apokalupto

I Support Men's Commissioning

2012-01-30T18:48:00.000-05:00

On October 10, 2011, church leaders announced a timetable for studying the theology of ordination over the next few years, the latest action following a promise at the 2010 General Conference session to study the issue.

Artur Stele, a world church vice president and director of the Biblical Research Institute, said the process would examine the foundation of ordination as well as its implications for church practices. (Adventist Review)

This is the latest in a series of debates, studies, and panels that have polarized the Seventh-day Adventist Church on the question of women's ordination since, by some accounts, the mid 1970s. (I've written previously on this topic here.) Opponents rest firm in the General Conference vote at Utrecht (1995), which shut down a move to allow the practice. Proponents continue to agitate for equality, most recently through the ONE (Ordain Now Equally) in Christ website.

Meanwhile, a proportionately small number of women continue to serve capably as Adventist pastors, and in some cases their ministry is exceptionally blessed. Rather than being ordained, these women are "commissioned," which affords them the authority to do almost everything an ordained (i.e. male) pastor does except ordain elders and deacons or organize and disband churches.

This state of affairs seems to me untenable. On its face, there is no biblical support, and it is morally disingenuous. Either women can be pastors, or they can't. Either women are allowed to have authority in the church, or they aren't. In the scripture there is no such thing in scripture as an under-shepherd who has partial authority in the flock.

I don't intend to rehash the arguments pro and con women's ordination here. For me it boils down to one issue: Spiritual gifts come with the authority to use them. If a woman has been equipped by the Holy Spirit for pastoral ministry, the church is poorer for not recognizing this.

For this reason I fully support equality of men and women at all levels of church ministry. But, I hasten to add, I do not support women's ordination.

I have come to the conclusion that in the Seventh-day Adventist Church the term "ordination" has changed into something other than a simple recognition of God's blessing on a pastor's ministry. Ordination is now a word that is used to either attain or maintain power.

Those opposed to women's ordination are focused of defending the term in a way that excludes women from power, and those in favor of women's ordination are focused on expanding the term in a way that gains women power. Both sides of the debate are in a power struggle.

Yet according to Jesus, in His Kingdom you don't gain power by fighting for it but by giving it away.

“The legal experts and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat. Therefore, you must take care to do everything they say. But don’t do what they do. ... They love to be greeted with honor in the markets and to be addressed as ‘Rabbi.’

“But you shouldn’t be called Rabbi, because you have one teacher, and all of you are brothers and sisters. Don’t call anybody on earth your father, because you have one Father, who is heavenly. Don’t be called teacher, because Christ is your one teacher. But the one who is greatest among you will be your servant. All who lift themselves up will be brought low. But all who make themselves low will be lifted up." (Matthew 23:2-3, 7-12, CEB)

“Do you know what I’ve done for you? You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and you speak correctly, because I am. If I, your Lord and teacher, have washed your feet, you too must wash each other’s feet. I have given you an example: just as I have done, you also must do. (John 13:12b-15, CEB)

“Whoever wants to be first must be least of all and the servant of all.” (Mark 9:35b, CEB)

“You know that those who rule the Gentiles show off their authority over them and their high-ranking officials order them around. But that’s not the way it will be with you. Whoever wants to be great among you will be your servant. Whoever wants to be first among you will be your slave—just as the Human One didn’t come to be served but rather to serve and to give his life to liberate many people.” (Matthew 20:25b-28, CEB)

Church offices and leadership structures are clearly necessary, as the apostolic church quickly discovered. But when an office or title becomes the focus of a power struggle, it's time to step back and recover Jesus' simple message of servant leadership: Instead of trying to elevate yourself, focus on elevating others. Instead of trying to be first, go serve those who are least. Instead of joining the race to the top, start a race to the bottom.

In that spirit, I propose the following: That Adventist pastors of both genders be, not "ordained," but "commissioned." After all, neither term is applied to pastors in the Bible, so we're free to change the terminology when warranted.

In fact, the term "ordained" comes from the Roman ordering of their society into plebs and patricians, the Gentile lords Jesus condemned. In the early Roman Catholic Church, ordination developed as the means by which a layman joins the elite order of the clergy.

On the other hand, "commissioned" carries, to my ear at least, the implication of "commissioned to serve," which is what a minister is supposed to do in the first place. Changing the term would also connote, in the context of the ordination debate, that Adventist pastors are less obsessed with their own power and position than they are with empowering and elevating others. It would signify that male ministers do not advance in God's upside-down Kingdom by allowing women to join them up on their level, but instead by moving down to a level where all can serve according to their gifts.

Therefore, I do not support women's ordination; I support men's commissioning.

Cross-posted to Adventist Today.

Arminianism and Adventism

2010-03-24T11:32:00.005-04:00

While I'm sending some link-love to the Andrews Seminary, I thought I'd mention the Arminianism and Adventism Symposium coming up in October (14-17). So why is this conference important? Basically because our soteriological (doctrine of salvation) roots go back the Jacob Arminius, the first serious Protestant/Reformed theologian to reject Calvinist predestination, combining free-will with the understanding that we cannot save ourselves. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism picked up his ideas, and many of the original Adventists were Methodists, including Ellen White.

If you're still not convinced this is worthwhile, go check out their list of reasons why you should attend the Adventism and Arminianism Symposium.

p.s. They just enlisted yours truly to blog the symposium.

New Blog: Memory, Meaning & Faith

2010-03-19T16:42:00.005-04:00

Where has Dave been since January?

Thanks for asking! I've been working on a new blog project with some of my seminary professors. It's called Memory, Meaning & Faith, and on it we'll be discussing all things related to theology and history. So you should pretty much go over there and check it out. Oh yeah, we're also going to be giving away free stuff over the next few weeks (more on that here), so stay tuned.

I'll still be blogging over here. In the last few weeks I've had the inspiration several times but haven't had the actual time. Hopefully, my schedule will allow some posting in the near future.

Much gratitude to all who still have apokalupto in their feed reader.

Testimony

2010-01-03T17:39:00.003-05:00

According to Wikipedia, spoken word poetry began in the early nineties in New York city. I first heard it in the early 2000s on CBC Radio 1. And now, in the early 2010s, it has made an impact on the old fashioned testimony service.

The following poem was recited yesterday by Sarah Campbell at the Cornerstone Seventh-day Adventist Church in Coquitlam, British Columbia. She, along with others involved in an urban café ministry in Vancouver, gave her testimony during the Sabbath worship service.

Visit To A Mosque

2009-11-13T18:16:00.007-05:00

Today I visited the Islamic Society of Michiana's mosque in South Bend, Indiana for Friday prayers. I was required to go for a class in world religions and, for some time, had planned to visit on this particular Friday . Given the recent Fort Hood shooting, I suspected this would be no ordinary visit.

I entered as a man, who I assume was the imam, had just begun his "English Talk", the equivalent of a sermon. The subject was the Festival of Eid, which commemorates Abraham's sacrifice of his son, that Muslims will soon celebrate. The talk was basically a list of dos and don'ts for celebrating the festival in a way that would bring the worshiper closer to God. For example, actually sacrificing a goat, as opposed to paying to have one sacrificed somewhere else for you, was recommended.

As the Eid talk was winding down I thought that perhaps the speaker would let the Fort Hood incident pass without mention, but it turned out his homily had a part II. For the speaker, the incident was essentially a PR disaster, and he felt that the media, especially Fox News, had used it as an opportunity to present Muslims in a negative way. He recommended community involvement as a way to remedy this problem, suggesting involvement with a soup kitchen or a donation to the Islamic Society of North America's fund for the victims' families. He concluded by reminding his congregation that even though America is humiliating and killing Muslims overseas, America is the place they have chosen to build their children's future, and therefore they need to support America.

Then mentioning his fears of a backlash against Muslims, the speaker invited a worshiper, whom he described as a NRA member and knowledgeable about self-defense, to the podium explain how Muslims can defend themselves if attacked. The man began by describing the tactical capabilities of the various firearms. It eventually became clear that he was concerned about someone trying to carry out a mass shooting similar to the Fort Hood shooting in their Mosque. If this were to happen, he recommended that those farther away from the shooter and able to do so flee and that those closer and not able to flee rush the shooter, "sucker punch" him, and not stop until he is down.

During this self-defense talk several men in the back near where I was sitting began talking among themselves and heckling the man, telling him they had heard enough. When that man was done, another man immediately got behind the podium and made a statement clearly distancing their Islam from the actions of Nidal Hasan and clarifying that Hasan was not following Islam in doing what he did. The men who had been heckling during the self-defense talk, indicated that they supported these statements.

After this it was time for prayers. A man in the front chanted the call to prayer, and then everyone moved forward and stood on the prayer carpet, all facing the same direction. I stood throughout the prayer as a sign of respect.

During the prayer the worshipers bowed lower and lower, until they were totally prostrated, symbolizing total submission to God. The prayer is chanted in a minor key, and the beautiful music gave me a sense of mourning for the Muslim people. It was obvious that this community was dealing with a lot of pain through humiliation brought on them by the oppression of their people overseas and compounded by the horrific actions of one of their own at home. During the prayer I was profoundly moved and prayed that God would reveal his loving character to the Muslim people.

It seems to me that the Muslim community in North America is experiencing what Seventh-day Adventists experienced to a lesser degree during the events caused by David Koresh in 1993, when public exposure of violence and wrongdoing forced our church to face the dark side of our anti-American, apocalyptic teachings. While we quickly pointed out that David Koresh was not currently an Adventist and tried to minimize his connection to our church, the fact remains the he and almost all the adults in his compound were ex-Adventists. Every religion has this dark side, the question is how to deal with it.

It seems to me that the Muslim community in North America needs find a way of expressing a constructive critique of the West that doesn't degenerate into extremism. Community involvement and statements denouncing Hasan are PR band-aids that ignore the real issue of Islam's dark side, extremism. And publicly planing for the very unlikely event of a mass shooting only increases the sense of fear that results in extremism. On the other hand, I doubt that Muslim Americans will have the space to address these issues until the media spotlight currently trained on their community moves on to the next story.

Although I did not appreciate the self-defense talk (I feel that adolescent male fantasies of a heroic charge at a deranged gunman have nothing to do with the worship of God.), I enjoyed my visit to the mosque. Of all the non-Christian worship services I have attended, this was the one where I felt closest to God, probably because there was an extended period of time when I could simply pray. My only regret was that I had to leave soon after the service, and during the time after prayers and before I left no one approached me for conversation.

Interview: Gary Land

2009-11-11T21:23:00.007-05:00

Gary Land is one of the organizers of the Ellen White Project, a group of Adventist, ex-Adventist, and non-Adventist scholars who are preparing to publish an academic book on Ellen White. He is chair of the Department of History and Political Science at Andrews University and author of, among others, Teaching History, a book about integrating historical knowledge and Christian faith, and the Historical Dictionary of the Seventh-day Adventists. Dr. Land was kind enough to answer some questions about his latest project shortly after he returned from the working conference where authors of the book's chapters had their work critiqued.

a: Can you give us a brief history of this Ellen White Project?

GL: Now this will be my version of it; it might be a slightly different story for some of the other people. But Terrie Aamodt has long had an interest in having a conference. She talked about that with me and others, but it didn’t really get of the ground until she talked with Julius Nam at the Adventist historians’ meeting at Oakwood two and a half years ago. He’s an organizer type, and he immediately wanted to do something. It went through an evolution as to what the goals were, but eventually he, myself, Terrie, and Ron Numbers ended up as the organizing people. And we’ve been working on it for couple years.

a: I’d like you comment on the philosophy of history that will inform the editing of this book. In other words, how is it possible for scholars who have differing beliefs about the source of Ellen White’s visions to produce a collaborative history of her?

GL: First of all, saying collaborative history isn’t correct. It’s a collection of essays, and there will be differing interpretations and viewpoints in the essays. But at the same time we do hope that they will be cohesive. The issue of her inspiration is really not an issue as far as the book is concerned, because our goal is to look at Ellen White as a historical figure. I’ve had a hard time explaining that to some Adventists, because they have difficulty looking at Ellen White in something other than religious terms. But the main thing is that we have other 19th century religious leaders of what we call “American originals” who have received quite a bit of attention from historians. But neither Adventists generally nor Ellen White in particular have received very much attention in historical literature. And there are a number of reasons for that. Maybe a simple one is that we aren’t quite strange enough; we’re more aligned with the mainstream than those other “American originals”. But the purpose of the book was to bring a number of essays looking at various aspects of Ellen White’s life with the underlying purpose being to say, This is a significant woman that historians should give attention to. So it wasn’t really a matter of whether one believes she’s inspired or not inspired.

a: Can you clarify what you mean by “historical figure”? What I’m thinking when you say that is someone who influenced others after her and was influenced by people before her. Is that correct?

GL: And was influential during her own time. Although, we’re not just discussing her in terms of influence. But when one talks about things that she did, those also have influence.

a: So also looking at the bare facts, and laying those open…

GL: Right.

a: When I read Ron Number’s book, he starts off by saying that a real historian has to look for human causes, not divine causes in history (Prophetess of Health, xxxii, para 1). And it seems to me that presupposition is at once necessary for doing history while also ruling out the possibility of divine inspiration. Is that a fair way to frame the issue?

GL: Yeah, I think so. Look at a book like George Marsden’s The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship, where he’s talking about how one is a Christian and does scholarship and how if you bring in divine elements, you’re probably not going to get accepted by a historical journal or university press. So he talks about something he calls “methodological agnosticism,” and that’s essentially what Ron Numbers is putting forward. Now Ron is not a Christian believer and makes no pretense of being one, so his motivations might be different in saying that. But Marsden is a Christian and is noted for that. But he distinguishes methodological agnosticism from what he calls “methodological atheism.” And it comes down to subtle use of language when you give an explanation on the human level. In methodological atheism you use language that suggests that there is nothing else to say beyond what’s being said. If you are a methodological agnostic, then you will have language that suggests there might be other things. Just as an example: You’re talking about a revival. And if you say, This revival was caused by economic dislocation (That’s a frequent explanation that’s given for revivals.), well, that doesn’t leave anything else available. But if you say, Economic dislocation contributed to the revival, then a person could think that maybe there was a divine aspect as well, even though you’re not talking about that as a historian.

a: If Ellen White is a multidimensional figure, what hidden dimensions of Ellen White would you like this book to reveal to Adventists, the scholarly community, and the average American?

GL: First of all, Adventists are not our primary audience. Obviously we would hope that Adventists would read it, but we’re aiming to publish through an academic press. (I think it needs to be clear that we’ve contacted Oxford, they’ve expressed some interest in it, but there is absolutely no commitment on their part until they see something.) So our target audience is scholars and that proverbial educated general reader. We hope Adventists will come along with that. Now what do we want to accomplish with that? I already spoke about scholars, that they would think, Maybe she deserves more than a line in the history of American religion. The general reader—sort of along the same lines—but that they would find her an interesting person. Here’s somebody who did all these different things. And we would hope that they would find this an interesting person that they might want to know more about, because this book is not exhaustive. It’s not a biography, but sort of an opening of a window on an individual and her movement. She had an interesting life, a long life, and as a woman she did things that were not typical of women in her time. She was a public figure of somewhat restricted range, a speaker, a writer when not many women were writers, was involved in establishing institutions. So I hope that people would find her life story interesting

a: Don McMahon has produced what was for me one of the more illuminating, if not unconventional, studies of Ellen White in recent decades. How will this book address his multidisciplinary approach? And maybe that would be a better question to ask Numbers, but since I have you in front of me…

Right. I don’t think it’s going to address it very much. Numbers would have a lot to say about McMahon. I think he has something in the footnote of his paper about McMahon, but that’s about all it addresses. An interesting observation about the conference: For every paper we had an Adventist respondent and a non-Adventist respondent. Several Adventists raised the issue of plagiarism; it didn’t seem to be an issue for the non-Adventists. And I believe the reason for that is for Adventists it’s related to the issue of Ellen White’s authority and inspiration. And that’s not an issue to the non-Adventists. And Adventist apologists have argued that this was relatively common in the 19th century, and I think non-Adventists recognize that. So it’s not a big issue to them. So basically I think [McMahon] will be a footnote and not much more than that.

a: As a Seventh-day Adventist, how do you anticipate this book will benefit your church?

GL: Well, to come back to our original purpose, it’d give us more visibility. Second, I think it will help people understand Ellen White better, although we’re not really breaking new ground as far as Adventism is concerned. We’re breaking new ground as far as the general historical community is concerned. But one thing that I became aware of—I wrote the paper on Ellen White and historiography—and I became aware that Ron Numbers’ Prophetess of Health has done more than any other book to bring Ellen White to the attention of historians, even though it’s still relatively small attention. But people have looked at Ellen White almost totally in terms of a health reformer, and even Adventism in terms of health reform. And so hopefully this book will help people understand that Ellen White had a multifaceted life. Health reform obviously was a part of it, but there were other aspects of it as well. And then secondarily to help them understand that Adventism is more than a health reform church. So I would hope that it would contribute to a better understanding of the denomination. But again, we’re not really writing it for PR purposes, but to better place Ellen White and Adventism within their 19th century American context.

Other Ellen White Project Working Conference coverage:

Jon Paulien (Revelation - Armageddon): An Historic Event (parts I, II, III, IV, V)

Alden Thompson (Spectrum): Reporting from the Ellen White Conference, Reflections on the Maine Event

Religion in American History Blog: The Ellen White Project (includes video interview with Ron Numbers), 'Buked and Scorned: Ellen G. White's Success

Reflictions On The Homosexuality Conference

2009-10-26T23:08:00.004-04:00

Before apokalupto moves on to fresh topics, there's still time for me to jot down a few final thoughts on the Marriage, Homosexuality, and the Church Conference I attended last week at Andrews University. It's also time for me to share my position on the debate over whether homosexual sex is sinful, since that will inform the comments that follow. My theology on this issue is informed by presuppositions I have found to be well articulated here.

I believe that from Genesis 12 onward, the Bible tells the story of how God is leading his people on a journey, which includes moral progress, toward Heaven. So I believe the descriptions of Heaven in Scripture (primarily found in Genesis 1-2 and Revelation 21-22) are an ethical compass for God's people, pointing us toward the ideal to which he is taking us. According to this ideal, marriage is a union of one man and one woman (Gen 1:21-28, Gen 2:18-25, Rev 21:2)

Now the problem is, given all the aberrations from this ideal that human beings desire, how do we get there from here. In the scripture we can trace God making allowances for our less than ideal situations while moving his people closer to Heaven (cf. Ex 21:10, 1 Tim 3:12). Some might argue that based on this we can make an allowance for homosexual marriage as a step closer to Heaven.

The problem with this is that God has never indicated in Scripture that such an allowance should be made. Even if you believe that the biblical injunctions against homosexual sex apply to only exploitative or non-mutually fulfilling homosexual sex, it remains the case that God never revealed homosexual marriage as the solution to this problem. In fact, given those injunctions, it seems very unlikely that God would make such an allowance.

Therefore, I believe homosexual marriage is not the way forward for God's people on their journey to Heaven. But if that is a difficult conclusion to arrive it, it leads to the even more difficult question of how the church should then respond to homosexuals. So I offer these reflections on the Andrews homosexuality conference in light of this conclusion and in partial answer to the question that comes from it.

As was the diagnosis another time Adventism and psychology converged, I suggest that the symptoms of multiple personality disorder may have been present in the conference; it spoke with two voices. Those from the counseling and pastoral care disciplines said we need to love homosexuals, and those from the public policy and religious liberty disciplines said we need to fight homosexuals. Now that's a generalization and oversimplification, but the popular perception of this conference will be generalized and oversimplified and the message of the conference will, I believe, end up sounding schizo.

Now if you're schizo, you're mad; and when you're mad, people, in this case homosexuals, don't feel the love. My point being that if you want to do some tough love, you've got to earn the right. Now the public policy guys at the conference said Adventists already have that legitimacy because of ADRA, etc., but I don't buy it.

Adventists earned the right to advocate against slavery by helping with the underground railroad, we earned the right to advocate against alcohol and tobacco by helping people kick their habits, and we earned the right to advocate for religious liberty, by sticking up for other religions, too. What have we done for homosexuals? Since the Colin Cook debacle, officially we've done whole lot of nothing.

I believe our level of public policy advocacy on homosexual marriage, regardless of the position we take, must be correlated with our level of direct ministry to homosexuals or we will end up preaching to the choir and loose our public witness. Right now we've got GLADventist.org and a handful of Wayne Blakelys and Ron Woolseys, so that means we can probably send our lawyers to court. I don't think we should start mobilizing our church members to vote until they can identify at least one homosexual person in their congregation. And if Adventists get something like an AIDS hospice going in San Francisco, I think we'd be ready to start talking to homosexuals about homosexual marriage.

Along the lines of ministering to homosexuals, I think Mark Yarhouse's three-tier distinction is an excellent starting point. I think it has implications beyond homosexuality and could be a good tool for discussing sexuality with heterosexual youth. It opened my eyes to how I have constructed my sexual identity, and, as I've said elsewhere, I think it will be remembered as the ideological core of the conference.

One thing that disappointed me at the conference was conservatives playing the victim card. I believe we need to act out of faith that God is protecting us, not fear of being marginalized.

It also seems to me that conservative Adventist Bible scholars need to take special care to speak the truth in love (Eph 4:15), and this is not something that's impossible to do. When discussing the possibility that a whole class of people may be required by God to forfeit sexual and romantic companionship, we're going to have to do better than, "Life isn't fair." That may or may not be the truth, but it is certainly not the truth in love. Scholars would do well to heed Miroslav Kis' advice that we never discuss this issue from an impersonal, abstract perspective.

Finally, I believe this conference is the start of a new and more healthy direction in how the Adventist Church relates to homosexuals. The general assumption of the presenters was that homosexually attracted persons could, like persons attracted to other sins, be regular members of the Adventist Church. If this assumption is adopted by the church as a whole (and I believe it gradually will be), it will remove a fair bit of the prejudice that Adventists have against homosexuals.

Progressives are of course miffed that the basic question of homosexual practice was not up for debate and will likely claim the conference results are just the same dish reheated and served as leftovers. But why not? Sometimes it takes a little time in the fridge for the flavors to sort themselves out into the right combination. And maybe if we work on it a little more we could one day have a potluck.

Blogging the Homosexuality Conference (other posts)

Interview: Nicholas Miller

2009-10-20T21:20:00.005-04:00

Nicholas Miller, Esq. was the Chairman for the Steering Committee of the Marriage, Homosexuality, and the Church Conference that met at Andrews University last week. During the conference, he agreed to an interview with apokalupto to address criticisms of the conference.

a: How did this conference germinate? What was the seed from which it sprung?

NM: At the opening of the conference I talked about the controversy over Proposition 8, which necessarily involved religious liberty leaders because gay marriage would have legal implications for [Adventist] Church institutions. During our advocacy it became clear that some thought leaders in the Church had a different view on gay marriage and underlying question of the morality of homosexual practice. And it became apparent that the Church needed to have a conversation, both about the public policy position of the church on gay marriage and about revisionist arguments that were being made against the Church’s position on homosexual practice.

a: Why, then, was it decided to exclude voices from the Conference who held a contrary view of the underlying question of the morality of homosexual practice?

NM: On your blog you talked in terms of this being a professional conference and not so much a scholarly conference. I disagree with that slightly, because it was a conference with scholarship. But if you were to define a professional conference as a conference on how to implement or use an existing or underlying philosophy, there is indeed some truth to that. And I would analogize it to a conference on the meaning and practice of the Sabbath, which our church considers a biblical institution. It’s generally considered that to have a successful conference, you wouldn’t have to bring in speakers who insist on Sunday worship. And to work out the implications of the Sabbath, you don’t have to debate the underlying question of whether the Sabbath has a biblical basis.

a: But if I could take on your analogy, we don’t have any thought leaders in our Church, who remain in the Church, who believe we should worship on Sunday. But, as you said, we do have thought leaders in our church who do have a different answer to the question of homosexual practice.

NM: I might dispute that initial statement. I think we have some thought leaders in our church who think that that maybe whether it’s Sabbath or Sunday doesn’t matter, but who are willing to stay in the church. But I will accept that there are probably a few more thought leaders who disagree on the question of homosexual practice. And because there are a handful of thought leaders who disagree on this question, perhaps there needs to be a gathering where there is a debate on that issue. But that wasn’t this conference. The leaders of this conference didn’t view that as a significantly live question to justify the resources we put into it. Our purpose was to explore and affirm the biblical basis of the Church’s existing position, but more importantly to move forward in ministry based on that position. And if we came to debate the Church’s existing position, we wouldn’t have been able to meet the goal of formulating an effective public advocacy and strengthening the church’s counseling ability. And those two flow from an underlying agreement on what the biblical position on homosexual practice is.

But that's the first answer. The second answer is that this conference didn't take place in a vacuum. The revisionist position had a complete hearing in a conference a year or two ago, which resulted in a powerful book. And all but one of the articles in that book is a revisionist argument. So those arguments are out there, and that conference was essentially univocal. So to have a dialogue, we thought this conference could respond to that book. If we had made our response a kind of an internal argument within itself, it wouldn’t have been so much of a response. But we didn't do that, and I think we now have a better basis for dialogue, where two positions have been clearly outlined. As we’ve said all along, this conference is a beginning, not the end.

a: Can you tell me about those who were invited to this conference but decided not to come?

NM: Yeah, there were several. Dr. Richard Rice was invited to give a paper about the underlying questions about homosexual practice and the Bible, but chose not to come. David Larson and Julius Nam were invited, and both initially accepted. We invited them to speak to the Church’s response to Proposition 8. But Julius Nam declined for scheduling reasons, as he’s into law school. And David Larson declined—I think that he wanted a broader topic to discuss was part of that—but he also declined the invitation for personal reasons.

a: A cynical person would ask why such a panelist would want to come and be used as a fall guy to legitimate a predetermined outcome. Why would someone want to come this conference and be on a panel where they are outnumbered?

NM: Well, they weren’t invited to be on a three to one panel. We were originally going to have an evenly divided panel. And I don’t know if there are predetermined outcomes for how the church should have responded to Proposition 8. I think there’s a lot valid points that could be made on both sides. And for the panel discussing Proposition 8 we ended up inviting two from both sides. But the formal gay marriage panel ended up being three to one, because Mitch Tyner wanted to be on the breakout session discussion panel instead of presenting a paper. [a: And I did not report on that breakout session, because I went to the pastoral/counseling session instead.}

a: It's not hard to notice that over three quarters of the presenters were white, middle-aged and almost all straight men. Why is that?

NM: You’ve got to play with the deck of cards that you’re dealt. And for whatever reasons, and probably for bad reasons including chauvinism and euro-centrism, the scholars in the Church generally have those characteristics. We were looking for those with expertise within a fairly narrow field. And we sought for some women presenters, scholars, and counselors; and for various reasons they were unable or unwilling to attend. So we had what we had.

a: Why is it that we heard so few voices in the question and answer periods challenging the traditional Christian position on homosexuality?

NM: We didn’t hand pick the questions, David. I went to the hands that I saw raised in as fair a way as I could and took the questions as they came. I think it had to do with the spirit that was prevailing at the conference. Many people had been praying about this conference, and we didn’t want to have a divisive debate over technical, arcane, or revisionist biblical issues. We wanted to have a conference that in the end would provide the church with a stronger ministry to the homosexual community. And I believe the spirit prevailed that accomplished that goal. In the final session I read a letter from a lesbian individual who said she was deeply appreciative of the love and compassion and the spirit that prevailed at the conference.

To be honest, I was going to do hand written questions for all the panels. But during that first session we had presenters who were experienced handling questions publicly and we had the time, so I thought I’d try with a live mic. And it went so well, that we decided to continue. I did in the very final panel do hand written questions, because the panel was so large and the audience was so large that we couldn’t pass the mic around.

a: I have heard an allegation that you put questions challenging the traditional position on homosexual practice to the bottom of the stack during that final panel.

NM: During that time I read a number of questions challenging the position of the Church and I also read a number of questions that were entirely supportive of the position of the Church. But we ran out of time and there were questions both from the right and from the left that went unanswered.

 a: Given the above, what do you think were the strengths of the conference, and how do you think we should move forward with future events to address this issue?

NM: The strength of the conference was that it enhanced the Church’s capacity for ministry and proclamation. Theological discussion is important for the Church, but it is not an end in itself. We do not exist as a church to have a series of ongoing, continuous discussions and debates for our own purposes. And we ended up with a conference where a lot of people felt they could go out and proclaim the Church’s position more effectively and minister and counsel more effectively in light of that position. I don’t think we could have accomplished that if we’d had a debate about the underlying biblical issue of whether homosexual practice is sinful.

Moving forward, we can now explore in greater depth the three areas—religious liberty and public policy, biblical theology and ethics, and counseling and pastoral care—that the conference focused on. I could see more room for dialogue among those with differing biblical views, but that’s not something I’m particularly interested in organizing. I’m a religious liberty and church history guy, not a biblical theologian, so I’ll leave that to those in that area.

a: Thank you for your time.

NM: Thank you for your interest.

Blogging the Homosexuality Conference (other posts)

Top Five: Things I Learned At The Homosexuality Conference

2009-10-19T22:44:00.004-04:00

As I prepare a more complete reflection on the Marriage, Homosexuality, and the Church Conference, here's a quick list of things I picked up there.

Progressives can be just as closed minded as conservatives. And by closed minded I mean resistant to contrary evidence. Now don't all my conservative friends come asking me why it took a homosexuality conference to teach me this.
A retired school teacher can be the most effective minister in a room full of PhDs, DMins, PsyDs, and ordained pastors. That's what's so awesome about the Body of Christ.
Context is everything. Words that are helpful to one person are harmful to another, and when taken out of context, can create biased impressions. Also, it's cool to show gay porn in church when it's from the ancient Greco-Roman world and helps you make an exegetical point.
I need to base my sexual identity on my Lord and Savior. My attraction to the opposite sex can lead me into sin just as easily as someone else's attraction to the same sex can lead them into sin. My same sex attracted brothers in Christ have much to teach me about how have a Christ centered sexual identity.
Ex-gays have nice suits, fashionable eyeglasses, and great haircuts. So does Dwight Nelson. (And just today two people complemented me on my fabulous frames...)

Blogging the Homosexuality Conference (other posts)

Blogging the Homosexuality Conference

2009-10-18T08:42:00.029-04:00

From October 15-17 I attended the Marriage, Homosexuality, and the Church Conference at Andrews University. It was a multidisciplinary conference, bringing together presenters from the fields of (1) religious liberty and public policy, (2) biblical theology and Christian ethics, and (3) psychology and spiritual care. The conference was a professional, not a scholarly conference, focusing on how to move forward based on common belief. Therefore, no formal respondents challenged the presenters' fundamental principles because the organizers only invited speakers who shared "a biblically-faithful view on homosexual practice, as measured by a consensus within the Christian church for the last two millennia, as well as the virtually unanimous view of the worldwide Adventist Church."

During the conference I posted precis of the presentations:

Day 1 - Address: Causes of homosexuality and possibility of change - Testimony: Ex-gay, Seventh-day Adventist Pastor Ron Woolsey

Day 2, Panel 1 - Should the church involve itself in the political debate over homosexual marriage?

Day 2, Panel 2 - What position should Seventh-day Adventists take in the debate over homosexual marriage?

Day 2, Breakout Session - "Effective Counseling and Ministry Practices"

Day 2, Main Address - "Distinction Between Same-Sex Attraction, a Homosexual Orientation, and a Gay Identity." [I believe this presentation will be remembered as the ideological core of the conference.]

Day 2, Interview - Wayne Blakely, recently re-baptized after 37 years in the gay community.

Day 2, Panel 3 - "Counseling/Pastoral Issues"

Day 2, Vespers - Biblical rationale for the traditional Christian view of homosexual activity

Day 3, Interview - Inge Anderson, facilitator of the GLADventist website and online ministry

Day 3, Panel 1 - "Biblical and Theological Perspectives"

Day 3, Sermon - "Sex in the Temple: What's So Gay about That?"

Day 3, Main Presentation - "Homosexuality and the Bible: What Is at Stake in the Current Debate"

Day 3, Panel 2 - "Where Do We Go From Here?"

Other apokalupto conference posts:

Top Five: Things I Learned At The Homosexuality Conference

Interview: Nicholas Miller - Regarding weaknesses of the conference

Reflections On The Homosexuality Conference

Other conference coverage:

Spectrum Blog: Andrews Vs. Homosexuality - Part One, Andrews Vs. Homosexuality - Part Two, "Hate Homosexuality, Love the Homosexual" - Critique of Andrews Homosexuality Conference, Sabbath Sermon: Dwight Nelson on Homosexuality, A Letter to Dwight Nelson

Dr. Mark Yarhouse, a conference presenter, posted a report from the conference here.

Dave Larson reviewed Mark Yarhouse and Stanton Jones' book, Ex-gays?, for his Spectrum web column.

Carol Grady posted her reaction to the conference, At Least We're Talking, on the Spectrum blog.

Dave Ferguson wrote a report on the conference for Adventist Today's website.

Harold Weiss wrote a column, It's A Sin, for Spectrum.

Adventist Review wrote this Special Report.

Jared Wright Twittered the conference for Spectrum (Update 1, Update 2), and proposed three questions he wanted to see answered.

Kelly Youngberg also Twittered the conference.

Filmmakers working on a documentary, Seventh-Gay Adventists, who attended the conference were interviewed by Adventist Today.

Blogging the Homosexualty Conference: Day 3, Panel 2

2009-10-17T16:13:00.009-04:00

The final panel featured participants from the various institutions that supported this conference. Each were given an opportunity to offer an answer to the question, Where do we go from here? What does the church have to do to more effectively address this issue?

Barry Bussy spoke from his experience in Canada. He believes that we are reaching a tipping point in Western democracies where a particular norm is replacing another norm. In this context, be believes that the dissonance between church and society will get louder and we will have pressure put on us by society to conform. He said that the important thing in this context is to deal with the mistakes of our past, continue living our faith, and accept whatever legal and societal pressures may come. He maintains that people will be watching how we react to these issues.

Ron Woolsey spoke next of his experience upon reentering the church. He said that he read one thing in the Bible and heard another thing in church. He read in Ellen White that one of Satan's greatest sophistries is convincing people that they cannot over come sin, and then he would come into the church and get shot down for reading that. He says we need to be very consistent with our message, because what he needed was something rock solid to hold on to. He asked us not to ask the homosexual to overcome and give other sins a pass.

Trevor Frasier was concerned about the weight we have placed on demonstrating our biblical stance. He thinks we have done a good job of that, but his concern is pastoral with regards to where we go from here. He feels that the question of how we care for homosexuals is a burden that needs to be put on us all. He proposes a whole conference on how to deal with these issues.

Bill Knott shared that he has been thinking about how to report on this conference in the Review and has come up with two salient points: (1) The clarity of our biblical stance, and (2) how far we have fallen short of a gospel ethic in our treatment of homosexuals. He believes the implication of this for church leadership is not just to make statements on public policy but the need to teach a people not well trained in compassion how to relate to homosexuals.

Edward Woods III told us a few things that stood out to him. He appreciated Dr. Yarhouse's statement [Yarhouse disputed making this statement here.] that when you're dealing with these issues you can separate the sin from the person. Love the sinner hate the sin doesn't work with homosexuals [because they perceive hatred of the sin as hatred of the sinner]. Woods also referenced Bill Knott, who said that when we were a movement, we spoke out against social problems. He has friends who have left the church because it isn't doing this. Woods thinks the church ought to be a love laboratory where we help all kinds of people who come to us. He is very concerned as more and more of his friends leave the church over its failure to do this.

Wayne Blakley said he's been very blessed by this conference. Today was the first day that he began to feel bruising. He suggested tongue-in-cheek that we have a conference soon to discuss heterosexual sin by way of helping us empathize with how the morning panel affected him. He advised us not to forget to love people to Christ. He suggested that we don't have to take extra effort to point out a homosexual's sin, because they are only coming to you because they're already aware of it.

Inge Anderson stated that we have nothing to offer the homosexual community unless we have a strong relationship with Jesus Christ. She asked if we had talked to Jesus before we came to the conference today? She believes that is what someone needs to do to overcome sexual compulsion, and that is what she needs to overcome sin in her life. She firmly declared that if you're surfing the internet for pornography, you've got nothing to offer homosexuals. She believes that if Jesus were here he would be spending time in the homosexual community, and they would flock to him because he exuded love. She believes people need to see love with skin on it before they will trust Jesus enough to give their sexuality to God.

Greg Hamilton addressed the issue of what the church should do in the realm of public policy. He said Alan Reinach was left dangling in the wind without much guidance on what to say or do about Prop 8. He worries that by the time the church comes up with a public policy statement, the legal and political battle over homosexual marriage will be over. He believes we must not dither, and argues for a public policy statement based on the GC statement on homosexuality.

Lincoln Steed asserted that same sex marriage is not a religious liberty issue. But he said that the church would be lax and corrupt if it did not speak to it, much like the church's stand on the temperance movement. He views himself as fighting a rear guard action with people in our church who believe that we should not oppose homosexual marriage. He believes, based on Ellen White, that the greatest threat to the Adventist Church is from within. He cited the Ford movement and, though not by name, Alden Thompson's Inspiration as examples of this eschatological threat. He believes that we must defend sola scriptura as a strong source of authority against secularism in order to counter the Catholic Church's strong claims of authority. He doesn't believe that right now the church would have the backbone to close Andrews University if the government gave it the choice to accept a practicing homosexual professor or shut down.

Greg King shared how he did not have resources he needed when working with a homosexual and feels this conference is a step forward in that regard. He pointed to Jesus final words to the woman caught in adultery as a paradigm in our dealings with homosexuals. Jesus forgave her past and provided moral clarity for the future. He believes that speaking the truth in love is also a key to our relationships.

Esther Knott said she felt as if she was at a revival meeting. She feels that this conference has been a call to holiness in the lives of homosexuals and in the rest of us as we respond to them. With regards to moving forward, she feels that we need to be very careful in the way we address singleness. On the way home from one of the meetings, her daughter told her she had a friend who is gay. She said that before listening to Dr. Yarhouse, she wouldn't have known what to say to her daughter, but because of this conference she was equipped. She believes that we need to undertake an equipping of all pastors and members of the Body of Christ on this issue.

Nicholas Miller fears for our church if we don't handle this question properly. He believes that if we are to have credibility on issues of church and state in regards to a future Sunday law, than we cannot be seen to have abandoned the field on a prior issue of public morality. He believes that we need to clearly articulate the difference between legislation that relates to the first and second table of the law and act on that difference in order to be taken seriously in the public square.

Disclaimer: I have summarized the views of the presenters to the best of my ability, however my summary should not be conflated with their actual views. For this reason, any attempt to debate the presenters views in the comments section will be deleted. Comments that seek clarification are welcome.

Blogging the Homosexuality Conference (other posts)

Blogging the Homosexualty Conference: Day 3, Main Presentation

2009-10-17T15:03:00.007-04:00

Richard Davidson had the main presentation of the conference, and for it he gave his paper, "Homosexuality and the Bible: What Is at Stake in the Current Debate." He believes that the fundamental issue in the debate is the authority of scripture. Citing Is 8:20, he asserted that the authority of scripture rests on the principle of sola scriptura, which Davidson takes to mean that all other ways of knowing should be submitted to scripture.

Davidson believes that the prohibition of homosexuality is inextricably connected to the key doctrines of the Bible. But on the other hand he sees science saying that homosexuality is an inborn condition the practice of which should not be prohibited. (On this point he concedes Yarhouse's study may shed new light but argues the point academically regardless.) Davidson believes that when science and the Bible contradict, the Bible should have the final word.

Davidson pointed to the personal experiences of the ex-gays at the conference as evidence for the idea that the Bible is a more reliable source than science. But he cautioned that we should not make personal experience our rule, which he believes is what Eve did at the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. He then spoke of his own personal experience with higher criticism at seminary during which he lost his trust in scripture as the final authority. He told how a conference in biblical hermeneutics restored his trust in scripture, and stated that he feels like a brand plucked from the burning.

Davidson also mentioned the principle of tota scriptura, according to which we must take the whole witness of scripture on a given issue. He said that those who wish to support homosexual relationships by appeal to Scripture are creating a canon within a canon--taking some texts and ignoring others. He argues that because scripture is the Word of God it is internally coherent and harmoniously consistent. He sees certain proponents of homosexuality saying that scripture does not agree with itself on that issue, which is problematic according to this understanding of scripture.

Davidson maintains that what is at stake on this issue is the power of God's word to change the lives of those involved in the gay lifestyle and also its ability to change the lives of those who are not tempted to homosexual actions--including those who are tempted to hate the homosexual.

Davidson said that this conference has been a catharsis for himself, because he has had to think through his own treatment of homosexuals, whom he ridiculed as queers in high school. Later in college, he and his room mate generally mocked steeiotypical homosexual mannerisms. He and his theology major friends used to call their homiletics class "homoletics" because the professor had some effeminate mannerisms. He says that his reconsideration of these activities shows the power of God's word to convict of wrongdoing. He believes that this power is what is at stake hermeneutically.

He speculated that one could make a case that each one of our doctrines is at stake on the issue of homosexulaity. For example, God made us male and female, so Davidson asks whether are we truly representing the doctrine of God if we condone homosexual relationships? He believes the doctrine of creation is also at stake, because if God created through evolution, he did not literally create male and female.

Smiling uncomfortably, he spoke once more of his past, noting that one of the theology majors who was laughing along with his jokes was disguising the fact that he was a homosexual, and only later did he learn how much he had wounded him. He said it is hard to face such a past.

Davidson then continued in his paper, stating that at the fall Adam and Eve's natures were turned towards themselves and became depraved. Everyone has been affected by this, and therefore when a man lusts after another woman or man who is not his wife it is natural, but that does not make it right. He believes that the Old Testament condemns homosexual practice and the harboring of homosexual thoughts or lusts, but he sees no culpability for the person who has homosexual temptation.

Davidson then stated that he would only listen to those who believe homosexuals must change their orientation if they themselves could honestly say they no longer experience heterosexual temptation. He also believes that although homosexuality is one of the worst sins; pride, adultery, dishonest scales, and other sins that heterosexuals commonly practice are also called abominations.

Davidson also thinks that what is at stake is the doctrine of grace, that is, "Where sin abounded grace abounded all the more." He believes that only when homosexuality is taken seriously as a high level sin is it possible for homosexuals to respond to God's grace. But, he states, the other side is that God's grace is always there. He points to the 400 years God worked with the Canaanites to get them to repent. And according to Ez 18, Judah had done worse in regard to all the sins of Sodom, including homosexuality, but God offered bring them out of exile.

Davidson believes that we must respond to homosexuals in the context of our own sexual failing and need of grace, and acknowledge the heterosexual sin of hatred against homosexuals. He challenged the church to show the face of God as infinitely knowing, caring, and loving through a welcoming attitude and deeds such as ministering to AIDS patients. In this context, Davidson says that at stake also is the Great Controversy, in other words, our world view as opposed to the secular-humanist world view. At stake is how we will represent the character of God to homosexual, hurting people.

Davidson concluded with the rest of the story of his friend whom he didn't know was a homosexual. This friend had painted a picture in college with scantily clad women in an attempt to project a heterosexual identity. Davidson says the memory of how he wrote him a letter rebuking him for giving into his passions is painful.

Davidson had the opportunity to meet this friend and hear his testimony this summer, a testimony that was included in our conference materials. His friend wrote about how God had freed him from the Devil's counterfeit sexuality and how returning to God's plan had not been easy, but was worth it. Davidson concluded by stating that what's at stake in the current debate is guys like his friend.

Disclaimer: I have summarized the views of the presenters to the best of my ability, however my summary should not be conflated with their actual views. For this reason, any attempt to debate the presenters views in the comments section will be deleted. Comments that seek clarification are welcome.

Blogging the Homosexuality Conference (other posts)

Blogging the Homosexualty Conference: Day 3, Sermon

2009-10-17T13:42:00.004-04:00

After the panel we went over to Pioneer Memorial Church for a sermon Dwight Nelson gave on homosexuality (and sexuality in general) entitled, "Sex in the Temple: What's So Gay about That?". I was busy preparing the last post during his sermon and knew the sermon would be podcast, so I didn't take notes. He essentially called us to set aside homosexual and heterosexual identities and accept holiness as our sexual identity by inviting Jesus to make our bodies his temples. You can download audio (mp3) of the sermon and a study guide (pdf) at PMC's New Perceptions Television site.

Blogging the Homosexuality Conference (other posts)

Blogging the Homosexualty Conference: Day 3, Panel 1

2009-10-17T10:12:00.005-04:00

The first panel of the day addressed homosexuality from the perspectives of biblical theology and ethics.

Robert Gagnon opened the panel and began with a rebuttal of the gentile inclusion analogy. According to the analogy, gentiles were included in the church apart from having to observe the ceremonial laws because of the evidence of the Holy Spirit in their lives. So by analogy, if we see homosexuals evidencing the fruit of the spirit, why not include them in the church despite their nonobservance of the letter of the law.

Gagnon pointed out that a principle of analogical reasoning is that the analogy, which has more significant corresponding points is the better analogy. Gagnon observes that the Bible does not ground circumcision in creation. He holds that circumcision affects the people of God only as a superficial act, but that the prohibition on homosexuality is part of what the Jews considered the Noahide law which the Jews considered binding on all, not just Jews. Therefore, he believes that homosexuality is better compared to other, more lasting, ordinances which the Gentile Christians were supposed to observe.

Next, Gagnon took on the question, What precisely is the problem with homosexual practice? He enumerated several: (1) Conceiving of a sexual same as a sexual other which is tantamount to sexual self-deception. It is (2) treating one's maleness or femaleness as only half-intact, which is sexual self-dishonor. According to Gagnon, the logic of homosex is that two halves of the same sex make a sexual whole, which is in opposition to the logic of heterosex: a whole male and whole female form a single sexual whole. For Gagnon (3) experiencing arousal at the distinctive features of the same gender is sexual narcissism. And he claims that (4) failing to moderate the extremes of a given gender (by filling in the gap with the opposite sex) results in sexual harm in the homosexual relationship. He points to perceived unbalance in homosexuals' relationships resulting in abuse as evidence of this point.

Gagnon does not believe all sins are equal. Jesus spoke of weightier matters of the law, and in the Old Testament God punished sins in proportion to their severity. He pointed out that some of God's severest judgment came for sexual sin, and so views homosexuality as a severe form of sin. Gagnon concluded by asserting that the command to not judge each other includes not acquitting people of behavior that God has not acquitted them of.

Richard Davidson said he would lead us in a Bible study for "Sabbath School time." He started with Gen 1:16-18, pointing out that being sexual is part of being human and that homosexuality cannot fulfill the command to be fruitful and multiply. He sees the "let us" as referring to a deliberation within the I-Thou relationship of the godhead which results in creation. And the results of this creation is that human beings have a polarized rationality and procreativity through our sexuality.

In Gen 2, Davidson says that God puts Adam to sleep so that he won't think he had anything to do with the creation of Eve. He sees Gen 2:24-25 as the divine mandate for marriage. The words ish and isha (Hebrew: man and woman) make explicit within the text that God's paradigm for marriage is heterosexual. He sees that the rest of Scripture builds on these passages when addressing the topic of sex, including Leviticus.

Citing Gagnon, Davidson says that the Levitical code on homosexuality is unique in the Ancient Near East in that both parties are penalized, not just the one in the dominant role. This implies consensual intercourse, not just rape. There is no specific mention in Leviticus of lesbianism, but the masculine language in the Torah is gender inclusive.

Davidson also sees three hints in the text that the prohibition of homosexual activity goes beyond Israel's context: (1) the word "abomination," which is specifically attached to homosexual intercourse; (2) the other nations were to be judged for doing these activities (Lev 18:24-25); and (3) foreigners in their land were to keep these laws (Lev 18:26). Regarding the applicability of this law to Christians, Davidson finds that the Jerusalem Council took their list of requirements for gentile Christians from the laws Leviticus 17-18 that were applicable to foreigners in the land of Israel.

Miroslav Kis - Those who have had Kis as a professor will not be surprised that be began by informing everyone that he used to be a watchmaker. He then presented a paper which outlined three concepts that he believes pertain to homosexuality: (1) innocence, as in the nakedness of Adam and Eve; (2) guilt, both objective moral guilt and subjective feelings of guilt that both convict and punish the one who has lost innocence; and (3) shame, which arises from the failure to live up to the internal conception of the self, the gap between what 'is' and what 'ought'. According to Kis, guilt and shame warn us of danger in our ways of being and doing. Kis believes that the solution to guilt and shame is receiving forgiveness through confession to God.

Next Kis introduced the concept of shamelessness--a brazen and impudent attitude--in the context of Rom 1:26-27. Kis understands that, for Paul, homosexual acts are shameless because they are idolatrous. This means that when God is put aside there is no difference between truth and lie, right and wrong. They are also shameless because they are unnatural. And finally, Kis believes that they are shameless because of an almost universal experience of private shame before homosexual attitudes come out in the open.

Kis believes that society has failed homosexuals because in a democratic society, yesterday's 'is' becomes today's 'ought.' So when society then moves from 'ought' to 'is', the 'ought' is so strongly influenced by the 'is' of homosexuality, that the enterprise of forming standards becomes confused. On the other hand, the church has had a tendency to emphasize the biblical 'ought' in a way that implies that the 'is' of homosexuality is hopeless.

Kis concluded by asserting that God's love is the cure for homosexual sins through confession and forgiveness. But he also says that homosexuality is a condition that may never be eliminated from human lives. He also believes that the church and society can cooperate in helping those with homosexuality while not interfering with one another's domains.

Roy Gane, the panel chair, gave the final paper, "Some Attempted Alternatives to Timeless Condemnation of Homosexual Acts," which is essentially a rebuttal he wrote for arguments in the book, Christianity and Homosexuality. To the argument that not all biblical laws have modern applications, he admits this is true but believes we should use biblical principles, not political correctness, to discover which laws have modern application. He also notes that biblical laws other than the 10 commandments are presented as eternal ordinances.

To the argument that homosexual acts only caused ceremonial defilement, he cites scholars to the effect that there is a difference in Leviticus between ritual/ceremonial impurity and irremediable moral imperatives covered in the Holiness code of Lev 17-27. To the argument Christians do not observe the code regarding menstruation in Lev 18, where the homosexual prohibition is found, Gane agrees but says that inconsistency of God's people in following his ordinances does not negate their applicability.

To the argument that Paul only condemns homosexuality of a self-indulgent, lustful, and exploitative sort, Gane claims that the Pauline allusions to Leviticus show that Paul is referring to their ongoing applicability to all homosexual relationships. To the argument that Paul only condemns pre-Christian homosexuality, Gane notes that if this were true it would undermine Paul's argument in the first chapters of Romans that for these reasons the Gentiles also need Christ.

To the argument that the Bible does not condemn homosexual relationships of persons born with homosexual orientation, because the ancient Israelites did not understand that concept, and therefore, the prohibitions of the bible only apply to those without a homosexual orientation who engage in homosexual acts; Gane asserts that because God knows everything known to modern science it would be wrong to think that the Bible was not written with those considerations in mind. He acknowledged that it could be further argued that it is not fair that homosexuals cannot find fulfillment in this life, but who is to say, he argues, that life in a sinful world is fair?

Disclaimer: I have summarized the views of the presenters to the best of my ability, however my summary should not be conflated with their actual views. For this reason, any attempt to debate the presenters views in the comments section will be deleted. Comments that seek clarification are welcome.

Blogging the Homosexuality Conference (other posts)

Blogging the Homosexualty Conference: Day 3, Interview

2009-10-17T09:32:00.005-04:00

The Sabbath morning program opened with music from a local Christian folk group. Before the panel, conference organizer Nick Miller interviewed Inge Anderson, a retired school teacher.

She got involved in ministry to gays in the classroom, where one of her students was persecuted for being gay. But she became involved in ministry to Adventist homosexuals in the late 90s after conversing with some and listening to their stories on SDAnet. After two gay friends came out to her, she felt called to minister to homosexuals. Her first website was called GLOW--God's Love Our Witness--now known as GLADventist.

Inge says that GLADventist's Yahoo group is where the real work goes on. It functions on the principles of body theology, where the members bear one another's burdens. Her philosophy of support comes from her involvement with the SDA Kinship mailing list, where she learned how to express a welcoming and caring attitude towards homosexuals. She defends SDA Kinship as a good organization that has saved a lot of people from committing suicide, but she believes they haven't gone far enough in teaching the people the freedom they can have in Christ.

Inge shared several stories of lesbian and transsexual women who were helped through her ministry. She says that she is definitely not running a change ministry. Her focus is on helping people improve their relationship with Christ, and she regards any changes in orientation that might come as a side benefit.

Inge's message to the conference is that we should accept and love people where they are. She also believes that it is important for the church to distinguish between the sinful nature and sin itself. She elaborated that a homosexual orientation is part of the sinful nature, and should not be understood as sexual sin.

Disclaimer: I have summarized the views of the presenters to the best of my ability, however my summary should not be conflated with their actual views. For this reason, any attempt to debate the presenters views in the comments section will be deleted. Comments that seek clarification are welcome.

Blogging the Homosexuality Conference (other posts)

Blogging the Homosexualty Conference: Day 2, Vespers

2009-10-16T23:27:00.004-04:00

I was not able to take my laptop to the vespers presentation by Robert Gagnon, so this synopsis will be based mainly on memory. Gagnon is the author of The Bible and Homosexuality which thoroughly, if his presentation was any indication of his thoroughness, argues the case for the traditional understanding of scripture on that topic. Gagnon shortened what we were told is a four hour lecture into three points.

His first point was based on 2 Cor 4:7-10 to the effect that death to self is necessary for life in Christ. Gagnon believes that satisfaction in our spiritual life can come as a result of not acting on our natural impulses. He views the issue of homosexuality through that lens.

Gagnon's other two points were essentially rebuttals of some arguments put forth to assert that the Bible does not address the issue of homosexuality as we know it today. One such argument is that Jesus did not have anything to say about homosexual relationshiops. However, Gagnon finds Jesus indirectly addressing the issue in Mark 10:1-12.

Gagnon holds that Jesus argument in this passage assumes that for him the only acceptable form of marriage was between one man and one woman. He argues that the twoness of the partners in marriage according to Genesis, which excludes polygamy, is based on the two different genders, which are to become one. Gagnon believes that marriage is the re-union of the two halves of humanity, and that homosexual relationships violate the otherness which the male and female are supposed to bring to marriage. On this level, he compares consensual homosexual sex to consensual incest, arguing that incest is wrong because the two partners are not different enough to bring the requisite otherness to their sexual relationship.

Gagnon's second text was Rom 1:18-27, concerning which he proceeded to rebut claims that Paul was not addressing a situation comparable to modern homosexuality. He proceeded to show from classical studies that consensual homosexual sex for mutual enjoyment and even quasi-homosexual marriages were known the the world in which Paul lived. Gagnon cited one classicist who wrote a book on homosexuality in the ancient world and concluded ancient homosexuals may have even had notions similar to the modern understanding of homosexual identity. His classical references on PowerPoint slides were illustrated with ancient artifacts depicting homosexual activity, and I'm fairly certain that was the first time sex scenes have ever been publicly displayed in Pioneer Memorial Chapel.

The evening ended with a lengthy Q&A in which the panelists basically reiterated points they had previously made.

Disclaimer: I have summarized the views of the presenters to the best of my ability, however my summary should not be conflated with their actual views. For this reason, any attempt to debate the presenters views in the comments section will be deleted. Comments that seek clarification are welcome.

Blogging the Homosexuality Conference (other posts)

Blogging the Homosexualty Conference: Day 2, Panel 3

2009-10-16T16:12:00.007-04:00

The afternoon panelists addressed pastoral and counseling issues related to same sex attraction.

Carlos Fayard presented a case study, "The Psychological and Spiritual Care of a Gay Man Who Chose Celibacy." Joe (name changed) is a 62 year old clergyman who was recognized by a parishioner at a gay bath-house or book store. He acknowledged sexual addiction but did not express inclination to change. He began homosexual activity the week of his ordination, and he reported that he had never experienced God. He was identified as having HIV after hospitilization. Psychological issues included sexual compulsiveness, attachment problems, and incongruence between his spiritual beliefs and behavior.

Fayard took a wholistic approach to the therapy, incorporating spiritual with psychological methods. He sees spirituality in neuroscience according to the categories of the seeking system, attachment system, and attribution system. Fayard structured his therapy around these categories. Under the seeking system he addressed Joe's search for love in other men. Under the attachment he addressed the problem of relating to God "on demand" in an emotionally distant way, just as Joe did with his father. Finally, to reconcile his beliefs about God, people, and other attribution issues, Joe wrote a letter of confession.

The therapy lasted for 14 months. The sexual acting out ceased during his hospitalization, but Joe was still restless and not restored. The pivotal moment in the therapy came when he sensed the presence of God during his first moment of sincere prayer. Joe was able to return the parish ministry, and passed away shortly thereafter. The day before he died Joe assured Fayard that he felt secure in Christ.

Peter Swanson read a paper about pastoral care of homosexuals. He recognizes that pastors are generally unequipped to deal with homosexuals in their church. The challenge also includes unsanctified attitudes of church members towards homosexuals, which need to be confronted and changed. He suggested that unfamiliarity breeds contempt of those shunned.

Swanson finds to two common attitudes pastors have towards homosexuals: (1) the pastors job is to find sin and root it out from the community, and (2) the church is to practice hospitality in rescuing sinners by welcoming them. Swanson believes pastors have a duty to be both just and merciful, and therefore should not choose one attitude to the exclusion of the other.

Regarding the debate over whether the Bible condemns homosexual sex, Swanson believes that more important than the opinions of pastors or theologians is the still small voice that says, "This is the way, walk ye in it." He holds that while pastors have an obligation to love audaciously, they also have an obligation to call sin by its right name. He asserted that in as much as we turn people with same sex attraction away from the church, we dismiss the Savior from our midst. He pointed to Jacob as a Bible character to tried on different identities, but after wrestling with God, received a God given identity.

Mark Yarhouse presented on the question of how the Christian community responds to besetting conditions. Besetting conditions are things like same sex attractions and HIV, which, in spite of spiritual intervention, do not go away. He believes that churches are hypocritical if they blame people who have same sex attractions for not trying hard enough to get rid of them while providing those who have other besetting conditions, such as cancer, with comfort and support.

Yarhouse believes that the answer to besetting conditions is the faith that God will provide. However, God's provision does not come in the same way to every person. He believes that we must interpret our response to homosexuality through the answer Jesus gave to the question of why the man was born blind (John 9:1-3). Therefore, we do not need to know how a besetting condition was caused in order to respond to it. He believes that there is a theodicy of sexual identity to be discovered, because God's purpose is to bring glory to his name.

He concluded by answering the question of what would it mean to be stewards of our sexuality. He believes good sexual stewardship (1) Avoids placing to great an emphasis on change as categorical and uncomplicated; (2) values both the married state and the single state; (3) has compelling alternative scripts for same sex attraction, (4) equips all believers in the broader understanding of stewardship, so we do not focus on only one group; and (5) leads by example.

Disclaimer: I have summarized the views of the presenters to the best of my ability, however my summary should not be conflated with their actual views. For this reason, any attempt to debate the presenters views in the comments section will be deleted. Comments that seek clarification are welcome.

Blogging the Homosexuality Conference (other posts)

Blogging the Homosexualty Conference: Day 2, Interview

2009-10-16T15:42:00.006-04:00

The afternoon session included an interview with Wayne Blakely, whose story recently appeared on the Adventist Today website (linked through his name). I'm attempting not to include information here that is already given in the Adventist Today feature.

Blakely views the problems that the church has with homosexuals like Israel's time in the wilderness, and it has taken some time to get things sorted out. He believes the love of God to homosexuals will begin to manifest itself in the church because of this conference. His message to us is that homosexuals need to know that we don't consider their sin to be any different than our sin and that we're all in this together.

Blakely always knew that homosexuality was wrong and rejected Kinship as having a biased reading of scripture. In his most difficult times he remembered his father saying that he knew God had a special plan for Wayne when he adopted him. He was feeling alone, because many of his friends had passed on during his 37 years in the gay community. He did a search for gay Adventists and found GLADventist. He was impressed because the site was conservative and loving. He found that the author, Inge Anderson, had a view of the Adventist church in which homosexuals were welcome.

The key to Blakely's spiritual life is not just having devotions in the morning and evening devotions but being with Christ throughout the day. Every day he comes across men he finds attractive, but Christ gives him to power to deal with it. When he is tempted by same-sex attraction, he rededicates his life to God, and if the thoughts come back, he rededicates himself again.

Blackely believes God could change him to a heterosexual if God wanted to, but concludes that must not be God's plan, and asks if God changed him, who's to say he wouldn't start chasing women right away? He concludes that the opposite of homosexuality is not heterosexuality; it's holiness.

Asked what boundaries we need to draw if we are dealing with someone who is same sex attracted and is the same sex as us, Blackely replied that this is the most tenuous aspect of dealing with a homosexual who is going to be transparent with you. When his pastor began taking the precautions that he would use in counseling a woman, Wayne felt rejected. Later his pastor told him, "We're used to watching pedophiles, but we not sure how to watch you," and he felt even more rejected in being compared to a pedophile. Blackely said while it wasn't the most welcoming feeling, he appreciated that the church was trying. He views himself as an education to his church, and their uneducated state is an education to him. He also admits that his reaction to their reaction was probably not helpful on his part.

Disclaimer: I have summarized the views of the presenters to the best of my ability, however my summary should not be conflated with their actual views. For this reason, any attempt to debate the presenters views in the comments section will be deleted. Comments that seek clarification are welcome.

Blogging the Homosexuality Conference (other posts)

Blogging the Homosexualty Conference: Day 2, Main Address

2009-10-16T14:05:00.006-04:00

Dr. Mark Yarhouse gave the main address of the day, entitled "The Pastoral Applications of a Three-Tier Distinction Between Same-Sex Attraction, a Homosexual Orientation, and a Gay Identity." He started by defining the end point, sexual identity as an act of self-labeling, that is, how you identify your sexual preferences to yourself (private sexual identity) and to others (public sexual identity). Yarhouse finds that many things contribute to a decision to choose one sexual identity label over another--the gender one is born with, how masculine or feminine you feel, your sexual attractions, what you intend to do sexually, what you actually do sexually, and your beliefs and values about sexual identity. Common labels include gay, straight, bi, bi-curious, queer, questioning, curious, and he notes that many young people choose not to categorize themselves.

On the question of how identity is related to orientation, Yarhouse finds it helpful to make a distinction between attraction, orientation, and identity. Regarding the distinction between attraction and orientation, Yarhouse cites studies which show that 6.2% of men and 4.4% of women reported same sex attraction but only 2.0% of men and 0.9% of women reported homosexual orientation. Yarhouse suggests that the difference between attraction and orientation is the intensity of the attraction.

Yarhouse cites historians who maintain that homosexual identity is a new thing in history. Same-sex attraction and orientation have always been with humanity, but a homosexual identity needed sex to be separated from procreation and other modern historical contingencies in order to develop.

Yarhouse notices that in our culture we collapse attraction, orientation, and identity into a single thing. We quickly move from a descriptive label, homosexual attraction, to a prescriptive label, homosexual identity.

Yarhouse's method of working with Christian homosexuals is to focus on identity rather than orientation, because that is where people make a choice to take a label. Self-labeling is happening at a younger age than it did 40 years ago, and currently about 75% of homosexual teenagers feel good about their identity. The process of moving from awareness of same sex attraction (usually around age 10) to same sex behavior to questioning to labeling takes, on average, 3-4 years for females and 5-6 years for males. Making an identity out of same sex attraction can take as long as 15 years in some studies.

This happens at a time when young people are trying to discover their identity and trying out different identities at different places. For a sexual minority who is struggling with this, culture has a clear answer: If you experience same sex attraction, you are gay. But what about people who have same-sex attractions but form their identity around something else, such as a relationship with Christ? According to Yarhouse psychologists view them as having stunted development, but he does not see evidence of that.

Yarhouse studied Christians at Christian colleges who identified as sexual minorities. Significant differences between them and the average population were that awareness came at age 13 and only 14% chose to identify as homosexuals and be involved in homosexual relationships.

He also studied two Christian ministries to homosexuals. One was gay affirming and identified with the gay framework of sexual identity, and the other was committed to helping Christians with same sex attractions not become homosexuals. The first group achieved congruence by attributing their gay identity to God's plan. The second group achieved congruence by identifying with Christ and attributing their same sex attractions to some aspect of sin. Both groups agreed that this was a fair description of their approach

So Yarhouse sees two competing scripts for the life of someone who has same sex attractions. The first he calls the gay script. According to this script same sex attractions signal a naturally occurring distinction between homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality. They signal who you really are, so the answer is to self-actualize based on the attractions. According to Yarhouse, this script collapses attraction, orientation, and identity in a process of so-called self-discovery.

Yarhouse says that the church is not really offering an alternative script, but proposes another script. In his script same sex attraction signals, not a categorical distinction among types of persons, but one of many human experiences that are 'not the way its supposed to be'. According to this script same sex attractions are a part of one's experience but not the defining element of one's identity. He teaches that one can integrate same sex attractions into another identity based on Jesus Christ. In other words, the fact that you experience same sex attractions doesn't mean you don't have decisions to make about what you will do with them.

From this Yarhouse has developed a framework for counseling and pastoral care. The goal of this framework is to protect the person from assumptions and labels and help them to consider a sexual identity pastoral framework. This is accomplished by (1) introducing the three tier distinction, which creates space for the person to maneuver. Next the individual will (2) weight how important the various aspects that compose a sexual identity are to them. The message of this step is that you are more than the sum total of your arousal pattern. The individual will then (3) decide to what they will attribute their identity by working through how to make sense of the attractions that they have and deciding whether a homosexual attraction signals a homosexual identity. Finally they will work towards a (4) state of congruence where their behavior and identity is consistent with their beliefs and values.

Disclaimer: I have summarized the views of the presenters to the best of my ability, however my summary should not be conflated with their actual views. For this reason, any attempt to debate the presenters views in the comments section will be deleted. Comments that seek clarification are welcome.

Blogging the Homosexuality Conference (other posts)

Blogging the Homosexualty Conference: Breakout Session

2009-10-16T14:03:00.004-04:00

The breakout session I attended at lunchtime was on the topic of "Effective Counseling and Ministry Practices." Peter Swanson was the moderator, and Ron Woolsey, Carlos Fayard, and Inge Anderson were the panelists. The panelists and moderator gave general advice on how to help homosexual Christians live chaste lives, given the presuppositions of the conference, and how to make the church a more welcoming place for homosexuals. It was pointed out that the church is often not welcoming for people who deviate from its norm in general, but that special education of church members is needed to help them become welcoming to homosexuals. The importance of both pastoral and psychological care in a team setting was emphasized. Acceptance, listening, and befriending homosexuals was promoted over and against immediately turning to the confrontational texts of scripture.

Disclaimer: I have summarized the views of the presenters to the best of my ability, however my summary should not be conflated with their actual views. For this reason, any attempt to debate the presenters views in the comments section will be deleted. Comments that seek clarification are welcome.

Blogging the Homosexuality Conference (other posts)

Blogging the Homosexualty Conference: Day 2, Panel 2

2009-10-16T10:06:00.004-04:00

The second panel of the morning, "Gay Marriage, Civil Rights, and Public Policy," addressed the question of what position Seventh-day Adventists should take in the debate over homosexual marriage.

Scot Zentner opened by analyzing the underlying morality that founds society and argued that in the United States this does not rest on a specific religious tradition. He argued that the fundamental view of morality that the founding fathers incorporated into this country was to maximize freedom except for those behaviors that are harmful to others. Because marriage is the core of the natural family, in which children are raised to be moral individuals, we are not at liberty to redefine it. For Zenter, disgust, popular jokes, and the pejorative nature of the word "gay" are evidence of the inherent difference of the sexes and immorality of homosexuality. He argues that homosexual marriage is predicated on the notion that there is no essential difference between the sexes.

Gary Wood began by asserting that it is impossible to separate politics and morality, because at its core politics is about justice. So the question for religious liberty is Can unassisted human reason apart from revelation provide a moral foundation for society? He argues that this can be found in the philosophy of natural rights (i.e. rights grounded in the nature of human being) and that these rights come along with natural duties as well as pointing us to natural ends. And because reason can't point us all the way to our purpose, we have a natural right to religious liberty. He proceeded to argue that homosexuality is not a natural right, because it does not follow from the natural end of sex--procreation. He implied that a government that could restrict homosexual sex would be too powerful to control, yet he argued that such a practical consideration would not justify legalizing homosexual marriage.

Jason Hines outlined and rebutted three major categories of argument against homosexual marriage. The first is the religious argument, which is not only inappropriate on the basis of the establishment clause, but also for Christians on the basis of belief in God given freedom. The second is the sociological argument that homosexual marriages are not the optimal environment for raising children. However the fact that children in homosexual families have more problems than those in heterosexual families may be due to the stigma society places on their family and not due to the composition of their family itself. Also, there are studies showing that children raised in homosexual families have no more problems than children in heterosexual families. Hines thinks that the best arguments against homosexual marriage are the natural law arguments, such as those outlined by the previous two presenters. But Hines points out that the civil institution of marriage encompasses more than natural law is able to explain, that is, people get married for reasons other than having kids. He also points out the previous use of natural law in America to justify slavery and oppose women's suffrage, which are now considered unjust on the basis of natural law. Perhaps, he says, natural law can also be used to justify homosexual marriage.

Nicholas Miller, the panel chair, concluded the discussion. He asserted that we act both as citizens and Christians, and that the arguments used in one arena may not be used in the other. However, when the conclusions of the arguments in both arenas overlap, the church is justified in speaking out in the civil arena. The religious argument Miller proposes against homosexual marriage is the eschatological significance of marriage, which along with the Sabbath, is one of the two creation institutions that will be under attack in the end times. He argued that while the Sabbath along with the first four commandments should not be legislated, the last six commandments, which focus on our relationship with each other, have and can justifiably be the subject of civil legislation. Therefore, Miller believes that Adventists have a duty to argue against homosexual marriage in the civil arena on the basis of natural law and sociological studies. Against Hines' rebuttal he noted that tobacco legislation was introduced on the basis of correlation alone at a time when the causal mechanisms were not understood.

Disclaimer: I have summarized the views of the presenters to the best of my ability, however my summary should not be conflated with their actual views. For this reason, any attempt to debate the presenters views in the comments section will be deleted. Comments that seek clarification are welcome.

Blogging the Homosexuality Conference (other posts)

Blogging the Homosexualty Conference: Day 2, Panel 1

2009-10-16T08:51:00.006-04:00

The first morning panel, "Gay Marriage, Religious Liberty, and the Church," revolved around the question of whether the church should involve itself in the political debate over homosexual marriage.

Barry Bussy, the panel chair, opened with a summary of the potential threats the homosexual movement poses to the religious liberty of those who condemn homosexual activity on religious grounds. His remarks were largely based on his experiences advocating for the Adventist Church in Canada. These concerns were based on trends in Canadian legal journals towards limiting the ability of religions to teach their members and educate their children not to celebrate and embrace homosexuality.

Gerald Chippeur shared a summary of homosexuality and religious liberty cases in Canada where homosexual marriage was recently adopted. One Christian university in Alberta was sued for firing a professor who advocated against their doctrinal position on homosexuality. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the university had the right to employ only those who uphold their religious norms. In another case, the Adventist church joined in advocating for a Christian university that was denied education program accreditation in British Columbia because of their beliefs on homosexuality. That denial of accreditation was also overturned. In Saskatchewan, there is a case before the courts attempting to remove marriage licenses from minsters who refuse to perform same sex marriages.

Alan Reinach opened by stating that it is impossible to overestimate the risks for religious liberty in homosexual marriage. He thinks that Adventists are not by nature partisans in the culture wars but believes that our ability to operate our institutions and live according to our consciences is under threat because homosexual activists are no longer willing to live and let live. He held up California as a legal bellwether, and claimed that the California Supreme Court has in the last 15 years consistently upheld homosexual rights and waffled on free exercise of religion. Reinach believes the fundamental problem is the belief that equality trumps liberty.

Bill Knott addressed the question of whether Adventists should be in politics directly, arguing that religions by default become involved in politics, unless they are purely cultic and awaiting immediate translation. His thesis is that early Adventists became involved in selected issues, such as abolition and prohibition, that they believed had special moral significance. He pointed to the early Review as a place where abolitionist invective against the American government was much stronger than what we would tolerate today (think Jeremiah Wright), and shared his discovery that Ellen and James White lived 500 yards from Fredrick Douglass, whose magazine, The North Star, had editorials strikingly similar to those of the Review. He also pointed to the church's later failures to act on the issues such as the 60s civil rights movement and the internment of Japanese Americans as undermining our religious liberty position at that time.

Disclaimer: I have summarized the views of the presenters to the best of my ability, however my summary should not be conflated with their actual views. For this reason, any attempt to debate the presenters views in the comments section will be deleted. Comments that seek clarification are welcome.

Blogging the Homosexuality Conference (other posts)

Blogging the Homosexualty Conference: Day 1

2009-10-15T19:11:00.005-04:00

From now until Saturday night, I'll be attending the Marriage, Homosexuality and the Church Conference at Andrews University. It is a multidisciplinary conference that is more professional than scholarly in nature. There are no respondents who bring the opposite view of the presenters because, "The conference organizers have chosen speakers who have a biblically-faithful view on homosexual practice, as measured by a consensus within the Christian church for the last two millennia, as well as the virtually unanimous view of the worldwide Adventist Church."

Though the schedule is quite full, I hope to post a brief synopsis of the sessions on this blog. My goal is to connect you to resources for further study, and give you a sense of where the Adventist Church is moving on these related issues.

The opening address was given by Mark Yarhouse, Psy.D., who, along with James Stanton, recently published the results of a longitudinal study on homosexual Christians involved in a change ministry in their recent book, Ex-gays? Stanton was supposed to present, but was unable to come due to his father's failing health.

Yarhouse began by assessing the weaknesses of the proposed causes of homosexuality. He concluded that homosexuality is likely caused by a combination of hereditary and environmental factors. He proposed that just as there are multiple ways that one can become a homosexualt there are multiple homosexualities. He suggested that the feminist critique has taught us it is wrong to take a certain type of male homosexuality as a prototype and talk about all homosexuality within that category.

Along those lines he summarized the philosophical debate about what sexual orientation is. The essentialists claim that homosexuality is the same throughout cultures and throughout history. The social constructionists counter that homosexuality is a category fashioned by society as a way to describe preferences. It would appear that Yarhouse favors the later view.

Finally, Yarhouse took up the question of change. He called one type of change "natural fluidity," and cited Lisa Diamond's documentation of women who more often than males experienced change from homo- to heterosexual attraction.

The other type of change is consciously attempted, which is the kind Stanton and Yarhouse studied. A quick and dirty summary of their findings is that by the end of the five year study, one third of the homosexuals studied were chaste or heterosexual, one third were continuing to change but not chaste or hetero-, and another third continued as or were more homosexual. But Yarhouse says these results, while significant, are not conclusive because 60% of the original group dropped out half-way through the study and were not counted.

Among the more surprising results of their study was that men who placed on the truly homosexual side of the hetro-/homosexual continuum (as measured on 5 different scales) experienced more change toward the heterosexual than the group average. They also measured distress with a standard test and found that people were not more psychologically distressed for having gone through the ministry and, if anything, they were less distressed.

Yarhouse concluded from the comments of those involved in the study that the ministry was not as successful at changing orientation as it was at helping the people along a process of sanctification, and thus helping them to become good stewards of their sexuality. He advised that we offer homosexuals realistic biblical hope. My impression is that this would involve helping homosexuals cope with temptation to homosexual activity and perhaps move toward heterosexual attraction, but not promising them that they will become heterosexuals if they will only try harder, pray more, etc. Yarhouse views the later as destructive.

Yarhouse's presentation was followed by an interview with Pastor Ron Woolsey, an Adventist minister in Arkansas. Woolsey was sexually abused by a man at the age of four, and since that time was sexually attracted to men. He studied theology and pre-med at Southern Missionary College, and while there married a woman he liked but didn't love thinking that marriage would be the solution to his homosexual desires.

While Woolsey's wife was on a trip he had a sexual encounter with a man which caused his marriage to break up. He also left the church when a pastor told him he could never change and told his wife to divorce him. After a series of casual and longer term partners he found a man with whom he thought he could live forever.

But, in Woolsey's words, "his relationship with Jesus ended up eclipsing the relationship" he had with that man. He started studying the Bible, and decided that he was dealing with a sin issue and that if the Bible calls homosexuality a sin, it is because it has the solution. By a process of memorizing and claiming Bible promises his life was changed. He is now identifies as an ex-gay and is married to a woman.

Disclaimer: I have summarized the views of the presenters to the best of my ability, however my summary should not be conflated with their actual views. For this reason, any attempt to debate the presenters views in the comments section will be deleted. Comments that seek clarification are welcome.

apokalupto media: Prophecy Chart Interview

2009-09-26T22:13:00.005-04:00

If you're afraid to wear the Adventist Caricaturist's prophecy chart tee because someone might actually ask you to explain it, this video is for you. It's got Adventist historian Merlin Burt serving up the goods on our historicist heritage and me playing the part of ignorant interviewer a little too well. Together we take up the question of whether that prophecy chart reflects current Adventist theology.

Top Five: Reasons Jesus Was ...

2009-09-10T19:54:00.009-04:00

I just finished a series over at the Spectrum Blog, "Five Reasons Jesus." It grew out of a series of notes that I put up on Facebook. I added a concluding list of lessons for the blog series. Click through the above link and be sure to read them from bottom to top.

How Ellen White Is Like The Pope (And His Bishops)

2009-08-28T19:15:00.002-04:00

In my last post I wrote about the four theological sources that an Adventist Quadrilateral has in common with Wesley's Quadrilateral. I concluded that these four sources work fine on their own, that is unless you want to have Christians united in some sort of church or denomination or movement that transcends individual disagreements over points of doctrine. In other words, I believe church history shows that if we want to be the church of Ephesians 4:13, we need to have one more source in our quadrilateral.

I have called this second-tier element, for lack of a better term, a theological mediator. A theological mediator may be a person (living or dead) or an institution. And to the best of my knowledge every church/denomination/movement in history has had one.

Generally speaking, a theological mediator unites believers by doing two things:

Applying (or "mediating") Scripture in a message that is particularly applicable to their current circumstances.
Demonstrating supernatural confirmation that their message is from God.

Defined in this way, all the Biblical prophets, including Jesus and the apostles, were theological mediators. If we accept that this definition of theological mediators is biblical and that the Holy Spirit is still active in the church, then we should conclude that God can use theological mediators in the church today. Adventists should be able to see that this definition of a theological mediator includes the classic Adventist understanding of the Holy Spirit's (as in, the Spirit of Prophecy) work through Ellen White--a prophet who confirms "present truth" but does not replace the need for scripture (c.f. "A Word to the Little Flock," 21).

But the definition of theological mediator must not exclude those in other churches who fulfill similar roles. For example, Protestant churches recognize the work of the Holy Spirit in generating the reformers messages, and thus Wesley functions as a theological mediator for Methodists, Calvin for Calvinists, etc. Granted, they do not recognize as strong a supernatural confermation in the experience of their reformers as Adventists see in Ellen White, and perhaps this is why their churches are less organizationally unified.

The Roman Catholic Church, on the other hand, is very organizationally unified, and has developed a theological mediator with a supernatural confirmation of prophetic proportions. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church the Pope, when he makes certain proclamations (ex cathedra), and his bishops, when they all get together and make proclamations, are infallible in matters of doctrine and practice (Section 891). This is accomplished by means of a spiritual gift, "the charism of infallibility," and has a "prophetic" function in the church (Sections 2035-6).

So when critics of Adventism say that Ellen White is like the Pope, in a certain sense, they are correct. But if they stop there and do not acknowledge certain key differences between the way the pope functions as a theological mediator and the way Ellen White functions as a theological mediator (like their relationship to scripture), they are not doing justice to either. But the conflation of Ellen White and the Pope serves to illuminate the underlying issue with these critics ignore, which is that they prefer their theological mediators (such as Luther) on the lower end of the supernatural confirmation spectrum.

I hope by now it is clear that, on a practical level, the question is not so much whether we will have theological mediators, but who or what we will allow to occupy that position in our theology. I believe that ideally each individual should make up their own mind based on the other four elements of the quadrilateral in proper relation to each other. In reality, few Christians ever undertake such a radical questioning of their belief system of their own accord.

One final note for Adventists: I have "Spirit of Prophecy" in the chart and not "Ellen White" for a reason. If we limit the Spirit of Prophecy the institution of Ellen White's writings, we cut ourselves off from the possibility of a living prophet, and the relevance of our message will soon pass beyond the horizon of relevance in our changing world. I'm not asking us to accept every Ernie Knoll that comes along, but we must be open to the larger fulfillment of Joel 2 if we want to be the remnant of Revelation 12.

An Adventist Quadrilateral

2009-08-21T21:51:00.018-04:00

This chart is a model of the relation between Christian theological sources as they function specifically in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. It expresses an ideal, but was conceived while reflecting on how Adventists have actually done theology in the framework of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. It is not definitive, but rather invitation to discussion.

This Adventist Quadrilateral is intended to be presented in two stages. In stage one, the second tier, the "Spirit of Prophecy," is absent, leaving the original four sources of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. Stage one is, therefore, a Christian Quadrilateral, since more or less all Christian groups use these sources, though they may differ on how the sources relate to one another.

In this model, Scripture stands alone as the most authoritative theological source, because it is understood to be the product of special Divine revelation expressed by prophets under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For the purpose of this model, tradition is understood to be the voice of the church, now and in ages past. Because the Holy Spirit is active in guiding the church into all truth, tradition is also a theological source.

The Holy Spirit is active in shaping the experience and reason of individual Christians, and therefore these must be considered theological sources. But individual reason and experience do not have normative authority because Christians are not to judge one another but submit to one another. It is this mutual submission to the work of the Holy Spirit in each other that allows the corporate Body of Christ to have normative authority.

However, the authority of the church is not absolute, but may be appealed by individuals on the basis of Scripture, which judges tradition. Yet, Scripture, the most authoritative source, must be interpreted on the basis of tradition (i.e. "How do other Christians interpret this?"), reason (i.e. "Does this interpretation make sense?"), and experience ("Does this interpretation make a positive difference?"). Therefore, this model posits a circular process of interpretation and evaluation during which theology is constantly growing.

These four sources work fine on their own, but only if you don't want to have a visible church. The model requires theology to be in a state of flux, and therefore on the basis of the four sources alone it is difficult to get individuals, much less congregations, to come together as a church with common beliefs. The model is essentially a protestant one, and protestants are the most fragmented wing of Christianity.

That's where the fifth source of an Adventist Quadrilateral, the Spirit of Prophecy comes in. The Spirit of Prophecy is the second tier source, between Scripture and the other three. Therefore, it is the Adventist iteration of what I have chosen to call a 'theological mediator,' the category that is the the topic of my next post.

Interview: Jason Hines

2009-07-19T15:10:00.011-04:00

I first met Jason Hines in a Christology class when we were assigned to the same debate group. When he told us he was a lawyer, I figured we would do well in the debate. When I asked his law school, and he said, "Harvard Law," I figured we would probably win the debate.

Later that semester, I heard Jason give a paper that refuted some major arguments against homosexual marriage. Everyone in the room, including his professor, disagreed with him, but he argued his points civilly and well. Afterward, I asked him to do an interview for apokalupto. He agreed, but our schedules prevented us from talking until now.

a: Give us your background. What were you doing before you came to Andrews?

JH: I was a lawyer for just about five years. I was doing commercial litigation which is, in a nutshell, lawsuits about contracts, mostly between businesses.

a: Did you like it?

JH: It was intellectually challenging, and I like anything that is intellectually challenging. But did it get me up in the morning? No.

a: How did your ivy league education influence your Christianity?

JH: At an ivy league institution you’re going to meet people from all over, all walks of life, and some really intelligent people at that. It gives you a better perspective on what people believe and why they believe it.

But in terms of my own Christianity, being in an lvy league institution didn’t really affect that.
It probably gave me a greater desire for a higher spirituality. But I'm not sure I can separate out how much of that came from being at an ivy league institution and how much of that from my own personal desire to be closer to Christ.

I will say this: Any time you're in a secular environment, its going to challenge your Christianity. But even when you’re in a Christian environment, you're going to find challenges to your Christianity.

a: What is a Harvard trained lawyer doing at Andrews University?

JH: I ask myself that question every day [laughs]. No.

I found my calling at Harvard, although I didn’t know that at the time. Because, at Harvard I started thinking about religious liberty and morality and the law. I always had problems with the attempts of Christians to legislate Christianity, but I hadn't really thought it through.

I started getting involved in religious liberty in a serious way in 2004, when a friend of mine, who is also a former lawyer, and I started giving seminars on the topic. I found that was the type of thing that got me up in the morning. It took me awhile to figure out that was the type of thing I wanted to do full time, partly because I didn't want to go back to school, but God orchestrated things so that I would have to go back to school.

a: What areas of religious liberty interest you?

JH: My partner in ministry (Tim Golden, an ex-public defender, now doing his doctoral work) and I talk about the two main aspects of religious liberty. There's the practical aspect, which is, What do you do when your boss won’t let you take Sabbath off?

The other part is what we call the prophetic element. That's an understanding of who God is and what God is about, which is essentially freedom, informed by the Adventist prophetic understanding. That influences how we understand issues taking place in socio-political realm and the religious world. Looking at things, like abortion or homosexual marriage, through what we call the prophetic lens and then asking how to we respond to these types of things is the prophetic element.

This second aspect is what I’m more concerned with, which is why Tim and I are moving into academics more than practice. Because, we don’t see much of a shortfall in how the SDA church does practical religious liberty, but we think that the church losing its way in terms of the prophetic aspect of religious liberty. We seek to speak to all Christians, but particularly Adventists, because of our prophetic understanding

a: So where is the Adventist Church losing its way on religious liberty?

JH: Our difficulty is a very human difficulty, which is that we don’t like sin. We say, Oh, that’s a sin. Let’s make sure it doesn’t happen.

But in doing that we try to take away people's God given right to choose what their morality is going to be. We see the Adventist Church joining with the evangelical church in a broader sense, not to engender relationship with Christ that would cause people to want to live their lives differently, but to dictate and cajole in order to get people to live the right way. There are people involved in religious liberty, Tim and myself are among them, who think that you shouldn’t violate the principles of God in order to uphold the principles of God. But our opponents don't see it that way.

a: I can tell this conversation is already heading to our next question. So, tell us about your project on homosexual marriage.

JH: I’m planning to do my [MA in Religion] thesis on the issue of homosexuality generally, with the main emphasis on the ethics of passing laws against gay marriage. But I’m only using this issue as a spotlight to a broader issue which is the legislation of morality.

a: That's obviously a work in progress, but can you summarize your paper where you critique arguments against homosexual marriage?

JH: Basically I looked at the three prevailing rationales for legislating against gay marriage. The first is religious, which is outlawed by the constitution and forbidden by the Bible by what God says about enforcing your morality on others.

The second argument is the sociological argument, in which people cite studies about the effects of homosexual marriages on children who are raised in those relationships, and also the bad things that happen in homosexual relationships more than in heterosexual relationships. The issue here is correlation versus causation. In other words, if we said to homosexuals, (as a social construct, not a religious construct) Your relationship is acceptable, that may solve those problems, if they are caused by the prejudicial behavior of society towards homosexuals. Also, as many studies as you can cite showing the children of homosexuals have problems, I can cite studies that show they do better than other children.

The third issue (and this is what my professor is a proponent of) is a natural law analysis. It says, Let’s pattern our society after the natural world, which then leads into the sociological argument. My problem with natural law arguments, is they always turn out the way whoever is proposing them wants them to.

a: One last question, to be taken in good humor: Which is more difficult, Andrews or Harvard?

JH: I was more afraid at Harvard, but I work harder at Andrews. At Harvard law, you have to know the material before you get to class, because the professor’s going to call on you. So the rule is, if you don’t read, you don’t go to class.

When I walk into a class at Andrews, I’m not afraid. However, I have to study Greek 3 hours a night, have three books to read through, and 100-pages of research to write out between February and April. It’s not hard work, but I work harder.

I guess it feels better to not be afraid, so I guess Andrews is easier? But ask me at three o'clock in the morning on my fourth all-nighter in a row, and I'll probably give you a different answer.

A Monument And A Name

2009-06-06T16:14:00.007-04:00

...do not let the eunuch say, "I am just a dry tree." For thus says the Lord: To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give, in my house and within my walls, a monument and a name [yad vashem] better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off.
Isaiah 56:3b-5

I know it doesn't sound very Christian, but the most moving experience I had during my recent trip to Israel was not the visit to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the boat ride on the Sea of Galilee, nor celebrating communion at the Garden Tomb.

Yad Vashem is Israel's "living memorial" to the Holocaust, containing an archive and research center as well as several monuments and the Holocaust History Museaum. The campus features beautiful archetecture, sculptures, and peacefull gardens with thousands of trees planted in memory of the Righteous Among the Nations (Gentiles who helped Jews during the Holocaust).

As I entered Yad Vashem memories of Holocaust sites slowed my steps--crowding onto a cattle-car at National Holocaust Memorial Museaum; treading grey dirt paths at Dachau, ashes of the dead; looking up at coffie can sized holes in the concrete 'shower' ceiling at Aushwitz; witnessing rooms filled with shoes, eyeglasses frames, and human hair. And still it seemed my consciousness could only bear a fraction of the evil that occurred. I descended toward the cave of the Children's Memorial and overheard a guide: "...Israelis have a saying: You can take the child out of the Holocaust, but you can't take the Holocaust out of the child..."

After the Mediteranian sun, the tunnel was pitch-black and then emptied a room filled with children. Their larger than life portraits sorounded me, and smiles filled the cavern. But the hall was deadly quiet, and the black and white pictures were placed not on a living room mantle but suspended in the midst of darkness. One of the kids reminded me of my son; it was time to move on.

The next hall was a starfield. the darkness interupted by stationary points of light, some larger, some smaller. I noticed that the closer lights were lamps, and the smaller lights were the same lamps reflecting off polished surfaces. The grotto contined an infinite matrix of flames.

Then I listened. A flat male voice was speaking at regular intervals. First a name, then an age, then a country. Repeat.

I was confronted with the scale of an evil filling every horizon of space and time. Each star represented an innocent child of Abraham snuffed out by a human powered killing machine. Each name, in this blackness deviod of all privious meaning attached to it, was a reminder that there would be another and then another, and after I left there would be thousands more.

At that point, I had to leave because the place was too overwhelming. The Children's Memorial was supposed to establish a monument and give a name to the innocent victims of the Holocaust, in reality it was a testament to the capacity of humanity to generate evil on a scale that surpasses our ability to reckon. Within those subterranian walls I had no memory of the children, only of the atrocity committed against them. We owe to the children's murderers even our ability to read their names, while the dead of other genocides remain anonymous.

But another thought had occurred to me as I contemplated the matrix of lights: This must be what it is like to see the memory of God. Each innocent life stored, suspended, resting, until the resurrection. Waiting for the moment when the God of justice will use his creative power to restore them to a perfect world where they can live out the life that was cut short, no longer in fear of suffering and death.

No human monument can do justice to the breadth of evil in this world nor its victims. No reading of names can bring back the life behind the name, nor transmit the person from one generation to another. Yad Vashem testified to me that humanity needs a Savior, a Savior big enough and yet close enough to embrace the whole of human suffering and redeem it to something better.

That was the most profound insight God gave me in Israel.

Open Letter To Berry Bussey

2009-05-15T14:29:00.003-04:00

Barry Bussey
Director of Legislative Affairs
Seventh-day Adventist Church

Dear Mr. Bussey,

I had hoped to also send you this letter personally, but was unable to find your contact details. So now I trust the serendipitous mechanisms of the internet will deliver this communique.

First, I wish to commend you on your recent post at The Liberty Blog where you correctly identify waterboarding as torture. Like you, I see prophetic implications in the fact that my nation's highest elected and appointed officials approved these kinds of information gathering methods.

Second, I wish to inform you of an opportunity to walk the talk. On June 11, 2009 the National Religious Campaign Against Torture (NRCAT) is sponsoring an event in front of the White House during which leaders of national faith groups will ask President Obama to support a formal inquiry into how the U. S. government came to practice torture. While President Obama seems to be backing away from torture, an inquiry will help America put safeguards in place for when a 'Pharaoh who does not know Joseph' comes on the scene. As my church's representative on Capitol Hill, I request that you, along with as many other top-tier Adventist Church leaders as you can muster, be present to support this event.

"Torture is a moral issue"--this is the slogan of NRCAT. I believe that Adventists should join with them in asserting more specifically, Torture is a religious liberty issue. It has been well documented that U.S. officials went out of their way to offend the religious sensabilities of detainees (for example, Qu'ran desecration). This blatant disregard of religious conviction should not pass without response from the Adventist Church, and I believe calling for a full inquiery be the most redemptive of the available options.

Blessings to you in your unique ministry. I hope you enjoy your stay in my country as much as I have enjoyed yours.

Sincerely,

David Hamstra

My Theological Education Or Between Doubt And Certainty

2009-04-02T21:22:00.006-04:00

Faith exists somewhere between and beyond doubt and certainty. If all you have is certainty, you have no need of faith. If all you have is doubt, you don't see the need for faith. Faith is what happens when you have reasons to doubt, reasons to be certain, and, in that situation, choose to trust.

Last year, a friend and I were reflecting on our theological educations. During our undergrad, we both attended the same school, Canadian University College, for four years--an experience that left us with more questions than answers. Later, as pastors, we both wrestled with those questions, finding answers to some and putting others on the shelf.

Now we are doing our Masters of Divinity at the flagship seminary of the Seventh-day Adventist church in Andrews University and having the very different experience of being provided with more answers than questions. In some ways this is frustrating, because we know when a professor is oversimplifying facts or minimizing the weaknesses of the traditional Adventist position. But in other ways it is liberating to discover that others have found the same answers we came up with or, better yet, to be given novel solutions to questions we had left unresolved.

Anselm said that theology is faith seeking understanding (fides quaerens intellectum). If this is true then the goal of theology must be to simultaneously explore doubt and shore up certainty. This, of course, is an impossible task. During that conversation with my friend I realized that institutions of theological education tend to favor one or the other.

I realize that it is not good PR to characterize my alma mater, Canadian University College, as a institution that offers a theological education promoting doubt. But remember, doubt is not the opposite of, but a prerequisite to faith, for where there is no reason to doubt, there is also no reason to have faith. In fact, doubt was just what I needed at that point in my Christian experience.

Fore example, I came out of high school believing that there were no major questions about the Bible that I could not answer, and that if a question about the Bible were to come up that I did not have the answer to, I would be able to look at the Bible and Ellen White's writings and find that answer with relative ease. In short, I had a high degree of certainty about the world, my life, and the way things ought to be, and as a result, I was not very open to God bringing anything new into my life. Questions, doubt, and uncertainty were what I needed to restore balance to my faith.

This stands in contrast to my experience prior to entering seminary. I invested a great deal of time during my ministry reading material by those who emphasize the doubt side of faith, who present me with more questions than answers. Confronting these questions is well and good, but faith requires a healthy level of certainty in order to function. And as a pastor, I need to have answers that prompt faith for those who are struggling with doubt in their spiritual life.

The mission of the MDiv program at Andrews University is to produce competant pastors, and what that means in the context of theological education is pastors who are certain of what they believe. One would expect the church's flagship seminary to be dedicated to promoting certainty, and there is definately a place for that, considering the significant doubts Adventist clergy and academics are known to harbor or even promote.

But consider the implications of pursuing certainty of belief as an absolute. David Koresh is an extreme example of what can happen when a religious leader's certainty leaves no room for doubt. A pastor who is big on certainty will find it difficult to practice humility or patience and may end up damaging their church with their rigidity and inflexability.

Perhaps it would be better if pastors left the seminary with some doubts intact. Because, for all the good certainty can do for a pastor, it is in realm of our doubts that God has room to grow us. I prefer to be more like Job, and less like his three friends.

As I look back on my admittedly incomplete theological education, I see a new reason for certainty in my faith. On my path God has provided my faith with just what I needed when I needed it. Doubt tells me to chalk it up to happenstance, but I choose to trust my creator to continue to guide my life.

And, I am glad that neither those institutions and individuals which promote doubt nor those which promote certainty are able to exclude the other from our church's system of theological education. I'm not saying a thousand theological flowers should bloom within Adventism, but the current institutional mix has been good healthy for me and others I've encountered. So maybe it's a good thing that we have the ATS and ASRS, but it's an even better thing that they're on speaking terms.

I'll sign of with one final thought for you to comment on: The opposite of faith is not doubt or certainty; it's disobedience.

Adventist Theological Seminary to Become Monastery: Students Form Religious Order

2009-04-01T18:27:00.003-04:00

At the end of this semester, the Adventist Theological Seminary will officially close its doors and then reopen as the new St. Andrews’ Monastery. The change was prompted when the Seminary Student Form (SSF) voted to reorganize as a religious order. “We were basically already taking a vow of poverty when we came here,” explained SSF President Babe Korea. “And, as students, obedience is something we’re used to, so we said, ‘Why not add chastity?’”

When asked how the married students will cope with a vow of chastity, Mr. Korea replied that he is also married and is “looking forward to giving up carnal relations,” because in his opinion it will free up time to complete his required reading. Another student, Ms. Regena Upton-Single, hopes that taking a vow of chastity will help her focus more on her studies and less on finding a “soul-mate.” Campus Safety also approves of the vow, predicting that there will be fewer complaints of males loitering in areas frequented by nursing, education, and music students.

Dr. Henri Poutine, the Dean of the Seminary, expressed the faculty’s full support for the changes. “We believe that implementing a comprehensive rule of life will significantly help us to curb latent autodidactic tendencies in our students,” he said in a statement. Dr. Poutine noted that in keeping with the ancient tradition of religious hierarchy, “Do as I say; not as I do,” monastery policy will exempt faculty from “vows that interfere with inter-gender relations in the context of matrimony.”

According to Dr. Poutine, General Conference (GC) leadership is optimistic about the seminary’s new identity. In “off-the-record” comments, he told apokalupto that, “Ever since the Jesuits went all soft and social justice-y in the 70s and the economic crisis gutted the Illuminati, the GC has been looking for a way to exploit the current power vacuum in the global illicit influence structure. And they’re hoping our new monastery and religious order will be the basis of a secret society that can play with the big boys.”

Dr. Poutine refused to give further details except to say that a contest will be held to pick the SSF’s new name. The winning submission will have an “obvious idealistic or positive meaning,” but feature “mysterious or possibly even sinister undertones.” Other contest criteria, deadlines, and prizes have not yet been announced.

In Other News:
Church Throws All Spectrum Readers Out

Article: Our Paradox Of Hope

2009-01-28T09:33:00.005-05:00

A version of the following essay appeared in this week's edition of Student Movement, the student newspaper of Andrews University.

Our Paradox of Hope
By David Hamstra

As John McCain’s swerving reaction to the subprime mortgage crisis gave America political whiplash, Barack Obama, who was behind in the polls, kept his cool and a steady hand on the wheel of his campaign. Today, political pundits attribute the President’s ultimate success not only to his ability to inspire massive crowds of devoted supporters but also to his steady response to that crisis, which won over skeptical swing voters. In his inaugural address Obama again tempered his soaring, inspirational rhetoric with a straightforward assessment of challenges we would prefer to ignore, combining enthusiasm with realism to produce a compelling message of hope.

I watched that speech live at the Howard Center, along with a capacity crowd of the Andrews community, and afterwards reflected on the difference between our new President’s address and the short program by which our student and faculty leadership introduced it. A prevailing current of unmitigated celebration flowed through the Howard—unmitigated, because our university leaders, apparently caught up in the emotion of the moment, did not combine enthusiasm with the challenging message of Scripture.

“Do not put your trust in princes, in mortals, in whom there is no help. When their breath departs, they return to the earth; on that very day their plans perish. Happy are those whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the Lord their God…” (Ps. 146:3-5, NRSV).

Hope is an eschatological word. Eschatology is the way a belief system explains the end of this era and the transition into a new (and presumably better) era. There are secular eschatologies, Hindu eschatologies, and Christian eschatologies; nearly every major belief system has at least one. Their purpose is usually to generate hope in those who believe.

President Obama’s message of hope is grounded in his optimistic belief that we have the ability to solve the great problems humanity faces. His hope is compatible with the humanist eschatology, which believes human societal and scientific development can usher in a new age of peace and prosperity. Obama’s message is also compatible with the mainline Christian eschatology of postmillennialism, which believes the spread of the gospel will promote human development and usher in a thousand years of peace and prosperity after which Christ will come and take us to heaven.

By contrast, the Adventist message of hope is grounded in exclusive trust in the ability of God to save us. We are prophetically pessimistic about the ability of humanity to bring about lasting solutions to the problems of peace and equality. Indeed, we can historically point out that powerful movements for social change often result in tyranny (such as the “Final Solution”). Adventists are therefore premillennialists; we believe that the second coming will result in destruction of the current, corrupted world, which must precede the restoration of the humanity to its original state.

In short, Adventists believe things will get worse before they get better, which is why the inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama presented the Andrews community with a paradox of hope. On the one hand, how could we not rejoice in an event that symbolized the triumph of the civil rights movement? On the other, how could we celebrate a ceremony that alternatively located us farther away from the second coming than we had hoped or closer to a political unity that could bring about the end-time persecution we hope to delay? And feeling forced to choose between the two responses, our university leadership ran with the former.

This paradox is not unique to Adventists but a symptom of the major problem with premillennial eschatologies in general. They do not explain in an obvious way why Christians should fulfill the biblical mandates to make things better in this world. Why work to alleviate poverty when it is only going to get worse? Why unite with unbelievers to save the planet when it is just going to burn? Why waste time with civil rights when Heaven will heal our divisions?

Yet our pioneers, who believed the second coming was so close it could happen anytime, were involved in the great progressive causes of their day, including the abolitionist movement, and attracted some of the great progressive activists of their time, such as Sojourner Truth. I propose that to them the premillenial second coming was not an excuse to let society go to hell but rather Divine permission to bring heaven to society, because their imperfect efforts would soon be validated by radical and everlasting change. In this context, Adventists can whole-heartedly celebrate the election of an African-American to the presidency of the United States as a penultimate realization of the hope for racial equality, yet our joy must be tempered by the reality that our ultimate hope of perfect harmony in the human family awaits a fulfillment that transcends our faltering achievement.

In moments that call for heady optimism or hard-nosed realism, President Obama chooses to craft a creative balance. As he framed the presentation of Obama’s inaugural address to the Andrews community, President Andreasen spoke of the things we must learn from the next American president. I submit that Obama’s ability to lead by bringing together seemingly contradictory yet equally correct attitudes would be a good place to start.

Top Five: Things Obama Didn't Talk About

2008-11-09T10:56:00.003-05:00

Yes, we did, and I include myself in that yes. I was one of the change voters; not that I think an Obama presidency is going to bring in the millennium, the age of Aquarius, or even "change the way business is done in Washington". But at the very least I felt it was necessary to remove the power of the executive from a political party that took our nation to war on a false casus beli.

Nevertheless I do have some reservations about President-elect Obama, and amidst the deserved congratulations for an excellent campaign and the excitement about electing the first African-American president, I feel it is necessary to express that my support of his agenda is not unqualified. While I disagree with Obama regarding the issues of homosexual marriage and abortion--issues for which, in my opinion, executive power matters less than legislative--I am more concerned about the issues he didn't talk about, or at least didn't communicate to me, during his campaign. It will be interesting to see how he addresses, sidesteps or exacerbates these problems.

Top Five Things Obama Didn't Talk About

Is there anything Obama didn't talk about that you hope he'll address? Maybe you're worried he won't? Let us know.

P.s. How do I update my spellchecker with the words "Barack" and "Obama"? "Hussein" is already there.

What Would Jesus Vote?

2008-11-03T09:40:00.006-05:00

Jesus, of course, did not live in a liberal democracy, and therefore never cast his vote in an election or on a ballot proposition. But Christians across America will have the opportunity to do so tomorrow and may well wonder if Jesus would have them vote for anything beyond their own self interest. I believe that, although the Bible does not specifically address elections, it does communicate certain responsibilities God expects governments to care for. Based on these, I've identified three things Christians should consider in making their voting decisions.

A Christian vote is a vote for:

Freedom Of Conscience (Dan. 3, Rev. 13) - Issues: freedom of worship, civil liberties, torture, homosexual unions
Just Institutions That Protect Life And Property (Rom. 13:1-7, Amos 5:15, Matt. 22:21) - Issues: defense, peace, abortion, death penalty, handgun control, police, judges, budget, child protection
Care Of And Opportunity For The Disadvantaged (Lev. 19:9-10, Lev. 25) - Issues: welfare, health care, debt relief, environment, workers rights

These three may seem like obvious social goods, but a careful look at the issues may make certain voting decisions less clear to you. For example, voting on homosexual unions one way could threaten freedom of conscience by imposing traditional values on homosexuals, yet voting on the issue the other way could threaten freedom of conscience by imposing secular definitions of homosexual rights on religious organizations. And when voting for a candidate, there's always a gap between what they say they'll do, what that actually want to do, and their ability to implement their agenda or even govern effectively.

Yet this should not cause us to shy away from voting altogether (although actively abstaining may be the right thing to do). Jesus told a parable about a master who give his servants talents, and it was the one who took no risk with his talent that was condemned (Mat. 25:14-30). In democracies around the world God has given Christians the opportunity to vote, and they must thoughtfully consider how they will use that gift, not for their own self-interest, but to help God's "deacon" (Rom 13:4), the government, accomplish its God ordained task in this world.

Is Christ lord of your vote?

Review: Rome Sweet Home

2008-10-31T11:37:00.003-04:00

I recently completed a critical book review of Rome Sweet Home for a seminar in church authority. I don't plan to regularly post my academic work here, but I thought this might be of interest. Between Bill Cork and Colin Maclurin there seems to be a Catholic theme in the Adventist blogosphere this week, so I thought I'd chime in, too.

One disclaimer: Please bear in mind that the assignment was to write a critical book review, and that brings out my Adventist bias. I do realize I am not immune from the problems I point out in the authors of Rome Sweet Home.

Introduction
Scott and Kimberley Hahn were a spiritually motivated, theologically conservative, intellectually brilliant, and strongly anti-Catholic couple who individually converted to Roman Catholicism less than ten years after graduating from a Protestant seminary. This review of Rome Sweet Home, the autobiography of their journey from cradle to Catholic, will critically assess the Hahns’ theological reasons for conversion. Scott Hahn’s covenant theology and its implications for justification by faith and ecclesiology led him to convert before his wife. Kimberly Hahn, who eventually accepted her husband’s reasoning, was able to convert only after overcoming her objections to Marian devotion.

Covenant Theology
Covenant theology is the motif that binds together Scott Hahn’s half of Rome Sweet Home. Hahn first mentions it in the context of his undergrad experience when, having read the Bible several times, he “was convinced that the key to understanding the Bible was the idea of covenant.” One wonders, though, if this theological hermeneutic is more the result of his Young Life mentors, who may well have imparted the basics of covenant theology as they taught him Calvin, and less the outcome of personal study.

Justification by Faith
Hahn’s study of covenants during his M.Div. lead him to conclude that the Protestant understanding of justification by faith alone was unbiblical. He determined that in the biblical sense a covenant was not just a legal transaction but a transaction involving people for the purpose of establishing familial relationships. He concluded the New Covenant establishes us a children in God’s family, partaking of “divine sonship”, which means that sanctification, not just justification, is a part of God’s saving grace.

Hahn’s discovery not only put him at odds with his Calvinist denomination, but also laid the synergist framework that gave him common ground with Catholic soteriology. It is significant that he does not present justification by faith, the key doctrine by which Calvinists distinguish themselves from Catholics, as a major issue during his study of Catholicism. On this point Hahn leaves many questions (e.g. predestination) unanswered, and one may wonder whether he considered the Arminian tradition on this point and how his story may have been different had he joined an Arminian/Wesleyan denomination.

Ecclesiology
Hahn’s theology of God’s covenant family was a theological hermeneutic with implications for ecclesiology as well. He once told a high school class he was teaching that his ideal church organization “would be like an extended family that covers the world, with different father figures at every level appointed by God to administer his love and his law to his children.” The class realized that Hahn was describing the Roman Catholic Church; he did not.

This story illustrates a weakness in Hahn’s theological method: He often made analogical application of Scripture while harmonizing passages that contradict this application to his theology. Protestants have used covenant theology in this way to justify Sunday as the Christian day of worship against Sabbath as the Jewish day of worship. In the same way, Hahn likely harmonized and, for the purposes of his book, ignored the injunction against having earthly “fathers” in the church (Mat. 23:9) in favor of an analogical application of his covenant theology.

After finding other points on which his interpretation of scripture agreed Catholic theology, Hahn began to question another sola of Protestantism: “Where does Scripture teach sola scriptura?” At issue was the interpretation of Scripture itself. With “twenty-five thousand” Protestant denominations following “the Holy Spirit and the plain meaning of Scripture” Hahn realized that Scripture alone and Scripture interpreting Scripture was not enough to bring God’s covenant family into unity.

Hahn decided that the church must also be involved in communicating God’s Word. It wasn’t enough for the Heavenly Father to speak through his Book, because His erring children were liable to misinterpret or ignore it. The Heavenly Father needed fathers at every rung of the hierarchy, delivering the final and distinct word of authority to which the true children would submit.

Marian Devotion
During the time Scott Hahn was converting and for a few years after his conversion Kimberly Hahn’s story was one of resistance. Although she could not win her arguments with him, she completely closed her mind to the possibility of becoming Catholic and hoped that someone would be able to persuade her husband to turn from his course. It was not until Kimberly Hahn’s father, a Presbyterian minister, advised her to pray a prayer the committed her to following Christ no matter what, that she began to consider her husband’s religion with an open mind.
After committing herself to following Jesus regardless of past loyalties, Kimberley Hahn began a study of Catholic doctrine that led her to similar conclusions as her husband, and she began to feel a strong connection with God during Eucharistic/sacramental worship. From that point the only major theological obstacle to Hahn’s conversion was Catholic Marian devotion.

Veneration and Worship
Apart from feeling marital jealously towards Mary and finding it hard to identify with her as an intercessor, Hahn does not elaborate on her objections except in the context of the Catholic reasons for Marian devotion. That she felt praying the rosary would be offensive to God indicates that her theological issues had to do with what she perceived to be the worship of Mary by Catholics. Hahn knew the arguments regarding the difference between worship and veneration and between prayer and intercession, but it was not until she realized that for Catholics, worship was the sacrifice of the Eucharist, whereas for Protestants it was songs and prayers, that she was able to make a distinction between the veneration and worship of Mary.

Mother of the Church
I believe family covenant theology had an impact on Kimberley Hahn’s acceptance of Marian Devotion. First, Hahn was predisposed to accept her husband’s theology because she understood him, as the father of their family, to be her spiritual leader, who, although he did not force the issue, was nevertheless someone to who’s authority she should submit. Hahn portrays the psychology of her conversion story as resistance followed by acceptance to her husband's spiritual leadership.

Second, within the analogical structure of Scott Hahn’s covenant theology, it was logical that Jesus’ father (God the Father) and mother (Mary) would be her Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother. In this context, the Communion of Saints is our heavenly and earthly brothers and sisters to whom we may go for intercession, and our earthly father and mother are the Pope (and his bishops and priests) and the Catholic Church, respectively. Viewing Mary as her mother also helped her overcome the objection to the “vain repitions” of the rosary, because, as a nun told her, mothers love to hear their young children say “I love you,” no matter how many times they say it in a day.

Conclusion
Scott and Kimberley Hahn’s Rome Sweet Home is a compelling story told in an engaging manner, and though this review found fault some of their reasoning, the reviewer appreciated both their intellectual and moral honesty. The central and most frequent fallacy in their theological thinking is an analogical application of biblical concepts in a way that contradicts the limitations Scripture itself places on those concepts. This reviewer believes that Hahns’ story would have ended differently had they, when faced with these contradictions, challenged their theological hermeneutic rather than explaining scripture to accommodate their theology.

Adventists = Contrarians

2008-10-24T22:50:00.001-04:00

Adventists are contrarians. Most Christians go to church on Sunday; Adventists go on Saturday. Most Christians think you go to Heaven or Hell when you die, Adventists believe you go to sleep. We're a conservative denomination that promotes vegetarianism, for goodness sake!

I don't think Adventism is contrarian in principle. It's not as if our pioneers set out to believe or practice the opposite of other Christians. They just believed you shouldn't do what everyone else does just because that's what everyone does.

Nevertheless, I think Adventism attracts contrarians, because it takes a special personality to go against the flow. The problem comes when those contrarians have children and raise them in Adventist churches, schools, and institutions. Contrarianism is nonsustaining, because the second generation is born with an above average desire to be contrary to the mainstream, which for them is their parents' religion.

The loss of the Adventist converts' second generation is almost guaranteed after their Adventist religious training. Adventist religious training has traditionally focused on imparting reasons the Adventist religion is correct rather than Adventist religious experience. The problem with this is that the primarily cognitive religious training of Adventist young people equips them with intellectual tools they can later use to tear down their faith. Cognitive reasons for faith make no sense without the experience of faith, so when the reasons for faith are divorced from experience of faith, reason ends up being used against faith.

I suggest a twofold solution: (1) That the first generation devote more focus to imparting the experiential as opposed to primarily cognative aspects of their faith. Ellen White was onto something when she talked about Adventist youth needing "experimental" (that's 19th century for experiential) religion.

(2) The first generation should channel the contrarian impulse of the second generation into semper reformanda, the principle that the church should always be in the process of reformation. The first generation is often deceived into thinking that because they have traveled so far against the mainstream there is no farther to go. Adventists have leveled this critique against other protestant denominations, while ignoring the implications for their own. Instead of pretending perfection and leaving the second generation to turn their contrarian impulse against their faith, Adventists should encourage their children to refine, expand, re-express and appropriate their parents' faith.

Review: Half-handed Cloud

2008-10-17T19:45:00.004-04:00

It sounds like a really smart Sunday-school class on a sugar high let loose in a music store.

-iTunes album review of We Haven't Just Been Told, We've Been Loved

Half-handed Cloud is my new Friday night favorite. When praise and worship, choir and organ, gospel quartet, and holy hip-hop have lost my musical interest, it's time for HHC, because John Ringhoffer, the man behind the project, takes "Sing a new song to the Lord" into a new dimension. I can only describe the musical genre of HHC in phrases: Juno soundtrack, indie-rock, sound experiment, high school band, and music my wife will only tolerate in small doses.

I was introduced to Half-handed Cloud by my brother-in-law, who knew Ringhoffer from the Seventh-day Adventist community around Chattanooga, TN. Today John lives in a church basement Berkley (except when he's turing with Half-handed Cloud or as the trombonest in Sufjan Stevens' band), where he's the janitor in exchange for his diggs. He does not describe himself as a Seventh-day Adventist, but does attend an Adventist church among others on weekends.

Listening to an HCC album is in some ways like reading the Bible, you will not get everything the first time through, nor the second. The tempo is generally fast, and the lyrics are just as quirky and dense as the music. The 50 second opera, "Pup Tent Noah", is an exception to the fast and dense rule but it's two-line libretto nicely illustrates John's unique take on Bible stories: "If your father's getting naked in the pup / Walk in backwards and cover him up."

From a theological perspective, I see an Adventist influence on the themes addressed in two Half-handed Cloud albums I own, We Haven't Just Been Told, We've Been Loved, and Thy Is a Word, and Feet Need Lamps. Thy Is a Word deals primarily with Old Testament stories--the ones Uncle Arthur didn't tell--that challenge the our notions of God's loving character. And six early tracks on We Haven't Just Been Told are about Sabbath beginning with "Our First Full Day Was Spent In Rest" and including my favorite line: "I got a-rested so I'm free...."

I think what keeps me coming back to HHC is Ringhofer's sensitivity to truth in paradox. His childish vocal stylings render lyrics of profound spiritual meaning; serious yet silly music accompanies his summaries of the most brutal OT tales (e.g. "Everyone Did What Was Right in Their Own Eyes"). There's something essentially real about these juxtapositions that resonates with my own experience of following Christ.

I recommend Half-handed Cloud to anyone who's up for something musically new. You don't have to be a Christian to appreciate this music, as John's popularity with the progressive music scene proves, but I find his work is best appreciated in its scriptural context. I myself plan to get some more HHC albums when I'm tired of the ones I have, but so far, that hasn't happened.

-----------
Check out this interview John did with with Relevant Magazine.

Interview: Joel Klimkewicz

2008-10-02T19:14:00.004-04:00

Joel Klimkewicz is a colleague of mine at the Adventist Theological Seminary, with whom I have enjoyed several classes. It wasn't until a few weeks ago that I realized that he is the former US Marine who had received media coverage (Adventist links are the only ones still up.) a couple years ago for spending time in the brig on account of his non-combatant convictions. After talking with Joel about his experiences, I asked him to do an interview with me for apokalupto, and he agreed.

a: Did you have religious faith when you joined the Marine Corps?

JK: No. I was confirmed in the Lutheran church but wasn't a practicing Lutheran. I believed in God, don't get me wrong. And I would go to church in boot camp to get out of activities--Catholic church, because it was the longest.

a: How did you become a Seventh-day Adventist?

JK: I was scheduled for a deployment in 2002, a scheduled deployment where you float around in the Mediterranean and wait for something to happen. However, due to September 11 we knew we would probably go to Afghanistan or someplace else. But I wanted to get out of this employment to be home for the birth of my child.

I tried everything, but nothing could get me out of this deployment. While at sea the only way I could contact my wife was to use the email service on the ship, and with 3,000 people wanting to use those computers, you had to wait in line a long time. But there was this Bible study in the computer room, so I would go to the Bible study in order to get a computer to email my wife without waiting in line. But after two Bible studies I began to pay attention.

The chaplain teaching, who was an Adventist, was combining history and the Bible, Daniel and Revelation stuff, without mentioning the Adventist church at all. And I was able to look these things up and come to the conclusion that the man was teaching Biblical truth. He wasn't only teaching prophecy but also commitment. And when I committed myself to the Lord I was able to overcome some besetting sins like smoking and drinking. And that's how I became an Adventist.

The first time I was baptized was in the United Arab Emierates, but the night before I was out drinking and partying with my friends. The second time I made a full, wholistic commitment to the Lord and was baptized in the Seyshelles islands.

So I was still on this ship with this Adventist chaplain, and we became good friends.

a: What led you to conclude that you could not take a human life in combat?

JK: It wasn't the teachings of this chaplain, who is not a pacifist in any way.

My wife is a cultural Buddhist from Japan. She observed the changes in my life, and became interested in Adventism. She took Bible studies by correspondence from the Voice of Prophecy in Japan and joined the Adventist church.

Now my family was a new Christian family, and as the spiritual leader of my home, I wanted to be an example to my family. At this time I knew the Iraq war was very close at hand, as we had advance knowledge of that. I also learned that what we'd actually been doing in Africa was establishing relations to get the military a base for bombers--Camp Lemonier.

My church was an Adventist church in a military town, and people were telling me the the historical Adventist position was non-combatancy. I didn't really know anything about that, but at the same time I was reading scripture and concluding that Christian's are citizens of Heaven. And what in combat if I had to kill a fellow Christian?

Plus, before I became a Christian I was an angry person, and I knew that if I took a human life, I would have a guilty conscience and go back to my old way of living. The Holy Spirit was telling me that if I killed someone, it would undo all the positive steps I'd taken since becoming a Christian.

a: What consequences did you face as a result of that decision?

JK: I sought the advice of an Adventist chaplain who didn't fully agree with me but told me I had two options. One was to stay in the military as a non-combatant and the other was to get out of the military as a pacifist. I decided to stay in as a non-combatant, so an investigation was started to determine if my new found belief qualified me for non-combtance.

The investigator told me that I didn't qualify because I re-enlisted after I became an Adventist. But he messed up in that he did not realize that the Adventist church does not prohibit combatant military service. After 18 months I was denied status and ordered to take my weapon to kill human life. Obviously, I had to follow my conscience and told my commander that I respectfully could not obey. I even explained that I would be willing to do any combat oriented task without a weapon, such as clear landmines, a job I was trained to do. Clearing landmines generally does not require a weapon due to the danger of it falling on a mine or seting one off magnetically. My higher ups yelled at me and threatened different things, but I felt that the judgment that God would give me would be worse than what the military could give.

My commanding officer charged me with disobedience of a lawful order, which is usually a non-judicial matter punished with a fine and demotion, that type of thing. But, two months before I would have been out of the Marines, he sent me to a general court martial. General courts martial are usually reserved for serious matters like rapes and murders.

So the Adventist church sent their attorneys and chaplains, and I had a military lawyer. I had the impression that with all these people, how could I loose? The arraignment judge even recommended that it be dismissed, but if a commander wants a court martial, it's their decision. My lawyer fought this issue on the timeline of my conversion, that even though I'd reenlisted as an Adventist, I was still growing in my faith. Therefore, the investigator was wrong in denying my request, because the Adventist church does not prohibit military service.

In military law, the judge rules guilty or not guilty before the attorneys make their full arguments. The judge found me guilty, and then we spent hours with witnesses and arguments to determine the sentence. The prosecutor was trying to get the maximum penalty of 5 years, but the judge sentenced me to loss of pay, 7 months in the brig, and a bad conduct discharge.

Leaving that courtroom was quite an experience. They literally ripped my uniform off me, and that iss a disgrace to all who wear it. It was only by the grace of God that I didn't lash out.

In the brig, I started giving bible studies right away. There was a guy who was baptized with me who was busted for knocking off ATMs and took my presence as a sign that he needed to reform. There was another Adventist in there, and together we started worships on Sabbath

The church meanwhile had started a media campaign. Roscoe Bartlett, who was sitting on a military finance committee also had some meetings with the Commandant of the Marine Corps. Because of their efforts, I got out after four months.

And the Lord blessed me with a very good military appeal lawyer who fought for me at the Clemency and Parole Board which turned my discharge to "general under honorable conditions". The entire time I was going through this appeal process I was doing my undergrad at Southern Adventist University, so when my twins were born prematurely, the military paid the full medical expenses, which were over a million dollars.

a: Do you think that the environment of killing and training to kill impacts ones morality in other areas negatively?

JK: There is some validity to that. In the Marine Corps they would like to pride themselves in their morals. Honor courage and commitment are their core values, and they promote this. Where the immorality comes in is from people who come from dysfunctional lives before they enter the military.

These people come from all over the country, and get discipline in the military. Where their lives used to have no structure, they now have structure. So they become disciplined drunks, drug users, etc. So I don't think the training that they receive to kill impacts their morality so much as it makes them more disciplined about the lifestyle they already had.

a: What is your position with regard to pacifism today?

JK: I don't consider myself a pacifist. I think pacifism itself is somewhat of a naive position. It's a good idea in the ideal sense, but unfortunately we have sin. And since we have sin we need doctors and lawyers, and also police and military. However, I believe that God's last day church has a more specific and bigger purpose to accomplish which is to preach the gospel to the whole word. And we do this because we know that He's coming and in order to fulfill our mission as disciples. This is bigger than the mission some have to carry arms.

a: Are preaching the gospel and carrying arms mutually exclusive missions?

I'm hesitant to give the answer because if you're in a position of chaplaincy that's something you can't say, however it seems that without the military perhaps the Gospel would not freely go to many parts of the world. I think scripture clearly portrays that God uses nations to judge other nations, however that doesn't necessarily mean that his believers have to carry arms and do the judging. In fact our battle is not with flesh and blood; it is with principalities, a task that often takes more courage than pulling a trigger. Many have lost their lives in defense of the Gospel.

a: In your opinion, how could Adventist pastors and church leaders better address the issue of military service with their young people?

JK: You would advise Adventists to really pray and search scripture and their own conscience. I personally believe that Adventist religious convictions will be compromised in the military. Really, any sincere religious conviction will be problematic in the military. Because of the nature of the military mission, any conviction you have plays second fiddle to the mission of the military. That's in the oath you take, that your primary duty will be to protect and defend the constitution of the United States.

a: Do you know anything about how many Adventists are serving in the military?

JK: According to the Military Endorser to the Seventh-day Adventist church I was told that there are over 6,000 Adventist combatants serving in the US military and 56,000 SDA combatants worldwide?

a: Don't these numbers say we aren't doing a good enough job upholding our historic position? What advice would you give pastors, parents, or youth workers who want to do something about it?

The problem is that the church is not educating people on alternatives or on the historic position of the church. If you go to the Adventist Chaplaincy Ministries (ACM) website, it's recommended that a young person consider non-combatancy. But from Vietnam up until recently it hasn't been an issue.

There is a movement to educate our young people. ACM is working on a video to be circulated to our churches and schools. I'm in the video, and so are others who've had conflicts of conscience in the military. It's almost impossible to educate people without taking a position, so the church needs to be more clear with it's recommendation.

It may be impossible to achieve, but on our universities, when undergrads are confronted by a military recruiter who is allowed to roam freely on our campuses it supports the idea that the military is a viable career option for Adventists, especially in a bad economy when other job options are limited. So I'd like to see that changed.

The military was good for me. I would not be a disciplined student if not for the military. It was also good to be a part of such a unified organization, although that unity is often imposed by force. But we can offer alternatives to this. And we could adopt some of their methods like physical fitness, teamwork exercises, and bible boot camps to instill discipline, to achieve a level unity with our youth.

a: What are your plans for future ministry, and are you planning to be involved in these issues in the future?

JK: At present I'm sponsored [at the Adventist Theological Seminary] by the Florida Conference, so I'm going to fulfill my obligations as pastor in the Florida Conference. I'm open to any invitation to speak on these matters, and I've given my testimony in several churches. Now that I'm not active duty I'm able to speak freely.

a: When you join the military do you give up your First Amendment rights to freedom of speech?

JK: When you join the military you have limited first amendment rights. For example, you cannot criticize the Commander in Chief, and that means the President.

a: Do you see military chaplaincy in your future?

JK: I'm not convinced that Adventism should do away with service of military chaplains. I think that military chaplaincy serves an important role. One of the unfortunate reasons why we have chaplains is because of abuses that happen to people of faith. One of the roles of the chaplain is to be an advocate for people of faith.

And if it wasn't for a chaplain I wouldn't be an Adventist Christian. Chaplains are able to reach young people who are in desperate need of salvation. The unfortunate thing is that many Christian chaplains see their job as a paycheck and forget the call to make disciples. As an Adventist chaplain I don't think your job is to make non-combatants. I think your job, first and foremost, is to make disciples for Jesus Christ. Daniel had to go to Babylon, and to win some of these people we have to go to Babylon.

If the lord has military chaplaincy in my future, I'm certainly open to that option.

After our interview, Joel sent me the following statment.

I must say that I respect our nation's military and those who are able to serve in a combatant role without compromise of conscience. I don't claim to have all the answers for those who are unsure. I believe a sincere search of God's will and much dialogue with fellow believers will bring about a better understanding of the complex nature of this dilemma. I do know from experience that when God gives a conviction he will provide the strength and courage to stand for it, not so much for self-edification but because He knows the impact it will have on those who are unbelievers, skeptics, or those who are simply sitting on the fence.

I could share several stories, but one seems relevant for this discussion. A few weeks ago a high ranking leader from my former command gave me a late night unexpected phone call. He wanted to apologize for standing against me and explained that he wishes he had made the same choice. He now suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result of the things he saw and did in combat. He is looking for away to rid himself of that guilt and looking to the Lord for that peace.

To this an old Japanese Proverb with profound truth applies, “Kokai saki ni tatasu.” Simply stated, "Regret is in the past not in the future." The choices we make today determine our future, hence the reason to submit your choices to the approval of God (Prov. 16:9).

For if you have an interest in these issues, check out the Should I Fight? conference to be held Nov. 6-9 in Oshawa, ON.

Poem: Present

2008-09-17T19:09:00.002-04:00

If ones blog isn't the place to inflict ones B-grade poetry on the word, I don't know what is. And in that spirit I present a poem I composed during a retreat with my Spiritual Formation class. After a day spent largely in silent meditation and prayer, we were asked to create a joyful response in an artistic medium to the revelation of God we received that day.

Present
by David Hamstra

Here I am.
Where are You?
The thought just occurred to me.
I haven't heard you lately.

I'm over here.
Why are You there?
You said You'd be with me.
And I need your help quickly.

I am way up here.
Hey, You're way back there.
That doesn't concern me.
I'm in too big a hurry.

I'm still back here.
You're going where?
I don't think that's for me.
To be honest it's scary.

Here am I,
Followin' You.
It seems the place for me
Is where I follow you closely.

"If we refuse to take up our cross and submit to suffering and rejection at the hands of men, we forfeit our fellowship with Christ and have ceased to follow Him" (Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship) (cf. Luke 9:23).

Church Documentary

2008-08-27T18:06:00.003-04:00

Stained Glass: Hollywood Blvd. Trailer

Melody George at the Hollywood Seventh-day Adventist Church has written and directed a documentary about the formation of her congregation's "Missional Action Teams". Having followed online the escapades of Hollywood's pastor, Ryan Bell, for some time, I can say you won't ever look at church life the same way once you watch this film. I don't think I'm overreaching when I say that, based on what I've seen so far, this documentary gives the viewer an unprecedented, fly-on-the-wall glimpse into the intimate details of the transformation of an Adventist congregation.

[UPDATE 8-27-08: Pastor Bell asked me to remove a link to the first episode with was not completed nor released to the public. I found it by accident and have removed the link as he requested. If you happen to have the link or the video, please respect his wishes.]

Top Five: Childbirth And The Second Coming

2008-08-24T12:47:00.004-04:00

Antonin David Jan Hamstra

I know it's been done before, but, being a new father, I can't resist. Here's a list of some ways that pregnancy and childbirth is like unto the second coming of Christ.

Just when you think it's finally about to happen, you enter a new stage of waiting.
While you're waiting, you have work to do.
Things are going to get more intense and painful before it's over.
It's the end of the world as you know it, and the beginning of another.
He comes to be lord of your life.

What I did not expect was the feeling that my son completely belongs in my life, as if he were always a part of our family. I feel deep gratitude to God for the gifts of life and procreation and to my wife for bearing and delivering our son. I have done nothing to deserve this grace, and now it owns me.

URGENT - Tobacco Vote Tomorrow

2008-07-29T18:21:00.003-04:00

Tomorrow, the U.S. House of Representatives will vote on a bill that could:

Help prevent illegal sales of tobacco products to children.
Ban candy-flavored cigarettes and other similar efforts to hook kids.
Prohibit health claims by tobacco companies that are not scientifically proven.
Require tobacco companies to disclose the level of toxins in their products.
Require larger and more informative health warnings on tobacco products.

If you think that's a good idea, you need to write to your Representative now. Don't have the time? Good news!

Click here, and in under two minutes you can send him or her an email supporting Food and Drug Administration regulation of cigarettes.

National Usury Law?

2008-07-21T11:20:00.004-04:00

In an interview with Bill Moyers about the current financial crisis, William Greider, a former Washington Post editor and author of The Soul of Capitalism, said:

Eventually you have to draw very precise boundaries, I think, and restore some structure that says, okay, you can get a return of X on credit cards, but you can't get a return of triple X, right? And that kind of regulation. And that's not easy to draw. It takes a while.
But the first law that would just reassure the public, we're against usury. Muslims are against it. Christians are against it. Jews are against it. And we're going to develop a government laws that prohibited and penalized [sic] these institutions when they get caught doing it.

What Gardener is talking about is the type of pan-religious movement, united around an issue of social morality, that Seventh-day Adventists have tended to avoid for fear it will bring about a universal Sunday law that will force us to compromise Sabbath worship or face persecution. And while I believe that type of end-time scenario will happen, like the people who founded the Adventist Church, I don't believe that is an excuse to not join with other faith groups in public advocacy of moral positions we hold in common. But since our pioneers' involvement with the temperance movement, subsequent generations of Adventists have generally limited their public advocacy to the area religious liberty.

In the same way that Seventh-day Adventists have taken the Sabbath principle and used it to advocate freedom of worship in the public square, I believe we should use the Sabbath principle to advocate freedom from high interest loans for our nations' economies. This will sound strange to many Adventists because we have always placed the Sabbath commandment, together with the three that precede it, under the principle expressed by greatest command "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind" (Matt 22:37). And we have placed the remaining six under the next greatest command, "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matt 22:39). The first "table" of the law tells us how to love God and the second how to love each other.

In doing this we have overlooked the second part of the Sabbath commandment which obligates us to give those for whose labor we are responsible a day off on Sabbath as well. When combined with the Torah's mandated Sabbatical and Jubilee years; it becomes clear that part of Sabbath keeping includes giving my neighbor the opportunity to be free from endless labor and indebtedness (If you want to know who "my neighbor" is, check out this story). As an Adventist pastor, I can also testify the the biggest impediment to Sabbath worship is Sabbath labor necessitated by the need to pay off the house, car, credit cards, etc.

Yes, we can and should hold debt seminars; and yes, people need to be responsible for their decisions. But the Sabbath command, which straddles both tables of the law, compels us to take it one step further and work to hold financial institutions responsible for their usurious abuses of the public trust. God has made it clear that human government has a role in protecting citizens from exploitative loans. Other faith groups realize this as well, and as a Seventh-day Adventist citizen of a nation where people vote the government into power, I'll gladly join in advocating against the destructive practice of high interest loans.

[Crossposted to Spectrum 7-25-08. Please comment there.]

Friday Randomness

2008-07-18T11:53:00.001-04:00

Diverse tidbits from internet wanderings:

First off, the Pope sends text messages to his youth group, do u?

Young friend, God and his people expect much from u because u have within you the Fathers supreme gift: the Spirit of Jesus — BXVI
(From the Associated Press via Get Religion)

Next, for those of you who are wondering where Marty and Josue from Just Pastors are, Josue's blogging over at TechnoMinistry and Marty's running The Innovative Pastor blog. Here's a couple other pastor blogs I read.

And last but not least, if check out the webpage of a new (yet to be named), ecumenical Bible translation sponsored by the United Methodist Publishing House, you'll see two Adventists on the list of translators. Roy Gane, OT professor at Andrews University and author of the Leviticus, Numbers volume of the NIV Application Commentary series, is working on Leviticus. And Bernard Taylor of Loma Linda University, who was a translator for Oxford University Press' New English Translation of the Septuagint, is working on the additions to Daniel for the Apocrypha.

Ten Torture Facts

2008-07-15T12:43:00.005-04:00

Reporter's Notebook: Ten Lessons from Recent Torture Hearings

Based on testimony at the United States Senate Armed Services Committee. Brought to us by the American News Project.

Absolutely

2008-07-14T21:40:00.000-04:00

"Oh, absolutely!"

"Is there anybody else out there who has noticed this adverb has become a substitute for "yes", "sure", and (in Minnesota) "you betcha"? One can hardly get through the day without hearing an "absolutely" launched by some talking head to affirm that a statement proposed by a leading question is, indeed, true. I, for one, have chosen to die on this hill in the grammar battles, refusing to refer to anything as absolute unless I'm sure it is always categorically true. And, more importantly, I have determined never use "absolutely" as anything other than a modifier for a verb, adjective, phrase, clause, or other adverb.

Now that I've got that self-righteous (and nerdy) rant off my chest, on to what's important. The use of "absolutely" in news stories has grown steadily since 2004 (when Google Trends started keeping track of such things). I propose that the rise in the use of "absolutely" indicates a search for absolutes in a postmodern cultural age.

To be more precise, the use of "absolutely" is one of the signals of our transition into what, for lack of a better term, has been called a post-postmodern age. In an article Ministry (June 2008), philosopher-pastor Aleksandar S. Santrac wrote about three tenets of post-postmodernism: (1) performatism [see above picture], (2) new transcendency, and (3) new utopia. It is the third point that involves our discussion, because the "new utopia" involves a rejection of anything-goes postmodernism, which had previously rejected all utopian ideals as dangerous tools of oppression.

It looks like the radical tolerance of postmodernism was only able to survive as long as there was an intolerant edifice of modernism to tear down. But for postmoderns, the edifice did eventually fall, and they had to confront an age where anything could happen and tolerance itself was dangerous. Or, as Santrac puts it, "After September 11, everything becomes possible, and humanity has no ground of hope or "anchor" of historical certainty."

Could it be that the stunning realization that we have no certainty left at all would drive my generation out of our deconstruction and irony to search for it again?

Absolutely.

Tolerance is out. Transcendence is in. This opens a new set of spaces for the Christianity to operate in, as well as dangers to be avoided.

What possibilities or pitfalls do you see in the new cultural shift?

Review: WALL-E

2008-07-10T22:32:00.004-04:00

Do thinking machines enhance our humanity or rob us of it? While those of us who benefit from our computerized society may choose to ignore this existential question, the very existence of Pixar, the animation studio whose movies contain nothing but images wrought with thinking machines, depends on the answer. And in their latest animated feature, WALL-E, Pixar has confronted this question and answered it with an unambiguous, "Yes."

WALL-E, if you haven't figured it out yet, is a robot--a robot who has the most pointless job in the universe, compacting mountains of trash on a deserted planet Earth. Since WALL-E appears to be the last of his kind, we don't know how long he has been at his programmed destiny, but somewhere along the way he has developed a penchant for collecting human artifacts. One of his favorites is a VCR of the movie Hello, Dolly!, which he enjoys watching before he powers down for the night.

This is one of the few shots of non-animated footage incorporated into the film. As we see WALL-E longingly gazing at the romantic couples, wondering if he, too, could hold hands; we also get a glimpse of the animators at Pixar, longing to attain to the artistic value and humanity of classic, live-action filmmaking. The fact the we even consider a robot to be a "he" and interpret his emotions--though no discernible words are spoken during this first portion of the film--as "pining" or "lonely" shows that Pixar can and has created great art.

[Spoiler Alert]

WALL-E's recongition of the possibility of love begins a journey that will see him transcend the limitations of his designated function and become, ultimately, human. Meanwhile, in outer space, humanity is waiting on a starship for earth to return to normal. It was their over-consumption that made their home uninhabitable.

On the spaceship, every person's needs and desires are satisfied by a flawless fleet of robots--food, clothing, transportation, communication, entertainment--every ones experience is mediated through an electronic matrix that does the thinking (and the doing) for them. It would appear that WALL-E is not the only one in the universe with a pointless existence, that is, unless you consider endless consumption to be a valid purpose for life. Humanity has gladly allowed the thinking machines they built to strip them of intimacy, passion, creativity, and everything that makes them human, including their bodies.

[End Spoilers]

By removing the need for live, human bodies before the lens, or live, human fingers on the animator's brush; do computer animated films become a less human art form? One could also ask if Hollywood casting directors have lost touch with something important about humanity when they turn away highly skilled actors because their bodies don't have the right look? Or whether the factory process of hand-drawn animation, where hundreds of animators produce cells like robots, is inherently more artistic than computer generated images?

With WALL-E, computer animation has self-consciously declared that it is an art form to be taken seriously. As the closing-credit sequence, which tours us through a history of visual art, demonstrates, computers are just one in a long line of tools what humanity has used to express itself. And each new tool presents us with an ethical question of how to use it.

Will we use computers as a tool to extend our passion, intimacy, and creativity, or will we limit them to an escapist substitute for true humanity? Pixar has made up their mind on which course to follow and is blazing the trail. In the process, they have created a masterpiece.

[After you see the film, I recommend listening to this fascinating interview with the director of WALL-E, Andrew Stanton.]

Parody: Andrews

2008-07-07T22:11:00.002-04:00

I need to exorcise an earworm, and the only way to do that is to pass it on.

"Rehab", by Amy Winehouse, is an autobiographical track in which she enumerates her reasons for not entering a rehabilitation program for drinking. I love this song for its classic, big-band sound and Amy's profound vocals; I hate it for the way it makes self-destructive thoughts sound so cool. But in that, perhaps, it has something to teach us of the nature of that good-old concept known as sin.

Anyhow, a parody came to mind, perhaps autobiographical in nature, lampooning the sometimes anti-academic mindset of Adventist ministerial interns.

Andrews
by David Hamstra

They tried to make me go to Andrews;
I said no, no, no.
Yes I'm on track, but when I come back
You won't know, know, know.

I ain’t got the time.
And if my President thinks I'm fine...
He’s tried to make me go to Andrews;
I won't go, go, go.

I’d rather stay at home and pray.
I ain’t got 27 months.
'Cause there’s nothing, nothing you can teach me.
That I can't learn from Mrs. E. G. White.

Didn’t get a lot in class,
But I know it don’t come in a "C" pass.

They’re tryin' to make me go to Andrews;
I said no, no, no.
Yes I'm on track, but when I come back
You won't know, know, know.

I ain't got the time.
And if my President thinks I'm fine...
He’s tried to make me go to Andrews,
I won't go, go, go.

The man said, why do you think you here?
I said, I got no idea.
I'm gonna', I'm gonna' loose my focus,
So I always keep a Bible near.

Said, I just think you’re distressed.
Miss ministry? Yeah maybe.
Then go test.

They're tryin' to make me go to Andrews;
I said no, no, no.
Yes I'm on track, but when I come back
You won't know, know, know

I don’t ever wanna preach again.
I just, Ooo, I just need a friend.
I'm not gonna spend 2 years.
Have everyone think that I'm on the mend.

It’s not just my pride.
It’s just 'til these fears have died.

They’re tryin' to make me go to Andrews;
I said no, no, no.
Yes I'm on track, but when I come back,
You won't know, know, know.

I ain't got the time.
And if my President thinks I'm fine...
He’s trying to make me go to Andrews;
I won't go, go, go.

Get over yourself! Seminary is good for you; seriously. So far all my classes--all four of them--have been great.

I'm A Patriot

2008-07-04T08:46:00.006-04:00

I'm a patriot...

When I'm proud of America's ideals.
When I love America enough to say when it's gone wrong.
When I cheer on the Men's National Team.
When I remember that America's not the only country with good ideas.
When I support the troops.
When I travel to all 50 states to know how my country looks, smells, feels, and talks.
When I travel abroad and tell people "I live in Canada, but I'm an American."
When I realize that as a citizen of The World, I have global responsibility for how I use my vote.
When I understand that as a citizen of Heaven, I must use my vote and influence to keep the institutions of church and state separate.
When I support an man for president who doesn't always wear Old Glory on his lapel.
When U.S. consular officials send me to the front of a very long line, because, well, just because I'm an American.

I won't be going to the fireworks tonight, not because I'm unpatriotic nor because I think it's wrong to enjoy fireworks on the Sabbath. I just don't want to interrupt the day when I celebrate the Kingdom of God with the celebration of a Kingdom of this World. I'm guessing they'll still have fireworks next year.

Hitchens On Boardwatering

2008-07-03T17:04:00.005-04:00

For those who aren't familiar his work, Christopher Hitchens is a conservative writer who supports of the occupation of Iraq and the (endless) War on Terror in general. Hitchens recently submitted himself to the "enhanced interrogation technique" known as waterboarding. His verdict: "Believe Me, It's Torture".

I'm a single issue voter in this election, and that issue is torture. Politically that's an easy place to be, because I believe both candidates are against torture. McCain has been tortured, and it seems that everyone who's been tortured doesn't want America practicing it. But, McCain's consituancy is more pro-torture than Obama's, which means I vote Obama (more on that later).

I believe that torture/cruelty is a watershed issue, because what we allow our military to do to non-citizens abroad will eventually come home (Revelation 13 stuff, as we Adventists say). If you don't believe that's necessarily true, read or watch or listen to something by Philip Zimbardo or Naomi Wolf. If you think that torture is necessary to defend America, well, read all of Hitchens' article, but also check out McClatchy's eight-month investigation, Guantanamo: Beyond the law.

Now, if you want to do something to help correct America's course, I recommend joining the National Religious Campeign Against Torture. Torture is a moral issue, and Christians have an obligation to oppose it.

[Crossposted to the Spectrum blog on 7-6-08. Please comment there.]

Seminary: Justice Sermons

2008-07-01T19:42:00.000-04:00

Two out of the three times I have attended church at Pioneer Memorial Cathedral this year I have been treated to sermons by Old Testment professors that dealt with justice issues. The first was by Roy Gane, the text was Micah 6:8, and his emphasis on the social aspect of justice caused a couple hearty amens to pass my lips and into the hallowed hall. The second, by Jacques Doukhan on the "Hiddeness of God" in Isaiah elaborated three reasons why God "hides" his "face".

He hides His face because of Who He Is. - His name (He will be who He will be) cannot be pronounced because He cannot be named. God is hidden because he is a mystery. He hides so that we will not think we have nothing left to learn of Him.
He hides His face because of our sins. - In Isaiah two sins are emphasized: oppression of the weak and deception. Religious people decieve themselves when they think their fancy worship means they can neglect the poor and marginalized. They think (See point 1) that God is in the beautiful worship of the powerful, when he is actually hiding among the poor and ugly.
He hides His face so that we will seek Him. We take for granted that which comes easily. If God did not hide we might not look for Him. He hides so that He may be found (See point 2).

So I wonder, Is God at Pioneer Memorial, among the movers and shakers, the crisp suits and beautiful dresses, the fantastic organ and polished worship team; or is he hiding someplace less obvious? I have been facing the choice of whether to attend a cutting edge church on campus or join a friend who ministering in what I affectionately call America's smallest ghetto, Benton Harbor. Where do you think I will find God?

Podcast: How To Think About Science

2008-06-29T21:10:00.001-04:00

There was a day when the church was the epistemic authority--the institution that told intellectuals how to think and the limits of what could be known as well as instructing the masses in what was true and false. But the Enlightenment shattered the foundations of theological authority as the Reformers exposed the church's abuses of authority and philosophers generated new methods of knowing that called the church's truth claims into question. And it's those modern methods of knowing and the institution that supports them that we now call "science".

How To Think About Science is a CBC Podcast that explores the institutions and methods of science. Science is the epistemic authority of our day, yet reformers are questioning the ways its authority is used and philosophers are questioning the basic assumptions that support its method. How To Think About Science is the only medium I know of (Someone, correct me if I'm wrong.) that collects the disparate voices challenging the authority of science and places them together in the context of an epistemological revolution.

This revolution coincides with the cultural and philosophical movement known as postmodernism and could be identified with it. Like postmodernism, it's not exactly clear what it will become and what the next epistemic authority will be. But if you'll indulge me going out on a limb and playing prophet, I'd say that the next epistemic authority will resemble a Wiki and its method will be something one could label "collective phenomenology".

But please, don't quote me on that in twenty years (unless I'm right).

Blog: Caricatures of Adventists

2008-06-28T07:27:00.005-04:00

If you feel the need to enjoy a holy chuckle this Sabbath, check out the cartoons at Caricatures of Adventists. If you shun levity on the Lord's Day, click the link and meditate on portraits produced by an amazing, anonymous, Adventist artist and the informative mini-bios that accompany them. This one's my favorite.

Update [10-29-09]: apokalupto media: Prophecy Chart Interview

How To Talk About Hanging Out On The Couch

2008-06-26T10:13:00.011-04:00

I recently got the DVD of the Red Books play about Ellen White. It's a great play, and I highly recommend it...except for one part that made me cringe. It wasn't the part where the angry man uses Ellen White's quotes to put the kibosh on her fun, nor the scene where scholars are shooting each other with books. No; it was the part where an actor attempted to mimic a Canadian accent.

As a person who has a very sensitive ear for accents, I believe that if you can't do an accent right, you shouldn't do it at all. And having spent some time in Canada, I know what the Canadian accent sounds like. So, America, when you get the urge to do a Canadian accent, take the following advice in the spirit in which it was offered, and stop embarrassing yourself before an audience of 33.3 million Canadians.

First, you need to know that the accent you are trying to imitate is the Central and Western English Canadian accent, which is different than the Francophone, Maritime, and Newfoundland English Canadian accents. Second, although most Canadians hardly ever use the word "eh", it is most often used to soften the impact of a statement that could otherwise be offensive (pronounced oh'-fen-siv) by turning it into a question. And if you use it like that, you won't sound like a total idiot, eh?

Finally, there is the issue of [deep breath] "aboot". This is where most Americans have a grossly distorted notion of the phenomenon known to linguists as Canadian Raising. What that means, in technical terms, is when Canadians pronounce "out" they use a diphthong, a combination of two vowel sounds; whereas when Americans say "aboot", they use only one vowel sound.

So, to do a Canadian "out" correctly you need to make one vowel sound for the "o", slide into another for the "u", finish with a hard "t" (not a "d"). The easiest way to learn it is to start by saying "oat", next quickly flick the pitch of your voice up so that the "oh" sound becomes an "oo" sound at the end. Now make it sound smooth and natural (don't over-doooo it), and soon you'll be able to talk about hanging out on the couch with Bob and Doug like a real Canadian!

If you want, you can also sprinkle in a little Canadian vocabulary, and you're on your way to devastating your neighbours to the north with your wit and humour.

Toque (pronounced 'took)=knit winter cap
Boost=jump start
Chesterfield=couch, sofa
Cutlery=sliverware
Runners=running shoes, sneekers
Washroom=bathroom
Gasbar=gas station
The Great One=Wayne Gretzky

Like Children

2008-06-24T13:19:00.002-04:00

I have observed something about children. Their perspective on personal tragedy is different than adults. And this observation has taught me something about my journey with God.

For a child events like falling down on a hard surface, not getting to play with a desired toy, or being sent to bed while others stay up are major tragedies. They wail, shed tears, and loudly protest the situation. Yet, sooner or later, they allow their parents to comfort them and then proceed with life as if nothing had happened.

Now, what makes the difference between the parents' reaction to the emotionally negative event vis a vis the child's? The difference is time. The parents' life-experience has given them a broader perspective on this type of event.

They know what the child does not: That these experiences are to be expected, that the pain does not last forever, that life will go on, and that better times will come. This does not lessen the emotional content of the child's tragedy in the parents' eyes; they still sympathize with their child and wish the child didn't have that experience. But because they can frame this event in a broader context, they are able to offer comfort to their child.

Of course, the parents have tragedies of their own that their children are not yet old enough to fully comprehend: foreclosures, layoffs, mental illness, chronic illness, and death. The question is Who comforts the adult during these times? Who is able to guide us through the experience of death as one who has been there before? (You probably know where this is headed.)

God's time is different than our time, and that gives Him an eternal perspective on the tragedies of our life. He's been through greater tragedy than we can comprehend. Can any one of us claim to fully grasp the significance of famine, genocide, the fall of Lucifer, sin, or the Cross? (Perhaps this is why Christians sometimes talk so glibly about hell.)

So he picks us up, hugs us, tells us it will be OK, wipes away our tears, and releases us into an eternal life.

Poem: Losing WSUI

2008-06-23T11:54:00.003-04:00

Just back from another road trip, I caught a poem on The Writer's Almanac this morning that encapsulates my frequency modulated expeditions as a motorist who listens to low power, non-commercial radio.

Seminary: Prayer Services

2008-06-19T11:44:00.003-04:00

One of the great thing about being in seminary is the opportunity to pray with your classmates. You see people stopping together for a quick chat with God all the time, or at least more than you do in WalMart. There's also a short prayer service in the chapel every day that begins when my morning class ends, and it's a great way to receive spiritual power, bless others, and fight the temptation of intellectualism that haunts us seminarians.

Sometimes I wonder whether I would attend prayer services like these if I wasn't a pastor, who has to run prayer meetings, or a seminarian, who has easy access to them. I pray that I would.

What I Learned From Sid Meier's Civilization

2008-06-18T10:38:00.005-04:00

One of my favorite Christmas presents as a boy was the computer game, Civilization. It's a turn based strategy game that lets you pretend to be the supreme ruler of a world civilization for 6000 years of its development (talk about a narcissistic head trip). I've wasted hours with that game and its subsequent iterations, but I did learn one important lesson from it:

If you plan to win today, you will loose tomorrow.

When most novice players begin a game of Civilization they immediately focus on building military units to take out their nearest neighbor. And when they succeed, at great military and economic cost; they find they've opened Pandora's box, because the neighbor of their neighbor has been spending money on technology, has more advanced units, and is not happy with whoever took out their ally. So next time the defeated player, having learned the wrong lesson, focuses on technology to the detriment of their military, and is quickly defeated by a militaristic neighbor who has built hordes of less advanced units.

Success in Civilization depends on patience, taking the long view, and a willingness to be less successful today in order position yourself to be more successful in the future. The mistake that novice players make is perceiving themselves as the only change agent in the game world. They believe that the word stands still as they make and execute their plans, that the world will not respond proactively to what they do, and their their actions will only cause the effects they intended.

In my observation, the church often acts in the world like a novice Civilization player. It found something that worked yesterday, rushes to get thousands of converts with it; wonders what went wrong, and then tries the exact opposite; all the while paying little heed to its changing environment and the long view of things. This is especially disturbing to me in light of the fact that the church claims to know from prophecy what the end will look like, because the best Civilization players have the end in mind from the beginning.

I don't know what to do about this, but here's are a couple of scriptures that might point us in the right direction.

From the tribe of Issachar, there were 200 leaders of the tribe with their relatives. All these men understood the temper of the times and knew the best course for Israel to take. (1 Chronicles 12:32, NLT)

So the master commended the unjust steward because he had dealt shrewdly. For the sons of this world are more shrewd in their generation than the sons of light. (Luke 16:8, NKJV)

Rick Steves' Iran

2008-06-16T21:53:00.006-04:00

Rick Steves is my travel guru from back when I read his seminal Europe Through The Back Door before my first Europe trip as teenager. It basically showed me how to make my way through countries where I didn't speak the language and have fun doing it. But it was only recently that I discovered he has a blog (who doesn't these days), where he invites you to "Hitch an online ride with Rick".

Rick took a trip to Iran recently--yes, the same Iran that made McCain a karaoke superstar--and blogged his experience there. Given the current geopolitical situation and Rick's inter-cultural acumen, this series of posts is a great place to get some perspective. If you read nothing else, you have to check out this post: "Death to Israel...Death to Traffic".

Adventist®

2008-06-13T16:27:00.013-04:00

[An image of the official Seventh-day Adventist logo was removed at the request of the Office of General Counsel.]

An excerpt from my conference's weekly announcement email:

UPDATED SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST LOGO It now includes the registered trademark ® symbol. Update your stationary, business cards, newsletterheads, church bulletins, and other printed items. Use the ® after the first use of the word "Adventist" in a document. Adventist Church Connect websites have been updated. Contact www.adventist.org/logokit to download the updated logos.

There you have it. My "identity" as an Adventist has been trademarked. Why would I want to be a part of a worldwide movement when I can sport a global brand?

Sarcasm aside, what I see here is the culmination of a long, misguided attempt on the part of the General Conference (GC) Communication Department* to control the meaning of the name "Adventist" from the top down. There's an history of legal action around this issue (some of it justified) that isn't necessary to rehash here. My point is that there are two major problems with this strategy.

They're defending a brand that has minimal market penetration as if it had major market penetration. A 2003 a study found that only 56% of North Americans had heard of the Adventist Church, and of those one sixth knew nothing about it beyond that fact it was a religion. My point is that at a time when we need all the viral marketing help we can get, we're actually banning websites that aren't run by the church bureaucracy from having the word "Adventist" in their title (e.g. Sabbath Pulpit "formerly the Adventist Pulpit").
For a communication department* that is reputed to be emergent and postmodern and [insert hip label here] this a very unclassy move. In a generation that is over-advertised and suspicious of religious institutions, that little ® screams, "Join us, so we can get your money!" Seriously, that ® is going to do more damage to our image than the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church ever could.

Now I don't want this to be an anti-Ray screed. I think his department has done a lot of good things lately. But it seems to me, from where I sit, that Mr. Dabrowski has some 'splainin' to do; and I am open to that explanation.

(There are two possible responses that will mean something significant to me: (1) Ray Dabrowski comments on this blog and offers an explanation, or (2) I get a communication from the GC asking me to remove the official logo.)

*It has now become clear that this decision did not originate with the Communication Department, but with the Office of General Counsel, directed by Robert Kyte (see the comments).

Euthanos - A Good Death

2008-06-11T15:02:00.003-04:00

Today, I'm attending the funeral of a 92 year old woman. Until a week and a half ago, when she went to the hospital, she had full independence. After the doctors had tested her, they said she had cancer. Eight days later, after saying goodbye to her children and grandchildren, she was dead.

I consider this to be a good death, as I have watched others endure painful battles with cancer for years, battles that could not be won. Yet the concept of a good death seems to be an oxymoron. How can we consider the end of a life to be a good thing?

May I suggest that the quality of a death is defined by the quality of the life it ends--the things that the living being is able to attend to before death, the amount of pain that attends life, the meaning that the life gives to its death, etc. Of course, life is to be preferred to death. Yet, in this world, we all must say goodbye for the last time, and the way we go about doing that is important.

...And We're Back

2008-06-10T21:44:00.004-04:00

Tonight I'm starting a new chapter of apokalupto. As you can see, it's been almost two years since I signed off, and a lot's happened during that time. So instead of writing two lengthy paragraphs to fill you in on those happenings, I'll just make a brief two point list with three sentences per item.

Just Pastors is no more. Pastors easily get ~~distracted~~ too busy, and so our blog went the way of all things under the sun. If you're looking for pastoral tips and tools, check out Georgia Grown.
I am now a student at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary at Andrews University. That's right; I'm now in the backyard of my home and native land, Minnesota. But Michigan's almost as nice.

Now why would I want to restart my blog in the midst of my seminary education; don't they give me enough papers to write? Well, I'll have you know that my workload is now less than when I was a pastor. But apart from that, here's a list summarizing my reasons for reviving apokalupto.

I keep coming across things (news items, ideas, media, etc.) that I really, really want to blog about. I know it's selfish, but aren't all great writers narcissists?
I would like to give theology undergrads and pastoral interns an sense of what to expect from their seminary experience. This is especially for Adventist pastors in North American, the majority of whom have or will study at Andrews University. I know that this has been done before, but someone has to take up the mantle.

So there you have my two part vision for apokalupto: (1) the same old eclectic content with (2) a new focus on seminary life. Hope you like it. Stay tuned.

And don't forget to comment.

Signing Off

2006-09-04T11:19:00.000-04:00

This will be my last post on apokalupto for awhile. Most of the posts I've put up recently I orriginally wrote for Just Pastors, and now I want to throw my support completely behind that blog. And I've learned that I'm just too busy to write content for two blogs.

apokalupto will be back at some point in time, but I want to take some time to pray over what God wants me to do with it. My initial forray into the world of blogging was unfocused and ecclectic; when I come back to apokalupto I want it to have a unique voice and "purpose driven" subject matter. But what that means spicifically, God hasn't revealed to me yet.

The archives on apokalupto will stay open until I reactivate it. In the mean time I'll continue to blog with Marty and Josue over at Just Pastors--which, by the way, doesn't mean "for pastors only" but rather that we're "simply pastors". My writing over there generally focuses on the joys and challenges of life as a pastor.

I won't say good-bye, becuase I'm still in the blogosphere. But you can say a "good-bye for now" to apokalupto if you like. Thanks to all who commented, corrected, and cajoled; you made this blog a success.

For those of you who enjoyed my lists of Adventist blogs, The Spectrum Blog is doing a weekly roundup of the Adventist blogosphere.

Self-justification

2006-08-21T20:39:00.000-04:00

One of the experiences of ministry for which I am most grateful is that of serving people who aren’t going make it–the Alzheimers and cancer patients. People who know they will die (or loose their mind) within a matter of months or years can tell you a lot about the meaning of life and sanity. But sometimes what they say is not so important as what they do.

I’ve noticed that the group of people who have the hardest time dealing with terminal conditions are those who try to justify their existence through their work. The reason they have such a hard time is that every capability by which they attempted this is being slowly stripped away. Self-justification is difficult at best when you can even wipe your own bottom.

The lesson I take from this is that the value of my life is not the sum of my abilities, activities, or accomplishments; because these will all be taken from me in the end. To push it a step further, it cannot be related to my knowledge, attributes, or character; because these will cease to exist when I cease to exist. To put it bluntly: These dying people force me to realize that there is no permanent thing about me which justifies my existence.

You’ve read the prescription. Now take the pill.

How To Tell The History

2006-08-08T00:39:00.000-04:00

The past weekend there was a 25th anniversary (of the building) homecoming at my larger church, and many former members and pastors attended. I was given the devotional at opening program on Friday night, after which there was to be an open mic for sharing and reminiscing. Facing the prospect of spending the better portion of two hours listening the people three times my age going on and on about things that happened when I was barely conscious of my own existence, I decided to preach a message on how to tell the history of a church.

The following three points were gleaned from a study of Deuteronomy 1-3 where Moses addresses Israel on the borders of the Promised Land:

Own your mistakes (Deut. 1:26-28). We didn’t do everything perfectly, or we’d be in the Promised Land by now. So don’t pretend that everything was good in the good old days. Instead, own the mistakes so we can learn from them.
Recite the victories God gave you (Deut. 2:7,33), and be sure to give Him the credit. These stories build faith, and faith is necessary if we are to cross the Jordan. Things will get worse before they get better, but if we know God is with us, we can face any battle.
Declare God’s will for the future (Deut. 3:28-4:1). Now that we know what God did with you, tell us what He wants to do with us. Instead of escaping to the past, we must live for the future. What is the will of God toward our church?

These three lessons have the capacity to transform anniversaries from meaningless exercises in self-congratulation into spiritual landmarks that pass the torch to the next generation. At least, that’s how it felt in my church last weekend.

How Much Land Does A Man Need

2006-08-06T19:20:00.000-04:00

As we pack and unpack I ask, do we really need all this stuff. Today we went out and bought even more…stuff. Stuff we need? I thought so, but as I look around our half-packed, half unpacked possessions I wonder.

Reminds me of a short story by Leo Tolstoy. Take a few minutes to read it if you haven’t already. For the parable is mightier than advice.

Hate

2006-08-04T02:08:00.000-04:00

Today, for the first time, I experienced actual hatred for another religion. Not disapproval of one of its followers nor disbelief in its teachings, but total hatred of its entire system of belief and deep suspicion of any adherent. It was scary.

A spokesman for moderate Muslims has resigned from the Muslim Canadian Congress, citing death threats and safety concerns.

Tarek Fatah said his wife and daughters encouraged him to step down as communications director for the organization following an alarming number of threats and harassing phone calls.

“I’m just exhausted, it’s too much,” he told CBC.

“I’m physically drained and fatigued and disappointed by how much leverage these extremists have,” he said.

Fatah said he has been assaulted both verbally and physically, including an incident in which he was attacked at an Islamic conference in Toronto by dozens of young Muslim men.

He also said that an associate informed him of a discussion she overheard in which young men were discussing how Fatah should be killed.

Fatah said he’s reported the threats he’s received since 2003 to Toronto police, who are investigating the allegations.

(CBC News)

When a man in a Western liberal democracy can’t speak his mind with regard to the teachings of a particular religion for fear of physical violence, that makes me angry. I’ve stuck up for Islam in a lot of discussions, but today I seriously considered the side of those who would limit immigration and aggressively deport undesirables.

How do I begin to consider this situation redemptively? The gospel doesn’t teach us to insulate ourselves from persecution; it tells us to love our enemies. But what does it mean to love those at odds with the most fundamental teachings of the gospel?

Mini-review: Ender's Game

2006-08-02T00:13:00.000-04:00

If you're looking for a good sci-fi book to read over the remaining portion of the summer, I recommend Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card. It's not a monumental epic nor a classic for the ages, but it does speak some deep truths about the nature of human relationships, leadership, and self-motivation. Plus, it's a cheep paperback you won't feel guilty about buying when you're supposed to be spending every last penny on home renovations.

Plot synopsis: A 6-year old, martial prodigy, Ender, is taken to a military academy in space where he plays games designed to mold him into the admiral who will save Earth from an iminaent space invasion by a superior alien force.

What I liked about Ender's Game:

Boosted my EQ
Good action
Inspires resourcefulness
Cool SF concepts
Explores individual responsibility

What I didn't like about Ender's Game:

Writing that seemed too 'adult' to be from a child's point of view
Side story that seemed specifically designed to get you to buy the next book in the series
Tended towards 'fantasy' aspects of sci-fi as opposed to 'hard sf'

Recommendation: A novel well worth reading--Even people who aren't sci-fi fans should enjoy it.

Pre-marital Counselling

2006-07-31T01:43:00.000-04:00

I’m in the position of needing to do pre-marital counselling. A young couple in one of my churches has asked me to marry them, and I think it’s important for them to get at least a few hours of sober reflection about what they are undertaking. I know it was a good thing for my wife and I to experience.

The problem is that I’ve never done it (pre-marital counselling or a wedding) before. I have basic counselling skills and have experienced pre-marital counseling first hand, but at the same time I’m unsure of where to begin finding or preparing materials. So again I turn to the collective wisdom of the blogosphere.

Do you or have you done pre-marital counselling? How do you structure your sessions and what tools do you use? If you’ve been through it, what did you find valuable?

(I can’t wait to read the comments!)

Coming Home

2006-07-28T02:11:00.000-04:00

We get what we give.

I come home late—10:00-11:00, sometimes later—about three nights a week. When I do, I’m usually drug out, low on energy, and tired of putting the happy face. The only thing I want is to be fed, watered, and put out to pasture (i.e. bed).

Here’s the catch. If I come through the door grumpy and demanding, it tends to elicit a similar response from my wife. But if I treat her with even the modicum of respect I gave the board members one hour earlier, I have a loving, comforting, caring spouse to lull me into a blissful state of repose.

Just something I’m learning along the way.

Altar Calls

2006-07-24T01:32:00.000-04:00

Why do you make them? How do you make them? Should you make them?

I could tell the Holy Spirit was working on hearts as I preached yesterday. I finished the message with an appeal for the people to affirm their love for Jesus and be restored to discipleship. I invited them to pray a prayer along with me to that effect and then announced the closing song. Mission accomplished.

Except that after the sermon during my ‘debriefing’ time on the way home to had the impression that I should have made an altar call or at least asked those who wanted to commit to Jesus to raise their hands. I think I need to be more intentional about making ‘altar calls’. It seems to solidify your decision when you let other people know you’re making it, at least that how altar calls have worked for me.

The problem is I feel so goofy when I make them. I think I put too much pressure on myself instead of trusting in the Holy Spirit.

What do you think? Do you make altar calls; do you like them? What works for you?

Into The Deep End

2006-07-20T00:38:00.000-04:00

I just voted, along with my church board, to sell our church building. The offer was great, and we want to build. And yet it feels like jumping into the deep end of the pool when you’re not sure how to swim.

I guess I’m too good at seeing all the potential pitfalls and dangers of our new situation. The church and I know that God is leading in this offer, so we have nothing left but to trust His guidance. And in my experience God seems to work best when we have nothing left.

On a personal note…it looks like my hiatus was longer than a couple of weeks. I just got back from camp meeting to a house with one finished room. But it’s fun to have a little “real” work to do each day.

Hiatus

2006-06-13T11:49:00.000-04:00

I'm taking a blogging hiatus for the next couple of weeks. I need to get ready for campmeeting and finish renovations on my new house before July rolls around. And Sunday we got a call that my wife's uncle died, so I'm headed to Toronto for a few days.

But, in the immutable words of Arnold Schwarzenegger, I'll be back.

Chance (God) Encounters

2006-06-09T20:04:00.000-04:00

After complaining about cancellations God gave me a reminder that ministry happens on His schedule, not mine.

It was about 10:45pm last night, and I was looking forward to listening to a sermon during my hour and a half drive home from a visit. As I accelerated to highway speed I saw a hitchhiker stick out his thumb. Maybe it was because I felt sorry for him being stuck in the middle of nowhere, maybe it was the Holy Spirit; but I stopped and picked him up.

The smell of alcohol was on him, and his mild intoxication made him quite chatty. After introductions and a few questions the story came out that he was leaving his wife (without letting her know), because she wouldn’t go with him to see his family in British Columbia. During the one and a half hour trip he told me his life story, but it kept coming back to how his wife was holding him down.

I listened as he talked, speaking only to answer questions about my faith. As we neared our destination I asked if he’d take a peace of advice from a younger man. Then I told him he needed to call his wife and let her know where he was and where he was going before he went any farther.

When I dropped him off at a gas station he said he was going to call her. I don’t know if he did or not, but I believe God put me their to do a ministry of listening for that man. Sometimes the best ministry of my day is completely unplanned, and I can only wonder at God’s sense of timing.

Top Five: Things About People In My Churches

2006-06-06T12:54:00.000-04:00

I think it’s important to do this from time to time. It makes you pay more attention to the roses and helps to put the thorns in perspective. I invite you to join in with a list of your own.

They value hard work.
They have a can do attitude.
They’ll try something different.
They invite me over for dinner.
They look out for each other.

Go Oilers Go!

2006-06-05T12:12:00.000-04:00

That what 5+ years in Alberta will do to you. Oh well, you gotta to love the underdog, especially when they knocked off the top team in the league. Not since the days of The Great One has Edmonton had a chance to hoist Lord Stanley's Cup.

Don't have a clue what I'm talking about? Then let me introduce you to the fastest game in the world as played on the best ice in the world. Warning: video contains atrocious Canadian hoser rock.

Learn more about the Edmonton Oilers trip to the Stanley Cup Finals.

Holy Spirit Special

2006-05-31T12:03:00.000-04:00

Last Sabbath I preached a Friday night special; actually it was a Sabbath morning special. I usually use my Fridays to finish my sermons, but last week my whole week including Friday was crazy, and I didn’t get in until 11:00 that night. So I woke up at 5:30 on Sabbath to finish my sermon.

I had considered recycling; there are three fresh sermons in my ‘garden’ that I haven’t preached at that church yet. But the Holy Spirit told me to preach another message this Sabbath, so I obeyed. The only problem, I didn’t have the time to properly prepare the sermon.

So I’m sitting on the platform, waiting for the special music to end, and hoping that the singer will drag out her notes just a little longer. I know the message I had was solid, but I didn’t have time to prepare it properly, not even a run through. So I pray to God, “It’s not about me; it’s about you. So Holy Spirit please come and make something of this.”

After the sermon a lady came up to me and said it was the best sermon she ever heard me preach; even the critical crowd at my church said it was a good sermon. Later that after noon I went over to visit a fellow at the hospital, and he said that everyone visited him before said to tell me it was a good sermon. The funniest part was that I knew it wasn’t because of anything I did; my preperation was terrible.

Actually, that sermon was good because my preparation was terrible, and that forced me to undertake the most important part of preparation. Acknowledging that it’s not about me; it’s about God and what He’s going to do through me allows the Holy Spirit to come in and do something that we are unable to on our own. And that’s true not just for preaching or even pastoral work but for anything.

And He has said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.” Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me. (2 Corinthians 12:9)

Physical Activity

2006-05-23T17:58:00.000-04:00

“Tomorrow morning will be the morning I go for a jog,” I though as I went to sleep. I woke up at 7:00, and the characteristically bright northern summer sun was not beaming through my window. Then I heard the steady beat of rain; “Tomorrow,” I thought as I rolled over.

What makes it so easy to put off physical activity? For me, it’s the fact that I can usually find something ‘more important’ to do instead—That sermon’s not going to write itself. And computer nerds have an added set of excuses—That blog’s not going to redesign itself.

I’m a sedentary person by nature; there’s nothing I enjoy more than flopping down on the couch with a good book. But when I think back on the times in my life when I was really physically fit it was because I had a physical goal. In Montana I jogged to I could climb taller mountains; in Australia it was because I wanted to climb Uluru without passing out in the heat. (I never did make it to Uluru, but the training came in handy when I hiked up to that Wok bowl tower in Hong Kong.

So what I need is a fitness goal to motivate me, and I think camp meeting should do. Last year, playing sports with the kids got me in shape by the end of week, but this year I’m going to be physical animal when I arrive. If the prospect of being the soccer hero on a team of 12 year olds doesn’t motivate me, I don’t know what will.

Reading Cafe

2006-05-22T15:39:00.000-04:00

On Friday I went to a “Reading Cafe” at the local Christian school where one of the Grade 2s in my congregation served me a course of pure Dr. Suess. When he called and asked me to come I had about five seconds of internal debate which could be summarized with the question, Is this an effective way to spend my time? For some reason I said yes; I think it was the Holy Spirit.

So I spent nearly two hours at the school. I had lunch with the young man, and then played some basketball with him and his friends. I also met another young pastor who ministers in a nearby church.

From a baptisms/souls-won-for-Christ point of view it was an unproductive noon hour, but from a relationship building point of view it was pure gold. It meant I had to stay up a little later finishing my sermon, but that boy now knows that his pastor cares about him (and will probably be more inclined to listen to his sermons in the future). The experience reminded me of how important it is to minister to the whole congregation and not let its future fall underneath our radar.

Teaching Kids The Sanctuary

2006-05-18T16:12:00.000-04:00

This years camp meeting falls in the centennial year of my conference, so there's going to be lots of heritage stuff going on, so for the Juniors (they put me in charge again) we're planning to do an Adventist pioneers theme. We'll tell them stories about James White and Joseph Bates, play old-time games, and generally try to instill in them a sense of where they come from and where they're going as Adventist Christians. I think it's super important for them to hear the stories of intense Bible study, devotion to God's will, and miracles that form our denominational identity.

This is where it gets tricky, because you can't really talk about Adventist heritage without talking about the Great Disappointment. And you can't really talk about the Great Disappointment without getting into the 2300-day prophecy. And if you introduce the 2300-day prophecy then you've got to tackle the rest of the sanctuary message.

So this is the challenge I've set for myself and the two other getting-less-wet-behind-the-ears pastors I'm working with: to teach a bunch of 10-12 year-olds the symbolism of the tabernacle, the time prophecies of Daniel, and the investigative judgment. The other guys think I'm slightly nuts; I think I'm slightly nuts. But I have this strong conviction that if you can't teach a doctrine to kids you probably shouldn't be teaching it at all.

So I guess I'm putting Fundamental Belief 24 to the test as much as myself, but I believe that it can be done. My plan is to focus on the atoning (covering) aspects of judgment using the vision in Zechariah 3 as the central text. Then I hope to show what this doctrine says about God's love for them and how they can love Him back.

What do you think; am I on the right track? How have you handled this topic with kids? What have you found to work?

The Rules

2006-05-15T18:13:00.000-04:00

There are certain members in my church who are always pressing me to be more strict, or in their parlance to “uphold the standards.” Nothing makes them happier than a sermon that exposes sin or calls for a higher degree of commitment. Even the less fanatical (if I may use the word) members of my congregation see defining theological and ethical boundaries as a major part of my role. It was probably one of my biggest surprises in ministry that many church people actually like theological spankings, even when they’re on the receiving end.

Laurence Iannaccone is an economist who published an explanation of this phenomenon. I’ll leave the summary of the details to Slate magazine which published this article:

Why Strict Churches Are Strong

The question this essay raises is not whether we have rules and guidelines; they are an emergent property of human interaction. The question is whether our rules and guidelines promote will foster elitism or promote spiritual growth among even the least spiritual member. The Pharisees are a good example of the former, and Jesus is the best example of the later.

Article: Online Tools

2006-05-11T14:22:00.000-04:00

I have a new article up on Just Pastors about online Bible study tools. If you're into Bible study, I suggest you check it out. They're free, and they're not just for pastors.

Online Tools

Youth Rally

2006-05-08T21:14:00.000-04:00

Our region held a youth rally this weekend, and kids from an hour to two hours away came to Grande Prairie as well as a guest speaker and youth from Edmonton. Most of the youth groups in our churches have four to six youth, so they were really stoaked to get together with other Adventist kids. It was a ton of work, but a very satisfying result.

The thing the youth liked best about the rally was the music.

I also laid out a scavenger hunt for them. They had to find clues hidden in the park that would hint at the next ones location. Assembling the clues revealed an encrypted phrase: TLWRHOLEV

And to top it all off, I saw one of God's ugliest creatures (a moose) having supper outside my door.

News: Interrogation Officer Charged

2006-04-30T15:25:00.000-04:00

BBC | US charges ex-Abu Ghraib officer

It's about time. The US military has a habit of scapegoating enlisted personnel and junior officers when it comes to war crimes. I hope that charging a lieutenant colonel will do two things: (1) hold responsible officers who give orders or implicit support to torture and (2) change the torture-is-sometimes-OK culture that has somehow infected the US military during the "War on Terror".

Article: What Can We Learn From The DaVinci Code?

2006-04-30T15:16:00.000-04:00

I'll be doing the majority of my blogging this week on Just Pastors. We're starting series of series, and my series will be the first series. What that means is I'll have a different article on The DaVinci Code coming out every day this week. You can access them all from the following link.

What Can We Learn From The DaVinci Code?

Stress Seminar

2006-04-26T23:31:00.000-04:00

I attended a stress seminar with Cameron Johnston on Monday and Tuesday. It felt kind of strange since I had just returned from vacation, but I was on the organizing committee so I couldn't very well skip it. I suppose I did have a pretty stressful month before my vacation, and so I managed to learn a few things.

It's important to understand the physical warnings of excessive stress your body gives you.
Learning how to completely relax in under 10 minutes is a key skill.
Humor is vitally important for dealing with stress and losing your sense of it is a sign of burnout.
Regular exercise increases endorphins.
Assess your stress periodically.

I'd actually heard the seminar once before (hence the organizing committee), and was surprised that I got so much out of it the second time. I guess you never stop learning when it comes to wellness. I just wish I could be as committed to taking care of myself as I am to taking care of others.

If you want to learn more about stress, sign up for Cameron's free e-course, Enjoying the Stress of Your Life.

The Dishes?

2006-04-25T00:17:00.000-04:00

Research by psychologist John Gottman has shown that men who do dishes have more sex. Apparently, “Inequities in housework and childcare have profound consequences for the marital satisfaction of women.” Who’d have thought that scrubbing the toilet could be so romantic?

Sometimes pastors get so wrapped up in our tasks that we neglict time with our spouses, but we’ve got to realize time in the laundry room is as important as time on a date. So, if I’m not blogging as frequently as I should, I have an excuse. And now, I’m off to do the dishes.

Thanks to my wife for pointing out this information. Is that what they call a hint?

Emerjeans

2006-04-23T15:51:00.000-04:00

I guess that's one way to wear your witness; sex sells. So where do we draw the line? What defines the difference between contextualization and compromise?

By the way, no one actually sells these garments. It's a joke. If you haven't already, you can laugh now.

via intersections from Oh Me of Little Faith

Road Trip

2006-04-09T19:32:00.000-04:00

I'm heading south again, going to visit my parents in Oregon. This time we're going to make a road trip of it. The straight through drive (as I prefer it) would take sixteen about hours, but we're going to be making stops on the way down for minor things like ministerial meetings, my brother-in-law's wedding, etc., etc.

When you live in northern Canada you learn a new concept distance. I drive the distance of some states just to get to a major city; the conference office is six hours away. So I've got to drive at least sixteen hours for it to feel like a road trip.

I'm going to meet up with Josue in Bellingham, Washington; it's the first time I'll be meeting a fellow blogger in person. So I'll try to post a few pictures when I have internet access. So until the end of April, happy trails.

Adventist Blogs (Update)

2006-04-07T18:36:00.000-04:00

The blogosphere is always in flux--people come and people go--so ones blogroll must be flexible too. Some folks like Faith are always posting, while others like Kevin and Paul need take lengthy sabbaticals. And Chris Webb where are you? Your posts were so entertaining; bring back the SLT!

Now that I've got that out of my system, here's some new Adventist blogs I'm diggin'.

Be a Bree - advice for desperate housewives
Everybody's Got A Story - tell yours - Vancouver, BC, Canada
deserts of vast eternity - professor at Mission College - Thailand
Faith in Context - Creative Ministries VP Monte Sahlin - Columbia, MD, USA
intersections - Pastor Ryan Bell - Hollywood, CA, USA
Jericho Road - Pastor Jan Mckenzie - Newport, Wales, UK
My Journey - thoughts from the road - Tennessee, USA
TruthInvestigate - as it is in Jesus - Kingsland, GA, USA
What's up with Kev? - web/graphic designer - South Carolina, USA

There are also some good collaborative and institutional blogs out there, but until I hear of a few more, you'll have to find them yourself. If you're into Adventist blogging, you should also check out Spectrum's Blogosphere Roundups. And keep an eye out for adventistblogs.net--coming soon.

If you haven't seen it, check out my lengthy list of Adventist Blogs.

Sermon Summary 4.1.05: Babylonian Success Story

2006-04-05T14:54:00.000-04:00

The greatest challenge for Christians in the Western world is the fact that the Christianity is no longer mainstream, and for the last fifty years churches have struggled to adapt to that cultural change. When I look to the Bible for guidance on how to deal with it, the closest parallel I can find is the story of Daniel and his three friends (Dan. 1). The book of Daniel contains a lot of visions about the end-time, but I believe that its stories are equally important as they give us models of how to live in the end-times.

Daniel and his three friends were brought to Babylon when King Nebuchadnezzar conquered Jerusalem. Daniel 1:1 tells us that he also brought the implements from God's temple in Jerusalem and put them in the house of his Babylonian gods. This verse establishes the two chief characteristics of Babylon: oppression of God's people and a mix-and-match style of religion. Modern Western culture anyone?

Nebuchadnezzar's goal was to strip the Israelite boys of their identity and rebuild them as Babylonian officials who would serve in his government. He likely had them castrate, a common practice at the time (the word "official" means "eunuch") but one the excluded a man from the Israelite assembly (Deut. 32:1); and had them study Babylonian mythology, astrology ("Chaldean" means "astrologer"), and culture. He also had them take names referring to Babylonian gods and eat food that was likely unclean and sacrificed to Babylonian idols. And you thought going to public school was bad?

"But Daniel made up his mind that he would not defile himself..." (Dan 1:8); he and his three friends decided do draw the line at worship. They changed their names so they would not accurately reflect the names of Babylonian gods, and they refused to eat food that involved sacrifices to Babylonian gods, opting for a vegetarian diet instead. And because of their faithfulness "God gave them knowledge and intelligence in every branch of literature and wisdom; Daniel even understood all kinds of visions and dreams" (Dan. 1:17).

Even though Daniel and his friends would not compromise their worship, they did not withdraw from the mainstream; you didn't think that the "literature" and "wisdom" that God gave them was Psalms and Proverbs did you? Listen to this: "As for every matter of wisdom and understanding about which the king consulted them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and conjurers who were in all his realm. (Dan. 1:20)" By the end of their education they knew more about astrology than the astrologers; they became better Babylonians than the Babylonians themselves.

It seems to me that the church is struggling with the balance of being in but not of the world (John 17:15). Some groups compromise their worship to the place where they're indistinguishable from the mix-and-match religion of the world. Others, in order to avoid compromise, have pulled right out of the world and are no longer effective at reaching.

But I think we can restore the balance if we start to remember one fact: God loves Babylon and so much so that he died for its sins (John 3:16). You see, the story of Daniel 1-4 is not so much the story of Daniel and his three friends as is the story of how God reached the heart a pagan monarch named Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel is simply a vessel through which God is able to communicate with him.

Do you love Babylon? Babylon is the city we love to hate; it's abused us in many ways. Yet we are called to learn to be better Babylonians than the Babylonians themselves, to serve it without serving its idols, so that those Babylonians can have a chance to become citizens of the New Jerusalem.

Precept Upon Precept?

2006-04-03T13:04:00.002-04:00

For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little...
(Isaiah 28:10, KJV)

Isaiah 28:10 is often used by Adventist evangelists to establish the principle that one should always compare scripture with scripture to discover what the Bible says on a subject. Usually this is presented in conjunction with the principle that one must always look at the context of a passage in scripture to determine its meaning. After an evangelist in my church presents this, my greatest fear is that someone will actually look up to context of Isaiah 28:10 (verse numbers included for later reference).

7But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment. 8For all tables are full of vomit and filthiness, so that there is no place clean. 9Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. 10For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: 11For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. 12To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. 13But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
(Isaiah 28:7-13, KJV)

The context of this passage is an oracle against drunken priests who are unable to teach even infants because they cannot even speak properly. Verse 13 makes it abundantly clear that "precept upon precept..." is something detrimental, not a principle of Biblical interpretation. Taken alone verse 12 might sound like a reasonable teaching, but in context we realize that it is the product of drunkenness.

This all becomes much more clear when the passage is read in the original language. In Hebrew, Isaiah 2:10 sounds like this: "Bi tsau latsau, tsau latsau, cau lacau, cau lacau, ze'er sham, ze'er sham". The sounds of Isaiah 28:10 mock the babble of a drunken priest, and in Hebrew they hardly even carry a translatable meaning.

I wish that instead of proof-texting from Isaiah 28:10, evangelists would just establish the principle of interpreting scripture with scripture from common sense--the same way they establish the principle the we must read scripture in context. They know the problems with their interpretating of Isaiah 28:10 as well as I do, but they bank on the fact very few people will actually look the passage up in their Bible and check its context. But in doing this they risk the credibility of their message with those who will do more than read the verse they put on their projection screen.

News: Time Capsule In Adventist Media Center

2006-03-31T17:26:00.000-05:00

ANN | Germany: Media Center Foundation Stone Placed, Time Capsule Enclosed

Does anyone else see the irony here? A building dedicated to the proclamation of the closeness of Jesus' return and the coming end of the world has a time capsule in it's foundation with a letter "addressed to those who might discover the Foundation Stone in the future." Makes ya wonder...or laugh.

New House

2006-03-31T14:36:00.000-05:00

I just bought a house--well, an 800 sq/ft bungalow to be precise. It has a sagging roof and needs some repairs, but in the economic boom that is Grande Prairie...who cares? There was someone looking to buy the lot in order to tear the place down and put up a duplex, so unless Iraq miraculously stabilizes there shouldn't be trouble with the resale.

News: Rescued Peacemaker Is Homosexual

2006-03-30T00:16:00.000-05:00

Canada.com | Family kept Loney's homosexuality quiet for fear of actions of Iraqi captors

Fears that James Loney's Iraqi captors might harm the peace activist if they knew he was gay forced his partner to remain silent as his loved ones called for an end to the hostage ordeal, Christian Peacemaker Teams co-director Doug Pritchard said Monday. During his four months of captivity, Loney's sexuality was kept out of the media spotlight at the request of his family, said Pritchard.

I wonder if as many Christians would have prayed for Loney's release had they known he was a homosexual. I would like to think that out of respect for his courageous actions or even his basic humanity they would have anyway. But my hunch is that news of Loney's participation in the "sin-du-jour" has lessened him in the eyes of many believers.

I suppose if he'd slept with a woman and arranged for the death of her husband to cover his tracks, we could forgive him. But scripture unequivocally states that homosexuality is a sin. So I guess our safest bet is to pray that God's man in the White House will continue to set a moral course for our nation.

Video: Her Church

2006-03-27T11:55:00.000-05:00

Is God as much our Heavenly Mother as our Heavenly Father?
Has male dominated theology made their God in its own image?
Is the church suffering for lack of a feminine side?
Can or should we call God “She”?
Are the Christian scriptures so devoid of feminine notions of the divine that we need to incorporate teachings and traditions from other religions into our faith and practice?
Do representations (statues, icons, etc.) of the feminine figure need to be more prominant in our worship?
How effective would a church like this be in a postmodern context?

If people are not asking you these questions already, they will be after The DaVinci Code hits the big screens in May. Personally, I believe that the church has yet to totally realize the fact that men and women are equally made in the image of God. Gender inclusive language in (post-)modern translations of scripture is a big step in the right direction.

But I also believe that we must not give up Biblical monotheism and its attending prohibitions against idol worship and goddess worship. The God of the Bible is “one” and does not have a “wife” because He encompesses the masculine and the feminine. (I use the masculine pronoun because English has no better pronoun for indicating a personality that is both feminine and masculine, but that’s opening a whole other can of worms…) I also worry when figures of human forms are revernaced in worship; that’s another way of making God in our image, a.k.a. idolatry.

You can read more about Her Church at herchurch.org.

In Memoriam: Desmond Doss

2006-03-25T00:18:00.000-05:00

ANN | Adventist Doss, First Conscientious Objector to Win Medal of Honor, Dies at Age 87

Citation: Private First Class, U.S. Army, Medical Detachment, 307th Infantry, 77th Infantry Division. He was a company aid man when the lst Battalion assaulted a jagged escarpment 400 feet high. As our troops gained the summit, a heavy concentration of artillery, mortar and machinegun fire crashed into them, inflicting approximately 75 casualties and driving the others back. Pfc. Doss refused to seek cover and remained in the fire-swept area with the many stricken, carrying them 1 by 1 to the edge of the escarpment and there lowering them on a rope-supported litter down the face of a cliff to friendly hands.
(via medalofhonor.com)

To me, Desmond Doss is the embodiment of "conscientious cooperation"--the Adventist church's response to the moral dilemma of opposing Nazi Germany while obeying the divine command, "Thou shalt not kill". Doss joined the U.S. Army as a medic while at the same time refusing to touch a weapon and endured ridicule from his comrades as well as constant harassment from his superiors. But he held to his convictions, and they gave him the strength to do an amazing feats humanitarian service on the battlefield.

With the "just wars" behind us, Desmond's passing symbolizes the end of an era, and I want to remember not only him but all the other Adventists who served God and country as "conscientious cooperators". My great-grandfather, Dirk Hamstra, received the Croix de Guerre from the Franch in WWI for rescuing, against orders, a downed airman in no-man's-land (the U.S. Army was not giving medals to medics at the time). We should also remember the "white coats"--young Adventists the U.S. Army used as human guinea pigs in exchange for exemption from combat duty.

The good news is that a few weeks before his death Desmond finally signed the rights to his story over to a group of producers who intend to make a live-action, feature film of it. His story has already been told in a comic book and a documentary film. The documentary is a bit slow, but the story is absolutely compelling. I recommend that you acquaint yourself with this remarkable man.

Song: Lacrimosa

2006-03-22T12:53:00.000-05:00

This year is the 250th anniversary of Wolfgang A. Mozart's birth, and classical music organizations all over the world have been marking the event with concerts, countdowns, and collaborations. Although I love classical music, I've never been a big fan of Mozart; Bach, Vivaldi, and Beethoven are more my style. But my perspective changed in college when our choir sang Requiem with a community orchestra in Vancouver.

Mozart composed his Requiem just before his death (it was completed by his assistant), the irony of course being that a Requiem is a funeral mass. I generally find Mozart's music to be playful and frivolous, but Requiem feels like an impassioned plea for the mercy of God--likely a result of the theology of his day. For me, the pathos of this piece is most evident in it's central movement, the "Lacrimosa".

Lacrimosa dies illa,
qua resurget ex favilla

judicandus homo reus -
Huic ergo parce, Deus.

Pie Jesu Domine,
dona eis requiem.

Amen.

That tearful day,
when from the ashes shall rise again

sinful man to be judged.
Therefore pardon him, o God.

Merciful Lord Jesus,
give them rest.

Amen.
(via Antoine Valentim's site)

How do you view the final judgment; will it be a day of tears or a day of pardon? The Bible says there will be only two groups on that day--those who love God and those who are afraid of Him. In Mozart's music I feel fear...but also hope that God is merciful.

We know how much God loves us, and we have put our trust in him. God is love, and all who live in love live in God, and God lives in them. And as we live in God, our love grows more perfect. So we will not be afraid on the day of judgment, but we can face him with confidence because we are like Christ here in this world. Such love has no fear because perfect love expels all fear. If we are afraid, it is for fear of judgment, and this shows that his love has not been perfected in us.
(1 John 4:16-18, NLT)

You can find a poor quality MP3 of the "Lacrimosa" at this Geocities page.

Ellen White Summit

2006-03-21T15:46:00.000-05:00

Ellen White Summit

MP3s of presentations at the Ellen White Summit held at the Gladstone Conference Center in Oregon on November 11 and 12, 2005 are available for download at this website. Presentations by George Knight, Jon Paulien, Craig Newborn, and Jud Lake on topics such as the use and interpretation of her work, the current disengagement of many Adventists from Ellen White, and the nature of inspiration. If you've read George Knight's books, you'll have a good idea of what he's going to say, but it's fun to actually hear him say it. The rest of the presenters give some good perspectives, especially John Paulien's presentation on Ellen White and the youth.