Stand in the gap

By Stephanie Dawn As Christians, prayer is one of the necessary components in our spiritual journey. Prayer keeps us spiritually alive, and it opens the door for God to do miracles in our lives as well as in the lives of those for whom we pray. Unfortunately, we often make reference to prayer without fully understanding its significance. Sometimes prayer chains can become a form of gossip, and sometimes when someone comes to us with a problem that makes us uncomfortable, we respond by saying, “I’ll pray for you,” as a means of dodging a conversation that pulls us out of our comfort zone. If we really understood the role that we as God’s people are called to play on this earth and how deeply prayer is involved in this role, we would not treat prayer so casually.

After God led the Israelites out of Egypt, He led them to Mount Sinai. As they camped in the wilderness near the mountain, God gave Moses a message for His people. “You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to Myself. Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exodus 19:4-6). During Bible times, only the descendants of Aaron were permitted to serve as priests in the temple, but the Israelites were also to be a kingdom of priests. God has given this same role to His people today. “To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen” (Revelation1:5-6). After God liberated the children of Israel from their Egyptian taskmasters, He gave them the privilege of being a kingdom of priests, provided that they keep His commandments. The experience of the Israelites symbolizes the experience of Christians today. When we accept God’s gift of salvation, He sets us free from the enslavement of sin, and if we live in obedience to God’s law, we, too, will have the privilege of being a kingdom of priests.

So what does it mean to be a kingdom of priests? The prayer of Daniel provides an answer to this question. Daniel was not a priest, yet he interceded on behalf of Israel, fasting and confessing his sins as well as the sins of his people. Notice how Daniel communicated with God in his prayer. “O Lord, great and awesome God, who keeps His covenant and mercy with those who love Him, and with those who keep His commandments, we have sinned and committed iniquity, we have done wickedly and rebelled, even by departing from Your precepts and Your judgments. Neither have we heeded Your servants the prophets, who spoke in Your name to our kings and our princes, to our fathers and all the people of the land. O Lord, righteousness belongs to You, but to us shame of face, as it is this day—to the men of Judah, to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and all Israel, those near and those far off in all the countries to which You have driven them, because of the unfaithfulness which they have committed against You” (Daniel 9:4-7). Like all of humanity, Daniel was born with a sinful nature, but he did not rebel against God. He did not live the wicked life that most of the children of Israel lived before their captivity in Babylon. Unlike most of Israel, he did not turn away from God, yet he identified himself with the sins of his people, and by praying in this manner he interceded on their behalf. In verses 16 through 19 Daniel concluded his prayer by acknowledging the fact that he and his people had no righteousness in themselves. They were not worthy to come before God, but Daniel threw himself and his people upon God’s mercy. Daniel was clearly aware of the great controversy and the fact that God’s name is at stake, and he appealed to God to answer his prayer based upon this fact. “O Lord, according to all Your righteousness, I pray, let Your anger and Your fury be turned away from Your city Jerusalem, Your holy mountain; because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and Your people are a reproach to all those around us. Now therefore, our God, hear the prayer of Your servant, and his supplications, and for the Lord’s sake cause Your face to shine on Your sanctuary, which is desolate. O my God, incline Your ear and hear; open Your eyes and see our desolations, and the city which is called by Your name; for we do not present our supplications before You because of our righteous deeds, but because of Your great mercies. O Lord, hear! O Lord, forgive! O Lord, listen and act! Do not delay for Your own sake, my God, for Your city and Your people are called by Your name.” In verses 20 through 23 of the same chapter we are told that Daniel’s prayer was answered even before he had finished praying. In fact, as soon as Daniel started praying, God commanded Gabriel to go to Daniel and explain to him the 70 week prophecy.

During Bible times, the priests interceded on behalf of the people by offering animal sacrifices, which symbolized Christ’s gift of salvation to the world. As God’s kingdom of priests today, we intercede on behalf of others, not by offering animal sacrifices, but by lifting them up in prayer. Just like Daniel, we come humbly yet confidently before God, acknowledging our unrighteousness and falling upon God’s mercy. When praying for those who have not accepted Christ or have wandered away from Him, we plead for God to pardon them and to take whatever steps are necessary to bring them to Him. Just as the high priest was the only one permitted to enter the Most Holy Place in the temple, Jesus as high priest is the only one who can stand in the Father’s presence and intercede on our behalf, but we have a lesser priesthood to perform, the act of interceding on behalf of others through earnest and persistent prayer.

The experience of Moses is a powerful illustration of the result of intercessory prayer. When Moses was communing with God on the mountain, God informed Moses that the children of Israel had made a golden calf and were worshipping it. Then God said to Moses, “Now therefore, let Me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them. And I will make of you a great nation” (Exodus 32:10). God does not have a violent, impulsive temper. He did not need Moses to restrain Him from carrying out an act of uncontrolled rage. If God had truly wanted to destroy His people, He could have done so in an instant without consulting Moses, and He would not have needed Moses to leave His presence in order to accomplish His purpose. When God told Moses to let Him alone so that He could destroy Israel, He was testing Moses to see how he would respond. He was giving Moses an opportunity to intercede on behalf of Israel, and Moses immediately seized upon this opportunity by quoting God’s own words back to Him and referring to the fact that God’s character would be viewed in a negative light if He destroyed Israel. “LORD,” Moses pleaded, “why does Your wrath burn hot against Your people whom You have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? Why should the Egyptians speak, and say, ‘He brought them out to harm them, to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth’? Turn from Your fierce wrath, and relent from this harm to Your people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants, to whom You swore by Your own self, and said to them, ‘I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven; and all this land that I have spoken of I give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever’” (Exodus 32:11-13). Because Moses took advantage of the opportunity God had given him to intercede on behalf of Israel, God did not destroy His people.

In Exodus chapter 34 we read that God gave Moses the privilege of seeing His glory. During this beautiful experience, God described His character to Moses by saying, “The LORD, the LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children to the third and the fourth generation” (Exodus 34:6-7). This statement is crucial to keep in mind when reading about another opportunity for Moses to intercede on behalf of Israel, found in Numbers chapter 14.

The children of Israel were on the border of Canaan, but the negative report given by ten of the twelve spies who were sent to investigate the land filled the people’s hearts with unbelief. This unbelief soon turned into rage, and a riot broke out. Then God said to Moses, “How long will these people reject Me? And how long will they not believe Me, with all the signs which I have performed among them? I will strike them with the pestilence and disinherit them, and I will make of you a nation greater and mightier than they” (Numbers 14:11-12). Once again God gave Moses the opportunity to intercede, and once again Moses used this opportunity. He pointed out to God that by destroying Israel His character would be misunderstood. He said, “Then the Egyptians will hear it, for by Your might You brought these people up from among them, and they will tell it to the inhabitants of this land. They have heard that You, LORD, are among these people; that You, LORD, are seen face to face and Your cloud stands above them, and You go before them in a pillar of cloud by day and in a pillar of fire by night. Now if You kill these people as one man, then the nations which have heard of Your fame will speak, saying, ‘Because the LORD was not able to bring this people to the land which He swore to give them, therefore He killed them in the wilderness’” (Numbers 14:13-16). Moses had not forgotten what God had said about Himself on the day that God had revealed His glory to Moses, and now, as Moses once again pleaded for the children of Israel, he quoted some of God’s own words back to Him. “And now, I pray, let the power of my Lord be great, just as You have spoken, saying, ‘The LORD is longsuffering and abundant in mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression; but He by no means clears the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation.’ Pardon the iniquity of this people, I pray, according to the greatness of Your mercy, just as You have forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now” (Numbers 14:17-19). Once again God answered Moses’ plea. He gave Moses the reassuring response, “I have pardoned, according to your word” (Numbers 14:20). Because of their unbelief, God would not permit the people to enter Canaan, but the intercessory prayer of Moses prompted God to pardon them and not to destroy them. We should never underestimate the power of intercessory prayer, especially when we quote Scripture and claim God’s promises in our prayers.

To stop praying for others is a very serious fault. In fact, according to the Bible, it is a sin. “Moreover, as for me, far be it from me that I should sin against the LORD in ceasing to pray for you; but I will teach you the good and the right way” (1 Samuel 12:23). We can never afford to take prayer for granted. As the sins of Israel multiplied, God bore long with them. He sent prophet after prophet to them in an effort to warn them of their danger and to urge them to return to Him, but they stubbornly refused to listen. Gladly would God have answered the prayer of any one of His people if they had only confessed their sins and interceded on Israel’s behalf! “So I sought for a man among them who would make a wall, and stand in the gap before Me on behalf of the land, that I should not destroy it; but I found no one” (Ezekiel 22:30). Tragically, there came a point at which it was too late to pray for Israel. In Jeremiah chapter 15 verse 1, God made this sobering statement concerning the children of Israel. “Even if Moses and Samuel stood before Me, My mind would not be favorable toward this people. Cast them out of My sight, and let them go forth.” In Jeremiah chapter 7 verse 16 God said to Jeremiah, “Therefore do not pray for this people, nor lift up a cry or prayer for them, nor make intercession to Me; for I will not hear you.” We have only a window of time during which we can intercede on behalf of others, and that window of time is different for each person. We have no way of knowing when the window of opportunity for each person will close. This is why it is so crucial that we pray without ceasing for those whom God has placed upon our hearts. If we neglect our duty to pray for these people, many of them will pass beyond the point of being reached by the Holy Spirit, and it will be too late.

On the other hand, incredible miracles will take place in the lives of many lost souls if we persist in praying for them. We can all gather hope from the story of Stephen. As Stephen was being stoned to death, his dying words were an intercessory prayer on behalf of those who were murdering him. “Lord, do not charge them with this sin” (Acts 7:60). Stephen’s prayer was not in vain. Present at his stoning was a young man named Saul. One look at Saul’s life might have led many of the Christians who knew him to conclude that he was a lost cause, but God saw what no one else could see. Saul went from being a hater and persecutor of the church to being one of the greatest Evangelists of his day, carrying the Gospel far and wide and leading many to the feet of Jesus. Only in Heaven will Stephen learn of the amazing result of his intercessory prayer as seen through the conversion of Saul. What joy Stephen will feel when he talks to Saul in Heaven and hears Saul’s testimony for the first time! If we persist in earnest intercession on behalf of others, refusing to stop praying until our prayers are answered, we, too, will feel this same unutterable joy when we are united with those we have prayed for in the Heavenly kingdom.

Gender roles: cultural competition or consecrated cooperation?

There are some biblical aspects about the role of men & women in the church being vigorously debated. While we welcome dialogue on this topic, we owe it to one another to define the source of authority that shapes our beliefs. In short, how do we respond when the world around us stands in sharp contrast to the Word of God? Why raise the issue? My deepest anxiety as I write this is that some women will take it personally, dismissing it as another chauvinist put-down. As a counselor, I recognize there are festering wounds among us and possibly unjust suppression in some homes. I can only say it is not in my heart to add to those hurts. To do so unnecessarily would sit heavily on my conscience. So why raise the issue?

I believe in Bible truth. It is what brought me to this church. I base my convictions on the revealed mind of God rather than the concealed motives of man. This is the path to joy and peace (Psalms 16:11).

Departure from truth carries serious danger in both belief and behavior. I confess that when I began this study in 1994, I did not realize how much was at stake. It is permanently fastened to our view of the authority of Scripture.

I am genuinely concerned that some churches and conferences seem determined to press ahead with this issue, despite the formal expression of will from the world church. Where can we be headed when Conference & Union leaders no longer respect an action taken by the General Conference in formal session? To defy the world church and institute what seems like oncoming congregationalism is a bold (and ominous) new step.

Our identity The Seventh-day Adventist Church is no ordinary body. It is a movement called to prepare a dying world for the soon coming of Jesus. In the words of Paul, this is a mystery, but it is also a reality. God is calling a people together who want to know Him and will walk where He walks. We have long been called the “People of the Book.” Therein lies our identity and our safe conduct as we navigate through a spiritual-war-torn world.

How did we get here? The Adventist movement began with a special emphasis on something in which we believed strongly, for God Himself gave it to us. Our movement was first informal; highly person-oriented, and convinced that the prevailing religion around us was missing these special elements of biblical truth. At first despised and ridiculed we attracted a following based on our God-given scriptural identity. Under God’s blessing, the church grew. After many years, organizational diversity was paralleled by a call for doctrinal diversity--theological confusion ensued in some circles. Time went on.

Today, increasing numbers of members think of themselves as Adventists by heritage or tradition rather than by conviction. Hence they feel free to shop cafeteria-style among the beliefs & practices of the church, assembling for themselves a suitable selection. True to postmodern values they find that their demand to be regarded as equivalent as anyone else–is reinforced in the currents of the wider society. Thus they begin adopting the world’s values in lieu of biblical values. The organized church now becomes challenged. And following post-modernist norms (with regard to organizations) it is regarded as oppressive--enter feminism.

Feminism in the church For some 30-years, a liberal political element in the church has been pushing for the ordination of women, under the premise of equality. For many, the promotion of this agenda is a result of perpetual hydrostatic pressure from the world around us. Admirably, the majority has resisted the intrusion of evangelical feminism because of a love for and a commitment to the Word of God which plainly states that leadership is male. As the feminist agenda keeps pushing, it’s time to look at some biblical principles.

Creation Genesis 1 represents a vertical line. Both man and woman are responsible to God. This is vertical equality (spiritual) in God’s sight. Man & woman are the same in the economy of salvation. Genesis 2 is a horizontal line (a co-ordination). Here is the basis of inequality of role and responsibility. Man directs the partnership, and woman defers to his leadership. Here, man is linked to God and woman to man (an association that follows throughout the Bible). This is the basis of cooperation, and millions of men & women in the Advent Movement peacefully demonstrate this principle. For them I am grateful.

What does the Bible say about male & female roles in the church? The Scriptures forbid a woman to didasko a man (1 Timothy 2:12). The same Scriptures call for women to didasko younger women (Titus 2). Paul calls on Timothy to commit the gospel truths to other men so that they might didasko others (2 Timothy 2:2). The church of Thyatira is signally rebuked for allowing a “woman Jezebel” to didasko and seduce God’s servants (Revelation 2:20). A bishop or elder must be the husband of one wife and able to didasko (1 Timothy 3:2). Peter and the apostles continually didasko’d in the temple and in every home (Acts 5:42).

Men and women each have a unique sphere of ministry that compliments each other. One of the greatest wants of our world is Godly men who will lead as Jesus did. Yet there is a growing number of passive men in our world, and this harms women by thrusting them into roles they weren’t designed for. When men fulfill their roles as spiritual leader in the home‎, women are encouraged and blessed. The same goes for the church.

1 Timothy 2 is probably the most offensive passage to the feminist woman because it imposes limits on their public ministry and perpetuates male-leadership in the church. Several Pauline passages have become fashionable to be referred to as "problem passages" because they run counter to modern sensibilities. It should be noted, that they are only a problem to those who have different understandings, whatever the reason.

There are three prevailing attitudes that Bible students adopt towards these passages and others regarding the roles on men and women.

• Paul was wrong then, and he is wrong now. That is, he was sincerely mistaken in his views. Progressives/liberals normally pursue this line.
• Paul was right then, but he is wrong now. This is the culturally-conditioned argument.
• Paul was right then, and he is right now. That is, he was divinely inspired to set standards for all the churches down through "the last days." I believe this is the Bible’s position.

Galatians 3:28 is a favorite passage cited by people pressing for change in male/female role definitions. Unfortunately, it is being used out of context. This whole letter deals with two dangers in Galatia:

• Building faith on the Law of Moses rather than the promise of Abraham.
• Second, interpreting liberty of the Spirit as license for the flesh.

The theme is the inheritance of the blessing promised to Abraham and his “seed.” It could not be inherited by a slave or a girl or a Gentile. Jesus fulfills the conditions and is the obvious son and “Heir.” How then can anyone else share in this inheritance and blessing? The answer is simple.

By total identification with Christ anyone can claim the inheritance!! Through faith in Jesus a person is baptized into Him, crucified with him (2:20) is clothed with Him, is in Him, and belongs to Him (verse 29; Galatians 4:5).

Because all are sons, all are heirs, which daughters could never be (3:29). So in Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek, only Jew; neither slave nor free, only free; not male and female, only male.

If this verse is lifted out of its inheritance context and taken to abolish all sexual differences (neutered in Christ), it would contradict Paul’s teachings on homosexual relations (Romans 1-24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9), on the duties of husbands and wives (Colossians 3:18-19; Ephesians 5:22-23), on slaves’ attitude to their masters (Ephesians 6:5-9; Colossians 3:23–4:1) and in particular his qualifications of women’s ministry in the church (1 Corinthians 11:3-16; 14:33-38; 1 Timothy 2:11-14).

Accusing Paul of such inconsistency is a grave charge, with implications for the inspiration of the whole Scripture as well as his personal Christian integrity. To enlarge one verse of Scripture into a social or ecclesiastical manifesto is unwarranted and misleading, particularly in view of Paul’s specific teaching on the subject. “Christian Feminists” have hailed this statement in Galatians as the epitome of their inspiration—and hated Paul for almost everything else he said on the subject!

Solutions for Leadership For men, more training needs to be given. The answer to the present confusion regarding ordaining women is not to weaken the woman’s contribution but to strengthen the men’s. Local churches must give top priority to evangelizing and discipling men as Jesus did. It is better to teach a man to lead his wife and family than to provide women’s meetings and youth clubs to compensate for a godless father. The Word tells us where to go. Godly wisdom tells us how to get there.

Blurring the Lines It takes little imagination to see how the enemy is warring against biblical role distinctions. This war affects marriages, homes, the church, and ultimately the whole world. Last week, when the U.S. President gave his support to homosexual marriage, the assault line of gender confusion advanced still further. Should these gender revisions prevail (ecclesiastical feminism and homosexual capitulation), the character of the church will be almost entirely redefined, leaving little beyond a lingering sentiment to tie us to the authority of Scripture.

Summary What looks like a simple difference over the interpretation of Scripture easily slips into a subtle debate about its authority. And behind it all, the very nature of the Godhead is being questioned. Men and women have been given the answer to a mystery. As in Ephesians 5, the sacrificial love of the husband, and the submission of the wife illustrate to a watching world what God is like. It is a mystery made known to all. Any disruption in these roles and relations result in a witness lost and a mystery stolen.

Let us firmly reject the world’s counterfeit of cultural competition, and joyfully demonstrate the Word’s standard of cooperation. We have found peace in an un-peaceful world, and it is not of this world.

The secularization of La Sierra University

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Male and female, in the image of Christ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vision through blindness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cultural Vegetarians?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The blessed hope; what sustains it?

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

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

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

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

The End of Time or the Time of the End?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Witnessing: let your light shine

“But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8, NKJV). Evangelism and witnessing is the theme for the current Sabbath School quarterly. As the teacher of a young adult Sabbath School class, I have had the opportunity to discuss this topic with peers from a wide variety of backgrounds, and I am struck with how applicable these lessons are for our time and situations. As we learn from Scripture, each member of the body of Christ is called to be a witness for Christ within our circle of influence—be it among our family, friends, classmates, co-workers, neighbors, or the strangers we pass and hold brief conversations with throughout our busy days. Yet some of us have a difficult time understanding what evangelism and witnessing mean to us individually.

One of the first reactions I noticed at the beginning of this quarter was a very strong, negative attitude towards the terms “evangelism” and “witnessing” among some Adventists. This was not the first time I have come across these feelings of loathing towards the terms and what these words represented. From my experience, those who harbor this extreme dislike more often than not were raised Adventists and do not have the joyful experience of having been reached through evangelism and witnessing.

As an individual who was raised Protestant Christian and joined the Adventist church through an evangelism outreach, I have spent a good deal of time over the years contemplating this aversion towards evangelism and witnessing that some Adventists seem to have. This is a serious problem for our church, because as followers of Christ, evangelizing and witnessing is one of the main reasons we, as a church, exist. In Matthew 28:19-20, Christ gave what is widely known as the great commission: “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. Amen.”

After careful probing in my Sabbath School class, I have concluded that many of these negative feelings stem from experiences these Adventists had growing up within the church. Bible-thumping family or church members, an irrational fear of the end times, a strong aversion to the beast imagery of Revelation, and pressure into baptism too early are among the top reasons given. They demonstrate that there is a misunderstanding about what evangelism and witnessing is and what it is not.

First, let’s tackle what evangelism and witnessing is not. It is not out-arguing the other person until they have no choice but to concede to your view; it is not pressuring the other person into submission to regulations and traditions; it is not using fear to coerce their obedience to Biblical doctrines. I remember visiting a Kmart with my mother when I was in high school, and a very strange man suddenly cornered us in one of the aisles. When he opened his mouth, the words “Do you know Jesus?” fell out, and when my mother replied, “Yes, we do,” the atmosphere became very awkward. He would not accept our answer and began to expound on why we needed to believe in Jesus. Clearly he was on a mission, but the loving heavenly Father I knew was, in my eyes, clearly not the one who had sent him. When my older sister was away at college, she ran into a man preaching on the street corner near campus. He loudly condemned every college student who walked by to hell, calling them drug addicts and prostitutes. How many times have these scenarios and others like them played out in millions of shopping centers or on street corners around the world? How many precious souls who did not already have a relationship with our Lord find such an attack morally offensive and were turned away from God, temporarily or permanently, because of it? How many who were barely holding on to their faith found such harsh words and condescending attitudes the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back?

We all have heard similar stories from others or maybe experienced them ourselves, but we like to think that we are better than that. Yet many of us, in our zeal to share what Christ has done for us, end up going about personal evangelism and witnessing the wrong way. We may unintentionally pressure the person we are witnessing to when he or she is still sorting out his/her life and relationship with Christ. When giving Bible studies, we may jump too far ahead of where the person is, trying to feed them spiritual meat when they have not even tasted spiritual milk (1 Corinthians 3:1-2). We may also tend to focus on the areas of study that are most interesting to us personally without consideration for the needs of the person we are studying with or witnessing to. How can we expect a person to have a solid relationship with Christ if we gloss over the basics to share the parts we may find most interesting? Some of us are not able to hold a conversation without delving into conspiracy theories and end time speculation, stirring up fear without being balanced by a knowledge of an all-knowing, all-powerful, loving Creator and Redeemer.

I sheepishly admit that I am guilty as charged. There have been times when the Lord opened the door to witness, and I, in my excitement, went in the wrong direction. Are you also guilty?

Now that we took a quick look at what evangelism and witnessing are not, we can discover their true meaning. The simplest definition of evangelism and witnessing is the act of sharing the love of God with others. You and I are given the privilege of influencing the lives of those around us by being living, breathing witnesses of our Lord. As the moon reflects the light of the sun to brighten the darkness of night, we are to reflect, through our words and actions, the love of Christ to a love-starved world. In 1 Peter 3:15, we are admonished to “sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” (King James Version, emphasis added).

Some among us may understand the concept of evangelism and witnessing but hesitate, unsure how they are to go about being an effective witness. We are not all convincing evangelists, trained Bible workers, eloquent speakers, or passionate community outreach volunteers. Perhaps you are a student in the middle of preparing for exams, a full-time worker weighed down by responsibilities, a parent struggling to make ends meet for your family. Maybe you just do not have the extra time or spiritual gifts needed to go door-to-door, visit the sick and shut-ins, give Bible studies at homeless shelters and prisons, or work with the youth. It is possible that talking with people about the Lord makes you nervous and tongue-tied, worried you will forgetful or say the wrong thing. Maybe you are afraid of negative outcomes such as confrontation, humiliation, and rejection.

Do not be discouraged, friends! Often the most effective witnessing is the silent witness. The key to witnessing is building relationships and being a positive influence in the lives of those around you. Family, friends, classmates, co-workers, neighbors, and the stranger you meet in passing, you can show them the love of the Lord even without saying a word. People will notice that there is something different about you—a strange calm in the face of difficulties, compassion and helpfulness, a positive attitude, diligence and care, a firm conviction in your beliefs, and other fruits of the Spirit. “And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts” (2 Corinthians 3:3, English Standard Version).

If we are following the teachings of Christ in our daily lives, those who are knowingly or unknowingly seeking the Lord will be drawn to us. “You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven” (Matthew 14-16, NKJV). If we spend time on our knees in prayer and in diligent study of His Word, if we rely on His Spirit to guide us, He will give us the right words to say at the right time. And when we realize we have missed a witnessing opportunity, when we say or do the wrong thing, when our doubts and anxieties start to re-emerge, we should fall to our knees and claim the promise of Romans 8:28. “Lord, I have really messed up this time! But I lay this mess at Your feet, because I believe that all things will work out for the good of those who love You.”

You are an evangelist. You have a unique testimony to share with your circle of influence, and the Lord has placed you here for a special purpose. You may be planting a seed with the way you live your life, you may be watering a seed planted by another evangelist through your acts of kindness, you may be nurturing the tender shoots in someone’s heart with words of encouragement and hope, or you may be reaping the harvest through Bible study. All the Lord asks is that you let your light, the reflection of His glory, shine upon those around you.

Pass the justice please, and hold the socialism

Israel Narvaez, the President of the New York street gang the Mau Maus, and best friend of Nicky Cruz tells this story. While serving a 4.5-year prison term for accomplice to murder, he was approached by a man in prison who had been reading the works of Marx. The man tried hard to convince Israel that communism/socialism was the solution to life’s troubles. Israel believed it for a while, until he was released from prison and had to start supporting himself. He soon realized–through his first job, that God had gifted him to become what his ambition and talents could combine to make him. He would later look back on that brief period of communist influence with a chuckle “I had a lot to learn.”

Today we are hearing calls for social justice, not only in the progressive wings of the church, but in the hallowed halls of the White House itself. It is even being taught in some circles that modern-day social justice is a Biblical imperative. Translation: God is a Democrat. Or at least He thinks like one.

But what does the Bible say about contemporary social justice? To be fair, let’s understand what the modern term means before we go looking for Biblical principles. First, what is Social Justice? It can be lot of things to a lot of people, but here are some of the guiding tenets of it.

Social justice is the idea that everyone deserves equal economic and political rights. That kind of sounds good–at first. But there’s more. Social justice also believes in the parity of resources, and economic egalitarianism. This requires wealth re-distribution. I don’t like that sort of thing. Not because I have a lot of wealth and I’m afraid that lazy bums are going to get their greedy non-calloused hands on it. I don’t like it because of the way that it kills off a national commodity. Ambition!

Social justice is also one of the four pillars of the Green Party movement. Nowadays almost everybody is trying to outgreen each other and one of their biggest buckets of paint is, you guessed it... Social Justice. In the days of Jesus they had white-washers (Matthew 23). Today we have green-washers (Romans 1:25). More about that later.

Where did it come from? The short answer is Catholicism. The long answer is Jesuit scholar Luigi Taparelli D’Azeglio (ca 1827 AD). Because of this religio-political origin, Social Justice often finds itself in unusual blends of religion and politics. Jeremiah Wright himself enthusiastically damned America for our lack of Social Justice in his yet-another-Liberation-Theology-sermon-that-our-current-President-didn’t-hear. But we heard him. And we didn’t appreciate it.

Yet far from the excesses of cloistered socialism, the Bible has a lot to say about justice, especially in our dealings with others. I like it when God boils truth down so I can understand it, and one such paragraph is found in Micah 6:8. “He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” I like that.

To act justly is to be fair with your time, your business associates and customers. Do what is right, even to your own hurt at times. Be consistent with your spouse, and your children. Same goes for parents and other family members. Let Bible truths become part of your actions. This is good, according to God.

To love mercy is to hate violence. Be quick to forgive, “considering thyself lest thou also be tempted” (Galatians 6:1). Remember that God has forgiven your (and mine) million sins and be at peace with the results.

To walk humbly with God is to keep moving in obedience to Him. Don’t stay static in your life–keep going. With each step remember that the previous step was by God’s grace alone. Don’t let pride destroy your relationships or your heart. This is good.

I come from a family where the father devoted a majority of his life to helping people. I like that sort of thing. I also like the fact that Dad was thoroughly opposed to the Social Gospel (precursor to Social Justice). He saw it as an imbalance that elevated physical needs over spiritual needs. That is a problem when that happens. First, it can give the impression that the goal of ministry is to get people to stop smoking so they can live seven more years in sin. Secondly, it can give the impression that humanitarian outreach is a convenient escape from the embarrassment we might feel for doctrine or preaching the gospel. Or could it be that lukewarm is a convenient escape from hot? Like Israel Narvaez we have a lot to learn.

So how do we keep balanced in our desire to help others? We could start by admitting that the Bible predicts no Utopian society outside of the splendor of the New Earth (Revelation 21:1-8). Indeed, Jesus’ own comment that the poor would be around until the end of time, reveals that no Utopian era lay between His First Coming and the Second Coming (Matthew 26:11). Do what you can, yes. But be real.

So let’s not try to rebuild Babylon 2.0, lest we gloat over it from the balcony of our misguided pride. Rather let us be busy about the Father’s business, ministering to the people that God brings into our path. May we help to inspire others to be all they can be, and to turn from their barren patterns. Let us never place physical needs over spiritual needs but let us give ourselves to the task of blessing both the poor, and the poor in spirit. Such a perspective will keep us both inspired and humble.

William Wilberforce and the slave trade

William Wilberforce (1759-1833) was the grandson of a British merchant who had made his fortune trading with the Baltic nations. William's father died when William was nine, and his temporarily overwhelmed mother sent him to live with an aunt and uncle who were Methodists. At the age of 17, William was sent to study at Cambridge, and the deaths of his grandfather and uncle in the next couple of years left him independently wealthy while still a teenager. In those days, wealthy gentlemen students pursued cards, drinking and theater more avidly than studies, and young Wilberforce was no exception. He excelled socially, however, and became friends with William Pitt, the younger, who was to become prime minister just a few years later (at age 24!) and who talked Wilberforce into a career in politics.  Wilberforce stood for parliament at age 20, while still at Cambridge, and obtained his seat, as was the custom, by spending a princely sum of money buying votes.  His political career did not impinge on his primary activities of cards, drinking and socializing in circles appropriate to a man of his standing.  The influential salon hostess Germaine de Staël called Wilberforce “the wittiest man in England,” and he must have had a fine singing voice, as Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire, remarked that the Prince of Wales would go anywhere to hear Wilberforce sing.

In 1785, while on a tour of the European continent, Wilberforce read, “The Rise and Progress of Religion in the Soul” by a leading non-conformist minister, Philip Doddridge.  He resolved to give his life to Christ.  He began to rise early in the morning to pray and study the Bible, and he began keeping a journal.  The upper classes of Wilberforce's England considered religious fervor a faux pas, and stigmatized it.  Wilberforce wondered if he should even continue in public life, and sought advice from John Newton, a former slaver and the author of the hymn “Amazing Grace.”  Both Newton and William Pitt advised Wilberforce to remain in parliament and allow his religious convictions to inform his legislative work.

In the previous article, we saw how slavery gradually withered away in Christendom and was replaced by the feudal system.  Unfortunately, a few centuries later the nations of Christendom became involved with slavery in the “New World.”  It soon became apparent to the Spanish, Portuguese, French, English and Dutch colonizers of the Americas and “West Indies” that the best opportunity for gain came from growing sugar cane and other warm weather crops not grown in Europe.  It was believed that Africans would be best suited to the back-breaking labor necessary to operate the plantations, and more resistant to the tropical diseases that took a heavy toll on Europeans.  Slavery was well established in Africa; the Islamic ummah had been buying African slaves for several centuries.  Europeans found many localities, especially in West Africa, where they could purchase slaves from African slave-dealers.  A triangular trade route developed in which British ships took manufactured goods from Britain to Africa to be traded for slaves, then delivered the slaves from Africa to the West Indies for sale to plantation owners—the infamous “middle passage” of the triangular route—and finally delivered sugar, rum, molasses, or tobacco from the Americas and West Indies to Europe.  This terrible triangular traffic was to continue for centuries.

By the late 18th Century, the stark inhumanity of the trans-Atlantic slave traffic was becoming widely known.  In 1787, many of the drafters of the United States Constitution wanted to outlaw the traffic, but southern slave-holding interests negotiated a compromise which postponed any ban until 1808, at the earliest.  (Article 1, section 9)  On March 2, 1807, congress passed a bill that was signed into law the next day by President Thomas Jefferson (a southerner and slave owner) forbidding the importation of slaves into the United States, effective January 1, 1808, the first constitutionally permissible date.  The disdain for the slave traffic was so great, however, that by 1808 every state except South Carolina had already banned the importation of slaves.

The year 1787 marks the beginning of William Wilberforce's campaign to outlaw the slave traffic in the British Empire.  He wrote in his journal, “God almighty has set before me  . . . the suppression of the slave trade.”  He met with Thomas Clarkson, a Christian abolitionist who had been studying and researching the slave trade for many years, and who was to provide the witnesses and other evidence supporting Wilberforce's legislative efforts.  Wilberforce met with the newly formed “Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade,” a group of Quakers and like-minded abolitionist Anglicans.  He met with Prime Minister William Pitt and future Prime Minister William Grenville, and both encouraged him to introduce a bill banning the slave trade.  In 1788, however, Wilberforce became seriously ill and had to leave London to convalesce at Bath.  During his absence, Pitt ordered the privy council to investigate the slave trade and report to parliament.  In 1789, a recovered Wilberforce gave his first major speech against the slave trade, and introduced his first anti-slave trade bill.  Opponents sidelined the bill with two years of absurdly drawn out hearings, after which the bill was defeated, 163 to 88.

Wilberforce would annually re-introduce the anti-slave trade bill every year through 1799.  In 1793, his measure failed by only 8 votes, but the radical phase of the French Revolution and war between Britain and France put the cause on the back burner.  In 1796, the measure failed by only 4 votes; at least six abolitionist members chose that day to see a new Italian comic opera playing in London.  Wilberforce wrote in his diary: “Enough at the Opera to have carried it.  I am permanently hurt about the Slave Trade.”

William's lack of success in ending the slave trade was ameliorated by happiness in his personal life.  In 1797, Wilberforce was introduced to Barbara Ann Spooner as a possible wife.  Wilberforce was instantly infatuated, and proposed marriage only 8 days later.  The couple were married six weeks later, and had six children over the next 10 years.

In 1804, Wilberforce introduced his bill for the first time since 1799; this time it passed the House of Commons but died in the House of Lords, as Wilberforce mistakenly trusted men not as committed to the cause as he was.  Thanks to constant, unflagging efforts of Wilberforce, Thomas Clarkson and many other Christian activists, the slave trade was a prominent issue in the Parliamentary election of 1806, which returned a good number of abolitionists to the House of Commons.  In 1807, Lord Grenville introduced the anti-slave trade bill, it again passed the House of Commons, and Grenville guided it through the House of Lords, which approved it and returned it to  Commons for final passage.  On February 23, 1807, after many members of parliament rose to speak and salute Wilberforce's tireless efforts, the bill to ban the slave trade was overwhelmingly passed, 283 to 16.  Wilberforce's face streamed with tears as the final tally was taken.

After at last winning the two-decades-long fight to ban the slave traffic, Wilberforce did not immediately call for abolition of slavery, feeling that the slaves were ill-prepared to fend for themselves.  In 1816, however, Wilberforce began to denounce slavery itself.  In 1823, Wilberforce at last lent his considerable prestige to the cause of total abolition of slavery within the British Empire.  He published a tract entitled, “Appeal to the Religion, Justice and Humanity of the Inhabitants of the British Empire in Behalf of the Negro Slaves in the West Indies.”  In June 1824, Wilberforce gave his last speech in Parliament, calling for the abolition of slavery.  Declining health forced his resignation from Parliament in 1825, although he continue to be active in the anti-slavery movement.  The bill to abolish slavery in the empire passed one month after Wilberforce's death on July 29, 1833; he died knowing it would pass.  He was buried in Westminster Abbey, near his good friend William Pitt.

Christianity was the animating force behind the movement to abolish the slave trade, and also behind the incomparable career of William Wilberforce.  “A man who acts from the principles I profess,” he said, “reflects that he is to give an account of his political conduct at the judgment seat of Christ.”

La Sierra press release skates around restrictive bond language

Sometimes you don't want a story to be confirmed. Sometimes you desperately want it not to be true. Unfortunately, the story about La Sierra's use of tax-exempt municipal bond money has been confirmed in its essential details by the university's official press release. Not only does Larry Becker confirm the Price Science Complex was re-financed with public bond money, he also confirms the balance of the bond money. Some $7 to $8 million has been used for capital improvement projects around the university.

Of greatest importance, however, is that the university does not deny that the bonds contain the following restrictive language:

The Corporation covenants and agrees that no portion of the proceeds of the Bonds will be used to finance or refinance any facility, place or building used or to be used for sectarian instruction or study or as a place for devotional activities or religious worship or in connection with any part of the programs of any school or department of divinity,” (page D-32) and that these restrictions apply “for the duration of the useful life of the project financed with the proceeds of the Bonds. (page 27)

Of course, it would be pointless to try to deny this, because the bonds are public documents and are posted online.

Given the prohibited covenant language, not only has the Thaine B. Price Science Complex been secularized in perpetuity, every building on campus on which the remaining $8 million has been spent, has also been secularized in perpetuity.

Unfortunately, the university's primary outside counsel, Kent Hansen, makes misleading arguments in the press release. First, he implies that the California Supreme Court's language in the case of California Statewide Community Development Authority v. All Persons Interested in Matter of the Validity of Purchase Agreement (2007) 40 Cal.4th 788; 152 P.3d 1070, is the language that governs the bonds. In a way it does, but it only sets the minimum standards that entities receiving public money in California must abide by. The covenant language demanded by the bond authority and placed in the documents that Wisbey and Geriguis signed is the language that immediately governs these bond moneys, and restricts the use of buildings on which these moneys have been spent.

By way of analogy, suppose there is a city ordinance requiring that all houses be set back 30 feet from the street, but the lot that you purchased and wish to build your house on contains a restrictive covenant that requires you to set your house back at least 45 feet from the street. If you try to build your house 30 feet from the street, the other lot owners can sue to enforce the covenant, and force you to move it back 15 feet. And they'll win, because that's what you agreed to, as evidenced by the documents that you signed with due solemnity. It doesn't matter that the city only requires you to set back 30 feet, you agreed to set back 45 feet, and if you build your house closer than that, it's liable to be bulldozed.

So what directly governs the use of the money from these bonds is not the Supreme Court's minimum standard, but what La Sierra agreed to, what Wisbey and Geriguis signed, and what they agreed to is the covenant language referred to in all the articles. There is no indication in the bond document that this covenant is unenforceable. To the contrary, the failure to abide by the covenant, if left uncorrected for more than 30 days, is an “event of default” pursuant to provision (a)(iii) on page D-32 of the bond, and one of the remedies in the event of default, as describe on page D-33 (a)(iii), is that the University can be sued and forced to abide by the covenant.

But even if Hansen were correct in his implication that what governs is not the contractual language the University agreed to but rather the California Supreme Court's decision, Hansen does not properly appreciate the implications of that ruling. The portion of the opinion Hansen selectively quotes from is as follows:

[T]he straightforward assessment for the trial court to make is whether the academic content of a religious school's course in a secular subject such as math, chemistry, or Shakespeare's writings is typical of that provided in nonreligious schools. When a school establishes, through its course descriptions or otherwise, that the academic content of its secular classes is typical of comparable courses at public or other nonreligious schools, it is not necessary to scrutinize the school's day-to-day classroom communications. The circumstance that a teacher may, in addition to teaching a course's religiously neutral content, express an idea or viewpoint that may be characterized as 'religious' does not result in a benefit to religion that is more than incidental to the state's primary purpose of enhancing secular education opportunities for California residents. (20 Cal.4th at 804-805; 152 P.3d at 1080.)

Assuming that La Sierra wanted to teach creation science, or the Seventh-day Adventist view of origins, in the Price Science Complex, it could not do so under this standard. The class offering would not be “typical of that provided in nonreligious schools” nor would the course content be “typical of comparable courses at public or other nonreligious schools.” It would be uniquely biblical and Seventh-day Adventist, and utterly atypical of anything taught in public or nonreligious schools.

So even the California Supreme Court's operative language would certainly prohibit teaching creation science, intelligent design, or flood geology in any systematic way. At most, the professor would be limited to expressing the occasional religious idea or viewpoint; he could not teach the Seventh-day Adventist view of origins in a systematic or comprehensive way. This should be obvious to any layman reading the opinion, and for Kent Hansen, who holds himself out as a lawyer, to imply otherwise is legal malpractice. In all likelihood, even beginning class with a devotional thought and a prayer will not pass constitutional muster under this California decision, and obviously runs afoul of the agreed covenantal language prohibiting “devotional activities or religious worship.”

Hansen notes that other religious institutions have received public bond money, including Azusa Pacific, Biola, Mater Dei High School, and Westmont University. This argument is familiar to every parent: “but, mom, everyone else is doing it!!” to which the time-honored reply is, “if everyone else was jumping off a cliff, would you jump off a cliff?” We are unfamiliar with the bond terms negotiated by the other institutions mentioned, but the terms Hansen negotiated for La Sierra University, and allowed his client to sign and commit to, are unacceptable.

The remainder of the university's press release is devoted to shifting blame onto the board of trustees, but nowhere does the press release state that the full board of trustees was apprised of the language of the prohibited use covenant. Ricardo Graham is quoted as saying that the bond measure passed through channels, and of course it did, but he does not say that he was aware, at the time, that the bond document contained the restrictive language. I wonder how many of the trustees will soon be coming forward denying that they were ever apprised of this issue.

God's court room: who's on trial?

One of the most misunderstood concepts among Christians today is the concept of the judgment. For thousands of years it has been Satan’s intent to misrepresent the character of God, and to a very large extent he has succeeded. Satan will do anything he can to prevent people from grasping the depth and scope of God’s grace, and one of the ways he has accomplished this is to mislead them concerning the truth of the judgment. If he can lead people to an erroneous conclusion about the judgment, he knows that he can cause them to fear God rather than love Him. NO relationship can thrive when it is based on fear, and if Satan can succeed in causing people to be afraid of God, it is his hope that these people will ultimately turn away from God and influence others to do the same. The reason that we are so confused about the judgment is because Satan has led us to believe that the judgment is about us. Being self centered by nature, we tend to look out for our own interests. As long as we are focused on ourselves, our only concern will be escaping the judgment and getting to Heaven. When God empties us of self and fills us with His love, our concern will be for the glorification of God’s holy name and for the salvation of others. We will feel no fear of the judgment, because we will be filled with the love of Christ, which casts out fear (1 John 4:18). As long as Satan can convince us that the judgment is about us, his true intentions will be hidden. We will live in a mode of selfishness, caring only about our own salvation, and our relationship with God will not mature. Satan knows that if we could see the big picture, we would discover that the judgment is really about God’s reputation, and Satan’s efforts to malign God’s character would be clearly seen. All of the accusations that Satan has made about God would be proven false, and the fear that we had of the judgment would be replaced with love for God.

The fact that God keeps a written record of the life of every person who has lived on the earth demonstrates that the judgment is not about us. God knows all things. He does not need to rely on written records in order to remember past events. There are Bible verses that reveal the reason for the written records. In 1 Corinthians 6 verses 2 and 3 we are told that we will judge the world as well as angels. In Revelation 20 verses 4 through 6 we are told that judgment will be committed to us during the one thousand year period in Heaven before the second resurrection. Why will judgment be committed to us when there is an all knowing righteous judge who rules the universe? In Ezekiel 20 verses 35 and 36 we find the answer to this question. “And I will bring you into the wilderness of the peoples, and there I will plead My case with you face to face. Just as I pleaded My case with your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so I will plead My case with you,” says the Lord God.” God was speaking to rebellious Israel in these two verses, but His words are just as applicable today. God’s character has not changed, and these two verses paint a beautiful picture of the wonderful God we serve. God is all powerful and can do no wrong. He is at liberty to do whatever He wishes, and He owes no one an explanation for the things He does. Yet, incredibly, He not only wants to dialogue with us, but He also wants to plead His case with us face to face!

Satan has spent thousands of years slandering God. The evil character that Satan possesses he accuses God of possessing. He is constantly watching God’s every move and listening to His every word, looking for ways that he can twist God’s words and paint His actions in a false light. In everything God says and does, His purpose is to show all created beings the true nature of His character, and the way He deals with fallen humanity will prove once and for all that God is loving and fair and that Satan’s accusations are false. David understood this truth when he wrote, “He restores my soul; He leads me in the paths of righteousness For His name’s sake” (Psalm 23:3). There is a trial taking place that extends across the universe, and the blameless king of the universe is the defendant. As God writes the written records, He is continually gathering evidence to support His case, and as He determines the eternal destiny of every human being, His decisions are being observed by the inhabitants of the universe. God is on trial in His own court room. The inhabitants of our world are also on trial, but our trial is simply the evidence presented in a much bigger trial that spans far beyond our little planet. Our world is not able to see the big picture that the rest of the universe sees, and when we get to Heaven and reign with Christ for a thousand years, we will be full of questions. Jesus will permit us to read through the written records of the wicked, and we will unite with Him in judging them and determining the sentence for each lost soul. He will plead His case with us face to face, and we will discover what the unfallen beings have already discovered, that God is compassionate and just.

There is a line in a well known song that illustrates the misunderstanding in the Christian world concerning the judgment. It says, “ON that day when we will pay for all the deeds we have done, good and bad they’ll all be had to see by everyone.” Such an idea would strike terror in the heart of anyone who believed that such a thing would take place during the judgment, and, truth be told, this is the kind of treatment we deserve. But Christ has provided a way of escape from judgment for all who will accept it. “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life” (John 5:24). God gives this promise to every sinner who comes to Him in repentance. “For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more” (Hebrews 8:12). If God truly intended for all those whom He has forgiven and cleansed from sin to publicly give an account of all of their sins in the judgment, then this promise would be meaningless and Christ’s blood would have been shed in vain.

The investigative judgment is now taking place. Every person who has professed to be a follower of Christ is having his or her case examined in Heaven. Each person’s thoughts, motives, words, and actions have been diligently recorded in writing, and each person’s written record is being carefully reviewed. “I watched till thrones were put in place, And the Ancient of Days was seated; His garment was white as snow, And the hair of His head was like pure wool. His throne was a fiery flame, Its wheels a burning fire; A fiery stream issued And came forth from before Him. A thousand thousands ministered to Him; Ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him. The court was seated, And the books were opened” (Daniel 7:9-10). “For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?” (1 Peter 4:17). When the names of all those who have been forgiven and set free from sin come up in the Heavenly investigation, Jesus pleads His blood on their behalf, and it is recorded in the books of Heaven that they are pardoned. “Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them” (Hebrews 7:25). The doctrine of the investigative judgment is a precious truth that has been imparted to us as Seventh-day Adventists. If we shared this doctrine with the world, it would bring hope to many wounded hearts, because they would realize that the Gospel is clearly portrayed within the judgment.

The eternal destiny of each person will be determined by the books which contain all of the names and the deeds of every person who has lived on the earth. “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad” (2 Corinthians 5:10). This fact does not contradict the Gospel; it enhances it. In Matthew 12 verses 33 through 37 Jesus paints a picture of the harmony that exists between God’s grace and His law within the context of the judgment. “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or else make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for a tree is known by its fruit. Brood of vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things. But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” When fruit is bad, the fruit itself is not the source of the problem. It is the tree that causes the fruit to be bad. The fruit is simply the end result of the development of a bad tree. The same is true with our words and actions. The external behavior is the end result, or the fruit, of what lies in the heart. “Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him” (1 John 2:3-5). When we accept God’s grace, God not only declares us righteous, but He makes us righteous. He heals our wounded hearts, sets us free from the destructive patterns that enslave us, and empowers us to walk in perfect obedience to His commandments. We keep God’s commandments, not in order to be saved, but because we have already been saved. In fact, when we are under grace, obedience will be more important to us, not less. “Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace” (Romans 6:12-14). The reason that our eternal destinies will be determined by the deeds written in the books is because our thoughts, motives, words and actions demonstrate whether or not we are under grace. When Jesus warns us that men will have to give account in the judgment for every idle word they speak, He is making us aware of the fact that every thing we think, say and do is being written down in Heaven. Nothing is taken lightly by God. Nothing escapes His attention. Those who refuse to repent and turn away from their sins will be held accountable for their sins by God in the day of judgment, not because their bad deeds out number their good deeds, but because their wickedness reveals the fact that their hearts have not been transformed by God’s grace. “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). When we come to God with a contrite heart, He accepts Christ’s sacrifice on our behalf, and we are declared righteous. Then He imparts to us the mind of Christ through the Holy Spirit, and through the sanctification process we are made righteous. This is the complete Gospel, and all who accept and live this Gospel will inherit eternal life and will not enter into judgment with the wicked.

God admonishes us to take the judgment very seriously, but He does not intend for us to continually live in fear, desperately trying to obey God in order to escape the judgment. Obedience based on fear is not true obedience, for without faith it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6). In order for us to live free from fear of the judgment we must first recognize that “all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6). We must also come to the realization that without Jesus we can do nothing (John 15:5). If we see our helpless condition, fall upon God’s grace, and continue to abide in Christ, God will perfect our characters and fit us for Heaven. We will have nothing to fear.

Satan is the accuser of the brethren, and he accuses us before God day and night (Revelation 12:10). When Satan leads us into sin, he then accuses us before God. Satan claims that he has the right to claim us as his subjects because we have broken God’s law, but when Christ pleads His blood on our behalf, Satan’s arguments are silenced. We may be facing the best prosecuting attorney there is, but the defense attorney representing us is even greater in power. “For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things.” (1 John 3:20). Our defense attorney knows what it feels like to stand trial, and we are safe in His hands. “Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world.” (1 John 4:17). We can have boldness in the day of judgment, because our defense attorney is also our judge, and our judge has already served our sentence.

Meet it

It was April 14, 1912, a moonless, cold night in the northern Atlantic Ocean. Frederick Fleet stared out at the dark horizon from the crow's nest of Titanic, the new, luxurious, state-of-the-art ocean liner of the White Star line. Fleet had come on lookout duty at 10:00 p.m. and was scheduled to go off duty at midnight, in just over 20 minutes. His watch had been uneventful. Fleet and his watch partner, Reginald Lee, had been told to keep an eye out for ice. Despite repeated warnings of icebergs in the area, Titanic raced through the smooth, calm water at 22 ½ knots (about 26 m.p.h.), nearly her top cruising speed. The extraordinary calmness of the sea that night worked against Fleet and Lee, because waves breaking against the base of an iceberg were often the night lookout's first indication of the berg. As Fleet peered ahead into the night, he suddenly noticed a dark shape, even darker than the calm ocean water. Every second, it grew larger and closer. Fleet rang his bell three times to signal danger ahead, and telephoned down to the bridge. “What did you see?” asked the voice on the other end. “Iceberg, right ahead!” shouted Fleet.

First Officer William McMaster Murdoch was in command on the bridge, Titanic's Captain, Edward J. Smith, having gone to bed for the night. Murdoch ordered the helmsman to execute a sharp left turn, and signaled engineering to stop the engines. For several long seconds, Titanic bore down on the iceberg with no apparent change of course, but at the last moment she veered left of the floating mountain. It was too late, however, to avoid contact. The iceberg scraped along Titanic's starboard side for about three hundred feet, punching holes below the waterline. Murdoch then ordered the helmsman to turn right, which enabled the stern-ward two-thirds of Titanic's starboard side to slip past the iceberg without further contact. Then he ordered the 15 bulkhead doors closed, to create 16 “watertight” compartments.

Most passengers experienced the scrape as nothing more than a moderate vibration of the ship; a few went out to play with the ice that had crumbled down onto Titanic's deck. On the bridge, they thought they'd dodged a bullet, but below decks a different story was unfolding. Water was gushing into five of the 16 sealed compartments, the five closest to the bow. Captain Smith consulted the ship's architect, Thomas Andrews, who informed Smith that Titanic was designed to stay afloat with four of the forward watertight compartments flooded, but not five. That the ship would sink was a mathematical certainty. Andrews thought it would sink in perhaps 60 to 90 minutes, but Titanic managed to stay afloat for 2 hours and 40 minutes. There weren't enough lifeboats, and several were launched half full. Of the more than 2,200 souls on board, only 710 survived.

Many experts believe that Will Murdoch's best option would have been to steer directly for the iceberg and ram it. The collision would have fully stopped Titanic in about two seconds, and every person on the ship would have been jarred and tossed forward by the abrupt deceleration. It would have crushed the ship's bow and flooded one or two of the forward watertight compartments; several dozen crew members who were bunked in the bow of the ship would have been killed by the impact or drowned by the flooding, but Titanic would probably have stayed afloat. In 1879, a previous state-of-the-art British ocean liner, SS Arizona, smashed prow first into an iceberg, but did not sink, was able to limp to port, and remained in service of one form or another until 1927.

About nine years prior to the Titanic disaster, Ellen White was grappling with the subtle pantheistic statements and assertions in John Harvey Kellogg's book, The Living Temple. She received a remarkable vision:

Shortly before I sent out the testimonies regarding the efforts of the enemy to undermine the foundation of our faith through the dissemination of seductive theories, I had read an incident about a ship in a fog meeting an iceberg. For several nights I slept but little. I seemed to be bowed down as a cart beneath sheaves. One night a scene was clearly presented before me. A vessel was upon the waters, in a heavy fog. Suddenly the lookout cried, "Iceberg just ahead!" There, towering high above the ship, was a gigantic iceberg. An authoritative voice cried out, "Meet it!" There was not a moment's hesitation. It was a time for instant action. The engineer put on full steam, and the man at the wheel steered the ship straight into the iceberg. With a crash she struck the ice. There was a fearful shock, and the iceberg broke into many pieces, falling with a noise like thunder to the deck. The passengers were violently shaken by the force of the collisions, but no lives were lost. The vessel was injured, but not beyond repair. She rebounded from the contact, trembling from stem to stern, like a living creature. Then she moved forward on her way.

Well I knew the meaning of this representation. I had my orders. I had heard the words, like a voice from our Captain, "Meet it!" I knew what my duty was, and that there was not a moment to lose. The time for decided action had come. I must without delay obey the command, "Meet it!"

That night I was up at one o'clock, writing as fast as my hand could pass over the paper. For the next few days I worked early and late, preparing for our people the instruction given me regarding the errors that were coming in among us.

The pantheistic statements in Living Temple were subtle, and often closely paralleled statements Ellen White had made in answering the deistic argument that God created the world but then left it to fend for itself. Kellogg had drifted into error, but had stayed close enough to Scriptural modes of expression that the brethren were genuinely unsure of whether he had in fact erred.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church today faces a heresy that is not subtle, nor anywhere close to the biblical world view. The heresy is Darwinism, the rejection of the biblical creation doctrine and its replacement with the idea that we evolved by natural processes over the course of hundreds of millions of years. Over the past decade, the church has begun to realize the extent to which this false doctrine has seeped in among us; the faith-science conferences of 2002-2004 were an acknowledgment that many teachers and other thought leaders have embraced some form of Darwinism.

That Darwinism is incompatible with Christianity should be obvious to all. Take away the creation, and every other doctrine tumbles like a line of dominoes. Darwinism makes nonsense of the core Gospel teaching. If there was no perfect creation, there could be no fall into sin; if no Fall, then no explanation for the suffering and death we see around us. If there was no Fall, there is not need of a Redeemer. If there was no first Adam, there is no need of a second Adam to succeed where the first failed. The Biblical view of redemption as reconciliation and ransom from the consequences of Adam’s fall has to be jettisoned. In the place of the story of a ‘Fall’ has come the story of an ascent. “Sin” becomes an outmoded explanatory concept to be replaced by sociobiology and evolutionary psychology.

Darwinism also makes nonsense of the Eschaton. If God was incapable of creating the world in six days, as He said He did, then He is incapable of instantly resurrecting and glorifying the dead of all the ages, and remaking the world. If there was no literal Eden, there can be no Eden restored. In a 2009 sermon, Jan Paulsen said of the resurrection of the dead and the world made new:

All of these belong to the world of miracles. They are displays of God's unfathomable creative power. Those who have problems with the creative powers of God, or a God of creation, they have a problem so huge they don't know what to do with it, because they have no future, they have no --- everything that lies in God's future is miraculous.

Beyond the problems caused to core Gospel and end-time issues, Darwinism destroys the reason for existence of the SDA Church, which is to call Christian believers back to worship on the Biblical Sabbath, the day that God hallowed at the creation. The only universal rationale for keeping the Sabbath is that God created the world in six days and rested on the Sabbath Day. (Gen. 2:2-3; Ex. 20:11) If that's not true, there's no reason to keep the Sabbath. Without the Sabbath truth, we don't have anything unique or interesting to add to prophetic interpretation; the Sabbath truth is foundational to our interpretation of Bible prophecy, particularly our interpretation of the Three Angels Messages of Revelation 14. Darwinism also fatally undermines the prophetic authority of our founding prophet, who was fully invested in the biblical doctrine of creation, and repeatedly warned of the falsity of evolutionism and long-ages geology.

Taking away the biblical doctrine of creation destroys Christianity as an internally coherent system of doctrines and beliefs. If Seventh-day Adventists compromise on this issue, not only have we lost the only universal rationale for our signature doctrine of Sabbath-keeping, we've given away everything else, as well, every advance in biblical understanding and prophetic interpretation we've made over the denominations that preceded us. We will coast for a few generations on tradition and habit, but we'll soon disappear into the depths.

A century ago on the bridge of Titanic, Will Murdoch's first instinct was to try to avoid a violent collision that would shake up everyone on the ship. But it was too late to steer clear, and trying to skirt the iceberg sealed Titanic's doom. Today, our leaders in the SDA Church seem to want somehow to skirt the looming threat of Darwinism in our ranks, but it is too late. A collision cannot be avoided, and the best thing we can do is to brace for impact, and meet it head on.

The community: incubator of wisdom

Last Thursday evening found me at the lathe, wood chips flying, carving out my daughter's future. Well, kind of. It was a baton I was making, the kind that are used in relay races. Our oldest was turning 13 on the morrow and we wanted to set her up well for the next leg of the race. And so, on the very next day we sat in our living room, family and significant friends all around, and we ushered her into young adulthood. The men in the room all spoke briefly of qualities they had seen in Maggie that they especially appreciated, and the women passed on sage bits of advice for her journey into womanhood. All the comments were recorded on paper, rolled up, inserted in the drilled out center of the baton, capped over, and then passed into my daughter's hand. It was the spirit of the genealogy that animated us, family and community together, pointing a life towards the divine intent and encouraging her onwards. But what makes this hand-off successful? In the past two articles I have shown that the Bible genealogy roots us in a history which has at its center the divine intent, that is the vision of God by which He created. Such rooting gives a significance to each individual life that cannot be obtained in any other way. But between the individual and that history lies the connecting link of the community. The question about the success of the hand-off is really a question about the health of the community. And to explore that question we need a vigorous conception of what community health actually looks like. But first we must clear up one little matter.

The Chicken or the Egg Dilemma

Is it the action of the individual that brings health to the community, or the action of the community that brings health to the individual? It is an important question because it helps us come to grips with the ways in which a community moves towards health, and the role of both community and individual in that movement. And yet it may be a misleading question in that the answer is not either-or but both.

One thing should be clear and that is that the individual does not live in isolation, nor as an end unto himself, nor as a primary focus of attention, all of which are temptations especially tempting to the fallen. Nonetheless, there is much that comes to the community through individuals, all the more so when they have recognized and gained victory over the above temptations. Individuals, when standing in their proper God-given role and place, become a power for the good, an elevating influence or leaven to the whole. So much so, that we are inclined to say that the individual comes first, that it is the individual that brings health to the community. And certainly this is a healthy outlook for the individual to adopt, the proper outlook. We are to be for the others, not for ourselves.

Yet at the same time the individual is not first in this order. The community is. The idea of the self-made man is mythological. All that is best in us has been given to us by another, many others in fact, chief among them God himself, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And so an argument can be made, just as vigorous, that it is the community that brings health to the individual. This goal, the community should certainly set as one of its highest priorities. We should aim at becoming a context, better said a place, where the tide of uplift is so strong that an individual would have to fight hard to resist it.

Such an attainment will and does demand our utmost in alertness and diligent effort, both individually and together. The machinations which work against us are legion, both from within and without. But we have been given what we need for the effort in foundation texts, passages on which we can build if we will but give them their due. 1 Corinthians 12 and 13 come to mind, as well as Ephesians chapter 4. In these passages both the individual and the community may find the working material for community of the highest order. But principal perhaps is the book of Proverbs, a book that is of the highest importance for the centering of the community and the individual together in their proper tasks. Proverbs Divine no!

Proverbs is the quintessential community text, following the patterns of genealogical continuity and connection. And its focus is wisdom. Wisdom is the biblical word which is expressive of the divine intent in creation, the intent which we have argued is to be the center and focus of all our living, that which the individual bends every effort to attain and the community busies itself to hoard and pass on. Proverbs 8 makes this clear. To pursue wisdom is to measure your stride by creation patterns, God ordained patterns. And it is the pursuit of wisdom which is the proper business of community. So much so that this becomes the true marker of community health, that health which we argued above is so necessary to the successful passing of the baton of faith.

If wisdom is to be gained, however, we must be clear as to what wisdom is and isn't. Apart from such clarity we all too easily settle for something other or less than wisdom. Two alternatives have become especially popular in our day.

One of these is knowledge. Though knowledge plays a part in wisdom, it can be pursued and hoarded and displayed without a hint of wisdom showing up anywhere: knowledge exiled to the theoretical, knowledge that has lost its work gloves. Such knowledge distracts so powerfully from the quest for wisdom because it is easier. Wisdom requires engagement with the messy and difficult realities of human life and community; it necessitates becoming “comfortable” with uncertainty and perplexity and it calls for humble patience, as the honing provided by experience takes time. Knowledge does not cost so much. Pursued in isolation from the rough and tumble it comes free and easy.

Technique, that is method applied to everything, is another revered distraction of our age. Technique when applied provides a map for every eventuality. You know where you are going, even before you get there and outcomes are guaranteed. Technique promises facility in every endeavor, without the hard work of wisdom; nor does the application of technique require understanding. And so in the press for success techniques proliferate wildly. And yet technique has its down sides. With technique at the helm the world becomes man sized and man centered and with technique at the helm people become either problems to be solved or pawns to be moved rather than persons, whom we might come to know and understand and share life's journeys with. Is there a place for techniques? Certainly. But not when dealing with God and Holy Texts and people. A continued reliance upon technique in these realms will eventually bring us to the point where applications of technique are thought to be the only way forward. Wisdom becomes inaccessible.

To these distractions the community of faith must say no, and one of her best allies in articulation that no is the book of Proverbs. Proverbs bolsters our conviction that wisdom is the proper business of the family: father and son, mother and daughter, parents with their children; but not just family, there are also sages from the past, elders at the gate, and friends that give rebukes as sweet as kisses. But it is more than just a no that draws us away from bypaths. It is the compelling vision of what wisdom is all about and Proverbs provides us with this as well.

Proverbs Divine yes!

Wisdom lies at the very root of things. It was wisdom that informed and shaped each act of divine creation. And as foundation it becomes the catch all word for everything that comes from God. A perusal of Proverbs 8 turns up the following as synonymous with wisdom: noble things, right things, true things, righteous things, things untouched by crookedness and perversion, straightforward things. As the synonyms pile up you find yourself longing for insight into the commitments and patterns and responses that make up such a life, that capture the fullness of the divine intent, the divine imagining of what would be and could be in the world that He made. This is at the heart of wisdom, this vision of what God meant and intended when He made and sabbathed the world.

This is the first task of the community, the work of recapturing true patterns, of sorting through murkiness, and wrongheadedness, and confusion, and even downright perversion, so as to find and keep alive the true shape of things—the will of God shape, the image of God shape—in things and especially in people.

But this is not all. As a community regains its vision it must learn how to pursue that vision in all kinds of difficult, contrary, and even contentious settings. Wisdom, remember, wears work gloves. The vision is never detached from daily realities, from the problems and responsibilities of ordinary living. To be able to ask and answer the question, “How do I move in this situation and in this moment so as to serve the higher ends of God” that is wisdom. And it isn't easy. Just as mining isn't easy. Digging deep, blasting through rock, moving mountains, looking for gold.

And it is because it isn't easy that the final element must be set forth; wisdom involves developed capacities. I may see the vision, but not have the strength or capacity to bring it into being. The hardest part of the quest for wisdom is the reshaping, the transformation of myself, each self, into a being that is capable of embodying God's vision, truly a God work, but one that I must stay engaged with.

It is this that our hearts hunger for, this vision being lived together in and with our communities. The community may be far from perfect, indeed she is far from perfect. But if she is applying herself to these wisdom tasks her life and witness will prove compelling, her health and vigor unabated, her sons and daughter's eager to reach out and grasp the baton that is passed to them, so as to run the same compelling race they have seen enacted around them, in shops and marketplaces, factories and fields, courtrooms and hospitals.

May each of us pray to the church that which I whispered to my Maggie as I handed her my baton, hoping she would choose to run the race most worth running. “Run, girl, run!”

Lord, change me

I have spent the majority of this month traveling all across the United States. I drove from Virginia to Arizona for my younger sister’s wedding and to visit my older sister and her family. Driving that long stretch of I-40 alone in the car provided plenty of time to contemplate life in general, my life in particular, and to talk with the Lord. You see, in addition to my sister’s wedding, my grandfather had passed away just days before I left on my trip. At the same time our family was celebrating the joys of a marriage union, we were also experiencing the sadness of the loss of a loved one. Though I was unable to attend my grandfather’s funeral, I wanted to visit my grandmother in Florida. After a little over a week in Arizona, I was once more on the road, but this time I was joined by my mother, older sister and her nine-month-old. Driving that long stretch of I-10 provided plenty of opportunities to also contemplate the irritations and annoyances that pop up when I least expected it and my reactions, whether good or bad.

After a few weeks of the mental exhaustion caused by long-distance driving, living out of a small suitcase in various hotels, and jumping through hoops to find ways to prepare food that will not trigger an allergic reaction, little things that do not usually bother me were now frustrating. Patience began to wear thin and, in spite of myself, I felt grumpy and irritable. The gas pump locking up because I typed in the wrong zip code or a thoughtless comment I would normally shrug off suddenly upset me.

We are surrounded by events, circumstances, and even people that frustrate, irritate, disturb, and anger us. In an article on the American Psychological Association’s website, anger is defined as “an emotional state that varies in intensity from mild irritation to intense fury and rage” by Charles Spielberger, PhD, a psychologist who studies anger. Our natural instinct is to lash out aggressively at the cause of our irritation and anger, though the laws and social norms of today do not allow us to physically lash out without repercussions. Therefore, we have developed other ways to deal with these feelings, not all of which are easy to do nor healthy to ourselves or our relationships with others over the long term. We have probably all heard some of these suggestions: stop thinking about whatever it was that initiated those feelings, count to ten, take deep breaths, walk away, etc. Sometimes these methods work and other times, they do not.

As followers of Christ, we are called to respond to the irritations of life in a way that is unnatural: with patience, calm, and compassion. In Galatians 5:22-23, we are told: “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law.” This is not something that we are able to do ourselves through will power. It is a gift we receive as we grow in our relationship with the Lord, allowing His Spirit to change us from the inside out.

We are all works-in-progress, and sometimes our old nature tries to take back the reins. Let’s face it: we are emotional beings. There are times when, due to stress, fatigue, family or work related problems, passionate zeal for a cause, and many other contributing factors, we do not always present a positive representation of Christ to our family, friends, co-workers, fellow church members, and so on. We are prone to shifting the blame completely on to another person and venting our irritations and anger through various methods: complaining and griping, giving the “guilty” person the cold shoulder, holding a grudge for months or even years, and more.

This creates cognitive dissonance: a discomfort generated by holding conflicting ideas, beliefs, or emotional reactions. Some of us may struggle with trying to harmonize the range of emotions we feel, from mild irritation to rage, with the fruit of the Spirit we should be displaying as a follower of Christ. Lashing out towards the source, or perceived source, of our irritation and anger often provides an immediate sense of satisfaction, even if it does not satisfy in the long term. Yet we know this is not how we are supposed to react as a Christian. This internal conflict is described well by the apostle Paul in Romans 7:15, “For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do.”

Before we complain about others, before we lash out verbally or physically, we should reflect on ourselves. How are we responding to the irritations around us? Is our reaction a reflection of the love of Christ? Are we asking the Lord to change us? Our hearts, our attitudes, our feelings? By asking for the Lord to work on us first, we draw closer to Him and allow Him to transform us so that, through His power and guidance, we can face the difficulties of life—big and small, when we are at our best and at our worst—in a completely revolutionary manner: with kindness, forgiveness, self-control, peace, and love. In Ephesians 4:32 we are encouraged to “be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you.” Colossians 3:15, 17 continue, “And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful. […] And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him.”

We may stumble in our walk with the Lord, but do not fall for the devil’s lie that it is impossible for you to change. I am reminded of the great changes that Jesus’ disciples and apostle Paul experienced when they allowed the Lord to work in their lives. Let’s take a quick look at John. John and his brother James were called the “sons of thunder” for a reason (Mark 3:17). After a certain Samaritan village did not respond positively to their evangelistic campaign and witnessing efforts, James and John asked Christ if they could call fire down from heaven (Luke 9:51-56). Yet this same man, through the transforming power of Christ, was refined and would later write so extensively on the subject of love, particularly the unconditional love of God that he has come to be called the apostle of love. If Jesus can transform John, then He can and will change us if we allow Him.

My long trip all over the country has given me many opportunities for reflection. Through the churches I have visited on the Sabbath, the people I have meet and kept company with, the long stretches of highway that provided quiet time with the Lord, and yes, even the little annoyances, have all been a blessing. I realize more than ever before how important it is to not impulsively react, especially when I am not my usual self due to circumstances like stress, fatigue, loss, etc. When something disturbs or upsets, I need to pause and discover the real reason for my feelings. Now, instead of sending up rash, ego-centric prayers for the Lord to fix the situation the way I think it should be or to change the other person (Matthew 7:2-4), my plea is an echo of David’s after he recognized his sinfulness. “Create in me a clean heart, O God,
And renew a steadfast spirit within me.” (Psalm 51:10)

I ask the Lord to work on my stubborn heart and guide my words and actions that I may respond with kindness and patience. “Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one” (Colossians 4:6). Not by my will power, because I, like the apostle Paul, do not always do what I know I should do and instead do what I do not want to do, but through the almighty power of our Lord working on me and through me.

Eternal power vs. blind chance, part II

A careful look at the probability of Darwinian evolution unequivocally denies the possibility of progress. If God’s works are made manifest in this way, though, how is it that many evolutionists, even those that are good at math, don’t see this as a fatal flaw in their theory? First, they see the action of natural selection as a mechanism that provides them with a loophole. If natural selection is strong enough, according to the theory, it will drive things forward and progress will be inevitable.

There’s a catch, though: the probability calculations show that Darwinian mechanisms cannot produce the proper mutations. Natural selection is simply the process by which those new mutations are fixed in the gene pool. If the necessary new mutations never arise, natural selection has nothing to work with and therefore cannot be the mechanism by which progress is made. (Michael Behe’s book The Edge of Evolution is a must-read for anyone interested in this topic. All of the data ever collected on mutations confirm that the Darwinian processes of mutation and natural selection are subject to the laws of probability.)

Another common objection to the probability hurdle can be demonstrated by the following conundrum: if I multiply out all the statistical probabilities that resulted in the uplift, erosion and current form of Mt. Everest, the existence of the mountain would appear to be a statistical impossibility. This must prove that either statistically impossible phenomena happen regularly, or that statistics can be applied only to events that have not yet happened, right?

This counterargument belies a misunderstanding of the specificity of the arrangement of DNA nucleotides in the cell. The DNA in the cell is more like the form of Mt. Rushmore than Mt. Everest: It means something. If something is complex but not specified, such as the arrangement of blades of grass in my lawn or the placement of the cracks in the rocks that make up the peak of Mt Everest, there is no information present. In other words, when we apply the word “specified” to DNA sequences, we are saying that not just any arrangement of nucleotides will suffice for a given task. It must be a specific arrangement.

One idea kicked around in evolutionary biology is that there are many possible DNA sequences that could potentially get a job done, thereby limiting the specificity required for life to function. This approach doesn’t help, however. Even if there were billions of functional variations of the simplest genome known to science, its development by Darwinian mechanisms would be statistically impossible. A useful analogy is scrabble letters. There may be many ways to use all the letters in the bag to make a meaningful paragraph, but we would be extremely surprised if we dumped the letters out of the bag, and they formed one of those meaningful sequences.

Once the issue of specificity is clarified, Darwinists tend to argue that necessity must play some role in the development of life (1). Necessity, in this context, refers to chemical bonding preferences (2). If you have sodium ions and chloride ions in water, and you boil away all the water, the ions will, by necessity, form table salt. The argument, then, is that the laws that govern chemistry caused living organisms to come together and evolve.

The most basic fallacy in this argument is that chemical bonding preferences create repeating sequences of atoms and therefore cannot create information. Imagine trying to type a message on a computer that only allowed letters to fall in alphabetical order. Written communication would be impossible under such constraints.

Finally, after natural selection has been assigned to its proper place, the role of specificity has been properly understood, and necessity has been deemed unhelpful in information production, the last argument in favor of Darwinism is that science must, under all circumstances and against all odds, adhere to methodological naturalism.

Creationists have often been accused of allowing philosophy to warp their scientific views. When the data are allowed to speak, however, the true dogmatism is revealed. Darwinian evolution—though founded on the negation of God’s action—demands miracle after miracle of incalculable magnitude to succeed.

1. In general, Darwinists deny the action of necessity in evolutionary theory (Michael Shermer, “The Role of Contingency and Necessity in Evolution” in Nature of Nature). I’ve only heard it used in debates as a position of retreat when the idea of the power of natural selection has succumbed and specificity has been correctly understood. 2. Some might argue that I’ve set up a straw man by limiting the argument to chemistry, and that there might be other mechanisms at work on a different level. My reply is that no one has even remotely demonstrated such a mechanism, and conjecture is a poor replacement for data.

Green eggs & spam

When I was in 3rd grade, our class received a little sticker of the earth from my teacher. Printed in yellow words under the earth were the words “ecology.” I put that sticker on the cover of my red notebook next to the peace sign that I had drawn there. It was 1968. The hippie revolution was in full stride. Forty years later the notebook is gone, the earth is still around, and we could all use a little peace. But revolution? The hippies are all gray-haired now and the only thing organic about them is their Buckeye cards and the mold growing on their beaded buckskin jackets.

Most of them are not growing natural gardens in Woodstock, NY, nor sitting around in circles discussing Socialism and saying, “That’s heavy…man” (although “That’s heavy” does describe America in 2011— that is another story for another time). No, most of the old hippies went on to become accountants, store owners, Amway salesmen, professors and teachers, car dealers, and worse yet, politicians. But their desire for revolution lives on, and there are several new ones to choose from. Social Justice and Green Religion is the soup du jour of our times.

Wait a minute. Religion? Most activists today are way beyond religion, marinating in their post-Christian, Darwin-enlightened modern sensibilities. To modern man God is a nuisance, if not outright bad. We won’t be needing any of that religion stuff, thank you very much.

Thus it is with tremendous irony that the Green Revolution has become a religious movement to end all of them. Let’s examine some of the doctrines of this hazardous new religion, and you can decide for yourself.

First, there is salvation. We must save the world, and in the process we save ourselves. We don’t have to build a tower (see Babel); all we have to do is build a case for environmental supremacy and maybe plant a garden. Don’t need a Savior on a cross? You can be your own savior, and what can be more revolutionary than that?

Sin. Mowing your lawn is a sin. “But the grass grows back...!!” you exclaim. No, I’m talking about the mower! It has an engine. That engine has something worse than a gun – an exhaust system. Its bullets are carbon and each cycle of combustion fires into the atmosphere a deadly pestilence. But you live in an apartment and don’t even have a lawnmower, you say! Not so fast. All have sinned. Do you own a car? I thought so. “Well I don’t have one anymore says Grandma ‘Peterson’ from Denmark, and I ride the bus everywhere I go.” That’s better, but there’s still one unrepentant sin clinging to your life like a green sea vine wrapped around your left ankle. You are breathing. Breathing releases C02 into the fragile atmosphere and C02 is a sin! Like all sin, it must be repented of to avoid destruction and that brings us to the next doctrine.

Forgiveness. You can be forgiven for causing carbon to the earth if you use spiral light bulbs, ride your bicycle, drive a Prius, plant a tree, turn off your AC and use one square of toilet paper per sitting. But if you do all that and like the rich young ruler, green guilt drives you to your master, there is one overmastering trip to Mecca to cleanse your soul. The pinnacle of indulgences, and the envy of Johann Tetzel himself, is the mighty Carbon Credit. With it, you can purchase “peace that is of this world” and cover a multitude of carbon.

Saints. Al Gore, John Muir, Rachel Carson, Paul Ehrlich, James Lovelock, Arnie Næss, Robert Bullard, Fritjof Capra and other faces are carved into the Green Revolution wall, representing a chosen line of prophets sent to warn us. We might not be worthy, but we are guilty of environmental sin and we must turn from our ways or perish. Speaking of prophets.

Prophecy. “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind” (Nigel Calder, 1969). “By 1999 the U.S. population will have declined to 22.6 million” (Paul Ehrich, 1968).

April 2008, Ted Turner (on not taking drastic action to correct global warming), “Not doing it will be catastrophic. We’ll be eight degrees hotter in ten, not ten but 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow! Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals.” [Strictly speaking, this is not a failed prediction. It won't be until at least 2041 that our church-going and pie-baking neighbors come after us for their noonday meal. But the prophecy is so bizarre that I include it here]. However, the grand prize for Green prophecy in the 21st century has already been claimed by Al Gore. His insistence that the earth will fry, that the seas will rise and that life as we know it must undergo a "wrenching transformation" will be studied by our grandchildren with the same appreciation that Ehrlich's ridiculous prophecies deserve. They will ask, “What on earth were these people thinking..?” (pardon the pun).

Outreach. Activism is the new evangelism as “church leaders” seek to hitch environmentalism to Christianity. At his Nobel Prize acceptance speech Al Gore said, “We have everything we need to get started, except for political will. But political will is a renewable resource. So let us renew it, say together: We have a purpose. We are many. For this purpose we will rise and we will act.” Quite a sermon, isn’t it? 2002 Campaigns like “What would Jesus drive” are designed to bring conviction to the masses and make them feel guilty about driving cars. And from the top seminary in the world pours a steady stream of documentaries, outreach movies, and indoctrinating innuendo. No we’re not talking about Moody, Andrews, or Wycliffe Hall. We’re talking about Hollywood. Let the sins of the tired, poor and huddled masses be greenwashed away. “There is wonder-working power in the planet..”

Temperance. “Do not drink.” Gasoline that is. In fact, wean yourself off of petroleum of all kinds before it’s eternally too late. Petroleum will break up your family, give you a hangover, and lead to all kinds of diseases. So control yourself Sir, and drop the addiction to incandescent light bulbs, Sport Utility Vehicles, and plastic Walmart bags. However…while cutting back on toilet paper to demonstrate your love for the Green Revolution may sound like earthly righteousness, it could lead to a brown uprising. Please be careful.

Conclusion. If you are one of the many folks who have become disillusioned with Christianity in this sweeping era of modern doubt, you have an option, a green one. It offers its own answers to life’s existential questions, origins, morality, meaning and salvation. But here is a much-needed warning.

A Christian is one who wants to find out and do what pleases the Lord Jesus (Ephesians 5:10). One can therefore distinguish a Christian movement by the willing hearted resolve to submit to the demands of Scripture. Since so much of the church has exalted feeling or action over the Word of God, it should come as no surprise that significant parts of the Christian church are caught up in the environmentalist movement. Rather than being fools for Christ, they are useful idiots of the Green Revolution, well-meaning but infatuated sycophants. Thus it is common to see advertisements of Jesus as the Marxist, organic-vegetable-eating hemp-wearing, pro-choice, Prius-driving, flag-hating hippie.

Now, false religion is a double edged sword: it is equally dangerous to claim Jesus as a Neo-con, flesh-eating, flag-waving, gun-toting, truck driving, gay-hating redneck. The religion of the Bible, the Christian religion is edgy and demanding. It is a religion of power yet not a power religion. In fact, it is much more than a religion. It is a generous display of the transformational power of God through the preaching of the gospel of Jesus the Christ. It is love amidst hatred, it is life from death, it is peace apart from this world. Thus a major problem with the Green Revolution is not so much that it is a revolutionary movement, but that environmentalism is insufficiently revolutionary. It cannot purify the heart. Church leaders who seek to hitch environmentalism to Christianity are but dirty fleas riding God’s dog.

To quote George Mardsen, “The lines between Christian and non-Christian morality are becoming increasingly blurred, but not because unbelievers are embracing truth." The Green Revolution is only too happy to plow with God’s heifer, especially if she is willing. But whether motivated by power lust or the hungry soul’s cry for salvation, or both—whatever the case may be—the Green Revolution is the bastard child of spiritual polygamy."

“Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passes away, and the lust thereof: but he that does the will of God abides forever.”

Come let us reason together, though your sins be red, and your deceptions green, you can be as white as snow. There is hope for you and me in Christ alone.