The Adventist Arab Spring

Last year, the world's media were abuzz with stories of the “Arab Spring,” a revolt against autocratic rulers that swept across the Arab world from west to east. The revolt started in Tunisia, with the overthrow of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, then spread to Libya, where Muammar Gaddafi was ousted in an armed revolt, and swept on through Egypt, where Hosni Mubarak was removed from power. The Arab Spring sparked protests in many other Arab countries, led to an ongoing and very bloody civil war in Syria, as many sought to oust second-generation dictator Bashar al-Assad, and led to a relatively peaceful change of government in Yemen. This year, the Seventh-day Adventist Church is witnessing its own “Arab Spring” over the role of women in the church. Because of clear apostolic guidance, most churches with a high view of Scripture, including the Seventh-day Adventist Church, historically have not ordained women. The world church in General Conference session has twice voted against the ordination of women, first at Indianapolis, in 1990, and again at Utrecht, in 1995. But church officials in North America and elsewhere have nevertheless pushed to hire female pastors, and have promoted a form of ordination for female pastors, “commissioning,” that is ceremonially indistinguishable from the ordination of male pastors. Finally, they have sought to erase any meaningful distinction between commissioning and ordination, which brings us to the genesis of the current revolt.

This past October, the North American Division Executive Committee, for the third year in a row, voted for a policy change that would allow commissioned pastors to be elected to the office of conference president. This policy change is out of harmony with General Conference Working Policy. NAD president Dan Jackson was informed that the NAD does not have the authority to vote for or establish policies that conflict with GC Working Policy or the GC Model Constitution. This was confirmed by the NAD's legal counsel in an an opinion letter issued on January 3, 2012, which noted that the NAD does not have a constituency. The Church later made clear that the divisions, including the North American Division, do not form a separate layer of church governance, but are essentially administrative territories or sub-divisions of the General Conference.

In a January 31 letter to the NAD Executive Committee, Elder Jackson reiterated his commitment to placing women in the headship role of conference president, and called for more work to bring that about:

“While we, as a Division family, have philosophically supported women in leadership in three successive Year-End Meetings, the time has now come for us to become more practical in our application of philosophy and belief. . . . We must also develop intentional methods of mentoring women who can take on executive leadership positions within our conferences.”

Elder Jackson went on to lament that there are so few female pastors in North America (only 107 out of approximately 4,000 pastors), his implicit assumption being that the church should be moving toward a pastorate more evenly divided between the sexes.

Mid-American Union Conference President Thomas Lemon is on the NAD Executive Committee, and on March 8, while he was explaining to his own executive committee why the NAD's vote to allow women to become conference presidents was reversed, the Mid-America Union Executive Committee decided to vote, then and there, “to support the ordination of women in the Mid-America Union.” This was followed, on March 15, by the Pacific Union Conference Executive Committee voting to “reaffirm its commitment to the ordination of women,” and, on March 20, by the Columbia Union Conference Executive Committee voting to reaffirm its previous request to ordain women. On March 22, the Southeastern California Conference Executive Committee voted to issue only one credential, “ordained,” to all of its pastors regardless of gender, effectively retroactively ordaining all commissioned female pastors. On March 29, the Southern Union Executive Committee stated that, while they would not take an action contrary to the policy of the world church, they were “actively supporting, encouraging, and empowering women in all areas of ministry including . . . conference and union leadership . . .” On April 23, the North German Union voted to amend its constitution to end gender discrimination in ordination.

On May 9, the Pacific Union Conference Executive Committee voted to hold, on August 19, a special constituency session to authorize ordination without regard to gender distinction. On May 15, the Atlantic Union Conference Executive Committee voted a statement almost identical to that voted by the Southern Union, supporting the ordination of women, but declining to take any action contrary to world church policy. On May 17, the Columbia Union Conference Executive Committee took an action essentially identical to that taken by the Pacific Union, voting to hold, on July 29, a special constituency meeting “for the purpose of authorizing ordination to the gospel ministry without regard to gender.” Also on May 17, the North Pacific Union Conference Executive Committee voted “to appoint an ad hoc committee to create specific recommendations on how to fully integrate committed and called Adventist women into all levels of church leadership within the NPUC territory.”

It is important to emphasize just how this Adventist “Arab Spring” began: It began not over the ordination of women, per se, but over the North American Division's attempt to amend the “E-60” policy to allow women to serve as conference presidents. The issue is female headship in the SDA Church at the level of conference president and higher. Elder Jackson's letter made this clear, as have several of the statements issued by the various executive committees. So we can now put to one side such issues as the meaning of ordination, whether ordination is biblical, whether there is a role for women in ministry, whether women can serve as tithe-paid pastors, etc. None of these is the issue that now confronts us. The issue that has crystallized is female headship in the Adventist Church at the level of conference president and higher.

Even those unions--like the Southern and the Atlantic--that acknowledged and deferred to the authority of the world church nevertheless voiced support for women in headship roles. With a couple of exceptions, the executive committees have not offered any theological or biblical justification for their actions. Female headship has been treated as an organizational or administrative issue, not a doctrinal issue. This is perhaps not surprising, because although the Bible has much to say about the roles of the sexes, the Seventh-day Adventist Church has had little to say; we have not formulated a doctrine of sex roles. But the present crisis demonstrates that it is now necessary to do so; neglect is no longer an option. As a church, we need to familiarize ourselves with what Scripture teaches about sex roles.

Scripture specifies male headship in the Christian church. God the Son, Jesus Christ, was incarnated in the form of a male, and Christ is the head of the church. The Twelve Disciples chosen by Jesus were all men. Mat. 10:2-4; Mark 3:13-19; Luke 6:12-19. When lots were cast to replace Judas Iscariot, both of the candidates were men. Acts 1:12-23. When deacons were chosen to perform some of the practical tasks of the church, the seven appointed to the office of deacon were men. Acts. 6:1-7. Both the office of episkopēs (“bishop” or “overseer”) and deacon are described as male offices, to be filled by sober men who are the husband of only one wife, and capable husbands, fathers, and heads of their families. 1 Tim. 3; Titus 1:5-9. In 1 Timothy 3, Paul makes clear that capable leadership of the family is a prerequisite to leadership in the church: “He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)” And Paul elsewhere makes clear that the husband is the head of the home. Eph. 5:22-33; Col. 3:18-19; 1 Peter 3:1. Since the husband is the head of the home, and successful headship in the home is a prerequisite to headship in the church, it follows that headship in the church is also reserved for men.

Not only are leadership offices reserved for males, a submissive, non-headship role is specified for women. “As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.” 1 Cor. 14:33-35. “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.” 1 Tim. 2:11-14. Even a very relaxed application of these passages upholds the principle of male headship in the church.

These scriptural principles are too clear to need elaboration, which perhaps is why the Seventh-day Adventist Church has never bothered to articulate a “fundamental belief” regarding male headship in the church. Another reason may be sheepishness over the prominent role played by Ellen White in the founding of the denomination. Proponents of women in headship roles argue that the prophetic authority exercised by Ellen White sets aside, by implication, the patriarchal church governance specified in the New Testament. But female prophets were common in biblical times---Miriam (Ex. 15:20-21), Deborah (Judges 4:4), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14)---and in fact there were New Testament-era female prophets, such as Anna (Luke 2:36) and the daughters of Philip (Acts 21:8-9), who would have been well known to the Apostle Paul. Yet Paul nevertheless gave clear instruction that leadership roles in the church were reserved for men. Neither Paul nor any of the other Bible-writers hint that the existence of female prophets suggested a non-patriarchal organization for the Christian Church.

The most common argument in favor of women in headship roles is that, in the Bible era, society was organized along patriarchal lines (patriarchy = “rule of fathers”), and in order to conform to the culture of that time, Scripture specified that the Christian Church would also be patriarchal in organization. Today, however, society is less and less patriarchal, and the church may properly reflect today's cultural realities. After all, Paul frequently told slaves to obey their masters (Eph. 6:5-8; Col. 3:22-25; Titus 2:9-10), but this is not interpreted as an apostolic mandate that all societies should embrace the institution of slavery. Likewise, just because Paul specified male headship in the church of his time and culture does not mean that all societies must embrace the restrictive prerogatives of patriarchy. Scripture's mandate was culturally conditional, and our culture is different.

This reasonable-sounding argument runs afoul of the fact that male headship in the church is based upon the order of creation and the history of the Fall: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.” 1 Tim. 2:13-14. These facts of history are never going to change, hence the biblical rationale for male headship in the church does not rest on the shifting sands of culture. Obviously, there is no comparable biblical statement basing slavery on the order of creation or the history of the fall, so there is no legitimate comparison between slavery and patriarchy.

It is certainly true, however, that the move toward female headship in the SDA Church is being driven by cultural changes in what is referred to as the developed world or the “first world.” The “executive committees” involved in the Adventist Arab Spring have felt little need of a biblical rationale for their actions, but no need whatsoever to critically re-examine the cultural trends that are driving their actions. The members of these executive committees tend to be practical people who know how to operate within the prevailing cultural/legal complex of mores, laws, rules and regulations. Such people excel at running enterprises and organizations, but are unsuited to the task of critically examining the culture in which they operate. And the question of whether the SDA Church should bend to the dominant culture or resist it turns on a broad overview of cultural trends.

In the biblical-patriarchal form of sexual-social organization, the family, not the individual, is the basic unit of society, and legitimate sexual expression is restricted to opposite-sex married couples. Since the “sexual revolution” of the late 1960s/early 1970s, however, Western elites have promoted a post-patriarchal form of sexual-social organization in which the basic unit of society is the individual, not the family, and legitimate sexual expression encompasses anything consenting adults can think of to do with each other. These two different forms of sexual-social organization have very different ideas about the sexes, about proper sexual conduct, and about what is just and unjust. A contrasting summary of the assumptions and attributes of the two systems follows.

A side-by-side Comparison of Biblical-patriarchal with post-patriarchal culture

	Attributes and assumptions of Biblical-patriarchal culture:	Attributes and assumptions of Post-patriarchal culture:
1. The Sexes, and the differences between the sexes	God created us male and female. (Gen. 1:27; Mat. 19:4-5; Mark 10:5-9) The very significant differences between the sexes are part of the created order, and not something we should strive to efface. These differences mean that men are better suited than women to certain roles and tasks, and women are better suited than men to certain roles and tasks.	Except for their obvious physiological differences, men and women are the same. Persistent non-physical differences between men and women are the product of culture; they are not innate.
2. Sexuality, and the difference between male and female sexuality	Men and women have very different sex drives. Male sexuality can be problematic, even destructive. (2 Sam. 11, 12; 1 Kings 11:1-13) An important goal of Christian patriarchy is to curb the negative potential of ungoverned male sexuality, and to channel male sexual energy into monogamous (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:6), heterosexual marriages, that build families, societies, and civilizations (see 7 & 8, below).	Men and women are the same in their sexual drives. Women are just as likely as men to want casual sex with multiple partners, and men are just as likely as women to want to marry and raise children.
3. Marriage	Men and women need each other in long-term relationship in order to live the fullest, happiest, and most productive lives. It is not good that man should be alone. (Gen. 2:18; Heb. 13:4) A happy marriage is an important goal for all, and young people, 19 or 20 years old, are old enough to get married. Marriage is intended to last until death. (Mat. 19:6-9; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18)	Traditional heterosexual marriage is one option for sexual expression, but not the only legitimate option, nor the socially preferred condition. People should probably postpone marriage until they are fully educated and in their late 20s (and it is obviously unreasonable to expect chastity for the first 15 years after puberty). Marriage should last as long as both parties are happy, and no longer; during the sexual revolution, no-fault divorce was adopted in all states, meaning that either party could end the marriage at any time, for any reason or no reason. More recently, same-sex “marriage” has been enacted in several jurisdictions.
4. Raising Children	Men and women each bring something unique and irreplaceable to the rearing of children. The man's biological role in producing children is trivial, but he makes up for that by providing protection and support for the woman. The woman is a nurturer and has a greater role in the raising of infants and young children. (Isaiah 49:15; 1 Kings 3:16-28) When a wife gets pregnant, she reduces her participation in the money economy in order to concentrate on her physically and emotionally demanding role in bearing and raising the child, whereas the husband increases his participation in the money economy so as to be able to fulfill his complementary role of protector and provider.	Because men and women are not different in any meaningful respect, it doesn't matter who raises children. Two daddies or two mommies are as good as a mother and a father. Even a single mother is just as good as two parents. Discrimination in adoption in favor of married heterosexual couples has been outlawed in many jurisdictions; Catholic adoption agencies in several jurisdictions have closed because they can no longer discriminate in favor married heterosexual couples.
5. Out-of-wedlock Births	Stigmatized and frowned upon in patriarchal societies, because they are the product of illegitimate sexual activity, and also because complementary, opposite-sex parents are viewed as crucial to successful child-rearing. (Deut. 23:2)	Because there is nothing wrong with sexual activity outside of marriage, and because a single parent can raise a child as effectively as an opposite sex couple, there is no stigma whatsoever attached to childbirth outside of marriage. In the U.S., 40% of births, and the majority of births to women under the age of 30, are out of wedlock). If anything, there is now a stigma attached to disapproval of what used to be called illegitimate births and bastard children.
6. Sexual behavior	Legitimate sexual expression is limited to opposite-sex married couples. Adultery is proscribed. (Ex. 20:14; Mat. 5:27-28) Unmarried heterosexual sex is proscribed. (Mat. 5:32; 15:19; Mark 7:21; Acts 15:20; 1 Cor. 7:2; Gal. 5:19) Homosexuality is proscribed (Lev. 18:22; 20:13), and widespread open homosexual conduct is a sign of the removal of God's Spirit (Rom. 1:18-27) and even cause for immediate, supernatural judgment. (Gen. 18:16-19:29)	Between consenting adults, anything goes. Homosexuality is fine; pre-marital and extra-marital sex are fine. Since age and consent are the only guidelines, sexual expression is discouraged in situations that raise the possibility that consent is not genuine, such as when one party has power over another by reason of economic or social circumstances. Laws against workplace sexual harassment, and against sex within various relationships of trust, have multiplied pari passu with the acceptance of extra-marital sexual activity.
7. Female virtue-chastity	This is highly prized and protected in truly patriarchal cultures. The father is the protector of his daughter's virtue until she is married, after which her husband is her protector. The desire of husbands, fathers, and brothers to protect the virtue of their female relatives puts an important check on voracious and variety-driven male sexual appetite; it protects women from the worst male impulses. (Gen. 34)	This is viewed as quaint, if not actually oppressive. It is a woman's prerogative to be as sexually active and adventurous as a man, if not more so.
8. Female economic independence	This is not a value in patriarchal systems, because fathers are expected to support their daughters, and husbands are expected to support their wives. Fathers typically demand that their daughters' suitors be able to support their daughters; as a result, young men are forced, in order to gain sexual access to a woman, to channel their energy into hard work and economic success. (Gen. 29:16-30)	Very highly prized in the post-patriarchal sexual-social order. Economic independence, they are told, means freedom from male domination; it means that women don't need to get married for the wrong reasons, but can wait for “Mr. Right.” (A darker reason, seldom mentioned in polite society, is that a large cohort of single, self-supporting women creates a large pool of potential partners whom men can sexually exploit without being expected to financially support; Hugh Hefner was an early and constant supporter of “women's lib,” or equal economic opportunities for women. Moreover, when a woman is economically as powerful as a man with whom she has sex, the genuineness of consent is not usually in question, and, again, consent is the sole criterion of legitimate sexual expression between adults.)
9. Gender fairness and economic justice	Men and women have different roles and functions and perform different jobs. Not all jobs open to men are also open to women, and vice versa. Since the basic unit of organization is the family, not the individual, as long as jobs and other economic opportunities are open to all families on an equal basis, the fairness/justice element is met.	Because the basic unit of society is the individual, not the family, and it is not assumed that most adults will be, or will have been, married to a person of the opposite sex, family opportunity is irrelevant. Every individual, whether male or female, should be eligible for every job. Gender-based discrimination in employment has been almost universally outlawed (clergy being a rare exception). Any job that men do, women should also be encouraged to do, even to the extreme of putting women in military combat. (Again, in the post-patriarchal system, this isn't just an issue of fairness and justice; it is critical to the logic of the system to have a large cohort of women who are self-supporting and can freely consent to sexual activity.)
10. Headship	Headship, in the home (Eph. 5:22-33; Col. 3:18-19; 1 Peter 3:1) and in the church (1 Tim. 3; Titus 1:5-9), is a male prerogative, but it is servant-leadership, to be exercised in a Christlike, self-sacrificing manner. (Eph. 5:25-33).	For the dwindling few who choose to get married, the marriage should be a 50/50 partnership; there is no “headship” in marriage. In society, women should be in leadership roles as frequently as men. Since there are actually more women than men in the church, there should be at least as many women as men in church leadership, preferably more.

If one reads down the column, it becomes apparent that each culture has an internal logic and consistency; there is a coherent rationale behind each. And if one reads across the columns, it becomes apparent how sharply each culture conflicts with the other. (Obviously, neither the United States nor any other developed country is purely patriarchal or purely post-patriarchal; rather, they are at points along a continuum. In the mid-20th Century, most were still largely patriarchal societies, but for the last 40 years, they have been rapidly transitioning into post-patriarchal societies, although that transition is not complete.)

The Bible's values with regard to sexuality are part and parcel of the patriarchal system, but are rejected by the post-patriarchal system. Obviously, then, the Seventh-day Adventist Church should not view the fact that female headship is demanded by post-patriarchal culture as a point in its favor, but rather as a compelling argument against it. If we reject biblically prescribed male headship in the church on the basis that biblical culture was patriarchal but modern culture is post-patriarchal, we are consenting to be ruled by a neo-pagan culture, the sexual norms of which are anathema to biblical values. If we accept the foundational assumptions of post-patriarchal culture, we render irrational and unsustainable the entire complex of biblical prescriptions and proscriptions relating to human sexuality.

Christian patriarchy need not apologize to women. Wherever the gospel has taken root, the social, legal, and spiritual status of women has been elevated. Consider the position of women in Christian cultures versus their position in Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, Confucian, or other Eastern cultures. But whereas Christianity elevates women, post-patriarchal culture devalues femininity and female attributes. Created sex differences are downplayed, dismissed, despised, and denied. Post-patriarchy has contempt for women who embrace family and motherhood as their first and highest priorities; it denies that there is anything unique or extraordinary about women, insisting that women are just like men, except for the plumbing.

Moreover, an unspoken but obvious aspect of post-patriarchal culture is the enabling of immature male sexual instinct by creating a huge pool of self-supporting women whom men can sexually exploit without commitment or financial responsibility. Instead of ennobling men by demanding that they become responsible husbands and fathers, it degrades women by demanding that they shorten their own sexual horizons, and knuckle under to male patterns of sexuality.

Denominations that have embraced female headship are coasting toward oblivion. Liberal Presbyterians began ordaining women to the ministry in 1956, and by 2001 there were almost as many women as men in the PCUSA clergy. But the Presbyterians have witnessed a 40 year decline in membership. In 1968, there were over 4 million members, or almost 2 % of the U.S. Population; today membership hovers around 2 million, or about 0.6 % of the U.S. Population. Their membership was halved and their percentage of the population was reduced by more than two thirds. The United Methodists also began ordaining women to ministry in 1956, and first ordained a female bishop in 1980. Their U.S. membership has declined every year since 1968, from around 11 million (5% of the population) to 7.8 million (2.5% of the current population). The Episcopal Church began ordaining female priests in 1974. Their American membership has declined from about 3.2 million to about 1.95 million. Promoting female headship in the church is not the path to church growth and cultural relevance; it is the path to irrelevance and extinction.

The liberal churches that have embraced female headship have also embraced (or are in the process of embracing) homosexuality, as witness the confirmation of openly gay Bishop V. Gene Robinson in the Episcopal Church in 2003. Why? Because the culture of post-patriarchy is opposed to the entire corpus of biblical directives relating to sex, sexuality, and gender, and once a denomination has placed post-patriarchal culture above Scripture, the biblical rules will all eventually be jettisoned. It is also important to note that no church adopted female headship until after it had made peace with Darwinism and rejected a literal reading of the Genesis narrative. We have seen that Paul grounded male headship in the church upon a literal understanding of the story of the creation and the Fall. 1 Tim. 2:11-14. Patriarchy is part of the created order, if we understand the creation narrative literally. Liberal activists, unlike many serving on the “executive committees,” well know that these issues are all connected, which is why Spectrum divides its time about equally among: 1) agitating for female headship, 2) arguing for normalization of homosexuality, and 3) promoting Darwinism. They understand that these three issues are inextricably bound together.

Last year's “Arab Spring” was a disaster for American and Western interests; in every case, a more secular autocrat was replaced, or is in the process of being replaced, by a more Islamic government that embraces the sharia ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood and its ideological offspring, Al Qaeda. This year's Adventist Arab Spring will prove just as disastrous for the Seventh-day Adventist Church, because it signals a willingness to thoughtlessly embrace the cultural imperatives of post-patriarchy, in derogation of clear Bible truth.

The angry father

Misconceptions

If you were to ask what one of the most important moments in life might be, getting to meet God would probably be in the top tier. Yet, if you were to talk about what that meeting might look like, it is disheartening the impression people seem to have of His nature. While they will typically see Jesus as a loving and kind Savior, they tend to see the Father in darker hues.

In an informal study regarding our conceptions of God, Dr. Graham Maxwell asked: “‘Would you be afraid to meet God?’” One particular gentlemen responded, “‘Yes, terribly terrified!’ ‘Why so?’ ‘Because of all those terrifying stories in the Bible’”. Maxwell goes on to say, “I heard frequent references to the horrors of hell and the impossibility of trusting a God who would demand obedience under the threat of eternal torment”. All this led Dr. Maxwell to ponder the question, “How can we be friendly with someone who threatens to burn us to death if we disobey?” (1)

Common sense tells us that we should not be obligated to serve someone who threatens us with eternal torture if we don’t “love them”. By comparison, Hitler would seem compassionate. At least Hitler’s victims could finally die. This confused picture of God does not even harmonize with an atheists basic sense of justice.

In consequence, many people picture the Father as a demanding taskmaster, waiting to pounce on them at any given moment. As though God is anxiously waiting for us to make a mistake so He can, “make sure we don’t get into Heaven.” But is this really what God is like? Is this really what the Scriptures teach?

Hell & Fire

In Hebrew, the word “Hell” has its root in the word, Sheol שְׁאוֹל, meaning, the grave, or, a pit. (2) Sheol is described as a place “without thought” or “feeling”, where “dust returns to dust”, and from whence the “Breathe of God returns to Himself”. (3) Sheol was the place where King David was laid to rest, as well as Abraham, Jacob, and all the other fathers and prophets of antiquity, “having died without receiving the promise”, of eternal life. (4)

Hell (Sheol), then, is where both “the righteous and the unrighteous go” when they die, awaiting the “resurrection of the dead”. (3) Thus, the Biblical use of the word ,”Hell”, is simply a metaphor for burying someone. The disturbed idea that, God sadistically tortures people in “Hell”, is really no more Biblical than Easter or Christmas.

“Fire”, on the other hand, in many cultures throughout history, has traditionally been seen as a positive force of renewal. The scriptures use both water and fire as a catharsis for the entire planet. The first cleansing of the earth via water, was at the time of the flood, bringing a literal new birth of sorts to mankind. The second cleansing is described in the book of Revelation as a time when a despoiled Earth, filled with destructive inhabitants, will be smelted by fire.

But unlike those cultural traditions, which teach the equality of good and evil, or that, “evil cannot be defeated”, the God of the Bible, will put a literal and permanent end to evil, through the cleansing power of fire. It is during this very moment in time when death and Hell will be “metaphorically” cast into the purifying flames of the “lake of fire”. (5) Through the obliteration of corruption and evil, the power of the grave will be broken, granting eternal life to those who chose Love over selfishness.

In addition, Lucifer himself, his postulations, and his adherents, will be literally thrown into what is likely to be a sea of molten lava, utterly consumed, leaving nothing behind. (6) In this sense, the eternal and irrevocable sentence of death is an act of mercy. Giving rest to the tortured existence of all those who learned to survive through greed, abuse, facade and manipulation.

The Scriptures call this act of extirpation, “the second death”. It is an everlasting rest in the arms of Sheol, where the unjust dead, “sleep in the ground”, forever and ever. And when the corollary flame has cooled, with a shuttered sigh, the Father will recreate the world in all of its vulnerable Edenic verdure.

Emotional Projection

I coined a term a few years back called, “projected self-contempt”. It means that we treat others poorly and judge them negatively because, we are dumping what we dislike about ourselves, upon them. Projection is a coping mechanism, a form of self-protection. It is a prison from which we lob projectiles when our wounded and frail identities seduce us into self-loathing.

Like a Turner Classic film, we re-screen unresolved wounds from the cluttered shelves of memory; our percieved-sense-of-powerlessness making us both victim and abuser, both judge and jury. As in the acclaimed album, “The Wall”, our sense of vulnerability is tantamount to terror, “Since, my friend, you have revealed your deepest fear, I sentence you to be exposed before your peers. Tear down the wall.”(7) In those searing moments of shame, we castigate those around us in an effort to say, “back off, I am unloveable and flawed, and I will fail if you put me on a stage”.

As such, mankind’s picture of God can often become a projection of our personal demons, a preconception, rather than anything the Bible actually teaches. God taking the blame for our personal resentments. But is God actually like the people that abandoned or abused us? Is God really like the people that fail us when we need them the most? For that matter, is God even like a large majority of His own followers?

Just like a painting, where every picture has its own specific artist, with their own palette of color and subject, discretion demands that there be a difference between a single opinion and actual reality. A persons life cannot be captured in a snapshot, there is a multiplicity of pieces that fit into what makes up an individuals personality. And it is the same for God.

To assume that God is like what we are shallowly presented, historically, in pop-culture, or by failed authority figures, is to project upon God an assumption of Character. It is to judge a book by its cover. And when we are emotionally invested into the suffering of this world, we are more than happy to erase a seemingly impotent God, with one broad sweeping stroke.

Intention and Reality

But, consider the length of time that has passed in Judeo-Christian history. Do not forget, that what begins as well intentioned and sincere, can rapidly become encumbered with opinion and self-interest. Like gathering a line of people, what you tell the first person is far from what the last person hears. And this is exactly what has happened with God. What was obvious and plainly stated, became shrouded in mystery. That which was compassionate and just, became encumbered with greed and control. What was once the hoped for end of evil, became sadistic, controlling, and a means to a political end.

But if you were to talk with God, to ask He, Himself, what He’s like, what would He tell you? If you had everyone in the history of the planet judging you, you would certainly would want to speak for yourself, lest your life become a tabloid. And that is exactly what God did, in both inspiring the Scriptures, and by coming Himself, to explain it with His own mouth, in Christ.

Who God Really Is

It can be difficult to hear what is being said when it doesn’t fit our own agenda. Thus, even God speaking for Himself, is not enough for human beings. His own adherents, those who followed Him night and day for three years, hardly believed Him. Just as those of us today, the families, employees, and officials of the first century were desperate for deliverance from their problems. So when the “deliverer” arrived, the whole nation of Israel was ecstatic; they would finally have wealth aplenty. As proud nationalists, they would finally be delivered from oppressive political control. The poor would have wealth, and the rich would have power.

Yet, on the self-same day that they would crown Jesus King, He sent them all away. To their dismay, His response was, “You’ve come looking for me not because you saw God in my actions but because I fed you, filled your stomachs—and for free.”(8) Let’s be honest, a large part of the reason we don’t like God, the reason we paint Him as fiction, is because the truth that God offers is not freedom from responsibilities and trial, but rather to love one another through the healing of forgiveness.

God does eventually promise us a resurrection for our dead, and a future world without the failings of our current planet. But that isn’t good enough, we see the suffering around us and want to alleviate it, now. We see the injustices and want them to pay, now. But what we do not see, in our impatient anger, is that God wants the same thing.

It is the Father, not just Jesus, that loves His enemies. It was the Father that allowed the punishment of our guilt to fall upon His son. It is the Father that calls His own followers to alleviate the suffering and injustice of the poor and needy, now. It is selfish humans that turn the Father’s simple command to love into theological quarrels about nonsense, completely avoiding His call for us to care for one another.

Jesus said, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.” (9) So if you really want to blame God the Father, then you’ll have to blame Jesus too, because they are the same. They would both hang out with prostitutes as much as rebuke the sickening blindness of religiosity. “I and My Father are One.” (10) Understandably, we don’t want suffering to be a part of normal. It’s hard living in a world of injustice and selfish exploitation. Trial and care makes it difficult to not want to use God as though He were some kind of vending machine. But, truth be told, happiness is far bigger than indolence, and abundantly larger than pain.

Conclusion

Regrettably, the lions share of those rejecting God, will be ill informed, basing their choices upon anger at parents, peers, abusers, false or politicized religions, and the media… but, not upon the Scriptures themselves. We are not unlike those that stood at the foot of the cross, mocking Love, pledging themselves to their “safe” walls of control, and God’s response to our brokenness remains the same, “forgive them, for they don’t realize what they are doing”. (11) The louder our posturing, the more maltreated and terrified the child within. But, there is no need to be afraid, “A bruised reed He will not break, a smoldering wick He will not quench” (12)

The conception, that God the Father is stern and brutal, is just simply a lie. The scriptures describe the Father’s work of judgment, as a strange work, as the necessity of setting boundaries. Hear the Father in His own words, when He states, “‘Why will you die? I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,’ declares the Lord God. ‘Therefore, repent and live’; ‘People are bent on turning from Me. But how can I give you up? How can I surrender you? My heart is turned over within Me, All My compassions are kindled.’ ‘For I know the plans I have for you; plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.’”(13)

God the Father deeply cares about people. He longs to be, “‘the God of all families’”, who has, “‘loved you with an everlasting love;’”, and who, “‘draws you with unfailing kindness.’”, because, “‘before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart.’” (14) Not only does the Father care about us, but He is loves source, He is love itself, not as a verb, but as a noun: “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. Those who do not love do not know God, for God is love.” (15)

In our search to make sense out of the seemingly antithetical attributes of God, we must open ourselves to more than our wounds demand, more than histories failings, and more than mankind’s paltry efforts at emulation. In his personal struggle to understand God’s personality, through decades of personal study, with tenured years of instructing university courses on the subject, Dr. Maxwell concluded: “If we are lost in the end, it will not be because God has become tired of us, or angry with us. But that we have stayed away from Him so long, with such unwillingness to listen to our gracious God, that there is no remedy, and there is no healing for our condition. Thus, ‘the wrath of God’, is simply His turning away, in loving disappointment, from those that do not want Him anyway, thereby leaving them to the inevitable consequences of their own choices.” (16) Essentially, even if you are an all powerful God, you cannot force a utopian society, for love is only real when it is chosen.

1. Servants or Friends, pg. 2-4 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol 3. Ecclesiastes 12:7.; Psalms 115:17.; Hosea 13:14; Psalm 49:15; For a detailed study on these concepts see: http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/eti_18.pdf 4. Heb 11:13 5. Rev 20:14 6. Rev. 20:10; Mal. 4:1-3 7. The Trial, Pink Floyd, The Wall, 1979 8. John 6:26 TMB 9. John 14:9 10: John 10:30 11. Luke 23:34 12. Matthew 12:20 13. Ezekiel 18:31-32; Hosea 11:7-8; Jeremiah 29:11 14. Jeremiah 31:1,3; Jeremiah 1:5 15. 1 John 4:7-8 16. University Lecture Series, Dr. Graham Maxwell.

Is sola scriptura 'scriptural'?

Five centuries ago, Protestants sounded the call, “Sola Scriptura!”ⁱⁱ This epochal motto has echoed down the years, fortifying the church through many battles. Yet, there are cracks beginning to show in this beloved slogan- and some are questioning its validity. What is the meaning of this phrase? The Westminster Confession of Faith defined it as follows: “All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”ⁱⁱⁱ

Since this Confession was written, many Christians and denominations have jettisoned the “authority of Scripture,” in favor of their own private interpretation—“Solo Scriptura.” The concept of a “Priesthood of all believers” has persuaded some that we are entitled to our personal interpretations, independent of any outside, objective criteria. However, the Bible teaches that God works through the church, and at times it will receive the gift of Prophecy. This charisma is sent for edification, counsel, reproof and correction of the church. Although some prophets’ messages have not been included in Scripture^iv, they were authoritative communications from God to His people at the time they were given. The Bible, therefore, doesn’t stand as the ONLY guide for the Christian—but as the determinate rule for all other sources of revelation. In other words, a clearer way of stating “Sola Scriptura” would be “Sola Prima Tota Scriptura”^v- Scripture is the “measuring rod” (i.e.-kanon) for all other communications.^vi

As we have moved away from the great Protestant awakening, this bedrock principle is being challenged. Increasingly, one can find references such as:

The reformers’ view of the Holy Scriptures is itself unscriptural.^vii

No biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the formal authority or rule of faith in isolation from the Church and Tradition^viii. Sola scriptura can't even be deduced from implicit passages.^ix

Sola scriptura is an example of the logical fallacy of begging the question, inasmuch as the canonical  scriptures never identify what is and what is not scripture. The only evidence that the 26 books of the New Testament (excluding the self-attesting Revelation) are inspired is the authoritative proclamation of the Catholic Church.^x

“The idea of sola Scriptura was an invention of the sixteenth century.”^xi

Unfortunately, some “Protestants” are also echoing this viewpoint:

Mark Noll . . . is hardly the only evangelical Protestant raising questions about the viability of sola scriptura. . . What he said resonates with others criticisms of that formal Protestant principle–at least as it has been interpreted and applied especially by Baptists and other free church evangelicals. Tom Oden and D. H. Williams and many others have raised serious questions about it.^xii

Five hundred years after the Reformation and about 1900 years since the closing of the Canon, we must ask: Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? If it is not, and we are honest, we really have only two choices: 1) Set the Bible aside as a book of myths, half-truths and contradicting revelations or, 2) Rely on Church counsels and scholars to tell us what is or is not Scripture. If, however, “Sola Scriptura” is Biblical--then there should be self-validating, self-authenticating criteria for determining what is scripture.

Dr. Gerhard Hasel explains this concept:

Because of inspiration the biblical canon is self-authenticating, self-validating, and self-establishing. This means that the origin of the canon of the OT, and we may respectively add the canon of the NT where the same principles are at work, is not the same as its recognition by the respective faith communities . . . The inherent nature of canonicity reveal that a distinction needs to be made between the origin of the canon and its recognition by the religious community . . . The religious community does not bestow canonicity on Scripture; it recognizes canonicity.^xiii (emphasis mine)

In the previous study (See Spectrum of Scripture), we saw that the New Testament identified 15 markers which describe the nature of Scripture.^xiv If we apply these keys to the writings of the Bible, we should see if Scripture is self-authenticating or not.

Word of God

As we saw, the phrase “word of God” (including synonyms- “word of the Lord,“ “the Lord said,“ etc.) is one of the keys to denote Scripture. After collating the occurrences, this phrase is used in 34 of the 39 Old Testament books^xv and 24 of the 27 New Testament books^xvi. Therefore, of the total 66 books, 56 of them use this expression (Ruth, Esther, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Philemon, 2, 3 John excluded).

It is Written

The phrase “it is written” (including synonyms- “written,” “are written,” “write,” etc.) is also a marker to identify Scripture. The Old Testament uses this phrase in 12 of the 39 books^xvii, while the New Testament uses it in 20 of the 27 books^xviii. “It is written,” and its variations, are used in 32 of the 66 books of Scripture. More importantly, two of the nine remaining books left over from the “Word of God” use this phrase (2, 3 John). This leaves seven books which in this study we have not yet identified as “Scripture“- Ruth, Esther, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Philemon.

Writings of the Prophets

Deuteronomy 18:21,22 and Jeremiah 28:9 testify that “Prophecy” is a hallmark of God’s revelations. Many writings claim divine authorship, but a God who can accurately foretell the future possesses absolute knowledge. Scholar Robert Vasholz notes:  “the Old Testament endorses the fulfilled prediction as a hallmark of canonicity, . . .”^xix During the time of the Old Testament, short term prophecy^xx validated a prophet’s message to his own generation as authoritative communication from God^xx. He goes on to say that Prophetic fulfillment functions:

as proof that the prophet was genuine, and the Old Testament society understood them that way. . . Once a prophet and his contemporaries passed from the scene there would be no way for a prophet to be established. The prophet proved himself by short-term prediction and miracles to his peers. . . Prediction was the crux of the matter for canonicity in terms of its origin as the ’word of the Lord,’ but it also provides the internal criterion of acceptance and recognition by the community. On that basis, the written product of the prophets was recognized as both authoritative and canonical.^xxii

Whether Old Testament or New, the communities to which a prophet spoke recognized the inherent quality of their writings as Holy Scripture on the basis of their prophetic nature.^xxiii

The word “prophet,” (including synonyms “prophecy,” “prophesied,” etc.) are used in 19 of the 39 Old Testament books, and 5 of the New Testament books^xxiv. The book of Lamentations is a written fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecies. Of the 39 Old Testament books, all of them but Ruth, Esther, Job, Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon contain non-Messianic prophecies fulfilled near or at the time of their proclamation.^xxv The New Testament is saturated with fulfilled Messianic prophecies. There are more than 300 Old Testament prophecies confirmed in the life of Jesus.^xxvi In fact, only five New Testament books do not contain a prophetic fulfillment that the original hearers could verify (2 Thessalonians, Phile., James, 3 John, Jude)^xxvii. This leaves Ruth, Esther, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon and Philemon still unaccounted for in our study of the corpus of Scripture.

Quotations of Scripture

A significant “interlocking mechanism” defining “Scripture,” is its reference of other inspired writings. Many commentators see explicit quotations from all the Old Testament books except: Judges, Ruth, 2 Chronicles, Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, Song of Solomon, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Zephaniah^xxviii. The fourth edition of the United Bible Societies' Greek Testament (1993) lists 343 Old Testament quotations in the New Testament, as well as no fewer than 2,309 allusions and verbal parallels. If clear allusions, names or places are taken into consideration, the figures are much higher: “C.H. Toy lists 613 such instances, Wilhelm Dittmar goes as high as 1640, while Eugene Huehn indicates 4105 passages reminiscent of Old Testament Scripture. It can therefore be asserted, without exaggeration, that more than ten per cent of the New Testament text is made up of citations or direct allusions to the Old Testament.”^xxix

The books most referenced are Psalms (79 quotations, 333 allusions), and Isaiah (66 quotations, 348 allusions). The book of Revelation has no fewer than 620 allusions, including a direct nine-word quotation (formal quotation) in chapter 14:7 (from Ex. 20:10). Furthermore, the Old Testament is quoted or alluded to in every New Testament book except Philemon and 2 and 3 John. The books of Ruth, Lamentations and Jonah are not directly quoted, but there are names and allusions that are referenced. For example—Ruth is mentioned in Jesus’ genealogy (Matthew 1), Jonah is referred to by Jesus in Matthew 12:39-41, in Lamentations 3:52 and John 15:25. Esther, Song of Solomon and Philemon are the only remaining books to be included in our study as a part of “Scripture”.

Unity and the Canon

The unity that exists between the books of Scripture is profound. The great truths of the Bible, such as sin, redemption, the gospel, God’s law and character, etc., are interwoven into the fabric of the Bible. “This is sometimes called ‘the-unity-of-ideas’ approach to the Scripture. . . There is in both the Old and New Testaments the revelation of one and the same God. The God who created all things at the beginning of time is the God who is seen in the face of Jesus Christ. Both Old and New Testaments are one grand story of redemption, accomplished, to be sure, in stages. The God who delivered Israel out of Egyptian bondage offers salvation to the world through Jesus Christ . . . Israel’s founding father [Abraham], is the prototype of all those believers in the NT who, like him, are justified by faith. Other themes could be mentioned but these three (God, salvation, the people of God) will suffice to show that the two parts of the Bible are tied together by great themes.”^xxx

Unity is also seen in typology. Great events, things or people are prefigured by something or someone else at a former time. The Passover, the Jewish feasts, sanctuary, sacrificial system are all symbolic of a real and greater later event. “The typology method is validated by the Bible itself, particularly by the NT, where Christ is seen as the fulfillment of that which was typified in the OT.”^xxxi The great themes of sin and redemption, God’s law, and judgment are seen in the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. They testify to God’s character, the futility of man apart from God, and the many ways in which humans can edify or destroy themselves.

The Providence of God

Sometimes called “the hidden face of God”, Providence could be summarized as God’s continual involvement in the created world. It affirms that God cares for, preserves and watches over the affairs of men and women. Several biblical examples are: Moses in the bulrushes, Isaac and Rebecca, Joseph in Egypt, Ruth and Naomi, Jonah, etc. The books of Esther and Ruth fall into this category. Although there is little or no mention of God in these stories, they clearly show God’s hand guiding behind the events.

Writings of Paul

2 Peter 3:16 affirms that the writings of Paul are to be included in Scripture. Although Philemon does not contain several of the markers used to identify scripture, it can be included in the basis of this affirmation. Philemon could also be included in the “Great themes” of Scripture- since it manifests the love of Jesus Christ for each one of us as seen in what He did for us before God in pleading our case. This is one the finest illustrations of the doctrine of Substitution.^xxxii

Esther

There may yet be some lingering questions about the book of Esther. It is the only book where God’s name is not explicitly mentioned and has no explicit prophetic message. But Esther should be included in the Canon for several reasons. Firstly, as we have seen, the “Providence” and miraculous power of God is clearly seen in the book^xxxiii. Secondly, we see an example of obedience to God’s law (Mordecai not bowing to Haman)^xxxiv. Thirdly, there is implied supplication and humiliation for protection—strongly intimating that God is the object of their fasting^xxxv. And finally, the courage of Esther, Mordecai and the Jews resulted in the conversion of many Persians^xxxvi. Behind the play and interplay of human events, we clearly see God’s omnipotent hand at work in this book.

Song of Solomon

What about the Song of Solomon? At first glance, it appears as an evocative love story with little spiritual value. But a more careful look reveals several reasons for its inclusion into the Canon. First, this is a song written by Solomon. At the time of this writing, he was a monogamous king, living a godly life. This song reveals the deep love and intimacy that is shared between a husband and wife. It shows us romance and marital love within the confines of the institution of marriage. Secondly, in a broad sense, the song is a Type and Antitype of God’s relationship with His people. “The love of Solomon and the bride are seen as typical of the love of Christ and His church. The love of marriage is made to illustrate the love between Christ and His Bride. Compare the New Testament picture of Christ and His Bridegroom in Eph. 5:22-23 and Rev. 22:17.”^xxxvii Third, there are a number of words, allusions and places from other OT books that are referenced.^xxxviii This shows that Solomon relied on the history and geography of the Jewish nation for this song. Fourth, the name of God (not seen in KJV, NKJV, NIV, etc.) is mentioned in 8:6 (mentioned in YLT, ESV, NASB, JPS, ASV, etc.). Fifth, there are New Testament quotes and allusions that most likely find their source in this Song.^xxxix For all these reasons, the Song of Solomon should be included in the Canon.

In conclusion, a convincing argument can be made that the Canon recognizes itself! The New Testament was closed around A.D. 100, and from that time on, Christians could perceive which writings belong to it. Scholar Bruce Metzger concluded that the believers “came to recognize, accept, and confirm the self-authenticating quality of certain documents that imposed themselves as such upon the Church.”^xl “The ‘self-authenticating quality’ is the divine revelation inscribe in the Word of God by inspiration. The canon was created by God through inspiration and its divine authority and canonicity is inherent in the revelation-inspiration phenomenon.”^xli The Bible isn’t a book that can be added to and changed by church counsels, scholars or leaders, because it isn’t “just a record of revelation, but the permanent written form of revelation.”^xlii The “Church” didn’t create the Bible—rather, God through Scripture “created” the church!

This article's references are available as a PDF document: view references.