Is sola scriptura 'scriptural'?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Gerhard Hasel explains this concept:

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

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

Word of God

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

It is Written

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

Writings of the Prophets

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

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

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

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

Quotations of Scripture

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

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

Unity and the Canon

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

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

The Providence of God

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

Writings of Paul

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

Esther

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

Song of Solomon

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

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

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

Church leaders issue an appeal for unity over women's ordination

The world leadership of the Seventh-day Adventists issued an “appeal for unity” to several union conferences that have either taken or are considering independent action regarding the ordination of women to gospel ministry. The request comes in a statement issued June 29, 2012.

An Appeal For Unity in Respect to Ministerial Ordination Practices

Since the beginning of 2012 several union conferences1 have recorded actions expressing support for, or commitment to, the ministerial ordination of women. The world-wide Seventh-day Adventist Church is currently engaged in a study of the theology of ordination and its implications. This study is scheduled for completion by the 2014 Annual Council of the General Conference Executive Committee. At that time the Executive Committee will determine the report which will be given to the 2015 General Conference Session along with whether or not any new recommendation should be considered by delegates to the Session. [Main News Story]

In the light of this current study and the actions of several unions, General Conference officers2, including presidents of the 13 world divisions, have unanimously communicated an appeal for unity in respect to ministerial ordination practices. The appeal calls: 1) for unity in respecting a global church action (i.e. the 1990 and 1995 General Conference Session decisions on ministerial ordination); 2) for each union executive committee to carefully review the far-reaching effects of pursuing a course of action that is contrary to the decisions of the General Conference in session; and 3) for each union to participate in the current study about the theology of ordination and its implication.

1. Respecting a global decision of the Church The world-wide Church recognizes the General Conference in Session as the highest ecclesiastical authority for Seventh-day Adventists. The 19903 and 19954 General Conference Session decisions with respect to granting ministerial ordination to women represent the current voice of the Church in this matter. The actions of certain unions indicate their desire to establish an alternative source of authority for a matter that already carries the authority of the world Church.

As currently understood in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, ordination to the gospel ministry is ordination to serve the global Church. No provision exists for a geographically localized ministerial ordination.5 Consequently the decision to change or modify ordination practices is a global one and necessitates a decision from the world body.

For any union to introduce a different ministerial ordination practice is seen, by the rest of the Church, as readiness to set aside a world Church decision and proceed in another direction. Such actions, taken at the very time when the world Church is engaged in a study and discussion of the matter, pre-empt the process and any decision that might come from it. This creates widespread confusion, misunderstanding as well as erosion of trust and also nurtures doubt about these unions acting in good faith as members of the world-wide family.

Some who would encourage unions to proceed with ministerial ordination for women draw attention to selected statements from a General Conference Executive Committee document.6 As used by these individuals, the statements would indicate that a union has final authority in matters relating to ministerial ordination. The intent of the document from which such statements have been taken is to emphasize the interconnectedness of Seventh-day Adventist denominational structure. The authority and responsibility entrusted to any entity of the Church is exercised within the context of beliefs, values, and policies of the entire Church. Being a part of the global Seventh-day Adventist Church obliges every organization to think and act for the good of the whole and to shun a spirit of autonomy and self-determination.

2. The effects of unilaterally pursuing a different course of action The significance of any union proceeding in a manner contrary to a global Church decision is not limited to the specific action involved (ministerial ordination in the present instance); it touches the very heart of how this Church functions as a global family. The essence of unity in Seventh-day Adventist organizational functioning is the mutual commitment of all organizations to collective decision-making in matters affecting the whole family—and the acceptance of those decisions as the authority of the Church. The action of any union in pursuing a different course of action represents a rejection of this key value in denominational life. Unless this value (i.e. collective decision-making and the acceptance of those decisions as the authority of the Church) is maintained, all other values that contribute to unity are seriously weakened.

For one entity to express its reasoned dissent with a global decision of the Church might appear to some as a legitimate course of action. However, the implications of acting contrary to a world Church decision are not limited to the one entity. Any organization contemplating a course of action contrary to a global Church decision must ask itself, “Is this the pattern of participation in Church life that we wish to establish and recommend for other entities to follow?” “How will we deal with the situation if an organization in our territory should decide to discontinue its participation in one or more matters under which it disagrees with the larger family of organizations?” Mutually agreed upon policies benefit the entire Church and keep it from fragmenting into independent, locally-driven units. They are the reflection of the Spirit-directed will of the body and allow each entity to look beyond itself for the good of the whole body of Christ.

3. Participation in the current study of ordination and its implications General Conference officers welcome and invite unions to participate in the global study of ordination. This study will be the most widespread and thorough study the Church has undertaken on this topic. Earlier studies have been conducted by commissions. This is the first time that a study of ministerial ordination engages the whole Church through the 13 divisions.

Biblical Research Committees in all divisions have been asked to conduct a study on the theology of ordination and its implications. In addition, during 2012, the General Conference Administrative Committee will appoint a Theology of Ordination Study Committee, with representation from all divisions, to oversee and facilitate the global discussion process and to prepare reports for presentation to the General Conference Executive Committee. The Annual Council 2014 will determine what action, if any, should be recommended to the 2015 General Conference Session. Careful thought is being given to ensure that the study and education process is conducted with fairness and thoroughness in respect to examining the theology of ordination and its practical implications.

All unions are welcome to submit their conviction as part of the global dialog on this question. Their voices, along with others, in this matter need to be heard. Now is the time for unions to share their position on ministerial ordination, and the rationale behind it. Doing so will ensure that various perspectives will be clearly understood by the world Church.

The appeal sent by the General Conference officers to certain unions also reflects this Church leadership group’s message to other unions that may be considering similar steps with respect to ministerial ordination practices. The communication concludes: “We have shared with you our deep concerns about the course of action you have chosen. We realize that sharply differing convictions with respect to ministerial ordination for women exist in our global family. We also realize that the passage of time without finding satisfaction for the tensions on this question can give rise to frustration and the erosion of confidence that a timely and mutually satisfactory resolution can be found.”

“We therefore earnestly appeal to you:

1. That your union continues to operate in harmony with the global decisions and global decision-making processes of the Church. 2. That until such time as the Church decides otherwise, your union refrains from taking any action to implement ministerial ordination practices that are contrary to the 1990 and 1995 General Conference Session actions. 3. That the union membership be informed concerning the implications for the entire Church in the event that one entity, for whatever reason, chooses a course of action in deliberate opposition to a decision of the whole Church. 4. That the union actively participates in the global discussion about the Church’s understanding and practice of ordination. The contributions of a union in this discussion can be forwarded to the Theology of Ordination Study Committee through the respective Ordination Study Committee set up by each division.

“Thank you for your willingness to receive and reflect on these things. We join you in diligently and prayerfully seeking to know the will, the blessing and the guidance of God in this and all other matters affecting our life together as a Church and our collective endeavor to advance His kingdom.”

______________________________ 1. At December 31, 2010 the Seventh-day Adventist Church had 60 unions with conference status and 59 unions with mission status 2. The group of 40 officers involved include officers from the Presidential, Secretariat and Treasury offices of the General Conference plus the presidents of divisions who, in additional to being presidents of their divisions are vice-presidents of the General Conference. 3. The 1990 General Conference Session approved that women should be given wide participation in all church activities, including soul winning and pastoral duties, but that “in view of the possible risk of disunity, dissension, and diversion from the mission of the Church” the Session also approved the Annual Council recommendation that ordination of women to the gospel ministry not be authorized. 4. The 1995 General Conference Session action denied the request of the North American Division that the Session adopt provisions on ordination as outlined below: "The General Conference vests in each division the right to authorize the ordination of individuals within its territory in harmony with established policies. In addition, where circumstances do not render it inadvisable, a division may authorize the ordination of qualified individuals without regard to gender. In divisions where the division executive committee takes specific actions approving the ordination of women to the gospel ministry, women may be ordained to serve in those divisions." 5. Information that a number of women serve as ordained ministers in China has been cited as justification, for unions elsewhere to proceed in a similar manner. It has been alleged that the Northern Asia-Pacific Division recognizes these ordinations and has therefore established a precedent for granting ministerial ordination to women. However, these ordinations were not authorized or conducted according to the policies of the Church. Nor are these ordinations approved or recognized/endorsed by the Northern Asia-Pacific Division. The Seventh-day Adventist Church does not have an officially organized structure in China that is comparable to other areas of the world. Government regulations do not permit outside involvement in church affairs within China. The practice, in China, of ministerial ordination for women is acknowledged as a reality that has arisen in China and is beyond the influence of the world-wide structure of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. 6. “The General Conference and Its Divisions”, General Conference Executive Committee, April 2012

ADvindicate is sponsoring a new website, Christ or Culture, to provide biblical, historical, and church support for this position and to address the challenges of the latest effort to compromise biblical truth in favor of social and cultural acceptance.

Please read the material, sign the petition, and forward to your Adventist friends. The support of this petition will be presented to our denominational leaders.

Raqia: 'expanse' or 'vault'?

Critics of the Genesis narrative have often argued that it describes a cosmology in which the sky is a solid vault, or an inverted metal bowl, to which are affixed the sun, moon and stars. This interpretation has recently been endorsed in a book titled God, Sky & Land: Genesis One as the Ancient Hebrews Heard It, by two Adventist authors, Fritz Guy, a theologian and former president of La Sierra University, and Dr. Brian S. Bull, a pathologist and former dean of the LLU School of Medicine. Guy and Bull argue that a solid vault is what the original hearers of the Genesis narrative would have understood from the words used, and hence what we should infer as the author's intended meaning. The Hebrew term raqia, the disputed meaning of which is at the heart of our discussion, first appears in Genesis 1:6:

And God said, “Let there be an expanse [raqia] between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse 'sky.' [shemayim] And there was evening, and there was morning —the second day (Gen. 1:6-8, NIV 1984).

The term raqia, here translated as “expanse,” implies something that has been spread out or stretched out; it is a cognate of the verb raqa, which means, “to spread out or stretch out.” No specific material substance is inherent in the term raqia, so just what has been spread out must be determined from the context. The context of raqia in the Genesis narrative does not imply any sort of solid structure. Genesis 1:8 states that God called the raqia shemayim, thus equating the raqia with the “sky” or “the heavens.” The term raqia of the shemayim, or “expanse of the sky” or “expanse of the heavens,” occurs four times in the creation narrative: Gen. 1:14-15,17, 20. Birds are said to fly “in the open expanse of the sky” (Gen. 1:20).

The raqia is just the sky, and, obviously, the sky is not a solid structure. How, then, did anyone ever get the idea that the raqia was a solid structure, such as a vault, a dome, or an inverted metal bowl? Therein, by several strands, hangs a tale.

Many English-speakers have been influenced by the King James Version's translation of raqia, “firmament,” which certainly conveys the idea of something firm and solid. Remarkably, the origins of the word “firmament” go all the way back to the Third Century before Christ. The Septuagint was a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, produced around 250 BC by 70 Jewish scholars in Alexandria, Egypt, at the behest of Ptolemy Philadelphus, the Hellenistic ruler of Egypt, for inclusion in the famous library of Alexandria. Apparently, these translators were influenced by then-popular cosmological notions that included the idea that the sky was a stone vault. They translated raqia into Greek as stereoma, which connotes a “solid structure.” Over six hundred years later, when Jerome was translating the Hebrew Scriptures into the Latin Bible that would become known as the Vulgate, he was influenced by the Septuagint, and translated raqia into the Latin word firmamentum, meaning a strong or steadfast support. Finally, some 1200 years later, when English scholars were translating the Scriptures into what would become the most influential English Bible—the King James Version---Jerome's Latin term firmamentum was simply transliterated into English as “firmament.”

But the history of the KJV's translation does not explain why any contemporary commentator, familiar with modern scholarship, would argue that the Hebrew term raqia signifies a solid vault. In sources such as the famous Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, it is stressed that:

While this English word is derived from the Latin firmamentum which signifies firmness or strengthening,...the Hebrew word, raqia, has no such meaning, but denoted the “expanse,” that which was stretched out. Certainly the sky was not regarded as a hard vault in which the heavenly orbs were fixed.... There is therefore nothing in the language of the original to suggest that the writers were influenced by the imaginative ideas of heathen nations (1981, p. 67).

So whence comes the idea that the raqia is a solid structure? We need to examine another strand of our story.

In the mid 19th century, Sir Austen Henry Layard found, at a mound near Mosul, Iraq, that turned out to be the site of biblical Nineveh, a treasure trove of clay tablets with cuneiform inscriptions. Layard had stumbled onto the ruins of a royal library amassed by the ancient Assyrian king Ashurbanipal. On some of these tablets were found the Babylonian creation story know as the Enuma Elish, thought to have been originally written around 1,100 BC. Around 1890, German Assyriologist Peter Jensen translated the Babylonian word appearing on tablet IV, line 145, as Himmelswölbung (“heavenly vault”). At about this same time, a school of German critics of Scripture began promoting a theory known as “pan-Babylonianism,” which held that most of the Old Testament was written during the Babylonian captivity, and the Jewish writers of Scripture were heavily influenced by Babylonian cosmology. The idea that the Babylonians believed in a vault of heaven, combined with the idea that the Bible writers were influenced by Babylonian cosmology, led to the idea that raqia meant a solid vault. Soon, Hebrew lexicons and Bible commentaries began to reflect this idea that the raqia was a solid vault or dome, likely composed of metal.

Pan-Babylonianism strikes me as an unlikely notion. We are expected to believe that Hebrew scribes, the guardians of the sacred Scriptures that were the core of the Hebrew national identity, would willingly adopt elements of the Babylonian worldview, despite the fact that Babylon was a deadly enemy of the Hebrew nation, had conquered the Hebrews, and had destroyed the most sacred and treasured Jewish building, Solomon’s Temple. Moreover, conservative Christians have long believed that Moses wrote the Book of Genesis around 1,500 BC (before the Enuma Elish was written). If any ancient pagan cosmology could be expected to be reflected in the Genesis narrative, it would be that of ancient Egypt, where Moses was educated, not that of the much later Babylonian civilization.

But even if one accepts the critical, decidedly skeptical theory of pan-Babylonianism, there is little support for the idea that raqia signifies a solid vault or dome. In 1975, when Assyriologist W. G. Lambert re-examined this issue, he found there was no evidence for the idea that the Babylonians conceived of the sky as a solid vault. The only “evidence” was Jensen's apparently unjustified translation of the term in Enuma Elish as “heavenly vault.” Lambert thought there was some support for the notion that the ancient Babylonians viewed the cosmos as a series of flat, superimposed layers of the same size separated by space, held together by rope. But there was no dome or vault in Babylonian cosmology.

The larger and more basic problem with the raqia-as-solid-dome theory is that is assumes that the Bible can reflect only the human wisdom and understanding of its human writers. Whatever the cosmology of the ancient Near East, that cosmology must be reflected in the Scriptures. But this idea ignores the Bible's own claim that all Scripture is inspired by God (theopneustos, literally “God-breathed”) (2 Timothy 3:16). If “holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21), then Scripture will reflect more than human wisdom. We err if we assume that it reflects only ancient Near Eastern cosmology.

The attitude we bring to Scripture will ultimately determine where we come out on this issue. If we believe that Genesis reflects only human ideas, then we can build an argument that raqia indicates a solid vault or dome. But if we believe that Scripture was inspired by God, and thus reflects more than human wisdom, then the raqia of Genesis is merely the “expanse of the sky.”

Scoopism

I confess, I made up this word, at least half of it--along with my good friend Mark’s help. Two things were on my mind that night as we drove back to Ohio from Philadelphia. One, the monotonous sound that windshield wipers make after 200 miles, and second, I couldn’t believe that I had actually met the Archangel Michael in Philadelphia! The fact that he was out-of-uniform made it even more of a shock to me. We had just attended our first Adventist Theological Society meeting (1995) and “Michael” showed up unannounced. At least that’s who he said he was. A somewhat unkempt fellow with blue jeans and a scraggly moustache, he freely told all who would listen who he was. He also kept interrupting the speaker during the meetings. He was not a Michael, some Michael, or any Michael--no he was THAT Michael. We were speechless.

Fast-forward to the Pacific Northwest. On a trip there recently I learned about a new prophecy. Michael Jackson was not dead. Not only is he alive, he is with his aging father-in-law, probably eating boiled whitefish with mint sauce in Singapore. Elvis Presley. They are both waiting for the appointed time when they will come back and inaugurate the 144,000 in a world-wide revival! This will happen in 2012-–according to the uhhh...prophecy (I’m not making this up).

Then, my wife and I were in Houston at the 2011 GYC with our oldest son (Dylan) and his wife Amanda). As they were walking to the hotel one day, a fellow with a three-button* beard approached them and handed Dylan a tract about beards. He was a big fan of male facial hair, so much so that he was campaigning against the wholesale slaughter of beards & mustaches. Armed with a solitary verse in the Bible (Leviticus 19:27), our furry friend was doing his best to bring bewhiskered righteousness to anyone who would listen.

“Is this a salvation issue?“ Dylan asked him. “I think it is,” he replied. “Have you had any converts to this…uhhh…Beard-ology?” “I’m trying to convert people,” he admitted. “And a few are interested! There was this one fellow in the Atlanta airport, and I shared the truth with him, and prayed for him. Then the airline lost his shaver...so I know it was the work of God!” He was rather zealous. And rather wooly.

Each of these three stories is true and their themes lie dangerously close to (if not altogether beyond) the ragged edge of reality. In a time when we need the empowering story of the Everlasting Gospel, many strange stories abound. More and more people are developing their own private scoop and that brings me to the title of this article. (If you have a better term, feel free to share it. I’m open to suggestions.)

“Can a man scoop fire into his lap without his clothes being burned?” (Proverbs 6:27) Scoopism is a collection of private ideas, knowledge, interpretations, thoughts, impressions, notions or prophecies. In each of us, including myself, I believe there exists a temptation to hallow our own perspective even if it violates the Scriptural warning in 2 Peter 1:20. Most of us resist that temptation on the basis of humility, fellowship with other believers, and a profound respect for the balance we find in Scripture. But there are three other reasons for Scoopsim that I will explore.

Pride. Each of us struggles with pride–it was that one sin that caused the fall of Lucifer in heaven. When a proud heart is combined with fear and eschatology, it gives way to an almost unlimited display of theological innovation. Some of them are pretty bizarre. And dangerous.

Delay. The Adventist faith took shape around the central proposition that the same Jesus who made us and saved us is coming back soon. Forewarned in Matthew 24:48 & 25:1-13, we have to admit that there has been a delay in the Second Coming. The Advent Movement is confronted now by a situation unknown to its past. We are reminded of the notable statement published in 1909: “Great changes are soon to take place in our world and the final movements will be rapid ones.” I submit to you, this prophecy is fulfilled. Not until this century have we been required to cope with change so rapid, leading to ends so alien to Christian values, yet marketed in such alluring format. Peter foresees a generation laden with disbelief in Christ’s coming and saying, “Much time has passed, so why continue to believe?” This, I think, gives rise to strange new ideas and theories. Scoopism.

If this church distances itself from the sense of immediacy of both the continuing presence of Christ and the coming end of the world; it will lose the core of its message and mission. Assurance of Salvation. The last reason for Scoopism, is something that occurred to me recently. Many people are looking for assurance of salvation, a principle that eludes them for various reasons. Unresolved guilt, fears, and just negative-thinking in general can paralyze people and steal their peace. When peace leaves, it creates a vacuum. It hurts. And many things can flow into that vacuum as we grope for self-generated assurance of salvation. Enter Scoopism. Here is the amazing part: When my pet theories and ideas become my special auto-developed truth, then the fewer people that believe in it–the more saved I am! The ultimate goal then of this sanctified narcissism would be to get the believers of my special “truth” down to ONE PERSON. It’s bad when peace leaves our hearts, because our ability to love often goes with it. “In the last days men will be lovers of self…”

Solution. What is the solution to Scoopism? It is threefold.

We must humble ourselves in the sight of God (James 4:10). God is watching. We kneel down in His presence and repent of the pride in our lives. He will then lift us up and put us where we ought to be (v. 4:10b). When we are humble, we are useful to God (Psalm 10:17).

The custodians of the talents in Matthew 25 are in charge while the Master is away. What happens? He returns unannounced and says, “Bring Me your talents, and what you have done with them.” You know the rest of the story. It seems clear that Jesus intended us to occupy while busily doing His work, but ever living in the prospect of his soon return. This pattern builds maturity, and it sets the pace for the final generations who are commissioned for the task of bearing the Three Angel’s messages to the world. We don’t have time for Scoopism.

Ultimately, peace is missing from our lives because we have lost contact with Jesus. We may have stepped over the line of God’s Law or allowed lies into our lives, causing turbulence within. However it happens, the end result is a “Check Heart” light flashing on the instrument panel of our life. God allows this in His mercy–-to wake us up. When we Biblically resolve the issue that has stolen our peace, God restores two precious ingredients into our lives--peace and joy. With peace, comes blessed assurance as the song says, and with joy a renewed love for others.

*A three-button beard is a beard that covers the top three buttons of a man’s shirt. In my Anabaptist heritage, it is not uncommon to see three and four-button beards, and on rare occasions a five-button masterpiece.

Who really needs more faith?

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1) For those who trust in the written record of the Scripture, this verse contains the essence of our belief in the way the world formed. God chose to reveal aspects of creation in His Word that we take at face value because we have faith that what the Bible says is true. Special creation, finished in seven days, cannot be proven empirically because the entire concept revolves around a God bringing forth life and matter, and belief in God always requires faith. Does evolution require belief? One of the psychological advantages employed by evolutionists (including Darwin himself) is to say they base their theories on science and on facts that can be tested and analyzed. They ridicule creationists as ignorant fools trusting in an unconfirmed God. They maintain they can prove everything they say without resorting to belief in the Divine. Is this true, or do they need as much (or more) faith in non-provable assumptions?

In the Beginning For He spake, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast. (Psalm 33:9)

According to evolutionists, life began when certain chemicals joined according to the theory of spontaneous generation, in which life arises out of inactive matter. Experiments undertaken in the 1950's to replicate the origins of life are often cited as proof, but they used false environmental conditions (oxygen-free atmosphere; no natural ultraviolet radiation) and still were unsuccessful in generating cell life.(1) Never has life been assembled in the laboratory; thus the entire foundation for evolution is defended as follows:

One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are--as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.(2)

Cells are the basic elements of life, yet the more we learn of them the more complex they appear. When Darwin first proposed his theory he offered this falsification test:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.(3)

Modern research on the structure of cells has revealed an answer to his test. One evolutionist discovered:

As biochemists have begun to examine apparently simple structures like cilia and flagella, they have discovered staggering complexity, with dozens or even hundreds of precisely tailored parts.... As the number of required parts increases, the difficulty of gradually putting the system together skyrockets, and the likelihood of indirect scenarios plummets.(4)

Micro-evolution vs. Macro-evolution

From these extraordinary beginnings life evolved from stage to higher stage until humans finally arrived. But an important distinction must be made that is often forgotten. There are two definitions of evolution that consist of quite different principles. The first can be called micro-evolution and involves changes of color, structure, and behavior caused by external pressures from isolation, climatic change, and other species. The second is macro-evolution and involves the major changes from one class of species to another, such as from fish to amphibians and from reptiles to mammals. This also includes major changes that would result in new families like the development of feline and canine families from some common ancestor. These two very different concepts are often blurred together by evolutionists and misunderstood by creationists. Please note that I am using the original—and correct—definitions for these terms as they were historically understood. Recent attempts have been made by some to change these terms to hide the issues that they expose.

Micro-evolution is occurring all around us in every species of life. Species with extensive ranges show little variety as their gene pool is large and intermingles regularly. But animals and plants on islands or in isolated habitats are different from similar species elsewhere. These differences can be minor (unusual colors; flowers with more stamens), or major (flightless birds; carnivorous caterpillars). In North America, the Mountain Lion is split into populations that no longer connect. Those in Florida have been isolated long enough to be considered as a subspecies that has distinctive behaviors and characteristics from the widespread form found throughout the western states. The two subspecies could still breed together if they ever met now, but if their isolation continues long enough they would eventually be incapable of interbreeding and would thus become separate species. An example of the latter is the two species of Gray Squirrel, Eastern and Western.

Built into all life is the ability to adjust slightly through successive generations to meet the demands of the surroundings they inhabit. Without this there could be no colonization of new areas or survival when unexpected changes occur. It is crucial to note though, that all such changes occur within the strict confines of the same kind of organism. In other words, rattlesnakes develop into different species of rattlesnakes and orchids into different species of orchids. For thousands of years we have bred domestic animals into a bewildering plethora of forms, but never has a dog become anything other than a dog, even though the shapes and personalities nearly defy comparison.

Macro-evolution takes the next step and says that at some point the dog will become something entirely different. It will become a new form of life that will someday change again and eventually be so distinct that no obvious resemblance is detectable between its ancestral form and itself. This is supposed to account for the massive differences between turtles, jellyfish, and humans, and indeed between every life form, since animals and plants come from common ancestors. Supposedly macro-evolution produced everything alive today, but it doesn't seem to be occurring now. It has never been documented in the wild or in the lab.

Natural Selection

What mechanism could account for the incredible progression from algae to armadillos? The answer given is natural selection, by which successful adaptation survives and poor adaptation becomes extinct. Evolutionists give natural selection amazing qualities, including a nearly conscious power to propel evolution forward:

Natural selection converts randomness into direction and blind chance into apparent purpose. It operates with the aid of time to produce improvements in the machinery of living, and in the process generates results of a more than astronomical improbability which could have been achieved in no other way.(5)

This places inestimable importance upon natural selection as the key force behind all the variety and specialization of life. Without it evolutionists have no explanation for how things are, so we must examine it carefully.

Every species' offspring has differing traits since no two organisms are identical. If a specific trait helps an individual survive, then it is usually passed on to its offspring. If a trait does the opposite, then an individual has a greater chance of dying and not passing on that trait. As generations proceed the individuals that survive are the ones best suited for that particular habitat. This is especially true when a species is thrust into a new habitat such as landing on an island. Nearly every island in the South Pacific has its own species of gecko, each adapted to survive there. So natural selection can explain micro-evolution. But what about macro-evolution?

If natural selection can produce entirely new life forms, then it should be testable under controlled conditions. But a century of fruit fly studies have not produced anything other than fruit flies with the minor variations of micro-evolution. As for natural conditions, Darwin knew there was trouble when he stated:

There are two or three million species on earth. A sufficient field one might think for observation; but it must be said today that in spite of all the evidence of trained observers, not one change of the species to another is on record.(6)

Since we cannot find living transitional forms, the fossil record is studied to find the links needed between each class because they must be there for macro-evolution to be true. But they are not there. All the fossils found have been members of established classes and the transitional forms needed have not appeared. One fossil reptile was thought to be an answer, but it has more problems than solutions:

(Archaeopteryx) was a small...flying animal with hollow bones and feathers usually described by paleontologists as a dinosaur on the way to becoming a bird. Most ornithologists, however, disagree.(7)

Archaeopteryx is no more a link between reptiles and birds than Pterodactyls (flying, furred reptiles) are links to bats, or Plesiosaurs (swimming, flippered reptiles) are links to dolphins. They share common traits as do many unrelated animals. The search for the "missing links" continues.

There is a theory that macro-evolution is caused by sudden mutations (leading to such humorous conclusions as one day a dinosaur laid an egg and when it hatched, out flew a bird). A prominent evolutionist states:

Obviously...such a process (multiple, simultaneous mutations) has played no part whatever in evolution.(8)

With all these problems, and many more, we ascertain that natural selection could not result in macro-evolution and so the following conclusion is reached (by the same evolutionist):

It might be argued that the theory (of natural selection) is quite unsubstantiated and has status only as a speculation.(9)

Envoy Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God. (Hebrews 11:3)

The genius of Darwin was discovering on the Galapagos Islands and elsewhere the principles of micro-evolution. The hubris of Darwin was inventing without evidence the principles of macro-evolution. The duplicity of Darwin was combining the two and calling them both by the blanket term evolution. The grave error of the Church was to oppose everything Darwin said as heresy. Supporters of evolution could then club the church into humiliation with countless examples of micro-evolution in action, and then slip in macro-evolution as the same thing. The church couldn't tell the difference and made claims as inaccurate as the evolutionists', forever damaging their credibility on this issue. Ever since, evolutionists have made the case of science refuting blind faith but the truth is that one form of error was replaced by a different form. To this day, scientists cite examples of micro-evolution adaptation and use them as "proof" of macro-evolution, without ever using those terms.

What we believe we must not pretend to know. Is evolution a belief? Evidence is not proof, as the same bit of evidence can have multiple explanations. Evidence for evolution has always stopped short of proof and is interpretable in a creation framework. Evidence for creation also exists, such as polonium halos in granite,(10) the "mitochondrial Eve,"(11) and the shallow sedimentation of the ocean floor.(12) But creation cannot be proved either. So we are left with two models of the world. Both require faith in different forces, on the one hand God and His controlling hand, and on the other chance and the biochemical predestination of natural selection. The mathematical chances of life existing have been calculated repeatedly and they always show astronomical impossibilities needed. Life's beginnings and its development cause perpetual dilemmas for evolutionists, who have endless theories to explain but no proof to confirm. In essence, evolution has become its own religion in which its disciples trust in miracles contrived by human intellect. And why do they struggle so persistently to maintain an unproved hypothesis?

Because we have a prior commitment to materialism. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.(13)

We are left with the question of what we hold as our authority. Do we believe in the Bible as the written Word of God, or do we place human intellect above it. (See Proverbs 3:5) If the latter, than my opinion is as good as yours or the next person's and eventually we find there are billions of chaotic voices all saying something different. (Welcome to the peace and joy of post-modernism, where 2 plus 2 can equal 5.) There is either one clear Voice or the cacophony of the intelligentsia; either implicit confidence in the vagaries of human reason or complete assurance that God did as He said. Given these options, which worldview really requires more faith?

_______________

1. Javor, "The Origin of Life", Liberty, Sep./Oct., 1993
2. Wald, Scientific American, Aug., 1954
3. Darwin, On the Origin of Species
4. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, Free Press, New York, 1996
5. Huxley, Evolution in Action, pp. 54-55
6. Darwin, Life and Letters, Vol. 3, p. 25
7. Behler, Wildlife Conservation, July/Aug., 1993
8. Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution, p. 96
9. Ibid., pp. 118-119
10. Gentry, Creation's Tiny Mystery, Earth Science Associates, 1988
11. Science, January 2, 1998
12. Nevins, "Evolution: the Ocean Says No!", Ministry, March, 1977
13. Lewontin, quoted in Freedom Alert, Summer, 2000

Empowered Witnessing: Reaching All People (Part I)

Recently as I read the comments on an informal article a friend of mine wrote on the topic of repentance, I came across the following statement: “I don't believe I need to justify or beg forgiveness for my sins because I don't believe I do sin.” And farther down, another commenter asked: “…what are your thoughts on moral atheists? People who do not commit ‘sin,’ and when they do they ‘repent’ with inner reflection rather than going to... um... Outside Help.” These comments reveal a completely different worldview than the Christian/biblical worldview, and it gave me pause. Let’s face it, though we may not always receive the response we desire, it is easier to share the gospel and three angels’ messages with fellow Christians, because underneath the differences caused by denominational doctrines and extra-biblical traditions, we often share the same foundation: the belief in an Almighty Creator; the incarnate Son of God, Jesus Christ, who died for the sins of the world; and the importance of the Bible. Growing up and/or living in a pre-dominantly Christian society have sheltered many Adventists in North America. We have lost touch with how to share with non-Christians, but times are changing and so are the demographics of our society.

In 2007, the Pew Forum's U.S. Religious Landscape Survey determined that 78% of adults in the United States profess some form of Christianity as their religious affiliation, whether or not they attended church regularly. Yet interestingly the mainline Protestant churches are experiencing a decline in membership. At the same time, a growing number of young adults are claiming no religious affiliation. In fact, one-in-four U.S. adults ages 18 to 29 are not affiliated with a specific religion. What about our church? The Seventh-day Adventist Church in North America, which not too long ago was highlighted in an USA Today article, has grown by 2.5%, but in spite of this growth, our church membership is aging. In 2008, the average age of church members in North America was 51 years even though the average age of the general population was 36. These statistics demonstrate the difficulty we are having in reaching the young adult population, particularly as more young adults distance themselves from, have little knowledge regarding, or have no interest in Christianity.

It is inevitable; we will meet people whose worldview--their philosophy of life--is completely different from ours. How do we share the Gospel with those who think the Bible is an archaic book of outdated fairytales, that Jesus may have been a historic figure but was just a wise man who taught moral lessons, or do not believe in God at all? How do we explain the importance of Jesus’ sacrificial death with someone who revers Buddha; the joy of the Sabbath rest with someone who observes ancient pagan festivals like Samhain; or the importance of worshiping the God of the Bible alone when they believe in other gods and goddesses? How do we communicate the three angel’s message with someone who does not believe in Creation, has never kept Sunday (let alone Sabbath), and is not convinced with a “thus saith the Lord”?

The common foundation we may have grown accustomed to when initiating a conversation with fellow Christians will not be there when we find ourselves in an opportunity to share with a non-Christian. I am not belittling the importance of witnessing to our Christian brothers and sisters. It is an important part of fulfilling the second angel’s message (Revelation 14:8). I, myself, was a Protestant Christian for eighteen years before joining the Adventist Church, and afterward I was blessed with teaching as part of evangelistic seminars and one-on-one Bible studies. I understand first-hand the challenges that are faced when we decide to leave what was comfortable and familiar, and to follow the Lord into deeper truth. It is life changing, but even as life-changing as is a Christian becoming an Adventist, the basic foundation of our worldview remains the same.

When we witness to non-Christians with the hope of helping them choose Christ, we are literally asking them to replace their entire way of thinking and viewing the world with a radically different way to think and view the world. We are asking them throw everything they believed out the window. This is a significant challenge for both the witness and the one we are witnessing to. We cannot approach an atheist the same way we would an Anglican; a Buddhist in the same manner we would a Baptist; or a Pagan with the same style as a Pentecostal.

We may not be famous evangelists or trained Bible workers, we have not have a degree in theology or experience in apologetics, but the Lord still expects us to witness to those He brings into our circle of influence, whether Christian or non-Christian. After all, the first angel’s message is to preach the everlasting gospel “unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people” (Revelation 14:6). Even if from our point-of-view the task before us appears insurmountable, we have confidence in the words of Christ: “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26).

So how do we share the gospel with the non-Christians within our circle of influence? In Part II, we will take a look at practical advice and examples provided by the Word of God.

References:

U.S. Religious Landscape Survey. (2007) The Pew Forum. Available at http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

Reflections on the future of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in North America: Trends and challenges by David Beckworth & S. Jospeh Kidder. (2010) Ministry Magazine. Available at http://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2010/december/reflections-on-the-future-of-north-american-seventh-day-adventism.html

Adventists’ back-to-basics faith is fastest growing U.S. church by G. Jeffrey MacDonald. (2011) USA Today. Available at http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2011-03-18-Adventists_17_ST_N.htm

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.

Christ or culture: Adventist ordination crisis

A segment within the Seventh-day Adventist Church is currently campaigning to change our historic position regarding the ordination of pastors —that only consecrated men should be ordained. In addition, this push to begin ordaining women as pastors is being done in disregard to the world church’s clear policy on this issue. This presents a serious crisis that threatens to fragment our beloved church, create confusion in our homes, and cripple the progress of the three angels’ messages. Your voice here today can help prevent this disunion. For nearly 150 years, the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s position has consistently been that only men should be ordained as pastors. This doctrine has been based on the clear guidance of multiple scriptures, including such passages as 1 Timothy 3:1–7 and Titus 1:5–9.

ADvindicate is sponsoring a new website, Christ or Culture, to provide biblical, historical, and church support for this position and to address the challenges of the latest effort to compromise biblical truth in favor of social and cultural acceptance.

Please read the material, sign the petition, and forward to your Adventist friends. The support of this petition will be presented to our denominational leaders.

The secularization of La Sierra University

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spiritual formation: friend or foe?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Male and female, in the image of Christ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vision through blindness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cultural Vegetarians?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pacific Union committee authorizes women's ordination

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

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

Voted (preamble):

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

Therefore, [main action]

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

The Process

Voted, approval for the following process:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTACT:

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

Source: Pacific Union Conference

La Sierra biology professor terminated over creation-evolution controversy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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