses in the Student Handbook. Yeagley believes the reason for the change was not the result of previous harassment or discrimination cases. He says that regarding sexual orientation, he is “not aware of any cases that have been formally brought to the [Student Life] office.” He explains, “Students were saying to us they wanted to know how they are protected, [and] what their rights were, especially when it came to how the university would protect them.”

The changes in the handbook occur in a few places. The harassment section simply adds the words “sexual orientation” to a list of traits including race, color, disability, religion and age. The discrimination section on the other hand, is more detailed. An entire paragraph was added regarding sexual orientation. The paragraph specifies that while sexual orientation is not legally protected in the state of Michigan, it is still protected under Andrews policy, “except as necessary to upholding the University’s commitment to the moral propriety as understood by the Seventh-day Adventist Church (pg. 174).” The paragraph then goes on to warn, “However, promoting or engaging in certain behaviors is prohibited (pg.174).”

LGBT students are confused by the handbook changes. An anonymous gay student said, “It’s like [AU] is acknowledging that we are here, and we are gay, but we still can’t act like it or show it. We can’t have a relationship like any of these other couples walking around campus. ”

The student also believes that, while all couples on campus are held to the standards of the church, homosexual students would receive harsher punishment. This assertion stems from the Student Handbook changes on page 176, under Rights to Relationships. The handbook states, “We expect students to refrain from all premarital and extramarital sexual relationships and inappropriate displays of affection, including displays of romantic affection between individuals of the same sex.” This is also stated again on page 184, under Code of Student Conduct. To the LGBT students, there is a clear distinction between the “inappropriate” romantic behavior for heterosexual students, and “displays of romantic affection” regarding homosexual students.

Victor D. Perez Andino, a junior architecture student who is gay, comments, “It is a good thing for the church to have put this in the handbook, but it doesn’t change the fact that I can’t hold hands with someone if I wanted to.”

Yeagley addresses the issue saying, “We claim the 1st amendment right to discriminate based on our faith-based belief.” As this is an issue that many religious institutions face, Yeagley clarifies, “We need to be aware of the comfort levels of everyone involved.” He explains, “Homosexuality is one of those conversations that the church is just now bringing into the open. […]”

This recent development occurred on October 17, when the Seventh-day Adventist Church reaffirmed its stance opposing homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage, but emphasized compassion and love towards all people. Yeagley reiterates this decision, saying “We have theological positions that we take, but there are pastoral issues that need to be looked at.” Yeagley supports the church’s stance when stating that being part of the LGBT community is not a sin, rather the practice of romantic behavior between same-sex attracted individuals is. Yeagley says, “The problem is the distinction that we make inside the church between orientation and behavior.”

Yeagley underlines his main point saying, “The question, I think, is how we can be as supportive as we can of the church’s position, but also be supportive of students on our campus. […] What we are facing right now is society around us changing.”

This seems to be the core issue for LGBT students as well. A gay student, who is waiting to officially come out, declares that, “As a gay student on campus, there is no support for students or faculty that identify as LGBT.” Since acting on any feelings or attractions would be considered a sin, LGBT members must commit themselves to a life of celibacy in order to be in alignment with the Adventist Church’s views. The student goes on to state, “If the Church and the University are going to take such a stance, they should realize that support groups must be maintained for gay students and faculty. […] We should have a Gay-Straight Alliance that is an approved club on campus.” The student describes the lifelong dilemma of the LGBT community within the church saying, “Imagine that you will never be able to experience the joy of children, or waking up with the person you love. That’s a very difficult thing to deal with.”

Jearmaine Semeleer, a junior marketing major, feels like he understands both perspectives. “I think ‘Why not’? If [LGBT] students are willing to notice that they need help, the church should do everything in their might to help them.” But he continues saying, “The way they word [the handbook] could be offensive, but God is the center of this school.”

Dr. Nancy Carbonell, a psychology and counseling professor at AU’s Graduate School of Education, was a part of the task force that revised the 2012 Student Handbook. She agrees that there needs to be support for LGBT students on campus, and she is proud of AU for revising the handbook. “It’s a step in the right direction,” she remarks, “It might not cover all the issues, but it lets students know they can report their concerns.”

Let your voice be heard. Read the official same-sex union statement (issued by the church), and share your opinions about the subject on our website ausmnews.com.

Welcome Livefyre

After almost nine months of using Disqus, we've decided it's in the site's best interest to switch to another service. When we initially installed Disqus, we had to do some tweaking to the code in our theme (the pretty face of our site) to make things look right. Our tech guy did a great job, but on the down side, this code would have to be re-applied every time our site upgraded. Everyone who contributes to ADvindicate does so for free and in their spare time, so it's essential that minimal time be wasted on tech related issues as we do not have technical support readily available. For this reason, and a few others related to apparent incompatibility issues between Disqus and our theme, we've decided to part ways with Disqus.

Welcome Livefyre. We're quite pleased with the way Livefyre integrates with our site. No extra coding required. It also has all the features of Disqus with the exception of a few such as post ratings and reactions (showed who had shared a post on Twitter). Four features Livefyre has that Disqus doesn't are Listener Count, One Click Follow, LinkBack and Social Tagging. These features will be explained along with the other features below. We've pulled a list of Livefyre's feature summaries for your convenience.

Please use this post to ask any questions you may have as you migrate to Livefyre. We hope you like Livefyre as much as we do.

SocialSync

You love the comments and conversation going on about your blog posts, but they’re not all happening on your site. Your friends, family and loyal readers are also commenting on your post via Facebook and Twitter and you haven’t been able to capture that conversation. Until Now.

With Livefyre SocialSync, the conversation happening on Facebook and Twitter automatically syncs directly to your content, where it belongs. SocialSync comments can be replied to and interacted with just like any other comment, including being automatically posted back to Twitter or Facebook.

Social Sign In

Livefyre makes it simple for readers to join your community. Users have the option to sign in with multiple social networks to put a face to their name and comments. That way they can jump right in and join the conversation. No new log-in required.

Sites can also use our guest commenting option to let their community comment without even creating an account.

Friend Tagging

Getting your friends in on the conversation is as simple as typing the “@” sign. Easily invite Facebook and Twitter friends to join the conversation right from the comment box. Give your readers access to their entire social network to bring specific friends that would be interested in the conversation.

Comment Sharing

You have a great community with some smart ideas. Okay..maybe not all of these comments are Mensa quality, but a lot of them are interesting, funny or just a bit insightful.

Let your community share those thoughts! With one click, users can easily share comments with their friends on other social networks including Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. Empower your community to spread the best reactions to your content and bring more traffic to your site.

Comment Liking

There’s a reason teachers gave out gold stars in elementary school- who doesn’t love being told “job well done?” Let your community members recognize those users who elevate the conversation. Livefyre even shows the avatars of every user who’s liked a comment.

Rich Text Editor

Sometimes you just need to be bold. Comments 3 includes new visualization tools like rich-text editing so that you can emphasize your point of view in flourishes of bold italics, or create a bulleted list to drive home your argument.

LinkBack

Most of us look to our friends for their recommendations about a new restaurant, book, or a hair stylist who won’t give you the Dorothy Hammill wedge. It makes sense to discover new ideas, places and people through our community.

Blogging is no different. Actually, one of the best parts about blogging is discovering new content and connections. LinkBack encourages community interaction by letting other Livefyre bloggers display a link to their latest post when they leave a comment.

Live Listeners

Most of us are more inclined to think about what we’re saying when speaking to a crowd. And no one likes to feel like they’re speaking to an empty room. Our Live Listener count lets readers know exactly how many people are on the current page or have followed the conversation, giving them more incentive to leave a thoughtful response. It encourages more participation and higher quality conversations.

Comment Notifiers

Livefyre Comment Notifiers make it as simple as possible to follow conversations in real-time, even if you’re not looking at the comments! The widget shows you who is participating in the conversation and what they are saying as it happens, all without losing your place on the page - so you never have to miss out.

Media Embedding

Livefyre Comments 3 enhances your media embedding options so that you can share photos from Flickr and Instagram, play videos from YouTube and Vimeo, flip-through slide decks on SlideShare, listen to songs from SoundCloud and Spotify, geek-out on animated gifs from Myspace, and even feature Wikipedia articles directly in the conversation stream.

Comment Editing

Comment Editing allows users to edit their own comments within a specific time frame so that they can fix their spelling mistakes without changing the context of the following comment stream. Site admins can make edits to all comments as well. Livefyre realizes mistakes are inevitable. But your comments shouldn’t have to show them.

User Profiles

Conversations and comments are about the people behind them and Livefyre User Profiles make it easy to form a community. Our user bios allow community members to share a bit about themselves and the topics they care about, while also showing the conversations where they have left comments. If users choose they can also receive email notifications when a new comment is left as an easy way to stay engaged.